1j. Minutes ' tNHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
• REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 8, 1990
z
Mayor Qmiel called the mmeeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag. -
COUNCILMEMSERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dirtier, and Councilman Johnson.
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Paul Krauss, Lori Sietsera, and Roger
Knutson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dirrtier seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions to Council Presentations: Mayor
' Chmiel wanted to discuss the Police Contract Addendum and Counciloran Dirtier
wanted to discuss the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Public Safety Commission
and Park and Rec Commission. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and
the motion carried.
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Qrmiel drew a name for the Recycling Prize and
presented a check in the amount of $200.00 to Theresa Quinn for her recycling
efforts.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
I ; Mayor Chmiel: We have some organizational items to go through. These
organizational items are Rules of Procedure. Don, do you want to address items
(a)?
Don Ashworth: The Rules of Procedure are basically the same as had been in
effect in 1989. Also included are the proposed meeting schedule dates as the
' City Council had acted upon them on the end of December. Staff stands ready to
answer any questions regarding the rules of procedure. Did you wish re to go
down through them.?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Why don't you go down through each one of the items.
Don Ashworth: The official newspaper, you do have another request...
Councilwoman Diimler: accuse ire. Did you want questions on the Rules of
Procedure if we have?
Mayor Chra.el: Yes. If you have any specific questions.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, okay. I did want to bring up under Section 1, 2.02
about the receiving of the agenda and it says at least 72 hours prior to each
regular Council meeting and I remember specifically that we requested 96 hours.
Last year or most of the time we had 96 hours and I'd like to see that at 96
IIhours. 2.02. Maintenance of Agenda. Page 3. It says 72 hours and I know we
j changed that to 96 last year.
Don Ashworth: Can I put wordage in there that would be at a minimum of 72 with
the majority 96 or something like that? I think that on holidays...
' 1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: Well yeah, if you miss it, you know we never complained
when we massed it last. We just accept it but I would like to see it at 96 so
it becanes the norm and not the exception.
Councilman Johnson: Is that all you had Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: That's it.
Councilman Johnson: The section that talks about meetings and the dates of the
' meetings. I forget, it needs to be modified to fit this year's calander. It
still reads last year's calendar.
' Don Ashworth: We still used the primarily first and third Mondays.
Councilman Johnson: No. Last year was still second and fourth but it talks
' about December and November.
Mayor Chmiel: November and December are normally the only two months that we
usually changed but we did change one other month as well.
Councilman Johnson: We changed May as well. So make that agree with what there
was before.
Don Ashworth: Were there any other questions on rules? Under official
newspaper, we did receive a request from the Sailor. However, the City
' Attorney's position is that the City Council must make the designation if a
newspaper has it's known office of issuance in the City. In this instance, the
Villager is the only newspaper having it's known office of issue in the City and
accordingly it's Roger's opinion that they must be selected. Any additional
' questions?
Mayor Chmiel: If there's any addition questions, just direct theme to the Chair.
Don Ashworth: Okay. Official depository. Staff is recommending Chanhassen
State Bank. We've had a good working relationship with them. Kevin McShane is
present this evening if the Council has any questions regarding that
' designation. i should note as part of that, the City does use other banking
institutions as a part of our investment program. I think when we're looking at
this designation, it is for our normal banking business. The City Attorney and
City Council went through a process this past year of looking at the City
Attorney's office. Staff is recommending Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs to
be appointed as City Attorney. Bond Consultant, similar to the previous one,
' the Council did go through a very arguous task in looking at bond consultants.
Selected Springsted. Springsted did a very good job for us on this last issue
and staff is recommending that Springsted continue as our Bond Consultant.
Acting Mayor is really an appointment of the City Council. Staff makes no
' recommendation regarding that particular appointment if you'd like to cone back
to that one. Weed Inspector, under State law is the Mayor. The Assistant
Public Safety Director has been appointed as the Deputy Weed Inspector. We
I would again recommend that for 1990. Fire Chief, the Fire Department has acted
to recommend the appointment of Dale Gregory as Fire Chief. There's a separate
recommendation in the Council's packet regarding that item. Health Officer,
Dr. McCollum has served as the City's health officer for a number of years. He
' again agrees to serve in that capacity as desired by the City Council. Staff is
1 2
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
IF
recommending r. McCollum. City Auditor's is an a
g appointment required under
State Statute for first of year. However, really a lot of your audit work,
getting ready for your 1989 closings had to occur during November and December.
Accordingly, this past year the City Council did go through a review of Auditors
and acted to select Deloitte-Haskins-Sells. We would recommend that that
designation represent the first of year designation for City Auditor. I guess
that's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Regarding the Acting Mayor. This requires City Council to
name an Acting Mayor during the disability or absence of the Mayor. I would
like to rake a motion that we have Ursula Dialer as Acting Mayor during the year
of 1990. Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: I'll second it. '
Mayor Chmiel roved, Councilman Workman seconded to appoint Ursula Ditmler as
Acting Mayor for the year 1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following
Organizational items:
a. Resolution #90-1: Rules of Procedure - as amended to change 2.02 to include '
96 hours rather than 72 hours and to update the meeting calendar for the
year 1990.
b. Official Newspaper - The Villager
c. Official Depository - Chanhassen State Bank
d. City Attorney - Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs
e. Bond Consultant - Springsted Inc.
g. Weed Inspector - Mayor Chmiel and Deputy Weed Inspector, Scott Harr
h. Fire Chief - Dale Gregory
i. Health Officer - Dr. McCollum
j. City Auditor - Delloitte-Haskins-Sells '
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Diner seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Resolution #90-2: Approve Contract Amendment No. 2, Lake Lucy Road Trunk
Waterimain Project No. 88-25. I
c. Approve Plans and Specifications for Ersbo 2nd Addition.
d. Resolution #90-3: Accept Utility Improvements, Lots 9 and 15, Chanhassen '
Hills First Addition, Project 89-17, Steve Slack.
e. Approve Debt Study Analysis. '
f. City Council Minutes dated December 18, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 8, 1989 ,
3
.1 City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
IIPark and Recreation Commission Minutea dated December 12, 1989
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated Dece ber 14, 1989
IIg. Approval of Accounts.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
H. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL LEGISLATION FOR EXTENSION OF TAX INCREMENT
IIDISTRICT.
Councilwoman Dialer: I just had, I was going to talk to Don earlier and I
' didn't get a chance to. I had two questions on the resolution approving special
legislation for the extension of a tax increment district. I understand that
it's District 2 but the paper did not say what is included in this district and
also the information didn't tell us how many years we want to extend it.
Don Ashworth: This is the legislation to allow us to reroute TH 101 that
represents the district that basically is in the Eden Prairie School District
IIand the far east end of town and it would be for 3 years, 1990, 1991 and 1992.
Councilwoman Dialer_: Thank you. With that information I'll move item (h) .
Resolution *90-4: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve a Resolution approving special legislation for extension of Tax
IIncrement District. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
IIJ. APPROVAL OF THE LAKE ANN PARK ENTRANCE FEES.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, the staff report needs to be corrected. I don't see
Lori here.
ILori Sietsema: I'm right here.
I Councilman Boyt: Oh excuse me. Okay, Lori would you correct the staff report
so we can vote on this?
' Lori Sietsema: Yes. There is a typographical error on the staff report. The
recommendation by the Park and Recreation Commission and by staff was to
recommend that the fees remain the same as last year. That the fee for the
non-resident should be $10.00 instead of $5.00.
Councilman Boyt: So with that change I would move approval of item 2(j) .
IICouncilwoman Dimler: Second.
I Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the 1990 Lake Ann
Park entrance fees as amended in the staff report to change the non-resident fee 1
to $10.00 instead of $5.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
1 4
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
K. AUTHORIZATION TO SELL ZAMBONI. Ir
Councilman Johnson: The Zasrboni. I'm wondering if this is the right time. We
don't need it this season. I don't know if we ever need it. If we do get
indoor ice, we will need a zamboni to manicure the ice.
Lori Sietsera: Not one of this size. You'd need one such larger. This one
would be totally inadequate.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilworan Dimler seconded to authorize staff to
sell the Zamboni. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATIONS: ,
LAKE LUCY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ERIC RIVKIN. I
Eric Rivkin: Dale Carlson and I are here to give you a quick update here on our
Lake Association pursuing a lake restoration. Then I'd like to ask the Council
if they would consider doing a couple of things for the Lake Association. One
is that we set same goals to restore the lake and there are five basic ones.
r. One is to improve and maintain recreational uses of the lake over the long term.
Two is to improve the biological health of the lake over the long term. Three
- is to improve aesthetics and increase property values. Four is to establish
good watershed management practices by those in the Lake Lucy watershed area to
reduce nutrients and prevent toxic substances from entering the lake and five,
is to provide the City with a demonstration of a viable lake restoration method
at reasonable costs and watershed management practices applicable to other lakes
in Chanhassen. This would make it well worth your investment since the City is
also lakeshore owners. We have done a couple of things so fax this past year to
meet our goals. One has to do with the quality of the biology of the lake and
that is getting rid of nuisance weeds such as Purple Loosestrife. We've begun a
program to erradicate it and we had the cooperation of the DNR who actually came
out with a volunteer and actually helped us spray and they donated all the spray
and loaned us the equipment. We also got a permit from the DNR to put in a fish
screen to keep the crap from swimming upstream. from Lake Ann to Lake Lucy. ' That
went in this past weekend. We'd like the City to send, we're having a meeting
to discuss these objectives and our agenda for, it's going to be a Wednesday
night, January 10th at the atrium conference roam here at City Hall. Tom
Workman was kind enough to reserve the roam for us. Thank you very much. Our
agenda is six items basically. We were going to review what has happened so far
with the restoration and the Lake Lucy access. Review of the restoration
objectives which I just mentioned. What we need to do to achieve our
objectives. We're going to have biologist Del Hogan there who is an independent
biologist. He was 6 years with Freshwater Biological Institute and is now an
independent. Does testing for Hennepin County on all their lakes. And a
presentation by Bob Lang of Clean-Flo Laboratories. We'll discuss possible
treatments, their time line and their impact and we're going to talk about what
it might cost us and how we can finance it and where we go from here. We're
urging everybody, including the City, to make every attempt to be at this
meeting. We need everybody's attendance to help hake decisions. A
representative from Prince who agreed to the project, we were able to get verbal
approval from Gilbert Davidson who is Prince's representative here and he signed '
5
,` City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
our fish barrier permit by the way which indicates that he is positive about
things, through Jim Chaffee who is our go between. So we'd like to have a city,
I don't know if you can decide now whether to just send a representative for
this Wednesday or not or have someone volunteer, that's fine too. The second
thing that we'd like to ask, we have put in real and in kind expenses so far
into preparing for all of this over the past year and a half. Same of it was
tied into the review of the work plan for the other chain of lakes but still, we
had kind of in the back of our heads that we'd look at an independently funded
' restoration effort on our own lake. We've put in a fish barrier at our own
expense. We did have same expenses but a lot of time put in to erradicate the
loosestrife and we'd like the City to match our efforts so far and donate for
Del Hogan's time at this meeting. He charges $45.00 an hour. He might be there
3-4 hours at about $135.00-$170.00 to be at the meeting. He's going to be there
to explain what processes that we need to clean the lake up. What we need to do
to achieve our objectives and he would also be involved, if we're going to
' pursue an LCt grant, if he can tell us what would be involved in that. So
that's my presentation. I do have a copy for all of you of the agenda and the
Lake Lucy Restoration objectives.
' Mayor Chmiel: Eric, I'd like to see probably the Watershed attend this as well.
I asked Don if he would notify them. Or have you?
' Eric Rivkin: Oh no we haven't.
Mayor Q iel: Just one other thing too. Back in October, had coversations with
' Prince's people also. November I sent a letter requesting that Prince partake
in same of the restoration of Lake Lucy. I don't know if you're aware of that.
Hopefully everybody asking is getting the answer back.
Eric Rivkin: Yeah. We appreciate it. Becky Kelso also is trying to make
contact. I think Tarp tried. We tried numerous times over the past 3 months,
since October and I think all of it kind of helped. Thank you very much.
Councilman Boyt: Well, without a motion he isn't going to get any money and
that's apparently what he came to ask for.
Mayor C v iel: Ne can't act on it anyway Bill.
Councilman Johnson: Without suspending our rules.
Councilman Workman: How much money are we talking about?
' Councilman Boyt: $135.00 is what I heard. I would just say in general that
when the City spends money, it should be for a city sponsored presentation which
would be a fairly simple thing to do but I think the City has to be very careful
about sponsoring speakers to homeowners associations. It just seems like we're
' on the brink of something that could be very hard to control. But if the City
sponsored the presentation, then it would be much easier to justify funding.
IMayor Chmiel: We could make a collection right now. Everybody dig in their
pockets.
Councilman Workman: Fran, the plastic tips on the breathalyzer fund.
6
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
Councilwoman Limier: How much did that generate by the way?
• Ir.
Councilman Workman: City Manager Ashworth and I talked a little bit and Eric, I
talked to you a little bit about the fact that maybe the City, and this isn't
always the best idea but maybe in this situation mirroring Bill, that the City
ought to maybe became the leader on this because homeowners associations came
and go. People come and go but cities don't come and go. When it comes to the
insuring costs of liability, etc. maybe the City ought to be the lead agency
with Eric Rivkin and Company obviously in charge but that somehow the City step
• in to pick up where maybe a homeowners association doesn't have the longevity
and ray not be around in 15 years to keep the aerators on. I
• Eric Rivkin: Yeah, you're right. That was one of the options that we wanted to
discuss in the meeting and you'll see on the bottom on your agenda that one
method of financing suggested here is to have a contract with the City in some
way and special assessment which was something I talked to Don about briefly. I
nean there's a lot of creativity could be care out of this. The City could be
an adminstrator of funds or play a larger role. I don't know but that's
something we would discuss at the meeting but we're asking that somebody from
the City be present to be able to bring these up and be knowledgeable. Don told
me that he would be available in his office if we neede to ask him some
questions that evening. WS may or may not do that so it's going to be a pretty
_ informative and decisive kind of meeting.
Councilman Workman: Since you're going to talk about money that night and 1
funding, maybe we don't need to do anything tonight?
Mayor Cmiel: I don't think we do this evening unless we find out more of the
particulars and maybe bring a pot for donations to see if it might not be
offset. I'd be willing to start one right now myself. Are there any additional
visitor's presentations? I
' Marc Simcox: Marc Simcox. I live at 21600 Lilac Lane and everybody's pretty
familiar with me by way I think. This is continuing the ongoing, continuing the
follow-up on the Teton Lane closure. As this has progressed there's recently
• been some conflicting information about what occurred in October, November,
December and some of the information that we got was that the road would be
closed by the middle of January. That the letter of credit was drawn against
and a letter of credit was not drawn against and so forth and so on. In this
discussion I've had a chance to talk to Gary Warren about it. Don Ashworth and
most recently with Roger Knutson the Attorney and now I'm being informed that
same information that I received Friday is, that was incorrect. That completion
of this is emminent and negotiations are ready to begin to finally acquire the
last of his property. The developer has agreed to pay for whatever the
acquisition costs are. One of the things that I'd like to find out tonight,
well there are several things. One is, is there any way after 3 years or so, we
can finally get sate information voluntarily given to us by staff on this as to
what's going to happen? Number two, when does the negotiations officially start
and exactly how do they take place and what kind of a time frame are we looking
at? Are they done by phone? Are they done by mail or what? Another point is,
how long are the homeowners allowed to respond? I understand there could be up
to a 6 month delay before the letter of credit runs out and therefore before I
guess before the hammer drops again. It's also our understanding that many
offers have been made and counter offers have been made and that probably a lot
7
11
CitY Council Meeting - January 8; 1990
of the offer/acceptance
part of the negotiations have already taken place. If
that's the case, I think we talked about starting a quick take process almost 2
1/2 years ago. Do we expect that this will be solved in the next 30 days or are
we talking 90 or what? 60 days. And once that is finally completed, the last
offer has been accepted and the t is crossed and i is dotted, how long before
1 the barricade goes up and then once we get that on the record, that's all we
need._
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can address some of those. Roger, would you like to
say something?
Roger Knutson: I didn't mean to interrupt.
Mayor Chniel: I had discussions with Don on this and I think basically what
Roger is going to say is where it's at. But as far as closing Teton Lane,
that's going to be done within, how nary days?
Don Ashworth: We would hope 30 to 60.
IIMayor Ctndel: 60 at the max.
Don Ashworth: The only point I'd like to make in here is, this has been very
difficult because of the legal issues involved. I think that staff has
attempted to ensure that people such as Marc were fully aware of issues all the
way through. There has been no attempts to in any way deviate from the City
II Council's adopted policy to get that road closed as quickly as possible. But
again, I think it becomes important for everyone to realize that this has not
been an easy project. You have property rights of 6 or 7 different people that
you have to follow the legal processes to ensure that we do the job right. I
1 think we're down to the point where we can honestly say that we're going to have
the barricade up within 60 days or hopefully 30 days.
I Roger Knutson: What we've tried to do is first, if we could, avoid lawsuits not
only with Centex but with the property owners. There have been sane
negotiations with property owners. I've tossed out numbers and now we are in
the position in working things out with Centex of responding to those numbers... .
1 And if they say, if we have a deal, which I think we're close to anyway, then it
will be in their hands in the next day or so.
Mayor Chrdel: Great. Does that make you feel any better?
Marc Simcox: We still would like to be informed if there's any...
IIMayor Chriiel: Why don't we have contact with, would you like to be the
representative?
IIMarc Simcox: I've tried to be that all along. Don's got my number...
Mayor Griel: Don, would you please keep in contact with Mr. Simcox and make
1 sure he's aware as to where the status is?
Marc Simcox: Thank you very much.
1
1 8
7
City Ebuncil Meeting - January 8, 1990
II
Al Klingelhutz: I was a little surprised when I saw Eric up here talking about
•
Lake Lucy. We've been having some short meetings on Lake Susan ourselves and
the first question I'm going to ask is when will the public access be open
because in talking with the DNR and they said, once the public access is open
for Lake Susan, they'd give us a lot of help on Lake Susan. Is there any
indication, the road is in now, when the public access will be open? ,
Lori Sietsama: It should be open by the end of this coming summer.
Al Klingelhutz: End of summer or spring? ,
Gary Warren: It wouldn't be this spring I guess. The actual boat landing work,
which is in design right now, has got to happen. Possibly mid-summer.
Al Klingelhutz: We had virtually a complete fish kill in Lake Susan last winter
and all we've got left in there right now is a bunch of bullheads and I think '
it'd be an ideal time to do something to get rid of them. Put in same barriers
and restrock the lake with same good gape fish and have same of these things
done. It's very important to get this public access open so we can get the help
from the DNR that we should be able to get because there is going to be a public
access.
=- Councilman Boyt: Before you sit down, maybe with all the interaction we've had
with the DNR in the last year, we have this fully funded. We have everything in
process to get it done. Won't the DNR accept that as good faith on our part and
go ahead and begin cleaning the lake up?
Lori Sietsera: I don't know. If you want a really honest answer, I doubt it.
Mayor Chr.►iel: Pass this down to Bill. 1
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, I read it.
Lori Sietsena: We could certainly approach then. They are part of, one of the
agencies that have reviewed the project and given their stamp of approval for
the LAWCON grant for the development out there. So they have every reason to
believe that it's going to happen but I think that their experience is that they
don't believe it's in until it's actually in because in every single situation,
in so many situations that they deal with, they've got so much opposition to
accesses. This one there hasn't been any opposition but in every other county, 11
there's not a county in the state that hasn't, they haven't had a real war with
and they just, it has to be there.
Councilman Boyt: Have we gone through the bidding process on this landing?
Public access?
Gary Warren: No. The plans are being prepared right now based on the fill work 1
that we took advantage of from the Lake Drive project. We filled in the
ballfield area and such and our consultant was waiting for the final topo to be 11 done on that which I just received last week so we're getting that in their
hands and they'll proceed with finishing up the design plans here shortly.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe we can ask them when the contract has been let, if they
would then take that as a go ahead?
9
N,
,, City Council Meeting - January 8; 1990
II
I .
Lori Sietsema: That could be. I can call Del and pursue it further. I'm not
1 saying no, I don't think so and I wouldn't pursue it because I defintely think
it would be worth pursuing.
I Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a good point. If we were to indicate to them that
if we were to reimburse them for any costs that they would incur with getting
this accomplished. Once getting it accomplished and then they can go from
there. Okay? Alright. Any other visitor's presentations? I think Dan Dowling
Iwould like to make a presentation.
1 Dan Dowling: My name is Dan Dowling, 1889 Fairmont, St. Paul, Minnesota,
55105. I cane here tonight to ask you to reconsider your ban on cigarette
machines and to look at the situation we have developed over at Chanhassen Bowl
II to protect the sale of these items to minors. I've given a letter to I think
everyone except Mr. Johnson.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what we'd have to do is we can't take any action on this
II right now. If any action were to go on it, it would be at our next meeting.
Unless there's sane discussion by Council at the present time.
II Councilman Workman: I might have sane. Mr. Dowling, I was the guy who muck
racked this thing.
Dan Dowling: I was here at the meeting, yes.
IICouncilman Workman: You didn't speak up.
I Dan Dowling: No. It seemed like it was a foregone conclusion and I had no
alternatives other than moving the things so I had talked to people and devised
this electronic lock switch.
IICouncilman Workman: Well again, my root concern with the whole thing was number
one, cigarettes are illegal to minors. Number two, they're in a machine that
generally minors can dispense to themselves. One of the problems with picking
1 and choosing who can have the vending machines and who can't was that it made
the whole thing so bulky that really nothing would be accomplished. I think
myself can give you a list of names of minors who purchased cigarettes in your
II facility. I think a couple other councilmemberse might be able to too. You
state that the cigarette machine is in your bar area only and not the bowling
alley concourse. Don't you have teen night there once or several times a week?
II Dan Dowling: Well you're missing the spirit of the letter was that we devised
an electronic lock out device that the machine is inoperable unless an adult
triggers it's ability to be used.
1 Councilman Workman: I guess going over your four points, number one. Your
customers request cigarettes. Qistomers can either one, come in with cigarettes
I prior to just as they do at work or wherever else. I found that most adult
smokers of cigarettes do not buy them out of vending machines. They buy them at
half the cost at the local Tam Thumb. Inventory control, management, security I
is very difficult. I don't have any doubt about that but I think what you're
Idoing is you're calling a lot of your employees crooks. I'm not going to worry
II10
t
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 I/
about that specific issue. It's my understanding from the tobacco industry that ' II
space limitations, they'll do whatever you ask them to do to help you with
security or space. To put an adult in charge of that product. Nuirher four, the
loss of revenues. I think we had that discussion that night. I don't know if
you're prepared to tell us or if it matters how much you make from selling
cigarettes. Again, I think a portion of those sales in most situations is from
- minors. The other option is is if we went to a situation like this and a manor
did happen to purchase cigarettes from your machine, it'd be a $3,000.00 fine
and one year in jail. That could wipe out literal profits with a cigarette
vending machine for an entire year I'd imagine. I think the intent was missed
by a lot of people in what we have. An illegal product and minors and it's a
rampant problem in that for us to promote this product in a vending machine
wasn't in what we wanted for the youth of this community. And again, I can
understand your arguments. I think there's very good arguments against both of
then. I don't know. The whole idea of a device and using a device is basically
the same thing as, I'm assuming a device could be used, could you steal a pack
of cigarettes with this device? 1
Dan Dowling: Could you steal a pack of cigarettes with this device?
Councilman Workman: If somebody else tripped the device or anything? I
Councilman Johnson: You still have to put money in.
Councilman Workman: We have situations probably all over your bar where things
could get stolen. Alcohol. This is a product that I just don't think belongs
in a vending machine. That's why I promoted it. '
Dan Dowling: And what I've tried to do here is to take those objections away
where the machine itself is no longer used for just indiscriminate purchasing of
this product that you object to and that I would concede that 90 days ago minors
could easily purchase cigarettes from Chanhassen Bowl. I could not argue with
that. It would be naive on my part to do so. I would not be being candid with
you. However, we've removed the machines from the concourse area. From the
hallways and have now devised this electronic device which renders the vending
machine no longer objectionable in the sense that people can just use it. It
would require permission to use it. We can keep our product locked and counted.
An adult has the device itself which allows the machine to function. And that
person pushing the button becomes the person who would be violating the law.
Councilman Hoyt: This is really not much different from having somebody sell I
the cigarettes behind a counter. We allow people to sell cigarettes from behind
the counter Tom. I agree with you that any changes to the ordinance you passed
complicate the ordinance. I think that night I tried to amend it to no avail.
If I thought we could pass this, I'd move for reconsideration to do that. But
I'm one vote and I don't see two other votes on the City Council that say that
they're willing to try this out. 1
Dan Dowling: Well could two of you vote to reconsider this and let me show you
the device. Let me demonstrate this to you. Let me show you where these
! machines are. It's very important to that business to have this control and
security over this product. I am not inferring that anyone is a crook there at
all. Mich of your zealotry and the premises under which you are working are not
true. I can see that a minor could have bought cigarettes and I'm apologetic
11
11 City Council Meeting - January 8; 1990
for that. It was my naivetee. I didn't know. I've n educated bee educ on this
myself. These machines are now out of reach of rra.nors. They're not in use.
' They're turned to the wall. We've complied with your ordinance but we'd like
your help here to help us with a problem we have.
' Councilwaran Dimler: I guess I'd like to make a few comments. I appreciate
your taking the steps to try to do something to keep minors from, but as I
indicated earlier, there is such a thing as fake ID's and that would be a
problem to control. Also, I saw on the news yesterday and I was glad to see it,
they are currently, there's 3 or 4 people being prosecuted under the new law
right now and they do face a $3,000.00 fine and/or one year in jail. I think
that enforcement is going to be there. I would like you to consider whether our
1 action hasn't really protected you from that because minors will continue to get
to that machine regardless of that device.
Dan Dowling: But it is a legal product for adults to purchase and our customers
want than and we want to have some control ourselves on our inventory because
you're also facing problems of break-ins and many different realistic
difficulties with selling anything. Shoplifting. Any of this. I mean this is
a machine that's locked for the physical tampering and now has an electronic
switch whereby you've got better, much, much better protection. The people are
being prosecuted which on the radio today were convenience store people. Not
1 cigarette vending machines. This has been an education process for us. We do
not want to sell cigarettes to minors despite the fact that in the past perhaps
that's been inadvertently done. We admit that it was possible.
' Councilwoman Dimaer: And it can happen inadvertently again is what I'm saying.
You have better control that you don't have...100%.
Dan Dowling: Oh no. Not 100% but for...
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're opening yourself up for this $3,000.00 fine.
Dan Dowling: Well you are just by selling the things. If a young person is
behind the control desk at the bowling alley and a friend comes in, a peer.
Let's say another young person, the same thing. Or if the young person can get
at our inventory and steal it, which is possible. It happens in society. I'm
not calling anyone a crook at all, as you said I did. It happens in the society
and someone could steal these and then sell then in a black market sense. This
' to us, I'm coming here because the situation we're in is difficult and asking
for a chance to demonstrate this to you.
' Councilwoman Dimler: And you're saying selling over the counter would be tough
for you?
Dan Dowling: It would be more difficult than this. We would only have the
cigarette machines in the bars where there are security people. Where adults go
and even with that protection, add the further protection of these electronic
switches. So you'd have several barriers making it more difficult and then you
' would be giving to us the ability to control our inventory. From shoplifting.
Fran internal thievery. From however they would go.
Councilwoman Dimler: And then there was a statement in your letter that says
the loss of revenues produced by selling these legal products jeopardize the
1 12
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
continuing viability of our business. Are you really saying that it's cigarette* II
sales that is raking your...
Dan Dowling: Aboslutely not but I'm saying certainly that's a net that helps us II
pay our bills, sure. We would depend on that and when they're locked the way
they've been in the vending machine, we know how many we sold. They say it's
possible, sane of those sales have been to minors over the years. It's possible II
but now there are no sales at all. We voluntarily complied and have tried to
came up with the better way to do this and I'm caning here to ask you to let us
do it. To have you waive the enforcement of this and came over and see this
thing rather than sitting here and hearing rherotic about somebody calling
someone a crook and this and that. It's to see it. TO see how it would work.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I just interrupt you just for a second? I think what you're
saying is sort of repetitious now that we're going through. I'd like to go to
Councilman Johnson and see what his position is on this.
Councilman Johnson: Actually I think this device is dispensing cigarettes under 1
almost as good as what you have at a convenience store and probably even better
in that your bouncers that check your ID's are a little more used to checking
ID's than the people working at the convenience store and are probably far more
likely, in fact it's in the newspaper all the time when you're catching people
in there. It's under the police reports, when you're turning people in that try
to get in with fake ID's. The problem with fake ID's is worse at the
convenience store than it would be at a place like yours where you have people
that are used to looking at ID's. I personally couldn't tell a fake ID from a
good ID where your guys probably could. I think that we need to look into this
a little further. We now have as much control with this device. Now there are
same drawbacks and before we modify the ordinance to allow a device like this,
we have to find out what kind of fines and penalties can be assessed if on
inspection of this device we find that the device has been permanently put on
open. Ah, that's too hard to do that. Let's take a piece of tape and put it
over the button. Okay, if we came in and find the buttons taped open, there
should be a substantial fine and penalty for that. We need to talk to our
Attorney to see what that would be and I would like to see this put on a future
agenda for possible reconsideration.
Dan Dowling: Thank you. Thank you for your... 1
Councilman Johnson: Place it on the agenda and get staff to find out a little
bit more about what controls would have to be put on this device and what kind 1
of inspections and what it's going to do to our staff as far as inspecting such
a device.
Councilman Workman: That was the whole idea Jay. 1
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. To rake it as simple as possible. But once we get
the data, let's then consider it and we can vote it down.
Councilman Workman: Axe you going to then suggest that we put can beer and
alcoholic beverages in the same or typical kind of machine if they would like 1
it? A cold can of beer machine. Would you be for that also? It's an identical
product. It's illegal.
1
13 1
11 City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
Councilman Johnson: It's illegal to put beer in a machine?
Councilman Workman: It's illegal to sell it to minors but it's legal for
adults. Axe you prepared to put a product like that in a machine?
Councilman Johnson: I don't know if they're prepared to do that but if that's
' legal to be done within his bar, he can do it right now can't he? I mean he
could bring in a pop machine and put Michelob in it right now and that would not
be illegal. As you know, there probably are those machines here in the City
right now that have beer in them. There's sane that I know of currently.
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying Jay, you indicated yourself how complicated
its going to be.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'd like to see all the data.
' Councilman Workman: ...but this switch is a heck of a complicated way to figure
out a way to continue to sell an illegal product in a vending machine.
' Dan Dowling: But the premise is incorrect. It's not an illegal product. It's
illegal to sell it to minors.
' Councilman Workman: Do you have teen night?
Dan Dowling: Yes.
' Councilman Johnson: He can turn it off on teen night.
Councilman Workman: We can do all sorts of things. I'm just saying, what's
more fullproof than not having the machine there at all.
Dan Dowling: I believe you missed the point because if you've got the product
there and you've got it in closets and you have...
' Councilman Johnson: Rather than debating this tonight, let's put it on a future
agenda and debate it at the proper time when we get the information.
Mayor Chmiel: My position is we can't debate it right now because we can't come
up with a conclusion. The only other thing we can do is put it on an agenda.
But, prior to even doing that, I would like to see how this works.
Dan Dowling: I'd love to have you look at it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we should all basically have a look see.
Councilman Johnson: Put it on the first meting in February.
' Councilman Boyt: You can't put it on an agenda without voting to reconsider.
II Councilman Johnson: No. We're putting the vote for reconsideration on a future
agenda.
Mayor C!Y►riiel: It would be back on the agenda for reconsideration.
1 14
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Well before we do that though, can't we just direct staff ' 11
to get the information on this device and then all of us go over there? Try it.
Councilman Johnson: That way we have a staff report and it gets published and
we can have the public give their input into our reconsideration.
Councilman Workman: Can I ask a question? Is this machine in your bar now and ,
are you using this mechanism?
Dan Dowling: There are two, as the letter indicates, there are two machines at
Chanhassen Bowl. One in the back stretch bar and one in Filly's portion.
Councilman Workman: Right now?
Dan Dowling: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: They're up against the wall. ,
Councilman Workman: Isn't that against our ordinance?
Councilman Johnson: No. They're not in use. '
Councilman Boyt: They're spun around.
Dan Dowling: They're spun around. They're unplugged. The device is in my safe
in St. Paul where you could not, you or anyone could not buy a package of
cigarettes out of those vending machines. I
Councilwoman Dimler: So you don't have the device hooked up right now?
Dan Dowling: Oh yeah. It's already to go but I have the little deal. The ,
switch so that nobody would inadvertently push it and sell something to violate
the ordinance.
Mayor Chmdel: Would each of your employees be willing to sign a statement?
Dan Dowling: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Councilman Johnson: We'd have to be talking about,, who t kind of posting we want
to put on the cigarette machine as far as warning. I guess there's already a
warning about minors on there and nobody pays any attention to then. We need
all the facts before we do the reconsideration.
Don Ashworth: Staff should be able to present this on the 22nd. I think one of
the things that Dan had been here for was to ask for some form of leniency. I'm
hearing the Council say no. The ordinance stays in place.
Mayor Qriiel: That's correct. ,
Don Ashworth: And you're going to re-review it on the 22nd to determine
whether or not you're going to reconsider it. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Well don't put it on the agenda. Put it under staff
whatever, presentation? ,
15
11 City Council Meeting - January 8; 1990
Councilman Johnson: No, it'd be an agenda item for reconsideration so we would
' then decide whether we will reconsider this. Actually it can just be a
modification of the ordinance. It doesn't have to be a reconsideration per se
because we're not getting rid of the whole ordinance, just part of it.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to see some information back from staff as to what
it is going to consist of. Even before considering I think we should look into
this fully before we jump to make a revision to the existing ordinance.
' Councilwoman Dimler: The ordinance would have to be totally, because we're
saying it's illegal to sell theta through vending machines and now we're saying
bring vending machines back with the device on it. That's a whole different
thing. We can't just amend the ordinance. We have to redo it.
Cbuncilman Johnson: Illegal say through uncontrolled vending machines and
define control.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, we can bring it back on the agenda. What I'd like with
' that additional information. I'm not sure if you can get that back with all
that information by the 22nd. Maybe you should go to the first part of
February.
Councilman Johnson: I'd rather see it the first part of February so there's
time for notice.
Councilwoman Dimler: Did that one pass unanimously?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. It was 5 to zip.
' Councilman Workman: So this would potentially come back on the first week in
February?
Mayor Chmiel: First agenda in February.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it's whether we'll reconsider or not?
IMayor Chmiel: Right. For reconsideration. Thank you very much.
Dan Dowling: Can I make a concluding comment?
1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
I Dan Dowling: Insofar as the testing of this thing goes, would it be
satisfactory if we use them, and then you can try to send minors in to buy things
in the meantime to give it a true feel test instead of conjecture?
IIMayor Chmiel: No. No.
II Dan Dowling: Okay. I thought that would be a fair reading of the...
Councilwoman Dinner: We would be violating our own ordinance.
11 16
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 ,.
IIDan Dowling: Well then certainly I'd be available at any time to show you, in
the meantime to show you how it works and to demonstrate.
Mayor Chtmiiel: Dan, can I ask you a question? Are you a partner of John's?
. Dan Dowling: My dad, Fred Dowling was and he died on January the 12th of 1989.
Not of cigarette smoking. He got the flu and I can't get even with the person
who gave him the flu. That's why I'm here instead of him. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF UNDEVELOPED RIGHT-OF-MAY ON LAKE LUCY
ROAD.
Public Present: I
Name Address
Todd Ellmer 6661 Nez Perce
Paul Krauss: In DecerJer the City Council granted final plat approval to the
Vineland Forest plat. At that time we indicated that there was a related
4 request for a vacation of an unused section of Lake Lucy Road right-of-way.
Unfortunately we couldn't hear it at that time due to publication requirements.
Staff is currently recommending that the entire remaining 33 foot wide strip of
right-of-way illustrated before you be vacated with the exception of a 50 foot
r, strip to support the Nez Perce extension onto the subdivision. The right-of-way
to the west of this site was vacated when the adjacent plat was subdivided. We
don't believe there's any public purpose remaining for the illustrated area and
are recommending that it be vacated tonight. I
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address this
particular issue?
Todd Ellmer: Todd Ellmer, 6661 Nez Perce. We're the, if I can show you on
there? We're that property right there. I'm just wondering what happens with
the property is all. I
Councilman Johnson: You're adjacent to it?
Todd Elltmer: Yeah. We're directly connected. We're where that trapezoid. t
Councilman Boyt: You get half of it.
Mayor Qi ie1: You get half of the 33 feet and the responsibility to mow it.
Todd Ellmer: Okay. There's no grass down there so we're safe there. Is that
automatic or do we have to do something?
Mayor Ctndel: Roger?
Roger Knutson: First what you just said is the eneral rule. There are e some
exceptions to the general rule and so what the City does is it vacates it's
easement which is giving up it's right to use it for a roadway purpose. The ,
17 1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
City does not determine who has title but that aside, in all probability you'll
probably own to the centerline. You don't have to do anything to get that
ownership but if you want to establish it of record so it's down in the County,
then you have to go through a process.
Todd Ellmer: Oh, okay.
IICouncilman Johnson: This wasn't an easement. This was our own city owned
property right-of-way.
IIRoger Knutson: That's an easement. A right-of-way is an easement. Same thing.
Mayor Chmiel: If hearing no other discussion on it.
