1o. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 12, 1989
IMayor 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,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger. Knutson, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Jim
Chaffee, and Todd Gerhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations:
Councilman Boyt wanted to discussion Eurasian Water Milfoil, SuperAmerica
' located on TH 41 and TH 7, Public Safety Minutes, and Lake Lucy Road permit
system. Councilwoman Dimler wanted to discuss the nomination for the RTV.
Councilman Workman wanted to discuss Art Owen's property, the Bandimere Park
progress report and Lake Lucy Road watermain construction questions. Councilman
' Johnson wanted to discuss Council ethics in private meetings and conflict of
interest on his part. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the
motion carried.
(The following is the discussion pertaining to Councilwoman Dimler's request to
' take item 8 off the agenda.)
Councilwoman Dimler: On the regular agenda, if we could take off item 8 and
refer it to management procedures.
' Councilman Boyt: Can you say a little bit more about that?
' Councilwoman Dimler: I really don't feel that this is a Council decision. That
this should somehow be handled in management procedures that the City has
already established.
Councilman Boyt: We have done this on one particular instance that I can recall
in the past. It would be my intention to vote against this but I think the
person should have the right to bring it to the Council. Is this coming at the
' Taco Shop's request?
Don Ashworth: Yes. I don't know if he'll be present. I doubt it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I talked to Don today about it and he seemed to think that
the administration could handle it.
Councilman Johnson: Has staff already turned it down and then he has asked to
bring it to Council?
Don Ashworth: That would be the closest interpretation, yes. He's asked to
have the money back and we did place it onto the agenda. Staff would lean to
denial. He had some other problems associated with the deck that he started and
was instructed not to construct it in the fashion he did and he did so there's
some violations there.
' 1
Eqd
MI
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Mayor. Chmiel: Permit violations? '
Don Ashworth: Yes. I guess I would agree with Councilmember_ Dimler that
potentially it should just be handled by staff.
Councilman Boyt: But shouldn't any individual have the right to appeal a
decision of the staff?
Mayor. Chmiel: Staff's judgment has been done and if we support staff and that
position.
Councilman Boyt: So are you saying that he isn't make this appeal? That this
was just put on here automatically. '
Don Ashworth: He's making the appeal. I guess if he attends this meeting,
potentially the Council would want to listen to him. To the best of our
knowledge, he is not planning on attending.
Councilman Johnson: Why don't we just at that point, if he's not here, go that
way. If he does unexpectedly show up. '
Jo Ann Olsen: He wanted to be here. He cannot be here.
Councilman Boyt: We can table.
Mayor Chmiel: Once we get to that particular point, let's address it then and
come up with a conclusion.
Councilwoman Dimler: So are you saying then that we're not going to take it off
the agenda? 1
Mayor Chmiel: No, let's leave it on.
Don Ashworth: I think it's a good idea to leave it on.
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING. Mayor Chmiel drew a name and handed it to Dave 1
Pederson from the Villager.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Approval of Joint Powers Construction Agreement with Carver_ County for
Pioneer Trail (CR 14) Reconstruction.
g. Resolution #89-73: Change Order No. 5, Chanhassen Fire Station and
City Hall.
h. Final Plat Approval for Bloomberg Addition.
i. Accounts Payable.
2
LL
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
j. City Council Minutes dated May 16, 1989, May 22, 1989 and May 25, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes dated May 17, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. CONSIDER EXTENDED WORK HOURS FOR ROSEMOUNT SITE CONSTRUCTION.
Councilman Boyt: It would be my intent to table Item (b) but maybe we can have
' some discussion before I make a motion to that effect. What we're proposing, or
rather Opus is proposing to work from 5:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. on a lot that
overlooks Lake Susan and several houses on Lake Susan. Quite a few houses. I
' see no comments in here from the people who live along Lake Susan. I see a
letter in the back that if I had received that letter, I would have assumed that '
they had already received approval and all I could do was wait until I had a
' complaint. I don't think this has been handled well. I think the City should
send a letter out. We should ask for the comments of the residents in the area
and that we should not extend beyond our normal working hours for development
without that approval.
' Mayor. Chmiel: I'm not sure whether this letter has even been sent out.
' Councilman Boyt: I hope not.
Mayor Chmiel: That was one of the concerns that I had with it as well.
' Councilman Workman: I think if they're going to have that many hours in, they
may as well work right through the night and get it over with. Not that I
support them working that late.
' Gary War_r_en: I think that's equipment maintenance time that they're leaving
out. That's the only reason they aren't.
Mayor Chmiel: There are several other items too with this from what I
understand in discussion with Gary is that this has to be in conformance with
some of the problems, time problems that we have too as well as the City. Is
' that correct?
Gary Warren: Just trying to state that we'll have similiar soil challenges and
probably weather constraints and we have an aggressive deadline there for having
our improvements substantially completed by December 15th of this year also so
it could be very well that we may be looking to having the Council entertain
' extended work hours for our own project at some time in the future.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we have extended hours. We did for
McGlynn's Bakery but no one lived around there. This is a different situation.
At the minimum we should be assured that the residents have had a chance to
speak about their willingness to tolerate this or their lack of willingness to
go along. So I would move that we table item 1(b) until that can be carried
out.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
I 3
MI
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table extending the work
hours for. the Rosemount Construction site until the neighbors have been
notified. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: The City will send letters to the people notifying them or if it
be most expediate, possibly to call each of those people with a follow-up
letter. Whichever would be the quickest for accomplishing this.
Gary Warren: What area would you like us to notify? How far away?
Councilman Boyt: Well I certainly want you to notify everybody across the lake
because they're all going to hear this.
Councilman Johnson: The EA for this did not consider night time noise at any
location so basically they should, if they're going to change their operating
procedure from what they do, we should at least have a modeling of the noise at
the homes so we know what the noise impact is going to be. That's the first
question I'd ask. What is it? 45 db. Is that the night time noise limit?
There are several computer models in which to generate that.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's at the property line.
Councilman Johnson: Right. McGlynn Bakeries, on certain nights, I can hear
them at my house over a mile away. When you start looking, running straight
across that lake.
Gary Warren: I'll present that to the applicant. I know the timing just to do
this is probably going to, they may just say that they aren't going to be
interested but if they're interested in proceeding with the application, we'll
notify the residents.
C. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR CHANHASSEN HILLS 3RD ADDITION.
Councilman Boyt: I think in using some of the experience with the previous
developments we had a concern that we have plenty of controls in the development
contract but we seem to lose that control as parcels are sold to individual
builders. I would propose that we, in this particular one, we begin to have the
developer, they already have to have a letter of credit but I think that should
extend to erosion controls specifically and the maintenance of those controls in
that this should be in a cash escrow that is reduced by the number of lots that
are fully constructed. So in essence we would be asking the developer to
establish a letter of credit that would guarantee sufficient erosion controls
for all the parcels in the development. That as these were built and the soils
stabilized, that fund could be reduced. It's currently, $38,500.00 is the
amount in the contract. That might be sufficient for this. It might need to be
adjusted given that we're aiming it at individual parcels of land.
Gary Warren: The dollar amount in this letter r '
of credit is site erosion
control. We always have two issues. One is to control the general grading area
from the site and then you've got your individual lots. Some lots don't require erosion control. Others do. That's where you have some judgment calls It
there so there would be really a separate dollar amount on a lot by lot basis.
4
■
81
1 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
IICouncilman Workman: Are you using this as an example? .
1 Mayor. Chmiel: Yes, he's talking cash escrow with a letter of credit.
Councilman Workman: Are we doing that specifically with this one or is it for.
II future?
Councilman Boyt: Well it would be my plan to do it for all. I think it's an
area where the City is currently vulnerable in that there's a gray area and
1 maybe nobody's responsible for this time after the developer sells the property
to a builder. Maybe there's a better plan but in talking this over with Gary a
few minutes ago, it seemed like a reasonable place to start. If we come back
I and come up with a better plan, then I think we could come back and amend this
but at this point, this gives us the assurety that the City will always be able
to guarantee erosion control until a development is fully built and stabilized.
1 Councilman Johnson: That's going to take some word smithing by our attorney.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that was going to be a question I had for Roger_. How can we
1 make these requirements of each of the developers to builders as Bill has just
mentioned?
1 Roger Knutson: You catch me a little cold but I know one solution that one city
has used is to say when somebody comes in, it would have to be in the
development contract. When someone comes in for a building permit, that's when
if you're going to start messing up the ground again. At that point you could
require somebody to post a cash escrow or propose a building permit of x
dollars. Whatever is appropriate.
1 Councilman Johnson: So we would have dollars from the builder too?
Roger Knutson: As opposed to dollars from the developer. The problem I see
1 with getting dollars from the developer, those dollars might be there
theoretically 10 years, 5 years, 20 years because it's not until the actual lot
gets developed and a house gets built where your additional concerns arise and
that can be a long, long period of time.
1 Councilman Johnson: Plus the builder doesn' t care about the developer's dollars
in escrow but if it's his dollars in escrow, he'll be a little more careful in
1 the erosion control.
Roger_ Knutson: You could also find the developer saying that once I sell a lot,
II I don't have the right to come onto that lot and tell the new lot owner how to
do his business. That's one of the things I've heard. If someone messes up,
it's the lot owner's builder, not the developer who messed up or the owner_
himself as opposed to the developer. That's one possibility of doing it that
II way.
Councilman Boyt: What I think would happen is the developer would sell that
I! obligation to the builder as part of the purchase price of the lot so in
actuality the builder would be holding the liability here.
