1j. Minutes II
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
' REGULAR MEETING
MAY 22, 1989
IFMayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwaman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd
Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Lori Sietsema
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda with the following amendment: Mayor Chmiel wanted to move
items 7 and 8 right after item 3 as well as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
which covers item 8; and Councilman Johnson wanted to add the Visitor
Presentation back onto the agenda as item 2(a) . All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Chapter 20 of the City Code deleting
I contractor's yards as conditional uses in the A-2/BF Districts, Final
Reading.
' e. Resolution #89-69: Approve Request by Centex Homes to make park
improvements and authorize Expenditures of Funds.
' i. Resolution #89-70: Adoption of Official Mapping Ordinance, Final Reading.
k. Approval of Accounts.
' 1. City Council Minutes dated May 8, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes dated May 3, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 25, 1989
1 Joint City Council/Park and Recreation Minutes dated March 27, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reconsider the motion
to approve the agenda as Councilwoman Dimler had some additional information
' under Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you like to indicate your items for council
presentation?
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. The first one would be citizen complaints about the
large clumps of mud left in construction areas and making it difficult driving
and hazardous driving. The second one would be choosing a new City Planner.
I'd like to make some suggestions. The third is the status of the Instant Webb
1
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
permit and the fourth is congratulations to Mr. Mayor_ Chmiel and his wife Mary
Lou for 34 years of blissful marriage.
Mayor Chmiel: With those changes, is there a motion to accept?
Councilman Workman: I'd like to add something. A little bit of discussion on
Carver-Scott Humane Society and I also want to talk about the City Planner
update.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to amend the agenda as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
I
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B
WETLAND, 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON.
Councilman Boyt: This is in regards to a wetland alteration permit and what I'd '
like you to do is refer to the map that's in the middle of that proposal. It
shows the location of the driveway there. It doesn't show the location very
clearly but the problem with this piece is that we're encroaching within the 75
foot setback from a wetland and it looks to me like the driveway could have been
put further out of that wetland easement if we moved it more to the left and
that we could move it over to that property line or at least the 10 foot setback
from the property line and gain more distance from the wetland. I
Councilman Johnson: That is a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: When you're saying moving it to the left, are you saying to the
west? I'm not sure if this is the north direction on this map.
Councilman Boyt: Well, if the top of the map was north, I'd be saying move it '
to the west. There's room to do that. We should be working to protect these
wetlands by keeping development away from them. At least the 75 feet our
ordinance requires and in this particular situation we're willing to allow them
to work within that area but I think we should move it as far away from the
wetland as possible. So I would move that we approve this with the driveway
shifted to the left edge of the property or at least to the 10 foot setback.
Mayor Chmiel: Is the applicant here this evening? Maybe before we make that
motion, if you'd like to get up.
Brian Kihle: Brian Kihle, Medicine Lake. The reason I put it there is there
is a tree that I wanted to save. Other than that, I'll just have to cut the
tree down.
Councilman Boyt: How big is the tree?
Brian Kihle: It's a pretty good sized one. I just like the tree there that's 1
why I wanted to save it.
Councilman Johnson: Is it 10 inch? 12 inch?
2 I
■
1f,
I ' City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Brian Kihle: It's pretty good size.
IA
Councilman Boyt: Where is the tree?
' Brian Kihle: Just off the corner of that shed.
Councilman Boyt: Well if it's off the corner of that shed, you're not going to
have any problem because you're already going across there.
Brian Kihle: No, it's up towards more the front.
' Mayor Chmiel: Maybe if you could just come up and show Bill the exact location
of where the tree is at.
' Councilman Boyt: Well I don't want you to cut the tree down. Alright, well
would you accept a motion that says move it as far to the left as possible and
protect the tree?
Brian Kihle: Sure.
Councilman Boyt: I would so move.
' Councilman Workman: I would second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Ursula also had an item on there as well.
' Councilwoman Di.mler: I uess before we vote '
g to on it I d just like to put in,
there was a letter from a Charles Worsfold addressed to the Council on this
t issue. I talked to him today and he reiterated some concerns about the drainage
on that property. Anyway that this property was totally under water in July of
1987 and I guess before I go ahead, I would like to see this property. I'm
going to meet him out there tomorrow. I too do not think that we ought to get
real close to a wetland because of the drainage problems and we have to protect
our wetlands. I was going to move to table this until we had time to consider
' it further.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe staff knows something about this.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Does staff have any comments?
Jo Ann Olsen: We have gone out to the site and the wetland itself does flood in
' the heavy rain periods but the house will not be affected by that. Then we also
had recommended to Mr. Boyt that he add a condition that they provide a drainage
swale that for the drainage from the new house that would direct drainage
directly to the wetland and would not increase any runoff to the neighbor's
' residence to try to prevent any impact from the house to his property. We think
that might be a good way to solve his problem. It will not prevent the wetland
from flooding or any flooding problems that he may have today but it would
reduce the impact from his house.
Councilman Boyt: So I would be willing to amend my motion to include that
drainage swale.
3
■
a �
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
I
Brian Kihle: I'm just wondering, how will that affect the drainage to the
house. That I put a house there. Why will that make the water go anywhere
else? If anything will go to my basement? I was just wondering why will that
affect water going to somebody else's house?
Jo Ann Olsen: The slope does drain over to his property and with any increased ,
runoff from this house, we were going to have you provide that drainage swale do
it would go right into the wetland and not to his property.
Brian Kihle: That's no problem but I mean, from the way the water flows,
there's no reason for it to, I mean it's going to go that way whether the house
is there or not.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Basically you can't encumber another person's property by
creating any diversion of water running onto their property. You have to take
case of what's on your property and make sure it goes in the proper direction. '
Brian Kihle: Just a swale and bring it down the side?
Gary Warren: That should be addressed as part of the building permit 1
application so that would be the best place for it.
Councilman Boyt: Well we can put it in here. '
Gary Warren: A condition here but we will look at it in detail as a part of the
building permit. II
Councilman Boyt: Does the second accept that change?
Councilman Workman: Yes. '
Councilwoman Dimler: That will be fine.
Councilman Workman: Gary, is this kind of a buyer beware area here? I know
I drove by there today to find it and I had a difficult time locating which
house it was. It's kind of heavily wooded down there and the roads are not very
wide. I had a memo to Don Ashworth a couple weeks ago in regards to the Smiths
down there and the creek and the drainage and everything else. It's getting to
be a pretty impacted area down there for drainage. Is this going to be a
problem, add to more problems down there?
Gary Warren: Is this particular site going to be adding to the problem do you
mean?
Councilman Workman: Right.
Gary Warren: I wouldn't say it's going to aggrevate the problem. It is a '
challenging area from when we did the subdivision review for Woodcrest
subdivision there. We have a one way street and we've got some challenges there
for access and snow removal but this particular homesite wouldn't impact it in
any significant way.
4 1
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit for development within 200 feet of a Class B wetland at 800
' Woodhill Road with the condition that the applicant move the driveway as far to
the left as possible and protect the tree and also construct a drainage swale to
direct the runoff into the wetland. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
D. MICHAEL CARMODY, SOUTH LOTUS VILLAS TOWNHOMES, SOUTH
, LOTUS LAKE ADDITION.
' Councilman Boyt: In item (d) , the part that I'm interested in is there was some
discussion earlier on about connecting a trail so that people wouldn't have to
go out onto TH 101 in order to access the city park. Rather than spread the
map out in front of me of this development, there is on the east side of this
development there is a small strip of property off the end of what will be a
cul-de-sac accessing the two buildings and I would like to see the City given
the right, a trail easement if you will, so that people can walk off the end of
' that cul-de-sac, cross that piece of property and access the city park rather
than having to go out onto TH 101 to do that. So that's a condition change that
I'd like to make.
' Mayor Chmiel: Are the applicants here this evening also? Would you like to
address that condition or do you concur with it?
Mike Carmody: I'm Mike Carmody, President of Gopher State Development Company.
I believe we allowed for the easement for the trail in our revised plan.
Councilman Boyt: I think that's the one right on TH 101 which at this point
doesn't exist. You've allowed the easement so we can build it. What I'm
interested in is until we get a trail built there, I'd like people to be able to
walk across that fairly narrow strip of your property to access the park. I'm
particular concerned that without that we're forcing kids to ride out on TH 101
to get to that park and that's just not a safe situation.
'
Mike Carmody: If there's an easement there, we can't prevent someone from
walking across it.
' Councilman Boyt: No, there isn't one there now. We don' t have, I guess the
ability to put the transparency up. You provide an easement along TH 101. My
concern is that people coming from here and there will be kids coming out of
this neighborhood trying to get to the city park up here. What I'd like to have
happen is an easement right here so that kids can walk across that piece of
property.
Mike Carmody: Would that be permanent?
Councilman Boyt: I could accept that it would exist until this trail is open.
' Mike Carmody: I think we can accept that.
Councilman Johnson: Kids will go there anyway.
Mayor_ Chmi.el: I understand there are some neighbors also. Anyone wishing to
address that?
5
■
r
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
1
Bobbie Kussard: My name is Bobbie Kussard and I live at 7604 South Shore Drive.
I recently moved into the neighborhood out of a townhome development. When I
first spoke with my builder and my architect we had a dollar figure that we
wanted to spend on our home and I gave him that figure and he said forget it.
You can't get into this neighborhood for that kind of money. You have to spend
more. My biggest concern is that these townhomes or whatever they're trying to
build, they're already advertising them for in the 70's. Our neighborhood is
165 and up. Their units will be the front door to our neighborhood and if I
were planning on selling my home in the next year or two, I wouldn't have a
problem with it because I'm sure the units will look okay in the next year or
two. The development I moved out of is about 10 years old now and it looks
terrible. It's really run down and I plan on living in my new home for quite
some time. I'm afraid that nobody's even going to drive into that neighborhood
20 years down the road to look for a new home because they're going to see this
shambles sitting on the corner there. I realize that it needs to be multi.
dwelling. I'm wondering if perhaps it could be twin homes. Maybe $90,000.00 to
$100,000.00. Just to keep up with the standards that have been set in our
neighborhood. We had to go by rules and regulations and dollar amounts and
I just think $70,000.00 units are pretty low for our neighborhood and it worries
me for the value of the rest of our homes. Thank you.
Judy Podavels: My name is Judy Podavels and I live at 200 South Shore Court. I
also am concerned about the value difference between the townhomes and the homes
that are already established in the neighborhood. I challenge you to decide for
yourselves if it makes sense to put a $75,000.00 home in with something of
$200,000.00 value. Not only that but I'm concerned about the children that
these townhomes will bring in. Already there is no place for our children to
play. There are no playgrounds in this area of town and they have to go all the
way to Chanhassen school to get a playground. I'm also concerned about the
increased traffic, especially with the realignment onto TH 101. I think that
with the construction of not only the roadway, the diversion of TH 101 being
changed but also the construction of the townhomes, I think that may cause a
problem and I'd like you to consider that when you make your vote. And I'm
worried about again, the increased number of children in the area. They'll be
coming into our schools and will that area of property generate enough tax
revenue to support our schools. Those are my concerns. I had one other
question. I noticed on the agenda tonight that it says a site plan review for a
6 and 8 unit townhome building. We're wondering what that was because the
neighborhood was just aware of the 14 unit townhome development. We're not
aware of any other buildings.
Councilman Johnson: 6 plus 8 is 14.
Mayor Chmi.el: Right. It is a total of 14 units.
Councilwoman Di.mler.: Two buildings. I pulled this mainly so the neighbors, I
had talked to some of them earlier and that they could address their concerns
and I also wanted to know if condition 10 had been met. The developer was
supposed to supply hydrological data showing that the surface drainage will not
erode the existing ditch system. Can somebody answer that for me?
[11!
Jo Ann Olsen: They've supplied that information.
Cil
6
■
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: And how about obtaining the necessary permit approvals
from MnDot?
Jo Ann Olsen: They've applied for them. They haven't received anything yet.
It's typical that they don't have those yet.
' Councilman Boyt: I guess I'd like to raise a question. We've had this concern
before about how do we match different income level homes or different price
' level homes. I don't know that we've found a way to do that. In fact, I'm
pretty sure we haven't. The argument that we've heard from developers is well
of course we wouldn't build an inexpensive home next to an expensive home
because we could justify an expensive one and we make more profits on those. But
I'm convinced the City hasn't figured out a way to integrate values of housing
so that we protect people and their investment. I'm sure that nice people are
going to move into these townhomes but I'm also equally confident that your
' concern about what impacts $70,000.00 townhomes are going to have on a
$200,000.00 house is probably pretty accurate. If anyone on the council has
some way to deal with that, I'd sure like to hear it but I haven't come across a
' way yet.
Councilman Workman: I guess Bobbie's biggest concern, I sense that she
understands that perhaps they're going to go in but what safeguards might they
' have against ramshackleness. Does anybody on staff have any idea on how we
might restrict this? I know covenants etc. are not our business and since it's
not our property we can't tell people in the basic sense how to maintain their
homes.
Jo Ann Olsen: We've of ordinances_ nces that restrict outside storage and like with
' the landscaping and things like that that they have to replace. We do have
certain controls to keep the appearance up. We can't them exactly what to do
like through covenants. That's for them but what we have with our ordinances is
we can enforce.
' Councilman Johnson: Tom, you live in a quad home neighborhood that's about 10
years old.
' Councilman Workman: About 5.
Councilman Johnson: Oh, your part but I mean overall they were there before I
moved to town 8-9 years ago. They really aren't ramshackled or run down.
They've been well maintained. I think it's partially the standard of the city.
If I see the same in downtown Minneapolis 10 years from now I might suspect that
' they're going to be more rundown. Out here I think that partially just the
attitude of the people and the way of life will probably maintain them in a
better condition. That's one way not to worry about it as much but that's no
guarantee.
Mayor Chmi.el: Any other discussions?
I! Janet Weaver: My name is Janet Weaver. I live on 31 Hill Street. I didn't
know about this development that's going on. I'm just hearing about it now.
Where is it located?
I
' 7
MI
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 , II
Councilman Boyt: South Lotus Lake. There's a park there. There will be a park
there. You know where those new homes have been built on the south end of
Lotus Lake?
Janet Weaver: I live on South Lotus Lake on Hill Street.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, it's right between the new homes and TH 101. ,
Janet Weaver: Okay, on that empty piece of property. The thought that was
coming to my mind, I suspected that location. The thought that comes to my mind
that is an area of concern for me would be the amount of cars due to the boat
launching area. At this time there is quite a few cars that fill that up on
weekends and I'm told by my neighbors that they also park along the roadways and
they're not supposed to. I realize there's a sign up there but that has been
happening anyway and that I assume is happening is because the parking lot is
full so if we're looking at moving into this type of a piece of land even more
cars and vehicles, it could be an over-population problem with vehicles alone.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmi.el: That could be something for public safety to address from time to '
time making sure that that parking is not taking place on those streets.
Jim Chaffee: We have strict enforcement on the weekends. I know the Sheriff
deputies have been out there quite a lot writing a lot of tags.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions?
Paul Struther: I'm Paul Struther with Clutz-O'Brien-Struther Architects and I '
wanted to address one item regarding the attempts that we've made to integrate
this with the residential neighborhood adjacent and that is that we, at the
neighbor's behest upgraded the siding to redwood siding. We've introduced brick
on the front of the building. In addition to that we've developed these so that
they have the appearance of a large home rather than a series of townhouses. I
think that within this type of development, I think we've done a pretty good job
at meeting that need. I think one other comment that's not really mine to make
but is the developers is that they worked with the neighbors to develop the
covenants for this project. '
Mayor Chmi.el: Have the neighbors basically seen those specific, what you have
there? Could you show that to the two ladies? ,
Bobbie Kussard: Yes, we saw them. They had them at the meeting we were at
before. As far as working on the covenants with us, no. They mailed us a copy
of the covenants which we appreciated but we had no input on the covenants.
Also, as far as covenants go, they guarantee they can't be changed for 30 years
because of the mortage with the bank or whatever. Like I said, I came out of an
association. If people want to change the rules and regulations of that
association, they will. These men don't have anything to lose. They have only
something to gain once they sell their units. We're the ones that are going to
lose 10 years down the road when these people have banned together and decided
yes, let's put our sheds up or yes, we can park the boats outside now. We don't
care. We're the ones who are going to lose. Those rules and regulations,
covenants and by-laws can be changed.
8
■
ae_9
Q.)II �a1 �
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
' Councilman Workman: Is there anyway that perhaps the current homeowners in that
area might be able to tie themselves into a homeowners association with the soon
to be townhouse residents? Therefore, keeping a better eye on thy neighbor_ I
guess. Is that perhaps a chance?
Mayor Chmiel: Roger?
' Roger Knutson: Private covenants are just that. If the people of the
surrounding residential neighborhood and the developer want to get together and
' do that, they certainly can but that's not a condition that the City really can
impose.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest to you that covenants generally aren't worth
the paper they're written on because they have to be enforced by the people who
are part of that group. They very seldom will take each other to court. And
when they do it's a sort of long arduous process so I wouldn't count on
' covenants doing anything for us. The developer, is it accurate that you're
selling these units for $70,000.00 or in that neighborhood?
' Mike Carmody: Base price will be $77,900.00 and then we'll have lot premiums
and options. They'll probably average in the low 80's.
Councilman Boyt: How does that fit the market?
Mike Carmody: We know there's a market for the product.
' Councilman Boyt: I mean is that the middle of the general price range for
those? The bottom? The top? Where does it fit?
' Mike Carmody: I would say it's not the very low but it's probably in the upper
low end of the townhouse market. The problem is we've got 1.475 acres for 14
townhouses. We've got them 2 stories, you just can't get a large unit... The
other thing is, there is a fair amount of screening between the buildings and
' the single family. There's a vacant lot on the northwest side of the site.
Those will be single family in about the 150 to maybe 175 range which will be a
transition from the multiple to the.. . Those will be 2 story houses. The
' ground is also higher in that area plus we've got $10,000.00 in our budget for
landscaping and street improvements to the adjacent single family.
Councilman Boyt: When did you buy this piece of property if I might ask?
Mike Carmody: I'd say approximately 3 months ago.
' Councilman Boyt: When those of you who are living in that neighborhood now,
since you purchased your houses in probably the last year, were you informed
about the development of these townhoues when you purchased your property?
' So it's sort of a mixed reaction there.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Is there a motion?
Councilman Johnson: I move approval of item 1(d) , parts 1 and 2 here, the
preliminary plat and site plan review with all of staff's conditions plus a
condition that a trail easement be placed along the driveway down and into the
park so that the citizens can have access into the city park through this
9
MI
/'
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 , II
subdivision. '
Mayor. Chmi.el: Do I hear a second? Not hearing any second, that motion dies. '
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to know from the developer what can you do to help us
meet the concerns of the citizens. You just talked about that you suspected
that homes were going to be built that will help transition this. You've met
with them. You sent them a copy of your covenants but apparently that's not
enough. What else can you do?
Mike Carmody: Well we had the neighborhood meeting. We discussed the concerns
of the neighbors and I believe at the meeting there were about a dozen people, a
little more. When I had our attorney draft the covenants and restrictions, he
had instructions from no notes taken from that meeting of the concerns for the
neighborhood. Concern for the upkeep of the grounds.. .$55.00 per month plus
they are assessed for any additional needed improvements. Similar townhouse
projects, I would say the average association fee is far less than that. The
restrictions do run for a period of 30 years. They are tied to the deed... If
they choose not to enforce them, we don't have any control over that. We feel
because of the quality we're putting into them and the design and the location
that they're going to be well maintained because there's going to be a good
resale value to them. They're right near the lake. They're right near a city.
They're near to a park. For no other reason than they're going to go up in
value and they're going to resale...
Councilman Boyt: Well I agree with your location. I guess I'm a little
surprised that you think that all you can sell there is an $80,000.00 townhome. ,
You're probably sitting in one of the best locations in that part of the city
and that's all you think the market can bear.
Mike Carmody: The site was approved as a prior PUD for 14 units. I don't know
that price is really the issue. We're offering 1,336 square feet... They've
got a master bedroom that are 13 x 18 and that's bigger than a master bedroom in
most $200,000.00 homes. The fireplace is standard. Central air is standard.
All applicances. .. I don't know if price is the issue here.. . We could
probably sell them for more. I don't know. Because I'm in marketing, where's
the market for. townhouses? I can tell you it's not in the $130,000.00 or
$150,000.00 range.
Councilman Boyt: Well I can tell you how to make it more expensive without
making them any bigger. You can put brick siding on your building. You can
increase the thickness of your interior walls. You can do small things that
have a way of adding up very quickly when we start talking about per unit price.
In a word, the City Council shouldn't be in the business of designing your
building for you. I am sure that's what you're saying to yourself and I don't
disagree with you.
Mike Carmody: ...As a matter of fact, the owner of the property redesigned our
original plan because of these concerns... We put redwood siding on them. .. We
believe the design and the architecture that we have.. .
Councilman Workman: Planning Commission recommendation number 2 is additional
landscaping shall be provided along the northeasterly and easterly lot line of
the site. What was agreed?
10 '
II City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Councilman Boyt: They pulled that Y p at out.
'. Councilman Workman: They pulled that out?
Councilman Boyt: I think the feeling was they didn't .need it.
' Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, that one was pulled out.
Councilman Workman: Why was that? I mean that was kind of going to be a
natural barrier from the more expensive homes.
Councilman Boyt: There was one planning commission member didn't feel it was
' needed. Brian's here if you want to put him on the spot.
Brian Batzli: You can put me on the spot but I don't know what that means.
Paul Struthers: I can tell you what we did to accommodate that request. We
added 2 Linden trees in this corner. Our discussions with staff indicated that
they wanted something on all sides of the property. The developer is interested
in maintaining some view to the park. (nom added 2 Linden trees in this corner to
meet the intention of that request. The neighborhood, single family
neighborhood is well screened by a berm along that property line and large
' conifers.
Councilman Workman: How big are the Linden's going to be?
Paul Struthers: I don't recall that off hand. I think they're 3 1/2 inches.
Jo Ann Olsen: They have to be at least 2 1/2 inch.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there any further discussion? Any additional motions?
'
Councilman Workman: Are those Linden trees put into the conditions? Are they
written anywhere?
Jo Ann Olsen: What they did inbetween the Planning Commission and the Council
' is they provided us with amended plans that met a lot of the conditions so we
removed some of those conditions from the Planning Commission.
' Councilman Workman: So the 2 Linden trees are in the plan somewhere?
Mayox_ Chmiel: Jo Ann, was there a landscape plan submitted with this at all?
Jo Ann Olsen: The new ones, I'm not sure if that. . .
' Mayor Chmiel: I don't see it, that's why I'm asking.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's been discussed between staff and the applicant. We are
still working.
Mayor. Chmiel: Tom, you feel that that's necessary to have a couple Linden trees
off on that?
11
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
Councilman Workman: I guess if they've already '
Y y been agreed to then I don't
think it would hurt to add them in a condition in there.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see that graphic one more time. I apologize that
we don't have something for you to put it up. How many trees, are those pine
trees there on what appears to be the west side? '
Paul Struthers: Yes, those are, I don't recall the species but they're pine
trees. Spruce I believe. '
Councilman Boyt: How much of that density are they going to create from the
beginning? I assume that's probably a pretty mature tree you're drawing in.
Paul Struthers: Yes, we're showing a mature tree. They'll be 6 foot trees
initially. They are on a hillside, existing berm which we're maintaining.
That's why we job the driveway so that we could maintain slope here and create
some screening with the grading.
Councilman Boyt: But what we've got, what we're going to have with the 2 story
building is it's clearly's going to be visible to the homesite off to the west
of it, southwest of it. Yes.
Paul Struthers: Initially, yes I'm sure you will. '
Councilman Boyt: Those are generally 2 story homes in there. You're building a
2 story townhome. '
Paul Struthers: I think the forms of the buildings are compatible. You will
see a roof but again it's not a flat roof or say a comptemporary roof style. Our
intention was to produce a building apperance that was similiar in character
with existing homes and the type likely to be developed next door.
Councilman Boyt: You talk about a fee that you're going to charge the people, '
an association fee or that sort of thing. Is that correct? In that you have a
building maintenance component?
Paul Struthers: You should ask the developer that. I
Mike Carmody: Yes we do. That will cover down to 30 years for driveway. 25
years for roof. Painting on a 5 year cycle. Ground maintenance on an annual
basis. Insurance.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. You said 30 years for a driveway? Is that what you '
just said?
Mike Carmody: I think it was 30 or 35.
Councilman Boyt: Is that asphalt you're putting in there?
Mike Carmody: Yes. ,
Councilman Boyt: Well I would suggest 15.
12 '
MI
IIcity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Mike Carmody: We're putting in an extra heavy base and we're putting in a 3
if— inch wear course on that. The main drive craning in is going to be built to city
standards of 28 feet with V6...curb all the way around the outside of the
Idevelopment...
Councilman Boyt: Where is your trash dumpster_ going to be?
' Mike Carmody: There won't be one.
' Councilman Boyt: Oh, it's an individual pick-up?
Mike Carmody: Yes.
' Councilman Boyt: So you're going to have a trash hauling truck that comes up
that?
Mike Carmody: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Well you've just tested that asphalt to the extent of any city
' road would be tested. 30 years is reasonable?
Gary Warren: For an expected life?
' Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Gary Warren: With routine maintenance.
Councilman Boyt: And you have funds in your association fee to provide for
routine maintenance of the asphalt?
Mike Carmody: We've allowed for sealcoating. ..
Councilman Boyt: Painting every 5 years and the roof is how long? Well
' gentlemen, I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't pass this.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I ask just one question? How much are the association
' dues per year per unit?
Mike Carmody: They're $55.00 per month per unit with the clause that they can
raise it 5% per year. 5% the first year and then I believe it was an extra 10%
' plus if there's a shortfall, they can levy additional assessments.
Councilwoman Dimler: And you feel that that will cover all your expenses for
' maintenance? That sounds kind of low to me.
Mike Carmody: We're basing our figures on our knowledge of the townhouse market
' and similar projects that other builders have done. For example, Rottlund Homes
built a 110 unit project and their association fees are $38.00 per month for the
first year. We're certainly higher than that.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're only 14 units, I guess that's my concern that
that's not going to be enough to cover everything. I know that we don't have
any authority to tell you how to build your place but I guess just as a comment,
what I'd like to see, to keep the concerns of the neighborhood, at least if we
' 13
ml
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
aren't going to do anything to the interior, if we could go with the brick
exterior and keep the outside up because that is their view. The people will
see that first and then they don't see the rest of the neighborhood and the
bigger homes.
Mike Carmody: .. .We originally came in with aluminum siding which was
maintenance free.
Councilwoman Dimler: I like brick.
Councilman Boyt: I think what we have identified here is the reason why we need
to look at our ordinances in regards to the size of townhouses and apartments.
The size lots because those impact on dollar value. Certainly we need
affordable housing. We need to deal with the buffer but I don't think we can do
any of it because I don't think we have the ordinance ability. So given
responses we've heard, I'm afraid that we need to just face up to the idea that
this is going to be approved. The City needs to do everything it can to police
it and I would make a motion that we approve item 1(d) as amended by Mr. Workman
and my condition.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. '
Don Ashworth: For clarificiation, did that include the walkway easement?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Was that permanent then or temporary? '
Councilman Boyt: It was stated temporary until the trail on TH 101 is built.
Councilman '
Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Preliminary Plat
#89-6 and Site Plan #89-4 as shown on the plans dated April 10, 1989 with the
following conditions:
1. The land use will be amended to Residential-High Density. '
2. All side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion protection.
3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be constructed throughout the site except '
along driveways, which shall have valley gutter construction.
4. All necessary permits for the site construction shall be obtained.
5. The developer shall supply hydrological data showing that surface drainage
will not erode the existing ditch system. Unless the developer changes the
drainage to flow to South Shore Drive instead of TH 101 ditch as shown on
the plans.
6. Provide a trail easement for a temporary walkway to the City Park until such '
time as the trail along TH 101 is constructed.
14 '
I , City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
7. Provide the addition of 2 more Linden trees on the landscape plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Roger Knutson: Excuse me Mayor. The motion was specifically d(1) . Did not
include d(2) .
Mayor Chmiel: It was my understanding covering as it was mentioned making both
' of those 1 and 2.
Councilman Boyt: I would approval of item d(2) .
' Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Site Plan Review
for a 6 and 8 unit townhome building for South Lotus Villas Townhomes. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
H. NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-17.
' Councilman Workman: I believe the last time that we discussed this as a council
the primary concern that we had was the south exit onto TH 101 or West 78th
coming out by the clock tower. I did talk to Gary today briefly. I guess I
would just like to bring it up before the Council. I know Gary Ehret is here
also. Maybe get some more comments. The Planning Commission didn't look at
that aspect of it again?
' Brian Batzli: I made a comment but everyone else seemed satisfied with it.
' Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like comments from the Council then as far as
how they feel that south exit is.
Councilman Johnson: I'll start on that. I'll basically make the same comment I
' made last time. As you can read in here, they did a lot of negotiation with the
property owners that are paying for these improvements, that are being assessed
for their improvements and the only way they will submit to giving that property
' to their, it's their property. They own it. They are going to deed it to the
City at no cost and then they're going to pay to have it upgraded at their cost
and they need that access according to their businesses. Take that access away,
they're going to retract their offer to sell us the land, from what I read here.
' Then we've got no parking lot. No medical building. No development.
Councilman Workman: Are you saying they're threatening us Jay?
' Councilman Johnson: That's the tone I get out of here. They didn't threaten.
That's basically the agreement we made with them for this parking lot and if we
change the agreement, go back on the agreement, they have the right to do that.
11 Then we'll have to go into condemnation to condemn their land and buy it from
them to do the same thing. In condemnation they may win the same argument
anyway.
I 15
--
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
Councilman Workman: So Jay then you're saying you're fully in favor of this
egress at least coming out at that intersection?
Councilman Johnson: I believe that for the people who have been there, ['-
businessmen in our community for a long time, they deserve their parking lot to
be convenient for their businesses. They would like a full right turn, left
turn. We negotiated down to a right turn in and right turn out only. It's not
the best thing in the world but the engineers say it's safe and it's a lot
better than it is now because now it's ridiculous because people try to take
that left turn in there. Now they won't be able to turn left into that so it's
going to be an improvement over the current situation but it's not going to be
as good as I want it. That's what I think is the most reasonable, the best
compromise to do. We have to live with those businessmen too. We can't just
put than out of business. So that's where I sit. Is that it's a reasonable
compromise.
Mayor Chmiel: Ursula? '
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't have any concerns.
Councilman Boyt: I find it interesting how we get ourselves into these
situations of where we, on the one hand we have business interests who very much
want that way in and out of their property. On the other hand we have the
citizens who are going to drive through that intersection and I'm just sure
they're not going to be pleased but I think as Jay mentioned, it's kind of part
of the deal and though we may not be happy with it, I think we will be happy
with the medical arts center. So although I was opposed to this, I'm willing to ,
accept it. I think it's the best compromise we're going to get.
Mayor Chmiel: Basically from what both of you have said and I sort of agree
with each of those. I think the accessibility has to be there too for the
businesses. We may not be happy with what's there but I think it's the best
thing we can have right now. I think Bill mentioned that.
Councilman Workman: Okay, I guess I'd just like to say I'm totally for the
businessman in the city. I in no way, shape or form want to, as I've said
before, there's many other options for people to spend their money rather than
downtown Chanhassen I'd rather see here. We in the past have made a mistake I
think on that corner by the clock tower and I think we're adding a little bit
more of a mistake to it. If we have an opportunity to fix it. I sincerely
believe that it is going to create a problem if they do not have that access
there but I think nonetheless and I guess I want to go on record as saying I
think it's going to create a problem there. I know that TH 101 is going to be
moved eventually so traffic should be reduced in that area but I still have
concerns.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the North Side
Parking Lot Improvement Project #87-17:
a. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Approval for the Medical Arts Building
b. Resolution #89-70: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the
Advertising for bids.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
16 '
MI
. City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
J. SITE PLAN REVIEW, NEW HORIZON DAYCARE, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HIDDEN VALLEY 2ND
ADDITION, G.P. BAJR, INC.
' Councilman Boyt: It's no secret that I'm not in support of this but I think we
can improve it by adding the conditions that we have with our industrial office
park daycare. Those are really quite simple. I would like us to add an
additional condition that they conduct an annual test of noise level, carbon
monoxide and radon. We put that condition in for our previous daycare. I don't
anticipate a problem with any of these but I think it's a good thing for than to
be monitoring so I would like to see the conditions of approval modified to
include that condition.
Mayor Chmiel: Carbon monoxide and radon?
Councilman Boyt: Carbon monoxide, radon and noise level.
Councilman Johnson: At what location do you want the noise tested? Inside the
building? Outside the building? What are we testing for on the noise?
Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes, that was going to be my question.
Councilman Boyt: Well we have kids playing outside right? So it makes sense to
test it outside.
Councilman Johnson: Are we looking at noise that's affecting the kids or the
kids making too much noise to affect the neighbors? In the industrial park I
think we were looking at noise to affect the kids.
Councilman Boyt: That's what we're looking at here too Jay.
' Councilman Johnson: Because this is a residential neighborhood. Carbon
monoxide and radon is inside the building?
1 Councilman Boyt: Yes. Those two wouldn't make a lot of sense to be outside the
building.
' Councilman Johnson: I just want to be specific because people will go and
measure than outside and say, hey we didn't find any. Or you measure the noise
inside, it doesn't do you much good. I have a question too. Why is this great
big chunk of asphalt between the two playground areas?
Councilman Boyt: It's a playground area.
Councilman Johnson: This chunk of asphalt is a playground area?
Councilman Boyt: Yes, for 4 square and that sort of thing.
' Councilman Johnson: Okay. I was just trying to get some more grass and stuff
in there. Why does it have to go all the way out to the street and stuff? I
never saw that on any previous plans. All of a sudden it shows up now and to me
that doesn' t make a lot of sense.
1_ Councilman Boyt: It was requested by New Horizon so they could have a hard
' surface play area in part of it.
' 17
MI
^,a
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Councilman Johnson: What about the landscaping? There was suppose to be some
landscaping on that side. If you've got asphalt, you're not going to plant any
trees.
Councilman Boyt: I think the Planning Cuunni.ssion removed the landscaping.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, they did.
Councilman Boyt: If you want to put it back in, be my guest. 1
Randy Peterson: The landscaping is still the same. Actually it's a little
more. I'm Randy Peterson representing the developer G.P. BAJR and the New
Horizon building but the landscaping is still the same. Actually we've added
some and the asphalt is inside the playground area.
Councilman Johnson: Does it have to go all the way to your property line?
Randy Peterson: That's for a basketball hoop and stuff.
Councilman Johnson: You're not going to put the basketball hoop up next to the
street because when they miss the basketball hoop, we're talking a ball in the
street. '
Randy Peterson: And by the way I don't have any problems with his conditions.
As I understood them though they're to start a year from now that we monitor
them. After we're in there.
Councilman Boyt: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Randy, do you monitor them in any of your other locations?
Randy Peterson: No. 1
Councilman Johnson: I think Bill we ought to do a baseline. You should always
when you first start it take than initially. Before you start operation. '
Randy Peterson: Well we don't have any problem right now. There's no building
there so to start it as a baseline.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, but you get there a year from now and we find out
there's a problem there, we don't know if that problem was existing before you
got there or not so if you take the baseline before you start operations, then
you may know you have an existing problem. Otherwise you'll be able to come
back and say these were existing conditions that we're measuring now. It's not
us increasing anything. There's no problem here. That's a standard technique
but we're not talking $10,000.00 to have somebody come out there, test your
carbon monoxide and your radon. The radon test is I think about $50.00 to
$60.00.