Councilwoman Dinder moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Resolution #90-5: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dirtier seconded that
II the undeveloped portion of Lake Lucy Road right-of-way as illustrated in the
staff report dated January 3, 1990 be vacated. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING TO PROVIDE
II DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCREASED PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF WARRANTED BY SITE PLAN
REVIEW, AND TO REQUEST ENCLOSED PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS, SECOND READING.
Paul Krauss: At the last meeting the City Council approved the first reading of
an ordinance amendment that was designed to comprehensively deal with parking
standards. The issue of course that got the most attention pertained to this
standard dealing with multi-family parking. The Planning Commission had
recommended that multi-family units be required to have 1 1/2 enclosed stalls
taken on a gross basis and made that recommendation to the City Council. The
City Council gave first reading to the ordinance conditioned on a revision that
II would have required 2 enclosed stalls for multi-family units. However, the
Council indicated that the standard could be discussed again at the second
reading or would be discussed again at the second reading and gave staff same
guidance to look at separating out townhome parking standards. Townhamme,
duplex, quads from multi-family buildings, apartments, condominiums. The
current draft ordinance has been revised according to the Council's direction.
II Staff also used the intervening time to review the ordinance and obtain
additional data and I'd be the first to admit that we received a lot of phone
calls on this as well. Wye continue to believe that the requirement of 1 1/2
enclosed stalls for townhomes, doubles and quads is sufficient to meet the
demand that would actually be generated and note that this standard would place
Chanhassen in the forefront of the metro area in terms of establishing this
standard. It's exceeded only by one community and that's Edina which requires 2
enclosed stalls at this time. We believe that this type of housing however does
have a greater parking demand than do apartments and it makes sense that it
would. They're larger. They have multiple occupancies and that there is reason
to consider that this would generate and require a greater number of stalls and
18
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
- 11
apartments. We've reviewed a number of architectural plans for apartment
buildings including the Heritage Square project in Chanhassen and came to the
• conclusion that it's simply not possible to provide 2 enclosed stalls in
underground parking in multi-family buildings. As one architect explained it to
me, with the average lot size of an apartment is 900 square feet and most of
these buildings are 3 stories high, you can only put 3 parking spaces under each
unit. I've got about 6 or 7 plans here in my office that pretty well
demonstrate that conclusively that with same modifications, the only way to meet
the 2 car requirement would be to have a mix of underground and surface garages. I
Based on our findings, we're continuing to recommend that the Council consider
requiring 1 enclosed stall for efficiency and 1 bedroom apartments. Raising
that to 1 1/4 enclosed stalls for 2 bedroom and larger. We believe that's a
standard that's supportable and consistent with our findings and again puts
Chanhassen in the forefront of establishing these standards in the metro area.
We proposed suitable modifications for the ordinance based upon the staff
recorrendation. We also proposed definitions to be used. Our ordinance right
now is deficient in defining exactly what a townhouse is so if we're going to
separate out the requirements, we need to provide a set of definitions and those
have been established. Again, the ordinance that's drafted right now is
consistent with your directions from the first reading. It does have the 2 car
requirement in it. Also, there was an additional matter that was raised by
Councilwoman Dialer pertaining to parking lighting. Security lighting in
1- parking lots. I attempted to find a standard, if anybody had a specific
standard to maintain security and I couldn't get a quote on one so I put in
there same general language that we would review lighting to ensure security and
the Public Safety Director would take a review of it. Also conversely, we have
-a standard in there that you want a parking lot well lit but you don't want it
spilling over to adjoining properties so we had a standard in there that lights
spillover shouldn't be more than half a foot candle which is pretty dim at the
property line. With that, we're again recommending the ordinance for your
approval.
Mayor Chmiel: I know that the last time we had proposed this we had same '
developers here indicating their concerns. I'd like to allow each of you the
opportunity again. Hopefully you'll not repeat what we have had. We've had
ample opportunity to review all the Minutes of that particular meeting. I'd
like to limit each of the individuals on this for a minimum of 10 minutes at the
max. Is there anyone who would like to address this?
Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. We've been reviewing the work 1
that Paul has been putting into this project to try to address all your concerns
and I think we're more reviewing it from the point of view that most of us don't
really have a project we're doing. We're just trying to crake sure that future
projects in fact will work within the community and also meet some of the
guidelines that you're trying to accomplish relative to parking and quality of
housing. So if you want to turn to page 5 of the staff recommendation, I'd like
just to speak, give you two solutions that probably would solve the problem.
And I'm not saying, I have not had a chance to talk them over with Paul because
we just got his memo today. I was over to see him, today and this has all just
happened. There's two ways of doing this I think. One thing that's missing by
the way from your definition is the word condo because townhame, doubles, you
know where you get away from that, we don't have any definition called condo and
you can condo just about anything. As it works out where you don't have to deal
with lot lines or anything like that and I don't know how that's handled. One
19 ,
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
. way to do it would be to use a zoning rules and say something like this. In
your R-2 and R-4, you require 2 car garages so you could write above that R-2
and R-4, 2 car garages. R-8, 1 1/2. And you could say R-12 could be 1 1/2 or
' you could say R-12 could be 1 1/4. Okay? Then finally to solve our problem
with what we call multiple housing, R-16 would became a new, come later on, a
new zoning ordinance because a very standard density in what you would call the
' standard apartment building like Heritage is about 16 units per acre. For
example, that's 25 units per acre because it's downtown but in talking to Paul,
he could probably point out to you a number of communities where they're
building multiples that look nice and have a lot of green space are in that R-16
' category and that would be a way to do it. There you could go 1 to 1 which
would solve the problem that we perceive you have is that as you stack and go 3
stories high, and that's about all the higher an average apartment building
' today goes because of cost, you'd have a 1 to 1 ratio. Now in Edina where they
use a 1 1/4, they're forcing probably each unit to be about 1,200 square feet.
You see that's how they get to that 1 1/4. We're just not in that market. We're
' 3 cities away from that I think so that'd be one approach to take. Just use the
zoning and agree that it should came back and people that have R-12 that would
like to do that, like Patton's, they could just cane in and request an upgrade
in zoning so they could build that type of building. Maybe they do it at the
' same time they bring the plan in. The other way to do it would be to do this.
You go to multi-family and you say 2 stalls, 1 of which is enclosed. Okay?
Then you x out item 2 and you change the definition of multi-family to be 16
units. It seems simpler until you get to condo. You see that would be kind of
a nebulous area and if you did that we, Rick and I and those I've talked to over
here, don't know of any for sale housing that would look like a townhouse that
would be built much more than 12 units per unit. In fact most of your multiples
today are in the 32 units to 48 units per building. I suppose you could even go
up as high as 32. I was using 16 because I think that's about what same of the
II projects, like that Hazeltine Gates is. Is a 16 unit for rent project and it
would fall into that category but we don't know of many. Dean, do you know of
any housing? You just don't do it. You don't get any windows. It gets too big
and you can't sell it. You may condo it by going up and that would be two ways
1 of solving the problem. One, you simply change some paragraphs and hope you've
got the condo situation covered because you would have to think of a definition
condo, and that's a for sale housing. Then any multiple would be a 16 unit or
I greater. There's two solutions which we think the industry would accept. You'd.
have control over the amount of garages you have and the projects which seems to
be what you're interested in and then with Paul's additional changes on parking
II standards. You know adding more parking that we just don't have, I think you
would have an ordinance that would meet what you would be looking for. Thank
you.
I Brian Hilmken: Brian Hilmken. Builders Association of Minnesota. 2469
University Avenue, St. Paul. I'd like to take the opportunity to address the
Council this evening. I'm here, I represent the Builders Association of
I Minnesota and the industry as a whole concerning this proposed ordinance.
Although the brunt of our members do develop and build single family homes,
detached single family hales I should say, we do have several members and
several firms that do develop townhames which is the extent of our concern with
1 this amendment to your ordinance. Basically our concerns stem from the issue of
affordability. The Builders Association of Minnesota, along with our National
Association of Homebuilders, have always been one of the largest proponents of
affordable housing in the United States. We're committed to working for
i20
,City Council Meeting L. January 8, 1990
affordable housing. When I say affordable housing, I do not mean low income 11
housing. Affordability is relative to the person who is dealing with that piece
of housing. TO a homeless person a $10.00 tent is probably affordable housing
but according to same of our figures relating to mortgaging, qualifications for
mortgaging, a person with a $31,000.00 income could not find the $80,000.00
house affordable. So when I talk about affordable housing, which after reading
all the notes from the previous Planning Commissions and the previous Council
meetings, affordability was a major issue raised under this ordinance. So when
you talk about affordable, you're not talking always about low income people. It
should be clear that to a person making $21,000.00, a home of $80,000.00, which
is about the lowest you can build a single family quality, I've got to stress
the word quality, hare. $80,000.00 is probably the lowest you can build a
single family home. We're talking about townhomes which can be built for
slightly less. So I have two concerns here. This requirement raises a cost of
building townhames. Adding the extra garage has been indicated to increase the
cost anywhere from I believe it was $5,000.00 to $10,000.00. Our research has
shown that even an increase of $3,000.00 on an $80,000.00 home, single family
home, could put about 7% of the market people out of the opportunity of enjoying
the American Dream of owning their own home. This is something that we're
striving for. Homeownership in the United States is something that we should
all be striving for as citizens. Like I said, homes are not cheap and any
possible method, any possible ordinance that would increase the homes, cost of a
townhafe for a person, should be questioned. TOwnhom es offer the availability
of same citizens to own a home. Some people can't afford a $80,000.00 home.
However, some people can afford a unit that's priced in the mid-50's to 60's. I
think that's same of the concerns here. Not everybody in the world wants the
commitments, requirements that go along with the single family home. They don't
want to rake. They don't want to cut the grass. They don't want to drive.
They don't have the ability to drive. They're older citizens. They're younger
people starting out that they can't afford it. They don't have the ability to
have 2 cars. They don't have the need for a 2 car garage and so on and so
forth. So we must maintain the ability, the Builders Association of Minnesota
would like to have that flexibility for the builder/developer to supply the
housing market demand for a 1 car or possibly a 2 car townhame in the City of
Chanhassen and throughout the cities in Minnesota. Basically, to keep it short
here, again I'd like to stress the issue of affordability. You're not, when
I say affordability, bear in mind it's not necessarily always low income.
Although low income people have a place everywhere. That is our belief. We'd
urge that the current standards for townhames be maintained. However, I feel
that that's probably not in your interest and that we would gladly support a 1
1/2 car for townhames on a gross basis for townhames in the city of Chanhassen.
Thank you.
Don Patton: My name is Don Patton with the Lake Susan Hills development. One
thing to I guess amplify or clarify from our standpoint. When we did our PUD 2
years ago, there were 2 people on the Council that are currently there. One of
the real issues we had that was frustrating for us at the time, was you have to
have higher density but you also have to have maximum, green area. We have
several areas of R-8, R-12 in our PUD. TO achieve the density that the City
wanted, to achieve the green space that was wanted and we had exhibits that we
presented at the time and that are a part of the PUD, we were looking at a 1 and
1. 2 spaces but 1 inside, 1 outside. That works in with our PUD. The other
t thing that complicates same of that, and actually you're blessed with it in
Chanhassen. You have a rather rolling topography which means that you do have
21
11 City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 '
11 , some lost ground because of slopes. That's a key consideration. It does reduce
density. It does provide green space but it also reduces flat space that you
can put parking lots. With regard to parking, and I think the idea of storage
' or outside, things like that can be dealt with and I think they already are in
your ordinances Paul, if I'm not incorrect. Storage of motorhames. Storage of
boats and so forth, as far as outside, is prohibited. At least certainly
' limited and that can be dealt with in your multiple family also. Again, I stick
with the position I did last time and I'd like to have those points considered.
Thank you.
Rick Murray: Rick Murray. I'm a Chanhassen resident. When I left this meeting
the other week, I had two concerns that I felt pretty strongly about. After
going through what Paul's recommended to you tonight, I think that he's come a
' conclusion that I couldn't substantiate but I suspected and that was pretty much
your apartment sizing. I didn't want to see this community put itself out of
business for a standard apartment building. I had a real concern about that. I
' think that what Paul's done or what the staff has done here does take that into
consideration. When Brad and I were talking a few minutes ago, we were
wondering about how to make a distinction. The standard unit, as Brad was
' mentioning, you get the 3 stories and 1 enclosed space if you want to put that
space underground, below each unit. I think that somehow that has to be
addressed so that you don't put Chanhassen out of the apartment building market
totally. Whether you do that with an increased zone or whether you do that by
' manipulating numbers within your definitions here, I think that's something the
staff can accomplish. The other overriding concern that I had was that in
general as zoning categories or zoning classifications of land, I didn't want to
i see Chanhassen become non-competitive with it's neighbors because there's a lot
of other multiple zoned property between here and wherever you want to go, Edina
that will be used if we can't be price competitive with our land here. If we
' can't be price campetitive, i.e. if we have to add more stalls, there's no
industry folks that is more sensitive to the market in the building industry.
Wye have builders every year that have the misfortune of going broke because they
aren't sensitive to their markets. To legislate that you must do this, when the
' marketse don't seer, to be asking for that, you won't get that built here. It
will get built in a community that doesn't legislate that. That was a concern
I had. I think that those concerns have been addressed and I think adequately
' addressed by your staff recommendation. I'd support the staff recommendation if
we made sane sort of effort to get a standard apartment complex back into
Chanhassen. Standard being when you go to a 3 story building, when you go to
where you know you're going to have underground parking, that I think has to
stay pretty close to 1 to 1 to get what we know as a norm. A building norm
right now. To get that to work. I guess that's all my comments. Thank you.
Al Klingelhutz: You heard what I said the last time. I'm sure you read it in
the Minutes. One thing I'm going to bring up. You've got 5-12 unit apartments
right on than View. I've got a sister living in one, a mother-in-law living in
' another one and a real good friend living in another one. I'd say I visit one
or the other one of those 3 apartments at least once a week. I've never yet
found that I couldn't find 3 or 4 parking stalls by each one of these apartments
and those apartments were built with less than 2 parking spaces per unit.
' Outdoor units. It just seems odd that all of a sudden Chanhassen should have to
have 2 underground parking places for each apartment unit plus sane additional
outside space, which I've no objections to. And I think Paul has done an
excellent job of researching this. Most of the things that he's recommended I
1 22
r _
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
would like to see you pass here except that the, I guess I could even live with
the 1 1/4 units per a 2 bedroom apartment. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If hearing none, we'll bring it back to
Council. Anyone wishing to address it? Jay?
Councilman Johnson: I might as well start off. I think everybody probably 1
knows where I'm going to go because I was pretty plain last time. I think any
ordinance that restricts a minority group within our community, which I believe
this ordinance does, it is a restriction against the elderly. It's a ,
restriction against the young people of the community. It's a restriction
against the people who have not trade it to where we have. I think it is our job
to protect all factors, not just the majority. I think this ordinance, even at
a 1 1/4. If that increases the size of the standard apartment to the same size
as my house, I don't think that's right. I don't believe that we're serving the
total population of the city and the R-12 is not designed for the people who
need 1,200 square feet. The R-12 should be designed for the people who want to
live in a little less space and aren't looking for these amenities. I think
that any ordinance that does restrict a minority is not a good ordinance. I'm
going to continue to vote against this. I'd like to see the 2 bedroom and
larger stay right at 1. The only place I waiver there is probably the doubles.
The doubles I see no reason why we can't have 2. You can't, on a double you can
design a 2 car garage into a double real easy. 1 1/2 on a double to me sounds,
one side's going to have 1, the other side's going to have 2. So 1 1/2 doesn't
make any sense to me on a double home. On a quad, 1 1/2 can sake same sense to
ire in that 2 of than can have 2 car garages and 2 of them. have 1 car garages. I
think there's a trarket,for both. So what I'd like to see this go as is that the
` doubles get treated almost like a single family home as two car garages and that
} they're usually right with the single family home areas. That everything else
stays at 1. I don't think there's a market here for 1 1/4 and I don't think
that it's a good ordinance to go to 1 1/4 and 2 I think is disastrous. 2, we're
just asking for, let's shut down apartments. Let's not, and I've only had one
prone call and that phone call was supporting the 2 or the people I called to
talk to about this, they all supported the 1. They said that, before I even
talked to than about lower income, they brought it up themselves. They said
well this is going to be a problem with the lower income and the elderly because
that's exactly what I'm saying. I see no reason for it. I
Councilman Workman: I think Jay's got a lot wrong with what he said but I've
been accused earlier this evening of things and I'll be accused again. I tend
to agree with the staff report. I think we, I. I'll speak for myself. I had
same concerns about the apartment complexes. I didn't understand quite how that
would work. I think the staff report, well number one, the definitions I think
we needed and I'm glad we've got some now. I don't have a desire to be so elite
here in Chanhassen that we go so far as to say 2 but I do like the addition. I
can hear Bill saying it soon that people axe not asking for some of the types of
housing Jay that I think maybe you're promoting. There axe two ends of a
spectrum and all sorts of areas inbetween. I don't think Chanhassen's going to
be everything to everybody. I don't think we have any intention to do that.
We're raking a decision on not so much who we necessarily let into our community
but how we want our community to look to the people who have an investment here.
As we get TH 212 and we get a lot of mid and southern Chanhassen developed, I
think we're going to have a strong need for same apartment complexes. That's
one of the things I was worried about and I think that's answered here and I
23 1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
II - like the way the report looked from the first time. I just want to compliment
Paul on the report but I agree with the way the report stands.
' Councilman Boyt: Okay. We'11 drift to the other pole here slowly. I like
Brad's idea about a separate zone. I think it gives us an opportunity to do a
lot of things. An R-16 zone in which maybe we set up the 1 to 1 1/4 makes sense
' to me. I guess it came through to me when I saw the quote in the paper as much
as anything. Affordable housing, as the gentleman said this evening, is a very
nebulous term. I think though that if we're talking about housing that would be
' in the reach of people who might not otherwise quality, there are other better
ways to get there. The City should be pursuing mortgage guarantees. We should
pursuing interest write downs and it turns out that Mir. Johnson's property is in
a tax increment district and I think he should be pursuing ways in which he can
' offer a high quality living opportunity to people at less than maybe the price
would be if he had to pay the whole burden through the market. I'd much rather
see Chanhassen provide homes to people who might not be able to otherwise afford
I tha' through those means than I would by seeing Chanhassen provide those homes
by encouraging developers to build to the lowest standard because that not only
impacts on existing homeowners. It impacts on the community down the road. I�
I want green space and parks in and around apartment buildings and that's going to
cost the developer some money but it's going to give the person who lives there
a higher quality place to live. I think we talked the other night, maybe it was
more apparent when it was 20 below zero outside that apartment buildings that
Ihave no covered parking certainly put those people at a disadvantage in
Minnesota's weather and they invite crime. I think personally, I think we have
plenty of examples in town of quad homes and duplexes that have 2 car garages
II attached and they're all full. So I thikn that's a reasonable standard and I
II n think the market should support that standard and if it doesn't support it in
the short team, then don't build it. But it will. There's no way in the world
I Mr. Patton that you're going to build hares or apartments that are going to rent
to people who are making $6.00 and $7.00 an hour. You can't do it with your
land costs and so we have to look at other ways of providing homes for those
people but settling for a lesser standard I think leads to long term problems.
I In looking at sort of the hard facts of what the staff has generated here, I
would like to see us go to, I don't know, 1 1/2 maybe. Maybe 1 1/4 for an R-12
but I don't think we should think of R-12's as apartment buildings. I think we
' should look at zoning that as an R-16. That people who want that zone should
come in and tell us how and why they need it and that gives us some control. I
think that where they're not building apartment buildings, 1 1/2 is a reasonable
standard and anywhere they're talking about 2 family, quad, townhone, they
II should look at 2. And if they think people can't afford that, then they should
come back to the City and see how we can help then afford it. On another issue,
in such a comprehensive parking ordinance, I'm disappointed there isn't anything
in here on daycare. Have you got anything on daycare?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Boyt, in the past I've developed a standard for daycare
I based on surveys from other daycare centers and some other cities and I've
gotten some information that was compiled by my staff. They called a number of
communities to get some recent data. If I were requested to give a standard,
II the standard would probably be 1 stall for every 6 children of design capacity.
It seems to place it right about within the middle of the pack depending on how
you figure out the number of stalls that would be required.
I
1 24
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
Councilman Boyt: Well we have them for schools, retail stores, shopping II
centers, research, experimental and testing stations, mortuaries, motels,
hotels. I think that we should have the staff develop a standard for daycares
and that the ordinance should be amended to include that. Whether it's 1 in 6,
1 in 10. I don't know but we should have it in there. So for my part, if it's
the sense of the Council that 2 stalls for an R-12 is too many, I guess I could
see 1 1/2. I think for the others it should be 2. I think staff should be
directed to pursue this R-16 zoning.
Councilwoman Dialer: I'm not going to repeat a lot of things that have already
been said. I guess I just have a few things. I did appreciate Brad's concern
about defining condo. I wonder if we need to do that. I understand that he
addressed the lighting and that will be done a case by case basis. Is that what
you were saying Paul?
Paul Krauss: Eccuse me?
Councilwoman Dimler: The lighting will be done on a case by case basis.
Paul Krauss: It will be reviewed with the site plan, yes. '
Councilman Boyt: But there is a standard for spillage.
Councilwoman Dialer: Yeah, I understand that but I mean as far as actual
lighting of the lot.
Paul Krauss: Adequacy for security, right. '
Councilwoman Dialer: Is there a standard there that we can go greater than?
You said you didn't find one. ,
Paul Krauss: I didn't find a minimum standard for example that Police
Department's tend to like because, well it's my experience that they would like
spotlights in a parking lot so there's got to be a happy medium there. '
Councilwoman Diner: I understand that. I guess I'm okay with that. I'm
wondering when an R-16, I think that's a good idea but I wonder what it will do
to our comprehensive plan that has just been worked over.
Paul Krauss: Sure. Maybe I can respond to the condo issue and that R-16 as
well. As far as an R-16 district goes, right now our R-12 district is designed
for townhouses, 2 family, dwellings and multi-family dwellings so it's the whole
range. It's just the density at which it's built at. 4o the extent that the
Comprehensive Plan doesn't define zoning districts, it just defines densities of
housing, you could adapt an R-16 district to it pretty easily. For example if
you have an area that's designed for high density dwellings on the Comprehensive
Plan, you could define that district so that high density means R-16 or R-12.
So that could be adapted.
•
Councilwoman Disrler: So that's not a major concern?
Paul Krauss: No. As far as the condo issue goes, in my opinion, that doesn't
need to be dealt with.- Condo is an issue of whether or not it's owner occupied
or rented. It doesn't define the building type or style and definitions that we
25 1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
_ provided, do provide those. Whether or not you have 2 cars or 1 car isn't
dependent on whether you own it or not. It's how big it is and how many people
live in it.
Councilwoman Dialer: I guess my basic conclusion is after all this research
that has been done, I do like the staff report and I do want to congratulate
Paul for the work he's done. I agree with the 1.5 and apartments 1 on 1.
Mayor Chmiel: In looking over your recommendations Paul, and I had some
discussions this afternoon, I guess I do go along with all the staff
recommendations. I think he's put a lot of time into this and it has given the
Council sane opportunities to review and to understand really what it's about.
Rather than going and being repetitious of everything that has been said, I do
like the idea that 16 units as well. Those are things that we have to look at
so with that I would entertain a motion to amend what we had considered at our
previous meeting and to adopt. Is anyone ready?
iCouncilman Boyt: Well I'll start with an amendment that we include daycare and
we set the standard as 1 parking place per 6 students.
' Councilwoman Dirtier: I have a question. Is this the place to do that? This
was multi-family.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, we define everything from churches to bowling alleys.
Mayor Chmiel: It goes through the whole ball of wax.
Councilman Boyt: There may be a point at which we come back and amend that
number but we're no worse off than if we direct staff to go back and prepare a
' report now and do it.
Mayor Chmiel: 1 for 6. It's something you keep persisting Bill, and
I understand that. Never say- die, say damn.
Councilman Johnson: Well it should be defined.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I agree. I fully agree...6 but I'm wondering what the right .
number is. As a rule of thumb, as you mentioned, 1 per 6.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if it's something that you wanted to act on later, I do
' have the data and I could prepare some information for you on that. For
example, I mean if you just wanted to see what some of the requirements were.
Burnsville has 1 per 6 plus a requirement for teacher parking so that would be a
I greater requirement. Edina has 1 space for teacher and 1 space for 20 children.
These things are fairly labor intensive so there's a lot of teachers around
there. Also when you have it based on employees it's rather tough to figure
I because you don't have a good handle on that. And all the rest of the
ordinances are based on square footage. 1 per 200 square feet in Maplewood so
it goes on and on. There's a lot of different ways to compute it.
ICouncilman Boyt: 1 per 6 seems pretty simple.
Mayor Chmiel: Is it 1 space per teacher or person working and 1 per 20?
1
i26
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
Councilman Hoyt: That's Edina. I
Paul Krauss: That was Edina, yes.
Councilman Boyt: Burnsville is 1 per 6 plus the teachers so we're coming in a 1
little less than that. A little more than...
Councilman Johnson: How does that compare with our two daycare centers that we
have now?
Paul Krauss: I have information on one of them. The newest one that we just
opened up near the McDonalds has, it's 100 children capacity so under 1 per 6
you'd require 17 stalls. It's 16 and a fraction. They built it with 16 so it's
pretty close. '
Councilman Johnson: That's a good starting point.
Mayor Chmiel: 1 per 6. I don't see any problem with that. i
Councilman Johnson: I sure wouldn't want to go any lower than that.
Mayor C1 iel: No.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, is there a second? '
Councilwoman Dialer: Are you going to amend it further?
Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to kind of take care of that one because if it's
'clean it will pass and then we can deal with the numbers issue. We can deal
with it one at a tune.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I agree. I'll second your motion there.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded an amendment to Article XXV
to include parking requirements for daycare centers be 1 parking stall for every
6 children of design capacity. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: And I would propose another amendment and that is that
townhoires, doubles, quads have 2 enclosed stalls. '
Mayor Chmiel: Tbwnhomes, doubles or quads.
Councilman Boyt: Item (b) there under Standards. '
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Boyt: We've already built this stuff. We know this...
Mayor Chmiel: We know it's existing. We have it here. Any discussion? Jay?
Anything?
Councilman Johnson: Was there a second?
27
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
Mayor Qrael: No. Not yet. We're not getting a second so I'm looking for some
1 discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: You can't discuss without a second.
' Mayor Gael: I'm just trying to see if we can keep it alive for a minute or
two.
1 Councilman Boyt: Let's not forget that we require all single family homes to
have two attached enclosed parking spaces. One of the reasons we do that is
because we're in Minnesota. One of the reasons we do it is because we know that
people have a need for storage space. This is a case in which the market in
fact will support that. Now if we let people with townhomes, doubles or quads
build 1, somebody's going to do it.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Isn't Paul's recommendation 1.5?
Councilman Boyt: Right. I'm saying, whatever we set the minimum at, whether
the market wants 2 or not, somebody's going to build less than that because
developers are interested in quickly turning over their developments. I don't
blame them for that but that's a little different interest than we should have
fox the long run approach to the City.
Councilman Workman: Where's our minimum on a double right now?
' Paul Krauss: One.
Councilman Workman: They're not being built.
Councilman Johnson: No. I don't think anybody's building a double with a
single car garage. Maybe Rick is.
Rick Murray: ...1974 but the reason they're not built isn't because people are
legislating than out of existence. The reason they're not is because the market
says hey, we're not going to buy that so we don't build them. You don't have to
legislate everything. We're profit motivated. We'll build what the market will
buy.
' Councilman Boyt: Quickly.
Rick Murray: No. We'll build what the market will buy that will earn us a
' profit. It doesn't have to be quick.
Councilman Johnson: If you build a single car garage double at this time in
' this market, it probably wouldn't sell.
Rick Wirray: You're right.
' Councilman Johnson: There would be very few people, that would be a very small
market looking for that.
Rick Murray: And the reason was what you pointed to earlier Jay.
' 28
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 ,
Councilman Johnson: Economic conditions change. There may be a market for it
in the future.
Rick Murray: In 1974 they went pretty well and who knows, it might come back. I I
don't know. You legislate it out and it's gone, it's tough.
Councilman Boyt: Well you look at Tam's development.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly what I was going to say. Tam presently lives in a
quad. Each of those quads have double car garage. 1
Councilman Workman: I'm looking for a trailer though. Let me explain that. I
have one-fourth of my quad. There are almost 3 identical homeowners filling out
the rest of the quad and I'm going to sell mane to one of these same people.
Retired. From Excelsior. One car. All three.
Councilman Boyt: Are their garages not filled? I
Councilman Workman: No, it's full.
Councilman Boyt: Because they're desperate for storage space. 1
Councilman Johnson: You fill whatever space you have. Look at my basement.
Councilman Workman: You're right. They like the location because it's close to
Excelsior still. They've got firewood in theta. They've got them stacked.
There's no doubt about it. They enjoy the space, the little extra that they
have in spite of the fact that they have one car. They don't have to mow the
lawn. They don't have to shovel. They don't have to do anything. They can to
Florida for 2 months in the winter if they want. They can do whatever they
want. They like it. They like me and they're all great people and I hope they
appreciate me telling the City about then. But I know that they appreciate the
space. I know that they can afford the space. They're all either retired, what
I would call executives or individual business owners but they love it. They
love it in there and that entire area is becoming more and more elderly. It's
not bad. It's enjoyable having them as neighbors. What the heck does all this
have to do with our discussion? Other than they all have one car. Now one of
then has a nice big Cadillac. People like the space too.
Councilman Boyt: Then without it, we're going to have sage people who are going
to be parking that second vehicle, without a choice, they're going to be perking
then in their driveway. And they're probably going to be parking it on the
street. Both of those mean that they're subject to potential vandalism that
they wouldn't be inside and it also, you're neighborhood has same very tight
attempts at least to control people leaving vehicles out in the open. One way
they can do that is because they've got 2 enclosed garage spaces.
Councilman Workman: Right. It's against the conditions of living there. Yeah. ,
And I think that's fantastic. Again, I brought up the twins on Pontiac Lane. I
don't know, it doesn't seen to have been that bad lately but it's been just
terrible and they've got 2 car garages and there's cars parked all over. I
don't know if they're using theta as rentals or what they are but there are
trucks, cars, everything all over. It's a heck of a sight to drive through
everyday and negotiate recessed manholes and puddles and kids walking over to
29
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
IIthe park and all the cars. And boats and everything else. Turn the corner into
the quads, not a car in sight. It is nice. It is a luxury.
' Councilwoman Disrler: I guess I have a point of order here. We're discussing
something that we haven't seconded and I'm getting real confused here.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll ask for a second. We had a motion on the floor by
Bill. I guess the discussion is so that everybody really knows what we're
talking about here. That's why I'm entertaining discussion.
Councilwoman Dinler: I understand that and that's fine but.
I Mayor Chmiel: We have a notion on the floor by Bill indicate for standards of
townhaes, doubles and quads. Each of these have 2 car garages. Is there a
second? We're not having it seconded. It dies then.
Councilman Johnson: I'll support doubles with 2 car garages. All doubles.
Councilman Boyt: What's that?
Councilman Johnson: Doubles. But not townhomes and quads.
Councilman Boyt: What's the difference when you read the defintion?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. In talking the 2 car garages as to 1 1/2 which must be
enclosed, what's the dimension? Difference between the 2? 2 to 1 1/2?
1 Paul Krauss: What we intended and I'm not sure, the ordinance might need a
little bit of modification there. What we intended was that if it was a 1 1/2
' standard, that they not build 18 foot wide garages which are 1 1/2 cars wide but
that same of the*. have 1 car and sane of then have 2 car. We probably have to
add a line in there that no partial garages would be accepted to meet the
' standard.
Councilman Johnson: There's also a problem in the definitions. Under dwelling,
two family and then above in the standard it calls it a double.
' Mayor Chmiel: What are you referencing Jay?
Councilman Johnson: Well here on page 5. He's got (b) , townhanes, doubles and
quads. Under the definitions below, he doesn't define doubles.
Paul Krauss: That should be changed to two-families, the defintion.
1 Councilman Johnson: Or doubles down below. One or the other. I know what you
mean, it's just didn't quite click.
IIMayor Chmiel: That's being consistent too. Okay.
' Councilman Boyt: Well I would certainly Jay support 2 anywhere I can get them
so if you're only willing to provide it in doubles, make a motion and I'll
second it but I think, I guess I'll continue to think and be the only one doing
that, in this regard anyway, that in this area people need a 2 car garage.
1 30
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
Councilman Johnson: There are a lot of people. I meant to ask the principal
over at the elementary school how many single parent head of households are
currently going to our grade school. I know it's increasing all the time and
that's one group that really only needs a 1 car garage, and many times can only
afford, if they can even afford a garage. If you look at the apartments,
another group of people besides the elderly and the newlyweds that are in
apartments are the newly divorced with kids. It's also the fastest growing
segment of our society that is homeless. Completely homeless.
Councilman Boyt: But there are march better ways to provide homes for thew, then
to allow somebody to care in and build a minimal building to put them in. I
Councilman Johnson: One car garage is not, in an apartment building. I'm going
to diverse away from here, is not minimal. Minimal is zero enclosed. One
car...is far more expensive and does raise the cost of these. We're still not
talking about bringing the people from Phillip's neighborhood out here to live.
The people who are going to afford to live in an enclosed, having at least one
enclosed parking spot is going to raise it out of those people's. We're still
talking, we're not talking indigents are going to be coming in here because we
have one car enclosed. If we had no cars enclosed, it was all outside parking,
that's even more affordable. We're being exclusive by... I
Councilman Boyt: The issue isn't who can live in the building. It's what
standard of living do they have when they're there.
Councilman Johnson: It's an issue of both. If you can't afford to live there.
But anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would like to entertain another motion. Is anyone ready I
for one? We need to do something.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move the rest of the ordinance with the I
exception of the townhares, doubles and quads and the multi-families sections
and get that off. We've added the one list. Go for the rest of it. We seem to
be down to just one section to argue about. Make same progress. I
Mayor riel: Okay, let's go back to the townhomes, doubles and quads and I'll
make a motion to have the townhares, doubles and quads 2 stalls with 1 1/2 which
mast be enclosed.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt: Now that's with the intention that those be built either as a
single car or double car garages correct?
Councilman Johnson: Right. No quarter garages. I
Mayor Chmiel: 1 1/2 means it would be more than 1. I
Councilman Workman: Do we have dimensions on what a 1 1/4 garage is?
Paul Krauss: No. We haven't established that.
Councilman Boyt: A standard double is 24 feet wide.
31
I
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
Councilman Workman: So we're talking an 18?
' Councilman Johnson: 22.
Councilman Workman: For a 1 1/2?
1 Councilman Johnson: You wouldn't build a 1 1/2. You'd build, one unit would
have a one unit and one unit would have 2 to give you 3 for the 2. On a double,
' I don't think 1 1/2 rakes a lot of sense personally. On the townhomes and the
quads, I think the 1 1/2 makes some sense so you have a variety. You can mix it
up. You can build a building that has both doubles and single car garages. So
if somebody, they can have a choice.
Mayor Chmdel: I'm not saying 1 car garages for quads. I'm saying that 1 1/2.
Councilman Workman: So as it is you mean?
Mayor Chmiel: As staff recommendation basically is.
Councilman Workman: Then what about multi-family?
Mayor Chmiel: Multi-family, to take consideration of the 16 units that we
talked about. Efficiency, 1 bedroom units, 2 stalls - 1 of which most be
enclosed. Two bedrooms and larger units, 2 stalls - 1 1/4 of which must be
enclosed and this requirement to be reassessed on a gross basis for the entire
' project.
Councilman Workman: So as it reads?
Councilman Johnson: That's your motion to go (b) and (c) at the same time then?
Mayor Ch'iel: Right. (b) and (c) with item 1 and 2. We have a motion.
' Councilwoman Dirtier: I did second that one.
Councilman Boyt: One point of discussion before we go on. I think one of the
most significant things about the ordinance change is that the parking has to be
attached and that's certainly a move forward. It's my intention to vote against
it.
' Mayor Chmiel: I don't see anything on here that does sav sPec ifically attached.
Councilman Boyt: Oh it is.
Councilman Johnson: But there's another spot in here that says not only
attached but I believe it's underground for units, more than 24 units?
Councilman Boyt: I think it says if you can't fit them underneath, then you
can, or architecturally it won't work, then you can go to some additional out
building.
Mayor Omiel: Parking outside, right.
I
I32
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
•
Councilman Hoyt: But I think that's clearly an amenity that I would anticipate I
would improve the value of the apartment. I don't think we're doing enough.
Brad Johnson: I'm still back to the multiples. Somehow when you do a multiple
project, you have to have a 1 to 1 coverage, which I call a rental. Whether
it's 16 units or 32 or more, because architecturally it doesn't work and if you
go over to Castle Ridge. One of the biggest problems they've had with that
particular project, which has been empty or vacant over the last 15 years is
detached garages in a multiple because they're too fax to walk. Even an added
garages doesn't do any good. It's just an added thing that wakes the project
look, go around and drive around. Your average project today is what Rick? I
What kind of land, other than the one we've got over here, what size project
would you anticipate saaebody building? Yeah. Your sites, your projects today
in high density multiple are 150 or more. Probalby 4 or 5 buildings and to have
some detached units on slab, I just can't, and you can go back to your
architects, it just wouldn't look very good. It's even hard to determine whose
they are and the ratios just don't work. It just, as Paul found out, an average
apartment building is 900 to 1,000 square feet per unit and you just can't get
more than 1 average. That means you've got 24 singles. Maybe 12 efficiencies
and 24 doubles. It just doesn't work. I did the same check that he did.