Roger Knutson: The only problem with getting it up front is you don't know how
many years it's going to be until that developer sells that lot. In a perfect
1 5
In
-ei.ty Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
world it happens in a year or two. It isn't and there are lots out there that
you've platted, the Council has platted I suppose 20 years ago, 40 years ago
lir
that still don't have a house on them.
Don Ashworth: If I hear the attorney correctly, any type of change that we
would be making is not really with this development contract. What Councilman
Boyt is asking is that staff look at establishing either a cash deposit or.
changing our existing ordinance for the assurance of individual building permit
to insure that we have money to take care of the erosion on the individual lot.
And if that's the case, the it could be tabled this evening. Staff could
respond to that issue and have a potential solution back on for the 26th.
Gary Warren: Bill and I did talk earlier about it and I like Roger's approach a
little better because part of our effort, even today takes time to keep up with
the developer's who request letter of credit reductions. We're constantly going
through additional paperwork cycle here and I can see if you got it on every
lot, even though as Bill and I had talked, you would have a builder when he buys
a lot replace what the developer would be giving away, you're going to
constantly be into this cycle of really a lot of paperwork and keeping track of
it whereas if you just establish a fee per lot and get it like we do with the
building permit phase, that would be a lot more manageable. Also that person is
paying that fee when he comes in so he knows I think more directly that he's got
an obligation there.
Mayor Chmiel: That sounds reasonable.
Councilman Boyt: So we wouldn't need to table this particularly because we're '
looking in a whole different direction?
Mayor, Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, those are the only comments that I had so I would
approval on item 1(c) .
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Councilman Johnson: Will this require a change in our erosion control ordinance
or our building permit ordinance or both?
Roger Knutson: Development contract. That'd be the proper place for it.
Councilman Boyt: But that's what we're just looking at right now.
Roger Knutson: I know. That's where I'd want that. ..in the development ,
contract.
Gary Warren: Even if the developer isn't going to be applying?
Roger Knutson: Yes, but I want it recorded against the r_o '
p petty. Put everyone
on notice. Your authority to do that is a result of the subdivision process,
not as the result of the building permit process.
Councilman Boyt: Then let's withdraw that motion and go back to directing the
City Attorney to draft language that would reflect our recent discussion and
6 i
MI
8 c
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
attach that as part of the development contract.
Mayor Chmiel: If you're withdrawing it, Tom do you withdraw your second?
Councilman Workman: Yes.
' Councilman Boyt: Okay, so I would make a motion along the lines I just stated
if you'd be willing to second that one.
' Councilman Workman: Making it a part of Chanhassen Hills 3rd Addition?
Councilman Boyt: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, what's the time line here?
' Councilman Johnson: He's not tabling it. He's saying approve with...
Councilwoman Dimler: Right but I mean how long is this process going to take?
We're holding this up.
' Councilman Johnson: A couple days.
' Mayor Chmiel: Shouldn't be much more than that. To make provisions.
Gary Warren: They have to post their security and that takes some time yet too.
'j Councilman Workman: How much are we talking about?
Councilman Johnson: The change would be that
g you have a statement in the
' development contract stating that each builder has to post when they buy the lot
or when they pull their building permit, that they would have to post a
refundable erosion control fee. If they maintain their erosion control, they
' get their fee back. If they don't and we have to go out and do something. ..
Gary Warren: They get it back when the site is stabilized basically.
' Councilman Johnson: Right. They get it back if the site is stabilized. But if
we have to go out and fix it.
' Councilman Boyt: Basically we've already got that with the developer so this
really isn't adding anything to the developer's list of concerns. It's simply
recording, as Roger says, recording it against the property so when the property
' changes hands, then the new owner would become responsible for a similar sort of
arrangement. Is that right Roger?
Roger Knutson: Correct.
' Gary Warren: We can add that to the generic portion of the contract so we've
got it in for all of them then.
Councilman Workman: It's really no more of a financial burden or anything else?
Gary Warren: On the builder it is.
7
IR
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Boyt: On the builder but the developer is doing nothing more-.
Gary Warren: Unless the developer is going to be building the lots.
Councilman Johnson: And if the builder does his job right, then he gets his
money back.
Mayor Chmiel: It's refunded.
Councilman Johnson: So I'll second your motion.
Gary Warren: We can also use that for street clean-up.
Councilman Johnson: Just what Gary just mentioned, should we also include that
that money can be utilized for cleaning the street? If the builder messes up
the street and doesn't clean it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's a great idea.
Councilman Johnson: Because there's a lot of that going around. '
Don Ashworth: So you'd have it cleaning debris. Would you include blowing
materials, anything?
Gary Warren: A nuisance fee.
Councilman Boyt: So really we have two additions to the original motion which '
is that the fee would also be used to cover anticipated reasonable expense for
road clean-up and debris and litter. Road and debris litter clean-up. Well, I
would accept that. Will you with the second?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Development
pp Pm
Contract for Chanhassen Hills 3rd Addition and direct the City Attorney to amend
the development contract to include a fee for erosion control, road and debris
litter clean-up. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD AND SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE,
EDGEWORK BUILDERS, DAVE STOCKDALE.
Councilman Boyt: Would somebody else like to pull this off because I'm pulling ,
this off as a favor to Jo Ann so if any of the rest of you would like to take
this. Alright, actually it's written the way I like it now but as you may have
noticed, that's written differently than the way the Planning Commission passed
it. So in fairness Jo Ann thought we should review it. What I like about it
is, the way it's written now, is that we've got curb and gutter. We're talking
about the industrial office park. I'm not prepared to start making exceptions
about curbing in the industrial office park. It's one thing to go back and say
to him on your old property, well you've got to go in there and put curb and
gutter but when they're building something brand new, we ought to build it
right. So I like staff's recommendation. That's all I have on this one.
8
85
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Dave Stockdale: My name is Dave Stockdale. I'm the applicant. First off to
address Bill's statement. It's not new construction. The buildings are
existing. Everything is existing except the hard surface. I think there's some
practical reasons for not putting curb and gutter in at this point. First off,
' in my mind curb and gutter usually diverts the water to one focal point and
that's typically a storm sewer. There is no storm sewer out there. I figure
you could actually be creating a bigger problem than there would be if you had
contiguous sheet runoff that would disperse the water evenly across the whole
membrane. Wherever it does runoff, you'll be focusing a lot of water onto the
ground at that point. So I think at that point, I think that's a good reason
for not doing it physically. Again, from my point of view economically, at some
' point in the near future when I do develop that property, the considerable
expense of curb and gutter will be pretty much a number that's been considered a
temporary expense. Blacktop to a degree may be too but a certain portion of
that will probably still work within the system. I guess probably to another
degree, less than a year ago an application was made and approved without curb
and gutter at that point for the same property for whatever. reason. At some
point, I currently have a conditional use permit on a different piece of
property which I am still prepared to act on and at some point if this
particular piece of property becomes economical unfeasible, at that point I'll
revert back to my other piece if too many things add up on the cost issue.
Councilman Boyt: If I can respond, you are putting in new hard surfaces you
said. We do require curb and gutter in the industrial office park zone which
you're in so that becomes a cost of business of doing business in that zone.
Your issue about will this create a bigger problem if we have it than if we
don't have it I think is something that the City Engineer needs to address. We
' don't want to create a bigger problem, I agree with you about that. You
certainly have the right to use your first conditional use permit. It was
passed, although I voted against it. It passed. I also voted against the Merit
Air Conditioning application for that similar property because it didn't have
' curb and gutter along with other things so those are just my responses but I
recognize that it does create an economic difficulty.
' Mayor_ Chmiel: Gary, can you address that?
Gary Warren: I didn't get the gist of all the comments. The question
specifically is why staff is recommending concrete curb and gutter. I can
' address that if that's your question. It's primarily I guess following the
ordinance in that zone I guess for the curb and gutter. I don't know, it's
crystal balling how far in the future that subdivision is going to go. We just
' had a meeting with Opus here a couple weeks ago on pushing Lake Drive even
further out there and this becomes sort of an exception in that whole
development scheme so I realistically with the City's intended improvements on
' Audubon Road south of the railroad tracks as part of our State Aid project which
we approved in our 5 year plan, I see this whole area again being the prime
target here for development. I guess I was also looking at the fact that that
parcel going in under a variance from that standard which is going to be applied
throughout that whole subdivision once it is platted, is going to be sort of an
exception that's going to be noticed.
IF-- Mayor_ Chmiel: Did you want to say something Dave?
i9
me
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Dave Stockdale: Gary, can you think of a situation where a curb and utter_
'
would be applied where this is not a storm sewer system for it to drain into?
Gary Warren: Sure, we do it a lot and that's why we reference it as barrier
curbing I guess to control traffic. To keep vehicles within the parking
surfaces. It's not necessarily completely there for a drainage standpoint. ,
Dave Stockdale: Okay, what affect would that have on anyone other than the
property owner?
Gary Warren: I guess from a site nuisance standpoint, if you have a parkin
area where vehicles are going off the road and tearing up and rutting up the
berm areas and such, I guess there are some impacts on the motoring public so to
speak.
Dave Stockdale: And I would probably be the person most concerned with that
being the property owner. At the same time, from what I'm hearing you say that
in the near future you're expecting that that development, the improvements will
be passing by that property which at that point will, for practical reasons
necessitate that development of the property. Economically practial reasons.
It seams a little bit foolish to go as far as curb and gutter at this point if
within the near future the development process will take place and the true
finished product will end up with that kind of a treatment. I'm not proposing never having curb and gutter. I'm just saying until it's
developed, on a
temporary basis. I would expect at the time it's developed to the full
industrial office park standards, that it will meet and/or exceed everything
that's in the industrial office park.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyway that within this conditional use permit which has
already been approved, is there anyway that we can establish an additional kind
of condition?