Randy Peterson: It's not a matter of the cost. It's the matter_ of the delay. L!!
If we can still get permitted and do it as we go, fine.
LIICouncilman Johnson: Yes. But before you start operation.
18 '
■
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
IIIRandy Peterson: I guess that's fine.
III
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the site plan
II review for New Horizon Daycare, Lot 2, Block 1, Hidden Valley 2nd Addition with
the addition of a condition that the applicant conduct an annual test of the
noise level outside, and the carbon monoxide and radon level inside the
building. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion
II carried.
IIVISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations at this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 AND TIF DISTRICT
2-1.
IMayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
I Todd Gerhardt: Attached for the City Council's approval tonight is modification
to Development District No. 2 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1.
Attachment number 6 in your packet shows the existing district as it is today.
1 Staff is recommending that the district be expanded to include a 20 acre
subdivision zoned Industrial Office be included in that modification and that
the increment dollars created from this district be solely used for the upgrade
of Audubon Court and Audubon Road. The Planning Commission has reviewed this
I and feel that it is consistent with the plans for the development of City of
Chanhassen and meet the zoning requirements. I've met with both Carver County
and the school district regarding the modification. Their only concern was the
1 length of the district. The district was created in October 10, 1988 and it has
7 years left. It's an 8 year district. Staff is .recommending approval of this
modification. I'll answer any questions that the Council members may have.
I Councilwoman Dimler: I just have one question and that is, would you explain to
me how it passes the but for test?
I Todd Gerhardt: The but for test is a requirement that the State law has put on
developments in assisting for public improvements for land write down to assist
the costs regarding development of property, economic development property. In
II this case we're creating jobs. You're enhancing the tax base so you're meeting
2 of the criteria set forth in the but for for an economic development district.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay you're saying but for this assistance, that area
IIwould not develop?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: It may develop but not as quickly as with the assistance.
Mayor Chmi.el: As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone
II wishing to address this?
5 Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II 19
A
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
1
Resolution #89-71: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the resolution modifying Development District No. 2 and Tax Increment
Financing District No. 2-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT.
Gary Warren: We have 3 pieces of equipment. We're seeking Council approval
here for award of bids. One is the tractor backhoe. The other is a Bobcat
mounted broom and the other is a trench compactor. The tractor backhoe as
summarized is a very important piece of equipment which to this point in time
we've rented from one of our local contractor's, Merle Volk. As you can see
from the staff report, we've spent a significant amount of dollars over the last
4 years in rental fees here. We initially advertised for a rental unit to see
if we could achieve a reasonable piece of equipment at that rate and were
surprised to find that the rental units do not depreciate significantly so for a
matter of a few thousand dollars more, it's possible to buy a new piece of
equipment. So we re-advertised the bids and were able to obtain the low bid
from Long Lake Ford of $36,494.00. The Bobcat mounted broom is a very useful
piece of equipment. An additional accessory to our Bobcat for cleaning streets
and clean-up after repairs such as watermain breaks. Likewise, a trench
compactor is very useful for our trench compaction on our watermain breaks and
repairs of that nature. So it's staff's recommendation that we award the bid,
the low bidders for the tractor backhoe to Long Lake Ford for $36,494.00. The
Bobcat broom to Lano Equipment for $3,530.00 and the trench compactor to I
Minneapolis Equipment for $1,625.00.
Mayor Chmi.el: Gary, I guess I have a question on this. Have we looked into the
leasing aspect as opposed to buying? Making the initial investment in this for
that tractor.
Gary Warren: We haven't specifically obtained any quotes on leasing equipment.
I guess our thinking on these pieces of equipment, because we do basically drive
than into the ground and maintain them for a long period of time, the lease buy
option hasn't worked in the past. I haven't done it specifically here.
Mayor Chmi.el: Okay, have we looked at it most recently?
Y
Gary Warren: Like I say, I haven't looked at it at this time. '
Don Ashworth: Associated with the equipment itself, I have not looked at that
with this specific one. We did look to both the copier as well as the mailing
machine that was on the last agenda. Both of those items came in at a net
interest rate of right at 11% and that was significantly over what I felt that
we should be at. Potentially when our financial consultant meets with the
Council, we can talk about that type of option because I believe you can get
into municipal leases where you would package a number of items similar to this
and look to a net interest rate which took advantage of the tax exemption of the
City. Again, to date we had not looked at that as a part of this particular
item.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Any other discussion on this item? I think that's something we
should start looking at to see what's the best way to go because I know there
20 '
I 'City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Cop
are a lot more companies that are going to leasing as opposed to buying and they
are large companies and smaller companies and I think we'd probably fit in the
I Ismaller company category as far as the city is concerned. So with that I'd like
to make a motion to approve the purchase of the tractor backhoe, Bobcat broom
and compactor. The tractor from Long Lake Ford. The broom to be used on
' sidewalks in downtown from Lino Equipment and the compactor from Minneapolis
Equipment. Carlson Equipment bid a Wacker_ Model BSY for the amounts of dollars
so specified in the information we've been provided. Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution #89-72: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to award the
bids for equipment as follows:
Tractor Backhoe - Long Lake Ford in the amount of $36,494.00
Bobcat Mounted Broom - Lano Equipment in the amount of $3,530.00-
Trench Compactor Minneapolis Equipment in the amount of $1,625.00
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' REVIEW OF TETON LANE ACCESS CONDITIONS, CURRY FARMS 2ND ADDITION, AUTHORIZE
CONDEMNATION.
Gary Warren: This item was before the Council at our last meeting. Since that
' time staff has met with the developer, in particular John Speiss from Centex
Real Estate and I've had individual discussions with Franco Loris and with Mr.
Mark Simcox representing the neighbors on the north side of Teton. Basically to
' capsulate here quickly, the issue was whether to restrict access on Teton Lane
as provided in the original conditions of approval for the plat or to somehow
modify those conditions recognizing the difficulty that we have at present to
' getting the easement rights released from the respective property owners on
Teton. We've come up with I guess what I would summarize as four options that
may or may not have value. The first one is to release the easement rights and
this would be to pursue this utilizing condemnation process to basically condemn
' the rights of the easement holders as they exist at this time. These are very
crude estimates but we estimate that that's maybe an $8,000.00 to $12,000.00
option when we include all the costs, attorney fees and pursuing it through the
' courts. This would allow us then to put up the barricade as we presently had
planned on doing on Teton Lane and blocking it off for everything except the
emergency access. The second option we looked at was to establish what I had
' called for lack of any other name a Teton Lane Access Association. Basically
what this would do is provide for the construction of a moveable gate which
would allow the easement holders, similar to a garage door opener device, have
that in their vehicles so that they could operate the gate to allow them and
only them to use Teton Lane which would allow them that useage and not prevent
them from their easement rights. This would be a construction cost of roughly
$5,000.00 to $6,000.00. I guess the condition that I would place on that is
that an association of the easement holders be established making them
responsible for the gate and it's operation. The gate would be designed in such
a fashion so that it would, if it failed it would fail in the closed position so
that the conditions of approval would be enforced. The third item was to
barricade Teton Lane at Lilac Lane which is the north end of Teton Lane and we
' 21
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
don't have an overhead or I'd put the graph up but attachment 1 to the staff
report presented a sketch where we showed an alternate barricade location on the
north side. In reviewing this with the City Attorney, felt as long as we were
outside of the Teton Lane easement area, that the City could install a barricade
which would basically have a net result of restricting access on Teton with the
exception that the Natole's now would have to utilize the Curry Farms road
system to get out. They would no longer be able to exit on Teton or enter.
Lastly the option that's obvious I guess to go to unrestricted access on Teton
and not do any barricade and change the conditions of approval for the plat. I
guess from a public works standpoint, we'd have a little bit of a problem with
that and would want to take a look at restricting that road since it's not
designed to a full city standard as a 7 ton road. We would have to sign it for
some restricted load capacity and enforce that obviously. We did an interesting
test here since our last meeting. We actually did install counters on Teton
Lane on both ends and I was surprised to see that we basically are experiencing
about 100 vehicles per day on Teton. Now this is a very limited study for 2
days. We're getting all kinds of different traffic through there and a lot of '
it is obviously traffic with deliveries and such which are heavier trucks which
are also impacting the life of that roadway so we very much would need to
restrict it if we decided to open up the access. Also in the packet is a letter
from the developer's attorney stating that Centex would be agreeable to fund the
cost of an appraisal at this time to help define what the value of the easement
rights are that the City is considering condemning. I guess staff's position on
this has been trying to eliminate some of the unknowns here and I think it might
be helpful for everybody's perspective to identify what the value of the
easement rights are out there and is suggesting that Council consider the
developer's position and authorize the preparation of an appraisal to valuate
the easement right cost.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to start by proposing that we follow staff's
recommendation and authorize an assessment to be made of what these rights are
worth. The original condition placed on the developer for this development was
that this situation would be handled. That the developer would enter into
agreements with the property holders. The night we did it it didn't appear that
there was a great deal of resistance to this proposal and I think now the City
should continue to move in the direction that we initially indicated. But to do
that fairly we need to know how much those easement rights are worth so the
developer can make a decision and more fully enter into the discussion.
Councilman Johnson: We worked on this issue, tabled it many times and had many
times with the neighbors coming in. Worked very hard to get the agreement we
did get with all the neighbors that were there at the time. We seemed to have
agreement of the neighbors and then after all the property got approved and the
people sold their property and the development moved in, then the agreements we
seemed to have forged in public meetings was no longer as agreeable to
everybody. It's interesting. I'd like to know how much it would cost to
acquire this. I'm not too thrilled on the garage door opener route because
that's going to take a lot of maintenance. I'm not too wild about opening the
street for unlimited use because there are people with children living along
there and it wasn't designed as a full street. I wish we had held the
development up until this question had actually, the easements should have been
vacated before we allowed them to start building houses out there. This was a
little bit of our problem not following up of all conditions. When you have a
whole lot of conditions, sometimes one slips through and this one slipped
22 '
MI
IICity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
through. I'm not 100% sure how I'm going to vote right now. I want to hear
everybody else.
I Councilman Worlanan: So we're just looking for a second perhaps to the motion
made by Bill right? Staff's recommendation that the City proceed with the
appraisal step at this time I think? I think we ought to do that at this point.
' Mayor Chmiel: Let me interject something here too. I drove that area 2
different times and the accessibility coming off of Lilac onto Teton is there.
' Of course the day that I drove through there, there were about 2 cars at the
same time that I was going through the area. The accessibility of getting back
onto CR 17, Powers Blvd. is a long drive to come from all the way through there
to get to that end. Then even though that road is designed at less tonage, I
' look at it from the safety aspect and that's something I think we have to look
at too. The accessbility by the fire department and also police department.
How quickly we can get to and from that specific location. The access in and
' out so I guess it looks like the barricade is up there but there aren't too many
people that are paying much attention to getting in and out either. More
specifically the trucks. I observed a couple of cars that were going through
there. They weren't going very fast because of that little dip that you have to
have before you get on Teton and head towards Lilac. That consequently does
slow down that traffic but once they get on Teton, it's just open enough where
they can move forth and probably get a little higher. speed. I did try that and
there isn't that much distance in that small space, or the length of that road I
should say. But other than that I guess I feel too that maybe we should follow
staff's recommendations and look at that aspect of it.
IlCouncilwoman Dimler: My concern is still with some of the neighbors up there
and the original proposal. I think if we're going to change it on them, we
maybe should have another public hearing.
Councilman Boyt: I wouldn't anticipate changing any of those original
conditions. As the Mayor mentioned, we put them in for safety reasons. Both
' safety of the residents and the desire to have a second access into that
development. I think the reason for requesting the assessment on those easement
rights is so the developer can know how much it's going to cost him. I'm sure
that will catch the developer's interest depending upon whether it's $8,000.00
11
or $20,000.00 but there's never been any question in my mind that this is the
developer's respondibility to clear this up because it was a condition of
approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not opposed to the appraisal. I'm just saying if
there's going to be any changes, I'd recommend we have more public hearings so
1 the citizens can again represent their views with the new proposals.
Mayor Chmiel: That's fine too. I don't have any objections with that.
Councilman Johnson: So I'll second Bill's motion way back when.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, to follow staff's recommendation for easement rights?
11 Councilman Johnson: Yes.
23
3
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to follow staff's
recommendation to authorize an appraisal of the easement rights along Teton
Lane. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Gary Warren: I was just going to say, the residents and such are here just so
you're aware.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes. Is there anyone who would like to address the issue?
Florence Natole: I'm Florence Natole of course, as many times as I've been here
the past year and a half. We didn't ask for a complete blockage. We don't want
that blockade. What was agreed 6 months ago, 7 months, whatever, was to have a
break away so that it would be like Christmas Lake has and it would be just
break away and if in case of fire or anything, God forbid, they could go through
there because the fire plug is right on the corner, kitty corner from our place
so we're not looking for a complete blockade of the road. It could still be
used by the Centex people after they're gone as another access into the Centex
homes so when we talk about blockade, everybody thinks we want to blockade this
thing with uh and I don't think we like the idea of something that opens and
closes. That doesn't work but we also gave access for the city to use our road
to make a turn for their snow and so on. If you're not going to do that, then
we'd like to have our easement back because we have to maintain that road and we
put in a complete, all the way up to our house, blacktop because of the City's
putting in blacktop and we're very sorry that we didn't leave it the way it was.
We do not like the blacktop so all and all that wasn't mentioned tonight, the
break away idea. I don't know what happened to that but that's the way it was II
originally worded.
Councilman Boyt: That's still the plan.
Florence Natole: Yes, that's the best way. Just the break away.
Councilman Johnson: Mrs. Natole, I think there's a confusion on what a break ,
away is. A break away is a post that blocks the road so people can't drive
through that our fire trucks can drive through. So the Centex people won't be
able to utilize that either.
Florence Natole: No.
Councilman Johnson: Oh, okay. I thought you said the Centex homeowners would '
be able to drive through there.
Florence Natole: No, I mean after this is all built up, if there should be a '
fire or something, then the fire trucks and so on could come througn there.
Councilman Johnson: They're got a big bumper, they just knock them down and
come on through.
Florence Natole: Yes, right. That's what they've done over at Christmas Lake.
A couple of them are down already. No, I knew that. That's what I wanted to
get across.
24
e
II . 'City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7307 LAREDO DRIVE, JUDY COLBY.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments met before the City Council and two
voted for denial of the variance and one voted in favor of it. The applicant is
requesting a 21 foot front yard variance to the front yard setback for an
additional garage and deck. I've got a blueprint that you can pass down to show
the whole property because I don't have the visual.
Mayor Chmiel: Is Judy Colby here?
Leigh Colby: Our home was built on a rather unusually shaped piece of property.
It's not the normal rectangular shape that most of the homes have and what is
legally defined as a front yard really is our back yard and that's how we use
the area where we hope to have a combined deck and garage. The plans that we're
working off of were actually drawn up 10 years ago from previous owners and is
designed so the face of the house is continuous. It's designed to look
naturally as part of the house but what you should look at very closely is the
fact that part of the garage unit, the northwest corner, actually comes over the
line and that's what we're asking for a variance on. From the street we've got
' 3 very large evergreen trees. You cannot see the house from the street so this
is a very private area. Add to the fact that this, Laredo Drive is a dead end
and it really is a very private area. That's why we use it as a back yard in
' terms of the way the house is laid out. In terms of why we want the garage, we
have no place to put one of our vehicles and a boat and with our 15 year old, we
would expect to have another car and want to be able to store that also so those
right now are sitting outside. That's the reason for the request for the
' garage. The garage that we have is very small. It's a tuck under and it was
built in 1961. I don't know if you've been in a garage that's about 17 feet
wide but fortunately they're making cars smaller these days. We did ask at the
' earlier meeting tonight if they've granted waivers of this in the past and
apparently they have so I don't really think that we're asking for much of a
variance.
' Judy Colby: We're asking for a front yard setback but i.t's to the side of our
house so if you will imagine your house and wanting to put in a garage, and it's
a tuck under garage so it goes into the dirt. We have to excavate the dirt out.
' If you imagine putting that on the side of your house and a deck on top of it
and no one will be able to see that, and like he mentioned, our garage is so
small we get two vehicles in but nothing else so our recreation room now has
' become for the bikes and the sleds and everything else. But I went around the
whole cul-de-sac to all the homes within 500 feet and everyone signed because
they don't want our boat and our truck up in the front of our yard as we don't.
We would like to get that in. And when we purchased the house, i.t's part of an
association that has that beachlot so we don' t have a place to dock a boat so
you have to keep your boat on your premises. You can't keep it down at the lake
but we have a beachlot and a place to put the boat in. Then also we saw these
' plans that you saw, plans that were drawn up by the people before we purchased
the house so when we saw those plans, we never assumed there'd be any problem
adding a garage on there for our extra vehicle and boat. Then when we found out
that yes, it's the side of your house but it's the front yard, we said no. It's
not the front yard. This is the front yard so it just doesn't seen like, and we
got all the signatures in the neighborhood. There was no on opposed. In face
we probably have a couple neighbors right now saying please let then put their
' truck in the garage.
' 25
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: Well I do have one. Are you aware of the covenants of the
Association?
Leigh Colby: Yes. ,
Councilman Boyt: Are there any covenants in there about setbacks?
Leigh Colby: Not that I'm aware of. Most of the covenants have to do with
building sheds and that sort of thing. Detached from the house. I'm not aware
of any other. ,
Judy Colby: We did ask the treasurer to look into that and they didn't find
anything. '
Mayor Chmiel: I did take a look at your location. You're at a cul-de-sac
portion and it's a dead end road basically other than the other access to the
residences there. I did notice a boat out in front in your first driveway as
you come down. Of course there was one car in the garage at the time. Probably
the second one was coming home.
Judy Colby: The truck's being used by a friend. I wish that would have been in
the driveway for you.
Leigh Colby: You would have understood. It's 20 years old. I
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what you're looking for basically is a 21 foot variance
to the front yard setback which is required. The proposed addition is going to
be 21 feet wide, is that correct?
Leigh Colby: That's right. And driving down the hill, the only thing you would
see coming down Laredo to the cul-de-sac is the redwood deck. You would not
actually see the garage. That would be about a foot above ground level and most
of that would sheltered by the trees.
Councilman Johnson: I don't remember in the past 2 1/2 years granting any 21
foot variances to front yard setbacks.
Judy Colby: For the side of a house?
Councilman Johnson: To a front yard setback to where we're getting within 9
foot of the street right-of-way. In a PUD we've gone to 5 feet from the street
right-of-way. It's a bad precedence to start. I don't see the hardship.
Because you own an ugly truck is not a hardship. I sold my ugly truck. Of
course it didn't run. Your's obviously runs since you loaned it to somebody.
Leigh Colby: I think you saw the property, you would understand that you cannot
see it. I mean you cannot see it. '
Judy Colby: And the 9 foot, what you're talking about is you've got quite a few
feel back to these huge trees and then there's this space which is dead so if
that's our front yard, if you want to call it our front yard, you're stopping us
26 ,
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
from using our front yard because you want more feet to do with I don't know
what you'll do because you'd have plenty of room for a sidewalk in front of
those trees.
Councilman Johnson: That's the only place you could put it on city property.
IJudy Colby: Right, and you have plenty of room without touching our trees there
to put a sidewalk. I can't imagine what other use you'd have for that. Those
trees will remain.
ICouncilman Johnson: Unless we have a spruce disease and the trees die and then
we've got a house...
IJudy Colby: Then we'll put a different tree in because we want the privacy.
Leigh Colby: That's part of the plan is that the trees provide some privacy.
I We have absolutely no other place on the property that we can expand in any way
because of the unusual orientation.
IMayor Chmiel: You have a pie shaped lot basically.
Leigh Colby: Yes. It should have been a smaller 2 story home turned the right
way.
Councilman Johnson: We shouldn't have approved the pie shaped lot 20 years ago
or whenever either. We don't approve those anymore or try not to. I still,
when we grant one, everybody comes in and says, well you did it for these folks
and we want exactly the same thing. Then it gets kind of like potato chips or
whatever. You had one, somebody else wants another. It just keeps going.
IJudy Colby: I think it's been obvious that the variance must have been granted
to some people though because you haven't gone along those 5 restrictions that
you have to prove and that's what we were told. And there was this drawing that
we saw that we assumed we could do. That was an assumption and that was our
fault for not checking into it but when you see the architectural drawing of
something, when you're buying a house then you think, well good, then we don't
have to store something in our front yard. Like I said, our regular garage is
so small that we literally get 2 cars in only. Imagine your garage, if you have
a normal house, and not being able to store anything but 2 cars in there.
ICouncilman Johnson: When did you buy this?
Leigh Colby: 3 years ago.
Councilman Johnson: And at that time you were expecting to build onto the
garage as part of it and you didn't check to see if you could?
Judy Colby: Well we just did now when we were going to add to it. By the look
of it we thought we had plenty of feet from the side of the house and I did call
and ask what was a variance from the side of the house and I said oh well we're
fine. Then when the contractors came out to give us some bids and they said
well no, this is the street, you've got to be 60 feet from the middle of the
road. We measured and we were 10 feet into the setback at that point but I
Is guess that 60 feet isn' t right now.
I 27
` ')
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
Councilman Johnson: Yes, it's 30 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of the
property line.
Leigh Colby: I think if you would have seen the property, you would understand
that you can not.. .
Councilman Johnson: I'm friends with your next door neighbors. I've been down
on your block many times.
Leigh Colby: And if the restriction is that we also maintain trees along there,
even if they're knocked down, I'm more than happy to comply with that because
that's what we'd do anyhow.
Councilman Johnson: And when you get transferred to Arizona next year and the
new neighbor's in there and he doesn't like the view of the trees, he cuts them
down. The ordinance is for protection for the long term. It's just like we're
talking about covenants before. Once you leave, they're unenforceable and
everybody says no, I'm going to live there until I die.
Leigh Colby: I think most ordinances are written with common sense in mind and
everybody who's walked it off agrees that aesthetically it really fits in. It
really is a common sense issue.
Councilman Johnson: And we've turned down other things that appear to be common
sense and aesthetically beneficial.
Judy Colby: Have you approved things that don't have any common sense behind
111
it?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, because by law we had to.
Councilwoman Dimler: I also looked at the property. I guess my impression was
that that was the side yard. I've always thought of that as the side yard and
so I was surprised that by legal description it was the front yard. I think
they meet 3 of the 5 conditions and I would be in favor of granting this
particular variance because Laredo ends in a circle and there's a lake behind
it. It will never go further. I can't see anything that we would want to do to
the street that we couldn't do that would be injurious to city property.
Leigh Colby: You're not going to make it a four lane? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: No, it's never going to be four lane.
Councilman Johnson: Ursual, can I ask you a question? If you're going to
consider this a side yard, they'll still need a side yard variance if this was a
side yard because they're going 1 foot in. '
Councilwoman Dimler: But they meet that.
Councilman Johnson: No they don't. It's a 10 foot side yard setback I think so '
they would need a 1 foot variance. If they can cut this back 1 foot, they could
meet the side yard.
28 '
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
ICouncilwoman Dimler: We talked about this at the Board of Adjustment and
T -_ Appeals and there is room for a sidewalk or a trail or whatever we might want to
put in there. Then also, the trees are there that you can't see it from the
III road.
'
Councilman Johnson: But they could also cut it back to a 20 foot instead
i of 21
Ifoot and meet the side yard setback if you want to call this a side yard.
Councilwoman Dimler: Fine, if that's what you want.
ILeigh Colby: It would just be that one tip. So you're saying, if I _bevel -the
_ notch, bevel the one corner then I'll comply. -
'
II theJudy Colby: Because
road curves out there so our only problem with be down
in the corner:.-: -._ -; - , __.
II : Councilman Johnson: If you're going to grant a variance to this, I think one of
the logical ways to do it, if you.want to make it to. where other people can't
-copy it, is to say in essence this is-a side yard and they would not need a side
Iyard variance so you would have to modify it where you would not need a side
yard variance. - I have a little trouble calling it a side yard since it'-s up
against a street but I think you'll probably muster the votes to grant this
I somehow or another without me but I'm going to continue what I continued 2 years
ago of not liking variances. I'll still give you my ideas on, if I hadn't taken
this stand 2 years ago that I wouldn't grant variances unless there was a real
li hardship shown, I don't see the hardship here. Sorry to interrupt you.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's okay, you do
y, y all the time.
I Councilman Workman: I apologize because I was unable to get out there today.
You were on my schedule and the hours turned into minutes very quickly. I would
like to get out there to see it. I don't obviously have a hard and fast rule
towards variances. I think one of the reasons Ursula's on the Council is
I .because she's open minded and can look at things in practical ways. Not that we
need to give them to everybody but to look at it. I guess I would like to look
at it a little closer than from a piece. of paper which is what I have done so
far. I apologize again. So not to delay your construction time or anything I
:guess I'd like to see this tabled so that I might have an opportunity to get out
-there. Perhaps talk to Willard and Carol and get some more input.
I .:_Councilman Boyt: Before you consider tabling, I'd like to comment on this.
There are, for the benefit of the rest of the people out there who may be
, _,wonderi.ng what's going on, ordinances are written through a rather lengthy
I process of public hearings and trying to clearly define what the concerns are
and meet those concerns with a particular ordinance. State statute makes it
very difficult to vary from an ordinance unless you want to rewrite it and go
I - through the public hearing process again. A variance is changing an ordinance
so there's 5 criteria because if we grant a variance as Judy and Leigh have
pointed out, you've granted variances in the past like this, I expect you to
grant it for me. I can assure you that if any one of you comes in here with a
I similar kind of problem and the need to move 21 feet into your front yard
setback, you're going to reference this case and say tell me what's different.
! So every time we do this, the State says you're supposed to follow the 5
Icriteria that they set up. This, by no stretch of the imagination matches those
II 29
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 I
criteria and I would suggest that if the Council insists upon passing this, that
you best direct the City Attorney to find facts that support you.
Leigh Colby: Bill, you said that this sets aside an ordinance. In effect
negates it and most ordinances are written to cover a multitude of things but
they can't address every unique circumstance and a variance is not a set aside
but acknowledging that not all circumstances are quite what was anticipated when
the ordinance was written.
Councilman Boyt: Leigh, I agree with you but, you've clearly got some crowd
support here. One of the 5 criteria is that you have a unique situation.
That's 1 of the 5 and as I mentioned earlier when I attended the meeting, I
agree that you have a unique piece of land. Being a pie shaped piece of
property but you have a house that meets all city codes including the need for a
garage on that piece of property and that's all the City guarantees when they
give a person a building permit is that your house will meet our codes. Now to
go beyond that and say well but we'll give you the right to extend into any of '
those setbacks, if you meet the other criteria, then yes we need to have sort of
flexibility to do it. One of the other pieces of criteria is that this is not a
self-created hardship. I don't see how you can define your own purchases as
not being self-created. They weren't acts of God. They weren't things that
were out of your control. There is another one of the criteria is that it not
be injurous to your neighborhood. I think you've demonstrated that your
neighbors feel this is not injurous. The ones I've talked to agree that they
don't see this as injurous to them.
Leigh Colby: Most of them see it as an upgrade. '
Councilman Boyt: And it quite well could be in that regard. The other is that
you need to have a situation which is a hardship. Not an economic hardship but
something that you can't overcome. That there's no way to overcome it. I don't
think that since your house already meets City Codes, I don't think there's
anything there that you need to overcome. Where we have adjusted these in the
past has been when somebody has been on a lake lot. They didn't have a garage.
They wanted a garage. City Code requires a garage and we gave them the right to
build into that front yard setback to do that. You don't have that situation
Leigh. There is a quandry here. I'm sure when Tom goes out and looks at this
he's going to say, well in your individual situation it looks like a pretty low
impact thing. If the Council votes to approve this, I don't see how they can
turn down anybody's request who comes in and says I want to extend my house. I'm
going to have another child. I need another bedroom and so what if it goes 21
feet into my setback from the front street. I'll put trees up. I don't see how
we could turn that down and be fair.
Judy Colby: Look at my house and say that that's not the front of my house.
It's the side of my home.
Councilman Boyt: It's legally defined. '
Judy Colby: But it's the side of my house and I want to add onto the side of my
house.
Councilman Boyt: Well you're adding onto the side of your house that projects
to the front street.
30 '
mm
41b
II , ' City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
:11"— Leigh Colby: What I would recommend is that we table this. I think if you take
a look at it, you'll find out it really would be a very tasetful addition.
Mayor Chmi.el: I think we're at that particular point for Tom to really take a
look and review this. I'd like to second that motion to table it.
Councilman Workman: I guess if I could make one more comment. My vote has
already been predicted I guess. If in fact a variance is always going to be a
precedented situation, then I'm going to assume that if you have any space
behind your yard, it will probably be condemned by Bill Boyt for a park very
soon so to set precedence. I would like to take it on a parcel by parcel basis
' and that's what I intend to do. I do move to table.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm seconding that.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmi.el seconded to table the front yard setback
variance request for 7307 Laredo Drive until the next City Council meeting. All
voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried.
' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH, 1/4 MILE NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND WEST OF POWERS BLVD., ECKANKAR CHURCH, PETER BECK.
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Peter Beck, 7900 Xerxes Avenue
South representing Eckankar. We have nothing much to add Mr. Mayor to the
proceedings of the earlier meetings except to summarize what we have done in
response to the Council's request at the last meeting. Everything that I'm
' going to cover tonight is addressed in the letter which we delivered and I
believe is in your packet dated May 17, 1989 but perhaps for the benefit of
those in the audience I'll just briefly review the steps we have taken in the
' last month. The City Council requested that a baseline environmental study be
done of those portions of the property encompassing the former farmsteads and
then the proposed development site for the church. What we did in response to
that request was retain the firm of Protox Inc. to conduct such an environmental
' site assessment. In fact we directed them to cover the entire property in this
assessment. Their study was, we asked them as the experts to recommend to us an
appropriate study for this piece of property and under the circumstances and
' then we met on site with city officials including the City Planner and Public
Safety Director to insure that the proposed scope was adequate and appropriate
and acceptable to the City. After that point then we contracted with Protox and
they conducted a study. Although I'll summarize briefly their findings, the
' entire report that they submitted to us has been submitted to the City. The
study included a visual and magnetometer survey of the entire property with
special emphasis on the two farmstead sites and the proposed development site.
The study also included subsurface soil vapor sampling at any location which the
magnetometer or the visual survey indicated warranted further investigation.
Then also a number of other randomly selected samples. The results of the study
were that there was no evidence of any contamination anywhere on the property
and that the construction activities as proposed can proceed without danger of
environmental contamination from hazardous materials. Protox did recommend that
3 wells on the property be abandoned. That an underground storage tank
' discovered next to where an old shed was on the south farm, be removed. That a
' 31
'17ity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
potential second underground tank be investigated once excavating equipment was
on site and if necessary removed. That a magnetic object which the magnetometer
disclosed but which Protox wasn't able to locate with shovels and picks, also be
further investigated with excavating equipment. They suspect it to be some
sort of scrap metallic object like old tools but they think in the interest of
thoroughness that further excavation should occur in that location. After
receipt of that report, we have contracted again with Protox to follow up on all
of the recommended actions and they are undertaking that effort right now. The
wells will be abandoned pursuant to State Department of Health regulations. The
one tank will be removed as required under, I think it's PCA regulations. Then
the other two magnetic items will be investigated and if anything is discovered,
it also will be removed under the relevant State and Federal regulations. We
asked the principles from Protox who participated in the study to come tonight.
They are available. John Nedved and Dan Fedder to answer any questions that the
Council may have with respect to the scope and the results from their study.
The second inquiry or request from the Council was that we submit some
documentation from Eckankar itself with respect to the proposed acquisition by
the City of a portion of the property for public purposes. The City had
received a number of communications from our firm as representatives of Eckankar
on that subject but requested I guess confirmation from Eckankar and that was
submitted and is in the packet in the form of a letter from Peter Skelsky
confirming that reasonable portions of the property be made available for public
purposes in setting forth some guidelines for negotiations towards this end.
The other inquiries were with respect to again what portion of the property
would be tax exempt and once again we're just suggesting that that issue be left
to the discretion of the County Attorney where it rests under State Law. Again
pointing out that if the County Attorney or if as a result of the County
Attorney's investigation it's determined that under the appropriate laws and
regulations the tax exempt portion of the property be limited, then that would
be the case. Finally with respect to the skylight, we did again explain what
was mentioned last meeting. That the skylight can be closed and it will be kept
in a position so there's no more illumination occurring from the skylight than
from a typical lighting, exterior lighting from other churches in the community.
...So that summarizes briefly the activities and the efforts that we've gone
through in the months since the last City Council meeting. From that point we'd
be happy again to answer any questions that the Council might have.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Are there any questions by Council?
Councilman Johnson: I have a question of Protox. Are the 3 wells in adequate
condition to pull a ground water sample from those wells? '
John Nedved: I'm John Nedved with Protox. There are obstructions in the wells
in the form of pumps. Those are being removed and then I think we can probably
get ground water samples from at least one of the wells.
Councilman Johnson: I think I'd like to try to get at least ground water
samples from all 3 wells if possible prior to you abandoning that well. I'd
like the static water depth surveyed and put in there to mean sea level and all
that good stuff and regular ground water samples taken and analyzed through your
basic organic scan. As long as you're there and it's easy to do, it's well
worth the time to find out what our ground water down there is doing. It won't
be that expensive. That's my only comment.
32
LY 7
,City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Peter Beck: I don't see any problem with that recognizing that we'll only be
able to do it if it's possible to do it.
Councilman Workman: In regards to the skylight, Eckankar will close the
skylight on it's church so no more illumination will occur than occurs from the
' _lighting on other Chanhassen churches. I guess I would go along with that.
That's sanething different than maybe we had agreed upon at the last meeting
_ where you said yes, it wouldn't be illuminated. I guess I would hope that it
wouldn't be too. much lit up or act as a beacon or sanething else. I think most
' -of the churches in town have exterior lighting on them, not emanating from them
and that is what my concern was at the last meeting. I do have a quick question
for you and -I have some more concerns perhaps. Your law firm is very busy these
' „:days all over the place, particularly currently up in, the Lake Minnetonka
Hennepin Parks,,-just ta--the north of us up here.
Peter Beck: Representing the City of Minnetrista. -
.Councilman Worlmnan: _Right. In the Minnapolis Star and Tribune I believe
Sunday, May 14th. Back towards the end of the article one of your _
' representatives David Sellergren, special counsel for the City and an attorney
with your firm said that the 292 acre park would result in the loss of
-_Minnetrista's best land for development. He said the park would cut the City's
- tax base by as much as 100 million dollars resulting in a net loss of
' $242,000.00 per _year. I find it kind of ironic that now we're on this side of
it and there's always 2 sides, 2 ends of the candle which you guys seem to be on
both ends. This large parcel as we've been saying over and over is going to do
IP pretty much the same thing that you are saying is going to happen to Minnetrista
and that I believe has been the concerns of the citizens, a very large majority
of the citizens all along. I am almost fully aware that most and most of the
' people in the .room perhaps are fully aware that perhaps Eckankar is going to be
building a church here -but my biggest concern remains and is we haven't been
able to get together and decide what in the future you're going to actually need
' , on that parcel and we cannot force you to get into the hot water. I have a deep
concern. In my college days I studied a book called My Cropolis in Transition
which was written just about 20 years ago by the ex-mayor of St. Cloud talking
about a lot of the big issues that were occurring with the growth of St. Cloud.