Probably with safe of the same architects. It just doesn't work in the
apartment projects and it can be over 16 units. Maybe sar►etitre later when they
can do that, that's fine but I don't think you want to do that because we've got
a lot of land in town here. I'm talking about Mr. Patton's land is high, sane
day somebody's going to care along and buy that and put a big project in there
which would be good the carmunity. Generate a lot of taxes. It's going to be
very difficult for him to sell. He's says oh yeah, by the way you've got to put
in someplace out there and then determine where they go to get them, an
additional 25 detached garages. You can't go underneath them.
Mayor Oriel: I don't know Brad. I think your analogy is fine but in talking,
my son lived in an apartment. No availability of a garage and he would have
really loved to have a garage during the wintertime so he didn't have to go out
there and shovel off the snow.
Brad Johnson: But did they have it underneath?
Mayor Chmiel: No, they didn't have any underneath either. '
Brad Johnson: Well these would have them underneath.
Mayor Chmiel: I know. We would have these underneath which is fine and that's
what I'm...
Brad Johnson: But you're adding more than that. I
Mayor Chmiel: But if in the event that you have 2 cars and you can't get
another one underneath, you'd have to put it somewhere and he would have just
have as soon as had another garage in or adjacent. Whether he had to walk 15
feet or 50 or 100. You know.
Brad Johnson: It's architecturally I think. Then you're into something that
doesn't look very good. We manage buildings. Have managed buildings. We have
a hard time selling off all, you actually rent the garages for $30.00 to $40.00
33
i
IICity Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
IIeach and normally the tenants don't take these all. There's always vacancies and
those people that want 2 can have them. That's just the way it works. I'm just
saying, you should think that through because you just would not have very good
1 looking buildings. That was all. Because I can't find any architect that says
they could design something like that they would feel comfortable with. That's
the input you have to have.
IICouncilman Johnson: But they're doing it in Edina.
Brad Johnson: No they're not. In Edina they're requiring, to do it you have to
build 1,200 square foot apartments.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I was just calculating that out.
IBrad Johnson: And they don't rent.
.; Councilman Johnson: 1 1/4 and we would end up.
Brad Johnson: It just doesn't work Jay. You'd have too big of an apartment
II building.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. You'd have to end up with something like 1,100
square feet for each apartment in order to get 1 1/4 parking spots underneath.
IIBrad Johnson: If you go over and go in, they're roughed in over here at
Heritage, they're big at 1 to 1. If that issue could be handled in a separate
zoning like somehow handled because I think that's a critical issue for
' everybody.
Dean Johnson: My name is Dean Johnson. one quick item on the apartments. When
t you get over 1,000 square foot the cost changes considerably because of the Fire
Code. once you get over 1,000 square foot, there's a lot of different fire
codes that come into play. A lot of different sheetrocking. One hour rating
I walls. All this other types of stuff so it does affect the affordability over
1,000 square foot which again relates back to what you can put on...
Mayor C del: You're saying that there's less stringent requirements in under
1,000 square feet as opposed to over. Why is that?
Dean Johnson: I'm really not quite sure. I just know that same of those rules
IIapply that they talk about different types of different things.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to see that same kind of protection given to all
people living in all kinds of buildings whether they be 900 or 800 or 1,000.
Dean Johnson: I guess I would imagine that the experts you know that look this,
the fire people that look at this, understand that the way fire spread and the
II amount of area that they need to spread into and what goes in goes in to
determining what should be done for certain square footages. I would have to
think that that's probably already taken into their fire code. I would have to
I think they probably thought through all those problems and determined that 1
because of lesser footage and more compactness that the area that it has to
spread into and the amount of space that it can burn before they're able to get
to it to put it out, has somewhat to do with what they require for fire codes.
34
i
City Council Meeting - January 8; 1990 1
Councilman Boyt: . I would like to try to amend your motion. That all zoning
districts, R-4, R-8, R-12 require a minimm of 1 1/2 enclosed parking places per
unit with if they should build a 1 bedroom unit, that that could be a 1 enclosed
space out of the 2. I think that sets, if there's a second to it, the reason I
would propose it is I think it sets the ground work then for an R-16 to came in
and we can look at a 1 on 1 situation. But we're doing it by zones rather than
by dwellings.
Mayor Cniel: As a friendly arrant? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you accept it?
Councilman Workman: I second it. I
Mayor C oriel: What you're saying, let me understand what you're saying. Ebr an
R-4, an R-8 and a 12 to be 1 1/2 which must be enclosed. Is that what you're
saying?
Councilman Boyt: And that's basically the zoning districts we have today but
it's based on the premise that we're going to quickly- move to an R-16 which
would be an apartment building zoning and that we would work out the enclosed
parking for that but it's going to have to be something compatible with the
parking. 1
Mayor C hmiel: Okay. I would accept that.
Councilwoman Dimler: If you accept that friendly amendment, I'll second that '
friendly amendment.
Councilman Johnson: R-16. We're kind of saying we're going to an R-16. We've II,
been trying to maintain the green space and everything and that's why we had 12
- versus 16. A lot of the areas we're looking at, I'm not exactly sure where
R-16's going to go in this town.
Councilman Workman: We'd have better control.
Councilman Johnson: I would think people would be rushing in here to change all
their R-12's to 16's right away.
Councilman Boyt: That doesn't mean that we wouldn't maintain the same anoint of
green space.
Mayor C oriel: No, that's true. I
Councilman Boyt: It simply deals with the fact that we are going to have
apartment buildings and let's zone for apartment buildings. From what I've
heard, R-12 isn't really an apartment building zoning because Brad was saying
he's got an R-25.
Councilman Workman: Is this a Planning Commission question? ,
1 Councilman Johnson: I think the R-16 is. yeah. There's going to be a lot more
consideration before we jump into... I
35
I
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
Mayor Ch*,iel: Let s just throw that R_
16 back to the Planning Commission. Let
then review it and came up with some reccmendations.
Councilman Johnson: That friendly amendment kind of assumes we're oin to an
R-16 though.
9 g
Councilwoman Dimler: But we don't have to.
1 Councilman Johnson: Well I'm going to vote against it because I think 1 1/2 is
still too much on an apartment building. With our current zoning, the most
dense you can get to build an apartment building is R-12 so we are saying to
build an apartment building we have to have 1 1/2 which means we're going to
' have attached and detached underground parking for one and we're going to have
half again as much above ground parking. Some sheds out back to put your cars
in also out there, which is going to increase your impervious surface and
' everything.
Councilman Boyt: We don't have any apartment buildings currently in the stream
anywhere do we? No. So this isn't impacting anything that's caning through the
' Planning Cammission. We have time to work the R-16 issue out.
Councilwoman Dimler: The 1.5 is enclosed?
Mayor Cxmiel: The 1.5, right. Must be enclosed.
Councilman Johnson: They need 2 stalls overall so you have to have .5 outside
at least. Or .5 unenclosed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions?
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded an am,endmend that all zoning
districts, R-4, R-8, R-12 require two parking stalls per unit of which a minimum
of 1 1/2 be enclosed. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed
and the amendment carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
1 Councilman Boyt: one other quick issue on this and that is visitor parking.
Are you convinced that 1 in 4 is enough visitor parking? Okay.
' Paul Krauss: Yeah, you'll actually have more than that because if you're
requiring 1 1/2 enclosed stalls with a minimum,. The units require 2 parking
stalls, 1 1/2 of which must be enclosed so with each unit is generating .75
visitor parking stalls.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. Now you need your main motion.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. You've got to vote on the whole thing.
II Councilman Johnson: You just amended the motion. We didn't vote on the motion.
Mayor Qr►ie1: That's correct. We did amend the motion. Now I would accept the
motion to accept the balance of which has been changed and...
1
i36
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
Councilman Johnson: There's a motion on the floor Mr. Mayor. Your motion is II
still on the floor.
Mayor Ch►,iel: My motion is still on the floor. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: No, the amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: Wlell we accepted with the friendly.amendment to it. 1
Councilman Workman: Didn't we accept the whole thing?
Mayor Qv iel: That's the whole thing. We don't have to then. Isn't that right
Roger? g
Councilman Johnson: I thought we were voting on the amendment.
Councilman Workman: There was a first and a second on the amendment right? I
Mayor Chm,iel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: So what we did is we accepted the friendly amendment into it '
and that's what we voted on it with the first and a second.
Roger Knutson: That was my understanding of what you did. The only thing left
to do is adopt the ordinance itself as amended.
Councilwoman Dimler: So I will move item, 4 in the ordinance containing
amendments to Article XXV, Off-street parking and loading with the amendments
that have passed.
Mayor Chniel: And is there a second? 1
Councilman Boyt: Second.
I
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the second and
final reading for an Ordinance wending Article XXV, Off-Street Parking and
Loading as follows:
b. Tbwnhames, doubles and quads: Two stalls, 1 1/2 of which must be enclosed.
c. Multi-family:
1) Efficiency and one bedroom, units - Two stalls, one of which must be
enclosed.
2) TWo bedroom and larger units - TWo stalls, 1 1/2 of which most be
enclosed. This requirement is to be reassessed on a gross basis for the
entire project.
A11 voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
37
•
I
IICity Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to amend the ag enda to move item 7.5 to the next
item.
IICouncilman Johnson: Could we finish this one first?
' Councilman Boyt: I think we did.
Councilman Johnson: No we didn't. I have a priviledge at this time of putting
a statement as to why my vote.
IIMayor Chmiel: Go ahead Jay.
1 Councilman Johnson: I would like to have a place in the record of why I voted
against the entire ordinance is because I believe it is prejudicial to single
mothers, the elderly and other minorities within our society.
IIMayor Chmiel: Very good.
Don Patton: Does this amended ordinance come back to the Council for second
IIreading because it was changed at this meeting?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Don Patton: Why not?
' Mayor Chmiel: This should be the second reading in itself.
Don Patton: But it was amended.
II Mayor Chmiel: Even though it's amended with the amendments that we put to it,to
change it from what it was previous from the first meeting, that is then
acceptable.
ICouncilman Johnson: You've got 2 shots at it.
Al Klingelhutz: I've got one question. I've got quite a little high density or
II R-12 zoning in the City right now. We haven't got any R-16. What if someone •
would come in with some high density zoning right now and without the R-16 they
would have to go to 1 1/2 units for an apartment.
IIMayor Chmiel: I would say that's right, yeah.
Councilman Johnson: As of when this gets published.
Ccouncilman Boyt: But our intent is to have the Planning Commission work on
this issue immediately. Since there's nothing in front of them about an
II apartment building, we'd like to think that wouldn't delay something. I'd like
to think that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Bill has asked for movement of 7.5. Is there consensus
within the Council to move to 7.5?
I
38
t
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
Councilman Johnson: Was there anybody here from item 5, 6 or 7? I know there's
1 people here for 7.5.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Any objections?
REVIEW COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE FINDINGS FROM COMMUNITY GROUP MEETINGS. '
Jeff Bros: Good evening. My name is Jeff Bros. I'm up here tonight
representing the Cornunity Center Task Force. As you know we've came before you
before this past fall and asked for sane direction from the Council as to which
way we should go as to presenting information and gathering information from the
carimunity in regards to a camunity center in Chanhassen. We took your input
for questionnaires. We also presented that information to different groups in
town. Namely the senior citizens, the Rotary Club, the Lion's Club, American
Legion, Chanhassen Fire Department, the Hockey Associations and Concerned
Citizens for the Future of Chanhassen. We also held three open meetings at
local schools in the area. We have arrived at a conclusion of these surveys and
of these meetings and we would like to present that information to you and
follow up with a recommendation to the Council. A total of the ccvmunity center
questionnaires that we received back from these meetings was a total of 76
surveys back. We are the first to drat that it's a little bit lower than we
would have liked to have seen for a total number of surveys. However, at none
of the meetings did we run into any opposition anywhere close to what the
previous task force group ran into with the Filly's site. As you can see, at I
correct in that you have this packet? You can see that 58 out of the 76 said
. yes, they would like to see a community center in Chanhassen. 15 said no and to
go along with that, 44 said they would support holding a special referendum for
a carnunity center here. 24 said no. There are same car/Tents on the back pages
of each questionnaire. We gave a total tally for each group that we spoke to.
There are any additional comments also listed there that were listed on the
surveys that we received back from the groups. I guess at this time, does the
Council have anymore questions for the Community Center Task Force?
Mayor Chmiel: I have same information that, I have a letter here that I intend
on reading as well plus same of the calls that I received from people but I
guess I don't, same of the things that I see in this. I'm just thinking we're
still premature as to having a community center. That's my position.
Jeff Bros: Okay. What do you see as an appropriate time there? I
Mayor Chmiel: I see something, as I mentioned, down the road. Anywhere from 3
to 5 years. I also see that this is not representation of the City but a very
minute percent of the population even consider a referendum. I'm sort of
offended with the fact that I feel that we're not at the point to really support
a carmunity center at this time. I received a letter, and this goes to Council,
expressing sate of their disapproval and I think there's a lot more people out
there than just this one. Several calls that I've received at hate have
indicated almost the same, same of the same things here. I'm really at the
point where my own personal feeling is that I don't see a referendum. I don't '
see a community center going forth at this time. I think that we have more
things here now until we get going without downtown projects, which I'd like to
see consumated as well as waiting to see a population growth. I think Tome
indicated the amount of dollars that we're talking about spending, 4.5 or 5 1
39
N
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
million dollars. I don't think that's a kind of a community center that we
want. I don't think we want to make that investment into it until we can really
get something that's going to benefit the entirety of the community. I guess
that I just feel rather strongly about it and I'm really letting you know where
at least I'm coming from. I don't know where the balance of the Council is at
but this is my own personal opinion and as I say, I would just as soon not see a
referendum on it at this particular time.
Jeff Bros: Okay. Would you mind sharing sane of the points, the negative
points that you've received with us?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I'd be more than happy to. I think this letter sort of
summarizes everything that I've just said. It says here, I hope you'll share
this letter with the entire City Council and the Community Center Task Force in
the event that I would not be able to attend the Monday night City Council
meeting. I must express my disapproval of the manner in which the Community
Center Task Force has recently operated. Specifically I'm concerned with the
survey conducted to seek resident's opinions on whether or not to build a
community center. Since when does .76% of the population represent a majority?
Only 76 people responded to the survey of which a majority was in favor of the
community center. Surely the City Council cannot consider this a represented
sample on which to base a referendum vote. I sort of agree with that. Surely
the Task Force can do a better job than this. I think you did a pretty good
job.
' Jeff Bros: I do too.
Mayor Chnael: But you didn't get enough people into it. I'm also, well I'll
leave this particular paragraph out.
Councilman Johnson: Please read it in.
Mayor Chiiel: Oh, okay. I am also incessed at Jim Mady's remarks that he
thought that no attendance at the three public meetings held on the issue
indicated there was an overall support of the project. I looked for such
meeting and heard of none as I'm sure other residents did. I suspect such
meetings were not well publicized because those who want a center are afraid
that the real majority wants to postpone such a project. That's an opinion. I
represent the Task Force attempts at trying to push the center through without
' thorough research when we are already overtaxed in Chanhassen. I resent their
desire to spend my hard earned tax dollars for a special referendum to do so. I
submit it that the Task Force desires a referendums, in March before Chanhassen
' residents receive their property tax bills and are able to assess how recent tax
changes have affected them. At the very least we deserve to be able to make
that assessment. If the City Council votes for the referendum before them, they
truly will not act in the best interest for their constituents.
Jeff Bros: Okay. Alright, first of all. The paragraph that you wanted to
leave out. I don't know what else we could have done as a task force or as a
' group. What else we could have done to advertise those meetings. I don't know
how many weeks that ran in the paper. We sent notices home to every child at
the Chan Elementary School and to other schools in the area that have residents
11 of Chanhassen. I don't know what else we can do. I'm sure the City Council has
seen the same kind of results from things that you've tried to get done. I
40
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
think Mr. Mady's comment about no negative, about it by nobody showing up at the
meetings is not true and I don't think anybody would expect to believe that
because nobody showed up doesn't mean anybody doesn't want it. We were very
disappointed as a group that nobody did show up at the public meetings. As a
matter of fact we were amazed. Again, I don't know what else we could have done
as a group trying to get public feedback to get that information from the
citizens of this town. One issue that canes up and has been one of our main
reasons not to put aside what's said in the letter but one of the ideas and the
basis for getting a special referendum done possibly in March was to help gain
something on building costs. Our architects that have been working on this and
basically- giving us building costs have said that we would be looking at an
additional 6% roughly in building costs if we were to wait until a November
ballot. We would lose an entire building season. Whatever numbers they cane up
with for a total cost would be, add 6% to it and there you are. We felt looking
at the numbers that we were working with, anywhere from 3 to 4 1/2 million
dollars, you're looking at anywhere from, well upward to $100,000.00 to
$150,000.00 of added cost unnecessarily. That was our basis for wanting the
special referendum. I think that is pretty basic and in no way did we intend to
ram something through before people got their tax statements. I don't think it
occurred to anybody that people got their tax statements at the end of March or
April so we would beat then, and they wouldn't know what they were paying in
their taxes.
Mayor Chmiel: It would be later than that because of the time delay that we had 11 because of our budgets.
Jeff Bros: Correct. So that was our basis for it is to gain that extra
building season and help reduce the cost of the overall facility. Again, as Don
has supplied a letter that there is not money allocated obviously in 1990 for a
special referendum, which we fully understand. I guess at this time what we
would like to do as a task force is we're looking for the Council's input as
into what direction we should take from here on out and we would like to modify
our recommendation that we will continue to collect survey results if you so
desire. A lot of us have spent many, many hours on this as volunteers. We
obviously don't want to see it just roll over and die. We feel that there is a
need and we feel there is a want in this community for a community center. We
would therefore say that let's forget about the special referendum in Marchand
would the Council support it by putting it on the November ballot in the general
elections and opening it up to the citizens? With that said, we would also like
to stand ready to prepare a detailed site plans and operational budgets and
financial options but we need to know what your feelings are. I guess we know
as far as March. What about November? Where do we go from here?
Mayor Chm,iel: Okay. Thanks Jeff.
Jeff Bros: Jean has same comments also that she'd like to share with you.
Jean Robbins: My name is Jean Robbins and I have been a member of the Community
Center Task Force for 2 years and I just want to review for the Council the
reasons why we need a community center. We have heard your input but I haven't
heard from the rest of the Council where they feel on this. I see basically 3
reasons. One, Chanhassen has a real shortage of facility space. The present
facilities that we have are inadequate. The population is growing and the need
is going to increase. A center that we would build would appeal to all ages so
41
IICity Council Meeting - January 8; 1990
' it would serve the whole community. I have kind of put together here a list of
some of the activities that have either been cancelled or are functioning in '
inadequate space at present. As far as the gym space, youth basketball, the
II space is very limited. There's inadequate facilities for the number of
participants that we have. Adult basketball, the gym is too small. There's no
adult basketball program in Chanhassen. They have joined with Chaska and they
I had to turn 2 teams away this year because they had inadequate space and the
scheduling has became very difficult on Chaska as well. Exercise classes,
there's been numerous daytime and evening requests that have been turned down
II because there is not facility for these. There's little or no opportunities for
daytime activities. For preschool children and for senior citizens. Dance
classes, there's a constant scheduling problem for these. We have no facility
or no good facility to host large events such as art fairs and these kinds of
I things. There's a lot of scheduling problem now with the present facilities we
have trying to schedule the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, voting and other things as
well as the other activities that they're trying to schedule. As far as the
II pool and swimming activities, Lake Ann. The lessons are full every summer and
they have to turn children away so there would definitely be a need for more
facilities for that. Community rooms. Meeting rooms at the City Hall. You are
usually full. There's not a good spot for seniors and seniors really, they've
I been crying for some room for a couple of years now and do not have a good
facility. There could be more opportunity for community education if there were
more facilities available for that. As far as the ice sheet, right now we're
II using the Shakopee bubble which is certainly not very desireable. There could
be broauball leagues, skating lessons. Right now we have skating lessons on
outdoor facilities only. A lot of the teachers will not teach outdoors so
I there's a real limit for what we can do in that area. So these are just a
number of things that right now we do not have adequate facilities for in our
present situation and I can only see this getting worse as the population grows
and a community center would address those. Secondly, community center at the
I City site will allow the Chanhassen Elementary to develop additional classrooms,
additional gyms and supporting facilities that could be used both by the
elementary school as well as by the community. Thirdly, the community center
II site would provide kind of a common denominator that would bring the City
together. It would also strengthen the downtown development and the community.
I think it's time for Chanhassen to start providing some of these facilities
II instead of depending on the surrounding communities to provide the roam and the
facilities for a lot of these programs. Thank you.
Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. Chanhassen resident. A
II couple things I'd like to clarify. I've been through this referendum twice
myself so far and was in the phone campaign last year and up until we had the
Filly's question, I'd say we were running 3 to 1 in favor of this particular
I thing. When we ran into the site question, we were not able, and probably
justifiably so, to overcome that particular question. I think Mr. Mayor that
the last survey, which was 330 people which is a legal survey, as legal surveys
I go, and would be one that you would say was representative of the community. We
had 79% for and 21% against. When we've gone out back into the community at the
present time, we came back with the same results. In our communications and
talking to other people in the CAA and people that we come talk to, we don't
I really feel much negative. I personally went with my armor on over to the
Legion Club which was by far the most vocal and against last time and they came 1
out in favor of it at this time because they perceive, whoever was there, they J
voted it and you can shake your head but I was there and they said yeah. Looks
42
II
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
fine and they were very negative last time. Now I don't know what the change _ II
had been but they changed. I think that we have an indication that the
community is for it in numbers and we have not as a committee had very many
negative people cane, as a matter of fact, hardly anybody cane to us in a
negative feeling and I don't know where these people are. There are always
going to be people that are anti-additional tax. As you know, in any referendum
you're going to get 30% or 40% of the people that are anti-tax. We haven't even
said we're going to increase or decrease taxes. We perceive that would be our
next 30-40 days work to determine how this thing would be financed and what
affect it would have on taxes. Our population has doubled in the last 5 years
and it's very possible it will double again. Our cost on this community center
Tam is 3.6 million and it's bigger than the Eden Prairie Center which is
supporting 35,000 people so I think it's very adequate space. The one that you
quoted about in Plymouth, because it costed too blasted much, is not going
anywhere. It's not an empty hole because the community could not afford one of
that size. The one in Chaska is far too expensive for a community center and
how they can afford it, I don't know but in the figures of 3 to 4.5 million
dollars, we're fine. I'm very act, and it wasn't voted on. Okay? I'm very
active in the downtown community. I have business people saying where is the
Chanhassen traffic. There isn't any. We have in the evening and during the day
very little reason for anybody within Chanhassen to come to Chanhassen and many
people perceive and as a matter of fact I've had a number of retailers cane in
and say where is your community activities and we have to say Chaska because
there aren't any community activities in this community that draws the community
together. I think basically- many of us have worked hard. We have had very few
negatives. We've came up with very creative ways of financing and in general we
save, thanks to Don and everybody, a million to 2 million dollars somewhere in
true cost to the taxpayer in the methods that we're using. We've got the land
=_free here. The school district needs it and I think it's the job personally of
this particular Council to allow it to go forward to a vote. Whether it's in
March or April or next fall during the general election but at least once again
see what happened because we all admittedly know that last time the question was
not the center but it was the question of location. We had very few objections
this time around on this current location or any other location so I feel that 11 you should at least take the attempt to allow the community center, one. To put
the financial package together and allow the community, not 5 people who may
have received one or two letters, make the decision for the whole community.
Mayor Chvael: Brad, let me clarify the one or two letters plus all the calls.
Plus all the door pounding that we did last year. People indicating they didn't
want their taxes raised. That's the main issue. Now don't say that just three
letters or so. The representation as to the total numbers you had weren't as
good either.
Brad Johnson: I'm just saying, we're not even saying taxes are going to be '
raised. We haven't got to that point yet.
Mayor Ordel: You don't think they will be? ,
Brad Johnson: We don't know. Like you say, you haven't received your tax bill.
There are a number of different creative ways to finance this thing that it's
possible that that doesn't have to happen. But in our questions when we went
out and said, we think the taxes will be increased, the people that were there
and heard that still in general said they were in favor of it because they
11
43
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
II 'perceived it's necessary for the community but the only true way you're going to
find this out is bring it up to the community. Let them vote on it. That's
where I'm at. I think we had a decrease in taxes didn't we Don last year?
Mayor C oriel: Hopefully. People are saying even with the decrease their taxes
are still too high.
' Brad Johnson: I think they're going to say that forever but they may not result
g may r It
in if their kids get to swim. If their kids get to play basketball. If their
kids get to do a lot of other things or if they themselves get tired. Personally
tonight my family has driven easily 50 miles so that our kids. My wife just got
home, so that our kids can enjoy certain things like swimming, skating, that
type of thing. None of which exists here. Good friends of mine that have
basketball adult leagues, I can go down and find them in Chaska. I mean that's
just the way it is. If you talk to Lori or anybody in this department, it's
' very frustrating for them not to have any facilities in this comunity provided
simply because we don't happen to have I guess the senior high here. It's just
not a normal kind of situation and a community center fills that role. I think
you should just let the people do it. I think it's unfair for 5 people to make
' a decision for the rest of the community and I hope the paper quotes that. If
you guys want to make that decision, that's fine too. But I think it's unfair.
At this point. Okay? I know it's part of your job but you've also set us up as
an organization that's been working for 3 years on the project and we have not
found a lot of negatives. That's where it is. Thank you.
Mayor aviel: You haven't found any negatives and I haven't found any positives
from people I've talked to.
Brad Johnson: Well as I said, I've talked to a lot of people and I have not
' found, we interviewed how many people down at the, whatever that was. We had.
Right, Oktoberfest. Very positive. I interviewed 50 to 100 people there. We
had a booth there. We have not run into the tremendous negatives. I think the
' reason you don't have people here is because they don't perceive it's a big
negative. When you have something that people really- don't like, they're out in
masses afraid that it's going to happen. Here they get a chance to vote and I
think the key is they get a chance to vote. It doesn't cost the community
anything if the referendum is during the month of November, this year because °
there's going to be an election anyway and we can just find out. If they say
no, they say no.
' Mayor C oriel: Anyone else?
' Leneda Rahe: My name is Leneda Rahe. I reside at 1021 Carver Beach Road,
Chanhassen. I heard the presentation. Our group, the Concerned Citizens for
the Future of Chanhassen received the presentation by the Task Fbrce. The
majority of us also felt that it was premature. There were only 8 people in
I attendance that night I believe and I think there were only 2, I'm not sure.
Like he said, you have all those numbers, but we felt it was premature too
because there are other ways to solve the problems of not having swimming
II lessons. I too have a hard time getting my kids into the swimming lessons at
Lake Ann and I've driven to Deephaven but there's just a lack of instructors. I
feel that adding instructors would resolve problems that and I do also feel that
II a lot of my activities with my children in community activities take place at
the Chanhassen Elementary School and we've had no problem getting in our Girl
' 44
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
Scouts and basketball and the other things that the kids are involved in. The
community center's a good idea but we also, the majority of the CCFC felt that
it too was premature and we'd like to see the City look with foresight in
planning the community center so it will benefit the city as it grows and when
there's enough taxpayers here to meet the need, because the community's where
we're taking our kids for like hockey and those other, where the facilities are.
The swimming pools, those communities have 40,000 people or 20,000 and their
taxes are generating the money for than. I just wanted to say that there were
some people that felt it was too premature. People that I've spoken with.
Thank you. 1
Cindy Gillman: My name is Cindy Gillman and I'm in Chanhassen. I guess I am
one of the other citizens that agrees with the letter that was sent to Mayor
Crdel. It pretty much summed up everything I've thought of. I've thought
basically the idea for the community center I never saw coning from the
camonity. I never saw neighbors talking about the needs we had. I don't know
if you as Councilnsmbers had people calling and wondering why Chanhassen did not
have their own community center. It seems to me it came out of a few people in
an office saying it would be great to have this for the City, and I think it
would but I think at this time it's not the right time for it. Needs are being
met obviously by Eden Prairie community center. I assume a great many, more
needs will be net by Chaska's community center which is supposedly expensive. I
guess I agree with the letter and I don't see us needing it at this time. Same
• time in the future I'd like to have something that is great. That the location t
is great. That the building is great. It seems that we can either afford a
building or we can afford land but we don't be able to seem to afford both right
now and that says to me that our community isn't ready to support it if we can't
• afford it now. Instead of mortgaging or selling bonds to the hilt so we're
strapped financially as a City in order to get something right now, let's sit
back and maybe acquire land now or do something else now for something in the
future instead of we need it all right now.
Mayor Cr►iel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address the issue?
Jim Mady: My name is Jim Mady and I suppose you figured I'd be up here sooner
or later. The community center idea didn't hatch out of an office somewhere.
Three years ago, almost 3 years ago this month, the Park and Recreation
Commission undertook a survey of the residents of Chanhassen. It was a
scientifically compiled survey. At that time there was one question on the
survey that asked the residents and we polled 330 residents. They were
selected, I believe it was every 8th house at random through the published
street directory. That's how it was done. At that time 80% of the people,
79.5% of the people said yes, we would like to have a community center in the
City of Chanhassen. That's where the idea came from. A few months ago we came
in front of this body and asked you to give your input to us so that we would
know, should we go forward with public meetings to gage sentiment of the
community. We held somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15 meetings. The
results of the survey, we did not get 100% response on this survey. There are a
number of people who did not respond which is normal in any survey. We did
receive 76 responses. Roughly 80% of the people responded said yes.
Chanhassen needs a community center now. We did not hurry this along or rush it
through. We've been working on it for 2 years. This particular proposal. 3
years for the total thing. For anyone to say we've been rushing it through, is
just not following what's going on. We've been very open. Our meetings have I
45
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
been published in the paper. I guess we haven't gone door to door and told
everyone well tcmorrow there's going to be a meeting. Be there. We've done our
best. Mr. Mayor, you know just through your Drug Awareness thing. You can't
' get somebody there even though it's a great idea. You just can't always get
everybody there. That doesn't necessarily mean there's not interest. It just
shows that there's not a lot of opposition because when there's opposition to
' something, they do come out. The first site, the downtown site next to Filly's,
we had a lot of opposition and people came out. We found that out with just the
Fekankar church building deal. You had a lot of people here to fight against
something but we never seem to have a lot of people in favor of something and
11 yet it seems to pass. We're asking you to allow this it to go forward.
There's been a lot of volunteer work put into it. A lot of good hard work done
by some very well meaning residents of this city. I think we've been very open
' and we respectfully would like to see the Council give us the go ahead to find
out what is going on. When we hear the negatives, two people tonight who spoke
against it. You've read one letter and you talked about a couple calls that you
received or a few calls or whatever. At the Oktoberfest booth, I personally
talked to approximately 24 people. I had 2 residents give me their reasons for
being against the proposal and the remainder, all enthusiastically supported it.
They aren't here tonight. As a matter of fact, none of them came to any of the
meetings. Did not fill out any of the surveys but they're there. The people
are there. If you don't feel we have enough, we haven't talked to enough
people. Tell us the magic number. Do we need to go out and get a petition with
1 200 people on it? 500 people on it? 2,000 people on it? We need to know what
we need to do. It seems like we're always battling at windmills here and no
matter what we do isn't good enough. I want to hear from the rest of the
council and see what's happening. Thank you.
' Mayor Ch'iel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Angie Banga: Angie Banga of Chanhassen and I would like to say first that I
concur with what the Mayor said. I'm not even going to try your last name. I
also, I try to keep fairly informed. I realize I'm not very informed in city
politics but I do read the Villager every week and I don't feel that I was
' adequate informed about those meetings. I would have attended one. I'm sure I
missed it. I'm sure it was there but what I'm saying is, I don't think it got
that much publicity. Nb attendance leads me to believe that I'm not the only
one that feels that way. The other thing I would like to say is that I am a
taxpayer and let me tell you, it's tough. I've got kids in the school system
and when I consider a choice between supporting a referendum for the school
district and keeping our class size below 32 and supporting a community center
so my kids can do the extra things, I have to go with the education and I think
it's just the wrong time. In a few years when we have a better tax base and
I we're able to do this, I'd say fine but right now our taxes are high and I think
our school system does deserve our support rather than a community center.
Thank you.
' Mayor Ch iel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Hearing none, we'll bring it
back to the Council for sane additional discussion and direction.
I Councilman Johnson: We're sitting here with the same basic recreational
facilities that were here when I moved in here 9 years ago. With the addition
of the outdoor recreation of Lake Ann that was completed at about that tune. Now
we're adding more there. Last year we had 18 youth basketball teams in the
46
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
Chanhassen Athletic Association playing at the grade school. This year we have - 11
24. Next year we'll probably have close to 30 youth basketball teams trying to
play in a small gymnasium and then splitting the large gym into half. They also II
have to, care in there Tuesday nights or Thursday nights for practice. Tuesday
nights at 6:30 you've got 12 teams practicing in those two gymnasiums.
Simultaneously. I've coached the basketball here for 4 years. This is my first
year as not being a coach for quite a while. Thank goodness and it's very hard
to do anything with that many kids dribbling that many basketballs
simultaneously. Ca-e to the next Pack meeting of the Boy Scouts at the
gymnasium at the grade school. Acoustically it is the worse place in the world.
You can't hear a thing other than the drum of the parents who can't hear the
speakers talking so they start talking and then nobody can hear anything. We
need same good acoustical places for our youth to hold their meetings. It's
very frustrating if you're not near the front to listen in that gymnasium.
Outdoor recreation just doesn't have much affect on. Swimming lessons. The
line starts at about 6:00 in the morning when they open at 9:00 in the morning
for the summer swim lessons down at Chaska Middle School. People care out there II
with sleeping bags to get in line so they can get their kids into the proper
swimming class that's held at the indoor pool at Chaska during the summers. I
don't know how many sessions they hold there but it's tremendous and a lot of
people just don't get what they want or what they need. I thought it was very
telling that of the 58 people, I was really surprised to see the swimming pool
put as the highest need here followed by the gymnasium. Adult basketball is
almost non-existent. We don't have zoom for it here in Chanhassen and we don't
have the politics for it in Chaska. Volleyball reigns supreme in Chaska. You
go down there, I've never seen the adults playing basketball there but they're
playing volleyball all the time. The middle school when I go down for my kid's
swim team. I don't think it's premature now. For being involved in youth
athletics the way I have been over the past 5 to 6 years, we really need more
facilities. Our seniors meet in the cafeteria of the grade school. If you know
anything about hearing aids, you know that in a room such as that, people with
hearing aids can't hear a thing because they hear everything. They need an
acoustically much better place to meet. They need samplace that is not a
gymnasium. My only concern is what is going to be the affect of the Chaska
community center. It's not going to have any affect on the basketball problems
or the Chanhassen Boy Scouts because I'm not going to take my cub scout down to
Chaska to have meetings in their community center. That's getting ridiculous.
As is I know Brad's kids swim in Eden Prairie on the Eden Prairie swim team I
think. My kid swims out of Chaska. At least I stay in the same county. I
always like to give the Fox Jets a hard time if I can. Things just aren't
offered here that we should be offering. We are big enough, 10,000 people. '
Hutchinson runs a swim program. Chanhassen doesn't. I don't know how big
Hutchinson is. I don't think it's as big as Chanhassen but it's a free standing
community so it has to have those things. I'd like to see the financial side of
this. That's the next question. Where's the financials? I think that's the
next step and I think we should direct the community center task force to go on
with that next step. I'm not sure if March may be too soon, especially if the
tax bills aren't out by March because I think quite frankly, as a proponent for
this, I think what you're going to see on the tax bills in March is going to
help the community center vote versus decreasing it. From what I've heard is
that our tax bills are going to go down the second year in a row. I know that
we're doing sane fairly spartan things within the City to hold the line here in
the City for taxes and we have for several years but we can't continue holding
the line in decreasing service with increased growth. The grade school is over
47 1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
•
11 crowded and if this can get them some relief, some more special ed rooms. Some
more computer rooms. Whatever they're going to get out of this. I think
they're going to get like 3 rooms, 5 rooms. All and all I see it as being
' important. I don't see indoor tennis or a banquet roam being important. Weight
room didn't do too well. Whirlpool and sauna didn't come out too well in the
surveys. Those were all under half of the people said they wanted those. I
really think that it's going to be an asset to the community and it will help
our school district. It will help our children and it will help the image of
the community. But I do need to see what it's going to do to taxes. We've got
to see that financial side before we go to referendum, and we have to have
' information and that's the next important step to go that I think we need to
authorize. That's my comments.
' Mayor Chm+iel: Thanks Jay.
Jeff Bros: Going along with what Jay said, from our research that we've
gathered from other communities that have put up anything from complete ice
arenas to complete centers similar to what we're looking at...financing for
these facilities that other communities have cane up with that have not been a
tax burden at all in other communities. I hope, again I hope that the Council
' will allow us the opportunity to go look at this. We certainly as a group and
residents of Chanhassen have no intention of taking away from the school in
monies that would be allocated for student useage. Again, this plan, the school
district has preliminarily agreed to add between 5 and 7 multi-useage rooms out
the back side of the school. Again, it's going to do nothing but help
Chanhassen elementary and the school district in the long run.
' Mayor Chuiel: Anyone else wishing to jump in?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I want to say again that I was a member of the
' task force and I think that we worked hard and I think we did a good job. I do
see that we did a thorough research but I also believe that we have to consider
the non-attendance as not a negative and not a positive but an indifference. To
' me that means indifference. I think that we should not argue as to who's survey
is correct. I think the task force survey is correct and other surveys add
additional information that supplement one another. I have to say that I had 6
' callers representing all the areas of Chanhassen and I gave them from October
until now to do their calling. The results of that was mostly a few yes's, a
few no's and much indifference.
' Jeff Bros: What were the questions that your caller's asked?
Councilwoman Dimler: Just simply do you think that we need or want a community
' center in Chanhassen. I just had one question.