Councilman Boyt: This one hasn't been approved? The first one is in a whole
different location.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Then can we in this specific time include this as an
additional requirement as a condition?
Councilman Boyt: Sure.
Councilman Johnson: This is a new permit.
Councilman Boyt: We can write any conditions that seen justifiable.
Mayor Chmiel: Because basically it could be a hardship and I think we ,
probably
agree at this particular time until that development time comes.
Gary Warren: I guess if Council wants to not require i.t, that it is definitely
a variance to this site until such time as development comes by and we're not
violating the City's standards as far as requiring it for this type of
development.
Mayor Chmiel: We are not violating it?
10 '
87
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
__ Councilman Boyt: What? -
I Gary Warren: I said Council could chose to interpret this ruling that it is
based on an existing site and that once development, the subdivision is
subdivided and development is there, that we're not saying that the standard for
concrete curb and gutter should not be applied throughout. That it's just
temporary until this whole site area develops.
Councilman Boyt: Well you mentioned a key word here, variance. This is in fact
' a variance to the requirements in the industrial office park. As a variance,
it's got to meet those 5 criteria. There's nothing in the staff report about
how it adjusts to those 5 criteria. What about the possibility, when is Audubon
Road going to be finished?
Gary Warren: The 5 year State Aid program was scheduled for Audubon Road to be
' the next project which would be constructed under next year's funding which
means we would be looking to get something underway as far as design in the fall
of this year or there abouts.
' Councilman Boyt: Can we make this, the fall of this year you said?
Gary Warren: The design would be initiated the fall of this year.
Councilman Boyt: So you think it would be completed by 1991 I supposed?
Gary Warren: 1990.
ICounci.lman Boyt: So could we put a condition on the development of this that by
say June, 1991 curb and gutter will be installed? Concrete curb and gutter.
' That gives Dave a chance to sort of get through the Audubon Road thing and start
your further development. So you don't have to put it in and tear it out but we
do have a definite time in which it will be built. We're basically giving you
' the opportunity to delay that for a year and a half.
Dave Stockdale: For me to take possession of the property I need to have a hard
surface blacktop. . .and to put curb and gutter in after the fact is also... If
you're going to go that way, then I shouldn't even put the hard surface down
until the curb and gutter goes in and at the same time. ..
Councilman Boyt: Well I think as far as the City fulfilling their part of the
obligation, that should be worked into that.
Dave Stockdale: Yes, it should be worked together.
Councilman Boyt: But we were talking about, you were going to tear that hard '
asphalt up anyway because you said when I have to develop, I'm going to have to
tear this out. I don't want to have to tear out my concrete curb and gutter.
So what I'm saying is don't put the concrete curb and gutter in but when we
develop Audubon Road, you've got to have it.
Dave Stockdale: When you develop Audubon Road, that doesn' t necessarily mean
that I'm going to develop at that point in time. If you set a timeframe that
you'd like a blacktop surface with curb and gutter.. .
' 11
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Well Dave the problem is, in my opinion, if we '
ended so that you build it when you're ready to develop, then we run vinto�the open
problems that Gary said. We require it of all the people around you but we
haven't required it of you. They're not going to be happy with that.
Dave Stockdale: You're right. Who are the people around me that would be in a '
similiar situation? Everyone else has improvements prior to the development of
their property.
Councilman Boyt: So we don't have anybody else out there that's going to
develop on any land that doesn't already have curb and gutter?
Dave Stockdale: That doesn't already have improvements to the property. ,
Councilman Boyt: But we're extending the road. We're extending the
improvements so that area is going to develop. That's why
to develop it further. What I'm proposing is time yeu u probably think whet
time in my opinion, and then I'll stop and giving you time but I think the
p give everybody else, in my opinion,
the time has to have some limits on it because I don't think it's wise to give
you an open ended contract that says build it when you want when in all
likelihood people are going to be developing around you and have to live with
the higher standard. If we grant this variance because of an economic need,
it's going to be hard to deny it to anyone.
Councilman Johnson: I have a suggestion here. Let's look at this, I definitely
would rather have David over here than at his house. Rather than have his 12
trucks drive down that residential street, well it's a residential highway I
there, I'd rather have them here. That's a better location for his operation.
It's within the industrial park, etc.. I think he's got a good point about the
concrete curb and gutter. What I'd like to see as, a compromise here maybe is
asphalt curb and gutter at this point and any further development, any new
construction on this property, subdivision of this property would automatically
kick in concrete curb and gutter. So if he decides to build an additional cold
storage building, kicks in concrete curb and gutter. Right now you're not
building any buildings on here. Using all existing buildings. You're putting
up some fences and stuff like that so I would say at this point let's go with a
compromise because as things go, concrete curb and gutter is $4.00 a foot or
something like that. $2.00 a foot? $5.00 a foot? You look at the feet
involved in here for the type of operation he's going to build over there down
the road on Galpin. But asphalt curb and gutter, what would you say that is a
foot?
Gary Warren: $2.00-$2.50.
Councilman Johnson: So it's half the price. I guess it wouldn't be asphalt
gutter, just asphalt curb.
Councilman Boyt: Wouldn't it be better to put this money in some '
Y kind of an
escrow account and not build any curbing rather than build $2.50 curbing that
isn't what our standard requires and is going to get torn out?
Mayor Chniel: Let me ask a question before we continue with discussion. If [ii
this is a variance, of which we've all indicated, should this not go back to the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments?
12 '
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
R og er Knutson: If it's a variance from the standards of your ordinance, yes.
Councilman Boyt: It doesn't have to though.
Councilman Johnson: As a condition of the conditional use permit is it also a
' variance?
Roger Knutson: No.
' Councilman Johnson: We can give a condition as part of a conditional use permit
that in effect grants a variance. If we say no curb and gutter is a condition
of the conditional use permit and our ordinance says you have to have curb and
' gutter, then what we've done is grant a variance without going through the
variance procedure. Is that legal? You're on the hot seat tonight. That's 2
in a row for you.
' Roger Knutson: The short answer is under your established procedures, no.
Could you accomplish that with changed procedures, yes.
' Councilman Johnson: Not tonight?
Roger Knutson: Not tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: So it would have to go back to the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals.
Councilman Workman: How much curb are we looking at here? All the way up the
drive?
Gary Warren: Throughout the internal parking area.
•
Councilman Workman: All the way up to the outside storage and everywhere else?
' Councilman Johnson: We're not doing it on the driveway?
' Gary Warren: No.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, I thought you said just the internal parking area.
' Councilman Workman: Is this lot, is future development going to sit kind of by
itself? There's not going to be a thru road here? I mean this is going to be
his personal driveway in future development?
' Gary Warren: That's a hard questi.on to answer. I think it's up to the
developer I guess how he would deal with it but the parcel, the way the lines
' show I guess on a half section map, show that the Lake Drive extension would
come close to the southerly limits of this parcel. I think it's a ways yet
south and I know Opus probably would be interested, if they're ready to go ahead
with their plans and probably just getting rid of this exception and being able
11 to deal with this whole parcel from Audubon Road east of CR 17 as one big chunk.
Councilman Workman: Who owns this parcel? You don't own this parcel?
13
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Dave Stockdale: I'm in the process of buying it. I've got a purchase agreement
on it.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't this Jim McMahon who owns this property?
Councilman Workman: This is that little farm that I've been driving by for
about 25 years isn't it?
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Workman: Right before the old bridge. I don't know, maybe we're
going back, maybe I don't need to blow any spoke here but I'm not in favor of
the asphalt curb at all. What exactly are we going to be doing out there?
Dave Stockdale: I'm a landscape contractor. We specialize in landscape
construction. Retaining walls. Hard goods like that. We store our equipment '
and some materials on site. My foremen come and pick up the trucks and go out
in the field...
Councilman Workman: Cold storage isn't refrigeration?
Dave Stockdale: No, outside storage. There's an area on the southeast corner
...buildings on the north and the farmhouse on the west. Additional screening
will be provided in that southeast corner of the building area for storing my
trucks and what not. My foreman would drive there and park their personal
vehicles and like I said drive out into the field.
Councilman Workman: Doing what you're doing now from your home?
Dave Stockdale: No, right now I've got very cramped space in south Minneapolis. '
Last fall I applied and was granted a conditional use permit to develop some
residential property on Galpin Blvd. adjacent to my personal residence. I
haven't built on that yet.
Councilman Workman: Are you moving all that from there to here?
Dave Stockdale: I'm moving somewhere. I'm moving from Minneapolis either to
the property adjacent to my house or to Audubon Road.
Councilman Workman: So you haven't moved to Galpin yet? '
Dave Stockdale: No. There's a fair amount of construction involved in that.
My preference to put it in an area zoned appropriate for the use. I get some
higher funding costs on the property probably because of the zoning. I already •-
own free and clear the other land so there's the balance.
Councilwoman Dimler: If there's no further questions, do you have more '
questions Tom?
Councilman Workman: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: In order to move this along, we have a motion on the floor
that's been seconded. I would recommend or suggest that we defeat that one and
LII
then go through another motion to send this to the Board of Adjustments and
14 '
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
_ Appeals.
Mayor Chmiel: Or would you just assume withdraw your motion?
Councilman Boyt: Sure.
' Mayor Chmiel: And would you withdraw your second?
Councilman Boyt: I'm trying to remember what the motion was. I didn't remember
one being there.
Councilman Johnson: We don't have a motion and a second on this one. That was
on the last issue. There's no motion on this one yet.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes there was. There was a second. Tom had the first one. He
' seconded Bill's and then that was withdrawn and then he made the motion again.
You seconded that.
Councilman Johnson: We passed that one. That was the last time.