' ., They were going to be building a large airport, or they had a large airport just
about in the center of town. Wanted to move that. There were some problems
with different trusts and owners on that large parcel. The question was, if the
' }airport were moved, too much land would be taken up by tax free institutions
such as schools, parks and churches and that the City would later find itself in
-,a financial bind to finance routine city services in the area. A concern of
city officials was understandable. St. Cloud already had one of the highest if
' not the highest ratio of tax exempt to taxable property in the state. Roughly
50-50. I would like to at this point request from the City Manager, Don
Ashworth, perhaps a review of what our current ratio i.s. I understand another
' church from a neighboring community is planning to purchase another substantial
tract of property to build a church and I think we need to look at exactly how
much we can put up with.
Don Ashworth: I was not prepared for that question. Jo Ann, do you have any
idea? As we went through the Comp Plan, can you r_anember the statistics as to
general versus the existing private? In other words, public sector lands in
comparison to private.
' 33
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Jo Ann Olsen: I know that we discussed it. I don't have that information on
hand.
Councilman Workman: I didn't expect an answer this evening I guess. It's even
difficult restricting the size of a parcel. Churches can divide it up and own 5
different parcels. Hopefully Eckankar will come to a good conclusion as far as
what it needs to be sitting on. We obviously have no idea at this point what
your plan is. I also, in a little side note not to take up too much more time
here, I did do a little studying on our city survey as far as mail surveys.
Mail surveys are traditionally a very poor way of finding out what people are
really thinking. There's probably the least amount of control on a mail in
survey than any other survey so whether or not we can take that, I think we
already knew what perhaps the survey was going to find out. I guess in
conclusion, I've gotten a lot of help with my decisions as far as this large
issue, from the community. Up until this weekend people delivering me newspaper
clippings from some of your problems in Salem, Oregon which again you guys are
aware of. But people are genuinely concerned I guess but within the concerns of
again a very large majority of the people, there has always been a compromising
tone I guess. The biggest problem I've had with some of these proceedings are
that perhaps we as a City of Chanhassen are going to be called intolerable of
other religions, etc.. I don't find that to be so at all. I think, as I stated
in the first meeting, that the people in this community have very genuine
concerns about what is craning into their city. You've had the problems in every
city that you've been in just about and moved around and you've had some
internal problems that have made us a little bit leary. I think we've been very
open and very intelligent about how to best approach this. I guess at this time
I'd like to just end my comments. Get some more input from the Council.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess this is a good time to bring this up because my
major concern does remain and I think the citizens as well, and that is what
does Eckankar want to do with the balance of the property. That has never been
answered so right now Peter as a representative of Eckankar, I want to ask you,
are you aware of their future plans that you want to share with us that we can
put some of these concerns to rest at this time?
Peter Beck: Mayor, Councilmember Dimler, I am aware that there are no other
plans. The focus has been completely, and I've been working with Eckankar with
respect to this piece of property now for 4 or 5 years. In 1985 when there was
a request before the City for their International Campus on the site, at that
time it was proposed to divide the north half off, split the north, roughly a
third off for residential development and the south, roughly a third would be
commercial development. Since then the City rezoned the entire property so
there's no more commercial zoning on the property. When it came time to come
back and take another look at using the property and appropriate uses, the
efforts have focused entirely on the church and there hasn't been any discussion
about what would be done on the balance of the property.
Councilwoman Dimler: So they're not thinking into the future? That's what
you're telling me? I find that hard to believe but. When we discuss plans for
A we usually go with well what do we do with B and C?
Peter Beck: They've asked us what's allowable under the present zoning for
instance and we've said single family up in the north and multiple family on the
34 '
mo
{
1 Ci.ty Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
south. That's about the extent of it. We've knocked around ideas about do you
1 - think that commercial development could ever occur on the south? What about
combining development down there with a city project such as a community center,
school but it's just talk and I can tell you honestly there are no plans for the
balance of the property and the focus has been just on obtaining approval to
' proceed with the church.
-'Councilwoman Dimler: I guess another comment I had. I'm glad to see we got a
' - letter from Peter Skelsky saying that they would be willing to sell some of the
land if the City deemed it necessary but we would have to do that by December
31st was it, 1989 or something of that nature? But when we talked with them
prior, I think that they were willing to sell it to us at cost and now I'm
' ' reading that it's at fair market value. Can you explain the difference there?
=- -Peter-Beck_: lI don't now how the discussion about cost got started. Selling it
' - at cost. I believe our earliest communications, you know when Don first
- inquired, and our response was at a fair price. I don't remember and Don can
-supplement this, ever saying orally that it would be at cost and I know that
nothing was ever written to that effect. Then in subsequent, as you know the
' issue has kept coming back and it's been asked again and again and again and I
think we've always said at a fair price or fair market value price. I really
honestly don't know how the discussion about cost got started.
' Councilwoman Dimler: —I guess when I was on the task force, Don didn't it come
back at one time that it would be at cost?
' Don Ashworth: I know that wordage was used and again, I may have misinterpreted
the first conversation that Mr_. Beck and I had. I guess I believe that the cost
back to the City would be one that would be very favorably received. In my own
mind maybe I interpreted that to mean at cost and Mr_. Beck was referring to at a
fair value but I think that may be where it occurred.
' Peter Beck: I don't think even today that the intent is to hold the city up for
- it but it's just the intent would be to arrive at a fair price for both parties.
' Councilman Workman: Speaking of this parcel in thirds, the north third being
developed, the south third. Could it be safely assume then that you want the
middle third or approximately 60 acres for this church? -
'
Peter Beck: I was speaking about in 1985 the plan did show and if I had to
-' guess it would be a little bit, I'm just trying to from recollection, it was
-roughly a third and the middle portion, maybe it was 60, it might have been a
few more acres than 60, were for the international campus of the church and at
- that time there were 2 buildings initially proposed with the concept showing
numerous additional buildings as and when necessary. I can't recall the exact
' acreage amounts.
Councilman Worlflnan: You're talking about the previous plan?
Peter Beck: Yes I am. In 1985 it was proposed to rezone the property to allow
their international campus to
go in the middle portion of the property as in
fact the property was then and still is guided in the comprehensive plan for
campus business and that plan was submitted in some detail. In fact it received
concept approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council and then was
35
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
submitted formally and subsequently withdrawn. But it was that plan that I'm
saying divided the property up into thirds.
Councilman Workman: I guess I still have a concern that 60 is still an awful
lot to be building a church on.
Peter Beck: As I said and as we're saying in this letter and in my opening
remarks, how much of the property is the church property for the purposes of
state tax exemption will be determined not by you or me but under the
Constitution and the laws of the State.
Councilman Workman: Not even that. Right now that whole parcel is getting
between $11,000.00 and $12,000.00 a year in taxes which isn't a whole lot for
174. I guess that's not exactly what I'm getting at. I'm getting at that most
of the churches in this town which some may be bigger, are sitting on a couple
of acres. My concern is to not build a monument out there you know. Again, I I
guess I'm trying to get a feel for what you guys eventually will feel will be a
satisfactory amount of acres to leave sitting idle around this church.
Peter Beck: I can tell that we just haven't taken it to that level of analysis. I
Some of the considerations are, in relative proximity to where the church will
be is a nice wooded area and I think the discussions have included preserving
that for all time as part of the church property. Not to be disturbed by
development but beyond that, in terms of acreage amounts or locations beyond
just the generalize center of the property, there really hasn't been any
analysis done let alone any decisions. I
Councilman Workman: Do you feel Ecknakar feels they might need 60 acres?
Peter Beck: I really don't know. You know the 60 acres in 1985 was to
accommodate more than just a church. It was to accommodate at that time an
office building and a printing and publishing facility with the prospect of many
more buildings. Right now it's not proposed that Eckankar would ever have
anything more on the property than the church.
Councilman Workman: I guess my final questions would be, does Eckankar plan to
get into the development of the north and south thirds or will that be sold and
developed by outside developers?
Peter Beck: Eckankar is not a development company. '
Councilman Workman: Will they ever plan to be a development company?
Peter Beck: No. They have no plans to ever be a development company and that's
one of the things that they're wondering about. They're not a development
company. They don't want to be a development company and they may just want to
decide to hold onto the whole piece. That's a possibility.
Councilman Workman: I know. I have no more questions at this time.
Councilman Boyt: Well Peter, I can't tell you how amazed I am to see you still
here. I really thought we were going to deal with this issue a month ago.
Although I think that the recent concerns about the environment were certainly
worth researching. I think you've consistently demonstrated that you'll answer
36 1
� 3
1 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
any questions that anybody can come up with which I think is nice of you to do
4 that. I think probably the one area that disappoints me a bit is that we don't
have Eckankar members speaking to us in just a reasonable presentation. I don't
I know what their reasons might be for not doing that but I think it's unfortunate
that they have chosen not to do that. I think that we've gone as far as the
City can reasonably go here. I don't disagree with Tom that mail surveys, in
fact I agree with him. Mail surveys are not particularly reliable. For that
matter, neither are door to door canvasing but it's what we have to work with.
We also at, I assume Council's direction, asked the various commissions and
' committees what their feelings were about purchasing the property which is what
the city's survey was about, and they supported the survey results. So I'm sure
that things will develop over time. I'm sure that you'll remain a visible part
of this community and I'm hopeful that over time we'll all come to find that
' your presence in the community is valuable. At this point clearly there's
unknowns. I can't help but feel that in spite of the tax concerns, in spite of
the size of the staff concerns and so on and so on, that if this was a religious
' group that we had a great deal of experience with, we wouldn't have put you
through this sort of hurdle. I'm concerned when I hear people say that the City
should be moving to limit the entry of churches into our city or the amount of
' tax exempt property in our city. I'd hate to think that the next church that
came in found that they weren't welcome. I think that for good reason there has
been some hurdles in front of your group but personally I'm ready to vote on
this.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I have a couple more comments to piggyback onto what Bill
just said. I guess at the first meeting I think it was that I expressed a
' concern that maybe the City does need an ordinance that does restrict the
acreage of tax exempt entities and that wouldn't only be churches. I still feel
that way and I just wonder what the status is on that. Has anybody picked up on
' that Roger? Are you looking into that?
Roger_ Knutson: I provided you a copy with Blaine's approach to that question.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Now has anybody taken it further to develop an
ordinance?
' Roger Knutson: No, I haven't received direction to do that.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Maybe Don can address that.
' Don Ashworth: If the Council would wish to pursue that, potentially it should
occur after action on this item. You would direct staff or the Planning
Commission to look at the ordinance as prepared by the City Attorney and to
carry out whatever necessary public hearings would be required to put that
ordinance into affect.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, because I still think and I don't care what the
religious beliefs are, I still think a parcel as big as 174 acres would be
ridiculous for any tax exempt. And again, to state the concern, we don' t want a
50-50 situation like they had in St. Cloud. I think we're getting into danger
I! there. I guess my last comment would be that I still would hope that Eckankar
deal with us in the spirit of open communication and address citizen's concerns
in the future. I don't particularly like this hiding game. I've asked every
1 time that they come forward and meet with us openly. I don't feel any of us are
' 37
- c?
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 ,
afraid of them and I don't think we've given them any reason to be afraid Y of us
so in future dealings I hope that they'll come forward and work with us honestly
and openly and that's my final comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Peter, at one time in discussions that we had had, I requested
that we have two people from Eckankar who authorized to sign off on the
conditions of the conditional use permit. Has that been adhered to yet?
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, what we provided you was the letter from Peter Skelsky,
the President confirming his authority to act for Eckankar by resolution of the
Board of Directors so he has that authority that you were requesting.
Mayor Chmiel: The other thing too is I just have two more conditions that I'd
like to put into this. The first one being that the land may not be subdivided
in any use other than the use authorized in this conditional use permit except
for land devoted to public use approved by the Chanhassen City Council is
prohibited without an amendment to this conditional use permit.
Councilman Johnson: Can I ask you a question Mr. Mayor? Are you saying that
they can't sell this to a developer and put hams on the north side and
apartments on the south side?
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, would you like to clarify that? '
Roger Knutson: If the Mayor proposed condition were accepted, that's correct.
If they want to amend the conditional use permit, they'd have to come back here. ,
You're giving them a permit for 174 acres for one particular use and the Mayor
is suggesting, if you want to change that use in any way, you come back and see
us.
Mayor Chmiel: The second portion of this, let me finish now. This conditional
use permit is subject to annual and other periodic reviews to determine
compliance with the conditions of the approval. The City Council may revoke
this permit following a public hearing for non-compliance with the conditions of
approval. Those would be the other two conditions that I would have.
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, the first condition, it would be my understanding that 1
the conditional use permit would in fact be issued for the 174 acres and that an
amendment to it would be necessary in order to use the land for some other
purpose so we have no problem with that condition. The second condition, I
guess we have a little bit of a concern about that to the extent that it treats
this conditional use permit different from any of the others. If the City
ordinance provides for a revocation procedure which I believe it does, we would
of course be subject to that and I would confirm that we are subject to that but
I don't know that if the condition goes beyond the ordinance procedure for
revocation, that it would be appropriate. So perhaps the City Attorney can
enlighten us on that subject.
Roger Knutson: I believe all this says is that we can inspect it periodically
or annually for violations of the terms of the conditional use permit. I think '
it's just informing the applicant of the obvious. If he's in violation, they'll
11/have you on their doorsteps.
38 1
El
'City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Peter Beck: To the extent that it's no more than a notice in the resolution
that we have to comply with the terms of the permit and that if we don't it can
be revoked as the ordinance provides, that's fine. We would understand that to
be the case in any event.
Mayor Chmiel: Other than that I guess I've had my day in court too.
Councilman Johnson: When we started the discussion we were just talking to
their experts and then we got off and I haven't had my general discussion I
' guess, everybody else has. Since Peter doesn't have any problem with that,
we've been having so much concern over getting this back on the tax rolls. Your
first condition almost sounded like we're going to make it harder to get back
' - -onto the tax rolls but-as Peter explains it, it doesn't seem that way so as they
;try to get-it back on the-tax--roll anyway,: they'd have to come in and modify the
c-
conditional use. permit so I don'.t have a problem with that anymore: I would
like to get- something clarified from Tom. You made the statement that they've
' had problems in every other_city that they've been in. Can you tell me the
problem from Menlo Park?
' Councilman Workman: It was a_rather_ _ambiguous statement Jay. You took it
' literally but in Salem, Oregon they've had problems.
' Councilman Johnson: . That's one.
Councilman Workman: Almost identical to what we've got here.
Councilman Johnson:. Except for Salem, Oregon was a completely different
situation.
' Councilman Workman: How?
Councilman Johnson: They were asking for a rezoning. They're not asking for a
rezoning.
,-Councilman Workman: But the cover issue is the same.
' _ Councilman Johnson: But the ability of the city of Salem, Oregon was
-considerably different than our ability.
:Peter Beck: Councilmember Johnson,. perhaps I can just explain a little bit of
.,:the.situation in Salem, Oregon. At that time the proposal was similar to what
was proposed in Chanhassen 4 or 5 years ago. A campus for all of the
-}Anternati.onal operations of the church and it was proposed that this would be
' part of a larger industrial park. The request to Salem, Oregon was to move
their equivalent of the MUSA line. I think they call it an urban growth, you
have the term probably in front of you, urban growth boundary or something but
the proposal was to move in essence their MUSA line in order to accommodate this
industrial park. The decision of that community was that they weren't going to
expand their urban growth boundary. While it is true that during that
discussion many of the citizen comments were received that have been heard in
I the meetings here in Chanhassen, the actual land use issue was quite a bit
different. In all the other communities where Eckankar has the Eck centers and
where their headquarters was in Menlo Park, to my knowledge they've been good
' citizens and there haven' t been any problems.
' 39
■
✓ City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 , II
i
Councilman Johnson: I guess I think it's time to move on this. It's past time
to start tabling it.
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to open it to the public yet one more time Jay.
Councilman Johnson: Well, I mean tonight is the time. Not right at this '
moment. Well I could make a motion right now but I'm not going to. I'm going
to wait for the public. But we've delayed than long enough. They've answered
every question. We've put them through far more than we've put anybody else
through. I'm glad you're supporting me now on inspecting of conditional use
permits. It's been over a year I've been trying to get an ordinance change in
on that. Jo Ann's over there smiling. All conditional use permits needs to be
on an inspection schedule and we need, I'm going to pitch my ordinance again,
need to change that ordinance. I hope I'll get support when I bring that up at
the next Council meeting then. It sounds like I've got that support from you
now.
Mayor Chmiel: At this time I'd like to open it to the public. If we would keep
our statements basically to something that is different than what we've already
indicated previously. I will then open the meeting now for that. Any one
wishing to address it?
Leneda Rahe: My name is Leneda Rahe and I live at 1021 Carver Beach Road. I
would like to address the Council of something they haven't heard before. I
have listened to all the comments spoken at the meetings and I have weighed them
heavily. All of us have exhausted ourselves to examine our resources. We have
evaluated concerns such as the declining of property values, the legitimacy of
Eckankar being a church and the fact that 174 acres of our prime land in the
heart of our community will not be taxed. The City officials have needed to
take into account the needs of each party involved and it has been an extensive
job for which I am thankful to all of you. Many thanks to the Mayor Don Chmiel.
To the City Manager, Don Ashworth. Also to members of the Council who have
listened to the concerns of the citizens. Thank you to the people on the city
staff who have investigated extensively all avenues of this topic and who have
sat through many long meetings. Thank you to the City Attorney Roger Knutson
for assisting in the legalities pertaining to this matter. And Mayor Chmiel
also, thank you for being fair to all people involved and I commend you for
always remaining objective. This is an issue which should not receive partial
judgment. One side cannot be favored over another and fair treatment is a must
for both parties. A major concern is the issue of safety. Some members of the
Council mentioned that an Eckankar member was afraid that they would not be safe
here as a citizen. No one from the CCFC, Concerned Citizens for the Future of
Chanhassen group has ever wanted to harrass Eckankar members. Ever since we, my
husband and myself have been undertaking the responsibility of the citizen
group's efforts, my family has received harrassment for our involvement.
Telephone calls were made to our home that were antagonizing, anonymous and
obscene. One gentleman called early one morning with accusations directed at
myself and my husband. His first name being Gordy. Another call was a female
voice who asked me to tell my husband that he was a very obscene name, I won't L'711
say it. The most recent and the most disturbing occurred late last Tuesday
evening. I was on the telephone with Maddie Hickey who is also a member of the
CCFC. We were discussing Eckankar because we had just returned from a Park and
Rec meeting where Eckankar had been one of the topics. Suddenly a third party's
40 '
MI
I , • City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
3 voice entered in on our line. The male voice said, you two think you are so
smart, I'm going to bash in your "f" faces. A tap on the line is suspected.
U Maddie has an aerial telephone line and after investigation by the telephone
security people by a certain individual named Tim, found that Maddie's line had
been down and this would have made a tapping possible. It is my feeling that
' these instances are a direct result of my involvement on behalf of the
Community. That's my opinion. I had not received harrassment prior to this
issue. Another reason I have my children with me tonight is because I feel it
is'unsafe-to leave-them with a babysitter who is only 13 years of age and I do
not have grandparents in the area to help me in that area. Maybe we simply must
pass the permit or the harrassment will worsen. I don't know. I am very
disturbed by what has been happening and I wanted to relay the information
' before you and the public. ` Because of the fairness of the issue and because
before
come forward with the same concern, I= have felt that_if the permit
-does not pass again; that the threats may become a reality. If they do, I would
' like it td-be a-public statement of what has been happening to myself and my
family. Again, I don't know but right now I feel that my family is in danger
and has been. Our comfort zone has been certainly pushed to it's limit and that
- is one of the requirements for the permit. -
' Councilman Johnson: Mr. Chaffee, are you aware, as our Public Safety Director,
have you been--involved, obviously there's some investigating of this illegal
activity?
Jim Chaffee: Yes I am and yes we are.
I -
114 Tom Hickey: Mr. Mayor and City Council, my name is Tom Hickey. I live at 6990
Utica Lane and- I just wonder if it would be permissible at- this time, I know
over the 4 year course of these carrying ons on this Eckankar issue, to my
' knowledge we've never had a representative from Eckankar at these meetings.
Would it be permissible at this time to determine if at this last meeting if
there is any Eckankar people in the audience? Would that be possible?
' - Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, there are no Eckankar members
here as a part of our effort. To my knowledge. -
' - Tom Hickey: I guess that raises a question that if this is so important. to
Eckankar, where are they in the final hour if this is that important to them. I
received in the mail last Saturday a cause that I guess is. not really that
'
'' -dissimilar to the Eckankar issue. When reading through it, maybe some other
members here or people within the community received it and it was regarding the
- cause of Purple Loosestrife alert. It goes on to say, it says Purple
Loosestrife is an aggressive plant that is invading our wetlands and it's very
' deceptive. It says don't be confused by these Purple Loosestrife look alikes.
Then they go on to say Blazing Star, Fireweed, Blue Vervane, they all look
alike. Then the essence of the whole brochure regarding loosestrife, it says
' beauty is only skin deep. The attractive plumage of Purple Loosestrife
conceals it's menanci.ng nature. I guess after I reflected on that for a few
minutes I kind of thought of Chanhassen. In my estimation Chanhassen is like a
11 flower garden. It's made up of many plants and it is the responsibility of the
City Council to discern which plants go into that garden so we can have the
proper mix in growth. Also to identify the weeds and not allow that to
jeopardize that growth. When we elected Bill Boyt, we elected him because we
felt he had integrity and good discernment. When we the people elected Tom
' 41
%ty Council Meeti.ng - May 22, 1989 II
Workman, we elected him because we felt he had integrity and good discernment. ,
When we the people elected Ursula Dimler, we elected her because we felt she had
integrity and good discernment. When we the people elected Mayor Don Chmi.el,
we elected him because we felt he had integrity and good discernment. When we
elected Jay Johnson, we elected him because we felt he had integrity and good
discernment. What we must discern is if Eckankar is a flower or a weed. 4
years ago Eckankar purchased 174 acres east of Lake Ann and requested the zoning
be changed to accommodate a publishing house and domitories. They were told
that the land was being rezoned for residential use and their request was
denied. Not taking no for an answer, they hired the best land use law firm in
the upper mi.dwest in Larkin and Hoffman to assist them in getting their plans
approved. They became a church to meet the zoning requirements. The people who
challenge this legal maneuvering were then called bigots. We still haven't
determined who we are dealing with and frankly we have been told it's none of
our business for it is a land use issue. The only think we've seen so far is a
drawing of a building which is absent this evening and gentlemen, that is no
church. A bigot is a person who is intolerate of any creed, belief or race that
is not of his own. What we are trying to determine is Eckankar a flower or a
weed. The decision that is to be made tonight must not be one of emotion. It
must come from the heart. I urge you to vote for the good of the community and
vote no City Council. This is not a political issue and there is no compromise.
Let the final decision rest with the Supreme Court who can properly discern if
there is deception. Who can properly discern the First Amendment. Thank you.
Janet Weaver: My name is Janet Weaver_. I live at 31 Hill Street and I'd like '
to read a letter that I wrote to the editor but I decided to save it for this
occasion. I didn't know what Tom Hickey wrote about but it's ironic that he's [11
talking about a flower and a weed because I hope that this would maybe shed a
little light on where the flower and the weed discernment comes. Since the
Eckankar issue in Chanhassen has arisen, there also seems to have arisen some
confusion about who God is. Is the God that Eckankar serves the same God as
everybody elses? This question should be paramount in our minds for it is from
this point of reference that we can determine whether or not religious harmony
will abide in our community. As each one of us asks this pertinent question and
fervently seeks the answer, we will thereby prevent other people's beliefs in
and definitions of God to encroach upon our own. Those who believe that God is
the triune God of the Bible should not accept statements that this same God is
the God of Eckankar. After extensive doctrinal studies of the Bible as well as
Eckankar beliefs, I was confidently able to conclude that Eckists and Christians
do not serve the same God. In fact, Eckankar's founder Paul Twitchell wrote in
his book "The Tiger's Fang" about those who believe in the Triune God of the
Bible, "The whole pack of them will start spouting something they have read in
the scriptures to quote Jesus as their authority and scream about his love for
each of them personally, none of which is true." Twitchell's theology also
identifies Cal, an Eck word denoting the devil as the father of the Christian
faith and says Jesus is a "son of Cal, King of the lower worlds". This theology
is found in Paul Twitchell's book, Eckankar, the Key to Secret Worlds. When
Jesus was similarly accussed nearly 2,000 years ago he replied, "Every kingdom
divided against itself will be ruined and every city or household divided
against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against
himself. How then can his kingdom stand." Matthew 12:25-26. Jerry Leonard, an
Eckankar representative at the May 6, 1985 Chanhassen City Council meeting
answered this way to Mayor Hamilton's request for a statement on how Eckankar
selected Chanhassen. "Part of our teaching is that we become co-workers with
42
MI
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
"God and our fellow man. This means taking a part in the community that you live
in. You have to participate in a community to appreciate it. All of these
families that come here will be taking a part in the community and all the
' activities that are here." The outward image of Eckankar is friendly and
tolerant but after digging a little deeper I found a different attitude. Before
' we allow the proven truth of Matthew 12:25, every city divided against itself
will not stand, to happen to our city let us examine carefully the beliefs of an
organization that potentially could be by their numbers and stated intent
influential to every aspect of our community and ultimately ourselves. How sad
' it would be if our future in Chanhassen was determined by complacencey and
indifference towards this issue. If Eckankar says that the Christian's God is
the devil and that Jesus is the son of the devil, who- are we welcoming to our
- community? . Have we considered the great implications here? Thank you._
-_ Fd Field: Mayor, Councilmembers, staff, my name is Ed Field. , I'm a resident of
Bloomington. I'm here at the request of some members of CCFC.. I'm affiliated
' with a group called Answers Incorporated. We're a cult-awareness group. I have
a question regarding morality. This question stems from an-article in the Eck
World News which is the official publication of Eckankar. The author's name is
' _ Helen Fry. The title of the article is "The Power of Sex". In no way does
Eckankar, this is a quote, "In no way does Eckankar endorse or -uphold religion's
-moral laws on. sexual behaviour. Let the Eckist note that the Bible and the
Church's no-no's on the so called cardnal sins of foreign implants to the
consci.enceness of the human race,- put their warpped and defame the culmination
of human sexual love and for the benefit of Cal only." We've already heard who
j Cal is. I have a question that has to be answered. If they don't uphold the
moral laws of religion, what_ laws do they uphold? I think that has to be
answered. If those questions are not answered, you people don't know what
you're letting in here. Now I could get into a lot of biblical and theological
' discussions with members of Eckankar, their legal staff. The Supreme Court has
already adjacated -what is morality with regard to the Mormon faith and their
issue on polygamy. If you don' t have those moral issues answered, you have
' nothing. You don't know what you're letting in here. That has to be addressed.
Thank you.
, Public: What happened to the referendum? Is there anymore discussion on that?
- Mayor_ Chmiel: I guess we can address that. Don?
' Don Ashworth: The City Council asked that that item be sent back to our
--:commissions for their review. The Park and Recreation Commission looked at the
necessity for additional lands adjacent to Lake Ann for park purposes. It was
not put in the form of a motion. We did not ani.ti.cpate that we would be able to
get a majority position. Two of the commission members felt that the City
Council should use it's best knowledge in basically answering that question.
One commission member favored purchasing the entire site. Three commission
' members felt that approximately 30 acres should be purchased as or received
through the normal dedication processes. In addition, we took the issue back to
our schools. The City Council has a letter from Bob Ostlund representing the
11 Chaska School District. Mr. Ostlund's position was that the acquisition of the
Jonathan center will provide relief for both the Chaska and Chanhassen
elementary in that that facility will be used for the kindergarten and special
education activities. That should take us for a 2 to 3 year period of time.
During that period of time, the school will be developing a referendum to build
' 43
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
a new elementary school on property purchased by or obtained by the School
District in the Jonathan area. As in regards to a High School, they do not
anticipate an additional high school occurring in the Chanhassen area. Their
experience has been that a high school is very expensive and that any additions
would occur at the Chaska location. None of their population projections would
show that there will be a problem being able to house again that high school
population at that area. The projection showed that a middle school will be
required and that will be within a 4 to 6 year period of time. The projections
themself had shown it at a longer period. In other words an 8 to 10 year period
of time. They are very anxious in working with the City of Chanhassen in
developing a plan to obtain lands in Chanhassen for a middle school. Their
initial position has been that that middle school location should be west of
Lake Ann Park recognizing the cheaper land values in that area. If the City
would like to look at the Eckankar property or part of the Eckankar property for
a middle school, they would be more than willing to work with the City in that
effort. They would look to about 40 acres as the approximately size for a
middle school. This issue was also taken to the community center task force.
They looked at the issue. They voted that, 10 of their members felt that the
community center should be built adjacent to this facility...the entire site
should be purchased. If the Eckankar site were to be used, they would recommend
that it be looked at in combination with the school and that would be about 40
to 50 acres recognizing joint useage of that facility. Those were the
recommendations coming back to the City Council from their various commissions
and that was included in the packet report that was given to the City Council
this past week.
Linda Kullman: My name is Linda Kullman and I live at 1015 Pontiac Court. '
There's been a lot of things that have been said over the period of several
meetings. Very honestly I've never really ever become involved in these
meetings. It was always something else that I had to do. By me coming to these
meetings specifically because of the Eckankar issue, I've found more concerns
other than just Eckankar although obviously that's my biggest concern at this
point. What I'd like to do is to say that over a period of time I've been
seeing a lot of kind of sit back and say, well I guess that's all we can do.
It's not really what I want but I guess that's what we have to work with. As a
citizen of this community and I chose to be here and I am choosing to remain
here, this is my home. I've made an investment of property and being a single
parent I am not tax exempt. Neither_ is anybody else here so I think we have a
vested interest in where we're all going. I'd like to see more of a proactive
approach in this community instead of a reactive approach. I really, really
think that we've got to start thinking more ahead then reacting to individual's
that come into our community or businesses that want a little extra land for an
easement or for a driveway. I'm real concerned about this. We have an
opportunity in this community to really be something special and I just would
like to say, let's take a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach.
That's all I would like to see happen in this community and I think from that
point we'll be able to have the schools and the community centers and the right
property so we're not going to have to buy and be at the mercy of someone else
for buying back property at market value. Prime property in our community. I'm
real disappointed and I'd rather stand up here and tell you I'm disappointed and
this is another direction I'd like to see the community move in. Thanks.
Susan Jonst_ud: My name is Susan Jonsrud. I live at 7061 Shawnee Lane and I'd
like to know if we will be getting any answers on the moral issue question. Is
44
R
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
that something that can be looked into?
Mayor Chmiel: Peter, can you address that? Would your like to? I guess not.
Susan Jonsr_ud: I would like-to see it tabled and get an answer. If the City
' were able to purchase part of the property with possible intent for a middle
school or any public use, would the citizens have a vote? I personally would
not be in favor of my children going to a school that was next to Eckankar's
- building. I'd also like to read something from the World Book Encyclopedia.
' It's on freedom on religion and it's a segment under traditions. The United
States government does not have any particular religious creed but it is not
irreligious. The Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in 1833 commented on
Amendment One to the Constitution and on the general opinion at the time it was
..J framed: He wrote,- the general,- if not the universal assessment .in America was
tha t- Christianity ought. to receive encouragement from- the State: So far as was
not incompatible-with the private rights of conscience and freedom of religious
' worship. This view has been sustained down to our day. Justice William 0.
Douglas wrote in a Supreme Court decision in 1951, we are religious people who's
' institutions pre-suppose a supreme being. We guarantee the freedom to worship
' -as one chooses.-- We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the
spiritual needs of man deem necessary. When the State encourages religious
instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule
' of public events- to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions.
-Americans publically recognize the authority of religion in many ways. Sessions
of Congress and of State Legislature open with prayer. The government exempts
the property of churches from taxation and ministers of religion from military
service. A national day of Thanksgiving, religious in origin in proclaimed
each year. Witnesses in court swear oaths on Bibles. The official Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag includes the words, "one nation under God". Many oaths
' - of offices include acknowledgement of God's sovereignty. Thank you.
Ginger Gross: I'm Ginger Gross, 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road. I'd like to thank
' Susan Johnson for again opening the issue and directing it to the concerns of
all of us. I would like to thank Leneda Rahe for making her statement of
: harrassments. Most of the city, most of the council people, all of the citizens
'-] know that the har_rassments that Mrs. Rahe spoke of are only those that can be
' : spoken of. Most of us know of the things that cannot- be spoken of. The months
and months of terror that the City has gone through. That no one has spoken of
-- and because of that terror, I and many of us feel that one of the conditions for
Eckankar coming in must be that we sit down with them and inquire of them who
-= -they are. We have questions that have to be answered. Mr. Hickey stated that
-==-there -are weeds and there are flowers. We are responsible for what we plant.
:- -here. tide cannot allow anything to be planted here that will not prosper those
' who are already here. Much harm has come to our people. If we do not address
this issue now, the issue will be worse later and impossible to pull out as a
seed, as a root, as a weed in our community. It must be addressed. It cannot
' - go unaddressed. Our citizens have concerns and we are the citizens who put our
people in office. We now do request that as one of the conditions for the
permit that we do sit down with the Eckists and without that there be no permit.
I! Thank you. - `
Mayor Chmi.el: Is there anyone else wishing to address the issue? If not, we'll
bring it back to the Council. You've heard the additional concerns from some of
the people and I will open it up again for discussion. Jay?
45
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Councilman Johnson: I think all of us on the Council have looked hard at the
moral issue of Eckankar, even though it is not at issue with a conditional use
permit for a church. We've gone beyond that. I know that Tom and Ursula have
met with the leaders of Eckankar and have looked into this issue. I have met
with members of Eckankar. Gone to various sites and inquired in various police
departments and even this weekend I met some people from New Hope. Since their
international headquarters is in New Hope, I asked than have you ever heard of
Eckankar? Of course they said they've never heard of Eckankar so I explained
what they were. I have not seen any evidence yet to say that they are immoral.
I've heard of a lot of quotes from a lot of different sources. A lot of the
same quotes over and over again. There's a couple of new ones tonight. I have
no reason to believe that the location of Eckist in our community will be a
weed. I guess a flower is in the eye of the beholder. Some people love Golden
Rod. They think it's a pretty flower. I'm allergic to it. I have no problem
with Eckankar coming in here. They've done everything legally that they need to
do. If we continue to require than to go, we've already required than to go not
1, but 2 or 3 or 4 steps further than what we've required other churches coming
in here. We've bent over backwards giving variances. Ignored our own rules
sometimes for other churches and we are really sticking it to Eckankar as much
as we can. Salem, Oregon was a totally different situation. If they were
asking us to change the MUSA line, if they were asking us to rezone the
property, I don't think they'd have a chance in the world. There was a
statement that when they came in here first their request was denied. No, their
request was approved. They chose not to build the center here from public
opposition from a meeting which I heard got rather nasty towards them. The
rezoning of their land occurred after they decided not to build their ,
international center here. Then the rezoning came up and the Council later
rezoned the land in an effort to prevent than from utilizing the land that they
owned. There was a loophole and it's a good loophole because the loophole
allows a church in a residential area and I believe churches are compatible with
residential areas. The State of Minnesota recognizes than as a church. They
did not just recently as the publication that's been put out by the Citizens
Concerned for the Future of Chanhassen indicated in their thing that they just
recently became a church. They've been a church since 1970 something. 74 or
76, I forget the exact date. They've been recognized as a church. They didn't
just change this. There's been a lot of talk about than intimidating us with
this vast number of suits and ties. It's typical developer. There's been quite
a few developments where we've had this many suits and ties looking at us. It
doesn't intimidate us. I don't know where the intimidation comes. From the
cheering, the booing and everything else. Is that an attempt at intimidation or
is 15 suits and ties? Most of us work everyday with suits and ties. It doesn't
intimidate us. We just imagine them without the suits. That's a bad sight.