Jeff Bros: No specifics as to location, cost?
IICouncilwoman Dimler: No. Let's just first determine if we want it and if we
want it, then we'll decide. Okay? And I know that you had a whole lot of more
information that you were looking for and I agree with that but my basic premise
I was to find out do we even want it. Do we need it. So that was the results of
that. I think that sane of the comments here are unwarranted. I don't think
that the task force had anything in mind as far as deceiving about property
taxes or that thing. I'm relatively sure of that having been at the meetings
48
11
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
but I also find that this letter does address the 76 people not representing a
majority when you have about 12,000 residents so I think we can all agree that
that's not a good representative survey. I guess some of the task force members
that were not able to be at the last meeting did call me and asked me to make
sure that the Council understands that the March referendum decision was not
unanimous even within the task force and also that the location decision has
never been unanimous. Most of the residents that I spoke to in greater detail
still indicate that they want an independent site. Maybe purchase the land now
and build a state-of-the-art community center in same future date. I also got
comments that a lot of people that have children in high school and junior high
feel that their students, their children are going to be using the Chaska center
simply because they are in District #112 and because they have friends in that
district and they're going to want to go to the center with their friends. And
so any types of programs that we plan for than here in Chanhassen, we're going
to have to cone up with something mighty terrific to draw than away from there
and that would be one of the things that I would say that when we do to a
community center, that Chanhassen should be looking at having something that
Chaska doesn't have. That Eden Prairie doesn't have. Something that will draw
them here. I also had same comments as to if waiting will drive up the costs
and I think my position on that has always been and it has not, the task force
has never really considered it, is that that's a good argument if the project is
a profit making venture. But for a non-profit making venture, it simply means
that we're going to take the taxpayers money sooner or later. TO me, in this
case, later is better because the money could be drawing interest. Also, if you
build later, you're going to have, maybe with inflation, you'll be building it
cheaper. So that argument about if it's a profit making venture and bringing in
f money, yes. That would be a consideration but this probably will not be a
profit making venture. It will probably be a break even at best and perhaps
even cost and maintenance. We don't know that yet.
Jeff Bros: However, it still is a revenue producing facility. i
Councilwoman Diner: It's a revenue producing facility but you may have costs
that extend or go beyond the revenues.
Jeff Bros: Hopefully not. Looking at other community centers...
Mayor Chmiel: Jeff! Can I interrupt you please. I'd like Councilwoman Dialer
to finish her statement and then if you'd like to say something after that, I'd
be more than happy to. '
Councilwoman Dialer: Okay. Again, the people I've talked to from the different
locations, I'll tell you what their concerns were. The people in southern
Chanhassen and in the Minnewashta area indicated that they would use the Chaska
facility because it's closer to them. Okay? The people at, I didn't really get
a response from the people at Near Mountain although I did have someone survey
that and they never got back tome. But from people that I've talked to
personally in that area say that they don't believe at this time, and that is
where the taxes are so high that they're not real interested so that knocks out
Minnewashta. That knocks our Near Mountain. That knocks out southern than and
basically the interest is caning from the downtown or near downtown Chanhassen
,. area. But I am concerned that we're not representing a lot of the people in
Chanhassen at this time.
49
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
-Brad Johnson: Ursula, would it be okay if we just did another survey of 330
people randomly selected in the community like we did last time... Why don't we
' just do that? What was our cost last time?
Councilwoman Dimler: Again, I think you're going to run into that indifference
' factor and you're not going to get an all inclusive reading.
Jeff Bros: Not if we randomly sampled 300 to 500 people. How could we not?
' Councilwoman Dimler: How are you going to pick your random sample?
Jeff Bros: Every 8th number out of the phone book...
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of the things I have about surveys is that
I know that I tend to do this myself. If someone calls me to survey me, I may
have feelings that I'm not really going to express because I want to say
something pleasing to the surveyer or the questions can be misleading or they
can, you know. I'm not sure that a survey at this point, another survey is
going to do the job.
Brad Johnson: Then let's do a referendum and find out. You've got 5 people up
here making decisions and we're sitting out here...
' Councilwoman Dimler: Well we're getting indifference though Brad and that's
what I'm saying.
' Jeff Bros: Okay, but let us put together a financial package and see if that
indifference stays...
' Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think we've done that. I know we've done that.
Jeff Bros: We have not. We've carte up with some rough estimates as far as cost
II but we haven't said how we can pay for it. We have the tax increment money.
The options are endless for financing. We may not have to tough tax dollars.
That's what we're asking for. All your people response to taxes going up. They
may not. At least give us the opportunity to find out what the citizens want.
IYou say we've got 76 back. You've got 5.
Councilwoman Dimler: No. That's not what I said. I said I had 6 callers that
Icalled in their neighborhoods.
Jeff Bros: But like you said, you don't trust surveys because you don't know
how the questions were asked.
ICouncilman Johnson: Yours is the most biased type of survey.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Well, remember my prefacing comment that your survey's
correct. Every survey is correct. They supplement one another. It's not this
one's correct and this one isn't correct.
IIJeff Bros: At least our surveys were based on information given to the people
that we had at that time and it was a direct response from the information that
they were given. Yes. No. Do you like it? No. Are you willing to pay for
it? Yes. No. Whatever. It wasn't just do you want one. I mean we gave...
1 50
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
. 1
Councilwoman Dialer: Wasn't that the basic what we have to start with though.
First you've got to find out if they want one or not.
Jeff Bros: But you've got to give them something to base that opinion on.
Yeah, everybody wants one.
Councilwoman Ditrler: Ho they didn't. That's the point.
Jeff Bros: At sane time they want one. Whether it's now or 5 years from now.
People want one. So what are you going to base your decision on?
Councilwoman Dialer: Well I base my decision on the fact that there was a lot
of indifference out there and I'll have to tell you, one of the callers was Dave
Zaunon. I'm sure that you are aware that he did sane calling the last time to
garner support. Brad, you know him.
Brad Johnson: Yeah.
Councilwoman Diirler: Okay, and he was trying to gather support for the
comnunity center and he ran into such indifference that he gave up.
Jim Mady: One of your callers Ursula talked to ae back in October I think it
was...Minnewashta and she was so uninformed as to the proposal that she
literally could not ask her any questions. She told me, because she didn't know
how to answer than.
Councilwoman Ditmler: -The question was, do you want a community center. That's
real simple.
Jim Mady: But she couldn't get responses... 1
Councilwoman Dimmer: That's why we kept it so simple. Well, I'm sure that that
is a simple question and you get a yes or a no.
Councilman Johnson: Or you get a question back.
Councilwoman Diimler: If they show any interest, yeah. Like I said, we got a 1
few yes's. We got a few no's and we got a lot of indifference. That's what I'm
basing mine on. 1
Jeff Bros: Maybe another survey will help to push those one way or another.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, do you have sane comments? 1
Councilman Hoyt: I think Tam's next.
Mayor Chmiel: I asked you if you had any comments Bill. i
Councilman Workman: I can step right in. Step in where others dare to step.
I'd like to see a community center. I start out every argument with that. My
two young daughters probably don't know what they're missing quite yet. I'm a
Minnesota State High School League basketball official and I'm having a lot of
fun with that and I do a lot of varsity games. I do same 6th grade girl 1
51 1
i
II _City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
II ' basketball games to varsity games. I know about every in the rretro area.
every � I
think I've been in every gym in the metro area and without a doubt Chanhassen
I has the worse gyms, including St. Hubert's, in the metro area unless you go to
Waconia. They've got a private school. This rippled tile stuff is terrible.
It's dingy in there. I wouldn't play basketball on it. I'd hurt myself. It's
I terrible. Kids are closer to the ground. They don't get hurt. There's no
doubt that I'd like to see 4 new gymnasiums in town. I'd rather see gymnasiums
than hockey. Hockey is a big, big expense and a big, big question for people. I
II know that most of the people on the task force that are very much for this have
a very strong interest in the hockey so there's, as you present them, community
center with hockey arena or community center without. I don't and haven't
really been a hockey player. I do enjoy ice skating and it's, you know just
II because I don't care for it doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. It is a very
expensive part of this and I'd like future discussions to maybe highlight that a
little bit. It looks a little bit like we've got to have this ice and people
I are really concerned about that expenditure item and I know that you guys have
figured it out where it's not going to cost us a cent. Nobody's using the word
free yet. There are some residents in town that are very much hockey. When I
grew up in Chaska, and I went to high school in Chaska, when you thought of the
I hockey team, most of the people on the hockey team care from Chanhassen. I
think Chanhassen's much more of a hockey area with the lakes and Minnetonka and
that all breeds off of that and I've talked to an awful lot of people. I would
II assume I've talked to a hundred people on this. I ask everybody I run into.
I'm disappointed that our community center hasn't really changed an iota since
the Chaska center has gone up. Unfortunately we're part of that Chaska
I community somewhat. They're adding two big new gymnasiums down there. They're
adding a huge hockey arena. They're adding just about everything you can
imagine. It's unbelieveable. I do believe that that affects us somewhat. *I on
the other hand think that's unfortunate because I'd like to have our own
I ccnmunity identity and I'd like to have our own community centers. Own gyms.
Hockey arena. I'd like to have everything. Curling ice. We could have curling
tournaments and things. But again, I've asked just about everybody that I've
I run into, neighbors. There is a deep, deep concern about taxes. I wouldn't be
doing my job Brad if I didn't reflect those concerns. Unfortunately for all the
Council we've been elected and it's our job to make sane tough decisions. We
talk about increasing the size of a hard by $3,000.00 and that can price
Isomebody completely out of the rrarket. Well, $50.00 taxes, $100.00, whatever,
can impact somebody also. People are definitely in a nervous moo] about taxes.
Another comment that I heard quite often and this gets back to the hockey arena.
I I'm leaning on the hockey arena because I think that's a part that people are
very much nervous about. These are Chanhassen residents who are saying why
should we build a hockey arena to support the Minnetonka Hockey Associations.
t Now we're going to develop our own hockey associations, etc. I'm assuming and,
pardon me?
Brad Johnson: We already have one.
ICouncilman Workman: Yeah I know but not enough support for own ice. I mean
we're going to be drawing in an awful lot of people and so again, I'm just
I telling you what I'm hearing. There's an awful lot of nervous people about
community center's attachment to the school district. Chaska specifically did I
not want it attached to the school. They didn't want the school to have any i
part or control of that community center. What happens if it comes a very mach
II youth centered facility and so we start to forget same of the people on the
I52
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
other end. The elderly, etc. when kids are always using it and I've been in II
that Eden Prairie center. They are jammed out of that thing. I tell you. I
couldn't stay in there mooch longer. It was pretty wild in there. They have II kids in the lobby doing classes and stuff. They are packed. And again, I think
we've gone over sane of the refinements of how this school district and city
marriage will work and whether or not it will affect us or not but I'd like to
look a little bit more at that. Chanhassen should provide facilities for it's
citizens. Getting back to this rotten gym idea. But we're again a unique
cane;unity. We're nothing like Chaska. Chaska doesn't have much pulling on it.
Okay? We have, I lump Shorewood, Excelsior, Minnetonka into one category.
They're pulling on us up there. Those people up there on that north end, I
don't know how often you've just surveyed that area but I think you'd find, I
think you know this that those people go that way. They like to live that way.
They like the Minnetonka school district, etc.. Eden Prairie pulls on some
people. People will buy groceries on the south end down in Shakopee and of
course there's the Chanhassen people that get tugged on so we are a community
that's very much pulled on. How do we build that cohesiveness? I think that's
sa+ething that the task force should also be asking. Maybe we build the
cohesiveness by getting the community center. That helps. Maybe it does. Maybe
it doesn't. People are again nervous. I'm not going to get into the argument
about surveys. I'm about at the end of my comments. Thanks heavens for all of
you. I guess I'm not adverse. I am adverse to a referendums in March. I've
been told by people that, no. They don't want to do that. I've been told I
think Jeff, you guys that you don't want this to be a political decision so you
want to have it stand alone and let people decide. I think this is very much a
political issue. As political as any we've seen. I wouldn't be adverse to it
being on the ballot in November. That's a big, big question for people. I
think we may be jumping ahead again on whether or not we can afford the building
at all. Don Ashworth, the magician just might came up with it but again, people
emphasize to me that they aren't interested in bonding out because when we do
that we give up same capacity that we could use in other areas. There is a
middle school coring. A new middle school coring to the district within...
Brad Johnson: 5 to 6 years. 1
Councilman Workman: That's not too long. That's not too long, if you go by
highway construction. Again, I want to temper same of the arguments in that I
appreciate the efforts of the task force and I don't want to tell you thanks.
See ya. Your efforts have been worthless. I know Brad. Brad's got a lot of
energy in this thing and I know you all do so I'm not going to tell you you're a
bunch of fools for looking at this because again, I think it's a favorable
thing. I think when you ask people do they want a community center, you think
about a pool that your kids can swim in and a nice gym and I can't think of
anything more desireable. I think a lot of the people who have talked to me
believe the same thing and they'll say they want a community center but.
There's always this big but. And so that's where I'm a little bit on this fence
of yeah, I'd really like it too and I think you can include re in that group of
people that say, well but I've really got to see more. Maybe the task force
needs to draw the Council a little more into what it's doing. I haven't felt
like I was a very big part of what was going on. I know Jeff, you and I were
going to try and get together. We never were able to and I suggested to Lori
that Jim and you and I get together and sit down. I just haven't been much a
part of this and that's again, not a reason not to vote for the thing but I
think the task force could do a better job of drawing us all in. Us, meaning I
53
IICity Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
1 the voters. The people in the different diverse areas. I don't know. Maybe
the people at Lake Minnewashta are thinking of going to Victoria or Chaska or I wherever. I think Chaska jumped into their community center because they didn't
want to go in with us. That was a suggestion. A three, tri-community community
center. Could have built it for 20 million or something. I think they wanted
II their own. They also wanted their own identity but I'm not afraid to let the
cxmunity make the decision. I think it's going to be a tough decision and
again I'd like to see it draw for the retail community in town and everything
else and there's a lot of pluses but people are nervous and for me, as a
I Councilimember to discount those people which I think are in at least a 75%
majority, if not more, into my face, then I'd be doing a disservice. And so I
think we'll perhaps see something and we can take it to them, and they can
I decide. That always gets sticky too but that's where I have to stand at this
point.
II Jeff Bros: ...financial packages for this. Secondly, if you take it to the
community and let then vote on it in March or November, that's fine but that
easily answers every question you've got Tom.
II Councilman Workman: Right. Absolutely. And I don't need you guys to figure
out the financials of it. I have the magician right down here.
I Jeff Bros: Well we've been assigned as an entity by the Council to do that for
you.
I Councilman Workman: I know but I'm just saying, it is a 3 month process but the
options, we're kind of aware of that and it's been indicated that taxes will
raise. That's where people are nervous.
I Jeff Bros: But again, give us the chance to find out. Like I said, there's a
lot of different ways to finance this that are beyond everybody's...
I Councilwoman Dimler: Excuse me. Jeff, at one point when we talked about
putting it on the general, you indicated or the task force indicated that they
didn't want to do that because that would make it a political issue because of
election year. Have your feelings changed on that?
Ian
Jeff Bros: I still, personally, I would like to see us... But I feel strongly
enough about the community center and the want and desire in this community for
II that facility that right now I'll take it any way I can get it. Now I'm not
speaking for the rest of...I'm speaking for myself. By the time your 3 to 5
year plan that you're talking about, my young children are going to be out of
Ithe schools. They ain't going to be here anymore to use it. They're going to
be in college. They're not going to be using it. They'll take me over there in
a wheelchair and walk me around. I can see it. You see this is the whole idea.
We have some...we don't need to build a 50 million dollar facility... Chaska,
I you're right. It's a top grade center but we looked at their package and as far
as we're concerned, we don't see why anybody else would need to have that big a
facility. Those are things you've got to weigh in. They didn't vote on their
I center down there. You talk about one getting rammed through. Whether the
people down there like it or not, I don't know but that's what happened. They
didn't even have the chance to vote on it yes or no.
1
IICouncilman Workman: They had a $5,000.00 telephone surveys every week.
II54
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, myabe if we could just, Tam, if you'd.
Councilman Workman: I'll just wrap up. Again, I've told you that I'm not
adverse to that and my last comment. There's a lot of mistrust out there.
There may be on this Council. There may be with me about that zealousness, just
like in cigarette vending machine zealousness. People look at you and say, well
what's the motive. It starts to become a personal thing and people start to get
nervous about it and so this is another point that I've picked up from people is
that the hockey crowd or you know, how many people skate. How many people do I
know that skate. 2% of the population of kids that skate so. Is it 3%? '
Jim Mady: I don't know about what you know but it's not reflected in the
survey. ,
Brad Johnson: Somewhere close to 40%.
Councilman Workman: I would 40% of the families in this city- don't have kids I
that skate hockey.
Brad Johnson: Not to play hockey. Skate. You can't schedule... ,
Councilman Workman: I'm talking hockey. I'm sorry. Let me be more specific.
Because the hockey crowd is usually the crowd that is seen as pushing it. ,
Brad Johnson: You're going to hear this from us a hundred times Tom that the
rink doesn't cost anything. It supports everything else. It provides the
' operating inane you need to run the center and you may not believe that but
that's what happens. That's why Edina doesn't have a community center. They
just have hockey rinks. That's why Minnetonka doesn't have a ccimunity center.
They just have hockey rinks in their community center because it supports it.
It's not an expense. That's why they don't have gymnasiums. Things you need
programming for and why they don't have...
Councilman Workman: Again, that's your job to convince people because they're ,
not convinced Brad. And so we can talk about it, I know we can talk about it
all night and the Mayor's getting ready to swing his gavel.
Brad Johnson: We had two of you on our task force periodically. Jay and Bill.
Councilman Johnson: Ursula and Bill. I
Brad Johnson: Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you for remembering. '
Councilman Workman: Well Brad, the task force has lost sage people who haven't
always gone along with it has it not? I
Brad Johnson: I'm not sure.
Councilman Workman: Has it became basically a group of people that really just
agree that the community.
55
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
II Brad Johnson: Most le
peop have turned around and go along with us.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I can answer that.
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying. Let re finish up my comments.
Brad Johnson: We have votes and you have to have votes. We have 10 to 12.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I wasn't there for the last vote. Several other people
weren't there so that's why I brought up the fact that it wasn't unanimous and
they did call me. I would say that being one of the members that worked hard
against the Filly's site, that yes. We've been to the meetings and we have
' given same input. I'm not sure that we've always been listened to or had our
points taken into consideration. They're just kind of been ignored. I know
that several of the other people have told me that they don't feel like caning
' to the meetings because of that. So yes, we have lost some.
Jeff Bros: Then why weren't they at the public meetings? If there are so
' many...
Councilwoman Dimler: Why would they want to go, they don't want to rake it look
bad in public. You know what I mean? They're not going to go to a public
' meeting and say, hey I'm on the task force and the rest of the people didn't
listen to nee.
' Mayor Ch iel: Can I clarify something here? I don't want a debate going back
and forth. This isn't the issue. I think we should curtail that and I'd like
to move on to Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Thank you. Thanks also for moving this item up on the agenda.
I'd hate to think of what time this would be if we'd had it at our normal
schedule. I'm not going to beat many of the bushes twice other than to say that
' 3 years ago when I was appointed to the first task force, we researched the
issues in depth. Maybe went to a vote a little too quickly. In into, as
everybody knows, a tough issue and narrowly lost. A handful of votes. Well
' when that was over, in all good faith I didn't think we should start up again
but the Council, 3 of which aren't here now, directed the task force to
reconvene and to see if there was sane way that they could put together a
proposal the camunity would support. I don't think whether we individually
' support the community center or not is the point. I think the point is, as many
of you mentioned, what do you think the community is going to do on the
community center. But after 3 years of studying this thing, sometimes rather
' intensively and sometimes not, I can tell you that there is just a tremendous
amount of information out there. One of the challenges is for the task force,
or any group, to educate the rest of the people about what they've found. In
good faith the task force I think has looked at every issue. In good faith the
I task force went out and openly accepted people who were vehemently opposed to
the first one in the second task force to try to get same sort of community
sense of what will be acceptable. I think they've got that. I think that the
' last time the task force was criticized for going without input. Without enough
input from the community. Going back. Getting the referendum and with about 6
weeks, trying to educate the community. So this time what they did was they
' went out to community groups and asked them. What do you think? Granted. It
was 76 people. 76 more than last time. I think we can all have personal
56
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
•
opinions and hopefully people have sorted out what our opinions are. I happen
to think that the community center is a darn tough sacrifice to ask the
community to rake but I think it's one they want to make. I think that if we •
believe the community is in fact going to support the community center, we ought
to have a special referendum because it saves $100,000.00 and that's a 11 tremendous return when you look at spending $10,000.00 to save $100,000.00. Now
if you think the community's going to turn it down, then go to November with it
because I don't want to be on this and deny people the right to vote on an issue
that narrowly lost last time. Especially if we can't do it in March, then I
think we should put it on the November ballot and I think we should make a
motion to do that tonight so the task force knows what they're working with. To
keep them, for 3 years, I'm not surprised that the people have fallen out of the
task force. Now do you keep people motivated to gather data when they don't
know what the outcome, what their chances are going to be? And so I'd like to
see the community center task force directed to prepare for a referendum, either
in March, April or in November and let's give the voters a chance to tell us
what they want to do.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Hopefully we can move along rather quickly. Is there a
motion on the floor?
Councilman Boyt: Well I would move that we direct the task force to prepare for
a March referendum.
Mayor C r iel: Is there a second? ,
Councilman Johnson: Don, do you think you can get the financial sides done with
the task force in time to educate the public about the financial side? I take
that back, because we can't educate the public. TO fairly provide that
information to the public if they want to be educated about it, that they can
learn about it. We can't force anybody to read the Villager. We can't force
anybody to cane to a meeting. The apathy factor is high. I'm thinking March
might be too soon.
Don Ashworth: I think so as well. One of the reasons would be, and I did
mention this to the committee the other night. I would bring in Dave
McGillvarey of Springsted. There's been a lot of nice acculays for myself this
evening but I think that our bond consultant should do a majority of the work.
There's some innovative financing alternatives that have been presented to the
committee. I will continue to state that I'm not that enthrilled with some of
them but there are some alternatives which could reduce the costs. I would
anticipate that McGillvarey could have his work done within a month, if that's
sufficient time. But I would say that's the amount of time that it would take
him.
Councilman Johnson: So you're talking mid-February. Then another probably 2
months as far as I'm concerned to try to get the word out to the people so we're
talking mid-April.
Councilman Boyt: You just don't want to miss the building season. That's how
you save your money. If we end up...
Councilman Johnson: You're not going to get the 1990 building season. There's ,
no way we're going to put plans together and break earth in 1990. 1991 building
57 '
I
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
' season's the first building season we're going to break earth on.
Brad Johnson: If you have an election in November to...1992.
Councilman Johnson: Exactly. That's why I'm looking at May rather than March.
Councilman Boyt: Well I'm alright with that if you'll second the motion.
' Councilman Johnson: Yeah. If you'll go a May-June timeframe for a referendum.
I want to see the financials and that also gives us some time for the financials
' to cane back with sane major impact on taxes in this town. It gives us a chance
to turn around and get same, right now the public opinion is without the
financial. Once we get the financial information in, that's when the apathy
' starts stopping. Tell me what it will do for me but tell me what it will do for
my wallet. There's a large portion of people in this town that are anti-tax.
There's a large portion of people in every town. As I talked to councilmembers
across the nation, it's the same everywhere. Nobody wants anything to do with
' raising taxes right now. A motion says continue to get us the financial package
and a referendum in the May-June timeframe, I'll second.
' Mawr Gael: Is that an am► ment to Bill's?
Councilman Boyt: Well I accept it.
' Councilman Johnson: Then I'll second the motion.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion. Any further discussion?
' Councilman Workman: I've got to get back to kind of an underlying point that I
had. I don't think your motion is going to pass.
Councilman Johnson: You seemed to be for it from what you said. You wanted to
find out the financial information. You wanted to find out...
Councilman Workman: That's right. I'm not for a special referendum. I don't
see it happening before November. I think what you're doing again is, do we
want a community center that is going to go into a referendum on a 3 to 2 vote?
' Would we be more interested in going in on a referendum that's a 5 to nothing
vote. Having every council member for it. Having every council member going
out and saying, I'm for it. You don't have that right now.
' Councilman Boyt: You're not going to have that.
Councilman Johnson: You never will.
Councilman Workman: Yeah you could. Yeah you could. Absolutely you could.
And that's what I've been getting at tonight. You can be a soothsayer or you
' can be whatever. I'm just saying, well then maybe the community center's out
forever then. There's same people that would like to hear that too.
Councilman Johnson: Well it doesn't have to be a 5-0 vote.
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, let's try. It's not going to happen in
May.
58
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
Mayor Chmiel: Jay, my clarification as far as a community center, I say we need II
one. Now is not the time. I really feel that way.
Councilman Johnson: I agree but I say let's put it to the voters and let the
people speak.
Mayor Qhmiel: That it's from 3 to 5 years yet away. It's the taxes that people
are basically afraid of. You're going to have sane additional taxes coning with
Carver County. With the increase of a courthouse for 2 judges. Two more court
roans. Two more judge's chambers. That's going to run 2 million dollars plus.
That's corning right around the corner. And there are probably some other things
that are we will have another 5 to 6 years too. Other schools and junior high
in Chanhassen. If we continue with the baby booming as we are now, where the
school here, our grade school is bulging literally, there are some more dollars.
Now those dollars are all going right back to our constituents within this city.
Those dollars are going to be taxed somewhere and can those people keep up with
it. People that I have talked to are people who are concerned about it.
Councilman Johnson: So what we're saying is let's get the information together
because the people do not have a full packet of information at this time. We do
not have a full packet of information to make a decision on it at this time.
Let's let the community center go forth with Don and Springsted and find out the
information. Give us the information on which to make an informed decision. At
this time we tentatively schedule, well I'm not that opposed to a November
referendum. I'm not sure, the cost of money. Inflation's going to go up.
Taxes are going to go up. The cost is going to go up by inflation. It probably
all washes out. Our tax base has been beating inflation. We've been increasing
our tax base faster than inflation's increasing so I'm not sure if the delay to
November isn't going to be a terrible one but I'd like the community center task
force to know that we're going to bring this to the people. That we're not
going to core out and sit on it because of our personal opinion. I want to get
the opinion of the people and I want to get the information...
Councilwoman Dimler: Jay. It isn't personal opinion. We've done these
surveys.
Councilman Boyt: I think that the Council probably pretty accurately reflects
the community on this issue. That there is going to be a substantial split: I
suspect in my mind that it will pass but I don't think it's going to be easy and
I think the issues that have been raised tonight are probably pretty accurately
reflective of what the community is thinking. But I'd like to see this thing,
as you would, decided by the voters. If Tor► says he's not going to support it,
it's pretty clear that Don and Ursula aren't going to support an early
referendum. So maybe we can just go with November and see if that passes.
Personally I'm comfortable with 3-2. There's a lot of things we've decided 3-2.
I'd like to move on this so we can get back to the rest of the agenda. It's
either going to go or it isn't.
Councilman Johnson: So you want to withdraw your motion and modify it to a
November referendum?
Councilman Boyt: Sure. '
59
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
Councilman Workman: I would, this isn't a motion. I would tend to want to make
a motion not committing myself to November at this stage. I'd like to get more
' input but I'm not going to commit myself to November at this point.
Councilman Johnson: It's so early. By saying we're going to go for November,
if something comes up to show us that it's totally infeasible for some reason,
we can withdraw.
Councilman Workman: And we can add.
Councilman Johnson: We can take away but I think we owe it to these citizens
that have been working for 3 years, 2 years. Sane of them 2 years. Sane of
' than 3 years on this to show them that there's sane hope in the future. What
they're going to see here is, do we want to continue working on this because the
Council assigned us to work on it and now the Council may not even ever put this
to referendum. In fact by law I don't think we actually have to put it to
referendum but I think something as major as this in this town, I think I want
to hear from the people. Referendum style.
' Councilwoman Dinner: I have a comment. I guess I'd agree with Cindy Gillman's
comments that this movement was not initiated by the citizens. Grass roots
movement okay? From what I've been hearing and what I'm getting is that most
' people are indifferent that yes we'd like to have it but sometime in the future.
Not in '90. Maybe not in '91. Maybe 3, 4, 5 years down the line. I hate to
see us keep wasting everybody's time and also there is the option that if it
really is a grass roots movement, even if we don't put it on in November. In
' 1991 those people can sign a petition. They can get a grass roots movement
going and then you will hear from the people.
' Councilman Boyt: What's it take for a petition Don? For the community to
require a referendum.
Don Ashworth: I'm not sure that there is such a thing is there Roger?
Roger Knutson: No, there isn't.
' Councilman Johnson: Especially since we don't even require a referendum...
Councilw r an Dimler: Not to require one but let's say, I would like to see it
not be that it be a referendum but that we want a community center. I'd like to
see that be a grass roots movement.
' Jeff Bros: Ursula, I don't work for the City. I called Lori and asked her
after the last...
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not saying you work for the City but you have a
special interest.
Brad Johnson: Who doesn't have a special interest in this City. It's our
' community...
Councilwoman Dimler: But so do all these other people that aren't being here
represented. They all do too.
1 60
l
City Council Meeti•ng - January 8, 1990 '
Mayor Chmiel: Let's just hold it down. - 1
Jim Mady: Can I ask my question again Don?
Mayor Qrsel: Go ahead.
Jim Mady: Ibw many people do we have to get on a petition before you'll listen
to us?
Mayor Qmiel: There isn't any numbers.
Jim Mady: Give us a number.
Mayor Chmiel: There isn't numbers. ,
Councilwoman Dialer: How many does the opposition have to get before you'll
listen to then? Same question. I
Councilman Boyt: Well, I'd like to call a question on the motion and let's get
this dealt with.
Mayor Qrmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor and a second to November for
a referendum.
1
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to put the Community Center
to a referendum vote on the November ballot. Councilman Boyt and Councilman
} -Johnson voted in favor. Councilman Workman, Councilwaman Dialer and Mayor
Cmiel voted against and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Johnson: I was going to move that we direct the task force to
continue on in the financials and report back to us on the financial aspects of
the community center by tax day, April 15th. '
Councilman Boyt: Then what you're directing them, to do is spend money.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. '
Councilwoman Dialer: That's right and we don't want to do that.
Councilman Boyt: I'm supportive of that but I just want everybody to know that
when you start getting Springsted involved, you're talking money.
Councilman Johnson: We're spending money because we have to know. I mean it's ,
a big issue in this town. It's not the kind of issue that you're going to solve
by ignoring it. Frain what I think, the majority is apathetic and then the next
largest group I think is for it in my personal opinion because the group of
people. You know Ursula you have your group of people who you call okay and
that is a select minority of this town.
Councilwoman Dialer: So is that one. That's what I was saying.
Councilman Johnson: And I have uP my ro of people...
. 9 PAP
61
IICity Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
ilw : And they're all supplemental.
Councilwoman Dimler: they're upp
' Councilman Johnson: ...that I work with which is 500 families in this town in
the Chanhassen Athletic Association.
' Councilwoman Dimler: And that's a select group of people.
Councilman Johnson: That's a select group of people and I feel that 500 people
of various persuasions is for it. So that's my motion now.
Mayor Cmiel: Okay Jay has a motion on the floor.
Councilman Boyt: Second.
Councilman Workman: For what? To do the study?
Mayor Gael: Do the study.
' Councilman Johnson: Financial.
Councilman Workman: We don't know how much it's going to cost.
' Councilman Johnson: That's what I'm asking to find out.
Councilman Workman: How much is the study going to cost?
Mayor Chmiel: What's the study going to cost us from Springsted?
Councilman Workman: $10,000.00? $58,000.00? What are we going to pay? I'm
going to vote on something that's going to cost something I don't know. I mean
quite rushing it Jay.
Mayor C oriel: Give us a round figure Don.
Don Ashworth: If you recall, Springsted's proposal included x number of hours
that they would do as a retainer. I would anticipate that past the retainer
about, I would attempt to insure that they did not bill us for it.
Councilman Boyt: But they're taking hours out of others?
' Councilman Johnson: Out of the retainer.
' Don Ashworth: Taking hours out of the retainer. In addition it would be my
position that they would be doing work for an upcoming referendum and that if
that bond referendum would pass, that their fee schedule is such that they
basically retain their money.
Mayor Chmiel: The Council by a 3 to 2 vote already indicated that there won't
be a referendum in November. There is that vote.
Councilman Johnson: But there could be a new vote after we get the financial
information.
I
1 62
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
Don Ashworth: $1,000.00 in addition to the 6 or 7 hours that supposedly we have . II
•• credited to us.
Councilman Johnson: $1,000.00 ona 3 to 4 million dollar decision? Be nuts. I
Get the information so our people can make an informed decision.
Councilwoman Dialer: But they won't be making it this year so why rush it? 1
Councilman Johnson: Geez, why don't we wait to the next century? We've got 24
basketball teams trying to play on 3 courts. Ke play from 8:00 a.m. in the
morning to 1:00 in the afternoon.
Councilwoman Dialer: You are still...for a special interest group.
Mayor Ch*.iel: Jay. There may be the availability now at the junior high and
the senior high if Chaska is going to take their people from.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not bringing my second graders to play basketball.
They don't have the baskets either.
Mayor C1v iel: They do with hockey and pee wee, they go all over. I
Councilman Johnson: They don't have the facilities for second graders to play
basketball. '
Councilman Boyt: Gentleman, are we going to vote on sarething here?
Mayor Chmiel: The question is whether or not we spend $1,000.00 at the present 1
time to ensure the total 3.4 or 5 million dollars that we've been discussing.
There's a second. Did you second that Bill?
Councilman Johnson: I made the motion. Bill seconded.
Councilman Boyt: That the committee be directed to investigate the financial,
the specific financial implications and tax burdens.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to direct the Carmunity 1
Center Task Force to prepare financial information to bring back to the Council
by April 15, 1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR
CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS, SECOND
READING.
Paul Krauss: At the last City Council meeting the Council gave first reading to
an ordinance regulating convenience stores having gas pumps. Among other
things, the ordinance establishes a minimum separation of 250 feet between gas
pimps and 100 feet between the pumps and residential parcels. The Council gave
it first reading with a couple of changes and those have been incorporated into
the ordinance. One of the changes was based on Councilman Johnson's concern
that the 100 foot setback to residential be measured not only from the gas pumps
themselves but also from the vent pipes fray► the storage tanks. And the second ,
63
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
IIone was that the requirement be placed on conditional use permits that are
granted for these operations that they have a waste oil collection facilities.
With those changes, the ordinance is basically the way you had modified it at
your first reading and we're recommending that it be approved.
Mayor C viiel: Okay, is there anyone wishing to address this at this particular
' time? If hearing none, any discussion? I think what we have here is what Paul
indicated. Tying in our concerns that we had from the previous Council meeting.
Upon reviewing this, I think he has rret all those specific recommendations.
' Councilman Boyt: I've got one point if I might. Item 8(6) . It's on page 4 of
the ordinance.
Paul Krauss: I think you were looking to delete it from the CBD district?
Councilman Boyt: Central business district.
Paul Krauss: Yeah. That would have to be in Section 20-734(4) on the existing
Code.
' Councilman Boyt: Section...That's where you've got it listed now.
Councilman Johnson: As a conditional use. Bill, the inner section where the
current Holiday.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, maybe we have the wrong district.
iCouncilman Johnson: That's Business Highway at that point.
Paul Krauss: The existing ordinance is already established convenience stores
' with gas pumps as a conditional use. We hadn't proposed changing this in this
amended ordinance.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, that's what I'm proposing.
Paul Krauss: Right and what you would need to amend is Section 20-734(4) of the
' existing ordinance were convenience stores with gas pumps are listed as a
conditional use in the CBD district.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. That would be my intent.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you give me your reasoning on that Bill.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, I think when I started out, I know that the Council that
started this had several different motives but mine was simple to stop the
multiplication of convenience stores with gas pumps in our central business
' district. We've got enough and I think that that's solved by just not allowing
it in the district.
Councilman Johnson: We have one.
' Councilman Boyt: What about the one that's already been approved down in right
down here.
I
' 64
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 #
Paul Krauss: Charlie James?
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. 1
Paul Krauss: That's outside of the Central Business District.
Councilman Johnson: That's in the BG. '
Paul &auss: The only gas pump operation we have is the Brooke's Superette.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Well, I don't know about the BG district but I think
the central business district we shouldn't be encouraging them. there. Maybe
it's not a possibility anyway. 1
Councilman Johnson: Bill? Central business district goes basically from north
of the railroad tracks to the laundrynat, what is it? Country clean? Then
across to the bank, the new bank. Right through Filly's. Fran the map here,
it looks lanes 11 and 12 are in central business district and the other lanes
maybe in a different district.
Mayor Chmiel: John, you might have to move those.
Councilman Boyt: Well if that doesn't hit at it. I don't think 250 feet does
anything for us because the Standard and the Holiday station are within 250 feet
of each other. That means they could put on on all four corners. That's what I
was trying to get away from.
Councilman Johnson: Okay the four corners. One is IOP. One is BN and two are
Business Highway. We have one business neighborhood which is where the daycare
center and the Total are. Business highway is where the Holiday and the Amoco
station is. Then the other corner there is industrial IOP. Industrial office
park. What do we allow for gas stations in the industrial office park?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we do do we? '
Paul Xrauss: We don't.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I don't know. I don't know what the answer is.
Councilman Johnson: What about business neighborhood?
Paul lorauss: Business neighborhood. We are proposing that...
Councilman Johnson: Business neighborhood should be the 250 and that ,
effectively.