Councilman Workman: That was Chanhassen Hills.
' Councilman Johnson: It doesn't matter. I'll withdraw my second.
Mayor. Chmiel: Thank you. Do I hear a motion on the floor?
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say one more thing on discussion here. The
removal of this as a horse ranch. No horses will be kept here anymore right?
' Dave Stockdale: No.
Councilman Johnson: Because that should be a condition here too. This also
'
removes one source of pollution to the Riley chain of lakes which is an addi
tional advantage of bring this in here. Those horses are going to move to the
next town over, Victoria and Victoria will have than fertilizing. So I think
this is an improvement in that respect. The City is gaining something by Jim
moving his horses and the City's gaining something by not constructing out on
Galpin. I really still think that he deserves not to, I'd like to say concrete
curb and gutter when Opus develops maybe... When Lake Drive East is put in or
t that type. Or when this is subdivided because this will probably get subdivided
or another use eventually. When Lake Drive West comes in...
Councilwoman Dimler: It's already in the ordinance isn't it?
Councilman Johnson: No. See I don't have, in this case, isolated by itself but
when further development occurs out there, it should meet the same criteria as
' the new development has to have. That may be 2 years, it may be 4 years but I
think it's premature to do it right now because what we're talking about is a
horse farm. And the horse farm is going to have the horses removed and a
cleaner industry put in as long as he doesn't spill his fertilizer.
Dave Stockdale: We don't handle those products.
It--
Mayor Chmiel: Let's move this one.
1 15
-City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Workman seconded to refer the Conditional Use
Permit request for a contractor's yard and screened outdoor storage for Dave
Stockdale to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: I would request that they receive a copy of the relevant
Minutes.
E. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REED'S ORCHARD RIDGE, GARY REED. 1
Councilman Boyt: When we discussed (e) and you might have seen it in your
Minutes, there was a condition of development that would require an 8 foot wide '
trail over the existing road. I don't see that drawn in on the subdivision map
and I think it needs to be, we need to put a condition into our approval of the
preliminary plat that requires that that 8 foot wide pathway be included.
Remember that Gary?
Gary Reed: I remember that but that was part of HSZ development.
Jo Ann Olsen: That's already been provided.
Gary Reed: It's on their map which has already been approved I think. 1
Councilman Boyt: Doesn't it come out the end of the cul-de-sac here? Have
I got that turned around?
Councilman Johnson: Where the cul-de-sac starts is 64th Street. It runs u '
that property line. p
Councilman Boyt: And that's all on their property Gary?
Gary Reed: Being that we vacated the street, it would probably go back,
probably include it on both properties.
Councilman Johnson: I think we should check to see if it was a condition of the
vacation. If it was a condition of the vacation, then that should be on both
properties. Part of the property you gain and the part of the property they
gain. If it was a condition of the HSZ site approval, then they're totally
responsible for it. But it was a condition of one or the other. We vacated the
property and we approved it and I don't remember which it was a condition of.
Councilman Boyt: That was my only concern was I just wanted to be sure that we
had that trail on whichever land plat it needed to be on.
Gary Reed: I know it's still on Roger's.
Jo Ann Olsen: I checked with Lori too. ink already have it.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, very good. I would move approval of item 1(e) .
Councilman Johnson: Are you going to put a mention of the trail, a condition
that the trail should be looked into to insure that it doesn't have to be on
this property?
16 '
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Jo Ann just assured me that we already had it.
Ii
Councilman Boyt moved,ved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Preliminary
' Plat for Reed's Orchard Ridge as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
' F. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITION ONTO AN EXISTING PRIVATE GARAGE, FORTIER
AND ASSOCIATES.
' Councilman Boyt: We get back to curb and gutter again and a couple other
issues. First thing, I would recommend that we reinstall the condition 1 that
the Planning Commission removed. Condition 1 as presented to the Planning
Commission was that the garage will only be used for storage and there shall not
' be any maintenance or repair of automobiles within the new facility. My reason
for reinstituting that is because these plans were not reviewed with a service
establishment in mind. They do not have the protections that we'd have if we
' were talking about an establishment that was going to be servicing. Protections
for the environment and any number of other things that we'd be concerned about.
I'd like to see that one reinstalled. Then I'd like to see a condition added
that, they're talking about removing 6 to 7 mature hardwoods. In the past when
we have removed hardwoods in the 10-12 inch range, we've asked for those to be
replaced on a comparable caliper inch trees, 4 inches or greater in caliper so
if they cut down a 12 inch tree, they'd be responsible for replanting 3-4 inch
' # caliper trees. That works two ways. One, it keeps us with a substantial forest
and the other thing is it makes it an economic question for the developer as to
whether they'll remove those trees. Then on the curb and gutter, the curb and
' gutter is required here. Should be required here. It was removed and I would
recommend that we put it back in. That follows a discussion with Gary so I
think we need to do that. So I would have 3 conditions that I would
'
recommending. One, no maintenance or repair of automobiles. Two, replacement
of hardwoods with our normal caliper inch standard. Three, curb and gutter. We
have historically used expansions of operations to upgrade those to zoning
requirements and this is our chance to do that here. He talks about access
' issues, we may very well want him to be able to provide some curb cuts in that
someplace so he can access it without having to roll over the curb like we would
at the end of a block in the City.
iCouncilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to have Gary address condition 4 since
he's to determine if they're necessary.
' Gary Warren: On the curbs?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Gary Warren: Well you're definitely in an urbanized area in this location with
storm sewer throughout the subdivision and also the applicant is proposing to
extend the storm sewer across his property as a part of this proposal here so
that coupled with the fact that it is required in the zoning ordinance for that
was the reason why I recommended that it still be provided.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you.
1 17
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 ,'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Boyt: Well we really don't have a motion but I'll make one. I so
move.
Councilman Johnson: Is the developer or anybody here?
Mayor Chmiel: Did you second Jay?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Jo Ann Olsen: He's out of town.
Councilman Workman: The Planning Commission took out...
Mayor Chmiel: Condition number 1.
Councilman Workman: Where's 2? Was 2 taken out?
Councilman Boyt: It became 1.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, but they changed it from the caliper inch. '
Councilman Boyt: So I re-established that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could we have Steve flrmi.ngs address that since he's here? I
Mayor Chmiel: Steve, if you'd like to address that. Why you left out item 1.
Steve IInmin '
s: I don't specifically
g peci_fically remember. I guess you'd have to refer to
the Minutes because I don't really remember the discussion. I think it had to
do with maybe Daryl's comments that it was being built for storage only and
they're not asking for any facilities such as drains or anything like that. We
told him at that time that if there were any changes of course he'd have to come
back before us and then we'd.. .but I don't see any problem in approving it. It
makes it very clear that what they say they're going to be doing... As far as
the trees go, I recall there was some confusion about putting in a caliper inch
basis so we just made an overall thing that there had to be something that was
recommended by staff... '
Councilman Johnson: On curb and gutter here, this is a totally different
situation. When this moved in, this was kind of the first thing back there.
All the streets weren't totally developed yet. They developed out the streets
now. The next door neighbors are moving in. We have development moving in all
around them. They should meet the same standards that the guy across the street
is having to put in. When he comes in and asks for a change, that's when you
bring him up to standard. Same way with an older business. When they first
built, they didn't have to put in the fire sprinklers. They come in to add onto
the building, the entire building must be fire sprinklered. The comparison here
is when they first built, we didn't require them to put in the curb and gutter.
They were out by themselves. Now they're asking for a change, they come up to
standards. I'm a little concerned personally where it looks like we're taking a
settling area and reducing it's size. I'm not sure what's going on here. Down
18 1
•
l 5
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
there where they're removing the pond.
I
4 Gary Warren: West end?
114
Councilman Johnson: It's going from the east end to the west end. Was there an
outlet to that?
Gary Warren: There's a general swale area through there right now and as a part
of the Park One project, the storm system was stubbed out eventually to receive
' this area. He is providing sedimentation basin on the northwest corner of that
property.
' Councilman Johnson: So all of his water flow will be to that sedimentation
basin?
Gary Warren: Not all of it, no. It's split.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so some of that will go to that sedimentation basin
and then there's an outlet going to the storm sewer system.
Gary Warren: Right and then the City has a sedimentation basin within the
internal parts of Park One.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have in the design of the sedimentation basin, is the
outlet got the gas, oil separator?
Gary Warren: Now are you talking sanitary or storm sewer?
Councilman Johnson: The storm sewer.
' Gary War_r_en: There's no provisions for that.
' Councilman Johnson: Like we did at SuperAmerica.
Gary Warren: Right. No provisions for that because it was stated, and this
relates maybe to Bill's comment here that there was no maintenance going to be
' done of vehicles. It's strictly storage use.
Councilman Johnson: Storage of vehicles with gasoline in them.
' Gary Warren: Right, just like a garage.
Councilman Johnson: Even as such, the potential is there that we're going to be
' spilling flammables as they fill a vehicle with a can or whatever they're going
to do. You tell me there's no maintenance on there. Does Fortier's own all the
vehicles that are going to be there?
' Gary Warren: It's Frank Beddor is the actual applicant.
I! Councilman Johnson: Okay, does he own all these vehicles or is this a club?
Gary Warren: I believe it's in the Minutes, he's in a club. I'm not speaking
completely on this but that's what they have told me.
' 19
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Policing of this, that there will be no maintenance in
there will be impossible. I don't care how many promises you're made right now,
if that guy's got his Porsche or whatever parked in there and on Saturday
afternoon he wants to go change the oil, he's not going to drive it home and
change the oil. He's going to go in the garage where he's got it stored, he's
going to crawl under there and change the oil.