But anyway, I don't feel that there's anything new brought forward today that
would make this issue worthy of being tabled again. I don't think we need to
table this again. There's nothing that's been presented tonight thas has
anything to do with the conditional use permit being tabled. I am glad to see
that there wasn't a whole lot of talk about property values and the other issues
that have crept up and the talk got back to the moral issues because I think
that was the root issue here and has been the root issue all along. There are
some people who are concerned. Recently I got a letter this weekend, as long as
somebody said what, from one of the exmembers of Citizens for the Future of
Chanhassen that helped on the phone survey calling around where she said they've
changed their mind. They're no longer opposed to Eckankar coming in. They
46 '
IICity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
' don't want Eckankar but they want to maintain the religious freedom of all
churches.
Leneda Rahe: What is the name of that individual?
Councilman Johnson: If I remember the letter correctly, didn't the letter say
' that they didn't mind who saw their letter? An open letter?
Councilman Boyt: I don't remember that. I think that's something for the
person to come forward.
Councilman Johnson: If somebody mails me a letter, if they want to come forth,
I don't even know if they're here tonight. Most of the people, we've got the
' diehards here tonight I guess. I shouldn't say diehards but the really involved
people. The majority of the citizens of Chanhassen aren't here.
' Leneda Rahe: ...insulting you and I would appreciate it if we did not have to
listen to any...
Councilman Johnson: I'm sorry but if you will read your letters to the editor,
' I don't mean to insult you by saying diehards. It's a good battery but if you
read your letter to the editor, I would not say that you have not insulted us.
I would say the opposite but since you brought that up, I wasn't going to bring
' that up.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's stick to the issue.
Councilman Johnson: There is no issue. It's closed. I got out of line.
I apologize to you. That's it. Yes, thank you for all the comments from the
audience over the past 2 months.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I appreciated the comment and I don't know the woman's
name but the one about being proactive and not reactive. I guess I'd just like
' to express that I agree with that but since we've been elected only 4 or 5
months ago, or I mean we've only been in office that long, we've just been
putting out fires that were started a long time ago. It's really difficult for
us to catch up. We would hope that we could do that and then start taking the
'
proactive stances. With that in mind though, I wonder why an ordinance wasn't
written when Eckankar first came to town but being that that's over and done
with, we really can't do anything about it but I guess at this point I would
' move that staff and legal counsel begin drafting an ordinance to restrict
acreage of tax exempt entities within the city and that would help the County
Assessor as well that he has an ordinance to go by. This way he's kind of
' shooting in the dark. Do you want to vote on that motion now or do you want to
wait until the end of my comment?
Councilman Johnson: You should bring that up under Council presentation.
Councilwoman Dimler: I already have a lot of council presentations.
Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe we should.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, just remind me to do it okay? I'd just like to say
':— that I loved Tom Hickey's analysis of weeds and flowers but realistically weeds
47
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
are a part of life and I think they'll always be with us. '
Y It's a part of the
curse. I'm also sorry for all the harrassment, and I know it's been tough. It's
been tough on many of us. I don't think it's been easy for any of us though. I
have no conclusions and that's it.
Councilman Boyt: What's that? '
Councilwoman Dimler: I have no conclusions.
Councilman Boyt: You're undecided? '
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll keep you guessing.
Councilman Workman: I guess the biggest word that struck me tonight was the
word morality. Tonight I have two lives. One council life and one a personal
life. My personal life is highly personal and private as is my religious life.
I'm a member, proud member of St. Hubert's here in Chanhassen but within my own
church people have their own private ways of worship. There is without a doubt
a concern of mine about the teachings of Eckankar because they're nowhere near
mine but is a comment that I would more wholeheartedly make with you outside. I
think the battle will continue on this but I think as the room is getting
perhaps a bit of an idea that the Council is going to have to make a decision as
councilmembers. As a personal and private person, taking into account my family
and my beliefs, that decision perhaps could be very different. That is the
cross that I have to bear. I have gotten from many of you in the room as I look
around, much sympathy and from many very close neighbors they understand the '
very, very difficult task that we have to make. The referendum issue, certainly
I!
a good idea. I think would have devastated us. I don't think it's really a
viable issue. I wish it could have been but we cannot deficit our future. I
too enjoyed the comments about proactive, being a little more proactive. I
think we need to do a lot more of that but I guess I want to emphasize again
that as a councilmember, I have to look at things one way not forgetting also
that I'm a private person but not allowing my private half to dominate perhaps
what is the obvious. Bill Boyt and I disagree quite often and maybe his
private life doesn't mesh with mine and that might make things even worse but if
Bill and I were up here arguing our private lives, we'd have all sorts of
entertainment for you. I would like to thank the staff and the commissions at
this point for their input. Like many people in the room, it's easy to make a
decision in private when you don't have to make it in public so that's the
situation we're in. I know you all understand. I've offered to start
councilman for the month program with my seat if somebody wanted to do that come
up but as I stated at the first one, we all accepted the challenges of the
office and this is about as challenging as it gets and I'm anxious to hear
Bill's comments.
Councilman Boyt: You amaze me Tom. I think if we kept track of the council
vote over the couple of months we'd probably find that 75% of the time we agree.
About 25% we disagree. About 10% of that is active. Four years ago when
Eckankar was in front of the Council I wasn't here and as I prepared to run for
the Council on a ticket 3 years ago of being more proactive than the existing
group, someone asked me about Eckankar. I said I'm really glad I wasn't here
then. Things have a way of coming around and I guess I think this is, in some
regards, has been an excellent sort of test. You never really know what you're
going to do until you have to do it. In sorting this out over the months as I
48 '
' . City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
I 1-- indicated in the paper I guess about a month ago, I feel that Eckankar has met
the City's demands. I hope those of you who are here believe me when I tell you
that I appreciate the effort that you've put in. It may not go in quite the
I direction you want it to but I think we have a better proposal in front of us
because of the questions you've asked. The thoughts you've provoked. It's been
at some expense to our community and I look forward to having that cleared up.
' You know I don't think the City Council is very good at dealing with moral
issues. I would hope that we're all, as the gentleman mentioned, we all have
integrity and hopefully we all have a good moral base but I didn't particularly
' run for the City Council to make moral decisions. So I'm not making this on the
case of whether Eckankar is morally right. That's just not my background to be
able to make that decision but in terms of whether Eckankar has met the
' conditions of the City, I think they have. The City, hopefully has been
proactive enough so that we all live with an appropriate degree of safety
recognizing that that's pretty fragile and apparently Leneda has felt that her
safety has been challenged. She's unfortunately not alone but I think that it's
time for the city to take a vote on this issue. I think it comes down to, as
Tom said, the reason we're sitting here is because we agreed that we would take
these positions recognizing that you have the opportunity in a couple years to
' replace me. I encourage you to vote your conscience at that time but in the
meantime I'm going to vote mine and what I think represents the feeling of the
community which is that they want this issue resolved. So I'm ready to vote.
' Mayor Chmiel: Just for a quick reiteration of the two additional conditions
that I had suggested at the beginning of the meeting. Just for your review so
you're aware as to what the other conditions are and I'm sure we've indicated
but I think I'd like to just read them to you just one more time. There are the
10 conditions with 10 having 4 subparts plus the 2 others so that means there
are 12 conditions.
' 1. Detailed lighting of the exterior of the building be submitted for review by
the City. At staff's discretion, the lighting may be presented to the
Planning Commission for review to determine if the lighting is consistent
' with the character of the neighborhood.
2. All detailed construction plans and specifications are to meet the city
standards.
3. Watershed District permits required prior to construction.
' 4. There shall be no outside speaker systems on the site.
5. The facility is for the express use as a church and limited to normal
' operations and activities associated with a church. In no case shall
rallies, conferences, meetings or gatherings in excess of the seating
capacity of the proposed facility be allowed.
' 6. No tents, mobile homes, trailers or similiar temporary structures shall be
allowed on the property.
7. Parking shall only be allowed in the improved parking areas as designated on
the site plan.
' 49
-City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 '
8. No overnight stays shall be permitted including camping or lodging with the '
exception of the caretaker.
9. No use other than that specified in the conditional use permit shall be
permitted unless the applicant applies for an receives approval of an new
conditional use permit pursuant to the City Code requirements in affect at
that time. '
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following will be performed:
a. The three wells on the property as shown on Figures #1, #2 and #3 of the '
Environmental Assessment Report shall be legally abandoned.
b. The underground storage tank as shown on Figure #2 of the Environmental
Assessment Report shall be removed,
c. A potential second underground storage tank shall be investigated with
excavating equipment and if necessary removed.
d. The magnetic object identified west of the former house shall be further
investigated when excavating equipment is on the site.
Those are the 10 conditions plus the 2 that I said before that I had read. It
does get to that point where I think we have to face the issue. I really '
appreciated all the concerns of the people. Of all the calls that I received.
All the letters that I have gotten. Many of the letters I have not been able to
respond to because there's just too many but I certainly appreciate the time,
the effort that you've put into this situation that we have. I know that I
would like to now call on our attorney to address the issues as to what Eckankar
has adhered to as far as the ordinance requirements. Roger, could you address
that?
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, I'll be happy to. This is in most respects a very
limited, narrow land use issue. In reviewing their entitlement to a permit what
you're required to do is review the evidence and their applications to see if
they meet the standards in your ordinances. If they meet the standards in your
ordinances, you have no alternative, under the law anyway, but to approve their
conditional use permit. If you don't, someone else will do it for you. The
Council really don't consider beliefs of the applicant under the First
Amendment. You cannot regulate beliefs. You can regulate conduct. You can
regulate building. You can't regulate beliefs. I guess you're asking the
ultimate question and based upon my review of their application, my attendance
at these meetings and my review of the planning reports and the reports
from Public Safety and everything else, although it's a judgment call for
youselves, in my opinion they meet all the ordinance requirements and therefore
are entitled to a conditional use permit.
Ed Field: Can I ask one more question? Would a group of Hell's Angels.. .
Anybody that complies with the ordinance, is that correct?
Mayor Chmiel: As long as they're in conformance with our ordinances, we have no '
other recourse other than the court situation and I being charged as the Mayor
of this city am very aware of the fact that this can go to the courts. My major
concern is that I will not allow the opposition to sue this city in any way. We
50 '
,City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
' are in a bind. We have no other alternative.
Ed Field: Are you a chartered body?
'
Mayor Chmiel: No. It's statutory.
utory.
' Ginger Gross made a comment that wasn't audible on the tape.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess maybe the governments have a lot more dollars than what
' the City of Chanhassen does Ginger and that's what I'm looking at.
Ginger Gross: Are we not insured?
' Don Ashworth: -You would _not be insured for this type of an issue. What would
be before the courts is whether or not the City had the right to deny the permit
from this church group. What the City Attorney is advising the City Council is
' that that would be a very short court process and one in which the City would be
damaged not only in the eyes of the rest of the community but also financially.
' (Ed Field made a comment from the audience that could not be heard.)
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, do you want me to respond?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes, would you.
Roger Knutson: That's certainly one of the factors, yes but not the only one.
(Some comments were made from the audience by Ed Field and Ginger Gross that
could not be heard on the tape.)
' Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I'm ready to make a motion and part of that will
be modification to items 5, 6 and 10 in that I thought we already modified item
' 5 to say in no case shall national, regional or state rallies, conferences,
meetings or gatherings be held at the proposed facility. The reasoning there is
if we're going to say that you can' t have anymore people there than seating
-capacity of your facility, then we're going to have to say the same thing for
'
every other church in town because we have to be fair. So if we can't exceed
the seating capacity, then I think there's a lot of Easter services that aren't
- going to be held in this town.
iGross: Excuse me sir but I think I have the floor and I think that
you've changed the subject and it's not to be changed at this point._
' Mayor Chmiel: Ginger, I'm afraid we did bring it back to the Council before.
There wasn't anyone else to discuss the issues and I did open the floor just for
courtesy at the given time so it is really back to the Council. It's
' discussionary time for us.
Ginger Gross: Alright it may be back to the Council but how about the citizens?
We're told to remain quiet on these issues. We have remained quiet.
Mayor_ Chmiel: The issues being which?
' 51
Gity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
Ginger Gross: You might ask Ursula which issues we were asked to keep quiet '
about and I think you know too Don.
Mayor Chmiel: That's why I'm having to bring those up.
Ginger Gross: We've been asked not to discuss than publicly and I've suggested
that they be discussed. Not publicly. Between the Council, the city people,
the Eckists and their attorneys. I'm suggesting that's an alternative.
Councilman Johnson: I'm at a loss at what's going on here.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm trying to find Ginger what is this. ..
Councilman Johnson: Someone has told you you don't have freedom of speech and '
you can't discuss something?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that's the issue.
Councilman Johnson: She says she's been instructed not to...
Ginger Gross: Excuse me but I am speaking with the mayor.
Councilman Johnson: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor, would you please find
out what she wants.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you just elaborate on it a little bit more.
Ginger Gross: I think you all know what I'm referring to. I don't think
there's any question. I think it's been one of the major issues behind the
scenes and I am talking about the terror that has stalked this community. I'm
talking about full scale terror. I am talking about full scale terror. I'm
talking about scandal. I'm talking about these things that have taken place
before Eckankar comes in and I'm saying should Eckankar come in, it won't stop
at what we have had happened and I will not allow, none of us will allow this
community to be in a position for Eckankar to come in without knowing what we
have gone through. It is not child's play. Believe me, it is not child's play.
Leneda Rahe: Ginger, are you referring to the animal...
Ginger Gross: I think you all know that's a very small part of it.
Mayor Chmiel: As you've indicated this is prior to Eckankar's coming in. I'm
not sure how it gets related to Eckankar.
Ginger Gross: I think we're all pretty sure how it gets related to Eckankar
Don. I think that we've got to face the issues. I don't think it has been
general. It has been very select. The households that have been affected have
been very, very select.
Don Ashworth: Have you made Public Safety aware of any of these issues?
Ginger Gross: Yes. Public Safety is very aware.
52
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
Don Ashworth: I am unaware of their finding any type of things that you're
relating to.
Ginger Gross: Then there really does need to be a discussion within the City.
It needs to be recognized.
' Don Ashworth: Jim, are you aware of any of the issues: .that Ginger is bringing
out? I think that there have been some things claimed but I am unaware of any
findings of any of the, you see the problem is we're not really getting out
' supposedly what it is, but are you aware of any satonic type of activities?
Jim Chaffee: I'm aware of reports that have come into our office in previous
' months before Eckankar came to the Planning Commission but Scott Harr has been
_ Linvesti.gating them both at the seminary and at Ches Mar and we have, to my
_ knowledge, -have not verified any of the problems that have been brought to us.
_ Don Ashworth: Do you believe that they interrelate with Eckankar?
Jim Chaffee:- , No, I do not.
- Ginger Gross: I still suggest that there be a discussion. I do believe that a
discussion is necessary because otherwise the facts that we are relating to will
be public knowledge. Now you're going to have to face the issues. Some of
' these are directly connected with Eckankar. Some of them have not been reported
to Public Safety. The ones on Ches Mar were before Eckankar.
' Mayor Chmiel: On some of these issues I'm trying to really pull it together
here and L am just not able to.
Ginger Gross: Well Don I think you've had some occurences in your own home. I
think Maddie's had some in her's of the same kind of thing that we faced in Ches
Mar. I think there have been several throughout the area. I had a policeman at
my house the other night who also told me of several of the same kinds of
' occurrences.
- Don Ashworth: If the- Council acts to approve the permit, or even if they do
' not, any type of illegal activities of the nature you appear to be presenting,
--._and I have no idea what you're really talking about but if they are in any way
founded, whether they're here or not here, you need to bring those in front of
' :: the public safety and whether they have the conditional use permit or not, any
one should be prosecuted if they are in any way violating a law. By the City
Council approving the conditional use permit surely does not permit them to
- -carry out any form of illegal activities.
1 Ginger Gross: It's obvious we're not talking about illegal acti._aities sir.
We're not talking about illegal things. We're talking about things that
overtake a town. We're talking about things that are not visible things.
Don Ashworth: I think we're back into some of the issues that we were in before
and I am aware of the fact that questions like this were presented to public
safety to look at as they would relate in other communities. We were not able
to sustain in any way that Eckankar had led some other community into some
wholesale whatever type of position you may be relating. If you're aware of
others, again we can go back and again investigate those but in all of the
53
- City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 II
questions that have been raised, there have not been any findings to support the
type of positions that you're presenting right now.
Ginger Gross: There are many things that do support it and I am suggesting that
a conference take place that related issues be discussed and I'm suggesting that
it happen now. Otherwise it will become public knowledge and I'm saying that
decision is yours. Thank you very much. I
Councilman Workman: My comment to the mayor was whether or not it would be
prudent or not for us as a Council, perhaps a member of the Council, city staff,
perhaps a representative from the law firm and perhaps community members. Maybe
Ginger Gross, Leneda Rahe. In light of the pressure on the community with this
issue to perhaps for a better awareness of what actually is going on. I know
there is, the way I see it now accusations of a dark side here which is very
slippery and very hard for us as a Council to deal with and that's what I was
talking about as far as the private side and the public side here but would it
be prudent for us to perhaps help alleviate all of our fears perhaps to get a
working session together some evening with representatives of Eckankar. The
community feels either there's a victory won or a victory lost here tonight I
think and there are still a lot of emotions and perhaps the battle has been won
but perhaps not the entire war so perhaps we still need to keep some open
communications as far as alleviating some of the pressures of the community.
Councilman Johnson: So are you looking at a condition 13?
Councilman Workman: I think to answer perhaps potential questions, if we could
get together on a casual basis to perhaps answer some of these questions. I I
don't know that that's going to answer or rectify any problems but.
Councilman Johnson: So condition 13 you want the Council to get together with
the leaders of Eckankar and have a discussion?
Councilman Workman: I think maybe for all concerned and the concerns of
everybody, perhaps that might not be a bad idea to talk about it. Talk about
those issues which we are willing not to discuss here. Maybe to better help us
understand. To maybe better help Eckankar understand why we feel the way we
feel. I would make that a condition if that could help. I'm sorry, I don't
want to make it a condition of this. I want to make it a recommendation or
olive branch or...
Councilman Johnson: Something we do even though it's not a condition? '
Councilman Workman: Correct.
Councilman Johnson: Okay.
Mayor Chmi.el: Would the attorneys representing Eckankar agree to the proposal
that Tom has brought forth.
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think a request for a meeting '
that wasn't a condition of the conditional use permit, we would certainly
transmit it to Eckankar with the recommendation that they meet with the City at
this time or anytime as they proceed to build their church and in the years
ahead to discuss any issue that the City thinks is of mutual interest so I don't
54 1
1
' City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
know why they wouldn't agree to meet. In
fact, to my knowledge, they've agreed
to every meeting that has been requested from City Council members or city
' officials or anybody else I expect they would continue to. A request like that
would be passed on. I see no reason why it wouldn't be followed through on.
' Councilman Workman: I just think Peter there's perhaps a culture shock here and
if we could maybe help Eckankar to understand why we feel this way which has
kind of been my point all along or why Eckankar maybe does understand why we are
' not comfortable with this and perhaps in an informal...
Peter Beck: I am personally at a complete loss to know what the whole
discussion is about and out of curiousity alone I'd be more than happy to meet
with you.
Councilman Johnson: One of our members of the Planning Commission said please,
bring evidence before us. Bring us specific information and all we get is
allegations.
Councilwoman Di.mler: Peter, were you indicating that you would have members of
Eckankar with you at this meeting?
Peter Beck: We'd certainly pass that request onto Eckankar and in terms of a
' private similiar to what we've had in the past, I don't know any reason why they
wouldn't be happy to do that.
' Public: But no residents would be invited?
Councilman Workman:
No, as I suggested. Perhaps the Ginger Gross's and the
Leneda Rahe's and the Hickeys and the Kussards. Again, if we get a room this
size and then invite Eckankar, it's going to be the same situation. We need a
controlled...
Mayor Chmiel: I think you'd have representation.
Public: . . .there have been allegations made. I think we're entitled to know
what this is all about.
' Councilman Workman: And I don't think we have those answers and '
that s why...
Public: But when you get the answers, will we know? Will this be kept secret?
Councilman Workman: No, I would certainly hope not. I wouldn't intend it to be
a secret meeting.
Public: I mean the results.
' Councilman Workman: Maybe Mr. Peterson and Mr. Burns could be in attendance.
Councilman Johnson: I think we tried to get what the allegations were.
IJMayor Chmiel: I think if we were to do that with the people that we've
indicated, I think we can go from there.
' 55
'City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 I
Maddie Hickey: I would like to just address Mr. Mayor and Council. When you 1
get into spiritual things, and I'm the least to understand them all, but we did
report to the safety department when Leneda and I had a call on Tuesday. Now
this has all just happened this week. When I and this doesn't mean it's even
Eckankar, weird, weird things happening. I was at a Park and Rec meeting the
other night. I felt I was treated rudely. They went ahead and made the vote
before I was able to present what I had to present and so after they did that I
said I feel I've been treated rudely. I think you need to listen to me as a
citizen and respect my views as I respect your decision even if it doesn't agree
with mine. And I just went, I don't even really know why I did it, I went and
this gentleman over here is an Eck and he has a right to be respected. And with
this, that man jumped out of his seat and went tearing out of the room. Don't
ask me why but it was weird. That night we get our first phone call. Two
nights later we get another phone call and it's a radio broadcast in the
background. Just this little subtle messages. Last night, and I guess last
night was the last straw for me because I don't think these things are
coincidental, and all of a sudden Leneda and I are again talking. Everytime
we're talking about a strategic point, the first night we were talking I said
wasn't it weird that he jumped up and left the room. If somebody asked me if I
was Catholic and I have a right to my opinion, I'd say you're damn right I do
and I'm shaking now. I am afraid of Eckankar. I'm sorry. So last night a
break in comes in the line and it was the assultant is not the assultant. He's
an angel of God. Now this is breaking into our telephone and where is it coming
from? Three times in one week, I don't know if it's Eckankar. I'm just saying '
when I find out the things that I know about Eckankar and have found out about
Eckankar and they won't come to one of our meetings, yes I'm scared of Eckankar.
And I guess I'm getting more scared by the minute and I don't think the First '
Amendment was established for cults. I think it was for freedom of religion.
Whether you be mormon, catholic, protestant, jehovah witnesses but it didn't
include people that worshipped Satan. I think we're in a serious, serious,
serious deal. I know you're afraid. We've got a wonderful Council. There are
a couple of you I don't know you very well and I haven't like your stands,
either one of you on too much and I wouldn't vote for you Jay next time and I
wouldn't vote for you but you three in the middle are three of the finest people
I've ever met in my life and I know you're trying to do the right thing and I
know you're all afraid of a lawsuit. I guess I agree with my husband, let the
Supreme Court decide. I think Eckankar will run like hell. I don't think they
want the publicity. I think they'd back out.
Councilman Johnson: Should I continue where I left off about a half an hour
ago. Anyway we're back to number 5. In no case shall we have national,
regional or state rallies, conferences, meetings or gatherings at the proposed
facilities. I'd delete in excess of the seating capacity because that's not
what we've asked any other church because as I said earlier. Number 6 I'd add
with the exception of construction trailers where it's implicit. I think it's
better to write it down because we allow construction trailers on any other
construction site so we should allow a construction trailer. On number 10 I'd
add a condition (e) . Ground water samples be taken and analyzed for organics
and pesticides at the 3 existing wells prior to abandonment if at all possible.
The if at all possible means if there's an obstruction in the well that you
can't get sampling equipment down to sample the water, then obviously you can't
do it. I'd like to add the mayor's 2 conditions on there as conditions 11 and
12 and that's what my motion i.s. I move approval with the 12 conditions that
I just outlined.
56 '
,City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 -
Roger Knutson: The normal procedure is for you to close the p y e e public hearing
Oil before you vote on your motion.
Councilman Johnson: We never had a public hearing.
' Roger Knutson: Yes you did.
Councilman Johnson: This isn't a public hearing. We opened it for the public.
Roger Knutson: Didn't you advertise it for a public hearing?
Councilman Boyt: 3 months ago. It's a continuance. It won't hurt.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Johnson: Now I'll make the motion I just made.
Councilwoman Dimler: Before you do that Jay, would you repeat number 5 the way
you want it to read Jay.
'
Councilman Johnson: Okay, starting on the second sentence. The first sentence
is fine. In no case shall national, regional or state rallies, conferences,
meetings or gatherings at the proposed facility be allowed. So I strike, in
' excess of the seating capacity and input the word at and before rallies I put
national, regional or state.
' Councilman Worlcnan: How can you restrict a distinction like that?
Councilman Johnson: Well it's better than saying you can't be over your seating
capacity. We're saying this is a church. Normal church activity doesn't have
' national rallies at it. What I'm doing is further defining the first sentence.
I don't think St. Hubert's has ever had a national rally at St. Hubert's. They
don't have a problem with this I think from the last time we talked because if
' they've got a rally with 10,000 people.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm sorry, I thought we had it in there like this at
first. I did have national and state in there but it was somehow taken out.
I'm glad you pointed that out.
Councilman Johnson: So that's my motion. And your two items also are part of
' my motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Items 11 and 12 are the two additional conditions. I have a
' motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Boyt: I'll second it.
I/ Councilwoman Dimler: What is the motion again?
Mayor ahni.el: To accept all the specific conditions as contained with the
changes that have been done plus the two additions. The one addition of item 10
' 57
J �J
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
which is item (e) about the ground water contamination and the two ,
wo addztzonal
conditions that I had brought up previously.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit #89-1 based on the plans stamped "Received March 22, 1989" and subject to
the following conditions:
1. Detailed lighting of the exterior of the building be submitted for review
vzew by
the City. At staff's discretion, the lighting may be presented to the
Planning Commission for review to determine if the lighting is consistent
with the character of the neighborhood.
2. All detailed construction plans and specifications are to meet the city
standards.
3. Watershed District permits required prior to construction.
4. There shall be no outside speaker systems on the site.
5. The facility is for the express use as a church and limited to normal '
operations and activities associated with a church. In no case shall
national, regional or state rallies, conferences, meetings or gatherings at
the proposed facility be allowed.
I!!
6. No tents, mobile homes, trailers or similiar temporary structures shall be
allowed on the property with the exception of construction trailers.
7. Parking shall only be allowed in the improved parking areas as designated on
the site plan.
8. No overnight stays shall be permitted including camping or lodging with the
exception of the caretaker.
9. No use other than that specified in the conditional use rmit shall
Pe be
permitted unless the applicant applies for and receives approval of a new
conditional use permit pursuant to the City Code requirements in affect at
that time.
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following will be performed:
a. The three wells on the property as shown on Figures #1, #2 and #3 of the
Environmental Assessment Report shall be legally abandoned.
b. The underground storage tank as shown on Figure #2 of the Environmental
Assessment Report shall be removed,
c. A potential second underground storage tank shall be investigated with
excavating equipment and if necessary removed.
58
me
IICity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 ✓
d. The magnetic object identified west of the former house shall be further
investigated when excavating equipment is on the site.
e. Ground water samples be taken and analyzed for organics and pesticides
at the three existing wells prior to abandonment if at all possible.
11. The land may not be subdivided in any use other than the use authorized in
this conditional use permit except for land devoted to public use approved
, by the Chanhassen City Council is prohibited without an amendment to this
conditional use permit.
12. This conditional use permit is subject to annual and other periodic reviews
' to determine compliance with the conditions of the approval. The City
,; Council may-revoke this -permit -following a public hearing for non-compliance
with the conditions of approval.
Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the motion. Councilman
Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chmiel did not vote and the motion
carried.
REAPPOINTMENT OF JIM BOHN TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table this item. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING.
' Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the recycling prize.
' COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS.
Mayor Chmiel: Number one, citizen complaints. Ursula?
. Councilwoman Dimler_: Okay, I'd like to address this to Jim Chaffee because it
has to do with public safety I believe. I've been made aware that there are
' large clumps of mud that are left on the roads after areas that are being
developed from the tires of the trucks and so forth. They are a hazard and I
believe it's the developer's responsibility to clean them up after themselves.
It has not been done, especially in the development that is behind where I live
and I'm not really sure what it is. Is that Chan Vista number 3? Okay, so I
would like to see if you can check that out and get after the developer's to
clean up after themselves please. Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: It's all over by the way. It's Frontier Trail.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, there's other roads and I know that they're having
the same problem on TH 5 with Rosemount.
Jim Chaffee: . ..Bobcat and cleaning up TH 5 each and every night.
' 59
r� 1
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 I
Councilwoman Dimler: Lake Lucy Road is bad too. '
Councilman Boyt: That's the City's project.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then have the City clean up after itself.
Gary Warren: Every half day we're out there with a front end loader. It is a
challenge.
Councilman Johnson: There are some roads in Curry Farms that are pretty bad
too. Most anyplace where they're got a pick-up truck going into a muddy yard,
it ends up all over the place.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, item number 2.
Councilwoman Dimler: Item number 2 was choosing a new City Planner. I know we
talked about this in a hurry after our last meeting I believe. I guess I have a
concern about doing it real quickly. I agree we do need one badly and we should
do it as fast as possible but if we do it too quickly and by-pass the normal
procedure, I don't think we're giving everyone a fair chance at this and maybe
not doing it in the best interest for the Chanhassen citizens. I know that we
can't get into the League of Minnesota Cities magazine anymore but I was just
wondering if we can't just advertise in the Star and Tribune and get much
quicker results that way and I think we should interview all the applicants. '
Gary Warren: All the previous applicants?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, all the previous applicants that applied before. [II
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment on that, having been part of the earlier
interviewing process. We had two candidates that the previous council narrowed
it down to that were basically a coin toss. I would recommend that what we do
is take advantage of the work that's already been done. Have Don bring in
another outside candidate and match him against this other person to see if
either one of those two is what the current council would like to have. The
reason I suggest that is not only is it fast but it saves a great deal of money.
When we bring in, Ursula to interview everyone that applied, if we took the
previous candidates that were interested, we're talking thousands of dollars.
That's just not the way that a business would go about hiring that person.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you saying thousands of dollars for bringing those people in ,
from different places? Is that what you're saying?
Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that a good many of the good candidates from the
last process were from out of town. Alaska for instance was one of the better
candidates that we didn't bring in. We're talking about easily $1,000.00 if we
choose to bring that candidate in to interview.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then I might say that let staff screen down to 5 or 6
applicants and that would be the ones that the City Council interview.
Don Ashworth: I guess I i.nter_pretted Ursula's comments in that fashion. Bill
is correct, we did take applications. I would say we had at least 150. 100 of
those from out of state. There were a number of good applicants who met all of
60 '
ICity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
the qualifications of the you job but have to sort down in an
J Y any process and come
down to the top 3 or 4 and that's what we did this last time around. I believe
there are a number of those excellent candidates who would still be around. I
think I could still accomplish what you're asking for and that is publication in
the Minneapolis paper. That would probably put us back 3 to 4 week period of
' time. The minimum you should give somebody to respond would be 20 days.
Basically 3 weeks so if I went into this next Sunday's newspaper, you'd be
talking about roughly one month from today before you'd start screening those
' applicants.
Councilman Johnson: That's a long time to give. Are you going to advertise
more than one week then?
Don Ashworth: What I talked about before and I think I'm too late for right now
is going into a Wednesday-Sunday edition if that's what you wanted to do so I
' think I could still make a Sunday-Wednesday but if you want to still hit the 20
days, it's going to be a full month.
' Councilman Johnson: I just don't see that somebody's going to see an ad and
then 20 days later apply for it. If they're that big of a procrastinator, I
don't know if I want them as our City Planner.
' Councilman Workman: The gentleman who came in second place, his name was Krause
or something?
I(_ Councilman Boyt: Paul.
Councilman Workman: My biggest concern there is I think he's got a very, very
strong BRW background. I have questions about bringing in a person that had
been working with a group that does an awful lot of business in the city and I
think we should maybe get a little diversification. That's my concern there.
That's not a personal statement against Mr. Krause and that might not be a very
' good reason but I have a question about that.
Councilman Johnson: I don't want to see that third candidate.
' Councilman Boyt: But I would think that we could very quickly get in Mr. Krause
and whoever Don feels is a strong candidate of a pile of 150 that he looked at
and interview those 2 people. I think you'd find somebody there that you'd like
' and we'd be a month ahead.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not sure we should limit it to 2. Go to 3 or 4.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I think you've had the opportunity to review those people
but we didn't have that opportunity.
' Councilman Johnson: We only saw 3. We asked them to narrow it to 3 for us.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I think we should have at least the minimum of 3 to
look at anyway. At least that's my opinion.
Councilman Boyt: One possibility is bring in those 3. If that's a comfortable
number, I think financially that's probably a reasonable number. I would
encourage you to not run an ad in the Star and Tribune. Not because it won't
61
City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989
generate candidates but it will take a great deal of staff time to,sort through
those. To phone screen them. To organize than and before we go to, that effort,
I think we ought to decide that the candidates we can access from our previous
search aren't up to the standards of the existing Council. If that's the case,
then it's worth a search.
(The sound equipment was being dismantled at this point and the audio portion of
the meeting was inadvertently disconnected.)
Councilwoman Dimler asked about a permit for Instant Webb and congratulated
Mayor Don Chmiel on 34 years of marriage. Councilman Workman made a
presentation regarding the Carver and Scott County Humane Society. Councilman
Johnson wanted staff to look into setting up a procedure of inspecting
conditional use permits.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to direct staff to draft an
ordinance restricting acreage that a tax exempt entity can occupy. All voted in
favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
RBCYCLING COMMITTEE, ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER.
Jo Ann Olsen asked for Council direction on whether or not to advertise for the
recycling committee and how many people that committee should be. Mayor Chmiel
stated that no more than 7 people consisting of citizens from within the City
Council and County. Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Johnson volunteered to serve on
this committee. The City Council wanted to interview the candidates to select
the members.
1
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager '
Prepared by Nann Opheim
62 '
I. ,
II
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
MAY 25, 1989
' Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to continue the Board of
Equalization and Review meeting from May 16, 1989. The meeting was called to
order at 7:00 p.m..
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor_ Chmi.el, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler,
Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt.
1
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, City Managerr_; Orlin Schafer and Scott Winter,
Carver County Assessor's Office.
The City Manager, Don Ashworth stated that the Board would review the
' comments of the County Assessor. The Council could make comments and make
changes if they felt it was appropriate or move as recommended. Duane Anderson
and Bill Kirkvold were present in the audience to hear the Council's decision.
II Attachment Exhibit "A"
lists each property owner, their comments, the County
Assessor's recommendation and the City Council's action.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m..
' Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
' Prepared by Nann Ophei.m
II
I
EXHIBIT A
Ir- II
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW I
MAY 25, 1989
II
Ref. Name/
.
No. Address Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
II
1. Thomas Kasprick 25-8850050 His first year assessment was
1920 White Tail Ridge Ct 148,000.00 where neighbors are
II
running around $118,000.00 for
comparable houses. The
neighborhood is not totally
I
developed yet.
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV of $148,100.
IICity Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
2. Henry Gjersdal 25-6040150 He was assessed $188,500.00 for II
6431 White Dove Dr. his home where new houses being
built in area, average assesement II is $91,500.00 which is devaluing
his property. Purchased home in
1987 for $185,000.00. This home
is not a walkout, has small stair-
way into basement. (See letter.)
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change the EMV value from $188,500. to
II
$172,700. for a value reduction of $15,800.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II
3. Chuck Wagner 25-0270300 Moved into home in Nov, 1988.
II
9401 Aubudon Road Assessed at $129,300.00. Bought
829-5444 lot for $8,600.00, 1350 Sq. ft.
house, gravel drive, no sewer. and I
water, unfinished basement plus
overhead power lines devalue his
property. He feels the property
II
is $30,000.00 over assessed.
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change the EMV value from $129,300. to $100,500.
for a value reduction of $28,800. I
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
2
II
4
Ref Name/
No. Address Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
II
4. Bob Bauer 25-5050150 This property was assessed at
I 2700 Sandpiper Trail $85,300.00 in 1988 and $103,000.00
828-4115 in 1989. Only improvement in 1988
was an addition of 350 sq.ft. All
II other comparable homes in the
neighborhood are between $86,000.
to $95,000.00. House has no
basement.
II
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change the EMV value from $103,100. to $98,900.
for a value reduction of $4,200.
ICity Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Di.mler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II5. Larry Zamor 25-8900030 His assessment rose by $361,000.
Chanhassen Inn with no improvements done except
I 531 West 79th St.
for addition of 8 rooms which were
934-7373 taken into account last year.
Depreciation of 11.5% hasn't been
II taken into account.
County Assessor's Recommendation: Orlin Schafer stated that he met with Larry
II Zamor prior to the meeting and decided on changing the EMV value from $1,299,500.
to $1,110,000. for a value reduction of $189,000.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
IIaccept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I 6. Duane F. Anderson
1750 Ringneck 25-6030170 Bought house in April, 1988 for_$127,900.00. Assessed at
828-8719 $134,700. with no improvements
II made.
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change the EMV value from $134,700. to $127,900.
for a value reduction of $6,800.
1 City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II7. Leonard H. Hein 25-6150220 House was assessed in 1975 at
3930 Leslee Curve 39,700.00, 1988 for $94,7700.00
II 474-3015 and in 1989 $113,900.00. A 20%
increase when house was appraised
personally by Scott Winter inside
and out and needs repairs.
IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV of $113,700.
[::
II City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II 3
_ f
7.) �Ret Name/
No. Address Parcel No. Corranent/Council Action
II
Ir-
8. Leonard H. Hein 25-6150270 Empty lot adjacent to homestead
that he paid $5,000.00 for 14
II
years ago. Has paid $10,500.00
in taxes over the 14 years. Value
of lot has decreased because of II
appearance of neighbors property.
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV of $16,200. 1
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
9. Robert A. Haak 25-0260400 He put on an addition which he
770 Pioneer Trail agrees should raise assessment but
835-4455 but because of all the new
II
development, his backyard has a
flooding problem which devalues
his property. Assessed at I
$92,000.00 in 1988 and $98,600.00
in 1989.
i
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV of $98,600. II
IL_ City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I
10. Jeff Kleiner 25-1602180 New house in 1988 for $64,400.00,
655 Carver Beach Road assessed at $95,900.00 in 1989.
II
474-5282 (Mary Kleiner) Bought vacant property next to
homestead which is a swamp/
drainage area.
I
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV of $105,700.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to '
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
11. Carol Coburn 25-2030980 Purchased quad-home in May, 1988
7102 Pontiac Circle for $61,500.00. Assessed in 1989 II
828-7800 for $66,600.00 with no
improvements made.
IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Change value of EMV from $66,600. to $61,500.
for a value reduction of $5,100.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to II
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
12. James Knop 25-1601700 Assessed $62,000.00 in 1988 and
6880 Nez Perce Drive $78,700.00 in 1989. Only addition
780-3541 was central air conditioning. II
Neighbors' assessments didn't go
II
up.
4 IIt i I
i I
Ref Name/ I NoAddress Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
II
I County Assessor's Recommendation: No change t the EMV of $78,700.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II13. James Donovan 25-2620560 There was a misunderstanding
1375 Lilac Lane and�.ng of
the assessment which Orlin Schafer
I 941-7558 cleared up and no action is needed
on this item.
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change. Mr. Donovan's questions were
I answered at the May 16, 1989 meeting.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Di.mler seconded to
Iaccept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
14. Dale Boyer 25-0240200 A new house was built on this lot
II 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. and was appraised by the mortgage
871-8321 company at $68,000.00. Scott
Winter assessed it at $83,800.00
II Has 140 feet of lakeshore but he
feels the Lake Riley Woods new
development is bring value of his
I property down.
IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Change EMV value from $228,000. to $205,200. for
a value reduction of $22,800.
1 City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II15. Julius Smith _
25 0020600 Value of property went up b
Representing Clients: i v y
Frank Beddor i $37►000.00 with no improvements
made on site. Assessor noted
j { construction by lake.
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV of $452,000.
II City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman D i
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the moti.oncarrieddeconded to
II16. Julius Smith 25-0020610 Rental property which should be
Representing client torn down, assessment rose by
II $4,000.00.
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV of $45,700. as this
property value was established by the Chanhassen Board of Review in 1988.
II City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion car_riedeCO�� to
6
II
5
EN
ilRef Name/
No. Address Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
II
Jr- 17. Julius Smith 07-116-22- Lot next to The Press, last year
Representing Clients 34-0009 assessment rose 32%, this year 5% II
with improvements made.
Hennepin County Assessor's Recommendation: Change the EMV value from $127,500. to
II
$292,000. for a value increase of $164,500.
City Council Action: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to split
the difference of the increase to $82,300. and change the EMV value to $209,800. II
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
18. Julius Smith 07-116-22- 37,000 sq.ft., 5 stall garage. II
Representing Clients 34-0010 & 0011 g
Hennepin County Assessor's Recommendation: Change the EMV value on parcel 0010 II
from $46,000. to $69,000. for an increase of $23,000. No change on parcel 0011 to
to the EMV value of $176,400.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler second ed to I
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
19. Instant Webb 25-5650080 Valuation decreased through tax II
appeals. Although down, still
higher than market. (See Letter.) II County Assessor's Recommendation: The current value will be stipulated through the
current tax court petition and the Assessor is recommending no change.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to II
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
20. United Mailing 25-5650070 Valuati.on higher than construction II
value and higher than paid.
(See Letter.) I
County Assessor's Recommendation: The current value will be stipulated through
current tax court petition and the Assessor is recommending no change.
IICity Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
21. Victory Envelope 25-5660010 Same comments as above. (See II
Letter) Assessor stated that
since these above 3 parcels are in
tax litigation, he didn't want to 'involved in these items until
court makes their decision.
IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: The current value will be stipulated through
current tax court petition and the Assessor_ is recommending no change.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to II
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
6 II
II . Ref Name/
No. Address Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
I
II 22. Mike & Kathy Mahen 25-2110080 Left written statement.
280 Mountain View Court
IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $134,700.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman
Dimler
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor. and the motion carried.
to
II23. Bill Kirkvold 25-2450040 Filed letter with City which is
201 Frontier Court attached. Value of new home built
I in 1988 assessed at $315,000.00
which is $45,000.00 than paid.
His is 40% higher than rest of
I comparable homes in neighborhood.
•
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change the EMV value from $315,300. to $256,500.
for a value reduction of $58,800.
IICity Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I24. Alan Leiding 25-4950100 Left written statement stating
6331 Dogwood Avenue concern over his property being
assessed considerably higher than
neighbors.
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $116,000.
IICity Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II25. Charles Mattson 25-0220700 Located next to NSP substation
2870 Wheeler St. No. which caused home on property to
II i
Roseville, MN 55113 I be destroyed but is still on tax
irolls for $22,000. (See Letter.)
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change EMV value from $133,900. to $98,500. for
Ia value reduction of $35,400.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I26. G. Alan Wi.11eutt 25-2650010 Taxes up considerably rom
6270 Ridge Road Y $4,000.
to $8,000.00. 1989 Assessment was
II I was $265,500.00 and paid $285,000.
1 Questioning how taxes are
determined.
tCounty Assessor's Recommendation: No change tolEMV value of $265,500.
[7 City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
II accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I
1
II 7
Ref Name/
--A
No. Address Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
II
27. Craig Rhatigen 25-1602370 Built a geodesic dome style home
599 Broken Arrow
457-8797 25-1602360 which has no comparable home in II neighborhood. Appraised value
done by mortgage company was
$85,000.00. Assessed at $120,000. I
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change EMV value from $120,000. to $96,900. for
a value reduction of $23,100.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to II
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
28. Steve Longren 25-8570070 Questions regarding fair market I
381 Trappers Pass assessment for entire neighborhood
which would affect taxes. He
Ifeels others aren't being assessed
at 100% market value.
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to' the EMV value of $190,800. I
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Di.mler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
29. Keenan Dampen a5- 85'10090 Same concerns as Steve Longren
g 300 Trappers Pass regarding taxation and fair and
equal assessments for all
II
_ I citizens.
County Assessor's Recommendation: No chnage to the EMV value of $205,900.
I
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Di.mler_ seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
30. Jay Kroni.ck 25-6860030 Purchased property for $248,000.
78 West 78th St. of which the City purchased land
for City pond for $35,000.00.
II
Assessed 182,000.00. Net acreage
over stated.
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $120,600. for the II
property value after the lot split.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
II
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
31. Pat Johnson 25-4070100 Assessed $182,000.00 in 1989 and
II
1730 Lake Lucy Road purchased property in April, 1988
for $195,000.00 which included
special assessments and closing
I
I costs which should be deducted.
1989 assessment $1,500.00 higher.
than 1988 presumably due to
addition of deck. (See Letter.)
I
8 I
I •_
1 0
a
Ref Name/ --- - -
No. Address Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
II
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $182,000.
IICity Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II32. Kathy Sterner 25-4081060 Not complaining about assessment
9570 Foxford Road as much as she doesn't understand
II 370-3449 the tax process. Was told taxes
would be $6,000.00 and found out
they're $9,000.00.
IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $213,500.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
Iaccept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
33. Roberta Daniel 25-7930200 Assessed $213,600.00 for 1989.
531 Shadowmere Paid $193,000.00 in March, 1988.
I941-7560 Realtor appraised house for no
more than $205,000.00. Comparable
houses located on Frontier Trail
II I assessed at around $148,000.00.
(See Letter.)
I County Assessor's Recommendation: Change EMV value from $213,600. to $194,800. for
a value reduction of $18,800.
I City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
34. Richard E. Herrboldt 25-6200030 Assessed unfairly at $318,000.00
I 6464 Murray Hill Road when purchased in 1988 for
470-9505 $296,500.00. Taxes too high also.
All of neighborhood storm water
I runs into their backyard which is
j flooded. (See Letter.)
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $296,800.
ICity Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Di.mler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I35. Richard Vogel 09 Would just like to talk to the
Riley Lake Meadows Subdivision Would
to compare properties
924-0077 (w) 445-2847 (h) in his area. (See Letter.)
County Assessor's Recommendation: Mr. Vogel basically wanted an estimate of what
taxes would be on a home he might build on one of the parcel numbers 25-7420010,
I20, 30, 70, 80, 90, 110 or 120. No change was recommended.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Di.mler seconded to
[7
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
I9 ` •
U-
Ref Name/ I
No. Address Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
II
jr- 36. Charles & Cynthia Hultner Q y_6(SO(q 9 He feels assessed value of house
3900 Leslee Curve is too high compared to
II
neighborhood and that taxes are
too high. (See Letter.)
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $105,600. I
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
37. Lawrence C. Freiberg 25-2950010 Feels assessment is based on fully
Pamelyn M. Freiberg completed house when the house is II 2730 Orchard Lane is only 35% complete and would
like assessment adjusted
accordingly. (See Letter.) II I
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change EMV value from $160,100. to $88,500. for
a value reduction of $71,600.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to II
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
38. Gregg W. Bernhardt I 25-8630030 Property assessment of $133,000. I
3883 Forest Ridge Circle is excessive with a 33% increase
448-8596 in assessment with only a 14%
property improvement of a swimming II pool. Assessment is much greater
than fair market price which is
I i around $116,000.00. (See Letter.) I
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change EMV value from $133,300. to $123,000. for
a value reduction of $10,300.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman _moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to II
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
39. David Tremble 25-0070300 Assessment increased by 400% on a II
4528 Cedar Ave. So. vacant piece of property on Lake
Minneapolis, MN 55407 St. Joe. The entire property is II under water. Would like the
property designated as wetlands
and assessment to reflect a more
I
reasonable and realistic value.
I (See Letter.)
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change EMV value from $46,900. to $8,000. for a
value reduction of $38,900. II
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II
II
10 II I
II ' ' 'Ref Name/
No. Address Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
II
40. Peter Lillie cS-c1000co
Lot 006, Feel increase of 33% from
I9355 Kiowa Trail Bandimere $163,000.00 to $219,800.00 is
excessive with some increase
expected for a 10' x 20' addition
I (See Letter.)
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $219,800.
IICity Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I 41. Karen P. King
9360 Kiowa Trail 25-3910010 Assessed $104,700.00 for 1989.
Estimated tax value for 1988 was
$90,000.00. Property was sub-
' divided in 1988 which she believes
wasn't taken in account. Property
is on market for $99,900.00.
II Feels a more accurate value would
be between $90,000.00 to
$95,000.00. (See Letter.)
I County Assessor's Recommendation: Change EMV value from $104,700. to $95,000. for
a value reducation of $9,700.
II City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II 42. William F. Zimmerman 25-1980180 Feels $93,300.00 too high for
7405 Chippewa Trail first year assessment when
$70,800.00 would be more
realistic. (See Letter.)
IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $93,300.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
Iaccept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
43. Linda L. Johnson 25-6600350 Would like property assessment
I3629 Red Cedar Point reviewed per letter attached.
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change the EMV value from $180,400. to $154,400.
IIfor a value reducation of $26,000.
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I44. Charles B. Hallau 25-4200200 Assessments rose from $108,200.
6770 Brule Circle in 1988 to $136,700. in 1989.
I Taxes rose by 40%. The improve-
ment made was $2,000.00 for
6
central air conditioning.
II I (See Letter.)
! 11
so
.s,
Ref Name/ f
No. Address Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
II
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $136,700.
City ty Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to II
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
45. Robert R. Conklin 25-3920080 Home was finished being built I
7160 Willow View Cove mid-summer of 1988. 1988 paid
on an estimated market value of II$242,900.00. 1989 assessment is
$571,000.00 which he feels is too
i I I high. (See Letter.)
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $571,300. II
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
46. Larry Demos, President 25-2400260 Would like assessment reduced
Davos Family Builders, Inc. from $161,400.00 to $136,000.00 I
Property at 7025 Cheyenne Trail I The house was sold in May, 1989
Ifor $136,000.00. (See Letter)
County Assessor's Recommendation': Change EMV value from $161,400. to $136,000. for II
a value reduction of $25,400.
ICity Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to I
I accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
47. Bradley C. Johnson 25-8000030 Would like assessment for 1989
II
Lotus Realty Services , I reduced from $125,700.00 to
545 West 78th Street i 1 $105,000.00 as that's what the
1 property was sold for in December II of 1988. (See Letter.)
'
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change EMV value from $125,700. to $105,000 for
a value reducation of $20,700.
I
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
48. Gerald E. Barber 25-4450080 The house was assessed at
3850 Maple Shores Drive $46,000.00 more than they paid '
for it in September of 1986 with
the house being still unfinished.
Assessment is double rest of
development. (See Letter.) I
County Assessor's Recommendation: No change to the EMV value of $256,200.
I City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to I
accept the recommendation. All voted i.n favor. and the motion carried.
r
1
II
•
12 I
11 • . ' Ref Name/
No. Address Parcel No. Comment/Council Action
49. Wally Otto 25-8520400 Per the City of Chanhassen
' 430 Oak Street
Waconia, MN 55387 Outlot C Planning Department this is an
Timberwood unbuildable lot and should be
Estates assessed as such. (See Letter.)
County Assessor's Recommendation: Change EMV value from $26,500. to $15,000. for a
value reducation of $11,500.
'
City Council Action: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
TOTAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES 623 200.00 IN REDUCTIONS
, UCTIONS
' $105,300.00 IN INCREASES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' 13
•
11 ,
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION tAT•
II REGULAR MEETING `rte
MAY 17, 1989
.,
IIVice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steve Emmings,
IIBrian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen , Asst . City Planner and Todd Gerhardt, Asst .
City Manager
IWildermuth moved , Conrad seconded to amend the agenda to move item 6 to the
first item. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
I
MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 AND TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO.
1 2-1, CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Gerhardt: I appreciate you amending your agenda so that I can leave a
II little earlier. Item 6 on your agenda is a modification to development
District No. 2 and Tax Increment Financing District No . 2-1. The
modification is to include approximately 20 acres of Development Site
subdivision. You saw this on your May 18 , 1988 agenda which you approved
as industrial office space south of the McGlynn site. Modifying this
district would allow the district to use monies to write down the cost of
public improvements for Audubon Court , the cul-de-sac road to the
III development and that those monies solely be used for that road construction
and public improvements to that road system. Tonight you ' re to review the
plan to see if the subdivision meets the zoning requirements and planned
use for this area is what the resolution is passing. I stand to answer any
questions that you may have on this proposal .
Emmings: Let' s just go around and see if anyone has any questions . Jim?
IWildermuth : I don ' t really have any questions . I 'm glad to see that we' re
adding to the industrial park. I wish we were adding about 5 times the
land area .
I
Gerhardt: We' re quite fortunate to get Met Council to approve this
additional land into the MUSA and it will be a nice addition to the
Iindustrial park.
Wildermuth: That' s all .
tBatzli : The only question I had was whether the pondi.ng site of
Development Sites Ltd, that' s not going to turn into a wetlands is it?
That ' s just for a 100 year storm there?
IGerhardt: Yes , and tonight , there' s no consideration for development on
this site . The Planning Commission is to review this as if the land is
zoned properly for i.ndustri.al and that they want to provide assistance to
the industrial business i_n this area . As the lots develop, each individual
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 2
site plan will come to the Planning Commission for their approval . Tonight
is just a formality to modify the economic development district to include
these lands within that area that tax increment monies could be used to
assist in writing down the special assessments for the public improvements 11 to the land .
Batzli : That ' s my only question.
Ellson: Nothing from me.
Conrad : Nothing . '
Erhart : Todd , on your last page, this one right here. You show a proposed
economic development district and it appears the black line extends all the
way down to Lyman Blvd. and closing everything west of Aubudon and the
northwest line. Is there something to that?
Gerhardt: I guess in our planning of it , if monies were available down the II
line in that district to look at upgrading Aubudon Road to a 9 tonage road
all the way down, it would give us the opportunity to use those monies
solely for upgrading Audubon Road to a 9 tonage road or urban section down
to Lyman Blvd . .
Erhart : Is the intent in that area that that would be rezoned industrial
at some point?
Gerhardt : No. Just for roadway improvements and by doing that you would
not incur those assessments back to the property owners. That money coming
off of the McGlynn site and the new subdivision to the south of McGlynn,
that they would be used to upgrade Audubon Road in that area.
Erhart : Okay, so there' s no intent to rezone that area? '
Gerhardt: No intent and that land is out of the MUSA line .
Erhart : Alright. The Met Council has already approved this inclusion into
the MUSA line so this is totally just a formality?
Gerhardt: That' s correct .
Erhart: Okay, that' s all I 've got Steve.
Emmings : I don' t have anything different . It looks likd there are 3
separate actions that are required on this . A land use plan amendment ,
rezoning from A-2 to IOP. '
Gerhardt : No, just the one item. You took action on the rezoning .
Emmings: That' s the old one. We've already done that. Okay. '
Gerhardt : I just included that in the packet to see what your last action
was on the property. I
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 3
I
I Resolution #89-1 : Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning
Commission adopt Resolution No. 89-1 finding Modification Development
District No . 2 and Tax Increment District No . 2-1 consistent with the plans
for development of the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor except Tim
Erhart who abstained and the motion carried .
Erhart: I ' ll abstain on all these issues. Our company is looking at one
Isite in that area as a future site for building.
I OAK VIEW HEIGHTS, PROPERTY ZONED R-12 AND LOCATED BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS
BLVD. APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, CENVESCO:
A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 140
IINDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS ON 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND
IAND STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO A WETLAND.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 150 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS.
IIJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Emmings: Does the applicant want to add any comments to the staff report?
I Dean Johnson: Not to the staff report . I guess as the discussion goes on
between the commission members, we' ll be able to add, show you some
different drawings.
I Emmings : Well if you' ve got something you' d like to present , why don ' t you
show it to us.
I Dean Johnson: I guess I 'm not sure when we met last time, I know. . . HRA
Board . . .but that' s the elevation of the building. I just wanted to show
you want they do look like. I guess the reason I bring it up here is so in
I the design of this building and the type of unit that we' re going to use. . .
private complete with rents is something they can move into for the same
amount of money of rents and then actually be cheaper for them by the time
they get their interest credits , property tax deductions and all the
Idifferent things like that. This is the type of unit that we come up with.
I know that you talked about putting double car garages bn it . It ' s quite
hard to do on a unit like this just by virtue of the fact that the whole
II front end is garage. That' s something that comes out of the design. It
comes out like this to get front elevation. It gets the front door and it
gets open areas and patio areas. Just to show you a detail of what the
I area would look like under this proposal , I guess this is the layout to
scale. We opened up the center area here. Saved all these trees that are
in this area here . Moved the totlot area which again was something that
staff recommended or thought was a better place than where we had it over
IIhere. We were able to adjust this building as to get it totally out of
this area here so it became an advantage to the site. We increased more
I
Nil
Planning Commission Meeting II
May 17, 1989 - Page 4
area inbetween the buildings and just generally took units away. We end up II
now with 132 units and we ended up with 70 units of parking area. I
instructed by engineer to make up this dimension . Jo Ann basically showed
you a rough one of just dividing the lots up with what it would look like
in an R-12. I asked my engineer to take and draw this drawing using my
unit or the unit that we had designed, keeping within all the R-12
criteria . We ended up with the 3, 600 lot minimum. We ended up with
actually more than the 150 foot frontage. We ended up with a 35%
impervious surface with this project , with this layout . The units are
slightly less. Rather than the 202 to a unit, it' s . . . This one is 196.
In the process this becomes a public road . . . Everything, the densities ,
the impervious surface, the frontages, all work. . . with the building that
I ' ve designed for it. The other thing that they showed you or the thing
that you have in your packet was just something done for what types of
quantity of units per acreage. This is taking it a step farther and saying II
geez, we have the building. Let' s see what that building can do on this
site.
Emmings : Then the R-12 scenario , these would all be rental units as
opposed to owned units?
Dean Johnson : Owned units . Remember we spent a lot of time talking about
the point that I had was the zero lot line to the condonized. This would
be selling condos to the homeowners . They would own air space . Okay? The
other project is zero lot lines . They would actually own the ground that
they sit on. Hence comes the ordinance problem with the 3 , 600 square foot
lot.
Emmings: As far as the marketplace is concerned , is this a legitimate
choice for you as a developer? Is the market the same for each type of
property?
Dean Johnson : It ' s the same product. The problem comes in, as I stated
before, is that you' re increasing the price. The fact of selling it as a
condo causes , processing condonizing each separate piece becomes it ' s own
plat so everytime that you file this, you file these individually so your
filing fees virtually go up times 12. A condo is sold as air . In other
words, a surveyor after the building is framed, comes in and surveys I
literally from sheetrock to sheetrock and does a description . So many feet
high, so many feet wide and basically what they want is a cube of air .
They have the rights to everything in that cube so you have an extra
surveyor 's cost. I threw out a figure that we ' ve used that we 've studied
and looked at . It' s approximately $1, 500 . 00 more per un:.t to condo this
project than the zero lot line. Now we felt if we zero lot lined it, we
were able to offer the customer more product for the same cost .
Emmings: Would the buildings look the same with the R-12 approach as they
would . . .
Dean Johnson: What would, as a businessman, as a developer , what would end
up happening is I would have to make the choice of whether to market,
sustain the $1, 500. 00 more or whether it'd be better to you know, lessen '
the product. That' s a real hard decision quite honestly. I could sit here
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 5
I and say, geez no. I have to cheapen it down . I don' t want to be so
definite. I could see that happening realistically and the reason is is
because of mortgage amounts . Because of what they' re mortgaging and what
I it would increase them and what that would do to competition with the
rental units and the type of person that would be doing this . The project
before was rental units and I mean the project the Durand Company brought
in front of you in September of 1988 . They were rental properties . They
I were virtually the same square footage. They were different here and I
have that too . I don' t know if you remember this project . These units
were 8-plexes. They had problems with impervious surface also . . .got a copy
I of the Minutes and that was one of the things put on theirs . But in their
project, these buildings were 8-plexes. They had what they called the
legacy trim, I don' t know if you've seen it. It ' s kind of a paper covered
trim. The doors were of cheap material and they covered it with literally
I printed contact paper . Siding on this project was masonite siding .
Windows were not thermal panes, they were 2 individual slider units. A
less expensive window. Those types of things were done for them to keep it
I in the potential market. As owners, we'd like to go after that market.
We' re trying to build . . . sell to owners . They' re trying to go after that
market and I ' ll try to get every advantage I can. If zero lot lining this
I is an advantage, then . . . Other things that come in as it becomes a little
hard to get totlots in on this area . . .and make the unit a workable project.
The totlot would be hard to squeeze i.n. We did have a hard time saving the
trees on a project like this. I know that the trees up here, the forester.
I mentioned and I think Jo Ann mentioned it again, that they might go anyhow
just because of the activity going on around the trees. Even thought on
our first project or proposal here , we ' ve got some distance. We can cord
Ithis off and the elevation of this , which is, what is it? 910 or 1010. I
can ' t remember the elevations . 1010. And the units around it, we ' re
looking at 1008 so we' re going expecting to have to do any mass grading of
this area . It ' s one of the things that with the design of this plan we
I
were able to work in. . . Other things that this plan gives over this one is
just, as much as we know, we have a grading problem here. We ' re going to
have to make better use of this site and consequently keep units closer to
I Powers Blvd . . This one it' s squeezed in bringing this tighter in together .
We get 270 feet of distance away from Powers Blvd. I guess in thinking
about the things that you brought up last time with the spaces , we added
I quite a few more with the open area . With the dropping down in density and
getting within the R-12, density, we thought . . .we feel that we' ve given you
some reason to look at it as a PUD. Any questions?
I Emmings : I guess this is not a public hearing but is there anybody else
here that came to comment on this project? Alright. As far as comments ,
Tim, do you want to start?
Erhart : What variances are we looking at here Jo Ann? With this proposal ,
what variances would be required?
IOlsen : Since it' s a PUD, there would be no variances .
Erhart: So it' s just a matter of us getting something in exchange. So the
I differences from the ordinance that they' re asking for is the increase in
impervious surface, the lot sizes. The reason our ordinance really didn' t
I
IN
Planning Commission Meeting II g
May 17 , 1989 - Page 6
take into account these kinds of zero lot lines , therefore our ordinance
calls for 3,600 feet and these lots are running 1, 200 feet?
Olsen : For individual units .
Erhart : Am I still in the same meeting? Alright . Do you expect the
people that are going to purchase these things are going to be young
families? 1
Dean Johnson : I expect quite a variety. We took a closer look at another
project that I mentioned that was already up and we found younger families. II
We found single parent families . We found elderly. We found quite a mix
in this type of thing. We found the retirement I 'm sure because of the
cost of the units in keeping their budget down. We found quite the variety
actually. It'd be hard to say what the exact percentage was because these
are. . .types of things outside the units . Let' s say what one group would
use over another age group but there is a mix.
Erhart : What' s the park facilities available for this site? ,
Olsen: Across the street, Chan Pond and there' s a walkway around that.
Erhart : Passive park?
Olsen: And then the school facilities . '
Erhart : That ' s somewhat difficult to use that during the weekday when the
kids are there.
Olsen : And there are some facilities up in Chaparal .
Erhart: What neighborhood park? How do they get to that? They'd have to
go out on CR 17? Cross it at Kerber Blvd .?
Olsen: There' s trails on Kerber and there will be a trail on Powers . '
Erhart : On the east side or do they have to cross the street?
Olsen: I know that there' s a trail on the east side. I think there' s one
on the . . .
Erhart: Isn ' t it on the west side? ,
Olsen: I think it' s on both sides on Kerber .
Ellson: It ' s on both sides of Kerber .
Olsen: On Powers it ' s going to be on the east side.
Erhart : Okay, so children could, where they could go would be north on a
trail along CR 17 or Kerber?
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 7
I
II Olsen: They could continue down Jenny Lane to Kerber . That will be
connected.
Erhart : Yes , and then go up Kerber . How far is that?
I
Olsen: About a mile. So they wouldn' t go by themselves .
I Erhart : I guess the concern I have is probably somewhat the same as last
time. You've just got a lot of people packed in a small area and kids are
going to want some space to be outside in and a totlot might be interesting
I for a small kid but if you get any 6 year olds to they get their car, where
do they go? It' s hard to tell how many are actually going to be in that
area but if there' s 200 and some units, it could be a fair amount of kids
in there . I guess I 'm wondering , with that density, is it more difficult
I to get some playground area than say the kids living in the single family
area or is it the same?
IOlsen: It depends on how close they are.
Erhart : The southwest corner is not wooded currently. Are you planning on
I putting any trees? Yes, the area that you' re leaving green essentially.
It'd be south of Jenny Lane and next to CR 17 .
Dean Johnson: We can, yes. We don' t have it on the plan obviously. I
Iguess it' s just a matter of. . .
Erhart: Yes , I understand that but I 'm just trying to see if there' s any
I way you can make this thing the most liveable with the density that you
have.
Applicant ' s Architect : We didn' t feel a buffer was needed there of plant
Imaterials .
Erhart : I 'm not suggesting a buffer . I 'm just suggesting an area where
Ithe kids can go out and kind of do what kids want to do.
Dean Johnson: What you' re basically talking about is, it' s a townhouse .
' It's hard in townhouses to get large open areas. It' s not like a single
family area where you get 5 backyards. . .
Erhart: Who owns Outlot A and B then when we' re all said and done here?
IOlsen : If it' s a PUD, it ' s under the Homeowner ' s Association .
IErhart: So the individuals own the lots but there' s an association.
Dean Johnson: Right. The maintenance on the exterior of the building
I becomes the association' s responsibility.
Erhart : And until the future apartment building is done, you are
maintaining ownership of Lot 1?
II
I
IN
Planning Commission Meeting II
May 17, 1989 - Page 8
Dean Johnson: That ' s correct . That ' s the reason for the deed restriction
in the recommendations.
Erhart : I don ' t know, I guess I ' ll just pass my discussion on this along.
You may want to come back and look at it some more. I 'm still trying to
get comfortable with the density. I think the northern area looks much
improved.
Emmings : I don' t know if you' re ready to comment on this or not Tim but
one of the things we looked at last time was whether or not this project
fits within the definition of a PUD at all . I don' t know if you want to
comment on that. Last time I think we felt it didn' t and I don' t know if
you feel like it' s changed enough so that now it might fit.
Erhart: I think it' s changed a lot. We've taken 1 building away but we I
redistributed the units to some degree . I note that on the plan you showed
up there as just an R-12 is that there' s 10 buildings and there' s 11 here.
I don ' t know, the numbers indicate, if you take the apartment out which you II
really can' t look at. The numbers have changed by 8 units and I don' t know
if that ' s what we had in mind . Why don ' t you go along and maybe I ' ll have
some more comments .
Conrad : Are these units going to have basements?
Dean Johnson: No they aren' t . ,
Conrad : And you' re still designing them, some with 2 car garages but most
with 1 car garage? ,
Dean Johnson : One third with 2 cars , two-thirds with 1 car . The units
that the same people before, Durand, those didn ' t have basements either .
Those are the same type of unit .
Conrad : What kind of covenants would this group, there wouldn ' t be
covenants. They would be covenants? So what do you vision for outside
storage? What kind of covenants would. . .
Dean Johnson: For outside storage?
Conrad : Yes . Boats and trailers .
Dean Johnson: They have to be enclosed . Either they have to take them
outside of the storage facilities or they have to keep t:lem. . . if they have
parking stalls outside of their garages which is the way it was in the
other townhomes, the apartment project . ,
Conrad : You increased your visitor parking and kind of decreased the owner
parking. Two weeks ago we saw a similar proposal for zero lot line and for '
maybe a group that had one-fourth as many units as you do . They have
probably 50% more visitor parking than you do and because we don ' t have an
ordinance that really governs or dictates the amount of visitor parking ,
basically are we assuming that Jenny Lane is going to take overflow type
for parties? What' s the thought? We still don ' t have a lot of visitor
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 9
I
parking and again , we don ' t have good standards here for requiring parking
spaces. Based on what we saw 2 weeks ago, you ' re way, way different than
what they' re offering for visitor. parking . Like not even, it' s not even
comparable.
I
Emmings : And all of those units had 2 car garages .
IConrad: They all had 2 car garages .
Dean Johnson : What was the price?
IConrad : They' re higher but not by much. Maybe $15,000. 00 higher . I 'm not
dealing with price. I 'm just dealing with where do those cars go? I 'm
just curious , is it just assumed that Jenny Lane is going to take overflow
Iparking or where do they go?
Dean Johnson : In the project that I built before called Creekside of
I Plymouth, we don' t have anymore parking that this . I think probably the
reason for it is that being the type of unit it is and the size of the unit
and the restrictions of parking, people don' t normally throw parties like
I that. It ' s not like in your neighborhood with single family where they' ve
got a large backyard where you can set up the volleyball court and have
maybe 30 to 40 guests over . We don' t see that type of partying . In the
Creekside of Plymouth project, they've never had a problem with that type
I of stuff. People use it in the manner that they are allowed to use it.
It's something that just isn' t done. There' s restrictions by the type of
thing I guess is what I 'm saying to you. You' re dealing in a townhouse ,
I almost an apartment. You' re not going to be inviting 40 friends over to be
at your house and have the parking problem.
Conrad: But let' s say they did, where would they go?
I
Dean Johnson : The same place they would go when there are single family
houses which is on the street. But it would be no different than a single
IIfamily project .
Conrad : Each family, the families with the 1 car garage, how much driveway
Ido they have to park additional cars?
Dean Johnson : One more space.
I Conrad : So they would have 2. And storage for that family would have to
be in the garage.
I Dean Johnson: Again you' re getting into townhouses and a person that has
that type of stuff, the person is probably looking at a home or , which is
very common is people use . . .
IConrad : What ' s the building material for these units? Is it primary wood
exterior? It was metal siding .
IDean Johnson : Metal or vinyl si_ding . . .soffi.ts , clad windows , steel doors .