Mayor Chmiel: Just keeping it as he has it I think pretty much spells it all
out.
Councilman Johnson: There's no new convenience stores with gas pumps at that
` intersection as it's written because they're not allowed in IOP. They've got to
be 250 feet apart in the business neighborhood so it would be too close for the
Total. The Total.
11
65 1
11 City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
IICouncilman Boyt: Maybe we pass this and see how it works.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think we should. I think we should accept staff
IIrecommendation that the City Council approve the second reading.
Councilman Workman: If I could make one comment. I'm getting so nervous with
' this whole sticky mess here. I think it's getting out of control. One thing I
do have a concern about is, we're willing to put these darn things 200, 500 feet
apart but we're only willing to get about a 100 foot separation from these gas
tanks to a residential.
IMayor Qr►iel: Residential, that's right. I thought there was something we
discussed at the time getting a greater depth to residential. That there was a
1 reason for it.
Paul Krauss: I received no explicit direction to change it but you indicated
that it could be raised again at the second reading.
Councilman Boyt: Do you want to make it 250? I'm fine with that.
1 Councilman Workman: At least.
Mayor Chmiel: I think from residential it should be.
ICouncilman Boyt: That's fine with me.
Councilman Workman: I think a baby's crib is more important than another Amoco.
I Councilman Boyt: Why don't you move an amendment.
' Councilman Johnson: You know Don, I'd like to run a puff model on filling a
tank and seeing under what various meteorlogical conditions, probably take
your... inversion condition and see what it'd be at 100 feet and 200 feet for
' your benzine tyleneol factions?
Councilman Boyt: Do you want to table this until you do then?
1 Mayor (Biel: I don't think that would be necessary. I think if we kept the
distance from residential. That was one of my major concerns.
IICouncilman Johnson: Yeah, that was mine too.
Mayor Chmiel: And that would provide that safety aspect of it.
ICouncilman Workman: I guess what I'm saying is, we're not going to, to a very
slight extent, we're going to restrict how people can use their property to
build convenience stores and gas pumps and we're not going to do a very good job
at it. It's kind of, we have a problem at Brooke's with neighbors too close I
think. That's where I'm at. I think the previous Council tried to help a local
businessman out here and it's gotten to be a little bit crazy. I'm not real
Ihappy with this one.
Councilman Boyt: Well you get convenience stores defined. Convenience stores
with gas pumps defined and motor fuel and service stations defined and we don't
66
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 1
have any of that now. I
Councilman Workman: Well we only want them defined so we can restrict then►.
Councilman Johnson: So you can control it.
Councilman Workman: Restrict. Control. It's all the same. 1
Councilwonan Dimler: It gets back to, do we need this to have definitions, do
we need an ordinance?
Paul Krauss: You would need to change the ordinance to put that in the
definition section, yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we could just put in the definitions and leave it at
that.
Councilman Boyt: We have done a good bit here in terms of changing our zoning '
ordinance to then fit our definitions. We've really not addressed, we haven't
figured out an answer. After a year of study, we haven't figured out an answer
to how do we control the number of convenience stores with gas pumps. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Maybe we don't have to.
Councilman Boyt: And I guess we're giving up on that but we've figured out a '
lot of other answers that are going to help us. We've defined things and we've
indicated what zones we want them in.
Councilman Workman: I'm willing to go along. Again, I think it's going to have
same gaps. We can't stop people from doing things and I think again, we've got
it all tidied up and we spent a lot of time and money to figure this all out. I
don't know that we have but I'm not saying let's throw the whole thing out and
let's get rid of it because there's some good things about it. Again, it's a
trend of we're not very good at controlling the private sector on where we want
them to be. They've got a lot of options out there and we probably ought to
stay the hell out. I think we spent too much time on this and I'm ready to get
this passed.
Mayor Cir iel: Let's move it with your recarraandation of the restrictive setback
from residential. 250.
Councilman Boyt: I'll second that. '
Mayor Qhmiel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the final reading of an
Ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding provisions
concerning convenience stores and motor fuel stations with the setback of the
250 feet for the gas pumps from residential property. All voted in favor except
Councilwoman Dimler who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Cnmiel: Do you want to give your reason? i
67
,City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
I Councilwoman Dimler: Yes I do. I think this ordinance came about out of a
_protection for a businessman. I never have believed in that cause and I believe
that motive may have been wrong. I do believe there are sane good things in
I this ordinance but I still don't want to interfere with the free market system.
Again, I will say that I feel that we are closing the barn door after the cows
are out. I don't think this ordinance is going to make a whole lot of
difference and that's why I'm opposing it.
IMayor C viel: Well, I think there's same specific areas that are going to be •
better than what's existing.
1 Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say it was the minority of the last Council
trying to protect a single businessman.
IIZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW
FOR THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE
ITMEPORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS, FIRST READING.
Paul Krauss: Would you like me to go through this one? We've continued it
before. There are sore people I know who are waiting for, well we've got a
group here waiting on that annexation from Victoria.
Councilman Workman: I don't have any problems with this.
IICouncilwoman Dirtier: I don't have any problems with 6.
' Mayor C1imiel: I don't have any problems.
Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to add. This is really quick. Under Districts
Paul has starred the conditions that he thinks are appropriate. I would like to
Iadd in A-1, 1 and 4. In A-2, 1 and 13.
Councilman Workman: Are you saying these are not in there now?
1 Councilman Boyt: Yeah. What Paul did was he went through and starred the
conditions that he thought would be appropriate for temporary conditional use .
I permits so we get beyond just churches. And I'm saying, and maybe some of you
have others you want to see added but not all of these were added. Just the
ones he starred. I think in R-4 we should add 2 and 3.
IIPaul Krauss: Bill, could you start at the top of this?
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. A-1, 1 and 4. A-2, 1 and 13. Both exactly the same
II things. R-4, 2 and 3. R-8, 2. R-12, 3 and 4. Then I would suggest, well I
drop that one.
Mayor Cmiei: What did you hit on R-8?
Councilman Boyt: R-8 was 2. Then in IOP, 1 and 6. The logic I think behind
all those, because I went through there and I said, which ones of these
I represent either something that doesn't fit the nature of the district, which I
think IOP, cement mix plants don't fit the nature of that district, or are
temporary enough in nature that a person isn't making a major investment when
68
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 '
they put it in and therefore we ought to be able to give them a temporary
conditional use permit rather than something that goes with the building forever
or the property forever from there. So along with the ones that Paul starred.
Councilman Johnson: Are we passing then all the ones that are starred will be
moved into a temporary?
Councilman Boyt: I would amend with those with the numbers that I added.
Mayor C oriel: Amend with what's existing for each of those districts as Bill
has indicated.
Councilman Workman: We have kennels in R-4?
Councilman Boyt: Group homes is probably a problem?
Councilman Johnson: By state law I think. 1
Roger Knutson: State law refers to group homes, certain categories, as being
conditional uses, not interim uses but this is just a first reading and we'll
get back to you on that.
Councilman Boyt: As far as the kennels.
Mayor Chmiel: Private kennels under that R-4 was one of the ones that.
Councilman Boyt: It's not a conditional use and I'm saying that's almost
perfect for interim conditional use because if we grant it, we sure don't want
to grandfather it in forever.
Councilman Johnson: Do you realize that 3 cats requires a private kennel? '
Councilman Boyt: So does 3 dogs.
Councilman Johnson: I most admit when my 3 dogs were alive.
Mayor C v iel: You didn't have one did you? '
Councilman Johnson: No. I had 3 house dogs.
Mayor Chtiel: Okay, with those specific amendments to what's existing for the
first reading. Do I have a motion?
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment regarding revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the review
and granting of conditional use permits for uses that are temporary in nature in
all districts, first reading, as staff presented with the following additions: '
A-1 - 1, 4
A-2 - 1, 13
R-4 - 2, 3
R-8 - 2
R-12 - 3, 4
IOP - 1, 6 ,
69 1
' City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: Do we want to amend to skip to the one that everybody's
sitting here for?
Mayor Cmiel: Yes, I think we will.
' PROVISION OF SEWER SERVICE/POTENTIAL ANNEXATION FOR SUBDIVISION PROPOSED ON
CHANHASSEN/VICTORIA BORDER, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
' Paul Krauss: Staff has been contacted by the City Planner from Victoria and by
the proposed developer concerning a piece of ground that's located mostly in
Victoria but partially in Chanhassen. The proposal is to subdivide the property
into I believe 8 lots. They would need to get both access and utilities from
Chanhassen. It's not physically accessible from Victoria. The old railway line
separates it frocr, the rest of the community and utilities in Victoria are
located some distance away. In viewing this, we felt that the reasonable way of
' approaching this was to take it before you and ask you for your direction. When
we at a staff level looked at this, the first thing that occurred to us is
should we look at annexation. We could provide services. The City Engineer has
told us we have the utilities up in that area. We haven't had any engineering
work done. We could provide access. The street needs to be upgraded somewhat
to serve it but given the lay of the land over there, the annexation question is
one that we felt we need to get your feedback on. So tonight we're seeking your
direction on how to proceed with this and we will get back to the developer and
property owners are here tonight and the City of Victoria.
'
Mayor Cviiel: Okay. Just as a real quick one, I would suggest that as far as
we're concerned, recommend that that subdivision not be allowed to occur unless
the remaining portion of the parcel is annexed into the City of Chanhassen. At
' least that's my feeling.
Councilman Boyt: I would second that.
Councilman Johnson: In the existing subdivision, there are 5, 6, 7, 8 and part
of Lot 2 even. That's kind of odd. Is there a hone on 8?
' Paul Krauss: I think 8's undeveloped. 7 has a have.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe if we could. Have someone just address it if you would.
David Hensing: My name is David Hensing. I'm a consulting engineer. I'd like
to present Mr. Ladd Delowich and his wife. They are the owners of residence.
They live in Chanhassen. The property is split. The property east of this line
' is Chanhassen. The property west of this line is Victoria. What we've done is
we've laid out a subdivision using Chanhassen's ordinances with wetland setbacks
and lot sizes just to see how it would fit. There's been a couple of different
' sketches that we've worked with Paul. The one you have I think is a little bit
different. We were going to put all of the property in Chanhassen in one lot
but what we have now is 6 new lots and the existing have would be on this lot.
If you're familiar with Pipewood Curve off of TH 7, right near the Cross
of Glory Lutheran Church, this comes in and then their's is the large white
70
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 '
house with the white columns. Mr. Delowich originally contacted me. Wanted to _
proceed with his plat through Victoria and we had another sketch, as a matter of
fact we would have more lots and less wetland setbacks, etc. but in visiting
with your staff it was indicated that we should abide by your ordinances...so '
we're eager to proceed. We're excited about the project and seek your guidance.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. '
Councilman Johnson: Do the owners care whether they're in Victoria or
Chanhassen?
David Hensing: Only to the point that the requirements in Victoria are a little
less restrictive and it yeilds one more lot.
Mr. Delowich: I'm not even really so terribly interested in the extra lot.
Fine, but what it does and if we had the other drawing we could point it out, is
it moves that whole drive further away from my house. Therefore closer to...on
the wetland. That would be the major advantage in being able to go... If we do
it, the best of both worlds for us would be able to do it under the Victoria
guidelines but let Chanhassen annex. That would be the best of both worlds.
Don Ashworth: They're going to have to petition for it.
Mayor air,iel: You would have to petition basically for this. You would have to
do the petition for this for the annexation. You're aware of that?
Councilman Johnson: What about the MUSA line? Our MUSA line basically I think
stops out here doesn't it? Our MUSA line cannot extend into the city of
Victoria. How's the Met Council going to allow us to, we'd have to amend the
MUSA line also I would assure.
Mr. Delowich: We are within the Victoria MUSA line.
Paul Krauss: It's all served area. It's not our corporate limits but it's
Victoria's. I don't know how they view that but it's all served.
Councilman Johnson: So it's served by the Victoria MUSA line which would go
into the same pipe as what we're putting it in anyway so it all plops together.
So there's no net change in MUSA line for the area? Okay.
Mayor C tr,iel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded that the subdivision for Mr. and
Mrs. Delowich not be allowed to occur unless the remaining portion of the parcel
is annexed into the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to, you know it's going to make an odd little '
triangle of Victoria also.
Councilman Boyt: There's only one way they can do it. '
Councilman Workman: We are a frugal community.
I
71
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
,Mayor Chmiel: That's basically what it is. That's what it boils down to. That
was my motion to annex into the City of Chanhassen.
CONSIDER EXTENDED CONTRACT TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES TO THE CITIES OF
SHORREWOOD, GREENWOOD, EXCELSIOR, TONKA BAY AND VICTORIA.
Don Ashworth: Jim will not be present this evening. If I can give the report.
' Mayor Chmiel: I certainly hope so.
Don Ashworth: You have the report from Jim Chaffee. I should note that I have
a manager's ccvment. I'd asked for a formula to be developed by the finance
I department. I firmly believe in that formula as a means to ensure that we do
not create a system whereby private business would not be competing with us. I
was asked though to relook at some of the numbers in terms of how realistic is
II it if a private business were to carry out this function. Would they logically
be paying $10.00 per hour for animal services and I guess in further review, I
would respond to that question by saying no. I think that anyone going into
this type of business, historically it's shown that they have hired people at
I the very end of this, very low end of the schedule and accordingly, even if you
used $8.00 per hour and used the formula, you're still at $20.00 to $22.00 per
hour. The short and long of it is that I firmly believe that at $22.00 an hour,
I the City will be fully reimbursed. I do have a real concern that the contract
not be looked at as a long term type of contract and I say that thinking about
future building needs. Our people and recognizing that this type of a function
' could actually limit our own ability to stay in this building.
Councilman Johnson: 2 years. I mean why 3 years? 3 years seems kind of long.
The objective is to get back to where there is another service. We used to have
Ia Tri-cities Animal Service and that one died.
Councilman Boyt: I think we're talking about vehicle as a driving force here.
11 Purchasing a vehicle.
Mayor Chmiel: There was one that was paid off in the 3 years, you're right.
I Yeah, that was the position. And I think too, what Don just said is I don't
think we want to be in a long term portion but I think that if it's not going to
cost anything and we can assist our adjacent cities with what we have, I think
it would be a good thing for us to do.
ICouncilman Johnson: It basically gets us a little extra coverage for free.
I Councilman Workman: So now we've got free animal service. We've got a free
community center. We've got a free, I don't know, we've got free everything.
II Councilman Boyt: I would move approval of the animal contract as stated in the
staff report for $22.00.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: I guess I would question the $.96 an hour for
adminstrative time for Scott at 1 hour a week. I also question the secretarial
' 72
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
I tlme althoug h tha t might be a little e closet to the time spe nt but an $1.00 an II
hour?
Councilman Boyt: No. You've got to take 20 tines that. They're saying that
these people are contracting for 20 hours a week so what does that break out to
in a per hour charge? So the secretarial time would be $10.00 an hour. I
Councilwoman Dimler: But we're not saying then that they're going to spend 1
hour and 2 hours a week.
Councilman Boyt: Well no. I think that's what they are saying and I think
you're right to say well, is that really accurate or not. Maybe Zydowsky does a
lot of this work without turning it over to Scott and Carol. 1
Councilman Johnson: A majority of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Or a good share of it. 1
Councilman Boyt: I worked with Don today from 3 different angles on how do we
get reasonable cost for this thing and we kept coming up with $22.00. So
personally I'm pretty comfortable that that's accurate.
Councilwoman Dimler: Have we got a time limit? It will be 3 years you're
saying?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Within a 3 year period I think.
Councilwoman Dimler: But what incentive are we giving the to look for private?
Mayor ChT,iel: The incentive we're giving them is at the end of 3 years we no
longer will provide the service.
Councilwoman Dimler: But what incentive are we giving them to look in the
meantime to shorten it up?
Mayor Ci iel: Well, if they don't have anything, then they never thought of it.
I think they have to do that on their initiative to see what they can acquire
for themselves.
Councilman Johnson: I've seen what? Like 3 different of these services fail in II
the last 5 or 10 years. There's a big one that Minneapolis had that failed and
really caused a problem up there. I think a lot of suburbs, the Txi-City one
here fell apart. I can't rementez what the third one was but there was another
commercial one. It's a service that may be able to be provided by the private
sector. Maybe better provided by the public sector.
Councilwoman Dimler: So that we can fail? Is that what you're saying? '
Councilman Johnson: Well same services, a private consulting firm is, you can't
do it because of your overhead and stuff. I
Councilwoman Disler: I still don't like our taxpayers having to maybe subsidize
this if... ,
73
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
' Mayor Chmiel: Right now we're not subsidizing.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right but if we go to that point and we've told them for 3
years and we get to a point where we are subsidizing them and we've got a 3 year
contract here, we can't very well pull out of it. I'm real uncomfortable with
1 that.
Councilman Boyt: No, it's open to, the price is open to negotiation every year.
We're not locking that in.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. That's what Jim indicated last time.
' Councilman Workman: What if these communities drop out?
Councilwoman Dialer: They have an option to drop out.
' Councilman Workman: What if they drop out in 6 months?
Councilman Johnson: We have to sell the car.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I have a real problem with another vehicle too.
' Councilman Boyt: One of the things that sells this outside of it's a nice thing
to do for our neighbors, is that we're giving, our citizens are getting much
better animal control service than they were getting 2 years ago. Probably
better than they were getting a year ago. We're taking somebody and we're
paying them more than a private vendor would pay in this area and we're giving
and getting better service. This contract allows us to keep that person full
time. That's a heck of a benefit to us as a community. We've now, $17.00
' wasn't covering our costs. $22.00 is probably covering our costs and in the
course of the next year we're going to know and if it isn't, then next year
we'll propose a higher amount.
Councilman Workman: Do we have detailed records of these animal pick-ups, etc.
Don?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Workman: Now extensive are they?
Don Ashworth: At issue though, if you're trying to get adminstrative costs,
which I really questioned in Jim's report. Secretarial and same of the others,
I don't think that we have good records because we really don't have, the
services isn't going, right?
Councilman Workman: I'm saying, I want to see records that show that we have
' such a serious animal problem in this town that we've got to add people for 40
hours a week. That's what I'm concerned about. I understand trying to blanket
every hour with both police and ambulance and animal control. The animal
' control is, it's rare for one person in a lifetime to have a serious animal
problem in their own yard.
Councilman Johnson: I picked up a dog this week.
74
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
Councilman Workman: I'm saying, I don't see the detailed records that show that II we've got such an animal control problem that we've got to extend this thing so
far out and wide and beyond for us to get really what I would say is a delivery
service. '
Mayor Chmiel: On the other hand you can look at it Tom, as the services that are
provided in the event that there are those dogs and you're saying what total
numbers are there will be taken care of without any problem as well. 1
Cbuncilwa*an Dialer: But in Chanhassen that would be anyway because we have the
service for ourselves. 1
Councilman Johnson: But we'll have more of it. We'll have 20 hours.
Mayor Chmiel: They'll have a better chance to contain then. '
Councilwoman Dinler: I never indicated that I thought we should make Zydowsky
and Deb Rand go part time as a result of rejecting this. We can find other
things for them to do. You understand what I'm saying?
Mayor Cr►iel: Yeah, but it's just providing another kind of service because of
the amount of driving that they're going to do, there's that additional exposure
that's being shown through the City as well.
Councilman Workman: But we don't know how many dog problems we have a week or a
month.
Councilman Boyt: Well we do. I don't have the numbers right with me but I get
then every month at Public Safety.
Phyllis Pope: My name is Phyllis Pope and I walk my dog on a leash nearly every
day. Probably 3 miles most days and I don't think that there's a time that I'm
out walking that I've not seen these dogs and I'd hate to see what it would be
at less service in Chanhassen. I think we've got good service now. People
respond fast and they're very courteous. '
Don Ashworth: To respond to the question though, my recollection of the 1990
budgetary process was one in which we were increasing the overall availability
of CSO's. Not necessarily increasing the amount of animal control for 1990.
We're looking at 20 hours per week for animal control. I did not recall that we
were increasing the CSO portion. We're moving fray, one full time position and a
half time position to two full time positions with the additional half being
picked up through these contracts.
Councilman Workman: So we're really gaining... '
Don Ashworth: We're not gaining anything. We're not really losing anything.
Councilman Boyt: We're gaining a body in that we've got somebody full time ,
which means we can probably hold onto then, better than trying to get then, when
1 they're working a thousand hours.
Councilman Johnson: If he's patrolling Greenwood and a dog complaint carves in
in Chanhassen, he's available to drive down here and pick it up. I had a dog
75
i
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
I complaint. I had 2 dogs running loose 2 weeks ago which I called the Carver
'County Sheriff on Sunday and we had nobody on patrol on Sunday so basically he
says, if you can go out and get those two dogs. One Airedale and a Laborador
I and contain than yourself, we'll cane get then. Otherwise they're running free.
I wasn't personally going to go out and try to capture this Airedale and
Laborador that I didn't know. The one dog I did know.
ICouncilman Workman: And I don't suggest you do. I'm just saying, what
community that doesn't have a police force seriously has 24 hour a day coverage.
Not us and not a lot of communities. I'm just saying it's a very expensive
1 deal.
Councilman Johnson: We're not proposing 24 hours a day.
IICouncilman Workman: I know and I would never propose that a loose dog isn't a
problem at any given time of the day. I'm just saying, we're going to always
II have loose dogs. People are going to let their dogs off. People who own the
dogs let their dogs run free. Again, we can't fix every problem but I just
don't see the gain in us extending ourselves beyond the border so far. I'm not
saying reduce and get rid of animal control. I'm just saying the gain that
II we're getting to get a 4 wheel drive pick-up or vehicle, to do the other
communities isn't really I don't think advantageous to the City. But why don't
we take a vote.
IIDon Ashworth: I do have a response to that one question if I may.
Mayor Chmiel: What's the answer.
1 Don Ashworth: The question was, what happens if they drop out. They can't.
They've got to take and pay you. If they drop out, they're still obligated to
Ipay unless you let then off the hook. That's paragraph 14.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to provide animal control
services on a contractual basis to the cities of Greenwood, Shorewood,
Excelsior, Victoria and Tonka Bay for a period of 3 years. Councilman Boyt,
Councilman Johnson and Mayor Chmiel voted in favor and Councilman WorkRand and
IICouncilwoman Dimler voted in opposition. The motion carried with a 3 to 2 vote.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you care to give your reasons or you already stated them.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: Well I pretty much stated them but if we want to get
extra, get Bob Zydowsky full time we can do it without having this contract.
Also, if you want another vehicle we can do it without this contract. I just
I think it's...
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, it will just cost our citizens to do it.
IIMayor Chmiel: I don't think it's going to cost us those amount of dollars. If
I did, I think I would vote the opposite way. Believe me.
76
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUIRING CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ON SINGLE II
FAMILY HOMES, FIRST READING.
Don Ashworth: Again, this is an it presented by Jim. The inspectors feel
that we do not have a means by which to issue a certificate of occupancy for
single family homes and are recommending that we pass a local ordinance that
basically would allow us to do that. It's basically enacting a portion of State
Statute but there has to be a local ordinance in effect to be able to do that.
Cbuncilwoman Dimler: I have two questions. Can the party close without this
Certificate of Occupancy? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Can they close on the house?
Councilwoman Dialer: Yes. '
Mayor Chmiel: They cannot occupy the house but they can close on it as far as I
understand. Is that right Roger? ,
Roger Knutson: That's right.
Councilwoman Dimler: In other words you're saying they can close and then we '
can deny the Certificate of Occupancy for one reason or another and there they
sit?
Roger Knutson: Normally what's happening. If it's a spec house, it's normally
completed before someone or the Certificate of Occupany is already issued. If
it's a custom house, then you already have the construction financing in place
for your CO.
Mayor Chmiel: Certificate of Occupancy basically means that everything is in
compliance with the regulations of the Building Code. That they are in
compliance and that they can then occupy it.
Paul Krauss: Typically they're going to want their Certificate of Occupancy '
before they close on the home because the mortgage company won't allow you to
have the mortgage without the CO in hand...
Cbuncilwo an Dimler: Okay. That's what I was getting at. '
Roger Knutson: Now in construction financing.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and the other question is, is it only new
construction or also on resale of a home?
Roger Knutson: No, just new.
•
Paul Krauss: It's not a departure. It's been going on all along. '
Mayor Chmiel: Many cities have this already in place.
Councilman Johnson: I thought we were always doing this. '
Paul Krauss: Vb are.
77
' City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
1 '
Councilman Johnson: We've been issuing Certificates of Occupancy but we just
didn't have an ordinance.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first
reading of an Ordinance Amendment requiring Certificates of Occupany on single
family homes. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCILMAN PRESENTATIONS:
' PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGULATING CIGARETTE SALES, COUNCILMAN JOHNSON.
Councilman Johnson: I think real quickly, we've gone over this at a previous
' meeting but the City Attorney's looked at this and found that we could make this
a requirement. I've looked at a couple of our convenience stores that sell
cigarettes here in town. Brooke's would have very little trouble implementing
this and neither would Kenny's as far as those two that I've looked at this
II week.
Mayor Q iel: Did you discuss that with them at all by any chance?
Councilman Johnson: I discussed it with the manager of Brooke's slightly and
she didn't see much of a problem with it either. I asked her to get same
' figures for me on how, if she could, and also the corporate Brooke's people, I
asked them for some figures and neither of which got back to me with them and I
didn't follow up so it's partially my fault too. But on thefts of tobacco in
stores. They run a monthly inventory of every Brooke's store once a month. I
did find out that the shoplifting has gotten high in the past few months at our
local Brooke's store but she didn't know what it was to tobacco items. But
they're one, well Brooke's and Kenny's where they keep their cigar materials is
totally uncontrolled. It cannot be seen by the people operating the stores. If
somebody's in the Kenny's deli, they can observe the tobacco areas but the
people behind the cash register cannot. It is not visible to them. Same with
II Brooke's. A slight rearrangement of that and they can be done. Putting up soem
plastic around the displays of cigarettes that they have the counters, some
clear lexan around it makes it to where only the person behind the counter can
reach in and get it.
ICouncilman Boyt: We need to put this on a future agenda, is that it?
' Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I would so move.
IICouncilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to place a proposed
ordinance regulating cigarette sales on a future agenda. All voted in favor and
Ithe motion carried.
Mayor Ci iel: One item that I had was regarding the police contract. Some
proposed amendments. I find that if there were sane additional amendments that
1 78
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
were placed onto the contract addendum which was agreed that Chanhassen shall I
have the ability to seek removal of any deputy assigned to serve the community
(a) for just cause, (b) in accordance with the Union contract presently in
effect, and (c) consultation with the Sheriff on his designee. The Sheriff
responded that they cannot comply with those which I can understand because I
think this is something that we discussed previously. The thing I don't
understand is why this was not brought back to Council to discuss before an
addendua was even added. I think it's a full Council's decision and not just
one replier of the Council to move this.
Councilman Johnson: The full Council but not necessarily this Council did ,
request that at one tine.
Mawr Chmiel: Not to my knowledge. ,
Councilman Johnson: I believe we have haven't we? I'm not sure if it was this
Council or the previous Council.
Councilman Workman: And it cage up now?
Councilman Johnson: Basically it was supposed to have been in last year's
contract. It was suppose to have been brought up.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Bill, would you like to clarify it? I
Councilman Boyt: Well sure. In an attempt to take the police contract issue
out of the newspaper, I met with Al Wallin about I guess 4 months ago or so. We
talked about two points. We talked about the survey of surrounding communities
and we talked about the police contract. The two of us were basically trying to
find a common ground that we could work through. He said that he would be open
to a letter of understanding about the contract and so then I went to Jim
Chaffee and I said, Al has proposed this as a way in which we can resolve the
differences that I was having and I asked Mr. Chaffee to pursue it feeling that
he was a better person to pursue it then I. There was, I think everyone got the
letter in response and if I had known you were going to get the letter, I would
have certainly have informed you. What I was under the impression was happening
was that we were finding out what was possible. From, there, it certainly would
have cone back to the Council. I have no ability to enter into an agreement
with the Sheriff officially. Only the Council can do that. I'm aware of that.
On the other hand, we were doing nothing but making headlines in the newspaper
trying to discuss this as a Council. Didn't crake sense to re to try to do that.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's where it should be.
Councilman Boyt: Well I suspect it will be again. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Fbr public input yeah. It should be.
Mawr Chmiel: But hasn't this been brought up before? Because he's bringing up ,
the same issues in here. Contract that's currently in effect was the same thing
that they had with Chaska.
Councilman Boyt: Actually, if we go back and look at the initial discussion
this year on the contract. One of the reasons that I didn't discuss it in more
79
i
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
•
II .detail was because that was my understanding. That the County had said there's
no flexibility. When I met with Al, he said well let's look at a letter of
understanding. Well it's taken all these months to now get his response and say
II well we're not going to do that. What I find interesting about this Don, since
you bring it up, is that they're saying on the one hand we're doing this, but we
won't agree to do it. I just find that ironic.
Councilman Workman: What are we going to do?
' Councilman Boyt: We already have the right, even as general as the contract is
stated, we already have the right to request something be done with the
officers. Just the Sheriff has the final word on whether anything will or not.
This letter of understanding says nothing different. The Sheriff has already
' agreed that his deputies will be informed about the City ordinances. That's all
we're asking him to do in this letter of understanding.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's what he's saying. Every effort will be made to
assign deputies familiar with your ordinances. However, there may be times when
it would be practically impossible to do so. Inclusion of this line in the
I contract could negatively impact your police coverage.
Councilman Boyt: And I have a call into Al. I didn't get this until you got it
and I have a call in to find out more about what he means here. But my intent
I was not to circumvent the Council and still isn't. It's simply to get some kind
of working document before we discuss it in public.
Councilman Workman: I guess with this addendum, I think just about every Carver
County Deputy has had a problem in this City and is probably has been run out of
this. There's an awful lot of then. That either don't want to work here or
have been told they can't work here. I mean there's been nothing but problems.
ICouncilman Johnson: One that I know of.
I Councilman Workman: You don't know about a dozen of then but the current ones
that are here are under stress. Ask then. I mean it's unbelieveable. I don't
think our Public Safety's gotten along with any deputy that's come through this
city. Whether that's because of the Council or the Public Safety Department, I
' don't know.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess we addressed the question that I had. Let's move
IIon to the next one if we can.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I have a request to be taken off the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals. I have accepted a position on the Board of Battered Women's
Alliance and they meet the same day as the Council late in the afternoon and
getting here at 7:00 could be a conflict and be very difficult for me. In
Iplace, because I don't want to shun my public duty, I request to be appointed to
the Public Safety Omission to replace Candy Takkunen. That's the first item.
The second item is the Park and Rec Commission. It has been brought to my
I attention that there was an advertising in the paper just prior to Christmas for
Park and Rec people to apply to the Commission. To my knowledge there have been
no other applicants at this time. I just want to make a comment that I think
' that maybe having it just prior to Christmas is not fair representation and I
80
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1990 ,
•
think that we should notify the public again. Also, call all previous II
applicants and let theta know that these openings are available.
Councilman Johnson: Doesn't the Public Safety Commission meeting at the same
time as the Bus Commission which you're on?
Councilman Boyt: It meets on this Thursday. 1
Councilman Johnson: So it meets the second Thursday?
Councilwoman Dimler: We meet on the 25th of January with the bus.
Councilman Johnson: I think we meet on the fourth Thursday then. So Public
Safety's on the second Thursday. Okay. It used to be a conflict.
Councilwoman Limier: ND, it's not anymore I don't believe.
Councilman Johnson: When I first got on it was a conflict. Okay. So it's not
a conflict anymore.
Councilman Workman: Are we going to handle how Council's going to be situated
on Commissions?
Councilman Johnson: Those appointments are going to be caning up in future ,
Council meetings.
►
Councilwoman Dirler: Is this the time? ,
Mayor Chmiel: This is just discussionary...
I
UPDATE ON SENIOR STUDY AND DISCUSSION OF SELECTION FOR TASK FORCE, PLANNING
DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: As you're aware, we've entered into a contract with Judy Marshik
and Associates to conduct a Senior needs study. She's going to be in attendance
at your next meeting to give you an overview of how the study's going to be
conducted and get your feedback on that. One of the things we've done though is
you might recall her contract specified us designating a task force to work with
her on the study. Is discussed it with the Mayor and at his request I had
articles, short articles put in the newspaper to try and solicit some interest
on this task force. I got 3 people to respond and I've got their names here
tonight. We need about 6 or so. 6 or 7 to have a good cross section of opinion
and what I'm asking is for the Council to take the information I have here and
through your contacts figure out who you'd like to have serve on this commission
and have their names for Judy at the next meeting if we could.
Councilman Johnson: Is St. HUbert's pretty active in seniors? I was
thinking...
Mayor C oriel: Any of the churches. Any discussion on this? I notice there was
one which was number 3, Joan Link from Shakopee resident. I mentioned that to
► Paul that I don't think we want someone fraa outside the confines of this city
81 1
\
IICity Council Meeting - January 8, 1990
II
and that hopefully we can get enough people from within the City to serve on
this.
ICouncilman Johnson: She's part of the Scott/Dakota/Carver County community
action.
IIPaul Krauss: But so was the previous woman and she is a Chanhassen resident.
I Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20
a.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
ICity Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1 82
I1
I/ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
'JANUARY 3, 1990
IIChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
ICOMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson,
Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
IIPlanner; and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planning Intern
IIPUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 3. 2 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 2. 08
AND .79 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED BETWEEN PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
IIAND LOTUS LAKE, 365 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, ROBERT SATHRE.
Public Present:
IName Address
Alan & Carol Lenhart 6575 Pleasant View Way
IIStuart Hoarn 6745 Amherst
Robert Sathre 365 Pleasant View
John Danielson 6607 Horseshoe Curve
11 Ron Harvieux 6605 Horseshoe Curve
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report.
IIConrad: You didn't go through the recommendation. Basically staff has a
recommendation of 8 points here. Maybe we' ll cover those later . Quick
I question before we open it up for comments. The outlet that' s recommended,
and I 'm asking this because I think we' re all going to have the same
comments on that. What rights does that outlot have Paul? As a 15 foot
wide, 200 foot strip, what rights does that give somebody?
IKrauss: Virtually none. It's not large enough to be a recreational
beachlot so there' s no dockage priviledges that are attached to it. It' s
I really an anomaly that the lot we're working with tonight had a very
strange configuration which is essentially a tail of right-of-way that was
draped onto it. It really had no purpose. When we looked at the plat, we
I tried to determine whether or not we should accept dedication of all of it
and then vacate it again because we had no need for that outlot area. That
tail of right-of-way up to that outlot serves a purpose. It' s either
right-of-way that would be attached to Pleasant View Road and used for that
IIor attached to Horseshoe Curve but that area that' s outlined in red has no
public purpose at all and it would be severed from the main parcel by this
action. By our taking the right-of-way that we do need. In talking to the
1 property owner , they wish to maintain ownership of it simply because it
gives them, they would be the buyer of Lot 2. It gives them the right to
walk down to the lake on their property. They may want to launch a canoe
from there. Really nothing else and nothing else could be done. In order
IIto insure that it's not significantly disturbed as a condition of approval
1
II• Planning Commission Meeting
-January 3, 1990 - Page 2
U ,,
that limit tree cutting on the outlot and would require grading permit
Iapproval . So really the fundamental uses of it are very minimal .
Conrad : We' ll open it up for public comments. Bob, would you like to have
I the floor and talk about this or would you like to react to the staff
report in any way?
IBob Sathre: I guess it is what it is at this point.
Conrad: Have you read the staff report and you' re comfortable with what
they said?
11 Bob Sathre: Yes I have.
IConrad: Comfortable?
Bob Sathre: Yes .
IIConrad: Other comments .
Ron Harvieux : My name is Ron Harvieux. I live at 6605 Horseshoe Curve
Iwhich is the, I think it' s called the exception lot there. It' s the lot
directly to the east , northeast of that red outlot . Yep, that' s it. Thank
you. I+guess my comments have to do primarily with it. The rest of Lot 2,
1 up on Horseshoe Curve is not at issue with me and quite frankly I 'm not
sure what issue I have with the area outlined in red. I feel problemed
because only today did I find out about the fact that part of this
subdivision included that red line. I may be mistaken but the notification
II we received for the December 6th Planning Commission which was, I guess
this issue was not discussed then, but I believe the notification that I
received only outlined the area at the top. That is Lot 2 and there was no
1 outlot mentioned or if there was, I must admit I misread or misconstrued .
In fact it wasn' t until today that my wife up at City Hall got a packet of
paper that outlined the fact that outlot red is going to be involved. I
I have some concerns because I believe the passageway, the access to outlot
red, I 'm not a lawyer but I 'd sure like to talk to one because I 'm
concerned about some issues here. I believe the passageway to that outlot
red goes over what I think is my driveway. Not my driveway. A driveway
II that I use to get to my home. I'm not sure what the legal issues are and
what happens if someone trapsing down to Outlot red, I mean I just don' t
know. I don' t know what ' s there. Right about in there is part I think of
I the driveway that services and then from there, does that touch Horseshoe
Curve right there?
Krauss : Yes it does . Well actually right now it goes over this lot . I 'm
IInot sure how your driveway exists right now.
Ron Harvieux : I'm very unsure how it exists on that map. That' s one of my
IIissues .
Krauss : Right now your driveway crosses a tail of this property to get to
the public right-of-way. What we' re doing by this action is we' re going of
II
take title to this whole section of public right-of-way. Call it Horseshoe
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 3
Curve so then you will have direct frontage on a public street which you
don' t appear to have at this time.
Ron Harvieux: I guess that appears to be the case. One of my, and
again I don' t know if this is exactly the forum to get an answer or not but II
I' ll ask the question. One of the issues is that what is the legal status
then of the driveway that currently I and my neighbor share as of this
proposal? What is it? '
Krauss: You would have a driveway located in public right-of-way which is
permissible.