Mayor Chmiel: If he owns a Porsche, he'll probably take it to the Standard.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but he owns it because he loves to tinker with it. I
think we need to, any other place where we think there's a chance for spillage,
other parking lots where there's going to be vehicles, I think we ought to do
that. '
Councilman Boyt: What do you want to do?
Councilman Johnson: Add the separators for the flammables. The separators like '
we did with SuperAmerica up there at TH 7 and TH 41 on the outlet to the pond.
Councilman Boyt: What are we talking moneywise? '
Gary Warren: $1,000.00 maybe more.
Councilman Johnson: That's a pretty shall pond. We're not talking a huge 1
outlet here. 15 inch.
Mayor Chmiel: But still. I guess I just don't feel that that would be a I
necessary kind of it to have attached to it. I think by having that
particular condition and of course if anyone ever done have that, then I think
it's time for us to take action and have something done. '
Councilman Johnson: Will these garages have floor drains or anything in them or
just flat slabs?
Jo Ann Olsen: The first garage does have a floor drain. The second ara e will
not.
g g
Gary Warren: Slab on grade.
Councilman Johnson: Because they do maintenance in the first garage. Lifts and
everything. Do they plan to rent storage tanks in that first garage?
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know if they do.
Councilman Johnson: For their oil. I know they have a gas pump. They dispense "
gasoline on site but we don't want to put a flammable trap in.
Mayor. Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. With the addition
of the 3 additional items as Bill has indicated.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Site - '
pp Plan X89 3
for the construction of a 2,920 sq. ft. garage facility as shown on Site Plan
dated June 8, 1989 with the following conditions:
20 '
97
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
IT-
1 1. Additional landscaping shall be provided on a caliper per caliper basis to
replace the hardwood trees that will be removed as part of the garage and
storm sewer construction.
' 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 transport flatbed which
shall be stored between the two garages.
4. Site plan approval for proposed garage #1 only - any additional buildings
will need future approvals.
5. Developer to supply hydraulic calculations for review.
6. Preservation of the hardwood trees along the west and north lot lines.
' 7. All parking and driveway areas shall be paved and surrounded by concrete
curb and gutter only if now or in the future the City Engineer determines
that they are necessary.
8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a drainage and
erosion control plan prior to final approval.
111 9. The garage will only be used for storage and there shall not be any
maintenance or repair of automobiles within the new facility.
' All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried
by a of 4 to 1.
VISITORS PRESENTATIONS:
Bob Robb: My name is Bob Robb and I am a resident of 1261 Lake Susan Hills
Drive. I guess I would propose both some questions and a statement in my
speech. My topic concerns the sidewalk changes in the Joe Miller development.
I guess to go back a ways, I signed a purchase agreement back in October of 1988
being told where the sidewalk was to run which was to be on the north side of
' Lake Susan Hills Drive. We had picked out a lot on that north side, discovered
the sidewalk was going to be there. Did not want to be on the side where there
was a sidewalk present so we moved to the opposite side of the street costing us
another $2,000.00 for the lot but that was something we would live with. Just
this last week I found that the sidewalk had been moved to our side of the
street. Not only did I find that there was a sidewalk going to be placed there
but I found that the sidewalk was 6 feet wide. Needless to say, we were very
upset because when we were informed, when we signed the purchase agreement, the
sidewalk was on the opposite side of the street and so on and I assumed that
when Joe Miller did all of his homework and everything was all okayed by the
City and so on and so forth, that that was the way it was going to be. I've had
I guess mixed stories from the city people that I've talked to. They blame Joe
Miller_. Joe Miller, I talked to him personally and he said oh no, it's not my
fault. The City explained to me, they told me that the reason the sidewalk had
' to be moved to the south side was because of the development on the east side of
21
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
CR 17 and this was because the hydrants and electrical boxes or whatever--were
not placed in a manner that there could be room to place this 6 foot sidewalk.
They told me that this was Joe Miller's responsibility. I said okay, I'll talk
to Joe Miller. I called him and he said wait a minute. He said you mean to
tell me that I can decide where to place the hydrants and where to place this
and that and I said, well I'm only going by what the City had told me Joe. He
said well that's incorrect. So I guess what I'm saying is, if these hydrants
and electrical boxes were all pre-approved, somebody screwed up. We as the
people on the south side of the street, and I'm not the only one, on the west
side of CR 17 there are only 3 houses on the west side of CR 17 currently on
that south side of that street 2 of which are occupied. One of which will be
occupied this month. He did the same thing as I did. He moved to the south
side. Paid the extra money for the lot because he did not wany any part of the
sidewalk. Like I said, to elaborate further, that 6 foot sidewalk in my mind is
a racetrack. I've looked all over the city of Chanhassen, I have not yet found
another 6 foot sidewalk other than maybe a bike path or something of this
nature. The way I've got it figured, I'm losing and I know somebody's going to
jump on me as soon as I say it but I'm losing 980 square feet of my lot to begin
with and yes, I realize that the first 13 feet are city property but who mows
that? Who waters it and so on and so forth? I do. I was also informed that
the sidewalk, not only would it be 6 feet wide, but there is another 6 foot gap
between the curb to where that sidewalk starts. So it could be up to, I could
lose up to roughly 2,000 square feet of my yard. I was told by the city that
the reason for this 6 foot sidewalk was for equipment purposes so that I'm
assuming a front end snow plow on a pick-up or something can come in. I've been
involved in something like this before and I could probably count on my left
hand the amount of times that I've seen a vehicle come in and plow that. It
ends up being done by the people who live along that sidewalk and I'll be darn
if I'm going to shovel a 6 feet wide of sidewalk on 164 foot frontage of my lot.
If that's the case, I can send a bill or whatever. The other thing is, I plan
on putting in a sprinkler system. Now I went back to the people after finding
this out, it's going to cost me a considerable amount of money in addition to
set this sprinkler system in because I have to dig 4 trenches underneath a 6
foot sidewalk to get sprinkler heads out. This is all, like I say, I'm basing
this all on signing my purchase agreement knowing that there was not a sidewalk
going to be in. In fact, my neighbor across the street who closed Memorial
weekend signed an amendment or an addendum or whatever you want to call it
knowing, stating that he knew a sidewalk was going to be coming in. Not only
are the people on my side of the street upset because they are getting a
sidewalk that they hadn't planned on, there are also people on the other side of
the street that wanted the sidewalk. Have children, so on and so forth, that
wanted the sidewalk that are now not going to have one. Am I right in this 6
foot sidewalk?
Councilman Johnson: We'll have to look into this.
Councilman Boyt: We just got a letter in the Admin pack that said it had been '
changed from 5 to 6 feet and I had similar questions to some of the ones you
raised.
Bob Robb: Yes, that's ridiculous. 6 feet sidewalks to begin with. Now I can I
see it, in fact I think there's one right out here is the asphalt for a bike
path and so on but this isn't going to be a bike path.
22 '
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
'.� Councilman Johnson: It leads to a park but it's not going to be necessarily a
bike path.
Councilman Boyt: It's designed to be a residential sidewalk. It wasn't
designed to be like what we have on Kerber Blvd..
Bob Robb: And if that is the situation, that is the reason why the sidewalk was
moved from one side of the road to the other, that's not my fault that somebody
screwed up in the planning of the hydrants and of the electrical boxes or
' whatever but I was also informed that since it had to be changed to the south
side, and we've got a lot of directions here but to the south side of Lake Susan
Hills Drive. On the east side of CR 17 it had to be, what's the word I'm
' looking for, it also had to be on the south side on the opposite side of the
road because they pose it as a safety hazard for crossing two roads.
Councilman Boyt: Can I ask some questions?
Bob Robb: Go ahead.
Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe Gary can address this first.
Gary Warren: I know that between Alan Larson of my staff and Lori, there's been
' discussions and discussion with Joe Miller as far as location of the sidewalk.
All the details, I've only had some preliminary discussions with him as far as
if they had some conflicts out there with the utilities that were already in,
hydrants, etc. and I didn't know what the final resolution was. I didn't know
I l that they had made a final decision on it in all honesty and I guess I'd like to
take a look into it and see what the real situation is but I know the conflicts
were one reason for considering the other routing. With the sidewalk, I think
it just points up the need maybe that we need a sidewalk policy in general.
Maintenance. Repairs in the future. We had challenges trying to get sidewalks
in, especially in 50 foot right-of-way areas that we need to address. Maybe the
' whole right-of-way issue for the City here where streets ought to be 60 feet
rural and urban instead of 50-60 because we do get more flexibility for locating
these sidewalks and we do have a little more right-of-way to work with where we
can get around hydrants. We've got the utility companies that the contractor
' provides for getting NSP or Minnesota Valley, cable TV, telephone. They put it
in on the side, they all try to gang up on one side or the other. Basically
that's coordinated through the developer. We try to keep them on one side so
we've got flexibility to put trails on the other. side but we don't like to get a
concrete walk on top of all of the utilities either.
' Bob Robb: Well that may be the problem in our particular side because we
already have the fire hydrants and the electrical boxes on the south side of
Lake Susan Hills Drive and I've stepped it off many times and there's a lot of
people that are going to lose a lot of lot frontage for one thing but I don't
know how that sidewalk, if it is indeed 6 feet, how you're going to arrange that
because your hydrant may be sitting here and your electrical box may be 2 or
ever 3 feet off of that. That was one of the things when I bought, I knew where
the hydrants were going to be and all this and that and that was something that
I was going to live with versus being on the side with the sidewalk.
Councilman Boyt: Can I suggest that we do bring this back and give staff a
chance to look at it. I think you've raised several very good issues.