I
_ _
Planning Commission Meeting II g
May 17, 1989 - Page 10 '
Conrad : Jo Ann, in terms of having an outlet , a second outlet for
Jenny Lane , you' re not uncomfortable? I didn' t see in the staff report
that this will not go through when this is built. You' re comfortable that
one entrance in there is just fine?
Olsen : I guess I 'm not following what you' re saying .
Conrad: In essence it doesn' t go all the way through to the east right? '
Olsen : Yes it does . It goes all the way to Kerber .
Conrad: It does. Okay.
Emmings : Connecting with that other project that' s already in.
Olsen: With the townhomes that are there. That' s private right now but
they' ve got the right-of-way.
Conrad : As I look at this and I take a look at the different ways we can '
develop this site and then I compare it to the PUD guidelines, to be very
direct and not to prolong this, developing this under the R-12 district as
I see the applicant, there looks to be, to tell you the truth, I like that
better than I like the PUD. There seemed to be a little bit of flexibility
or creativeness in that more so than I see in this particular PUD.
Therefore , I feel that it' s a more comfortable, more open feeling which is II what I 'm looking for . I 'm not really looking for reducing units as much as
I 'm looking for making sure we have some open space which we kind of like
out here for people. You can do that open space by clustering and doing
some things. I feel therefore that the R-12 district has merit and I 'm not
prone to a PUD simply because when I look back at the ordinance for PUD,
there ' s some intent statements and the first one says variety. I don' t
think this shows variety. The second one says sensitivity. This one shows
some in that we' re saving some trees but more than likely we can ' t save
more than a few so I don' t know how much sensitivity we' re showing . We do
have a wetland and a steep slope but we' re really not looking at that right
now. We' re looking at the rest so I 'm not sure that sensitivity is a
factor . Efficiency is an intent statement and I think for the developer ,
it is efficient. Density is a factor in our intent statement and basically II
in density, you look at transferring units so you can open up one area and
increase the density in another area. This is not doing it as far as I
see. We' re not protecting anymore than what our ordinances are already
protecting. There' s another one called district integration and I don ' t
think that' s really applicable here . The sixth one is parks and open
spaces and other than the totlot is fine and that ' s okay but the wetlands
and the steep slopes , that' s protected already so I don' t know that , and
then we don' t have any major parks so I guess the bottom line to me is, I
think the developer can do a good job in an R-12 district . I don' t think
this constitutes in my mind a PUD because it' s missed maybe 4 of these
factors that our ordinance calls for . I haven ' t been persuaded at this
point in time that individual ownership is , I like that factor but I
haven ' t been persuaded that I can give up some of the intents of our PUD
ordinance. I think they still are valid and I don' t think that we meet II them in this particular plan . I also feel that the R-12 district does , and
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 11
I the way the developer showed it could be developed , it looks very flexible
and it looks like to me that there are a lot more open spaces for people to
walk around .
IEmmings : I think what I 'd like to do at this point is get some sense from
the rest of the commissioners as to whether or not , before we spend a lot
of time on each person commenting on the individual things and there are 18
I conditions here to look at and everything else, I guess I 'd like to get
some sense because if people feel that this shouldn' t go forward as a PUD,
we might want to just act on it without spending a lot more time on it. If
I on the other hand people are of the mind that they feel the spirit of
the PUD and the intent of the PUD ordinance has been met, then maybe we
want to go into more detail on it.
IEllson: I don' t think it' s being met right now but I think this plan could
still be worked on to meet it.
I Batzli : I have a hard time looking at this without envisioning the
apartment building in there. I think if the apartment building ever went
in there it'd be great . It' d be swell . You clustered everything in the
I lower corner and the rest is open and regardless of whether the wetlands
and the steep slope and that type of thing, you really, have to be
protected. I would kind of like it then. It' s interesting but right now
thinking that the apartment is going to go in there and the densities that
I we have, we really haven' t done much of anything and I actually agree
with Ladd that when they put the R-12 concept up there I think I like that
better . I don' t know enough about it but that was my initial reaction as
I well . I really don' t think they' re providing a whole lot of open space
here or creativity or the other factors that are discussed in the PUD.
Wildermuth : I 'd agree . I'm not persuaded that we' ve satisfied the PUD
I
requirements and I 'd like the R-12 approach better just on paper . Just by
this for instance .
I Emmings : Tim, I don' t know, did you get to address this question? I think
you did but do you want to do it again?
I Erhart : I guess I sit here and keep looking at this and the common
alternative to this is just simply an apartment complex. I question the
value to a person to purchase these townhouses from an increased equity
standpoint. I 'm not too sure it' s a good investment. I 'm not sure that 15
I years from now that the site won ' t be more valuable to Chanhassen as a well
planned apartment complex as opposed to a townhouse. I might be completely
wrong but I keep struggling with that same question. I realize it doesn ' t
I answer whether it' s a PUD or not but maybe it does in the sense that if you
want to look at it as a PUD which gets us out of this other approach, there
should be something more. Some amenity there for the people who are going
I to live there because I think you can get more amenity in a well planned
apartment complex .
Emmings : There seems to be a consensus up here . I agree that to me this
I is not fit under the PUD and I 'm kind of sorry about that because I like
the townhome idea . I think the problem with it to me is that it hasn ' t
I
--
Planning Commission Meeting II
May 17, 1989 - Page 12
really significantly changed from last time. They' ve done a lot of work
here to make some changes but basically they shifted units from the north
side of the road to the south side . I think the north side is better than
it was last time. I think the south side is worse and I keep going back to '
the fact that when we wrote , or revised the PUD ordinance, the whole idea
was that the City was supposed to get something to allow an increase in
density. Now the density isn ' t that much different than an R-12 but R-12
is not the only other option in the world either. If it fits under R-12 I
and they want to develop it as R-12, they' ve got a right to go ahead and do
that. I 'm real concerned about the parking. I don' t think any of these
units should be built without double car garages . I don ' t think anything
like a PUD like this should be allowed without some provision for overflow
parking space for visitors and I don' t see those kinds of things being
provided and I don' t see that the City gets a heck of a lot out of this .
In fact I don' t see that they really get anything at all . So I guess at
this point, and I don' t see any reason to go in any more depth unless
somebody else does , I don ' t see any reason to go into any more depth on
things like the wetland alteration permit or even the site plan review and
I think what we'd have to do at this point is , I think maybe what we ought
to do is have a motion on the planned unit development concept which
obviously would be turned down here if everybody votes the way they' ve been I
talking. That would at least give you the opportunity to take it to the
City Council to see if they agree with us . The last big PUD we had in town
we turned it down and the City Council turned that decision around and
allowed it. That way you could test the people that make the final
decision but then it would have to come back for the other items . So it
necessarily will involve more time. I think your alternative here to
having us do that is simply to ask us to table it while you work on it some I
more or while you decide to submit a different type of plan. We can
accommodate you in that regard but I think those are the alternatives that
I see for you at this point.
Dean Johnson : If I 'm understanding this right , all other recommendations
that staff has done, the other 15 or 16 or 17 .
Emmings : 18 . '
Dean Johnson: All you' re turning down is one? I have to come back?
Emmings: No, let me explain. We' re looking at 3 things on this. The
first is the planned unit development concept and development plan. Second
is the wetland alteration permit and the third one is the site plan review. II
What we' re saying is to us this does not meet the City' s criteria for a
PUD. So what we would do is simply act on that issue. We'd say it does
not because that' s what people have said in their comments here . We 'd turn I
this down as a PUD. You take that up to the City Council to see if they
agree with us or they don' t. If they agree with us , you' re going to have
to do something else. If they don' t agree with us , the plan would come
back essentially with instructions from the City Council that they agree
it' s a PUD and we should then look at all of those 18 conditions. Do the
site plan review and look at the wetland alteration permit but they would
then take that decision away from us and we would just go forward with it
as a PUD.
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 13
IDean Johnson: Why don' t you act on the other two points then so we don ' t
have to bring it back?
I Emmings : Because we ' re not interested in taking a lot of time to look at
all those conditions since it doesn' t look like a PUD to us.
I Dean Johnson : I put something in front of you and as much as maybe you
don' t agree with the one, to sit there and cause me two months of delay
which will effectively kill the project for this year doesn ' t seem quite
I fair either. I realize that I 've taken up your time and I realize you
don' t agree with the PUD but to make it so that I have to come back in
front of you and if I get a yes vote out of the Council and waste another 2
months , not waste but use another 2 months is going to make this project a
Inext spring project at the earliest.
Conrad : I don' t know that it has to come back here though Steve from the
ICouncil .
Emmings : So we simply forego any discussion on the wetland alteration
Ipermit and all of the conditions on the site plan?
Olsen : It would depend if you tabled the other items, it would have to
come back. If you denied them all , it wouldn' t come back.
IEmmings : Alright . I don' t want to cause you any delay. It seems to me, I
think the best thing is that it does go to the City Council at this point
I because it' s pretty much a stone wall here , it would appear and I think you
ought to go and find out what they feel about the project.
Dean Johnson : I guess I don ' t have a problem with that but I think the
I
other thing should be looked at and if they have merit, I don ' t think that
I should have to go in front of the City Council with all 3 no' s in order
not to come back to you with a wetland alteration or the way you talk about
I the grading project because whether it be a condo project or whether it be
a PUD project, it' s going to be very similar . The other is a site plan
review.
IEmmings : We can ' t sit here and review a site plan when we don' t think the
thing fits the criteria for the site plan that' s being reviewed. It' s
doing it in the abstract . It ' s doing it with a false premise and I don' t
Ithink we should do it. Now if people up here don' t agree with me, they
should let me know and we can go around and take comment. .
I Ellson: I think the idea of applying for both at the same time was
basically set up that, normally you'd think, okay first you get the PUD and
then you look at the two things but we allow people to apply for both at
the same time. Especially if you do agree on the PUD, you then can do it
Ibut I think it' s true intent initially to have all 3 here today was to try
to help developers if we approve the PUD, we could then within the same day
look at the other two things but that' s not happening here.
I
I
- --
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 14
Emmings : If it will help to speed things along , I think we should act on
all 3 of these and the City Council will know, to the extent that you feel
that we turned down all 3 will weigh against you at the City Council , they
have a verbatim transcript of our proceedings here and they' re going to
know that the reason we voted no on those other 2, if that' s what winds up
happening, is because we' re disagreeing with the PUD concept at the outset.
So they' re going to know the reason. I think you probably would want us to
do that so that it will prevent you from having to come back. I think it' s I
probably in your best interest . Would you rather have us act on it or
would you rather have us table it for you to do something else?
Dean Johnson: No , I don' t want it tabled. I would like to know. . . in
talking about having. . . If this plan didn' t have a swamp on the one part,
we would be able to put more area in this so what in essense is happening
is because of the fact that there is some natural drainage, granted it be
hard to develop it and the City would want to , nor would anybody else want
to see it developed. You' re basically penalizing the open area because of
existing terrain of the land . Is that what I 'm reading from you people?
Emmings: I don' t know. You say just because there ' s a swamp there, well
there is a swamp there . It is a wetland and it is protected and you have to
work with the site as it is. You could call it a penalty or you can call
it an amenity. I don ' t know.
Dean Johnson: But if it' s an amenity, it ' s open ground that I am providing I
for the property. If it' s a penalty is I don' t have enough space for
children to play.
Emmings : Folks have very different maps of reality. Yours is a lot '
different than mine, and that's fine but I just don' t think that, it' s
pretty apparent from the comments we' re getting up here that nobody up here
agrees that this fits within our PUD ordinance. For us to spend a lot of
time reviewing all of this stuff or looking at it any further seems to me
to be a waste of your time and ours but I think you should go up to the
City Council and test their map of reality. It may be a lot different than I
ours. If they agree with us, you' re going to have to do something
different. If they disagree with us , they' ll look at the rest of the stuff
and you' ll go along on your way to developing this project like you want
to. Does anybody else have any other comments on this?
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights as shown on
the plan stamped "May 8 , 1989" . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
1
Emmings : Now there are no recommendations or motions for the Wetland
Alteration Permit.
Olsen : They' re still in the original report . I didn' t pull that out .
Emmings: Maybe in an effort to let them take everything before the City
Council , does someone want to make a motion that the other items, the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 15
1
1 wetland alteration permit and site plan review simply be denied so the City
Council can consider the project as a whole without it coming back to the
Planning Commission .
1 Erhart moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 dated "March 30, 1989" for development
I within 200 feet of a wetland and storm water discharge into a wetland . All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
I Conrad : I think it should be noted that the reason we' re voting it down is
simply because we haven' t studied the issue in light of the fact that we
have turned down the PUD request .
1 Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of Site Plan #88-15 as shown on the plan stamped "May 8 , 1989" . All voted
1 in favor and the motion carried .
I Conrad : Steve, could we attach a note to the City Council and try to
summarize our feelings. Maybe they can get it out of the Minutes but on the
other hand , maybe it would be good to send them some brief statements as to
why we didn' t consider this a PUD and any other concerns we may have with
I the site plan as we see it. If I could , I would start off with my comments
that as I read our PUD ordinance, the PUD that has been presented does not
meet 4 out of the 6 intent statements . Other problems that I have with
I this PUD is that it doesn ' t address visitor parking. It doesn ' t address
storage properly or 2 car garages . It still seems like a very high
impervious surface when we consider the townhomes alone. Those are my
I comments as it relates to the PUD. If there ' s anything else.
Emmings: Do you feel the City would be getting anything back for it' s
conferral of the PUD?
1 Conrad : The developer has made an attempt to save some trees and to
provide a totlot but I don' t think that again, as I read what we would
I like, I don ' t think that those are , they' re very small in relationship to
what I would like to see on this space .
Emmings : Does anybody want to add anything?
IEllson: I think the only point I 'd like to make is it ' s still at this
stage it' s not big enough open space. It ' s not enough parking . I 'm not
I saying that I 'd never say a PUD would go here. I 'm just saying the plan as
it is right now with modification #2 doesn ' t meet it but I think if we had
fewer units. If we had more parking. If the park got a little bigger or
I something , that I would again look at it as a PUD so I 'm not saying I don' t
want to look at it ever .
Wildermuth : I think in view of the fact that the wetland is present ,
11 whether you want to look at it as a problem or an amenity, the site as such
simply can not stand that kind of density. That would be why I would be
1
m
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 16
opposed to it. I think there would have to be some very creative and
unique things done on that site to quality as a PUD using the contour of
the topography.
Conrad : Just one last comment . I find the R-12 district to be totally '
adequate for this proposal . I will take exception to Jim' s comment. I
think it' s not density. My issue is not density as much as it is open
space. Like Tim, I thought this was a good property for apartments where I
the density was stacked and where we could still keep open space for people
to play and walk. This proposal is really packed together . It' s back to
back apartments . Back to back townhomes and that ' s not what I had
envisioned for this district.
Emmings: I want to go on record as adopting basically all of Ladd ' s
comments just to keep it short. Anybody else got anything else on this one I
then?
Erhart : Yes , I 'd just like to say my biggest concern is when you get all
of it done is that what' s going to happen is because they' re new, they' ll
sell . Obviously they know how to market the things. My concern, with that
density, you' re walking the fine line that the values would go down. If
you have a complex like this where the values go down, we will then own a
tragedy in the City of Chanhassen . I just don' t think the amenities ,
there' s something lacking to keep people interested in rebuying the units
and at least the value goes up at the rate of inflation to take advantage
of the tax advantages. My concern is that it' s not there. It " s going to
be a diminishing value peice of property and that ' s bad for Chanhassen.
Emmings: Can you tell them when this will go to the City Council? 1
Olsen : June 12th .
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION OF A TEMPORARY OFFICE, SHOP AND
YARD FOR EDGEWORK BUILDERS ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK
AND LOCATED AT 8301 AUDUBON ROAD, DAVE STOCKDALE.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Steve Emmings called the public hearing to order . 1
Dave Stockdale: Basically just to summarize a little bit. In the past
process I was , I 'm sure you remember , I was denied at the Planning
Commission level and approved at the City Council level , my other project .
Emmings : That would be comforting to the people who just left . I
Dave Stockdale: Even though my conscience tells me that a site like this
is more appropriate because of the zoning situation . I had some concerns I
with some of the recommendations. Again, when you review Merit Heating ' s
1
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 17
I
I approval by City Council , i_t' s my interpretation that the final
recommendations for asphalt only, no curb and gutter of any kind and I
wonder what has changed that I would need to follow that.
1 Olsen: Just maintaining the required improvements .
Dave Stockdale : I 'm kind of on the same premise that at some point in the
I near future when sewer and water becomes available and I 'm required to hook
up to it, any additional costs that I incur now will be undermined and
circumvented by physical installation of the sewer and water . . . .the
I blacktop, I would just as soon not have to go to the extent of curb and
gutter at this point. One of the reasons for curb and gutter is that it
brings the water into the storm sewer . There is none so I do not
understand this point or the need for that.
IEmmings: What is the reason?
I Olsen : It ' s for directing the drainage but it ' s also just for
stabilization. For snowplow removal. It maintains , it keeps the site
manicured longer .
IErhart : Is it required by the ordinance?
Olsen: But exceptions have been made.
IDave Stockdale : I guess I 'm asking for an exception. On the same lines of
the engineering report, their checking the sewer and water might be
I available in 1990. I 'm not going to take possession , if this goes through,
until October of 1989 which means that if I do blacktop up to the Audubon
Road access , because the connect to the farmhouse is on the backside, to
I avoid damaging all those mature spruce trees, the sewer and water line
would go down the driveway that if it is blacktopped . . . On the other hand,
if you' re sure it ' s going to be available in 1990, any postponing for the
blacktop would be addressed in some contractual arrangement to be put in
Iimmediately after the sewer and water connects. I 'd like to have that
considered . If on the other hand it' s not going . . .
IEmmings: What do we know about that?
Wildermuth : Is sewer and water going to be concurrent with what Scott was
in here? Isn' t that part of what that was all about? The extension.
IOlsen : Oh Todd? Well that ' s going down. It ' s not all 'the way to that
site. It' s just to where the public works building and it' s in that
Ilocation . Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition, they' re still industrial property
inbetween. I don' t see us , maybe engineering knows something I don' t know
but I don ' t see it happening . This would be where Lake Susan Hills would
Ibe here and then you still have all this industrial in here .
Dave Stockdale : There'd be no motivation for the City to come out and to
join it unless there was more development next to me?
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting II
May 17, 1989 - Page 18
Olsen : Right and if you requested it . I don' t know if 1990 will happen.
Dave Stockdale: Well I just saw it discussed in the packet. Also, did you
have the drainage plan?
Wildermuth : Unless I 'm reading this map all wrong , it' s going right across
the street?
Batzli : It ' s on the other side of the road .
Emmings: It' s south of the tracks where that other stuff is north. '
Dave Stockdale: The other question I had , they were requesting a grading
and drainage and erosion control plan. I 'm basically not changing what' s
there now and I 'm wondering what erosion we' re talking about that' s
different than what' s been happening for whatever number of years.
Olsen: You had stated that you 'd be , there'd be some grading like for the
outside storage and just for the paving .
Dave Stockdale : I thought I had shown that on this .
Olsen: The erosion control?
Emmings : I think what they' re saying is that to the extent you' re doing
any grading, they want to know how you' re going to control the erosion to
the areas you ' re grading . They want to know what you ' re planning to do to
control erosion until it' s stabilized on the areas that you are grading .
That ' s all .
Dave Stockdale : The only other thing I noticed the difference between mine
and theirs was there wouldn' t be any recommendation or request for them to
provide a second drainfield site . Basically I expect I ' ll be using about
50% less than is being used . . . So if this is working for 6 people, our
work is 4 people. . . '
Olsen : I think that was meant to be a condition and it' s not .
Wildermuth: It' s not a condition this time around and it was for Merit I
think.
Olsen : It should have been . '
Ellson : It ' s pretty standard that we at least tell you where it ' s going to
be. Not use it but. '
Olsen : Yes , we always have to have, just for our protection , your
protection, we always like to know if there' s a second site available so
that should have been a condition.
Erhart : We do that on subdivisions , not on conditional use permits?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 19
I Olsen: Well anything that' s using a septic system we always like to know
that there is a second site for_ emergencies but i.f you don ' t feel it
necessary, that ' s fine .
IBatzli : Good planning practices Tim.
Erhart: I 'm not saying it' s bad.
IOlsen : And they' ll have no problem finding another site .
IErhart: I just don't know if this is the proper time to require it .
Emmings : I don ' t recall doing this previously. Whenever somebody wants to
plat it or bring in a plan for a piece of property but I don' t recall ever
I seeing this when somebody' s going to use something that exists . Have we
ever done that before?
I Olsen : I don ' t think we' ve ever had a site like this . Your other
conditional use required you to have two sites on there.
I Dave Stockdale : But there was no precondition saying that one site was
good and one was bad. We have a site where the drainfield site is still
good .
I Olsen : We' ve always , whenever there' s been septic systems, we' ve always
had a secondary site.
I Dave Stockdale : I don' t see the record of that happening for Merit
Heating.
Olsen : It might not have.
IDave Stockdale : So not always . You haven ' t always done that .
IOlsen: Obviously not.
Dave Stockdale . So again to me that implies a certain historic . . . that I
Idon't think needs to be done.
Emmings : Okay, this is a public hearing . Is there anyone else who wants
to be heard on this?
I .
Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
Ifavor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Wildermuth : I like your landscape plan . I 'm sure it will be a good one .
I guess I 'd be inclined to waive the requirement for curbing as based on
how solid the plan is for sewer and water . I 'd be inclined to waive the
requirement for a paved roadway if we know that water and sewer is coming
in 1990. Other than that I agree with the recommendations less the curb
Irequirement.
I
Ell
Planning Commission Meeting II
May 17, 1989 - Page 20
Emmings: How do you feel about the second septic site?
Wildermuth: I don' t think locating a second septic site is a big deal .
What are we looking at for expense?
Dave Stockdale: $1,000. 00.
Wildermuth : Really?
Dave Stockdale : They do the borings and everything else. It ' s in that
range. '
Erhart : What do you do if you can' t find one?
Emmings: How many acres is this? '
Dave Stockdale: 7. 4.
Wildermuth: Somewhere there' s going to be another septic site .
Erhart: That' s the point. You' re not going to change your decision on
whether you find one or not so I think it' s sort of moot issue to require
it.
Wildermuth: In view of the fact that he' s going to have fewer employees '
than there were residents in the place, I guess I wouldn' t really be too
upset .
Batzli : I assume that you' re going to give up your other conditional use
permit if this is approved? Is that what' s happening?
Dave Stockdale : That was my intention.
Olsen: I believe they are only good for a year if there has not been any
improvements to the site . '
Dave Stockdale: . . . it' s one or the other .
Batzli : I agree mostly with Jim' s comments . That would be my only '
question.
Ellson : I think it should have all 5 conditions including the second '
drainfield site. I think that it' s nice of us to be concerned about how
much it costs him to locate that sort of thing but that ' s not what should
make up our mind. Well , if it was only $20.00 then we'd all say go ahead
and find your second drainfield site. That doesn ' t seem very reasonable.
I think that what's best for Chanhassen is to have a backup site .
Something could happen if there is only 4 people in that thing . The thing
could pollute our ground water or what have you and I don' t want to be the
one who didn' t have a backup site there ahead of time. I think if curb and
gutter is what we require in other areas in the IOP, then I 'd want this to
have it too . So I 'd like all the 5 conditions plus one about the '
drainfield.
1
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 21
I
IConrad : In our conditional use permit Jo Ann , basically the site cannot be
utilized more than what the applicant has described in this request right?
IOlsen: Right . If he expands it , he'd have to come in.
Conrad: And you' re really not doing much to the site right now is my
Iunderstanding .
Dave Stockdale: Filling in a couple of low spots and flattening out .
IOther than that there' s no physical change. . .
Conrad : It' s real minimal . Especially to the north. Most of the stuff is
closer to the south of the property. Is that right?
IDave Stockdale: The southwest corner .
I Conrad : And just out of curiousity, do you have longterm, when sewer and
water comes, what do you think you' re going to do? Any thoughts?
Dave Stockdale : I 'm still in the early stages of that . I saw the previous
I
discussion that Merit had proposed . . . My impression is that it showed up
right at the last mi.nute . . . industrial park. Probably two phases .
Developing the part to the north first so I can continue using my buildings
I with the intent of moving my business in an approved fashion in that area
and then redeveloping the south portion .
I Conrad : As this site has sewer and water , and it can be fully developed ,
if we don' t ask for curbs and gutter now, when can we ask for them?
Olsen : I was just thinking that . You can make it a condition that once
I sewer and water is placed on the site that as part of the improvements that
applicant or whoever owns the property at that time would have to install
curb and gutter. I 'm just wondering if that would get lost along the way.
I That condition but that would go with the conditional use permit that would
be recorded at the County. That' s one way to do it.
I Dave Stockdale : My first concern with that is . . . It may take a while to
accomplish that. There' s a minimum time period in which to put the curb
and gutter in on pre-existing blacktop that you know in 3 years in the
cycle of development that that whole portion of blacktop is going to be
I redesigned . . .As soon as sewer and water is in , that you ' re asking a game
plan for total development.
I Batzli : Wouldn' t it make more sense to require it at the time that it was
developed further?
Conrad : It might .
IBatzli : If he modifies it or expands it , he' s going to have to come back
in anyway and we could take a look at it so whether he develops the site or
Iexpands his business , we' re going to see it again.
I
EN -
•
Planning Commission Meeting II
May 17 , 1989 - Page 22
Conrad : I just want to make sure we have the control so when it does get
developed , we bring it up to specs .
Dave Stockdale: I would certainly, in the broad picture, when I develop it
as an industrial park, I would expect to meet the same. . . '
Conrad : Other issue on the second drainfield . Second drainfield? Boy, my
tendency is to require it but I don't know. Somebody can persuade me. '
Dave Stockdale : If a family of 6 moved into it.
Conrad: Yes, but it's an industrial site now. You've got an industrial
use on that site . What do we want at this point in time? This is the only
chance we have to talk to you. If the site 1 fails and we allow you to
develop it or use it as an industrial site , well you can continue . This is II
the City' s chance to make sure we have other alternatives. Jo Ann, is that
site, are we suspect of the site? But we' re really following city
standards? ,
Olsen : Right .
Conrad : Okay, I 'm through. '
Erhart : Dave, the 4 people that you' re talking about there. Are they
going to be on site during the day or do they go off site and work on a
job?
Dave Stockdale : I ' ve got a full time office manager . Full time . . . I ' ve
got myself and a field supervisor that are. . .
Erhart : So in a sense it' s both a contractor ' s yard and an office?
Dave Stockdale: Right. The existing house will be used as an office.
Erhart : I 'm trying to be consistent with my position on the Merit Heating
proposal . I was adamantly opposed to that because I viewed they were
putting a manufacturing company in the industrial park and I felt they
should live within the same standards that all the other people in the
industrial park live by. I 'm looking for an exception why are you
different than Merit Heating?
Dave Stockdale : I don ' t have the same. . . ,
Erhart: No, but Merit Heating didn' t either and I was adamantly opposed to
giving Merit Heating a conditional use permit . '
Wildermuth: That had quite a few more people though didn' t they?
Erhart : I think that' s the difference. If I remember that one , we were
talking 10 or 15 people and it was a production facility. That' s different
than what I ' ve got in the industrial park. The other thing that' s changed
since that time is apparently we' ve changed the ordinance that the only
place for contractor ' s yards is industrial park?
I .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 23
I
IOlsen : I think it' s still in the business fringe.
Erhart: No, we took it out there too. I 'm trying to be, as a result of
Ithat, trying to be a little more lenient in my thinking . If this is truly
a contractor ' s yard in the sense that you' re really a construction company
and I would tend to say that I think what you' re trying to do here is
I pretty good . It' s different than what Merit was proposing so I would go
along with, in that light, go along with the proposal . The problem with
the sewer thing , and that is , maybe it' s because of my farm background and
I so forth but over the 3 years I ' ve been on here I have failed to understand
why everybody is so anti-septic system in the city. Maybe not anti but
they fear septic systems .
I Emmings : Because they' re not maintained and they' re not put in properly
and they' re not maintained. That' s what we' ve found.
IErhart : We have an ordinance now that requires that septic systems have to
be inspected periodically and when they aren' t operating it' s not the
ground water that the problem is , it' s the surface water because overflow.
The number. one problem is the toilets don' t flush. They over run, it' s the
I
surface water . It ' s pretty obvious they' re not working.
Wildermuth: If it' s any time of the year at all , the building occupier is
Ithe first one that wants to get it fixed .
Erhart: Yes , and I don't understand why we got a lot here that' s almost 8
Iacres , why we want to rush hooking this onto the sewer system when in fact
a properly operated septic system is the most ecologically correct way to
do this as opposed to running it in the river and adding chemicals and
going through all the energy to pump water. and going through all that .
I
Secondly I would propose that when we tie this into when the property is
subdivided or a major building improvement is made, that we then require to
hook up to the city sewage system. Maybe there ' s some other hooks but the
I idea of just saying because the sewage system is at the end of the street
you have to hook in when your current system is working properly, to me
that just doesn' t make any environmental sense to do that. So I guess I 'd
I like to propose that. I 'd also like to in exchange for the curb and
gutter, I don't know if it' s reasonable to ask Dave to relinquish his other
conditional use permit because I was adamantly opposed to that too, and in
exchange for relinquishing that giving up on the curb and gutter. I think
I you' ve already stated that you' re not going to exercise that conditional
use permit. In fact, I believe you had it for a year and it' s already
delinquent or no?
IDave Stockdale : I ' ve got 3 months .
Erhart: 3 months?
IEmmings : Are you asking us to transfer the conditional use permit you have
to a different piece of property or is that even possible?
I
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 24
Erhart : I don ' t think he' s asking but I 'm just saying in exchange for a
variance on that curb and gutter we would, as a condition that the
applicant would give up his other conditional use permit that he already
has which he apparently intends to do anyway.
Wildermuth : So it will run out in the fall?
Dave Stockdale: Unless I act on it.
Ellson : There could be 2 sites for all we know.
Erhart: That' s just it. I 'd like to. . .
Ellson: Only have one?
Erhart: If possible.
Dave Stockdale: I'd be willing to work in that direction. I like your
idea. . .whereby I didn' t have to hook up to sewer and water until my
development is established .
Erhart : Well obviously I know you'd like that one . I ' ll just throw that
one out for the other planning commissioners. If they have any interest in
tying in the other conditional use permit with granting the variance on the
curb and gutter . Those are my comments . '
Ellson : Jo Ann, remember we had a thing on contractor ' s yards , they had to
be within 1 mile of another. You didn' t really mention that in here. Has
that been dropped because. . .
Olsen: That was a specific condition of the conditional use in the RR
district.
Batzli : You can half a million of them in the IOP.
Olsen: We didn' t have a specific condition for the IOP, industrial
districts .
Emmings : For my comments , it seems to me that if this was coming in as a
development proposal for this piece of property, I think I 'd be looking at
it a lot differently than I am. There' s something there that exists and I
think it' s pretty apparent that what' s there now will not be what ' s there
once the industrial park fills up. I think this property is going to
change sooner rather than later and rather significantly. I agree that the
curb and gutter , there ought to be tied to further development of the
property because again there just is not that much being changed here. I
agree as far as the second septic site goes , I think Tim' s comments are
good ones. First of all I don' t see any reason to require hook-up just
because it' s available if he ' s got a working septic system.
Batzli : What about water? Are you going to need a lot of water? What are
your water requirements? ,
I Plann•
ing Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 25
I
IDave Stockdale: Very little.
Emmings : I guess I don' t know what the issues there are as to why the City
requires to hook up to water as opposed to sewer .
IOlsen: I believe that there' s an ordinance that if you' re within like 100
feet or 150 feet of sewer or water you have to connect. Why, I don't know.
I I think anyone that once they get hit with that assessment will be
improving the property.
Emmings: I guess the other thing I have to think of, I guess I tie that to
further development of the property also. The other thing we could do is
to simply say that if he can ' t find a second site , if he has a problem with
the site that's there and he can' t find a second site, then he' ll have to
I put in a holding tank and pump it until there ' s sewer and water available
and just see how that plays out because I think sewer and water will
probably be available. It' s hard to imagine that on that 7 acres he
I wouldn't be able to find a second site. Otherwise I 'd be in favor of tying
them to further development also. The Fire Inspector actually made a
recommendation on this about a dumpster or something and I don' t see his
comment over on the conditions .
IOlsen: It didn' t get in.
IBatzli : Not being within a certain distance or something?
Emmings: Yes .
IOlsen : Right, he had to be separated there .
Emmings: Should that be a condition?
IOlsen : Yes it should .
IEmmings : Have you reviewed that one Dave? Is there any problem with that?
Dave Stockdale: No. On my site plan I 've got it within 5 feet of the
Ibuilding .
Emmings : Are there any other comments? Does somebody want to make a
motion?
IErhart : Yes , I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #89-2 shown on the plans dated April 28 , 1989 with
I conditions 1, 2, 4 as shown on the staff report . Also , the condition made
by the Fire Marshall as an additional item. Another item, at such time
as public sewer and water is available to the site , the appropriate fees
and assessments will be paid. However , actually connection to the site
I
will be required at the time the property is subdivided or a major building
improvement occurs on the site. Just summarizing that means if the water
goes past , you have to pay the assessments just like any other project . To
Ihook up, if the site is improved, obviously you probably would do it if
your system failed or so forth . The last item, all parking areas shall be
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 26
paved . However , curb and gutter will not be required assuming that the
existing conditional use permit that the applicant has runs out at the end
of it' s period .
Batzli : I think what he' s trying to say, can I interpret? '
Erhart: I brought it up before. I didn' t get any laughs .
Emmings : I just didn' t understand what you just said . What I 'm saying is
as long as the other conditional use permit' s going to run out, not require
them to put in the curb and the gutter . '
Batzli : Why wouldn't you ask him to actively relinquish it?
Erhart : If you don ' t feel comfortable with that , we can leave that out .
I ' ll make that motion and if somebody wants to amend it so I stick with
what I said.
Emmings : You' re making the. . .
Erhart : The condition that it does not require curb and gutter on the
condition that he relinquish the other conditional use permit that he
already has in the city for a contractor ' s yard. I ' ll make that motion .
If other members feel it' s inappropriate , make an amendment to take it out .
That ' s it. '
Emmings : Okay, is there a second?
Wildermuth: I ' ll second it.
Emmings : One thing that I forgot to mention during my comments and I ' ll
take this opportunity to do it, is that the City is getting something here. I
Assuming that he does relinquish that other one , we' re getting this thing ,
since you were here the last time, the City Council has acted to ban these
things in anything but the IOP. The City is getting something valuable
here in that we' re going to get one out of an area we don' t want it and
into an area where we do want it. Is there any other discussion to Tim' s
motion?
Conrad : Tim, you don' t want to require curb and gutter when the property
is developed?
Erhart : I guess I didn' t include that because I assume that ' s going to
happen when it gets developed.
Wildermuth : It has to come back again. 1
Erhart: It' s going to be subdivided. It' s going to come back in and it ' s
going to be building plans , unless I misunderstand that.
Conrad: Does that make sense Jo Ann? By not requiring curb and gutter , do
you see any potential for drainage or erosion problems?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 27
I
IOlsen: There' s always potential .
Conrad : But we are requiring an erosion control plan.
Olsen: That's just during construction on the site. It ' s definitely a
benefit to have curb and gutter but if it is going to be removed in a year
or so, I can see the point too.