Ron Harvieux: And who'd responsible for any upkeep or any kind of. . .
Krauss: You are. I
Ron Harvieux: So I am responsible for someone from Lot 2 going to the
public lake access and red outlot over that driveway? '
Krauss : Your driveway, which is now constructed over private property,
would become located in public right-of-way. Anybody in the public has the
right to use that right-of-way for access. Presumeably if they wanted to •
take a canoe down to the lake, they would come down the public section
of Horseshoe Curve and then make a trail or something down through the
woods to get down to the lake. 1
Ron Harvieux : I understand what you' re saying. I guess I still would
surely like to have someone clarify it for me. I 'm not trying to challenge
what you're saying. I 'd just like to have clarification as to what that
means to me legally. If I 'm responsible for shoveling that driveway off. I
mean I just don' t know. I don' t know what' s going to happen on that piece.
This is kind of a new deal for me today so I guess what I 'm really here to II
do is I 'd like to ask the Planning Commission to allow me the opportunity
to take the packet of information which now exists and seems pretty clear I
guess but I just kind of tried to start consuming it. I don' t know if I 've II
done that very adequately right now as evidenced by this right here and I 'd II
like to have the chance to look at it and share it with someone who can
tell me where my rights are because I am concern about what happens to that I
driveway. This is kind of a different cut of cloth from what I thought was
going to happen here. So those are my comments.
Emmings: Can I just ask a quick question? Talking about shoveling the
driveway and maintenance and things, who' s doing it now?
Ron Harvieux : I or the fella sitting here.
Emmings: So if you continue to do it, nothing would change it sounds like.
Ron Harvieux: The only thing that would change would be who' s passing over II
it and what my legal , yeah. That's right. I wouldn' t do anything
differently I don' t think. I 'd just like to know what ' s involved for me.
I also just really would like to have, just kind of in general, time to
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 4
.1 .
II react to what I ' ve seen here because it certainly does impact a part of the
ambience if you will of. . .
Conrad : Thanks . Any other comments?
IIJohn Danielson: My name is John Danielson. I live at 6607 Horseshoe
Curve. I'm on the other side of the parcel that we' re talking about and
Ilike Ron Harvieux, I didn't know until 6: 00 tonight that this meeting was
even going to happen. I haven' t had time to review anything. I don' t even
have a copy of it yet. I was loaned a copy at 6: 00 and one of the
II questions that I did have as I read that was that the property appears to
be able to be further subdivided. Now what kind of useage would that place
on that strip, the access strip to the lake, how many parcels could the
land be subdivided? Is it more than 1 or 2?
IKrauss : Well let' s take it one at a time. Both of the lots are
theoretically large enough to be subdivided. The City requires 15, 000
I square foot lots . Lot 2, which is the smaller one, is 33 ,000 square feet.
Depending upon where they put the home, if they put a home as illustrated
right smack in the middle of a lot, it would not be possible to subdivide
it. Lot 1 is quite a bit larger with 90,000 square feet and is
IItheoretically also further subdivisible. However , a lot of the square
footage is in that arm that extends out to the street and is occupied by
the driveway. We think they can get some additional lots out of there but
I they' re not proposing it at this time. Also, those lots would take
variances under current statutes because they probably would not have
frontage on a public right-of-way and it would be up to the City Council to
II approve that to technically speaking , those lots are not going to be,
probably are not going to be subdivisible without variances .
John Danielson: But it could be, it sounds like. . .up to 6 or so lots?
II I 've known Bob as a neighbor for years and I certainly don't want to
restrict. It ' s his property. He owns it. What I 'm primarily concerned
about is how much activity there will be next to me. You indicated minimal
IIuseage with a canoe perhaps . One canoe, nobody can complain about one
canoe or a sailboat moored out there. Six, you know that' s a different
story. How about swimming rafts? Floats? Things like that. We see the
' lake and it' s population density now. We see the number of boats that are
on it already. I 'm concerned about safety and I 'm concerned about my own
privacy. We've had the luxury of having that strip for years separating
our properties and in the summer you can' t even see one another . It' s
' beautiful. We'd like to keep it like that. I guess my message is that I
also would like some time to think about this if it' s possible. I don' t
know. You know 6:00 until 7:00 or 7:15 wasn't adequate. How was the
IImeeting publicized?
Krauss : There was a mailed notice that went out for the original meeting
and I believe we probably, Jo Ann, did we renotify for the delay? Did you
IIget a mailed notice from us? It should be on the mailing list.
John Danielson: Not this week. We got one back a month or so ago roughly
I and we were told that that meeting had been tabled or whatever and we
haven't heard anything about it since then.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
-
January 3, 1990 - Page 5
Olsen: We usually will send out another hearing. . . 1
John Danielson: Did you get a notice Ron?
Ron Harvieux: I don' t think I did. . . Was the first meeting or the first
thought different from this one?
Krauss : No. What was different though is , the meeting notice that was
sent out was sent out based upon the County half section map. Plat maps
that we use. The plat maps that we used, the half section maps don' t show
that finger of property. That finger of property showed up on the actual
survey that was submitted to us. It was always part of the same lot. It' s II
all one tax parcel . It just didn' t show up on our map.
Ron Harvieux : I guess for me, that' s a dramatic difference. I have no '
problem at all with Lot 2. It' s the red thing potentially could have an
issue with. ,
John Danielson: It' s just that finger , yeah. I think it concerns us both.
Conrad: Thanks. Any other comments? I
Ellson moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I
Erhart : I think I'm starting to understand this . I probably got more out
of the conversation than I did by trying to read the history. It' s a tough
one. Let me ask you this. On Pleasant View or next to the zed , what' s now 11
termed the red outlot, where you have called Baldur Avenue. What is that
today? Is that an easement?
Krauss : Actually there' s an existing platted right-of-way called Baldur
Avenue that' s 15 feet wide. What purpose it had and why it dead ended in
the lake I couldn' t tell you because we can' t figure it out. This tail of
land from this tax parcel was evidentally intended to be dedicated for
right-of-way down to the lake. We don' t believe we need that right-of-way
for any public purpose and therefore couldn't see the point in accepting
dedication of it or requiring dedication of it. In fact, the other 15 feet II
of Baldur Avenue could be vacated if we got a request from somebody to do
so.
Erhart: Well for the benefit of everybody. Okay. So we still have, I
that's a street easement or a right-of-way?
Krauss: It' s a right-of-way. I
Erhart: So by making Outlot A, we' re only actually doing half of what you
think, half of what we' re attempting to do. I
Krauss : We' re not compounding the problem, right. As I say, we could
vacate the blue side of it as well if we received a request to do so.
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
-January 3, 1990 - Page 6
II
II Erhart: You cannot think of any possible reason why we'd want to have a 30
foot right-of-way right down to the lake edge?
Krauss: No . What we have along the lake here is we have a sanitary sewer
I that Sharmin discussed which runs through here and we have a pump station
that' s someplace in that area .
I Erhart: So part of the conditions is that they provide an easement over
Lot 1 and Baldur Avenue?
Krauss : Right .
11 Erhart: Can you show that one on the map Paul?
II John Danielson: What you' re looking at there is a ravine, kind of a swale.
It' s on a fairly steep hillside and it' s a natural place where the water
typically runs off down to the lake.
IIKrauss : The sanitary sewer that was installed runs along the lakeshore
through here so while we' re willing to accept the outlot status on Outlot
A, we want to take an easement over something like that to protect our
II rights to have that sanitary sewer in there. The other easement we' re
talking about is some time ago when this lift station was installed , this
easement that was drawn up over the driveway that exists on the property to
II allow our maintenance crews to get down there and that is in fact how
they've been serving this property since it was first put in. We know the
easement was drafted. We' re not sure that the easement was ever filed and
what we' re trying to do tonight is just basically rectify that error in the
past and put it in concrete .
Erhart: Alright. So there' s no reason to get access through Baldur Avenue
IIor Outlot A to the. . .
Krauss : No. In fact it' s heavily treed and it would be pretty disruptive
Ifor us to go down that way.
Batzli : Paul , doesn' t the report say that the westerly half of Baldur
Avenue was already vacated? Just to clarify that.
IIKrauss : It was? We did vacate that?
11 John Danielson: I read that in the report. I question that also. I don' t
really know what that means.
IEmmings: Unless you've got it vacated, it must be yours now.
John Danielson: 15 years ago I did apply with the City to have it vacated
and at the time they were unsure as to what their future plans were for it
IIand they denied my request.
Krauss : Sharmin said she found a document that was supportive of the
II vacation but it still shows up on the plat map so evidentally it wasn' t
filed.
II
Planning Commission Meeting ''
January 3, 1990 - Page 7
. li
Ellson: It' s like a housecleaning job here.
IIBatzli: Stuff not being filed.
Emmings: If the west half wasn' t vacated, how could anybody own the east
half? That's what I don't understand. Things are getting kind of loose II
here but I don' t understand how someone could own the east half if the west
half wasn't vacated. I
Krauss: The east half was always private property. It was never dedicated
to the City.
Erhart: The east half was owned by this guy. II
Emmings: So the east half never was right-of-way? I
Krauss : No.
Emmings: Only the west half? I
Krauss : Right. They accepted the dedication of a half street. Yeah, very
unusual. I 've never seen anything like it. II
Erhart: I was beginning to feel self-conscience that I was the only guy
having a hard time understanding this. Okay, I think I 've got that now.
II
Emmings: But then it doesn' t make sense to talk about as the west half
because it's just Baldur Avenue.
Erhart: Regarding directions, I have another problem on condition 1. It
seems where we use the term easterly edge of Lot 2, what I think you mean
there, isn' t it better described as northerly edge? I
Krauss: Northerly.
Erhart: Well , or how about northeasterly corner or something? 1
Emitings: It can't be east.
Batzli : It' s north/northeasterly. II
Erhart: Driveway access easement over Lot 1, Block 1, that' s the one we
thought we had but we're now going to try to catch it. It' s over an II
existing driveway. Is that clear?
Krauss : The surveyor, Attachment 1, the surveyor gave us a description of
where the existing easement was supposed to be. We don't have a
transparency of it but if you look through your packet, you' ll find that in
there. I
Erhart: We're talking, in item 4, we' re talking about a tree preservation
plan. Go on to say that clearcutting of trees of 4 inch caliper or larger II
shall be prohibited. I guess my question is not referring to this
II
11 Planning Commission Meeting
-January 3, 1990 - Page 8
( -
particular subdivision but I guess over the last couple of years we keep
I treading on trying to prohibit subdevelopers from clearcutting without
trying to invade on people' s rights to use their property and remove trees
if that' s what they want to do. Now we have a situation where essentially
II we have one lot. We' re not directing this at, are we directing this at a
subdeveloper or are we directing it at the fellow who owns this lot?
II Krauss: It' s directed at whomever would build on it and own it, yes.
We've had similar stipulations attached to individual lots and larger
subdivisions. I think Trapper ' s Pass was one, just to the northeast of
here has several of those lots .
IIOlsen: The shoreland lots.
IKrauss : That' s true, it is a shoreland lot as well .
Erhart: What, this one is?
IIOlsen : . . .under the Shoreland Ordinance prohibits clearcutting. . .
Erhart: You' re saying that there' s a State law.
IIOlsen: That clearcutting within the shoreland . . .
I Erhart: How many feet is that? 1,000 feet. Okay. I guess I don' t have a
problem with it here. I think we keep adding things. Now we' re adding to
be marked by snowfence. I 'm concerned on this whole tree, as much as I
like trees as much as anybody. I 'm concerned as a group we' re treading
II ever so closely to telling somebody if they can plant or cut a tree on
their property. Just as a thought. Again, we go down on 8. I guess I 'm
more comfortable with that one because that's right next to the lake.
IIThat' s all the questions I had.
Emmings: I 've still got some confusions about this. I'd like to ask, at
I the top of page 3 in the discussion in our packet it says that the
applicant wishes to retain ownership to provide means of accessing the
lakeshore and that' s what they want the Outlot A for. So do I understand
that the owner of Lot 2 will own Outlot A?
IIKrauss: Yes.
II Emmings: Okay. Then it says the property using the driveway for access
can be subdivided in the future. Now I think you' re there talking about
this gentleman's property back here. The one that' s right next to Outlot
A, is that right? And it says in order to prevent these lots from being
Ilandlocked, how would that happen? I don' t understand that.
Krauss: Keep in mind that this very unusually configured lot actually
I comes down like this right now. As we read the survey, this parcel has no
frontage on a public right-of-way. It' s actually a landlocked parcel right
now. By our taking the dedication of this segment of street and adding it
IIto Horseshoe Curve right-of-way.
r
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 9
Emmings: You've giving him frontage? I
Krauss: Right.
Emmings: Okay. And the bottom of that same page, in your table there. II
Under lot depth there's just a misprint under Lot 2 is that right?
Krauss: Yeah. 11
Em,mings: Is that supposed to be 289? Just so I 'm reading it right. Is
that what was intended there? We' re talking about the depth of that Lot 2. II
Okay. And is the reason that under Lot 2 under the next three columns that
it's not applicable is because there' s been no plan for a house right now
or what?
Krauss : That' s right . What' s shown on there is schematic and the home
could be anywhere.
Emmings: On the recommendations it says the driveway access to Lot 2 would il
be located to the fax easterly edge of Lot 2 and I thought that was what
Tim was getting at. I don' t understand that at all . I
Al-Jaff: The site is heavily wooded so you really don' t get very well
visibility and with the way the street curves, you don' t see any cars
coming. If we shift the driveway further to the north, then it would allow II
better visibility.
Emmings: It says to the east the way I read it. I
Erhart: We just changed it.
Emmings: Oh, did you already change that? II
Al-Jaff: Yes.
IIEmmings: Oh fine. Alright. I missed that. Sorry everybody. Let' s see,
easements required. Reflect the existing sanitary sewer and then (b)
easement (b) there. Driveway access easement over Lot 1, Block 1. That' s II
in favor of the City is that right?
Krauss : Correct.
Emmings: I think it should say that. Now I want to talk about Outlot A
and Baldur Avenue. Contrary to what's in the report where we have a Baldur
Avenue with an east and west half, do I understand now that you' re telling II
us that Baldur Avenue is only what we've been talking about as the west
half?
Krauss : Only the west half exists.
Emmings: And how far does it go from the lake?
Krauss: It goes up to Horseshoe Curve. II
II
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
"January 3, 1990 - Page 10
I
IIEmmings: And ends? Okay. Then condition 6 doesn' t make sense . To me it
says the final plat will reflect the dedication of Baldur Avenue and that' s
wrong . Am I right?
1 Al-Jaff: Except for the 220.
IEmmings: No, that 220 feet is not Baldur Avenue.
Krauss: Steve, I think the confusion to some extent comes about from the
II survey we received where the surveyor labeled the outlot Baldur Avenue
assuming that we would accept it or take it as right-of-way and make the
complete 30 foot right-of-way. You're right. You' re correct. It is not
Baldur Avenue that we' re taking there. It' s a portion of the site. Of Lot
II 2.
Emmings: Well , it' s not. I can' t tell that from looking , at least I can' t
II tell that from looking at the plat because it would appear to me, it' s
being designated as an outlot which means it' s not part of Lot 1 or part of
Lot 2. It' s an outlot.
1 Krauss : That would be the case in the future, right. If you would refer
to flip back to Attachment A.
1 Erhart : I think the confusion here is the term Horseshoe Curve isn' t it?
Emmings: Well , that's also a confusion. That's a separate confusion. Now
II wait a minute . Let' s all get on the same page.
Ellson: Attachment 1?
II Krauss : Attachment 1. I'm sorry. On Attachment 1 you see the existing
property and along Pleasant View, the property is platted out to the center
line of Pleasant View. You' ll see, if you extend that on around, there' s a
1 tail to that lot that goes all the way down to the lake, adjacent to Baldur
Avenue , around that offsteep ladled property. By our taking the right-of-
way that we feel we need for Pleasant View and for Horseshoe, that will
II become a free standing parcel . It will no longer have any frontage or any
connection to the balance of the site. Hence the outlot designation.
Emmings: I don' t have any problem with that and I 'm not trying to quibble
II with you. I want to make sure that if we' re going to put some conditions
on this thing, first of all I think the subdivision is fine. I 've got no
problem with that. I want to make sure that we' re not creating any
I confusions by using language that seemed to be right given the information
we were given in this report and it turns out to be all wrong. Let' s go
back to Outlot A.
IKrauss : Possibly it would be better if we measured it, instead of
measuring it from the north, which is what' s done here and it' s confusing,
if we measured the outlot from the lakeshore going to the north.
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 11
Emmings: Why do you have to measure it at all? It' s on the plat as Outlot
A. Why not just call it Outlot A? Why don' t we just s you've got to
take out that first sentence in 6. say,
Batzli : I 'm sorry, why don't we just take out 6? 1
Emmings: 6 has to be rewritten.
Batzli : What does it have to be in there for? It' s on the plat.
Krauss: I could clarify, yeah. We got the survey that shows Outlot A last
week after the staff report was written. That' s why there' s the confusion. II
Emmings: Okay. So 6 has to be striken. Alright.
Krauss : And replaced with Outlot A. No, it doesn' t have to be replaced .
Emmings: I think that we should, I noticed I read our By-laws . I do this 11
annually before this first meeting in the year . I didn' t have a lot to do
today so I read the By-laws. It says we can leave the record open for
written comments if we choose or I don' t know. I can' t remember if it' s at
your discretion or whatever but maybe that would fit the bill for these
gentlemen who would live on either side of this Outlot A. If we could
leave the record open for written comments. If they had a couple of weeks
to get in their comments and then those could go with whatever we do with
this to the City Council so at least you get a chance to speak their peace.
Conrad : We've never done that. It' s in the By-laws?
Emmings: Yes. The only other thought I had was that I just wonder if
there should be some restrictions in this subdivision approval to make it
perfectly clear to anybody who owns Outlot A that they don't have a
launching pad for docks. Swimming docks . Don' t have a place to put canoe
racks or anything else. I think it' s clear that under our present
ordinances none would ever be allowed but if it' s right in there, I think
it's a good idea to put there explicitedly.
Batzli : Why wouldn' t it be allowed in our current ordinance if the
homeowner of Lot 2 wanted to lauch his canoe from his outlot?
Emmings: I 'd have to go through this. I've looked at this in the past on
other ones. I think you can' t have an accessory use. You know all of
those things are accessory uses. I think this is the way it goes and Paul
probably can correct me if I 'm wrong. You can have an accessory use on a
,parcel without there being a principle use so since you can never build a
house on there, you could only have those things as accessory to the
principle use of a residence. Since you can' t have a residence, you can' t
have the accessory uses.
Wildermuth: Or it has to 4 ualify as a beachlot.
Emmings: Unless it can be a beachlot. I
I
II
.Planning Commission Meeting
IIJanuary 3, 1990 - Page 12
II Batzli : So you' re saying that he can' t have a raft, well he might be able
to have a raft depending on something else, but he can' t have a dock and he
can' t have, store his canoe there but he would be able to walk over the
iproperty and launch his canoe?
Emmings: Yeah.
IIConrad : Anything else Steve?
Emmings: No.
IIConrad : Annette.
IIEllson : I' ll try to be brief after those two.
Emmings: Well , pardon me.
II Ellson: Just giving you a hard time. I shared John Danielson' s concern
about the subdividing the other lots. In the analysis you talked about Lot
1 could be split but the staff is in the process of developing ordinance
IIrevisions that' s going to clarify the issue. Can you expound on that?
Krauss : Sure. Since the fall we' ve had a number of situations where neck
lot situations have been approved. Variances have been given but there was
no clear direction on how to handle these things. We've also had some
situations, not so recently that I can recall , but where we've used private
driveways to access properties that might otherwise be unaccessible. Each
II time we said that what we'd like to do is come back to you with a set of
policies and recommended ordinance changes that will provide some guidance
for dealing with these things. Probably what we will be suggesting are
I standards by which variances could be authorized for neck lot and no
frontage situations. So as we pointed out, right now this requires a
variance to be approved. In the future it either may not require a
variance or it may have standards that if these lots meet, that a variance
II could be authorized . But at this point that would be a recommendation from
us to you. It can always be denied.
I Ellson: I guess I was just a little concerned because of so many are going
through and I think our loopholes that it has to be a hardship, I 'm
concerned that it easily would be one and something like this where there' s
II only one major access and all of a sudden we' re clustering in the way we
want.
Krauss : One of the points of confusion is the subdivision ordinance allows
11 up to 4 homes to be served off a private driveway. The RSF district
doesn' t allow any.
II Bob Sathre: We would accept the condition where the lots would not be
further subdivided.
II Ellson: I don' t know if we can even do that legally. Can we? Not if we
allow 15,000 square feet and stuff. It'd be nice to control but we' re not
allowed to do that I don' t think. But okay, so that' s part of what you' re
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 13
. II
talking about. Just the ordinance. Overall ordinance revisions. More of 11
a rule of thumb as to, it seems funny that you'd say okay now a variance is
going to be allowed when the whole idea is not to allow them. That was one
question. I already asked my other question. I never heard the phrase
paper street and I was a little concerned that someday someone actually
could put a street through that steep thing again for a boat launch or
whatever but I seem to be consoled that that' s not a problem. I agree with
Steve that we should make it a point in the documents wherever possible
that they're not going to be able to have a dock there and things like
that. There' s many a person who comes here and says when they bought this
land they were allowed to do what have you and if we not only have it in
our ordinances but also have it with that piece of property, there won't be 11
any mistaking that. Nothing further .
Batzli : Two questions. One is after I said let' s delete number 6. The
question I have, Steve you probably know the answer to this. Even though
it' s shown on the plat, do you normally say something in the conditions
that right-of-way for instance for streets and such are going to be
dedicated to the City or recorded or anything like that?
Ellson: In favor of the City?
Emmings: We can' t delete 6 and I realized that after but what we have to 11
do is we have to have, it seems to me there has to be a thing in there that
the plat will show, we still have to get this piece from this line down to
here dedicated to the City and 6 has to say that.
Batzli : So you' re working on that?
Emmings: Yeah. They've got to call for the legal description for that
piece and get it in there under number 6.
Batzli : The other question I had is just number 4. The tree preservation II
plan. I didn't hear if that was somehow changed by Tim but the question
is, can you get a grading permit before you get a building permit?
Krauss: Yes, if a condition exists that says that you can. Our grading ,
probably another , every time we scratch at this we get another issue but
the grading ordinance is one that the City Engineer is working with
Planning to revise as well . We have put this kind of a condition on
several recent approvals to require a grading permit.
Batzli : That was my question was should it be a building and/or grading , 11
whichever comes first kind of a deal .
Krauss : That would be fine. That would be acceptable. I
Batzli: Those were the only two questions I had.
Wildermuth: The subdivision looks appropriate. I don' t like, it just 11
seems that Outlot A is unfinished business. It seems as though Outlot A
should be taken by the City and then vacated in favor of the adjacent
property owners.
1
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
'January 3, 1990 - Page 14
U
IIEmmings: You've got to pay for it.
Wildermuth: It just looks untidy.
IIConrad : The City would have to buy it.
Wildermuth: Right. Because they don' t have a planned use for it.
Conrad : Right.
IIWildermuth: No intention to put a street in.
Conrad: Anything else?
Wildermiuth: No. That' s it.
Conrad : Joan, haven' t really said anything to you tonight but welcome to
the Planning Commission.
Ahrens : Thank you.
IIConrad : And I ' ll let you have a crack at this one.
IAhrens: The questions I had concerned Baldur Avenue also and they have
been raised already. I had problems with Baldur Avenue I guess in general .
Conrad: Okay. Structure wise, the only thing that bothers me in the whole
II thing is number 8 or the red outlot or however we term it. That just seems
real unusual and not really a purpose for anything other than some, it' s
there and we have to deal with it. Could the owner of that put a deck or
IIstairway in Paul? Isn' t there a setback from lots for a stairway or deck?
Wildermuth : They could put a path in.
IIKrauss: I ' ll defer that to the expert.
Conrad : To the one in the stands. Okay, Jo Ann. Tell me what can happen
IIon this parcel? I 'm intrigued.
Olsen: Decks and . . .or something like that, that would be an accessory
IIstructure. That wouldn' t be permitted. A stairway.
Conrad : No setbacks on stairways. It' s pretty rough territory. It is a
drainage easement so to fill it, what would have to happen? Can they fill
IIit? To fill it, grade it, do we have something in here saying that you
can' t really tamper with it unless, well tree removal plan. Grading
approval plan . Planning Director . Because it' s a drainageway, I suppose
I engineers can get it by anything can' t they. So thereotically it could be
cleared of everything other than 4 inch diameter trees. Could be leveled.
Water could be piped. Drainage could be piped down. Basically filled.
IIOlsen: . . .permit from the DNR to get a sandblanket.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 15
. I/
Conrad: Some of that is okay. They could do that. ,
Ellson: So do you like Jim' s idea of the City buying it or you' re just
questioning it? I
Conrad: No. I 'm not wild about that. I believe two things should happen.
One, I think the neighbors, whether through their own fault or through ours II
or whatever , really should have an opportunity to get some advice on this
one or to study it. For whatever reason being given, there was no signal
or flags thrown up based on the data that they got and in terms of this one
parcel that we' re playing with and I think they should have an opportunity
to look at it which means we have an opportunity to table the action for
their further review or to just, as Steve mentioned, we could leave the
record open and they could, it sure appears to me this is the only issue on
this particular subdivision. They possibly could get that input in time
for City Council review. My only comment I think is , if I were to word a
motion on this one, it would really deal with number 8 and basically state
that there would be no significant alteration to that outlot.
Batzli : You mean that recording against the property, that they can' t
change the. . .
Conrad : Basically. That would give the new owner , whoever , the right to
use it but not the right to change the character. ,
Stuart Hoarn: I 'm Stuart Hoarn and I am contemplating purchase of Lot 2
and the only reason for it would be to access or go down to. . . I suppose
the alternative is Robert could withdraw the application for the
subdivision and fence the whole thing. That would create even bigger
problems so I think there's a balance of interests of the various property
owners that I think would. . .
Conrad : Keep going . We create bad recommendations unless . . .
Stuart Hoarn: We have no ideas about putting in a stairway, viaducts .
None of that .
Conrad : And you're promising you' re going to live there forever . ,
Stuart Hoarn: No. I think it would be a good idea to put in there that if
there are alterations there, if it' s not legal for us to say that we don' t II
want to. . .subdivide either Lot 2 or Lot 1, I guess we can' t do that but I
think that' s something, we would allow a deed restriction or something.
Whatever was needed. There has to be someway that the two lots could
agree, two owners could agree that it would not be resubdivided. It' s
really an unpractical thing because of the terrain and to have a city
easement running right through the middle or the edge of the house could . . .
to resubdivide it further. It wasn' t my intention.
Conrad: Okay. Any other comments?
Ellson: Did you rewrite that one? I
I
1 Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 16
II .
tEmmings: Which one?
Batzli : Number 6.
II Emmings: Yeah.
IIEllson : Just wondering if you needed more time.
Batzli : Are you looking for a motion Ladd?
Conrad : Not yet. I 'm thinking . This is think time Brian and wasting
everybody elses time. Yeah, looking for a motion. Hopefully somebody can
deal with that parcel . Hopefully somebody can deal with providing the
II neighbors a chance to get some input in and some legal advice on this . I
would hope we could incorporate that into a motion.
1 Emmings: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision #89-20 as shown on the plat dated November 6, 1989.
Batzli : I think it' s December 29th.
Emmings: The plat dated December 29, 1989 and subject to the following
conditions. Number 1 would be altered so it says, easterly will be changed
I to northerly edge. 2 (b) will be altered, simply add that the access is in
the favor of the City of Chanhassen. Number 4 will be altered in the
second line to say that the tree preservation plan must be submitted prior
I to issuance of a building and/or grading permit. There is no number 5 so
we've got to change the numbering so we don' t have gaps. What was 6 will
now be 5 and that will now say that the final plat shall reflect the
dedication of a parcel legally described as, and I 'm going to leave that
blank. What I 'm intending here is that the staff come up with a legal
description of a parcel that' s defined by the northeasterly extension of
the south line of Lot 2 across this way on the north and on the south it
IIwould be the north line of Outlot A.
Krauss: While we' re talking about dedication of right-of-way, we also need
to ensure that we get the dedication of the Pleasant View Road right-of-
way.
Emmings: Isn' t that already on here? That' s the next one.
IIBatzli: Shall show it but I think the applicant should also be required to
dedicate it.
11 Emmings: Okay, so what was 7 here will now be number 6 and it will say
that the final plat will show the width of Pleasant View Road and that
II shall be dedicated as right-of-way so that will be altered to show that
that's also dedicated as right-of-way. Down at number 8 will now become
number 7 and it will say the following . The owner of Outlot A will not be
permitted to grade or otherwise alter Outlot A in any way without
II permission of the City. The owner of Outlot A will not be allowed any
dock, swimming raft, boat moorings or other accessory uses on Outlot A
1/
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 17
. II
other than using it as a means of access by foot to the lakeshore. I don ' t I
mean to exclude him carrying a boat down there. How can we say that? I
don' t like that . Let' s go back. I'm going to start over with that. Let' s
just say, the first sentence is okay, that there' s no grading or other
alteration of the property with a permit from the City.
Batzli : Are you striking the part about the tree removal?
Emmings: No, I 'm going to put that on the end . I'm going to start out
this way. And then let' s put down that they' re not permitted any docks,
swimming raft or boat moorings and then go to the language that was under 11 number 8. The part about the trees. Just leave it as is. Then finally,
the record, how long will it take for this to get to City Council? January
22nd?
Olsen: Yes.
Emmings: That' s almost 3 weeks so that the record will be kept open for
written comments from property owners that might be affected by this and
they should have their written comments into Planning Staff within 2 weeks
so they have time to get it into the packet to the City Council .
Batzli : I'll second it.
Conrad: Discussion. I
Batzli : Steve, do you mean to have any of your language from new number 7
recorded against Outlot A since really what you' re probably or people would
be most concerned about is if a new owner purchases it and isn' t aware of
these conditions.
Emmings: Yeah, I think it should be recorded against the property. I 'd
add that.
Batzli : I would accept that. I
Conrad : Basically you have not taken away any rights that previously
existed for this parcel. Was your intent just to clarify what their rights
or lack of rights were but you have not further restricted in your motion.
Emmings: It's as close as I can get without their having just a little
time to kind of stating what the ordinances say anyway. I don' t think I
we're taking away anything. I don't like Outlot A. I don't think it ought
to be there. I think it ought to be part of this gentleman' s property over
here but I'm not willing to go so far as to put that in as a condition of
allowing a plat . I think that' s going too far .
Conrad: In your motion for number 7 you basically, the wording that you
used to me said that they can alter only after the City, the Planning
Director has seen what they want to do so your motion, based on the words
I heard you say, you said the outlot can be altered only after it is
approved by the Planning Director . I
I
II
,Planning Commission Meeting
IIJanuary 3, 1990 - Page 18
I Emmings: I don' t know. I said unless he gets a permit from the City or
permission from the City.
II Conrad : Which is saying exactly what staff said to begin with. You
haven' t changed the use. You've clarified the use of that. You have
basically gone along with city staff.
IIEmmings: Yes .
Conrad: Any other discussion?
1 Wildermuth: I have one question for the adjacent property owners to Outlot
A. Is there any interest in pursuing some kind of legal way to obtain
11 Outlot A?
Ron Harvieux : I can' t say never . I think 3 or 4 years ago we discussed a
II trade off of land because this has always looked like a blight and I think
we kind of got somewhere but I 'm not sure we stopped I believe because the
City seemed to want us to plat the land which looked like it would be more
expensive from what was going on at that time. At least that' s what I took
11 away than we wanted to occur so we dropped that. Since that time, I might
be misstating it. I don' t know if it' s 3 or 4 years ago but it' s some time
in the past. Since that time until now I didn' t know that that was back on
I the issue and I would be very willing to reopen those kinds of discussions .
We were talking equal land trade-off. At least that was the concept then.
I'd be certainly willing to reopen that discussion. Just haven' t had time
to do it because frankly. . .didn' t know that Outlot A was part of what was
IInow going on tonight.
John Danielson: From my point of view, I 'd be more than happy to try and
IIhave the remainder of the other half of Baldur Avenue.
Conrad : John, you' re so generous I can' t believe it.
II John Danielson: I tried 15 years ago without success and I just kind of
gave up but it' s a nice natural piece and I 'd like to keep it that way and
if it were available, I 'd be more than willing to put that in writing that
IIit will be left in it' s natural state.
Ron Harvieux: If I might just add if I could, this may or may not be the
II place but I have no problem. . .the lake access issue is an important one I'm
sure to him. I 'm not sure that with a trade-off of land from my easterly
boundary, I just don' t know. We talked several years ago, maybe Bob could
see a way to allow access right down that driveway which already exists. A
I clear cut straight ahead driveway to the shore. If lake access is really
important, I 'm not so sure it can' t occur totally within Lot 1. I just
don' t know. I guess again, it certainly looks like. . .trying to run it over
IIwhat we' re talking about now. I 'd sure like to discuss it.
Conrad: Any other discussions?
11
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 19
Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #89-20 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989 II
and subject to the following conditions :
1. The driveway access to Lot 2 shall be located to the far northerly edge II
of Lot 2. Notice of the location shall be placed in the Chain-of-Title
of the lot.
2. Easements required :
a. Reflect the existing sanitary sewer easement over Lot 1 and Baldur II
Avenue.
b. Driveway access easement over Lot 1, Block 1 in favor of the City
of Chanhassen.
3. Park and trail dedication fees will be required in lieu of park land
dedication. 1
4. A tree preservation plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a
building and/or grading permit. The plan should illustrate how the
driveway and house placement and construction will minimize tree loss .
The plan must be approved by staff. Preservation areas shall be
adequately marked by snow fence prior to construction to avoid damage.
Clear cutting of trees of 4 inch caliper or larger shall be prohibited.
5. The final plat shall reflect the dedication of a parcel legally
described as follows: I
6. The final P lat shall show the width of Pleasant View Road from the
center of the existing road to the Lot 1 and Lot 2 front property lines
as 33 feet. 1
7. A stipulation shall be recorded against the property that the owner of
Outlot A will not be permitted to grade or otherwise alter Outlot A in II
any way without permission from the City and will not be allowed any
dock, swimming raft, or boat moorings on Outlot A.
8. Any tree on Outlot A with a caliper of 4 inches or greater shall be 1
preserved. A tree removal plan shall be submitted prior to any
disturbance of the area along Baldur Avenue. A grading plan approved
by the Planning Director is required. I
9. The public record shall be kept open for 2 weeks to give the affected
property owners time to submit written comments before going to the
City Council .
All voted in favor except Conrad and Wildermuth who opposed and the motion II
carried with a vote of 5 to 2.
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
' January 3, 1990 - Page 20
Conrad: Jim, your reasons for your negative vote?
IIWildermuth: I don' t like the existence of Outlot A and I 'd like to give
the adjacent property owners as well as the adjacent property owners
II to Outlot A as well as the applicant for the subdivision an opportunity to
either work out some kind of a land swap or some kind of an arrangement .
IConrad: I basically agree with Jim' s comments because I think it' s a real
strange parcel but I 'd also, even if it does exist in the end , I 'd prefer
to have the wording on it's use to be as restrictive as possible and I
didn' t notice that the motion for item 7 really provided that restriction
I and maintained the character of that particular outlot. This will go ahead
though to City Council . Would be up there what? Did we say the 22nd of
January? We left the record open for comments so the neighbors can make
I their comments and get them in for City Council review. I thank you all
for coming in. Thanks very much.
I PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A PORTION OF LOT 31, MURRAY HILL AND LOT 1,
BLOCK 1, PLEASANT HILL ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON MURRY HILL
IIROAD, JUST SOUTH OF MELODY HILL ROAD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Public Present:
IName Address
Gilbert Kriedberg 6444 Murray Hill Road
II
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the
Ipublic hearing to order.
Gilbert Kreidberg : I am Block 1, Lot 1. I'm the one with a vested
I interest. In fact. . .that trail access to the tower. Part of that process
is the acquisition of that portion of. . .and make sure that the activity is
staying per agreement . . . I think it's probably pretty straight forward. . .
so unless you have any questions. I guess the engineers don' t come to
II these meetings.
Conrad: They do occasionally but not usually. Okay, any other public
icomments?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
IIfavor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad : Joan at your end . Any comments?
IIAhrens: I have no comments about this.
II Wildermuth: Where is the fence going to go? There' s some elusion to a
fence here with a gate.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
•
January 3, 1990 - Page 21
Gilbert Kreidberg: Yes, that will go across the roadway there or the 1
pathway going back to the tower. What it will do, it will provide
pedestrian access but preclude vehicle access with a locked gate to it. . .
we had problems with snowmobiles running through there at speeds well in
excess. . .kids playing out there and going back and forth to the school .
It's designed as a safety factor and part of the neighborhood. . .
Wildermuth: So the City is going to construct the fence? ,
Gilbert Kreidberg: . . .and that is part of all of this thing.
Wildermuth: And the area is so wooded that they can' t get around the fence II
readily? Is that the idea?
Gilbert Kreidberg : Yes . They would on, at that point they would be going I
on private property and both of them will be fenced off so that will be the
access. . .The City I guess wanted to service the tower from the easterly
side even though they've been servicing it for 15-16 years from the
westerly side. . .
Wildermuth: Sounds good to me. I'm impressed that somebody' s willing to
pay that kind of money for that.
Gilbert Kreidberg : You' re telling me. . .
Batzli : Two questions. One was, if I understand it, you' re going to build
a fence along the easement?
Gilbert Kreidberg: Yes . That is correct.