' 23
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
1
Councilman Johnson: While Staff is looking at this, I'd like them to take into
consideration that having a sidewalk on the south side of the street leading to
a park to where when they get to the park they have to cross the street to get
into the park is, in my opinion, how do I say this nicely? Well, idiotic. We
put sidewalks for safety purposes. I don't want the kids crossing the street to
get to the park. That's why we put it on the north side, or whatever side we
put it on.
Bob Robb: Can I ask where the park is? Is that the Lake Susan Park?
Councilman Boyt: No. Your development has, I think it's 4 or maybe 5 separate
park areas. '
Bob Robb: Okay, now I know where the proposed park is, yes and that is on the
north side.
Councilman Johnson: On the north side?
Bob Robb: Well Lake Susan kind of runs at a curve so it's actually going to be
on the west side of the curve.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, I thought you were on the other side of Lake Susan.
Went down. Okay.
Bob Robb: I'm on the west side of CR 17.
Councilman Johnson: You're on the west side of CR 17. There's going to be
park on the north and the south. I was thinking this sidewalk would lead to the
south park but either way, if it's on the...
Bob Robb: Where is the south park may I ask?
Jo Ann Olsen: Way on the south. '
Councilman Johnson: Way, way south. So this is going to be the one up by the
apartments? '
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: So it would have to be on the north side to lead to those
apartments.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's do this. Can you review this? '
Gary Warren: I will leave direction tomorrow with the contractor that no
sidewalk is to be installed until we bring it to the Council at our next
meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Also, get back to Mr. Robb and let him know.
Gary Warren: We will certainly talk to him as a part of the process.
24 '
101
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Boyt: One of the things though that's not debateable is whether or
not we're having a sidewalk because that's part of the PUD agreement. So on
one side or the other there's going to be a sidewalk in there.
Councilman Workman: I guess this is part of a larger discussion that we've had
' as the new Council in that we've said, people, if it's a new development and we
say there's going to be sidewalks in there, it's not going to be a problem.
We're not going to have to decide and it's not going to be a problem versus
older neighborhoods and here we are in pretty blatant...
Bob Robb: I guess it didn't start out as a problem to me finding out where the
sidewalk was initially but after I had paid the additional money and so on and
so forth to get away from that, finding out it was going to be moved, needless
to say, I was upset.
Councilman Workman: I think sidewalks are a high impact thing. Some people
' don't think they're hot versus they're functional, etc. but I find them to be
very high impact and some people have a problem with them. And you said that
people across the street want the thing.
' Bob Robb: Some do. Some don't.
' Councilman Workman: ...but it just points out that sidewalks are, and we've had
that debate and we're going to continue to rage on that it is a problem and this
seems to be kind of a major.
Bob Robb: I guess the thing is that everybody signed their purchase agreement,
I think I was one of the first ones to sign a purchase agreement out there and I
knew where the sidewalk was. Had I signed the purchase agreement moving onto
' the north side, I was knowing that there was going to be a sidewalk there so
everybody knew where it was going to be initially. Now all of a sudden there's
a change.
Councilman Johnson: It shouldn't be moving.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. What we'll do is get back to staff. Staff will also
' notify you and keep you informed. We appreciate the fact that you did come in.
Are there any additional visitor presentations?
Mark Senn: My name is Mark Senn, 174 West Lake Street, Excelsior. I wanted to
come before you tonight just to run a quick idea or a concept by you. Some time
' ago now through the urging of a friend of Mr. Art Owens, we undertook some
discussions with him in relationship to his property down by Pleasant View.
After some discussions with Mr. Owens we then undertook some discussions with
staff and basically what we're talking about doing down there would necessitate
' a grading permit which would need to come before the Council on the 26th of this
month. But given the fact, I guess two things. One is the fact that we didn't
want to really surprise anybody on the 26th or upset anybody. Secondly, given
I! the fact that we'd have to undertake a fair amount of expense between now and
the 26th to do this, we just wanted to come in and get a feeling from the Mayor
and the Council as to the acceptability of what we're looking at doing. We have
a project in the neighboring community of Shorewood which we undertook
' development on some time ago. In the process of that development, we ran into a
' 25
,y
ICi ty Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
fair amount of soil on the site which contained some gasoline product. The soil II
itself, the real bad stuff has basically been treated and dealt with. There was
ii
some questionable soil that was basically stockpiled on the site and in fact has
been stored and moved around on the site now for about the last year. What the
MPCA is requesting, or suggesting that we do is take that soil and simply at
this point spread it out about 4 to 6 inches in depth and in about 2 to 3 months
it will simply aerate clean. Again, the only product in the soil is some I
gasoline product. I mean there's no toxics. There's no contaminants beyond
that one way or the other. The reason we hooked up with Mr. Owens was in effect
through a friend of his who contacted us. The reason he contacted us was I
I
think Mr. Owens was in effect looking for somebody to come in and do his grading
and all that sort of thing for him. So our discussions basically focused
around, we would come in and do Mr. Owens' grading of the fill that's already on
his site and then just basically spread this over the top of it at which point I
he would plant it at the end of the season which would be very acceptable to the
soil, like I say in about 2 to 3 months. The situation is that in discussion
with things with staff, we'll need to prepare a grading and drainage plan for II
Mr. Owens property as well as a number of different permits and all that sort of
thing. We have no problems with doing that and would be happy to undertake it
on his behalf in relationship to that but again we really don't want to go
II
through all that expense if somebody is going to be upset in effect with the
concept. Instead of going ahead and doing it so I just thought I'd come in and
talk to you about it tonight and see what kind of comments we got back and go
from there. One thing I should mention is nothing will happen on this one way II
or another without the specific written authorization of the MPCA. In a sense
that's been covered off with the discussions we've had with staff. Neither we
nor staff want to proceed on anything unless it's basically totally approved. ,
The MPCA has already met out on the site with our environmental consultants and
all that at this point and they don't seem to perceive that there are any real
problems with it. In effect like I say all it really needs is some type of a
II
reasonably open area that the soil can basically be spread on. The
attractiveness of this site is it's probably within about a mile of the site
soils on that so it's very easy to move it that short distance and just spread
it out. The process we go through would be to in effect move soil there, spread II
it out 4 to 6 inches deep after we grade the existing fill he has on his
property. After that we'd come back, probably once or twice over this 2 to 3
month period and run an aerator in effect through the soil basically just to
II
turn it. Basically almost instanteously as soon as the soil is in effect
exposed to the air it purifies.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have a couple questions. Where did this soil come from II
number one? Number two, how many cubic yards are we talking about?
Mark Senn: The soil is coming from a site in Shorewood right off CR 19 and it's I
less than 500 cubic yards so it really doesn't take much of an area to spread it
out.
Councilman Johnson: Do you know what the concentrations are? The types of II
gasolines, etc.?
Mark Senn: Yes, that's all in our consultant's reports and the PCA reports. '
Honestly I'm not a technician but we basically have been assured by both the
PCA and by the consultants that it's just basically gasoline product. In fact
the gasoline product that was stored on the site was really before lead free
26
II
ma
w 2
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
even existed so there's not even any lead concentrations or anything -like that.
Councilman Johnson: It's leaded then? Lead free doesn't have lead. It has
't some worse stuff in it. Gasoline is not, you say just gasoline. Gasoline is
not toxic. I won't drink it.
Mar_k Senn: The point is it's been on that site I guess for a long time. We
just purchased the site within the last couple years but what I'm saying is in
the test it shows that there are no concentrations of lead or metals or anything
' like that. In effect it's just the by product of what was liquid petroleum.
Mayor Chmiel: Is this the FINA site that's located there? There was a previous
' gas station on CR 19?
Mark Senn: Yes. It used to be the old Village Pump site.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question on future development. Can you
elaborate on what effects this will have for future development?
tMark Senn: In relationship to Mr. Owens' property?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Mark Senn: None at all. I don't know what exactly Mr. Owens intentions are but
what he's asked us to do in effect is to, like I say to grade out the fill that
he has on the property there so it tapers from the outside perameters of his and
his neighbors property basically toward the silt ponding area. In the process
of grading that all out, we just take this stuff and spread it on top like I say
about 4 to 6 inches thick. But like I say, within about 2 to 3 months it's just
regular dirt. Again, as soon as gasoline is exposed to the air, it evaporates.
Councilman Johnson: Actually the clay will retain the gasoline forever.. .
' Mark Senn: It's not clay material. It's just basically dirt material.
Councilman Johnson: There is clay. Anyway, Art has preliminary plat. I don't
' think he has final yet on housing in this area. You also need permission from
the Watershed District before you do this too. I have a feeling, won't he need
a Watershed permit?
Jo Ann Olsen: For the grading you're talking about?
' Councilman Johnson: Right.
Jo Ann Olsen: I'm not sure they would have to.
Mayor. Chmiel: With that small pond that he has there, I can remember sometime
there were some cattails in an adjacent, how can he fill that without even
getting a 401 permit from the Corps of Engineers?
I! Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know the history of that.
Gary Warren: It's not protected water.
' 27
=`Ci.ty Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 1
Jo Ann Olsen: It's not on the protected wetland although Paul Burke has been by
there recently and has said that it is a wetland.
Mayor Chmiel: The wetland is my concern.
Mark Senn: Don, maybe I could clarify that. We aren't filling the pond. In
fact there will be specific barriers set up around the pond so we're not going '
to impact it at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Some of that pond has already been filled in.
Mark Senn: That I don't know. I'm just saying, when we met out there with
staff and everything else, that was a concern and we are basically going to
erect a barrier around the pond and go up to the barrier because from my
understanding from Mr. Owens, he also did not want to impact the pond.
Councilman Workman: There was a City problem there or something with some drain
tile or some crushed drain tile. What is the reason we're filling?
Gary Warren: We are not filling.