IEmmings : Could there be a condition such that curb and gutter would not be
required if he relinquishes the conditional use permit he holds on the
I other property unless experience shows that there ' s an erosion problem that
needs to be addressed with curb and gutter to prevent erosion.
Batzli : I think that sounds like an excellent friendly amendment
Ipersonally.
Ellson : Who ' s going to go out and check that? We' re not going to have
II someone going there in 2 years to check that out? I don' t think it ' s
realistic .
Emmings: But if there' s not a problem.
IEllson: Who' s going to say there is a problem or isn' t, that' s what I 'm
saying .
IEmmings : I don ' t know.
I Ellson : Then it ' s worthless . Maybe you want to tie it into an inspection
in 2 years or something like that.
Emmings : No . I think erosion on the site is not a problem. It ' s only his
I problem. It only becomes a problem if it affects something off site and if
it' s affecting somebody else ' s property, they' ll bring it to the attention
of the City.
Batzli : Then if there ' s a condition that he has to do something about it ,
that does put a little bit more teeth into it.
IErhart : The problem with curb is it' s going to direct the runoff to 1 or 2
or 3 spots .
I Conrad : The sheet flow, sometimes it' s better not having curbs in . We
don' t know. We simply don' t know.
I Ellson : We tell all IOP' s that they need curb and gutter and we said we
want these in IOP' s .
Erhart : But they have storm sewer .
IWildermuth : And they generally cover a large amount of the surface area
with impervious surface too.
I
I
---
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 28
II
Emmings: Right and they' re going in and they' re changing the whole II characteristic of the site and that' s not what' s going in here. They' re
going in and grading and putting in a building and doing landscaping and
he's taking an existing site. I think it' s a real different thing. Also,
in the IOP everytime they' re directing it to storm sewer . They' re
II
directing it either into the street to a catch basin or something else. We
don' t want the sheet flow there but on what' s essentially an agricultural
site, sheet flow makes probably more sense .
I
Conrad : Do we want to have the City Engineer take a look just to make sure
we' re not creating an erosion problem by not requiring gutter and curb?
I
Wildermuth : Knowing the way Dave has kept his other property, I think if
there was an erosion problem, he'd probably be out there correcting it.
Ellson: Well it' s not just him, it' s the next owner or whatever might have I
it and it' s the next one that comes in and wants to be in the IOP that
doesn ' t want to curb his because he doesn ' t have the money for it right
II
now.
Batzli : How many IOP areas are there that are unsewered?
IIOlsen: This is it and the adjacent land .
Batzli : Yes , there' s not going to be another person unless it' s the one
II
piece of adjacent property that has this .
Emmings : Okay, how about I ' ll suggest an amendment to Tim' s motion that I
curb and gutter. Let' s see. Your condition was that curb and gutter would
not be required if he gives up his conditional use permit that he presently
has .
Ellson : That ' s a weird tie in. Should we just require them to turn in the I
one anyway?
Emmings : I don ' t know that we can do that . I 'm even a little '
uncomfortable.
Conrad : No . It' s not going to make it through . I
Ellson: You have to relinquish a right that you already have.
Emmings : This is highway robbery. But I think Dave is basically in here I
representing that he' s not going to put his business at his home. He ' s
going to put it on this property and I wish he 'd come out with a little
more concrete statement to that effect but I 'm not going to ask him to do
that . I would amend that simply by saying , unless the City Engineer
determines or experience demonstrates that curb and gutter is needed to II prevent an erosion problem. I 'm only adding to his condition that he
wouldn ' t have to put in the curb and gutter if he gives up his present
CUP unless the City Engineer determines or experience demonstrates that
curb and gutter is needed in a specific area to prevent an erosion problem. I
II
me
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 29
I
IErhart: I ' ll accept it .
Conrad : I ' ll second it.
IEmmings: Anything else?
Batzli : I think when he made his motion , we' re talking about sewer and
I water when it has to be connected and the wording was when there was
development or major building modificaiton .
IErhart: Yes, was subdivided or major building construction.
Ellson : Who' s going to define that?
I Batzli : Rather than have the word major in there , what are you looking for
in building? Any building construction? What' s major building
construction? I have trouble with major .
Erhart: Let's say if he added a garage or something I wouldn' t consider
that major but if you add a permanent building where you were going to
Iincrease the number of people there.
Batzli : Rather than major building , don ' t you want to talk about expansion
of the use or something?
IErhart : Okay, expansion of use I think that ' s okay. If that ' s defineable
in your mind, that' s fine.
IBatzli : I think that makes better sense than major building .
Erhart: Okay, I ' ll agree.
IEmmings : So you' re going to amend your motion to that?
IErhart: Yes, I ' ll amend the motion.
Conrad : I ' ll second it.
IDave Stockdale: My interpretation of expansion of use , if I have another
truck sitting there, is that expansion of use?
I Batzli : I think expansion of use ties back into you have to come back in
and get a modification of the conditional use permit.
IDave Stockdale : You define it as increasing the occupancy load?
Erhart: Have you listed the number of trucks in your conditional use
IIpermit and the number of people?
Olsen: The number of people.
I Dave Stockdale : No I haven' t other than I ' ve talked about the office
staff.
I
I■
Planning Commission Meeting II
May 17, 1989 - Page 30
Erhart : I think Brian hit it right on the nose. Essentially saying , if ,
you have to come back in for another conditional use permit amendment, then
that would be reviewed at that time the way that reads .
Emmings: I don' t know that we define that anywhere but the basic notion is
that if you ' re use becomes more intent in any way than what we approve,
you've got to come back in and get an approval for that expansion of the
use . Whatever it means . Alright, is there anymore discussion on this?
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend '
approval of Conditional Use Permit #89-2 as shown on plans dated April 28,
1989 with the following conditions :
1. All outside storage shall be totally screened within the outside
storage area.
2. The driveway shall be constructed a minimum of 16 feet in width and '
shall be paved.
3. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a drainage I
and erosion control plan prior to final approval .
4 . Dumpster shall not be placed within 5 feet of combustible wells , 1
openings or combustible roof eave lines .
5. At such time as public sewer and/or water is available to the site,
connection to the municipal system will be required and appropriate
fees and assessments paid . However , actually connection to the site
will be required at the time the property is subdivided or expansion of
use occurs on the site. 11
6. All parking areas shall be paved . However , curb and gutter will not be
required if the applicant gives up his present conditional use permit
unless the City Engineer determines or experience demonstrates that
curb and gutter is needed to prevent an erosion problem.
All voted in favor except Ellson who opposed and the motion carried . '
Ellson: I think it should have all the conditions that any other IOP
permit should have.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 5. 5 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE I
FAMILY LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED DIRECTLY
SOUTH OF 64TH STREET AND WEST OF HWY. 41, REED' S ORCHARD RIDGE, GARY REED.
Public Present:
r
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 31
I
IName Address
Mr. and Mrs. Gary Reed 2461 West 64th Street
Roger Zahn HSZ Development Company
IBen Gowen 6440 Hazeltine Blvd .
IJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Gary Reed: I guess as far as the fence goes, I 'm not interested in putting
I up a fence . It is a natural tree line because the old fence that' s still
intact, just from the barbed wire fence. . .and so the trees growing up along
the fence line and it would be difficult to put in a fence in the first
place because there is a lot of natural vegetation. I would rather see to
I add some to that than put up some sort of a board fence and have to
maintain it. I also don' t see it as my responsibility in paying for the
fence. Ben ' s been operating with a conditional use permit on his property
I and this is residential . . . I shouldn' t have to have all the burden of a
fence on my property. We have two residential lots abutting there . It
doesn ' t seem that a fence is necessary with all the trees there. . .there are
some other mature trees .
IEmmings : Have you seen the other conditions that the staff have put on?
IGary Reed: The other 9 conditions that were on there?
Emmings : There were 5.
IGary Reed : I think we already approved the two outlots and the cul-de-sac .
Is that correct? That' s all been approved and I 'm altering it by
requesting the plat for lots . The replatting .
IEmmings: I just wonder if you' ve seen the conditions that the staff have
put on the approval . Staff is recommending of this thing and there are 5
I conditions and there are 5 conditions and I wonder if you have any comments
on those?
Gary Reed : Well most of them I think are conditions that are required by
putting in the sewer and water. Is that right?
Emmings : I don' t know. Whatever they' re required by, do you have any
Iproblem with any of those that are down there?
Gary Reed : Well I think I have an agreement with Mr . Zahn that he ' s
I putting in the street to replace the street we' re losing so it ' s his
obligation to provide any information then as far as the street and the
utilities .
I Emmings : Okay but that ' s an agreement between you and him and these are
conditions that if. What I 'm getting at here is , if we follow the staff' s
recommendation , we' re going to be recommending these 5 conditions and I 'm
I wondering if you have any comments on those. If you have any problems with
those that you' d like to bring to our attention.
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
May 17, 1989 - Page 32
Gary Reed : I guess the conditions are not a problem. I don' t know about
the first one. Outlot B can not be developed until it receives preliminary
and final plat approval and I would presume that would have to happen
anyway. The rest of them, as the developer dedicates the utilities, that' s 1
kind of a given isn ' t it?
Emmings: It' s a given because it' s attached as a condition to the
approval .
Gary Reed : Is that not a usual condition?
Emmings: Sure.
Gary Reed : Is that going to impact me? '
Emmings: If you develop it, you' re going to have to dedicate the
utilities . You' re going to have to do all these things as a condition so
yes, it impacts you.
Gary Reed : And I presume that you' ll have to get the plans . . .that are
going to be done as a condition. The fourth condition is the Watershed.
The reshaping of the pond . I think that ' s another condition that ' s going
to have to be met by Mr. Zahn and myself when we get the street in there
because as it is now, the pond is kind of encroached on where the street is
supposed to go so we have to reshape the pond a little bit. I think most
of them are conditions that are going to impact the street and Mr . Zahn and
his development of the street.
Emmings: Okay but I just want to be sure, I 'm kind of saying the same
thing over and over and I don' t mean to be beating you over the head but
these are conditions that are on your subdivision . They' re not on Mr .
Zahn' s. They may be his obligation because of agreements between you but
that ' s nothing to us . You understand what I mean?
Gary Reed: I see, yes .
Emmings : Do you have any other comments or any other things you 'd like to
bring to our attention on this? ,
Gary Reed : The only other comment I have and I don ' t know if it ' s
appropriate at this time but is that the ponding site is going to need some II
type of berming . Not berming but landscaping or somethifg to keep it from
eroding.
Emmings : Now that' s the ponding site that ' s in Outlot A you ' re talking '
about?
Gary Reed : Yes . '
Emmings : And that ' s being constructed by HSZ but that' s being constructed
on your property though? '
1
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 33
IGary Reed : That ' s correct .
Emmings : Now do we consider problems with stabilizing the slopes on that
around that pond on this application or did we look at that when we looked
Iat the HSZ plan?
Olsen : The pond has changed a little bit since the HSZ plan and when they
I come in with the plans and specs, they' ll have to stabilize it. He has to
put in vegetation.
' Emmings : But the pond is on the land that we' re working with right now.
Olsen: Right and those plans and specs will be coming in with this
development .
IEmmings: Okay, so consideration of that ponding site will take place at a
later stage in the development of this property that we' re looking at now?
Olsen : It ' s already started . The pond is .
' Gary Reed: The pond is in. It' s not complete though.
Emmings : But when will we?
IOlsen: You won' t see that.
Gary Reed : The street and the pond and that has all come past this board
Ibefore.
Emmings : I know we looked at the street before.
I Gary Reed: But the street has been altered some because of setback
requirements and getting the lots so we had to extend it a little bit.
Emmings: Is the City aware of those changes?
Olsen : They' re minor . Everything is still fine .
IEmmings: Okay. Anything else?
Gary Reed : I guess not.
IEmmings : Okay, this is a public hearing . Mr . Gowen , do you have any
comments to add?
Ben Gowen : Well I was looking for a fence but apparently they don' t want
to have it. I run a commercial , semi-commercial garden there and it' s not
a conditional permit as so stated . It' s not a conditional permit. It ' s a
I
grandfathered in and I do have some storage things there that somebody' s
going to complain about if we get 7 more houses back there. And I would
prefer that they don' t have the complaints, I would like to see a fence
I installed there as a condition of this proposal of 7 new houses . As for
the pond, to me a pond is something that' s not drained. This thing ' s got
•
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 34
about an 18 foot hole in the ground and about 40 to 50 feet wide. It' s
eroding rapidly right now. It' s got a drain hole in the bottom of it
there. That doesn' t make a holding pond in my book. I think there ' s
something missing in this particular pond. It' s a big hole in the ground .
It' s not a pond . I would like to see the council here propose , I do have
the rights of having a fence installed as far as a condition of the permit
to add 7 houses to the area .
Emmings : What you' re asking for , do you care if it' s a fence or a natural
screening? If it was evergreens?
Ben Gowen: The natural screening is a bunch of brush that' s in bad shape.
It's an unsightly mess .
Emmings : What' s there now?
Ben Gowen : Yes. It ' s just brush and stuff . It' s probably some areas 40
feet wide and some areas not at all . It' s not a natural blind by any
manner or means . I dispute that.
Emmings: I think what I heard him say was that , and you can correct me if
I 'm wrong, is that he'd rather do some, if there are additional plantings,
he' d rather do it with planting rather than something like a fence.
Ben Gowen: Of course the something has to be specified before we start.
Gary, you ' re talking about a street . You mean cul-de-sac don ' t you? That
is a cul-de-sac not a street?
Gary Reed : Yes .
Ben Gowen : Is that a settlemend pond?
Emmings: I don't know about the pond. I guess I 'm a little surprised to
hear it' s got a drain at the bottom of it .
Olsen: Right and I ' ve spoken with Mr. Gowen about that before and were you
talking with engineering about that?
Ben Gowen : No , I just heard . I ' ve been to these meetings before when HSZ
was proposing this and it was a settling pond to take water off of his
. parking lot which doesn ' t exist yet. It ' s got a big drainage into it and
there' s a big drainage out of it. The drainage is just the bottom of the
hole . I think it' s worth looking into whether it meets the requirements as
stated back in October .
Emmings : Is that something that someone could go out and look at?
Olsen: Sure. We can check that .
Ben Gowen: I don ' t have anymore to say except I 'd still like to have a
fence.
Emmings : Is there anybody else here who wants to be heard on this?
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 35
I
IBatzli. moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Erhart : In the engineer ' s report , he says it should be noted that the pond
constructed on Outlot A needs to be reshaped to allow for a buffer . What' s
Ithis buffer?
Olsen : One of the conditions of the HSZ plat was that there 'd be a 5 foot
Ibuffer between the pond and utilities .
Erhart: So this is not an ordinance requirement , this was a requirement
that we imposed on the developer at the time of HSZ.
IOlsen : We' re carrying that on because the plan does not show that buffer .
I Erhart: Maybe it' s something new that slipped by me in an ordinance. Let
me get this straight. The HSZ, are they making the cul-de-sac or are you
paying for it? The developer is paying for the cul-de-sac or HSZ is .
IRoger Zahn : We are .
Erhart : Which is HSZ . I guess the real unusual part about this is that
I Lot 1 and 2 really aren' t flag lots. It just happens the house faces the
wrong direction . In other words, it could have access off of Oriole Avenue
as opposed to this driveway easement. The problem is , the house on Lot 2
Ireally faces east doesn' t it?
Gary Reed : Yes , that ' s the existing house on the property and you have my
son' s house, we got a variance for that. I guess there are 3 houses . . .
IErhart : We generally have discouraged flag lots and I was trying to think
of any other way to lay this out to avoid it but the real thing is that in
I one sense they' re not a flag lot because they both abut Oriole Avenue yet.
Both existing houses, at least the one on the south actually faces east so
it'd be difficult to access of Oriole .
IGary Reed: We went through all this before when we got permission to use
it . The natural trees . . .and that was one of the requests that we replat . . .
I Erhart: On the house on Lot 1, where does his driveway come in from then?
It' s not shown on there. You show a blacktop driveway for the house on Lot
2 but you don ' t show how outlot. . .
IOlsen : That' s the same, they share the driveway.
Erhart: Same driveway, okay. The only thing with the trees, I might
Isuggest a restricted covenant that says like 10 feet along that border that
whatever the owner of that property has to maintain a boundary of woodlot
and then also ask the developer to add evergreens in those areas where it' s
I open because I think it is a potential problem to the south. I want to say
a restricted covenant until such time as the land to the south is converted
I
-- - - -
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 36
to residential as a suggestion because I think it is a potential problem in I
that someone would come along , remove the existing wood boundary and then
either that person or another person who would come buy that house later
would then come in and complain about the existing use to the south. I can
easily visualize that happening . Jo Ann , could you see some kind of a I
covenant protecting a wood lot boundary there?
Olsen : They have to provide a development contract . I think it should be
put in that seeing what' s happened with covenants and restrictions. We
don' t have any control .
Erhart : Whatever . Some kind of legal , something that goes with that '
property that says until that is redeveloped as residential , that they have
to maintain the existing woodlot boundary there. And perhaps ask the
developer to add some. I don' t know if I interpretted it correct but did
you volunteer to put some? I don' t know if you did or if we put those
words in your mouth.
Gary Reed : I guess you have to know what you' re volunteering to do and
I can' t afford to come in. . .maybe add a fee trees along the boundary
line. . . There are a lot of mature trees there that are quite large that
don' t provide a lot of sunlight to get in there so I think. . .
Conrad : I have no comments .
Ellson : I have a question . Now if this cul-de-sac isn ' t approved , this is
like the condition of the whole development on the corner. How come I see
something being built right there right now? It looks like the Super
America or whatever is going up right now?
Olsen : That ' s the HSZ site and part of that whole site was to close off
West 64th Street which is what' s happening with this right now and that has I
been closed off .
Ellson: Okay, the other question I had was about the Outlot B. We ' re
saying that it' s being separated for future development. Any development
will require a replat and access permit . In other words, we ' re basically
saying that Outlot B can' t even be developed unless they can get out on
TH 41.
Olsen : The way it is now it doesn ' t have .
Ellson: And haven't we looked into that TH 41 kind of thing and we already I
know they don ' t want to do that? I mean are we landlocking them or are
they creating their own hardship if they come back and say, we' ve got to
have it?
Olsen : I tried to get in touch with the Highway Department on this one and
they didn' t call back in time but I don' t know, since they closed off the
one street , I don' t know that they would deny access .
Gary Reed: I think that' s in the notes of some of the previous meetings
that Barb Dacy had looked into it with MnDot and I didn' t want 64th Street
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 37
I closed off if I couldn' t get out on Highway 41. The old house up there . . .
so at that time and i.t' s in the Minutes, she had looked into it and MnDot
had granted that that access could be utilized .
II Olsen: This had always been a separate lot that was during the whole
process .
I Gary Reed : We also had to agree with Roger Zahn to have an access going
into their parking lot from that particular piece of property.
IBatzli : From Outlot B?
Gary Reed : Yes . And I guess , I don' t know whether I can address Jo Ann
about Outlot B but I would like to separate Outlot B from the rest of the
I
property with a meets and bounds description at this point because . . .
surveyers anyway, it' s going to take some time and maybe some quit claim
deeds to establish the frontage along the highway so if we could just
I separate everything that' s going to be platted as meets and bounds . . . it
would just read so many westerly feet of Lot. . . It would help until I can
get through the survey on the highway department. . . At some point when we
Igo in for platting of that particular lot , then we could straighten that .
Olsen: We can talk about that. I don' t really understand . We can discuss
that later .
IGary Reed : It won' t change the plat any.
I Batzli : I had a question about all these conditions that we had last time
that we platted this . Things like 25 foot trail easement over proposed 8
foot bituminous trail. Vacated 64th Street right-of-way, etc. etc. etc.
The Council did back on August 8th. Do we not need to do any of these
IIthings again? Is that what you ' re telling us Jo Ann?
Olsen : Yes , those have all been met. The easements have been obtained .
IBatzli : Yes but he' s replatting. Are the easements on the proposed plans
that he gave us again?
IOlsen: No.
Batzli : Then why don' t we need them again then?
IOlsen: The easements are on the northern, on the HSZ site .
I Gary Reed : The trail easement would start from the curve of that
cul-de-sac and go past the holding pond .
IIBatzli : So it' s all north of this plat that we ' re looking at now?
Olsen: Yes .
IEmmings : What was the answer to his question?
I
- -
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 38
Olsen : That it' s on the HSZ property. What ' s already platted .
Emmings: It looks to me like what he' s looking at here is the subdivision
#88-17 that created one outlot and 2 single family lots in the West 64th
Street cul-de-sac. That sounds like it' s this property.
Batzli : That ' s when I read that I thought that was all this property.
Emmings: That ' s on page 38 of the Council 's Minutes from August 8 , 1988 .
Olsen : Let me just find that real quick. It was my understanding that
that included the HSZ site and when I confirmed it with Lori , she said it
was not on this property as far as the easement. I 'm still not finding the
section.
Emmings : The trail easement may well not be on this property.
Batzli : But there might be some of these conditions that are was my only
point .
Olsen : Well I went through them but I can double check them again but the
trail easement was taken care of. 2 is the same. 3 is in there. 4 is in
there . 5 doesn ' t apply. We' re taking care of number 6. I went through
these. I just don' t see.
Batzli : I just wanted to make sure because I didn' t know where that trail
was.
Olsen : I ' ll double check that if the actual description is still on this
site and an easement has to be again recorded with this new property. I ' ll
double check that but Lori had said it didn' t but I ' ll double check.
Batzli : What about 10? Showing the adequate building setbacks and such.
You' re happy with that one now?
Olsen: They've shown that .
Batzli : I note that they had little boxes on, I guess they do have one on
Lot 6. My only question I guess is if in fact MnDot denied an access
permit to Outlot B, would we let them do anything with Outlot B by going
through a driveway into the parking lot or what would we do with that at
that point? '
•
Olsen : It depends on what ' s being proposed . I know in the past you talked
about a commercial site. Possible rezoning of that and it' s hard to say.
Most likely they would have to maybe improve that . I don' t know how large
the easement is. Do you remember how wide?
Gary Reed : I guess I would feel more comfortable if I had something in
writing with MnDot.
Olsen : They won ' t. You 'd have to apply for the access permit to get
something in writing .
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 39
II
IBatzli : I just remember in looking through this packet that it was kind of
telephone calls to MnDot and kind of loosey goosey, well yeah, we'd
probably consider it but we don' t have any guarantees that they' re going to
allow it.
Gary Reed : We never received the document stating that we had the access
I • • •
Batzli : I don' t think you can . I think that' s the point is that you don' t
Iknow until you apply. Actually apply for it.
Gary Reed : The access is there. It' s used . It' s always been there .
IBen Gowen: It' s a fixed item. I don' t think there' s any problem.
Emmings : It was there for the drive-in right?
1 Ben Gowen: That was very important when we cut off 64th Street.
I Gary Reed : It would be nice to narrow it down a little bit. . . They did
state that it was far enough away from HSZ ' s site, entrance. It met the
qualifications .
I Emmings : That was the whole point of having the intersection further
north. I think the people up here are concerned that you may be taking a
risk in this regard in landlocking this parcel but I think you ' re aware of
Ithat aren' t you?
Gary Reed : I just don' t know if they can take something away that you' ve
I had since over 40 or 50 years without a fight .
Batzli : I was going to ask a lot of questions about the pond but it sounds
like you guys are going to look into that . The only other thing is this
I fence thing and I think if he' s willing to plant some trees, that would be
a lot more attractive to start with but I would suggest we consider adding
something as a condition .
IWildermuth : Is the pond a natural pond or was that a completely man made
pond?
Olsen : Man made .
Wildermuth : I don ' t have anything further .
IEmmings : I don' t have any comments on this . It sounds like the only issue
is some screening between the properties . Between lots 6 and 7 and the
Iproperty to the south and it sounds like I guess I 'd agree with Tim' s
proposal that there be something in the development contract to maintain
the existing , what' s there and have the developer fill in any open spaces
with some kind of evergreens or something like that that would block the
IIview of those properties to Mr. Gowen ' s property to avoid any problems .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 40
Erhart : Is that all mature trees in the south end of your development?
Gary Reed: Yes, the ones that are there are all mature.
Emmings : What kind of trees? '
Ben Gowen : There are 5 oak trees that are mature trees on about 700 feet .
Gary Reed: There' s more trees than that . '
Erhart : If you do plant a screen there , there' s enough sun that they would I
grow?
Ben Gowen : Oh yes .
Erhart : I mean it would be silly to plant evergreens in there if it' s a
complete canopy.
Gary Reed : There are some mature trees on the south side that produce some II
shade.
Emmings : I don' t have anything else. Does anybody else have any comments '
on this? If not, does someone want to make a motion?
Batzli : I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary
Plat #88-17 as shown on the plat dated May 8 , 1989 with the following
conditions . 1 through 5 as set forth in the staff report and condition 6
stating that the applicant shall provide screening between the southerly I
lots and the Gowen property. I don' t know if there should be any emphasize
on type of screening. Leave it at that and listen to comments .
Conrad : I ' ll second it. I think staff should do that . Make a
recommendation on screening .
Erhart : Your recommendation essentially leaves it open to some kind of, II what's the term you use? The development contract or staff can finish that
off.
Ben Gowen : Don' t I come into this picture at all as to what I want? '
Emmings: You've asked for a fence and what we' re saying is there should be
some screening so people on those lots can ' t, you kind you can' t look '
across the boundary line.
Ben Gowen : Yes but you guys are asking him what kind of trees on 600 feet . I
You don' t ask me what trees you want on 600 feet. There' s a difference in
opinion here .
Emmings : Yes , but whatever kind of trees might be there or if there are no II
trees there, we' re giving him, we' re placing the burden on him to put some
kind of screening in there . If it' s screened enough. If the staff thinks
it's screened enough so that people can' t see through there now, it will be
left alone . If it needs additional screening , he ' ll be required to put
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 41
I
Ithat in.
Ben Gowen: My request is stated as traversing also . Can' t screen . . .
We' re talking about 25 to 30 more people there . For instance , just for
I
instance. Last Sunday the renters in the small house had a hi fi on so
loud that I became very annoyed by it. I went over there and nobody was
around. I couldn' t find anybody so I went home and called the police. The
I police came over and found the guy sleeping over in the grass about 40 to
50 feet away from the house. But his hi fi was on in the house and he ' s
out in the yard sleeping . So the next day Monday, the same situation. I
I went over there and asked him if he could run it down a little bit and he
says , oh is it bugging you? I said I don' t really appreciate listening to
your music. He' s laying out in the yard 20-30 feet from the house with the
hi fi going in the house . I think this is indictitive of what 7 or 8 other
I homes are going to create there. I 'd like to have a little more security
than what ' s been offered .
I Emmings : I think the problem is on that theory, we' d require fences
between, on all lot lines between all houses and we just, I don' t think
anybody is prepared to do that . The other issue you 've got with a fence is
I maintenance. I think if I were in your shoes, if a guy put up some natural
screening , evergreens and bushes and things like that, that would be
preferable to me but maybe you don' t feel that way about it but I think
it ' s a better screen .
IBen Gowen: I 've had my say.
I Emmings : As far as neighbors being a problem, that ' s a problem we all live
with. That ' s just a fact of life. I know when you moved in there and
I know what it was like when you moved in there because you' ve told me but
the City' s developing and there are these kinds of conflicts all over the
place .
I Batzli moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #88-17 as shown on the plat dated May 8 , 1989
with the following conditions :
I1. Outlot B cannot be developed until it receives preliminary and final
plat approval ; any site plan approvals if necessary and receive an
access permit from MnDot for access from Highway 41.
I2. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the West 64th Street
right-of-way to the City for permanent ownership.
3. Detailed construction plans and specifications , including calculations
for sizing the roadway and utility improvements shall be submitted for
approval by the City Engineer. As built mylar plans will also be
Irequired upon completion of the construction .
4. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Watershed
IDistrict for reshaping of the pond .
I
IIIII
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 42
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and I
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the
proper installation of these public improvements .
6. The applicant shall provide screening between the southerly lots and
the Gowen property.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE ADDITION OF 2, 920 SQUARE FEET ONTO AN EXISTING I
PRIVATE GARAGE (BEDDOR) , ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND
LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 2, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, FORTIER AND
ASSOCIATES.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Emmings: Daryl , do you have any comments? '
Daryl Fortier : I 'm Daryl Fortier with Fortier and Associates . We are
pretty much in agreement with the staff report. We hope it' s a brief
report for you tonight . The additional landscaping, point 2 on the staff
recommendations, we would like to simply see the provisions for caliper
inch per caliper inch basis deleted and say that we will work with staff
and the DNR forester for appropriate replacement. Our simple concern here
is that if the owner wishes , as he' s expressed , to keep the center of the
site free, we are losing 6 trees in this area and we' ve already proposed
landscaping around the edges . If it' s caliper inch per caliper inch , we
would have to be putting in so many trees , we think there' s a real crowding
problem. We would rather simple say let' s look at the actual trees and
meet with staff and the DNR forester rather than make the provision that it
be caliper inch per caliper inch. We ' re not objecting to replacing trees .
We are proceeding with the replat that Jo Ann suggested. The issue of
outside storage, I think she suggested , that ' s actually located right at
this location. He has a flatbed trailer which is about 24 inches high or
so to haul his vehicles to different shows and different events . Parking
and driveway curb and gutter . I 'm sure that ' s fine . . . Previously this
portion of the building was built and there was an exemption from curb and
gutter . The curb and gutter for the property is along this portion of the
driveway and is all along the south portion of the driveway right up to the
building and that channels water to storm sewers in this location . The
remainder of the curbing was deleted specifically because the center of
this site is used for auto contour shows . Mr . Beddor has two automotive
clubs that he operates out of his garage. They do not store their cars
there but he does invite them there for display and car shows . Only one
that I know of that I 've attended so I really can' t say that this is
frequent but I can say that there are a number of cars . I think last time
there were about 60 cars that showed up and they are parked on the grass
and they go out in an array pattern with a main tent , their hospitality in
this location. Curbs would be very difficult to drive over, especially for
a bulk of the cars . They simply wouldn ' t do it so the provision of curbs
in this case would be defeating his purpose of having a specific facility
for automotive display and car shows . The second reason we want to keep
I Plann•
ing Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 43
I
I the center of the site open is that one of the vehicles they' re storing
there is now a helicopter . It is a safety problem to land a helicopter on
a curb. Of course they have to land on skids. They don ' t necessarily have
wheels and after you land you have small wheels that drop down from the
I skids. You can think of it as a horse drawn sleigh if you will . The
runners are about the same size. The wheels are attached to the runners
and you snap lock them into position. They are about 2 1/2 or 3 inches .
I You then have to push the helicopter . It is a small 2 person helicopter .
You then have to push the helicopter into storage. If you drop is over a
curb of course you' re subject to damaging your equipment. You can. . .when
I you jar a fuel line loose or whatever the problem would be. The second
thing is that pushing the helicopter back up the curb, once you' re in the
garage and you try to push it over a curb, it' s a real tough problem. You
simply can' t do it with 3 inch wheels when you have a 6 inch curb. The
I runners would prevent you from pulling the helicopter into position unless
we were to make a special asphalt helicopter landing pad . That would be
the only alternative and it would have to be large enough so of course you
I have some safety margin and that ' s the reason we' re requesting no concrete
curb and gutter. The final point I 'd like to clarify is the applicant
shall submit for approval by the City a drainage and erosion control plan .
I This is a little more complex. There are actually two proposals before you
tonight . One is for drainage improvements in accordance with the previous
engineering plans for all of Park One which envisioned that at some time we
would connect from Lyman Lumber ' s overflow with an underground storm sewer
I pipe to the public system. This could never be built as part of the Park
One improvements because it' s on private property. It ' s a private
improvement and we cannot spend the funds for it. We' re now intending to
I do that . It ' s this reason that we' ll lose trees . The issue of ponding and
so forth has been raised by the engineer but it ' s already been addressed .
The 20 acres in the northerly part of Park One has created a very large
outlot down here. Part of the Ver-Sa-Til project contains this large duck
I pond that we' ve created in the site and maintained trees . Create a natural
site. That' s intending to drain all of Park One. It' s been appropriately
sized for settlement and contains . . . so we would not have individual holding
I ponds in small lots . The lots were simply too small so we' ve already sized
them and did all the engineering . . .public funds partially and partially
project funds and it' s been assessed against the property so we'd like to
I point out that a greater amount of impervious surface here has already been
calculated. . . .as parking lot so that' s the basis for the calculations and
we are not even approaching anything near that for runoff capacity.
Secondly, a grading plan. There is literally no grading involved with the
I exception of excavating for footings on the garage. The site does not
require any grading. It' s already perfectly flat. Our survey has been
submitted . The reason the engineer doesn ' t see any grading changes is
I because we' re not changing grades by more than a couple of inches and our
surveyer cannot be that accurate . Neither can our contractor so he may
have missed the grading plan but it is indeed there . The issue of erosion
control has been addressed and again it may have been overlooked but it is
I
actually being addressed as part of the storm sewer line. We have asked
for silt fences and we have asked for 5 cubic yards of rip rap to be placed
at this location. This is the very same standards we use in the
I construction of all the improvements in Park One including the City' s
public improvements so we think that ' s adequate and since it' s the same
I
IIM
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 44
standard that the engineer has participated in approving as well as the
city' s consulting engineers, we feel that should be adequate on the present
plans as we' ve requested . With those comments , we have no objections to
the staff report.
Conrad : What do you agree with?
Daryl Fortier : We certainly agree that , I 'm not sure why, it' s a large
issue, we are not imposing utilities for this. It is intended to be
essentially dry storage for this if you will . There is not intended to be
any maintenance but I 'm not sure why we want to put a condition suggesting
that they never do maintenance. If it' s going to be approved as a
commercial permanent structure which is what the Council wanted, I 'm not
sure why we're limiting it. He has no intent of doing repairs but I 'm not
sure why we are limiting it. '
Olsen : Because we got into all those traps .
Daryl Fortier: If we put in drainage, then we have to worry about pumps .
We put in sanitary sewer connection onto the building as previously
requested. We did that immediately during construction. It has flammable
waste traps . It has oil separators . It has a hydraulic lift . It has a
parts washer . It has solvent recovery. It meets all the requirements . It
has testing facilities and where the fuel tank can be monitored on a weekly
basis if necessary. Yearly by the State Inspector . I think we' re in I
full compliance with absolutely all the concerns previously listed for this
structure. One of the concerns is whether or not it drains. If we put in
drains . . .all the protection . In this case there are no drains . No
proposals to hook up plumbing whatsoever so the ability to do those types
of repairs to provide water just doesn' t exist . I 'm just not sure why
we're making it an issue. We certainly agree with replacing of the trees
for the forester , point 2. We certainly agree to proceed with the plat. We
agree no additional outside storage should be permitted . It ' s an
industrial use. We would ask for an exemption for point 5. We think the
curb and gutter should be deleted for the reasons I mentioned . Not for
economics but for other hardship reasons and we would agree that we will
discuss or we will consult with staff concerning grading and so forth but
we believe we've already submitted sufficient information and it perhaps
deals with mutliple plans that ' s been overlooked . That ' s all unless you
have questions.
Emmings : Let' s see if there are any comments here. Jim, have you got any
comments?
Wildermuth : No . '
Batzli : How do you feel about the curb and gutter?
Wildermuth: We didn' t require it the first time, why do we need it the
second time?