Batzli : Is that in the purchase agreement as well? I
Gilbert Kreidberg: The City has requested that I build a fence on what
would be the northern border of the easement over . . .fence it up 10 feet and
the yard directly behind my house is all wooded. . . The City property,
while it is wooded , it' s not particularly heavily wooded in the area that
I 'm going to be acquiring. It' s pretty much open with some trees along. . .
and mostly between the property line. . . I
Batzli: Is there any reason Paul or anyone else to put a requirement
regarding cutting down of trees or anything else in this parcel? I
Krauss: Mr. Batzli , I 'm really not certain as to whether we need anything.
We didn' t give it any consideration. This has been in discussion with so
much activity between the property owner and the City Council that we
basically just process the subdivision at this point. There was no intent
to build on the property. There may be some use, recreational use of the
property at some point in the future, some facility like that. If you'd
feel more comfortable with some sort of a tree preservation element.
Batzli : Well it' s just interesting because there' s a no building clause on I
it already so they can' t ever build on it so what would you ever use it for
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
.January 3 , 1990 - Page 22
1 .
except as a backyard?
IGilbert Kreidberg: Maybe I could put a pool in.
II Wildermuth: Right. I wouldn' t want to preclude him putting a swimming
pool back in.
Gilbert Kreidberg : Yeah, that' s really what it is . The big trees, the
I last thing I want to do is take them down unless they die. There' s a lot
of little trees . The City has let this thing go for 16 or 17 years. I
mean it' s a mess. There' s all kinds of dead foliage on it. There' s junk
I all over . If I hadn' t done this , they sure would have had to clean it up.
There' s a whole lot of little trees planted in bunches that had no sense to
protect the trees . . . The one thing I might do is clean that up so
11 along survives because that' s all there is. The real big trees are
along the part for which the easement would involved. . .
Batzli : Would you object to having the City review if you were to make a
IIplan of what you were going to do with cleaning it up?
Gilbert Kreidberg: I think it makes it kind of cumbersome on me because
I what I 'm going to do to clean up, pick up all the junk that' s there and the
dead trees and weed out some of the garbage that's there. I would never
cut a trees that' s probably more than 2 inch spread but you know some
places you have to clean up because, I mean you don' t have a picture of it
I but along the northerly portion there' s parts where there' s like maybe 40
trees with 20 feet of width and 10 feet of length. I mean they' re just all
bunched together . In order for those to survive, some of those have to be
Icleaned up.
Batzli : No, I 'm familiar with the area. I know what it looks like and
II I imagine that you' re going to be going in there and cutting down some
trees is my only point .
Gilbert Kreidberg : Oh, just little stuff. I'm not going to take anything
II down that stands taller than I am except for where they' re so bunched
together .
I Batzli : Well I don' t know. I' ll see if anybody else jumps on the band
wagon.
II Ellson: I thought this was a happy ending . I think it' s nice to see that
we got what we wanted as the City out of it and usually we get
neighborhoods that say don' t do anything there yet they don' t want to go
and get the property to do anything else with it and I 'm really pleased to
IIsee this guy' s taking it upon himself to make it a better looking place.
Gilbert Kreidberg: I think it will be a lot nicer when I 'm done.
IIEllson: And I agree. I think it would too after I looked at it. I was
confused on what you wanted number 3 to be.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
-
January 3, 1990 - Page 23 II
Al-Jaff: That there would be no further subdivision in the future and no
new residences would be built.
Elison: Okay. I got the subdivision part but I wasn' t sure about, okay.
I don' t have anything else.
Emmings: I think it' s, like Annette says, it's just a good thing for
everybody. As far as Brian' s concerned about the trees, I like Tim am not
happy about imposing much on individual landowners on a deal like this. I 'm
more concerned when we have a developer coming in on a larger area to worry
about protecting the trees . I think what' s appropriate to do it in the II last one because the land that you were doing it on was closer to the lake
but I think of myself on my lot. If I want to cut down a tree, I don' t
want to go to the City to tell them I want to cut down a tree. I 've got 15 ,
or 20 oaks that are 100 feet tall and I don' t want to cut them down but by
God if I do want to cut them down, I 'm going to cut them down and I don' t
want any crap from the City about it.
Elison: We're trying to preserve our nature and natural beauty.
Batzli : This might be a little bit different because the owner of the lot 11
is going to go on there with the intention of cleaning it up and cutting
things down.
Emmings: I worry about people like the developers back here who came in
and showed us a nice plan and said how much he liked trees and then went
through with a bulldozer and just took everything down. That ' s the part
that scares me but anyhow, I think that should be left up to his discretion II
but I have a more important reservation about this. You have a son that
plays soccer .
Gilbert Kreidberg: I certainly do. i
Emmings: His name is Nathan isn' t that right? And when his team played my
son's team last summer, his team won didn' t it? I 'm opposed to this .
Unless I can have some guarantees about next summer . Okay, I'm interested.
Erhart: I have nothing additional to add other than I think it looks like
a reasonable subdivision and I think Steve pretty much his words reflected
my thoughts on tree removal things.
Conrad: I have nothing to add. I don' t feel the tree issue is an issue
that I am concerned with. Is there a motion?
Elison: I' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision Request #89-23 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989 and II
subject to the conditions listed here with one additional one that would
not allow further subdivision and no additional residences would be
allowed.
Erhart: I' ll second it.
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 30
I .
Ellson: I think we've summed them up fairly well . They've got the Minutes
IIalso.
Conrad : It' s nice to summarize.
IIEmmings: I think we all have, or at least some of us have kind of a queezy
feeling that this is probably improper in some way. It just doesn' t feel
I good .
Conrad : Are we concerned with the overall .
II Ellson: Ethics I guess behind it. It doesn't seem right to be able to do
that.
' Conrad : By expanding it to all tax exempt, does that make us more
uncomfortable than we were when we were simply dealing with churches?
Emmings: Just as uncomfortable, yeah.
IBatzli : I think last time at least I expressed that I was uncomfortable.
Whether it was for just churches or all tax exempt but given the choice of
two lesser evils, I would rather not just single out churches.
Conrad: Okay. Maybe we could try to summarize that. Make some kind of
sense out of it for the City Council .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, DIVISION 6, SITE PLAN
IIREVIEW TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE, EXPAND ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIRE
FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
IIPaul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
II Conrad: Okay, Tim I 'm going to start down at your end. We've got, it' s
changed a little bit from the last time we saw it. Do you have any
specifics?
I Erhart: I notice I didn' t have any comments from the last comments,
additions or involved in the last meeting. I probably won' t have a lot
this time. I do have one question on your item 4 there where you say
' non-agricultural metal buildings are prohibited in the ordinance. What
does that mean specifically Paul?
Krauss : Specifically the ordinance is intended to prohibit the development
II
of primarily metal buildings in all non-agricultural districts. For
example you can' t throw up a metal warehouse.
Erhart: I understand that but does that say that? Non-agricultural metal
buildings? Why don' t we just say metal buildings are prohibited in the
ordinance?
I
Planning Commission Meeting _
January 3, 1990 - Page 31
Krauss: It says metal buildings are prohibited in the ordinance and then
if you go up to the front, I don't find it as citation, on the first page
of the ordinance, well at the bottom of the first page of the ordinance,
Section 20-108, it says exceptions to the ordinance. On the following page
(d) , an exception to this ordinance, requirement for site plan review is
construction of buildings for agricultural uses on land zoned and utilized
for agricultural purposes. So a metal Butler building on an agricultural
piece of ground does not have to be reviewed and is acceptable. 1
Erhart: Okay. That is the understanding you have? Okay. That' s the only
thing I 've got Ladd.
Emmings: I don' t have anything.
Ellson: Nothing here. I
Batzli : I had a lot of questions last time. This time my question is
still the adminstrative approval . Section 20-113. My question is how that II
ties in with 20-108, Section (b) .
Krauss: Section 20-108, Section?
Batzli : B. 11
Krauss : Which is an exception. ,
Batzli : If there's an exception. My question is this , you' re saying you
don' t require site plan approval but yet really what, as the Director of
Planning would be giving them site plan approval but it would be an
adminstrative site plan approval wouldn't it?
Krauss : Right. But it wouldn' t apply to anything in Section 20-108. ,
Anything in Section 20-108 is exempted from all the requirements of the
site plan review ordinance.
Batzli : But you' re exempting , and maybe I 'm missing something here, you' re 1
exempting enlargement of a building at less than 10% of it' s gross floor
area which is what you say in the section of adminstrative approval but
really you need site plan approval. It's just that it can be
administrative site plan approval . Right?
Krauss: Right. I
Batzli : I 'm just wondering . . .everytime I think about it, it just doesn' t
seem to make sense. I
Krauss : It' s an exception from an exception.
Batzli : Yeah. I don't know that it should be an exception. It should be
an exception from the formal process but not of site plan approval is how,
my gut feeling but I don' t know that that's what it says.
Emmings: We could just eliminate it. I
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
- January 3, 1990 - Page 32
IIBatzli : I don't know but I don' t really want to do something kind of knee
jerk here at the meeting because I couldn' t figure it out and I didn' t want
to say let' s just strike it but I think that' s something you have to look
IIat before we pass it.
Krauss: I don' t know if it' s a solution yet. I 'd like to think about it
but it may be more appropriate to relocate that to Section 107 which is
approval required and make it a (d) under that and clarify that that' s an
administrative review.
1 Batzli : Yeah, you see I don' t know that you have to have it as an
exception or in 107. I 'm not sure. I think that if it' s required and you
can do it in accordance with your adminstrative approval section, that
II should be adequate. I don' t know that you have to accept it. I 've also
just got some words in here that I was going through and circling that you
may want to take a look at after we get everything said and done. They' re
just changing of wording from Section to Division and things like that that
' I kind of glossed over last time and I think we missed just one or two
here.
Conrad: Do you want to read them out now or .
Batzli : I ' ll give them to Paul . I don' t think they' re major deals.
IEmmings: He could change them on his own if it' s less than 10% of the
words.
IIBatzli : I think that last time when we talked about Section 113, we had a
philosophical problem as to what the authority of the Director of Planning
would be. At least Ladd and I did. And when we would ever see it and
' when we would know about it. I like the way you tried to handle it by,
rather than saying what your powers were, saying what they weren' t. I
thought that was a good way to try and handle it and I 'd be interested in
' hearing from Steve and Tim if they have a problem with the way he worded
it. I don' t know if you had a problem with it the first time but in any
event, that' s all I 've got to say about this.
IWildermuth: I don' t have a problem with that Section 113.
Ahrens: I have no comment.
IIConrad : I 've got comments on 113. It speaks to 10% of gross floor space
or area but it doesn't speak to the intent of what was, when we talk about
a site plan change, we' re really talking about something that was just
approved.
Krauss : Not necessarily. You could be talking, a tenant moves into a
II building. Tim purchased a building or expanded into it and maybe his needs
were somewhat different than the original owner and they need to make some
modifications. To house some new equipment they need to push out a
Ibuilding wall or something like that. Those kinds of things crop up quite
frequently.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 33
Conrad: Expanded parking space. Would that be one? 1
Krauss: That could be, sure.
Conrad: How about taking an impervious surface ratio up by 11%? 1
Krauss: To the point where it would create a variance?
Conrad: It' s still acceptable under the ordinance but it certainly was a
lot different' than what we originally saw but it still met the ordinance. 11 What would you do?
Krauss : I don' t know. I'd really have to say it' s a matter of degree. If
I felt it was really a departure from the intent of the approval as best as II
I can figure out what that was , I would bring it back.
Conrad: Okay, you just said the words and I didn't see them in there but 11 the intent is really where I 'm going . I don' t know, I think that has got
to be in here in terms of somehow saying you have authority. You've got to
look at what was originally intended to happen and make sure that if it' s
still meeting that original intent, then I think you should have that ,
approval . I think the 10% of the gross floor area, that ' s one aspect of
site plans and it misses a whole bunch of other ones so it only talks to me
about one thing. And it' s not bad but I guess rather than having you
detail all the, detail everything and limitations on everything, I think
we've got to get an intent statement in there in terms of significantly
altering the intent of what was originally proposed. My only other comment
on these things is there' s no way to monitor what you' re doing . Again,
don't interpret this as I don't want to get into what you' re doing. I
think this is really a valid, I like adminstrative approvals but I also
like our ability to monitor what those are so if we can see that you' re II going beyond what we'd like, there' s some way for us to review the process .
Maybe that's self policing, I don' t know. How do we find out what you've
approved without us?
Krauss: Well , Ladd as we discussed last time, I think to be timely in
responding to these things, I couldn't come back to you first and ask for
your approval typically but we would certainly be happy to give you a
periodic update and say this is what we've done on these. Is this meeting
your intent. If not, let us know and we can revise our position in the
future. We' re asked to make these decisions on a pretty daily basis. ,
Ellson: You were saying you're basically somewhat doing that now just to
save the time and you just would like to more legal and written in here and
stuff like that.
Krauss: That' s exactly the case.
Conrad: What do people want to do? I
Ellson: Let him do it.
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 34
1 _
Wildermuth: I think the Planning Director ' s got to have some adminstrative
' discretion.
Conrad: And what is that Jim?
11 Ellson: I like your idea about the intent. I think that you could look at
what we' re intending to do and if it looks like they' re adding more parking
space or impervious surface, even based on the ordinance and we know we
II were trying to save that big oak tree and that extra space is going to take
it down. I trust his judgment that he'd bring it back to us or something
that he feels is important. I think this kind of stuff is done regularly
' and I think we don' t need to be bothered with some of these other things.
Conrad: What if you were here when downtown was being proposed and for
some reason they decided that altering the City Hall . When we saw it it
II was perfectly square with the street and it never came back to us, and that
was not a site plan. I don' t know what the process was but it never came
back to us where the architect decided that it should be cocked at a little
1 bit of an angle. Had we seen that, it would not be the way it was today
but that' s the type of thing that can sneak through.
' Ellson: And Barbara let that go through?
Conrad: I 'm just posing the question.
IWildermuth: But I think if you try to. . .
Ellson: Be all things to all people you' re going to be here until midnight
' every night.
Wildermuth: If you try to control something like that or restrain
something like that, you're going to be so restrictive. As it turns out in
IIretrospect, the positioning of the old City Hall is probably about as it
should be. It probably looks much better than it would squared off as it
turns out.
IConrad: Well .
Wildermuth: But I agree. A lot of people complained about it at the time.
Conrad: It' s not one of my favorite things that has happened here. It
seems like a designer , I work with designers so I know what they like to do
I and on paper it may have looked alright but I 'm not convinced it was the
right thing to do. But that' s just a minor example. I guess Jim, you
basically don't want any kind of control on the process?
IEllson: It' s not saying you're not going to have any.
Wildermuth: I think we've got control here.
Conrad : Well how do you know? Out of sight, out of mind .
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 35
Wildermuth: It says minor site plan and building alterations which do not
involve a variance and which are not accompanied by other matters requiring I
consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council may be approved by
the Planning Department.
Ellson: We can get a list of what minor things have been done and if you I
feel it's getting out of hand.
Conrad: You' re comfortable?
Wildermuth: I would be comfortable with a periodic review.
Conrad: Well Steve, what do you care?
Wildermuth: I would be comfortable Ladd with a periodic review of
adminstrative approvals. I would be comfortable with that.
Conrad : Is anybody interested in that?
Ellson: You mean like it wouldn' t necessarily be our consent agenda or
something like that but just to get a feel . I think that would make you
feel better . '
Conrad : No, I 'm just raising an issue here and staff does do this all the
time and all they' re doing is putting what they' re doing everyday on paper .
Ellson: And I think they should.
Conrad : And I 'm just challenging what our role is so we know exactly what
we' re allowing them to do and what we' re not and how we want to monitor it.
And we haven' t in the past. Zippo.
Batzli : Interesting question is how much power can we delegate to the
City Planner .
Conrad : We can take it away. ,
Batzli : Well we can take it away but how much under a site plan review
type process can you give to the City Planner and not have it be a public
hearing or whatever is required or you know, that type of thing? I don' t
know. Paul?
Krauss : I don' t know what the real answer is but I know that there are
communities that have staff authorize virtually all site plans without any
public hearing at all . It' s just they do it adminstratively which we would II feel very uncomfortable with and wouldn' t recommend so clearly the spectrum
is way over .
Conrad : Tim, any comments? Well , I directed comments at you and you
didn't say anything.
Emmings: That' s because other people were talking and I 'm polite.
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 36
Conrad: This is a new role.
Ellson: He' s bucking for chairman.
' Conrad : And you can have it too. You've got my vote fella.
Emmings: I think it would be a good idea . I 'm comfortable with this . I
think it's important to get rid of some of this stuff on the adminstrative
side so that we don' t have it here and that' s what' s being done now. The
control there to me is that if Paul gets power crazed and starts putting
buildings in places where we haven' t seen them before, then we have other
II recourse I guess. The key to me is that as long as they don't involve a
variance, which it says and then if we added a clause right after that that
said, which are consistent with the intent of approval, and then finish the
I sentence, which are not accompanied by other matters that require it. I
think that' s enough because to me that does define minor change.
Batzli : So it' s up to his discretion as to what the intent was?
Emmings: Yeah it is. But you know, if you can' t trust the adminstrator
side of the city to do those things, what have you got them there for?
1 Batzli : I agree. I 'm just clarifying that you're allowing them to infer
what your intent was. It' s a statement. I 'm not questioning that they
can' t do that. I think they do a good job of that.
' guess:Emmin s I I 'm comfortable with what' s here and as far 9 ar as them
reporting to us, I get enough to read already. I think if they do
Isomething outlandish , it will come to our attention some way or other .
Batzli : But then it will be too late.
IEmmings: It' s going to be too late anyway.
Batzli : I know.
Conrad : Not if everytime they made a significant change, they notified us.
IEmmings: What does that mean?
Batzli : They'd have to notify Ladd .
IConrad : Yeah, they'd notify me at home. They could call me. No, they
could literally document the changes that they thought we would be
interested in. They thought.
' Emmings: Yeah, it's real nebulous.
1 Conrad: But they could let us know. So there' s a way to communicate
before it really gets done. There is a way to do it. I 'm not lobbying for
that but I 'm saying there is a way to do it.
1 Emmings: How?
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
January 3, 1990 - Page 37
. 1
Conrad : Every 2 weeks we see what site plan changes they have approved. 1
Batzli : Well , let's get a sense here. How many site plan changes are
there every 2 weeks? 1
Emmings: He just said he' s doing it on a daily basis .
Krauss: When things are going hot and heavy like in the fall when they
wanted to get a lot of certificates of occupancy done, there' s probably a
could a week. 2 or 3 a week.
Emmings: Oh well , that' s different than on a daily basis. ,
Ellson: Feels like it I 'm sure when you working on it.
Conrad: Tire, you don' t want us in this mess do you? You prefer to keep us
out of this I would assume.
Erhart: Yeah but I think there' s, help on 20-113. Are we talking about
adminstration approvals of a new site plan or are you also including?
Conrad : Everything. 1
Erhart : Are you also including in that paragraph any changes to those
things that haven' t been but have been approved?
Krauss: Both.
Conrad : Things that were approved 5 years ago.
Erhart: My feeling is that yeah, you have to trust your planner to do the 1
adminstrative things. However , in the real world when you get down to the
applicant versus the planner and in a discussion of whether he wants to
approve it or forcing it to go back to Planning Commission, things like
adding more than 10% actually is to the detriment of the planner because
then the applicant can come in and say, they can work it around so it
becomes 9.9% and then takes the argument that well, since the ordinance
says that you can do this because it' s only 9.9%, therefore you' re II
insulting me or something else. You' re just being a jerk if you go back to
the Planning Commission. I 'd rather see it used more in terms of intent of
the Planning Commission. Things like that because then it comes down to it 1
is truly left up to the judgment of the Planner whether the guy is changing
the intent of what Planning Commission approved or not.
Batzli : I like Steve' s suggested language and if you' re concerned about I
it, are you concerned that it looks like the adminstrator doesn' t have the
authority to take it back to the Council or the Planning Commission if in
fact it fits within those guidelines? Would you rather see at his option II
he can take it back even if he thinks it is within the intent?
Emmings: I think that's what it says .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 38
Erhart: I'm just saying , as soon as you put 10% in there, they' ll use
that.
Emmings: I don' t think they can. Paul can just say.
Ellson: It's his call .
Emmings: Yeah . It seems to me it would be very much in his hands whether
it comes back or not.
Conrad : Especially if we put the 3 new words in referring to intent of
what was originally stated. If that' s in there, then Paul has total
control to bounce it back or to handle it himself.
Erhart: The other thing is that, does it state, basically we don' t have
our architectural regulations or control . On the other hand , when someone
comes in here, let's say like this building of the hotel , essentially our
disapproval or approval is. as much based on our perception of the
architectural integrity as it is about the ordinances. Whether it passes
or meets or doesn' t meet and so is it clear or should we emphasize more
that any changes in the architectural intent of it should come back to
the Planning Commission? Again, I 'm not proposing that we bring all this
stuff back. I think the staff should be able to do these things. I 'm
trying to give them the ammunition to argue with the applicants and say
yeah, this has to go back and not just being a jerk.
Krauss : Well it says minor , it does talk about minor site and building
alterations and I think it gives us enough latitude to do just what we did
with the hotel and say that it' s still a hotel but it doesn' t look the way
it did when the Planning Commission approved it.
Erhart : So you' re talking about building size essentially. There' s
nothing that says anything about architectural alteration.
Wildermuth: I think that' s a good case in point for the hotel situation
where you exercised good discretion there.
Emmings: Why did it go to the City Council? That' s the part that I don' t
understand.
Krauss : Well it went to the City Council initially because we were under
the gun. They wanted to break ground before the first of the year for
their financing . It was one of those situations where they were probably
going to go to the City Council anyway if I didn' t get there first and one
of the things I stressed to the City Council is that the appropriate way to
handle this is to send it back to the Planning Commission and they agreed.
They told the developer look, if you want to push us any further, you've
got to go back through the hoops.
Emmings: I thought it was fine that you did. I was just wondering why you
missed us in that setting. If they needed it for time, I don' t see
anything wrong about that, even if it said it in here. It ' s your
discretion and could go to the City Council .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 41
Ellson: I' ll amend my second to say architectually, structurally and
otherwise.
Conrad : Otherwise is sort of inclusive.
Batzli : That is kind of a catch all isn' t it?
Conrad : Any more discussion?
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code, Division
6, Site Plan Review with an amendment to Section 20-113 to include the
following as the first sentence: Minor site plan and building alterations
which do not involve a variance, which are consistent architecturally,
structurally and otherwise, with the intent of the original approval , and
which are not accompanied by other matters requiring consideration by
the Planning Commission or City Council , may be approved by the Director of
Planning . All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 1990.
Conrad : I ' ll give you my common speech on this item. If there' s somebody
who is dying to do this, or not even dying, I think we should nominate that •
person. I'm more than happy to sit on the Planning Commission.
Emmings: I nominate Ladd for Chair .
Batzli : I second that.
Ellson: I like the idea of getting your comments ahead of time sometimes .
I think you being the last isn' t always to our benefit. I think it'd be
nice if we. . .
Conrad : The Chair ' s job is not to direct as much as to. . . Brian, do you
feel like you'd like to chair this for a year?
Ellson: He'd be late every time.
Batzli : See we'd never get started on time. You' re just trying to get me
here. No, I 'd be more than happy to sit in once or twice but I don' t have
any designs to become chair .
Erhart: It should be everybody' s objective at some point in their life.
Batzli : Well not at this moment.
Conrad : Tim, how about you?
Erhart: No. I 'm not ready.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 24
' Ellson moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #89-23 as shown on the plat dated December
29, 1989 and subject to the following conditions:
I1. Lot 2 be shown as Outlot A on the final plat.
2. The north 20 feet of Outlot A is dedicated as a trail easement.
I3. The property cannot be further subdivided or any new residences be
built on the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
IZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE WITH REGARD TO ESTABLISH THE
MAXIMUM LOT SIZE FOR CHURCH DEVELOPMENTS AT 15 ACRES.
' Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: So basically you're saying that somebody could come in, subdivide
a parcel and basically get around the ordinance that way?
IKrauss: Yes, that' s correct. In fact there was a related question. If
you recall we processed a conditional use permit or a site plan for a
I church in the Frontier building. The City Council didn' t have a problem
with the church going in there but they were concerned what would happen if
a church purchased the building and made it tax exempt. Roger basically
I said there' s absolutely nothing you can do about that. Whether or not a
church is occupying the property, they could purchase it and put some kind
of a function in it and make the whole thing tax exempt. There' s virtually
nothing a community can do to stop it. The practicality of it is is that
I it' s not going to happen very much because it' s expensive property but
that's the question that he left us with.
I Conrad: So what we' ve got on the books here is an ordinance that can' t
really, or we've got a proposal of an ordinance that really doesn't achieve
what the City Council intended. There' s a way to get around it. Would it
I accomplish anything? The way I read it right now, it's probably more
restrictive in other areas because we went from church to, didn' t he draft
the ordinance to really say any tax exempt which actually in concept I 'm
more in favor of than signifying church but I don' t know if it harms the
ICity more in terms of restricting something that we may want.
Wildermuth: I don' t know if it' s a problem of adjacent parcels is such a
Ibig issue. Do you think it is?
Ellson: I wonder if there'd even be another church that would come in. We
I all know it's an afterthought kind of thing to what' s been happening and
it' s a way to show the citizens that they're trying to put something in to
prevent it from happening again.
IBatzli : It' s not a knee jerk reaction is it?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 25
Ellson: I'm just wondering the probability of it.
Batzli : Well if they really wanted to limit it, why don't they do what
they did with contractor ' s yards.
Ellson: Located it within each other and things like that?
Batzli : Yeah. Make them have to be within 15 miles of each other or
something.
Erhart: Eliminate churches. That' s what we did with contractor' s yards.
Emmings: That's where I thought it was going. It's kind of a bold
proposal .
Batzli : I backed off . 1
Conrad: It' s an ordinance that the City Council initiated. Is there any
direction right now on this? Should we vote on it as presented? The one
thing that didn' t happen I noticed. When it first hit us and we sent it
back, there were some conditions for other modifications for the ordinance.
Basically some setbacks and what have you. Those were not incorporated
into the new ordinance but still those conditions were thought to be
appropriate Paul?
Krauss : The conditions that I think you' re referring to are the CUP '
conditions that apply to churches and they were not changed.
Conrad : Yeah, these are existing okay.
Krauss: They weren' t new conditions being applied under this ordinance.
Conrad : Any direction? Anybody have a feeling on this one? Steve. I
Emmings: I think the motivation for this is totally improper, that being
the Eckankar Church. I think the goal was appropriate. That is not
winding up with a lot of land off the tax rolls. I don't think this does
it and I don' t see how it can be done. Brian or someone brought up the
Campfire girls. What if they came out here you know and they wanted to
have, Camp Tanadoona wasn' t there and the Campfire organization came out
and said we want to do something at Tanadoona , we'd all be supportive of
that. '
Wildermuth: No. I don' t think so. In this stage of Chanhassen' s
development I would rather see some revenue producing for that property.
Emmings: So I don' t think we necessarily want to restrict ownership of
land by tax exempt organizations here. This ordinance won't do it.
Ellson: Maybe it' s an attempt to show those that we' re concerned that
their concerns were at least addressed. Maybe it's not powerful but it' s
an attempt. We listened to them and I think that' s what the City Council
had. You know they were in front of all those people either not voting or
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
IIJanuary 3, 1990 - Page 26
I saying that they' ll do whatever they can to prevent it again where we all
know legally they could probably do it if push came to shove. This is at
least our attempt to say that we listened to the people who were trying to
I do something to answer that. But again, if the Campfire girls came in or
something like that, they'd probably still be able to get it.
Emmings: Except to the extent that I suppose to some extent the market is
1 going to limit this stuff because as land prices go up in Chanhassen,
organizations that want large tracts of land to do things on are going to
have to go further away from the city so I think we' re probably kind of
1 protected by the increased property values out here.
Wildermuth: Does any other municipality have anything like this?
IIKrauss: Roger did some research on that and he was not able to find any
other community that did it.
IWildermuth: Maybe there' s a message there.
Ellson : Well you wonder if somebody was shopping for land and they saw
I that we had this and another city didn' t, would it just deter him from even
applying or would they say we can fight this, let' s go at it? If you look
at it that way, are we accomplishing what some of those people wanted.
Meaning some wouldn' t even maybe attempt because they think we' re trying to
Iprevent it so in that aspect it would probably work for what some people
wanted to do .
IIEmmings: Yeah, but you' re assuming that those people are undesireable. . .
Ellson: Right. Absolutely. I 'm just saying that the people, and I don' t
a even agree that it' s probably a majority, want to see the City doing
something and we' re here to probably represent them. So is the City
Council and so they' re saying okay, we' ll try to answer your concern or at
least an attempt. If it works either slightly, then it' s a try I guess. I
Ithink the City Council wants something .
Conrad: We don't have to go along with it.
IEllson: No, absolutely. I'm just saying I think something' s going to come
out just because they promised they' re going to do something.
IConrad : Yeah. And it' s an issue that do we want to take this one on
ourselves or just pass it to them one way or another and let them deal with
it so they can feel comfortable because it was their ' s initially. Tim, you
Iwanted to direct us some way I know.
Erhart: I'd rather comment on the issue at hand. It appears to me,
1 correct me if I 'm wrong, it appears to me there' s already some mechanism
for the City to establish what portion of a piece of property owned by a
church is taxed and which isn't taxed. You kind of have to read that
II between the lines here but it appears to me that it isn' t clear that the
Eck property is going to be totally tax free and that some mechanism
already exists to tax portions of that property without this ordinance.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 27
II
Krauss : Roger had a memo that was given out last summer that got at that. II
I forget the exact wording of it but basically the tax exempt institution
has to use the property for a related use for it to become tax exempt . If II
they are holding property as a speculative commodity or if they're renting
it out to somebody else, yes. There' s very good grounds for that being put
back on the tax rolls.
Erhart: Is there any precedent for that? II
Krauss: Apparently so. There' s been some cases been decided. I
Erhart: The fact that there already is a mechanism, it may not be a
perfect one. In looking at this, I think the merit of it, the potential
merits of it are so outweighed by the potential problems. Those which we
II
can anticipate here starting this thing, plus those which we can' t
anticipate. I sense there' s all kinds of problems this ordinance could
bring that we can' t even anticipate. One of them that just came up and
I
that is just the sense that we' re trying to prohibit people like Campfire
Girls or someone to come into the City. I mean it could be interpretted
that way. I just don' t think the value is there that supports recommending 1
this to the Council .
Conrad: Any comments over here?
II
Batzli : I agree. I don' t think that this ordinance does it. I think the
interesting anomaly that we're now faced with in the City is that if in
fact a church can get around an ordinance like this by purchasing 4
adjacent lots, the interesting thing is then if in the County' s eys since II
they' re adjacent lots, they'd be given a single tax identification number .
If they were given a single tax identification number, it would be an
interesting apportionment of the use of the lot and the concurrence on the II
ownership which is apparently the test for tax exemption. Because
according to Roger , when the same owner owns two adjacent parcels, they' re
given one tax ID number so in fact the church, regardless of the use, it
seems under that definition, would be given a single tax ID number and all
four lots would then become tax exempt. Now the law says that the church
would have the burden of proof of non-taxation but if you give them a II single tax ID number, it seems like the City would have the burden of proof
to come back and indicate that no, you' re using that as a ballfield and
that's really not a related use to why you're a tax exempt organization for
instance for a church. It' s interesting that we' re going to find ourselves II
in that type of situation if that is the law. But I don' t think this does
what we' re trying to do and I don' t know that it' s proper that we do it in
the first place so I would definitely vote against it. I
Conrad: That's interesting . If they bought four parcels, adjacent parcels
and put a church on one and the other three had activities that really
II
weren' t related to the church.
Batzli : Well for tax exempt status they do have to be related.
1
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 28
I Conrad : Then they would literally have to structure it so those other
three parcels had an activity related to the church and I don' t think they
could do that very easily. I don' t think you could run a ballfield and
substantiate that that is. . .
IIEllson: For the social clubs of your church. I think they could and I
think they could have a school and a little nursery school thing.
1 Emmings: Promoting fellowship of church members in an atmosphere of
Christian bliss.
' Ellson: That' s right . The devils against the saints . I think they could
real easily. Because retreats and things like that. That' s also church
oriented .
IIConrad : But they would literally have to structure those four parcels to
physically be used for a special purpose that they can somehow document
II related to the church. I don' t know that the ordinance wouldn' t do
II
something. Jim, what was your direction on this?
1 Wildermuth: Well I think the situation is a dilemma as to the
appropriateness of restricting churches in general on the one hand and the
tax revenue issue on the other hand. It seems to me a way could be found
if we were really serious and intent on restricting tax exempt land use. I
IIthink we could find a way to do it .
Conrad : Joan?
' Ahrens : Well you know as an outsider to this , this whole issue that you've
been discussing for quite a while, I read through this package a couple
days ago and I was kind of shocked to tell you the truth that so much time
II
was being spent on an issue that I considered to be one that the City
should not be spending so much time on. I was trying to tame my language
down there but I think that it' s interesting that the ordinance was written
Iby Roger to address all tax exempt organizations and most of the discussion
even here is about churches. It' s obviously a knee jerk reaction to the
Eckankar Church. I don' t think that we should, I hate to see an ordinance
II that tries to limit all tax exempt organizations from, or try to limit them
to certain acreage in our community. I think there will situations that
arise where people will want that kind of development and then we' ll have
to go back and change the ordinance. I think also, to create an ordinance
I that is hard to enforce or impossible to enforce because they can buy
adjacent parcels, is kind of a ridiculous exercise. Why pass an ordinance
that they can get around so easily by just buying up adjacent parcels and I
I think they could build a ballfield on the end of one and say it was a
church purpose. I'm in favor of the ordinance.
I Conrad: Yeah, to summarize. I think the Eckankar property posed a
particular problem and in my mind it possibly took some economically
valuable land for city use and their expansion for the business district,
it took it out of circulation at least temporarily. Therefore the reaction
I to not letting that happen again, in my mind taking out farmland that we
really haven' t proposed to be part of a new commercial direction or
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 29
whatever , that would not bother me at all to take out land that is in a I
commercial area and restricts the financial viability of Chanhassen I think
is a problem and I thought there was merit to looking at this . As I look
at it right now, I 'm not sure, I don't know that there's another Eckankar:
property around here that' s going to have that kind of impact. If some
church bought it and I don' t know that it would restrict some of the
directions that Chanhassen would go in in terms of taking out commercial
property that we wanted to be commercial . I think right now the land value II
will restrict a whole lot of that but you know, Eckankar could buy
additional property. That' s the bottom line. They may want to do that
which is their right and for speculation purposes. ,
Batzli : What's stopping them from buying the TH 212/TH 101 interchange?
Conrad: Yeah. They literally could do that. However , I see the I
alternatives . I see the ordinance as something that I 'm just really not a
supporter of the ordinance as drafted. I 'm not comfortable with it and
although it was our direction to staff to liberalize it in terms of not
just saying churches. We told staff that we' re really uncomfortable. It
seems like we' re singling them out. We directed staff to come back with
basically a broader category but then you look at the broader category and II
I guess when I see it on paper I 'm just as uncomfortable as I was when I
saw it limited to churches. My general feeling is to pass this along to
City Council and let them deal with this because it' s something that I
guess I can' t champion right now. I
Ellson: What would we have to do? All of us deny it or what would we have
to do in order to pass it on? I
Conrad: We'd vote on it. We can vote on the ordinance as proposed.
Batzli : Are you looking for. . . t
Conrad : I'm looking for a motion to vote on the ordinance.
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
deny of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code with regard to
establishing the maximum lot size for church developments at 15 acres. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Conrad: Reason for the denial. I guess if we can summarize would be the
ordinance will not achieve the desireable result. Any other reasons?
Batzli : Well I think that several commissioners expressed that they didn' t 11
know if the, well , the result of improving the tax base of Chanhassen is a
goal that I think all of us would agree is a positive and good purpose but El
we' re not sure that this weighed and balance of that was a desireable goal. II
Conrad: Do we see more negatives coming out of this ordinance than
positives? Is that anything? Any other reasons?
11
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
- January 3, 1990 - Page 42
II
II Conrad : We've been grooming and grooming . You know I have to make a
comment. We haven' t heard the communism speech for 2 or 3 years .
Batzli : Out first meeting he gave us that speech I think, or part of it
II anyway.
Erhart: The only communists that are left now are in, I won' t say the
II word. In that State organization they call the what, Met Council . They' re
the only communists that are left. . .
Ellson: Steve, you don't want to do it?
IEmmings: No. I don' t want to do it because I think Ladd ought to do it.
I 'm serious.
IIEllson: I think you have a real good repoire with the public and I think
that's important. Some people get pretty upset.
IEmmings: Ladd does a good job. He' s good with the people in public
hearings and I think that' s the main reason. The only thing I hate, as
long as we' re getting into it , the only thing I hate is your introductory
IIspeech. I'm real bored with it.
Conrad : Maybe I could start delegating some of these things . Steve, will
' you introduce?
Emmings: Here ' s Ladd . How' s that?
IIConrad: Is there a nomination for chairman?
Wildermuth: I nominate Ladd Conrad for Chairman.
IEmmings: Second .
IConrad : Are there any other nominations?
Wildermuth: Annette, do you have a burning desire?
I Ellson: No . I was thinking it would be nice to have a couple different
people only from the standpoint that I think the few times, like you've
said, the two times when you've sat outside, we got some of your comments
II which is usually some pretty good insight and we don't usually get that
until the end. I don' t know about you guys, but sometimes I can have my
mind made up and after hearing 3 people and I see their points, I can
II change my mind after I 've gotten 3 other people' s viewpoints and sometimes
I wish your viewpoint a little bit earlier on in the discussions since a
lot of it is wrought with experience and things like that.