Councilman Workman: But wasn't the City involved there somehow?
Gary Warren: When the north service area, the way it's been explained to me,
the north service area project, when the sewer and water project was constructed
in that area, apparently that was basically a dry area. It was dry because of a
drain tile, the way it's been alleged, that was operating to drain that to the
11!
pond just near Lake Lucy Road and Powers Blvd.. Apparently the drain tile was
broken such that it didn't flow. Shortly after I cache in in 1987, I know that
Jerry Schlenk and public works, we installed a pipe out there to basically
drain, provide an outlet for that area so from the north service area
construction time until the outlet was established, that's when it basically
turned into a ponding area and a wetland so to speak. There's a little back
slope, the way Art explains it, in their outlet. '
Mayor Chmiel: That was always a wetland. You bet. In the years that I can
remember. '
Councilman Boyt: The City is draining a wetland?
Gary Warren: It's just an overflow. We're not draining it.
Councilman Boyt: So there is a wetland there?
Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes, last year it was sort of dry because of the drought.
Councilman Johnson: Did he get a wetland alteration permit as part of the
preliminary plat because I know we discussed that wetland?
Gary Warren: He had it included in his grading plan and the concept for
development I think built around that and he had proposed doing a lot of fill IF
down there as a part of that preliminary plat but as you're aware, he never came
in to final plat it because of his difficulties right now.
28
105
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
' T Councilman Johnson: So the preliminary plat's gone?
Gary Warren: Well the clock is ticking. I think it goes to July something
isn't it Jo Ann? And based on what he's told me, I think he's going to let the
preliminary plat expire.
' Councilman Boyt: Have you checked to see if the wetland has been altered?
Councilman Johnson: Oh yes.
' Mayor Chmi_el: Yes, I'd like to find that out.
Councilman Boyt: It has been altered? Well then we need to have a permit for.
alteration or we need to get it out of there.
Gary Warren: He's on notice from us. The fill was not done with the proper
' permit either and we've been going around with him on that to get signed up and
this actually became a vehicle wherein Mr. Senn was going to be pulling a permit
so we could kind of get the site back under control. Art needs to do some
' grading from the material that's stockpiled there. There's some bituminous that
needs to be removed and then he also needs some blackdirt top dressing which is
what this ultimately would be for seeding and stabilizing the site.
' Councilman Boyt: Can we sort of recharge the wetland, clean that up as a part
of this?
Gary Warren: I'd be interested to know really how much if any was encroached
' out there. The tree water area I don't believe was encroached on.
Councilman Boyt: Well but that's not the wetland. You know we're talking 75
' feet out from that.
Gary Warren: In that area, it probably has.
' Councilman Boyt: So there's two things that when you bring this back, number
one for me, you'd have to notify all the neighbors that you're going to do this
and get response because if we're going to have gasoline evaporating, we're
going to have people wondering where is the odor coming from. So we've got to
do a good job of checking with them, notifying them that we're going to do this.
The second one is, I'd sure like somebody to tell me what's going on with the
wetland.
Councilman Johnson: Require a wetland alteration permit before any of this is
' done. That's a public hearing. We're talking quite a ways. What are you
looking at from us at this time?
' Mark Senn: My understanding was we needed to in effect just apply for the
grading permit. To do that we needed to engineer in effect a grading and
drainage plan which we would do. Apply for the permit and that would be on the
Council's 26th agenda. In a similar relationship to that, public notice would
be given but in relationship to your other question, over there Bill is
basically the MPCA has a very specific list of criteria in terms of distance
from things and everything else so there aren' t affects that are brought on by
things like the odors or whatever and any site you go do this on has to meet
29
�C�rtp Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
that specific list of criteria to get that approval in the first place. That's
not to mean that there may not be some stray but what I'm saying is their-
criteria in effect mini_mi.zes all that as much as possible.
Councilman Johnson: We have a wetland alteration permit system in this town
which is a showcase wetland alteration permit throughout the State. One of the
toughest in the state and a lot of people compare us to than. Our permit
requires you to apply for that if you're going to spread this material and even
Art what he's been doing in the pest needs to come back and apply for it for
this wetland. That's going to go through Planning Commission. The public
hearings before Planning Commission before it's back to us. Minimum, what 2
months?
Mark Senn: Councilman Johnson, if I could, I honestly can't tell you what the
history on the site has been one way or the other in terms of wetland or not.
We are not going to impact the wetland. In fact we're going to be taking some
very specific measures not to impact it. That would be both part of our '
grading/drainage plan as well as the recommendations from our consultants.
We've already talked about that. We have no desire to do that or get into it
one way or the other. Again, I can't speak for the past as to what Mr. Owens
has done one way or another. We're just dealing with an existing situation out
there on ours.
Mayor Chmiel: And this could cause you more delay time too as far as your soil
is concerned.
Mark Senn: Yes. We're just basically trying to undertake this now. The
weather is right. In fact this is the time of the year you want to do it. It
cleans up very quickly and very easily.
Councilman Johnson: If you look at it, what I'm saying is, when you do your '
design, if you come within 75 foot of that wetlands with your modifications,
we're not exactly sure where that wetlands is, in my recollection, the wetland
is underneath where the fill is right now. Part of the wetland is there, then
you need a wetland alteration permit for what you're doing. You've got to go to
staff yet. You have to, we have nothing in front of us to say anything.
Mark Senn: We've met out on site several times with Dave Hanphill, and I don't
know, all I can tell you is that's never been an issue. Basically what we were
dealing with...
Councilman Johnson: Who's he?
Gary Warren: He's our new senior tech. I think we need to get out there and '
take a look at it and evaluate it.
Mark Senn: We want to work with you on it.
Gary Warren: It may require a lot.
Mark Senn: If there's something that Mr. Owens has done directly, I guess I'm '
saying we can't undo that one way or another. What we're trying to do is just
Lilmove in and take care of what he's already got.
30 '
•
107
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Workman: I received a call from Art Owens today. Talke e to him about
many different things and he is cooperative and whatever.
IMayor Chmiel: Thank you.
' AWARD OF BIDS: MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 88-2.
Gary Warren: It's relatively straight forward I believe. The project was
readvertised once the developer Mr. Carlson was able to get his financial house
in order here. We opened bids on April 10th and received a low bid of
$103,624.00 from B & D Underground of Mound, Minnesota. The bids were very
competitive. We feel comfortable with B & D Underground. We're familiar with
their work and we're therefore recommending approval contingent on filing of a
final plat and that has been signed, as you're aware Mr. Mayor today so Mr.
'
Carlson has indicated he'll probably be running that down tomorrow for
recording.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, that was one of the things that, my concern is that prior
to the approval of the plat must be registered with the County. Any other
discussion?
' Resolution #89-74: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
award the contract for the Mi.nnewashta Meadows Improvement Project No. 88-2 in
I the amount of $103,624.00 to B & D Underground, Inc. of Mound, Minnesota subject
to the developer recording the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO ALLOW A "FATHER-IN-LAW APARTMENT" ON PROPERTY ZONED
A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 8412 GREAT PLAINS BLVD., EUGENE KLEIN.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments reviewed this prior to the Council
meeting. They recommended approval with 2 conditions and I believe that they
were going to add another?
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we removed one of them so it really was only one
and then Bill had suggested another one.
Jo Ann Olsen: They added a condition that it not be used for rental property in
the future and there was discussion that it be stated that it only be used for
' Mr. Klein's father, Walter Terzich. Specify in a condition that the father.-in-
law apartment will only by used by Walter Terzich so it could not be, when the .-
property is sold, used as a rental property.
' Councilman Boyt: What we're doing is we're taking our option of making this a
temporary variance in this particular situation.
I! Councilman Johnson: This is the only legal situation to allow a temporary
variance?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
31
-Ci117 Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Roger Knutson: Temporary use of a single family home as a twin home. '
-
Councilman Boyt: What condition did you drop off of there?
Jo Ann Olsen: They kept staff's 2 conditions and then they had one that there
would be no access from the garage except through the residence.
Councilwoman Dimler: For safety concerns, yes. We felt we needed to have an
exit other than the main entrance.
Councilman Boyt: I would approval with the amendment to the conditions approved
by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals that the variance be temporary and the
occupancy limited to the individual mentioned in this case.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Prior to doing that, being this is a public hearing, is anyone
else who would like to address this specific issue?
Councilwoman Dimler: I also want to add the comment that I checked with
the Murphy's who are their neighbors and they're in complete agreement and I
think they'd like to see a family stay together as long as possible.
Al Klingelhutz: That's pretty much in my area and I don't see any problem with
it.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
11!
closed.
Councilman Boyt: I would move that we accept the recommendation of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals with the added condition that the variance be temporary '
and limited to the individual in question in this case.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second. '
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Variance #89-4 to
allow a father-in-law apartment above an attached two car garage located at 8412
Great Plains Blvd. subject to the following conditions:
1. The dwelling has an appearance of a single family dwelling including the
maintenance of one driveway and one main entry.
2. Separate utility services will not be established. '
3. The variance will be temporary and the occupancy limited to the individual
mentioned in this case.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to just add that this particular city ordinance i
needs I think careful investigation because as it stands right now, it limits
nothing. If you read it, it says all you have to do is demonstrate a
disability, an age or a financial hardship. I would suggest to you that those
32
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 109
basically allow anybody to move in as a second occupant and that's not-the
intention of the ordinance. The intention is just what we did tonight. It's
Ilnot to open up two unrelated families in the same household.
i
FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7307 LAREDO DRIVE, JUDY COLBY.
Leigh Colby: At the last meeting, just to recap the meeting, we're asking for a
variance to have a deck, extension of the garage underneath and the bulk of the
'
structure would be at the ground level. The portion that would not be at the
ground level would be behind a green barrier. A bunch of evergreen trees.