Ellson : Ah ha . There ' s that precedent that you just said about the last
guy. You' ll ask him the next time he comes in but as soon as he does ,
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 45
I
Ihe ' ll say but I didn' t do it the first time.
Batzli : I was going to talk about condition 1 a little bit first of all .
I guess my question was whether we would allow maintenance or repair of
I automobiles anywhere on the site or were you only trying to limit it in
that new building?
I Olsen : The reason that I put that condition in was if they do start the
repair and maintenance then we get into the other things that the other
garage had to do with the traps . That ' s the only reason I had that
I condition in there was so they would not be doing that work in there
without having the accommodations for it .
Batzli : Okay, so the garage and the new facility are the same thing?
IOlsen : Yes .
I Batzli : So really what you' re saying is , you' re only going to use the new
facility as a garage and if you use it for anything else, you've got to
talk about it. That' s what you ' re trying to say?
IOlsen: That' s what I 'm trying to say.
Batzli : I think I would go along with landscaping being done on a staff
I approval basis. I think that the curb and gutter , there' s a certain amount
of logic to it but I think that you can make a little ramp or something . I
don' t think it' s the kind of thing where you eliminate all of the curb and
I gutter throughout the entire site because you ' re going to drive some cars
on the grass . Finally I think condition 6, if that is the case then I
think the condition should remain but add something to the effect that
these things only have to be submitted if required after consultation with
Ithe City staff .
Emmings: Now Annette . What about curb and gutter?
IEllson: This doesn' t have it because originally this was never required
right? Not because we gave them an exemption at one point?
IOlsen: I don' t remember . I don' t know if we even required it.
Wildermuth : Curbing was waived right?
IConrad: The first time it was waived.
IEllson : That really doesn' t matter now but . . .
Conrad: It really appeared at that time that it served no purpose.
I Ellson : Then why do we have it as an ordinance? Then maybe it should be
looked at on a case by case basis but if we write it in there that
everything around here should have it and yet we use it and enforce it on a
I case by case basis, then it' s stupid to have it in there so I 'd just as
soon follow what the ordinance says . Like Brian said , like have a cut out
I
Planning Commission Meeting •
'
May 17 , 1989 - Page 46
for a driveay to actually help the wheels get down. It might be easier I
than on the wet grass or something like that to have a little concrete ramp
or who knows what that ' s connected to a curb. I would be satisfied if Jo
Ann said the tree replacement is good enough, then I go along with her
saying . If Dave were here though I know he ' d want 1 inch for 1 inch, an
eye for an eye.
Erhart : What happens if it' s a 12 inch tree?
Ellson: I know. That 's just it. We' re going to have to decide that.
I think there' s some merit to the reason we were going to that is because
we really lost something once and never returned so I 'm giving Jo Ann that
leeway. But I want the curb and I think number 6 should stand . If they've
got it in, then just show it to them that it is here. I 'm done.
Conrad : I thought this was a simple deal but now that we get into it and
Daryl doesn' t like most of the staff report, I think we should table.
There are too many technical things that I just don' t understand . I think I
he had a comment. It showed me that the engineer is not looking at what is
there and I ' d like the engineer to comment to me about the issues and I 'm
not smart enough to figure out whether we should or should not require curb
and gutter here . The engineer said the grading plan yet Daryl says hey,
we' re not doing anything . Something ' s askew and it' s not for me to make
up. I think I would recommend tabling it .
Olsen : The engineer does understand that he wants to still drive up there
and stuff.
Conrad : He' s still saying that . But I hear from Daryl , I heard some '
comments from him that it didn' t sound like there was communication and
maybe some different points . Maybe that ' s not the one but others . I don' t
know. I don't know whether curb and gutter should be required here. I
know we slipped it the first time through.
Olsen: Again, we were waiting until the mini-storage and further
development .
Conrad : Daryl , just one other comment . The trailers are now being stored I
outside. Is that taken care of? The staff comment to us was that existing
garage is used for storage/maintenance. Site is conforming to the request
and conditions of the site but there are trailers being stored outside
which was not anticipated in the beginning . So is this new plan taking
care of that? They' re saying we' re storing one trailer between buildings
but what about the trailers that are currently outside now?
Daryl Fortier : I 'm only aware of one trailer that' s outside right now. '
There may be more. If there are more it ' s probably because we pulled them
out of storage so he could do something in the garage. There is presently
room in here . They do store a trailer inside but he recently purchased , I
understand, a larger trailer which sits in here. That' s the only trailer
I 'm aware of which is too large for the structure .
Conrad: Staff is saying trailers are being stored outside.
1
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 47
I
IOlsen : The day that we visited , there were 2 or 3 on the lot .
Daryl Fortier: I think that could be much like saying cars are stored
Ioutside. He had brought these out and put them out here. . .
Erhart: I visited the site this evening and it' s a very neat site.
I Regarding , well let ' s take one at a time here . Not having maintenance in a
building. What' s this trap you' re referring to Jo Ann?
II Olsen : I believe the first time they went through they had to have a
special trap for the fuel oil .
Wildermuth : For spills.
IOlsen: There was a lot of discussion on that.
I Erhart : Any building in any industrial , in any garage a guy can pull a car
in and maintain it.
II Wildermuth : But with that original garage I think there ' s a floor lift and
a wash station and all kinds of areas for working on cars .
Erhart : The problem with this condition is that, then we ought to apply
II this condition to everybody. Everybody that' s got an overhead door in the
city ought to have this condition applied to it .
I Emmings : My recollection of this Tim, and I don' t know if it helps or not,
is that what I remember us saying when we considered this is what we' re
creating here is essentially a service station. The same kinds of
consideration ought to be given to this building as would be given to a
I service station because that' s essentially what it is . It' s private rather
than. . .
I Erhart : But someone doesn' t come in with their car to have it fixed that
he charges them does he?
Emmings : No but he' s got the same equipment and doing the same kinds of
things that would be done down at the Standard station.
Erhart : I do that at my home too in my garage.
IIConrad: Not everyday. Not multi-cars .
I Erhart : I don' t think anybody feels strong about condition 1. To me it
also seems pretty much over control .
Batzli : This is a commercial area and you' re not . This would be a
IIpermitted use in this area .
Erhart : I could pull a car into my industrial plant too and tear the
IIengine out, there ' s no one that says I can' t do that.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 48
Elison : They wouldn' t like it though.
Olsen : If you' re going to do it, we just like to know that everything else
is taken care of that needs to be done as part of it.
Elison: He didn' t seem to have a problem with that one. He had a few he
had a problem with, that wasn' t one of them.
Erhart : Let' s move on. I agree with him it seems a little bit over
control . The next one on the landscaping. Essentially the line where that
ditch is right now, essentially is just grown over and to go in and measure I
which trees are caliper per caliper basis could mean that you have to move
the, you might have to just literally that whole edge of the lot to replace
caliper to caliper so I don't know. I 'd be just satisfied to say
additional landcaping shall be provided as required by staff and just use
good judgment on it because it 's very difficult to use a technical approach
to it . The outside storage, in other industrial sites there' s outside
storage and then the whole thing has to be screened right and here we' re
allowing an exception essentially by allowing one outside.
Olsen: It is essentially screened on 3 sides .
Erhart : Yes , the whole area is pretty wooded . I guess I don ' t have a
problem with 4 leaving it the way it is even though technically I supposed
it might be not in accordance with our rules . The next thing is the curb I
and gutter . I think in this case the specific intention of the use of this
owner here , in the first place there' s a lot of asphalt there now for the
small lot and none of it' s curbed and gutter so to go in and require curb
and gutter on this new section would mean you have about 20% curb and
gutter and 80% just like your home driveway which would really look out of
place. Now how I can justify in my mind allowing this building owner not
require curb and gutter is that he has a specific requirement that he needs II
his driveway tailored in the manner in which it is. The Level of the
asphalt is level with the green grass and I think we' re not setting a
precedent . Somebody else would have to come in with a specific need to
have their asphalt driveway the same level as the grass so I guess I don' t
have any problem in extending essentially the same rules on that .
Batzli : Can I interrupt just for a second Tim? What did we do with, was
it Lyman Lumber that had the asphalt strip and then behind it they had a
bunch of piles of rock and stuff and they were going to use, I don' t know
if they were going to use forklifts or frontend loaders or something . Did
we make them have gutter? I think we did.
Wildermuth : The unusual part about this thing is that the applicant is
going to use a commercial location in an industrial office park location
for a non-commercial use . I don' t know if you've been in there but a lot
of houses that are built look like the inside of this garage.
Erhart : The exterior is definitely, it ' s definitely an industrial
building.
Wildermuth: Yes right .
•
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 49
IIErhart : It ' s a good quality industrial but it is an industrial building so
it fits in from that standpoint . Lastly, where is this grading thing in
these conditions? Is that in here?
II
Conrad : The last one . Daryl is saying there' s not much grading to do.
I Erhart: Okay, I think we should just leave 6 the way it is and let the
applicant and the City hash that one out and I guess I 'd like to pass this
on to Council . I think it' s ready to go.
IEmmings : I 'd like to ask you about the helicopter . I wonder if we knew we
had an airport in town and can you basically have a helicopter anywhere you
want to?
Olsen: We don ' t have any restrictions against them. We have had
complaints about the helicopter .
IEmmings : This was proposed and approved as a garage for automobiles . I
know I don't know what' s going on with the helicopter or if there are any
1 safety issues or noise issues or anything else.
Olsen: But we are getting complaints . We' re working through public safety
on how to address it. We don' t have any definitive answers . The zoning
I ordinance doesn' t regulate them and we' re working with public safety to
possibly regulate them. I know that Prince has one on his site too and
they just have to meet the FAA.
IEmmings : They'd probably pre-empt anything we'd do . I don ' t know except
for something like noise or something.
IErhart : I would venture to guess that cities would have ordinances which
we ought to look at that would have some kind of space requirement. Some
distance requirements from a landing pad to a building and to the next
I person' s property. I ' ve just got to believe that that would be common in
an ordinance regarding helicopters .
I Olsen : What we' re working on now is we' re telling the resident that when
you hear the noise or whatever, try to get somebody out there to test it.
Use the noise ordinance and it' s not going to work.
IBatzli : Did we have a noise ordinance?
Olsen : Yes .
IBatzli : The beefed up one didn' t pass but we have a noise ordinance?
I Olsen: It' s more of a nuisance ordinance rather than a noise ordinance.
So we have no way to deny them.
Ellson: Hours of operation maybe.
II
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting II
May 17, 1989 - Page 50
Emmings : I don ' t know if we should table it or pass it on. I guess I 'd be II
comfortable in passing it on but I think there are things that need to be
worked out between now and when the City Council gets it . Things like
traps and stuff, it seems to me you only worry about a trap if you've got a
drain and there aren ' t any drains so I 'm not that concerned about number 1.
Number 2, I agree with everybody else that it should be done by the staff
and we don ' t have to worry about a caliper inch by caliper inch. That' s
because Dave' s not here and that' s the only reason I have the courage to II say that . I don ' t see any reason now to impose curb and gutter . If we let
it go before looking for some kind of a reason we thought to be valid at
the time, I don ' t see any reason to impose it on this small section. I
think we should keep in number 6 and you should just discuss your
differences with the city engineer prior to going to the City Council .
That 's all I 've got. Any other discussion on this? If not, is there a
motion? '
Erhart : I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan
#89-3 for the construction of a 2, 920 sq. ft . garage facility as shown on
the Site Plan dated April 13, 1989 with the conditions as follows . Number
2, change to additional landscaping shall be provided as required by staff.
3 as stated here . 4 as stated changing the word "the transport flatbed" to
"1 transport flatbed" . Number 5, all parking and driveway areas shall be
paved period . And 6 as is. And that' s it.
Batzli : Did you delete number 1? '
Erhart : Yes .
Olsen : And number 5 I changed just to say all parking and driveway areas
shall be paved.
Emmings: We could do that one like we did on Stockdales . You could say
unless the City Engineer determines .
Erhart : Ours is a recommendation so if the City Engineer came to the
Council .
Emmings : I mean unless the City Engineer determines now or in the future
that curb and gutter is necessary. . . Just a suggestion.
Conrad : That ' s a good way to do it.
Emmings: Alright, we've got a motion. Do we have a second?
Wildermuth : I ' ll second the motion.
Batzli : I 'd like to see condition 1 in there and I would also at a minimum
like to see your proposed . . .
Ellson : Gutter idea?
Batzli : Gutter idea but the problem I see is that , the only reason I ,
really agreed on the guttering last time is he' s not in a sewered area
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 51
I
I and it didn' t make sense to me. To me gutter is directed to a storm sewer
as well as maintaining erosion, or keeping erosion at bay. I think if we
do this , we might as well be doing it on everyone that we do from here on
out.
111 Wildermuth : But have you seen the site Brian? The initial portion, 80% of
it isn' t going to be guttered.
IBatzli : That might be true but I can ' t help what they did before . Maybe I
did it before. Maybe I didn' t know any better .
IEmmings : I think it was your motion .
Batzli : Maybe it was but I guess the argument was somewhat appealing .
IHowever , I guess you can do it by other. means .
Wildermuth: This is a unique situation. It 's a non-commercial use of a
Icommercial area .
Erhart : The only problem is if the guy sells the property to somebody who
I then wants to use it for a commercial use and it doesn' t have curb and
gutter . If you' re starting fresh from the site , that ' s probably a good
enough argument to require it and it probably should have been required .
IWildermuth : Initially?
Erhart : Yes . The fact that the site is already 70% developed.
IEllson: Then isn' t that exactly what' s going to happen when Stockdale
expands and we just put that in. We' ll want him to put that in when he
expands and now we' ll have the same viewpoint.
I
Wildermuth : He has to come back if he expands .
I Ellson: I know like they' re coming back with the idea that we curb and
gutter as he got bigger which is the idea behind Stockdale and we ' re not
doing it now we won ' t do it then. Pretty soon we' ll have 50-50. Half have
Iit, half don ' t.
Emmings : I don ' t think that' s a realistic danger at all because when
Stockdale's place gets water and sewer , as part of the IOP, everything
I there is going to be torn down and that place is going to be redeveloped
and that' s different.
IWildermuth : Not a comparison.
Emmings : But it ' s funny we get two of these on the same night . It makes
Iit so hard that you have to justify so many things .
Daryl Fortier : Maybe I can help. . .with curb and gutters . One of the
differences first of all on this plan is that ever since Frank first held
II out these two pieces of property for personal use , it was because such a
use at his other residential lots would have been inappropriate and after
I
Ns
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 52
talking with staff we had to put it somewhere. You earlier had a proposal
in here for townhomes and the object is , where do they store their boats
and trailers and you said well they' ll rent a space. Where do you do it
when you've got multiple vehicles? Not in a residential district so we
wind up here . . . . that this is indeed the best use , ever since though
111
however , why didn' t he just set aside one lot? He' s been following a
master plan and that master plan is still being reflected and eventually it
will have another driveway connected here. That' s exactly why the storm
sewer has been located by the City and by the developer. We are following
a pattern. It' s not a haphazard development. It is a master plan and it is
proceeding in accordance with the original designs . The curbing has been
stopped here. It has been extended over this side. That is along the
perimeter of the property. It will be continued along the perimeter of the
property including this portion thus all the perimeter of the property will
be paved , curbed and guttered in accordance with the ordinance even if it I
were to be transferred to someone else. It would be fully. That will
still keep the center portion of the site open. It will contain already
water and runoff. It will serve all the purposes of being curbed and
guttered . The future owner may or may not paved this or may or may not do
something else with it 5 or 10 years down the road but a better idea may
well be to support this since this is following a master plan, all
perimeters of the property will require curb and gutter to serve a
permanent statement or a compromise position and that' s, whenever he makes
any additional cuts in here or adds to this perimeter area , he would indeed
have to add curb and gutter . '
Emmings : But we ' re not seeing any perimeter work on this plan so I don' t
think it would make sense to add it as a condition here. When he adds that II
driveway over there , would that come back to us or would it just go to the
engineer?
Olsen : Are you talking like the mini-storage? ,
Daryl Fortier: Right. He' s already proposed the second driveway in here.
Olsen : If he just put the driveway in, no but if they come in with a site
plan for mini-storage, then yes we would see that .
Emmings : If he put the driveway in , where does the driveway go? ,
Daryl Fortier : The driveway goes right in front of this future building
and connects from here to here . ,
Olsen: It would be part of that mini-storage addition.
Daryl Fortier : That' s correct . r
Olsen: Then you would see i.t .
Wildermuth : What kind of a mini-storage addition is this going to be?
Daryl Fortier : Mr. Beddor seems to becoming a collector of things. Some
of them look like, I noticed that he ' s looked at some Jaguars recently and
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 53
II
II he may well become a vintage car collector i.n which case i.t would be
private mini -storage. He also has a few friends who would say they would
like to store their vehicle here so he stores all his own vehicles but if
he ever wanted to invite personal friends to also store or other members of
I
the car club, he would undoubtedly put them in these mini-storage. It
would again be for vehicles . That' s the best I can predict at this time
but you' re fully informed at least .
IEmmings: I 'm glad somebody has a master plan.
I Daryl Fortier : That ' s part of what the previous Council and Planning
Commission was based on. There is curb and gutter along this area. Also
along both sides of the driveway to make sure that any runoff coming from
the site is funneled in this storm sewer . It was not a blanket statement
Isaying no curb and gutter required .
Emmings: And the site isn' t being changed. Are there any existing
Iproblems with runoff or erosion or anything else?
Daryl Fortier: From this area, all the erosion and runoff would go
I immediately to this small area where we have erosion control measures and
this new holding pond is going to happen because we cannot prevent it.
It' s a low lying area that it will fill up if there ' s an unusual amount of
rain and that' s in addition to the previous pond for siltation and erosion
I control . So it' s well covered that any possible injury by not having curb
and gutter is just a miniscule possibility. Aside from any injury on his
property but to the public benefit there would be virtually no affect . I
Ihope that helps somewhat.
Emmings: It just doesn ' t look like curb and gutter is going to make any
difference here. I guess if the City Engineer, if the motion passes the
I
way it' s schedule, if the City Engineer has a different opinion on that
when he gets to City Council . . .but the site, all of it seems to have been
taken care of on the site .
IEllson : But your motion you still didn' t put number 1 in right?
I Batzli : And you didn' t accept Steve's friendly amendment about the adding
it at a later date and that kind of _thing?
Erhart: I ' ll do it if somebody wants it in there, I ' ll agree.
IBatzli : Do you agree with that amendment?
IWildermuth: Sure.
I Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan #89-3 for the construction of a 2, 920 sq. ft . garage
facility as shown on the Site Plan dated April 13 , 1989 with the following
conditions :
I1. Additional landscaping shall be provided as required by city staff .
I
so
Planning Commission Meeting II
May 17, 1989 - Page 54
2. The applicant shall receive a replat of the site to combine Lots 1 and
2, Park One .
3. There shall be no outside storage other than one (1) transport flat bed I
which shall be stored between the two garages .
4 . All parking and driveway areas shall be paved and surrounded by II concrete curb and gutter only if now or in the future the City Engineer
determines that they are necessary.
5. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a drainage I
and erosion plan prior to final approval .
Erhart, Emmings, Wildermuth and Batzli voted in favor of the motion and
Conrad and Ellson voted in opposition of the motion. The motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 2.
Ellson : I want number 1 in there .
Emmings : Annette wants number 1 in there . Ladd wants to table it. '
Conrad: I think it should be tabled. There were 4 out of 6 points that
were disagreed to by the applicant versus staff and I think somethings , I
would have preferred to have the engineer look at. I 'm also very concerned
about future owners and what this property looks like and I don ' t know that
that has been incorporated as a sale could occur .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 3 , 1989 as presented. All
voted in favor except Batzli and Wildermuth who abstained and the motion
carried.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Emmings : Do we want to add airports to our on-going? I was outside ,
watering my garden this morning at about 6: 15. A helicopter was out going
over TH 5 and I think it was probably one of the traffic reporters .
Conrad: The one that was out by our house had the ability to spray. Had
the big tubes on the bottom.
Emmings: It was incredibly loud. 1
Batzli : Is there anything in the City ordinances about landing airplanes
with pontoons on them on the lakes?
Emmings : Yes . Minnewashta is the only one that we' ve got that they can do
that. '
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 55
IOlsen : Riley.
Emmings : Okay, I 'm sorry. I didn' t know that. Now who decides that
issue?
IOlsen : That was a water surface . That ' s under the Water Surface Useage
Ordinance.
IEmmings : Does the City allow it or does the State allow it?
I Olsen: It' s a City ordinance. It had to go through and get approval on
it.
Emmings : Amazingly enough, when I first moved onto Lake Minnewashta I
Ithought this is just awful that they' re allowing, and at that time we had
about 5 planes that were permanently stationed on the lake all summer . Now
there's only like 2. It' s gone way down with Leeches leaving. The resort
I leaving . But it really is no problem whatsoever . The problem would be
when somebody has an accident but that could happen with some of the big
planes flying over too I suppose but there ' s no conflict really on the
surface for the use of the lake with the planes and that amazed me.
IConrad : If you ever make a change to that , you ' ll have about 30 people in
this room. For some reason everybody flies a plane. Lake Riley happens to
Ibe a real core for that type of airplane.
Batzli : But it would seem to me that if we could regulate airplanes
Ilanding on lakes , we could regulate helicopters landing .
Erhart: Why not find out what othere cities have ordinances .
IEmmings : Let' s put helicopters as number 16.
Wildermuth: How is the City able to keep them off Lotus Lake? Not long
Ienough?
Emmings : I don' t know. I supposed it' s just that it would be dangerous . I
I think it' s long enough it' s just narrow and there' s a lot of traffic. On
this ongoing issue sheets , let ' s all keep these .
Olsen: I ' ll just keep printing them out and like heliports , what I would
Ido is just have that printed or I ' ll highlight that so you know that ' s a
new one.
I Emmings : You know what , date them. If you' re going to make multiple
copies, then put the date on them. Then the Fire Marshall plan review
criteria . I did not read that one . What ' s it about?
Olsen: That' s what Dave wanted. So that' s what they review.
Batzli : Did we ever determine what the public safety department looks at
Iin order to decide if a second exit is needed off of a cul-de-sac?
I
NM
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 56
Ellson : That was the fire thing I thought he was concerned about.
Concerned about the people getting their vehicles in.
Batzli : I didn' t know if the fire people decided that or public safety.
Olsen: They' re all the same department .
Batzli : Is that part of this review? ,
Olsen : We always look at that. I just thought it was always standard that
we always provide that. '
Batzli : I thought so too until recently when we didn' t or we have kind of
but in the memos back to us , those people haven' t.
Olsen : I haven ' t specifically asked them that I guess whether we' ll make
that the standard.
Erhart : What' s the status of the Planner? What are they going to do with ,
the Planning Department?
Olsen : The Council decided just to reinterview the other applicants but I
don' t know what' s happening.
Erhart : They' re going to open it up then? '
Olsen: No, they' re going to just reinterview the people.
Erhart : Two remaining applicants? '
Olsen : One of them. . .and the third one they didn' t like at all so I don' t
know how they' re going to choose. The Council decided to interview the top II
three candidates from before which really only one.
Ellson: Are they still interested? '
Olsen: He is still interested from Minnetonka . Paul Krause. Eckankar ,
as you know, is coming up again on Monday and the Manager wanted us to
review whether or not to do a referendum. They wanted input from the
commissions to see if they felt that the whole property would be required .
Ellson : What do you mean? Required for what? '
Olsen : For public purposes . Schools, parks or if you' re satisfied with
just a portion of it. '
Ellson : I don ' t want a referendum.
Wildermuth : If we fiddle around with this issue long enough, we ' re going
to get our socks sued off I think.
Emmings : There' s the other side too where you get to pay the other side' s '
attorney' s fees when you lose and that' s not very attractive.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 57
I
IIEllson: No , not the whole site .
Emmings : I hope that they make a decision one way or the other . That' s
I the first thing that I 'd like to say about Eckankar, not that they have to
listen to what I say but I think a decision ought to be made . On the
referendum., I don' t know.
IEllson : Do you think there' s a chance the City is going to spend
$10,000. 00 or whatever a referendum costs just over this one issue? That
Iwould make me so angry.
Emmings : Everybody I ' ve talked to has said I 'm not interested in spending
my tax dollars on buying that property period .
IEllson : Let alone if you buy it we don' t have any money to do anything
with it because we just spent every last dime.
Emmings : It sounds like from what I hear , at least in my neighborhood , a
referendum would be soundly defeated .
I Ellson : But it ' s the cost to us to run one. If we had $10, 000. 00, we
could fix a park. We could do all kinds of things . Instead we' re bringing
people to a voting booth . . .
IErhart : I think Jo Ann you' re asking for a serious response and I think we
ought to decide whether we should give a serious response .
IEllson : Do we think that the City needs the entire property or do they
need any of it?
IEmmings : I think they should not have a referendum. That ' s my opinion.
Ellson: Mine too.
IBatzli : It was my feeling that I think that the park needs some expansion
and I think the city should look eventually at acquiring for expansion
I but I don' t think anyone, at least that I 've talked to is interested in a
referendum or purchasing the entire parcel .
Emmings : Besides no matter how you count it, how you phrase it, it looks
I like an attempt to prevent this church from coming here and I don' t like
that appearance . I agree with Brian , if we' re interested in that land for
the park, how come we weren ' t interested 6 months ago and how come we
I weren' t interested a year ago? It' s because of the church and the church
is only taking up 2 1/2 acres . They can look at the land 2 months from
now.
IWildermuth : A good portion of it will probably be available after the
church is built.
I Emmings : If they want to sell it or if they want to take part of it . The
front edge of it or something like that .
I
en
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17 , 1989 - Page 58
Olsen : The other one was just convenience stores . That moratorium. I
know that Steve brought that back up that he was doing some research on it .
Ellson : It kind of sounded like it was ended . Basically we can ' t do a
whole lot because most convenience stores are on corners like that.
Olsen : They got somebody really impatient on the Legion site who wants a
convenience store there. The moratorium, there has to be a decision made
by July 1 which is a Saturday. As part of that ordinance was that a study
was going to be performed. Are you anxious to get that study going to have I
some restrictions? That kind of did get put on the back burner but we can
bring it up.
Emmings : We need one like we have on contractor ' s yards . '
Conrad: Our understanding was pretty much that Steve was running that.
Looking at other cities to see what kind of restrictions and he got that
kind of stuff back to us but he was doing some more work. I think what
you' ve got to do is bring it back and say here' s what I ' ve found and
somehow get our direction in terms of what we believe. If there should be
any sort of restrictions .
Ellson : I remember him saying the reason they' re located where they are is
because of the people going to work and coming back and it' s not unusual to I
have four on four corners of a street.
Olsen: I remember him saying just let them be. They will regulate
themselves . I was just wondering if you wanted to see a possible
regulation or should I bring that up?
Conrad : I think there should be items to review. I 'm sure his
communication was that it doesn' t look like anything' s going to, that we
can do too much but I still think we should take a look at what the
alternatives may be. '
Erhart : Are you just looking for a consensus here or are you looking for
individual statements? ,
Olsen : For Eckankar? No , he just wanted general consensus .
Erhart: Well I don 't know if we can make a consensus. Let me make a
statement for the record on Eckankar . I believe that Eckankar is very
dangerous to the City both socially and fiscally. The City ought to do
everything that it can do to prevent that group from establishing itself
here. However, I do not agree that buying them out is the way to do it.
And that we ought to as opposed to purchasing the property at some
exorbinate, 15 million or whatever it is, we ought to use whatever legal
means or other means to encourage them not to establish themselves here .
As far as the stores, I think we do have a consensus , maybe we don' t have.
I don ' t think we ought to be in the business of regulating convenience
stores . '
IPlanning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 59
I Emmings : Religions yes but convenience stores not . What if Eckankar wants
to open a convenience store?
Erhart : If they pay taxes on it , then I don' t have that much of a problem
I
with it. There' s two issues. There' s the 174 acres or whatever not paying
taxes and the other issue .
IEmmings: There' s no taxes on it now.
Ellson: There is taxes on it now?
IEmmings: No, there is not .
Ellson : They said they' ve been paying .
IEmmings: They did until they achieved their tax exempt status a short time
ago but they won' t now as long as they hold the land . My feeling on that
I is, I think it' s ridiculous that a tax exempt organization can own 174
acres and build on 2 1/2 acres of those and not pay any taxes on any of it
just like I think it' s ridiculous you know, there are whole blocks of
I downtown that are owned by churches that are commercial property. They' re
run as commercial property and they don' t pay taxes and I think that' s
wrong . There should be some kind of a restriction, the amount of land a
church can own and have, I don' t care if they have 5 or 10 acres tax
I exempt . That 'd be fine but for them to own more land than that and have it
tax exempt but I don' t think you can do that. I think that any tax on a
church would probably be illegal but I don ' t know so if you could limit
I them to some reasonable amount of land and say you pay taxes on the rest
just like anybody else, that would be fair . I don ' t know if it could be
done but.
I Erhart : But the problem is, they may not have to pay taxes on this 100
acres. The problem is they can potentially consume all of the city
services to that 174 acres . Fire and street so it ' s very unfair .
IEmmings : Couldn' t they develop along TH 5, develop it as commercial
property, lease it out to commercial tennants , collect their rent and not
Ipay any tax? Again, consuming city services and that just, to me that
makes absolutely no sense but I think that ' s probably a system that we' re
pretty well stuck with.
I Batzli : I recall reading somewhere that the City Council wanted us to
pursue whether we could have an ordinance regulating the -number of acres a
church could own . Did you recall seeing that?
IOlsen: Yes .
IEmmings : You couldn ' t regulate the number of acres they can own.
Olsen: And that was a comment in the last report that Steve presented and
I just read that again today but I don' t think that that was something that
Ithey were still actively pursuing .
I
M
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 60
Batzli : Did our City Attorney look at that and see if that was something
that we could regulate?
Olsen : It seems like we could but I ' ll look into that. If you have a city
ordinance on it but it' s just how do you determine that amount? The way we 11
were looking at it was not just churches but there' s other universities and
other things that aren' t taxes and where do you draw the line? Like the
Arboretum. Then you wouldn ' t be able to have a nice university facility
that maybe employed 500 people out here so there' s a lot of problems with
it and I don' t know if you can separate tax exempt types of land .
Emmings: You' re walking on real thin ice here. That makes a real abusive '
system. You don' t want government messing with those kinds of institutions
I don' t think. It still doesn' t make any sense.
Conrad : Has the Council given staff direction to look into land use from
the standpoing of having enough property available? Now that Eckankar is
taking a whole bunch out , the issue of looking for , in my mind I have a
concern that we should have enough land for commercial/industrial . Have
they taken any kind of a, given staff any direction on that?
Olsen: No, it hasn' t gone beyond that specific issue.
Conrad : I think based on what they do Monday night , we have to take some
steps. I think that' s going to trigger a whole bunch of things . In my
mind Eckankar taking that property probably is a blessing because
residential costs us money anyway. Now that' s a gross statement and I
don ' t know how bad a statement that is but everytime you add one house
here, it costs taxpayers more money. Me, you and everybody. By Eckankar
coming in , we' re probably benefitting but I think that ' s probably a real
gross statement. I 'd like somebody to tell me why that' s right or wrong. I
really would be interested but I think we need some kind of a financial
plan in this community to say hey, we shouldn' t encourage. Everybody says
it' s so great to encourage residential growth and that is an invalid
statement to my knowledge. I think we should spend some money with a
consultant to help us or staff spend some time to help educate us on what
kind of growth does improve the taxes. My knowledge of the City Council
ran on a low tax , no tax increase and they' re turning down some proposals
but on the other hand they don' t seem to be doing some tax efficient
planning . I think we need to get into that business pretty soon. I want
to know if my taxes are going up because of some of the decisions that are
being made and if they' re going to go up, then we have to know how to add
to the commercial/industrial and where that ' s going to b`. So I personally
want to take a look and see what they do on Monday but I think that we
should start stimulating some stuff. I really was assuming City Council
was going ahead on some of that because there ' s some major impacts here .
Olsen: The only thing that we' ve looked at is the amount of parkland that
we' ll need . Mark has done a study on that and do we need the whole 174
acres.
Conrad : And I think it' s got to go beyond that . Whether you get park or
school or commercial or industrial , I think the big fallicy is everybody
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 61
I
I thinks it' s great to add more residential and that , to my knowledge, that
ain ' t the truth and I think that ' s something that we have to take a look
at. So anyway, that' s more of a statement than a direction but I think I
I want to stimulate some of that and put in some money towards that end .
Maybe it' s staff time. Another comment on the notes that you got back on
approved and disapproved from the City Council . I think that ' s an
acceptable format Jo Ann. I know it' s easy for you to do it. I would
I appreciate more comments as to how they commented . We' re interested in
what they liked. If they approved it that' s great but it' s also good to
know the whys .
IOlsen : I ' ll do that . I just pulled out from all the backgrounds and then
I 'm going to start doing it.
I Conrad : My only other comment on that is under administrative
presentations it says 1989 planning goals and planning director didn' t give
direction. That ' s real irritating . Why didn' t they give direction on
p that?
Ellson : Too many priorities or something like that?
IOlsen: They kind of just went through the list and it was late I 'm sure.
They all kind of went through the list and said, well yes this , this . And
then somebody else said this, this .
IConrad : And they had nothing new to add?
IEmmings : Or to prioritize .
Ellson: Or prioritize what I heard from Steve. He basically told me
I there' s 15 things and we tried to number what ' s most important and they
said everyone so get on all 15.
Conrad: They said that?
IEllson: That ' s what he told me, yes .
I Conrad: Well , that' s absolutely lousy direction. We need specific, if
it ' s in Minutes or whatever , they have to give us the direction. Now it
should go back to them Jo Ann. In other words, I would like you go back
and say, Planning Commission understood you noted what we' re doing and that
Iwe understand that you didn' t have anything to add but do you have
priorities? Otherwise the Planning Commission will have -it' s own set of
priorities .
IEllson : That ' s another thing . Go to them and say these are what we think.
Are you in agreement with it?
IConrad : I 'm sure they just didn ' t spend much time.
Batzli : Speaking of priorities , today for instance on the Reed
Isubdivision . Talk about blending . You' ve got a 36, 000 squafe foot lot
next to a 15, 000 square foot lot . Did that make any sense and if we had
I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 1989 - Page 62
had a blending subdivision, should that have affected that? Things like
that might be kind of interesting to know whether City Council thinks about 1
things like that . If they want us to do anything about it.
Olsen: That's where it came from I think. The blending ordinance came
from Bill Boyt .
Batzli : But I mean that was a year and a half ago.
Olsen: I gave it to Mark and we' re working'.
on it.
Batzli : I know and I 'm not saying, but what I 'm doing is saying City
Council should tell us if that's a high priority.
Olsen : But that ' s what happened . Bill Boyt pointed out that ' s one of his I
but then Jay had different ones and they didn' t put the time to confirm
what they really want. Like I say it was late.
Conrad: But that' s the classic thing that they do so based on that, we
need you to go back and say the Planning Commission basically got no
direction from you so they will , unless they do get specific priorities ,
they will be setting their own agenda .
Erhart : I think that would be very well if we did have some direction. I
think you also have to keep in mind however that it ' s nearly impossible to
proceed in any of these things until we get a stable staff in the planning
department . That ' s the real reason I think we haven ' t been able to get
anything done the last 12 months is the turnover in staff.
Batzli moved , Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 20 p.m. .
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Assistant City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1