IIConrad: The nice thing about being last is you hear everybody else talk.
Emmings: But I know at least one occasion when you intentionally didn' t
IIchair it because you wanted.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 43
Conrad: There are times when yeah, when I want to sway opinion, I' ll try
to get out of the chairmanship role.
Emmings: But I think he can decide when he wants to do that.
Batzli : Although meetings would be a lot shorter if we went with somebody
else.
Conrad: Well we haven' t called the question yet. 'I
Erhart: I think Ladd does do a good job with the public and at the same
time keeps it going to some degree. I think it is, we' re getting in a
little big of danger of getting a little bit stale. I don' t think to the
point where I think your service is invaluable or should be maintained for
another year . On the other hand, I think we ought to be start thinking I
about doing some rotation. I don' t want to do like the Park Commission
does but perhaps maybe one of the ways to do it is to have a different Vice
Chairman this year . Not that Steve' s done a bad job at all . ,
Emmings: I haven't done anything.
Erhart: He hasn' t done anything but get an opportunity to start training I
so to speak some different people in the position.
Conrad: I really think it' s important. I'd really like to have different II
people chair the meeting. I think it' s real important to have different
people running this thing so I second your motion Tim. I find it real easy
to run the meeting. It' s not a strain. It's not a pressure deal .
Sometimes it' s more fun sitting over where somebody else is because you can
take some neat shots but I 'm not going to be here forever.
Batzli : Now is that talking about mortality? I
Conrad: Yeah, I could die tomorrow. But I really think it' s good so I
don' t know. On the other hand, I can see that some people could step in,
if I resigned, I think some people could step in immediately because we've
got a fairly good amount of experience on the Commission. I think we've
all been around for a few years. Joan being the new person on the block.
Ellson: A few hours for Joan.
Conrad: A few hours and she may resign after what we've been doing. I
Erhart: Maybe the question is, is there any one of us who are very
interested and let' s say if you wanted to step out for a year . Just say
you want to step out for a year next year. Is any one of us interested in
becoming chairman in the following year at this time? Which is Steve. If
you're interested in doing it, then I think we ought to keep you as Vice
Chairman. But if there' s someone else interested in acting as Chairman in
the following year, then I would propose that maybe we make him Vice
Chairman this year .
1
I
• Planning Commission Meeting
IIJanuary 3, 1990 - Page 44
I Emmings: Either that or give, last year I proposed that we pass it around
so we get, instead of one person doing it for a year, why not let the 3 or
4 people do it or anybody who would do it.
IIErhart: Chairman or Vice Chairman?
II Emmings: Just to chair some meetings. I don' t know why we need a Vice,
the Vice Chairman does nothing in this group except sit down when Ladd says
either he doesn' t want to or he' s not here.
Batzli : No, that' s an important function to have that person in case Ladd
isn' t here. Someone needs to be in charge. A person with that title is
important. Whether they actually chair the meeting or not is unimportant
II but there is someone that is kind of the second in command when Ladd can' t
be here. I think that' s an important function.
Emmings: Even if we do have someone who' s Vice Chairman, I still think
11
that anybody who' s ready to chair a meeting. Anybody who isn' t absolutely
opposed to doing it. I know last year Annette didn' t want to but maybe
this year she feels differently but I think Tim and Brian and Jim, unless
II you don' t want to, ought to chair a meeting this year . I 've done it a few
times and I can do it if I have to and I think everybody ought to feel that
way.
IConrad: I know that we got some comments from City Council back last year
that they didn't want a fixed rotation. But that didn' t mean we couldn' t
rotate it but they simply didn' t want it scheduled as such.
IIBatzli : There was a comment also that they would like to see more people
get involved with chairing meetings though as well . At least from Boyt.
IIConrad: Is that right? Boy
II Batzli : Yeah. More actively involved to be able to. . .
Erhart: I think the problem with the Park and Rec is. . .
IIEllson: What do they do? You said like them. I have no idea.
Erhart: They rotate every week. The problem you have there is you have
II nobody who' s clearly the leader of that group because there is no leader .
It just rotates and I don't think we're in danger of doing that just by
allowing somebody else to chair a meeting once a year .
IIConrad: I think we should nominate a Vice Chair. Typically what has
happened this last year , even though I said we were going to rotate this
thing or give other people a chance. By the time we got to the end of the
IImeeting , that' s the last thing that I was thinking of. Of saying 2 weeks
from now, I want you to chair the meeting. But maybe, why don' t we make a
more aggressive attempt at rotating that occasionally so those people that
II don't feel uncomfortable doing it, have that opportunity. It is a good
opportunity and I think just for our personal growth standpoint, I think
it's good for people to talk to the public and try to persuade them we' re
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 45 '
doing a decent job. And to let them think that government is working for
them. It' s kind of a fun deal. I ' ll take nominations for Vice Chair.
Emmings: I' ll nominate Tim. I
Batzli : I second it.
Conrad: Are there any other nominations? I
Batzli : Did we have to vote on you Ladd?
Emmings: We' re going to do it all at once I think. That' s what you were
planning Ladd?
Conrad : That' s what I was planning. I
Erhart: Can I give my speech? I 'm going to express a concern I have in
long term of, not lack of interest in being a chairman but the concern is
attendance for myself personally. If somebody else feels, who has good
attendance and feels that they would both want to and because of their
attendance could be a chair next year , I would think they'd be a more
appropriate candidate for Vice Chair. I ' ll take it but I just wanted to. . .
Conrad : Are you saying, do you see something? I
Erhart: Not the problem with attendance as Vice Chairman but in light of
being a Chairman someday, is the attendance problem because of my
travels . . . I just wanted to point that out.
Emmings: Let me ask a question on that. If you were, if the Vice Chairman
and Chairman are gone at the same meeting but we've still got a quorum, I
take it we can still run a meeting? Just electing a chairman for the
meeting.
Conrad : Sure can.
Emmings: So then it' s not a problem.
Ellson: Well and even your problem of being chairman a year after that,
still gives everybody the opportunity to rotate in like they eventually
want to do anyway. So if you have 70% attendance, I think we could find
someone for 30% of the time.
Erhart: That's fine but I would like to have, I think what I 'd like to do
this year is in your absence and even occasionally when you're here, is we
do do this rotating thing.
Ellson: That' s our intent. Remember that thing about intent Paul . I
Conrad: Are there any other nominations for Vice Chair? Nominations are
closed. We' ll call a question for election of the Chairman and Vice Chair .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' January 3, 1990 - Page 46
I Wildermuth nominated, Emmings seconded to elect Ladd Conrad as Chairman of
the Planning Commission for 1990. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
' Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to elect Tim Erhart as Vice Chairman of
the Planning Commission for 1990. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
11
ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS.
IIBatzli : By the way, we' re supposed to give new members an oath. Does
anybody know what that oath is, according to the By-laws?
I Conrad : Normally don' t we have a written sheet? So actually Joan you' re
not sworn in yet.
IAhrens : Can I go then?
Conrad : All those wise decisions you made tonight, will never be
II reflected. There really isn' t a legal implication of that oath is there?
Ellson: It' s in our By-Laws .
I Conrad : It basically talks about the respect you have to hold for your
fellow corrmmissioners. I can' t remember. So we' ll get that document to
Joan and maybe send it out or wait for 2 weeks . Whatever . By-laws, any
Ichanges in our By-laws that anybody sees necessary?
Ellson: Well just the one we just brought up. Under 3. 2 it says that
every appointed member shall before entering, take an oath that he will
II faithfully discharge the duties of his office. At any time we can amend
those, do we want to say that that doesn't have to be done or he has to
just read it over and sign it sometime? It doesn' t seem like we' re
IIfollowing. On page 2, 3 . 2.
Erhart: You' re referring to the last sentence there about compensation?
IIEllson: That wouldn' t be bad to change either. Free pop at least and
sandwiches every other. The only other thing, I know we brought it up
before. Do you guys still think 7:30 is the best time? I kind of liked
IIthat early one when we had it.
Conrad: I have a tough time earlier.
' Batzli : I don' t even have to comment .
II Conrad : Brian' s position is pretty clear . I don' t even know what the oath
says and the legal implications of that Annette.
Ellson: It seems like if we' re not following it.
11 Conrad: Well didn't you sign it?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 47
11
Elison: I think I remember reading it. I
Conrad: I'm sure you signed it. I think everybody has. It' s just been so
long since we've had a new commissioner . I
Elison: Jo Ann, do you know what it is? Is it something we say?
Something we sign? 1
Olsen: It's something you sign.
Ellson: Then we ought to get it for Joan here. ,
Batzli: It' s not in the ordinance establishing us .
Ellson: Alright. Forget it. '
Conrad: Is there a motion to approve the By-laws?
Emmings: I have a question. How closely do we want the rules that govern
your behavior to be compatible? What extent do we want them to be
compatible with what we actually do? I
Ellson: What do you mean?
Emmings: Well , there' s a lot of things in here that we don' t do. Maybe we
don't care, which is fine. I don' t like rules. I don't like these rules
and I 'm perfectly comfortable saying we approve these rules and then we
ignore them for another year . But that' s sort of the way I look at
something like that but otherwise, there' s all kinds of things in here that
we just plain don' t do.
Batzli : For instance, the Chairman shall conduct the meetings so as to 1
keep it moving rapidly. . . I had to get that shot in.
Ellson: No, it' s something about us talking to the public. Only the 1
chairman calls on those people.
Emmings: Yeah. Petitioner and public will address the chair only. Not
staff or other commissioners. We' re always violating that.
Ellson: There shall be no dialogue among the commissioners. I
Emmings: And (g) , after all facts and information have been brought forth,
the hearing shall be closed and interested persons shall not be heard
again. We always open it back up and I think it's appropriate that we do
or that we at least have the discretion to do what we want. We could
change them so that it said that. Or we can ignore them.
Erhart: I think these rules are important when you get into hot issues and II
the Chairman wants to call the meeting back. Get a meeting back in order .
If it gets down to it, he can refer to some rules.
I
IPlanning Commission Meeting
` January 3, 1990 - Page 48
IBatzli : And say no, I 've closed it. You' ve had your say.
Erhart: Yeah. If you can' t say that, then you can' t get it back in order .
1 Emmings: But there' s a way to write this . You could simply say that the
hearing shall be closed. Interested persons shall not be heard again
unless in the discretion of the Chairman.
IIBatzli : But you also have, if you look at 7. 2, we can always suspend these
if we really wanted to.
IIEmmings: Why don' t we just suspend the rules for the year? 7. 1, it says
matters for discussion which don' t appear on the agenda can be considered
and discussed only when initiated and presented by the staff? Again,
II that' s another one. I don't particularly like that one. I don' t know why
we can' t bring up things and discuss them if we want. We do it.
I Ellson: Only when initiated by the staff. Sure, you've done a lot of that
non-initiated by staff .
Conrad: I don' t know how that can be done because that' s not legal .
IIEmmings: What?
I Conrad: To have staff present something that has not really appeared on
the agenda or been published.
I Emmings: Well it says matters for discussion. It doesn' t say for any
action so I don' t know why we shouldn' t be able to initiate matters for
discussion. I suppose the right thing to do is if you got an item, is to
call and get it on the agenda.
IIConrad : Get it on the agenda . Plan it.
II Emmings: But on the other hand, if something comes up I don' t know why we
can't talk about it.
IConrad: But we do.
Emmings: So I guess , there are little things like that. Like I say, I 'm
perfectly comfortable just ignoring it but I don't know.
IIErhart: Do we have any authority to change the By-laws?
IConrad: Yes.
Emmings: We did it last year .
IIBatzli : Yeah, we have authority.
Erhart: Does any by-law change require the City Council approval?
IIConrad: Oh yeah, they'd have to.
II
Planning Commission Meeting II
Pla g C e g
January 3, 1990 - Page 49
Emmings: Do you think so? II
Conrad: Oh yeah.
Batzli : It doesn' t say that .
IIEmmings: By-laws are things that we have to govern the way we act I think.
Batzli : 7.3 and 7.4 say that we can amend it.
Emmings: Do they? That makes sense. 11
Ellson: I think we' re making too big a deal out of it. I think this is II helpful if you get somebody who' s going power hungry and things like that
and it brings them back to life but we don' t seem to have a whole lot of
problem working together and I think it'd be a lot more work going through
and trying to reword it than it' s worth. I
Erhart: I ' ll tell you, if we can amend it, I 'd certainly be in favor of
amending, I think 6 is fine but I think that 7.1 is so far away from
reality that I think that it would warrant making a change there. II
Conrad: Well, what do you want to say Tim?
Ellson: Do you want to take out, only when initiated and presented by II
staff may be considered and shall be placed at the end of the agenda.
Erhart: Do we need it at all? I'
Batzli : Well I think you want, if someone is bringing something up that
people don't want to discuss, you may want something to be able to shut
II
them off. So if in fact you wanted it by a majority vote of the Planning
Commission. That if it's not on the agenda and the Planning Commission
doesn' t want to talk about it, majority vote says we' re not going to talk
about it tonight. Put it on the next agenda.
Erhart: Either that Brian or the alternative of the Chairman can put it on II
the agenda. On the spot.
Batzli : At his discretion?
II
Erhart: At his discretion, yeah. That would keep it in order so we don' t
just start talking about everything.
Wildermuth: Put the monkey on the Chairman' s back. I
Emmings: I think that's fine. At the discretion of the Chairman, he can
either discuss it that night or put it on the agenda for the next meeting . II
Batzli : So it' s only when initiated and presented by the staff or at the
discretion of the Chairman. I like it. It' s got a good ring. ,
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 50
II
1 Conrad: Anything else that you would like to change? Going back to
6.2 (e) . I don' t run meetings that way where they only address me. People
tend to ignore me so they' re talking amongst themselves but do we want to,
II I don't know that that would serve any useful purpose. At least the way I
run a meeting . To change it.
Batzli : If they are harranging one of the commissioners , you could always
IIpoint out that they should address you only.
Emmings: And we' ve had public hearings where we've gotten into a little
1 bit of an argument. . .
Conrad : Okay, so we' ll leave that in. So the only addition would be, or
the discretion of the Chairman in 7. 1. With that revision, is there a
IImotion to approve the By-laws .
I Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the
Planning Commission By-laws with an amendmend to 7. 1, inserting the phrase,
or at the discretion of the Chairman. All voted in favor and the motion
Icarried.
ELECT HRA LIASON.
1 Batzli : I nominate Jim.
1 Ellson: I second it.
Emmings: I third it.
IWildermuth: I haven' t gone to the last 3 meetings. I have not gone in the
last 3 meetings.
IIEllson: Then you' re overdue so even more reason to be on it .
Wildermuth: Number one. Number two, I really don' t think we need a liason
1 because there' s really not that much that happens at those meetings. I
think a lot of the decisions are pretty well predetermined. Wouldn' t you
agree to some degree?
IIConrad: Normally we assign the newest member .
Wildermuth: I started out by taking notes studiously each one of these
' things to report back to you and I 'd end up with the date written down and
who was there and that was it.
I Ellson: Why do we have a liason? Was it somebody' s idea years ago or is
it a requirement?
Conrad: I think just communication with those groups .
IIEllson: We couldn' t get a report from them?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 51
•
Batzli : I'm sure it was the situation that we ran into with the Park and
Rec Commission where I suggested better communication and suddenly I was
almost the representative to the Park and Rec.
Conrad: And then you decided communication was pretty good.
Batzli : No, I don' t know that we need it. Since I 've been on the
Commission, I really don' t recall too many reports that we've needed from
them. I don't know. In the past was it a problem?
Conrad: I think to make this a non-issue, I would nominate Jim. 11
Ellson: But he doesn't have to have perfect attendance.
Emmings: Maybe we don' t want an HRA liason.
Ellson: How would you like to just look at the agenda and take your best II judgment if you think it' s worth your while going or not and we would just
trust that if you thought it was something that would concern us, that you
could go.
Wildermuth: I think the HRA' s role in the community is going to change
g
with what's happening with funding.
Krauss: Well the tax increment districts are, you' re not creating new
districts and the City Council is riding with the newest district anyway
directly without going through the HRA so as downtown matures and the
industrial parks fill up their role, unless they come up with a new role,
their role would be diminishing .
Wildermuth: There' s some other mechanism that seems to be coming to the
forefront that's going to kind of diminish the role of the HRA. It' s some
financing.
Krauss: Well tax increment financing is, the legislation is changing .
Wildermuth: The legislation is limiting it right? I
Krauss: Limiting it, yeah.
Emmings: If you had to say in 25 words or less what they do, what would
you say? What' s their role here.
Krauss: I think they served a real role as priming the pump. I
Emmings: For development of the downtown?
Krauss: And of the business park. The incentives and the packages they
were able to put together got things going.
Conrad: And what do you see the role of a Planning Commissioner on that
body? Or not really on it but.
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 52
IIKrauss : Our HRA is kind of unusual in that to a certain extent it has a
quasi planning function, or at least it did. They were instrumental with
I how downtown came out looking. Now a lot of that stuff was also reviewed
by you but they made some decisions. The hotel site plan, the HRA actually
approved the site plan independently of your review and the City Council ' s
'approval. So the developer actually has to go back and ask them for
Iapproval as well because they' re getting $320, 000. 00 from the HRA.
Ellson: What' s your feeling? Do you think we need a liason or do you
IIthink Jim' s . . .
Krauss : Well I like the idea of having somebody available on an as needed
II basis. It always seems to come out that the week they have their meetings,
we've already had 2 or 3 meetings and this is his third or fourth one.
Wildermuth: I 'd volunteer on that basis. If you gave me a call, I 'd
IIcertainly go.
I Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission elect Jim
Wildermuth as the HRA liason as needed. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
ICITY COUNCIL UPDATES:
II Krauss : The City Council only had one meeting. I guess they had 2
meetings in December . One since you last met. They approved the final
plats for Vineland Forest and for Ersbo Addition. Really no new changes
Iwith that. Pretty much as you saw them. The Council also reviewed 3
ordinances that have come through you. The parking ordinance and the
convenience stores and they were scheduled to review the interim use
permits but ran out of time and didn' t get to it.
IIConrad: Convenience stores, what'd they do on the convenience stores?
I Krauss : Convenience stores, well they gave convenience stores first
reading. They approved first reading. They talked about the setback or
the separation standards and your comments were related to them. They are
considering, what they did is they approved, gave it first reading and said
II they wanted to reconsider some of the separation requirements and gave some
indication that they probably would want to increase the separation
requirements from the gas pumps to residential properties. They also added
a change, and it was Jay Johnson who pointed it out, that oftentimes the
vent pipes from the storage tanks are as obnoxious or dangerous as the gas
pumps themselves so the ordinance is being changed so that the setback
I applies both from the gas pumps and from the vent pipes. We've had a
problem over here with Brooke's in that the vent pipes are on the
residential property line and the people can smell it. There was also an
amendment from Bill Boyt that said that basically if you' re, I forget
I exactly how he worded it but if you' re selling motor oil and you get a
conditional use permit under this section, you could have an obligation to
II
Planning Commission Meeting -
January 3, 1990 - Page 53
collect it. ,
Ellson: The dirty stuff?
Krauss: Right. ,
Wildermuth: I think that's a good idea. . .some legislation that' s going to '
require some sort of capture of vapors from the vents of tanks.
Krauss: I think they do that in California now and you get a much bigger
nozzle. 1
Wildermuth: California just passed the requirements .
Batzli: Would that include then the vents for the tanks? I
Krauss: Well it might. Conceiveably it should.
Wildermuth: In fact they even wanted to extend it to automotive gas tanks
so nothing could escape from the bottleneck while you' re filling it but
apparently the Secretary of Transportation has determined that it' s going
to be unsafe . I think the Big 3 persuaded him that it wasn' t a good way to II
go.
Krauss : So they did give that one first reading . On the parking i
ordinance, they also gave that first reading but they made a change and the
change was that any type of multi-family housing with larger than an
efficiency apartment as currently drafted, would require 2 parking stalls
that are enclosed.
Conrad: And we sent up 1 1/2. 1
Krauss: You sent up 1 1/2 which was the recommendation that was presented
to them.
Ellson: Even after that big speech that we got and all the facts and
figures?
Krauss : Well he gave it again and there were some additional people there. II
I'm in the process right now of going back and drafting up a second reading
for that. In it I continue to say that I frankly think it' s somewhat
excessive based on what other communities are requiring and based on what
they can physically provide to do that. They discussed handling, breaking
out townhomes and quads and handling those differently than apartments, and
there's some rationale for doing that because the occupancy is a little 11
different. A townhome is larger and tends to have more than one person
occupying it and they own it longer and they have more storage requirements
and whatever else. I'm bringing to them some information that basically II says if you've got the standard 3 story apartment building , it' s physically
impossible to do that. Some information I got from Arvid Ellness who
designed the apartment building going up here and a number of other
projects, is that the average 3 story apartment building, the average
apartment unit size is 900 square feet of floor area. The average parking
I
IPlanning Commission Meeting
' January 3, 1990 - Page 54
II
I space takes up 300 square feet. So if you've got 3 floors of 900 square
foot units, you can only put the 3 stalls underneath it and there is no
more room physically unless you expand the basement of the building out
beyond the building wall , which is done occasionally.
IIBatzli : Put a second level of parking .
IKrauss : You could do that too and of course that' s tremendously expensive.
Wildermuth: But it was done in Eden Prairie just off Valley View. Near
the intersection of Valley View and TH 4.
11 Ellson: Yeah, I know where you' re talking. We were just saying, I think
his presentation to me was so persuasive in that we' re eliminating a whole
I group of people from living in Chanhassen because we' re making it so
expensive to live here if we start putting this requirements on. That' s
why I was persuaded back to 1 1/2 simply because we' re real stuffy on upper
I middle income and nothing less can afford to live here and that doesn' t
seem right when we have so many people employed that are quite less than
that.
Emmings: That and the number of single parent families that buy these
types.
I Ellson: Right and it was over 50% of them were single which could lead you
to believe there was one car. That surprises me. I thought that
presentation was so persuasive because I came in here and that really
Iturned me around.
Erhart : Does the group actually understand that the garage restriction
applied to apartment buildings? We recommended that ordinance change. Did
IIwe actually think about that?
Emmings: I don' t think so.
IErhart: In my mind I did not ever think we were talking about apartment
buildings.
IIWildermuth: I did. That' s why I backed away from the 1 1/2.
Conrad: I did but I sure didn't know of any kind of statistical
II implications of that until we started talking. The people made the
presentation. What else?
Krauss : That' s about it.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
1 Conrad : We want to make sure that the next time through Paul that we' re
talking about Steve' s letter coming back and referring to the shoreland or
I the beachlot ordinance. Next meeting will we be talking about a beachlot
ordinance and Steve' s recommendations?
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 55
Olsen: Yes. 1
Emmings: During open discussion, can we talk about the agenda?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Elison moved, Batzli seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 6, 1989 as presented .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
OPEN DISCUSSION CONTINUED. ,
Conrad : Steve, you hold the floor .
Emmings: Well we already talked about this. We should have an item on
here that we talked about for the Director to report on any adminstrative
approvals under the ordinance. Under the Site Plan ordinance I think and
also there should be an item on here that talks about our ongoing issues.
I think that should be an item on the agenda. I think Tim might have more
to say about that.
Erhart: I just asked that we put it on, can we put it on the agenda
tonight Mr. Chairman? We started doing this last year and essentially you
handed this thing out and I think it' s important that we continue to do
that so just at the last minute I made some copies. Do you have the old
copy with you?
Krauss: No . However we updated it to November . ,
Erhart: This was just one I found. Can we talk about this now Ladd?
Conrad: Where do you want to take it? Do you want to go through these?
Erhart: Well first I want to talk about the importance that we do see it
and I think we should add it to the agenda. Second I want to talk about I II
guess my concern about getting some progress on some of these things faster
than we have been. In the past it' s because of staffing problems but I
guess I 'm looking for some kind of a commitment that this year we are
actually going to work on things that when the Planning Commission comes up
with an issue that's important enough for them to have us look at it, I
feel we ought to have some movement on it. Otherwise I question whether
the Planning Commission' s really accomplishing anything.
Krauss : We would certainly support putting it on a regular basis. There
is, we did update one in November . It was hit and miss but we added some
things to it.
Elison: A lot of the things we've done too. I
Krauss: But you're right, putting it on a regular basis is the only way to
do it and oftentimes in the conversation we come up with an item that we
say add to the list. That way we can.
t
I/ Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 56
IIErhart: In previous years we actually sat down and laid out objectives. Is
this the time to do that again?
I Olsen: The memo that got out , didn' t really prep you. . . Yes it is the
time to do that. To come up with the objectives for this year and take it
to the Council .
IIErhart: Can we put that on next meeting ' s agenda?
Conrad: Yeah, I 'd like to .
IIErhart: Prioritize these things.
IEllson : Well maybe we should get this thing that we had before. We had
major priorities and I think some of them we have tried to deal with.
Convenience store. Contractor ' s yards. Tree ordinance. Recycling oil .
I Some of these things we have been. Comprehensive Plan but just another
review. I don' t think we have to start from scratch again.
Olsen: But there might be other issues that you want to put on that list
II too.
Erhart : Right . So I guess if we could just get this on the agenda on a
I consistent basis and then for next meeting' s agenda , to actually review
objectives for next year .
I Emmings: Maybe when we come across this as an agenda item each meeting
toward the end of the meeting, we can say let' s do this one next time.
Let' s pick one and do it. If we did that, maybe we'd get some movement.
l Ellson: I think you guys don' t realize, I think we have done a ton of
these . I mean I think we are moving right along but I like the idea of
follow-up but if it means that we' re going to be here until 12: 00 because
I we' ve got this need to absolutely get something done the next week and
another one done the next week, we all know that we get totally incompetent
later on at night and just for the sake of throwing one on there, I don' t
II want to but I think in general with what' s been going on this year , we've
done a lot of them. According to this November one, there' s a ton of them
on here that we've either handled or were on agendas and I think we are,
and keeping them on here I think will do it but I don' t know that we have
Ito absolutely guarantee one of these will be on every time because we get
some full agendas. I hate the thought of saying well , this is going to be
done no matter what. I want that breathing room so that we can get out at
Ia decent hour .
Eminmings: So we won' t get anything done.
IEllson: I think you' re being hard on youselves. I think we' re getting
more done than you' re giving youselves credit for .
11 Emmings: We've been trying to get the Comprehensive Plan updated for 2
years and we haven' t done it.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 57
Batzli : But look at the effort that went into it this year . This past
year. There was a lot of special meetings and maybe that' s what it
requires to do some of these things.
Emmings: Right. And that ' s fine but if you don' t stay on top of them and
you don't push it every week, I guarantee you they won' t get done. We
can' t just have a list and be satisfied. It isn' t worth a damn. I
Conrad: Well the key that drives it is this column called status and the
word ongoing doesn' t drive any project to completion. What drives it is a ,
date so I think the process and I 'm not sure that I want to see this every
week or every other week, and it can be done, but my feeling is that at
least on a monthly basis we see this list. We review it. We see if there
are dates that we want to insert to make sure that it happens. But if you
feel more comfortable on an every 2 week basis, and I don' t know that that
would be that much of a burden either for staff to include this in the
packet. ,
Erhart: I'd rather see it on every meeting. We can elect not to discuss
it if the meeting gets late but I think just to have it included with the
packet gives us all an opportunity to review it. '
Batzli: Is it fair to have something of a project manager if you will ,
meaning a member of the Planning Commission who' s very interested in seeing II
one of those items come to fruition, to be put in charge of moving it
along?
Ellson: Yeah , it says in our By-laws we can have subcommittees anytime. ,
Batzli : Yeah, we could form a subcomittee and draft some of these things
because it's obvious that the staff is busy on a daily basis handling I
reaction type projects and many of these are more proactive and things that
we want to see done but it wouldn' t hurt, myself included, to get more
involved and meet with staff and try and come up with some drafts so
they' re not forced to have to do all of the work. Is that part of what
we're here for? For instance, Steve drafted a proposed beachlot ordinance
and I think that was good because. . .
Emmings: Tim' s done the same thing on trails and other stuff so we've been
doing that a little but maybe we should do it more.
Batzli : Maybe we should do it more.
Erhart: I like the idea of identifying a project spearhead. I think
that' s a good idea.
Emmings: That's a little too military. You'll have to find another image
for me to get behind it. ,
Erhart: To keep from getting. . .things on there where we just talk about it
but no one's willing to take up the, the term I was going to use was sword. II
Take it up. On the other hand, it also gives someone the official blessing
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' January 3, 1990 - Page 58
II I guess that you are encouraged to get out and do some work on it. So I
like that idea.
Is that something that we should do next week when we prioritize?
IBatzli :
Erhart: Sure.
Batzli : So then the next question is, can you mail a copy of the most
recent status chart to us so we can take a look at it and decide priorities
and talk about that next week?
IKrauss: It should come with the next packet.
Batzli : At least by then .
IIOlsen : We can just mail it out so you have it before that. That' s no
problem for us to do that.
IIConrad: What' s on the next agenda?
Olsen: The recreational beachlot ordinance.
Krauss : We've got 2 or 3 subdivisions kicking around .
IOlsen: Zimmerman I think is coming in.
Conrad : Anything of controversy or major?
Emmings: Why is this in my packet? Stratford Ridge conditional use permit
for locating a dock? Just informational?
II Olsen: Yeah, it' s informational . The reason the item was deleted was
because a condition of the original conditional use permit was that if the
applicant received a variance to the ordinance, then they would be
I permitted a dock and the canoe racks and they essentially obtained that
through the appeal to the Board. So we had it on the agenda and then while
writing the report I saw that condition and thought , well . . .but it' s one of
those adminstrative things to still let you see. Actually where the dock
is proposed , we might move it just a little bit to the south to get it away
from the swimming area. It's just for information.
' Emmings: It' s a funny thing there but there' s no setback from that
sideyard. That' s the thing when I looked at it, I thought geez, you've got
hundreds of feet of lakeshore here and you put the beach and all the
' activity on the whole thing right next to the neighbor. Right up to the
neighbor 's property line which is just. . .
' Batzli : There' s an 8 foot sideyard?
Olsen : 10 foot . For a dock, there' s a 10 foot dock setback.
1 Emmings: But not for the beach .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 59
Emmings: Maybe it's okay but I don' t know. It seems funny doesn' t it? I
don't know what' s next door to there. I can't remember .
Olsen: It' s vacant. The beachlot is just to the north of that other
piece. There' s nothing out there. It' s just a similar piece.
Conrad: So next meeting we have, it sounds like we have some time to talk
about priorities and goals. Help me reflect on when we got the City
Council input for what they'd like us to work on. Was that last year?
Olsen: Steve was still here and it went to Council and they didn' t really
give any direction. Steve left and then I took it back again saying we
need some so by then it was almost summer .
Ellson: We decided to do our own, that' s what happened . I
Conrad: So might this have been, how many months ago?
Olsen: That you finally got it back? ,
Conrad : That I read their Minutes as to their priorities for us? Is that
half a year?
Olsen: 6 months, yeah.
Erhart : We essentially got their comments, that was about it. They never 1
did set the priorities.
Olsen: No, it was real late and so all they did was hand me their .
Erhart: And that's okay too. I think we should give them the opportunity
but if they don' t want to, then I think we have our own agenda here. We
certainly have enough things.
Conrad: So Jo Ann, if you could resurrect their comments for us for the
next.
Olsen: The one that Annette has , we sent out the last ongoing list I sent
out had the prioritization of yours and the Council' s together .
Conrad : Ah, maybe that' s where I read it.
Olsen: Yeah, things like Eurasian Water Milfoil wasn' t exactly ours but it II
was theirs.
Erhart: And if some of these things are done like contractor' s yards, I
let' s take it off the list.
Ellson: Yeah, it was listed as being complete but I think we ought to know 1
what we did complete.
Krauss : Ladd , one of the things I forgot to mention. We' re trying to
schedule a special meeting for the Comprehensive Plan for January 24th
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
• January 3, 1990 - Page 60
I .
I which is an alternate Wednesday from the next Planning Commission meeting .
To finish up the Land Use Plan and to look at the goals and policies one
last time.
I Conrad: Okay. So Paul is just talking about a special meeting in 2 weeks
or 3 or something like that. Steve, one thing that we started doing and we
stopped , we' re really revising those. For a while we were taking a look at
I the goals and we have really stopped looking at those goals. I tell you,
when we get back together again in 3 weeks and review that, either we take
a look. I think we should make sure we' re comfortable with the goals at
that point in time and if we don' t want to get into it any further , we' ll
I
just jump out of it and forget about them and get into the detail. Yet on
the other hand , I always buy personally what the goals are and making them
as specific and as meaningful as possible. So prior to that meeting , what
I should we do to, do we have in our possessions right now the goal
statement? Have the goal statements been revised at all? You've got help
me on that. I don' t even remember what we' ve looked at.
IIKrauss: They were revised a couple of times. We came up with an initial 8
or 12 and it was expanded on and then Steve did some.
1 Erhart: We never discussed them after Steve did his.
Ellson: He was going to put something together for us .
IEmmings: I did .
Batzli : He came up with a representative 2 or 3.
II
Erhart: We were looking for a format. We got into format issues and Steve
came back with some ideas for format so we never discussed it yet.
1 Emmings: It' s a little like the discussion we had about the By-laws. It
all depends on, I think you've got to have a philosophy about what you' re
I doing. Goals always to me are pure air. I think you've got to have them
but I think if what you're really doing, I think what people should think
about is do we want to list every goal we can think of or do we want to
II list more broadly. What I try to do is just put down very big goals with
some representative examples of how we implement. That to me is much more
concrete. When I read our old goals, they never meant anything to me and I
don't think, I can think of one time in all the time I 've been here, that
I we ever referred to those in setting policies. Or in approving a plan or
anything else. I can't think of a one so I really wonder what they' re for.
I Conrad: Well if they don' t have meaning, then they are worthless. You can
read the goals and most of them sound like God, Motherhood and the Flag.
We will provide decent access or roadways to get from one side of town to
the other or we will provide affordable housing to everybody and to most of
II us, that could be a commitment but on the other hand, it' s easy to sluff
that one off and say geez, that' s easy to do. We' ll allow an apartment
building to go up sometime so some of those are really meaningless but I
II think you can come up with some, and maybe they only deserve a little bit
of attention and we can just carry them out. We' ll devote the appropriate
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 61
amount of energy to that. Yet on the other hand, there are some other
goals that maybe we individuals have that we feel are important for the
City to have and to pursue and this is the time to put them in and if they
force a direction, then I think they' re really valid to have in there. So
we will review those for the last time in 3 weeks or the 24th or whenever
the special meeting is. We shouldn' t do it in that meeting. You should
come to that meeting with some idea of something that you want to have as a
goal. We're not going to brainstorm that meeting. We may get consensus
that meeting but I don' t think it should be treated as a brainstorm and
let's figure out what they should be. I think if you've got any, that' s
the time to offer them. We' ll decide if they're worth pursuing.
Krauss: We've also tried to lay out a fairly ambitious schedule, in fact
we' ll finish up the other plan elements that will provide for a joint
meeting with the City Council and then a series of public meetings on the
land use plan and other elements culminating in some public hearings
looking towards getting the thing approved to the point where we can submit
it to the Metro Council . Probably in June and July and they have a 90 day '
review process so we' re looking hopefully on having a new plan in place, if
everything works the way it should, by September-October .
Emmings: We' ll start the next one in November? The update? I
Batzli : Speaking of going in front of Met Council , did Eden Prairie, was
that the community that was trying to get more capacity on sewage? '
Krauss : Yes. They did a couple of curious things. First of all a major
plan amendment is apparently 40 acres swatch getting into the MUSA line.
Eden Prairie or the developer came up with a site that was 39.74 acres.
Maybe that' s really what it is, I don' t know but as you' re aware, I wrote a
letter that was submitted to the Council that said we' re concerned not so
much with the fact that they want to expand the MUSA line but that we
wanted to ensure that equity of access to the facility, to the interceptor
is maintained and that the Metro Council and Metro Waste understands that
we're going through this process and we' re going to be having a very large II
amendment coming down the pipeline. As far as development went, their
initial proposal that was submitted in the EAW's indicated something like
66,000 square feet of commercial . This is on Dell Road which is our City
line. We indicated a concern that that is inappropriate up on TH 5 given
it's proximity to our central business district and all the time and
expenditure and money we've put out to get that thing off the ground. They
had the developer call me back. It' s a developer that I 've worked with II before. He sent me a specific copy of a detailed copy of the plans. What
they're proposing up on Dell Road and TH 5 is something on the order of
only 26,000 square feet of commercial service use of which 10, 000 square
foot would be an office building. 6,000 square foot would be a daycare
center. I don' t know if the numbers add up but it was only a 12,000 retail
strip. I wrote them back another letter that says we still think it' s
inappropriate to put commercial on TH 5 but we' re relieved to find that
it' s much less, or the impact will be much less than we originally
anticipated. That's where it sits.
Batzli : So Met Council hasn' t. . .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 3, 1990 - Page 62
Krauss : They haven' t given their final approval but I don' t see why they
won't.
IIConrad : Anything else?
Wildermuth: What's happened to Cenvesco?
Krauss : He's waiting for . . .
IEllson: That garage thing I ' ll bet.
Krauss : On the parking , yeah.
IWildermuth: He's waiting for the action on the parking?
Ellson: Well his thing wasn' t 2 cars. He wanted 1 and if that gets
Ipassed, he's out.
Wildermuth: But at this point they don' t have anything in the ordinance.
Krauss: They withdrew, the time Jo Ann and I put together that staff
report that was very lengthy and that' s when they withdrew and they have
not submitted anything since.
Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in
IIfavor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 55 p.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
IDirector of Planning
Prepared by Nann Opheim
by
I
I