We're hoping to have this come to a vote tonight so that we can get approval to
' go ahead. I'd like to just make a few comments about that so that you have some
comfort level regarding how it fits in the neighborhood. First of all, the
people in the neighborhood think it's a good idea. In walking up here
' tonight, I brought a tape measurer and just took a look at some of the houses
along the way. The closest our house comes, the proposed extension would come
to the curb is about 30 feet. That's on the northwest corner. The southwest
corner would be about 36 feet back from the curb itself. The whole thing would
be behind an evergreen barrier that's about 15-16 feet in diameter. In walking
up here I took a look at the closest neighbor's house is 31 feet along the whole
length of his house from the curb. That's on the side and most of the proposed
' extension would actually be set back further than what his house is from the
street. So the point I'm trying to make in all of this and looking at some of
the other houses of which some were 27 feet from the curb. One was 29 feet and
this is further up now in the busy part of Laredo, is that I don't think anybody
really notices these sorts of things. I understand the reason for having the
variance, to prevent abuse but quite frankly I really don't think anybody
notices because they've all been tastefully done. I think in the absence of
' using a tape measurer, people would be hard pressed to know that they're that
close to the curb. So I'd like to ask the Council to just bring this to a vote.
I think it's certainly a reasonable request and the neighbors think a very
' tasetful request. Can you do that?
Mayor_ Chmiel: Thank you Leigh. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
address this at this time? If not, we'll bring it back here to the Council.
Who has any comments that they'd like to bring forth? I'm sort of interested in
you saying what the distances were on other homes. What specific ones were
those that you had just. ..
Leigh Colby: Sure, 7209 Frontier is the house that is parallel with our home.
It's our backyard, I guess you'd call that our backyard even though it's
'
probably the sideyard, and their backyard which literally is their backyard.
The houses aren't parallel. Their house is 31 feet from the curb, the whole
length and that's an upright. That's our of the ground. The proposed extension
that we're dealing with is at ground level. That's 36 feet from the curb on the
near side to 7209 Frontier so if you were to just stand up on the corner and
look, it's obvious that the Groen's house is substantially closer to the street.
It really is quite obvious. It's just an unusual layout the way the house.. .
7605 Laredo, which is just right down here is 27 feet from the curb. 521 Laredo
Lane, which is where Laredo Lane and Laredo Drive intersect, that's 29 feet from
Laredo Drive. The apartments right down here at Saratoga, the garage reaches
back 32 feet from the curb. None of them have the green barrier. Not a single
one of the addresses have any sort of a green barrier that we have and that's
' 33
Cz Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 '
part of our design for the privacy. So I think our request, even though you
won't hear me make any claims of hardships or anything like that, we're not
making those sorts of claims. We think it's a pretty straight forward request.
lir
A tasteful one that is consistent with the surrounding housing.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Leigh.
Councilman Johnson: I think when we look at this, some of the areas y ou
discussed are in a PUD, residential planned unit development
before any of us were on the Council and before some ofs even�lived, before
the majority of the Council lived in this town. These PUD's were approved. A
lot of times in these PUD's they did, one of the parts of the approval was to
allow the houses closer to the setback. That may be part of it. The zoning
ordinance has changed many times also. Several times since these were approved.
I don't like variances. I don't like the precedence they set. No matter what
you do, when everybody says mine is totally unique, somebody else comes in 6
months later and say's mine is the same. I'm at Carver Beach. I want to be 1
foot off the setback. The roads at Carver Beach only have a 30 foot wide
roadway instead of a 50 foot wide roadway so there's no real setback or there's
no city property. We end up with saying, well he got a variance of 19 feet, why
can't I? They end up right on top of the road. If this does et
tonight, there should be a condition in here that prohibits future bus ding on
top of this garage. Because once you've got that nice flat surface there, the
next logical thing is to add that extra master bedroom on top. It may not be
you, it might be the next person. You might be transferred to Denver next week
for all I know, if you want to go breathe that air. We have to make sure, and I
don't know how you would do that because a guy's going to come in and pull a
building permit and all I'm doing is building on top of my garage. More than
likely staff wouldn't catch that building. Since the garage is already there,
it must be legal to build on top of it 5 years, 10 years down the road. Now
you've got a house built there.
Leigh Colby: One of the questions that was kicked around by one of the council
members was considering they have somehow resolved is a sidewalk. If that were
done, the variance would be 1 foot on one corner and then the length of that
variance would be for about 5 feet and then literally it is within the side lot
conditions. It's really what we're dealing with here. I don' t have any plans
to build on top but I don't want to make it any bigger deal than what I think it
is. In effect we're asking for a side lot variance with a 1 foot extension out
into what would be considered city property and to run approximately 5 feet. I
would rather see you put a condition that there's a green barrier maintained of
15 to 20 feet or higher. To me if you would have taken the time to go down and
look at it, maybe you have.
Councilman Johnson: Of course we have.
Leigh Colby: Okay. I'm glad you have. I think you would see that that is I
probably a more effective way to deal with it aesthetically and very consistent
with the neighborhood. That's part of our plan so if that were a condition, we
would certainly welcome that. But if you want to deal with the problem, that Ils
really is, I think a much more aesthetic limitation to put on that piece of
property.
34
MI
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Johnson: If you declare this a sideyard, then you'd make it 19 foot
wide and then you don't have any variance and you're not even talking to us.
Leigh Colby: The reason why we want to make it the width that we have, and
that's perhaps a nice political solution but the practicality is that we've got
' a 16 foot wide door that's going on to match the 16 foot wide garage door we
already have but the reason for the width is that our current 16 foot wide door,
it widens up a foot on each side and it is a small garage. Garages are just not
generally built that size. They're usually just a couple feet wider. It's too
' small and that's the reason why the garage is built the way we proposed it. It
might, what you're saying is perhaps a good political solution but the last
thing I want to do is to avoid, just to avoid having one corner trigger a
' problem, is to end up with another garage that's just simple too small. I'm not
going to spend that much money and end up with a poor solution. Especially one
that really, it would have to be characterized as a di.minimous issue and I
' really think that you're forced to accept that there's some validity in my
statement on that.
Councilman Johnson: For 2 1/2 years I've stood pretty firm on variances. I'm
' going to stay where I've always been. You're going to have to show me a
hardship other. than I want it.
' Leigh Colby: Well I'm not claiming any hardships. I'm not going to play any
games on that.
Councilman Johnson: I'll pass onto the next.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom?
' Councilman Workman: I'm still listening Mr. Mayor.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Bill?
' Councilman Boyt: You know it's never easy and no one ever chooses to get into a
dispute with a neighbor. I think we see that from time to time with petition
signing and such that most people don't feel it's worth the repercussions. I
think the staff has cleared up the question about the covenants, plus that's not
the City's issue anyway.
' Leigh Colby: We've already gone around to more than a majority of the
homeowners so that's not an issue.
Councilman Boyt: The Covenants and the homeowners is a whole separate issue and
I think we both agree that that's a separate issue. As far as the City issue,
it's an interesting situation here in a lot of ways and one of them is, I know
you're a reasonable person making a reasonable request. I agree with Jay and I
appreciate your openness. I agree with you, it's not a hardship. I'm glad you
see it that way. That happens to be one of the criteria. I can tell you that
that's the way I vote is in regard to how it fits those criteria. So I
recognize that this doesn't necessarily make the best solution but in my
approach to variances, granting a variance without meeting the criteria and one
that is as dramatic in terms of encroachment on the setback as this is, is just
not something that I can vote for.
' 35
112
•
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilwoman Di.mler: I guess I haven't really changed my position from the last
time. I stated in there that I've always thought of that as their sideyard and
I know legally it's your frontyard because it's on the road side but it is the
side of your house. You do have an odd situation there and I think that is
something that we need to look at and I like to look at each situation for
itself. I don't mean to set a precedent here and I won't because I will look at
each situation in the future and have it pass or fail on it's own merits. But I
think in this situation since it is on Laredo, which ends in a circle. It runs
into a lake. There is nothing that I can foresee that the City would ever want
to do that they couldn't do. 1
Leigh Colby: There's even room for a 12 foot sidewalk.
Councilwoman Dimler: There's roan for a sidewalk there. The barrier of the
trees, it is not unsightly. I do agree with the condition that there should be
no, I guess one of the things I could see him doing is putting a 3 season porch
on top of the deck. I guess we should prohibit that right now. In the future
there should be no construction on top of the deck or on top of the garage. But
I have no problems because of the specifics that I just mentioned, I have no
problems with voting for this. '
Leigh Colby: Would this be recast...in the future?
Councilman Boyt: You can't do that?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of the things I wanted to ask you, I was
talking to Judy today and she indicated that the home in itself doesn't meet the
requirements. Is that correct?
Leigh Colby: No, that was on the curious things that came out as you are
probably aware. Bill you've indicated that you were aware of the letter that
the original contractor sent and the frontyard setback on the restricted
covenants that the contractor himself signed said 40 feet and it was 35 feet as
constructed. If they had simply built it right, we would be set back 35 feet.
It's just insane and in his own handwriting sent us the letter saying that,
alerting us to the restricted covenant which we already knew about and he
included a plat and a survey. In his own handwriting penciled in 35 feet and
the restricted covenant, it's obvious, said 40 feet. I mean we were really
confused by that.
Councilwoman Di.mler: Are you saying that he changed his own convenant?
Leigh Colby: Well I asked him about it and he, there was a lot of back peddling
and as you can imagine, the restricted covenants is 33 years old. He chalked it
up as a mistake in locating the house so what can I say.
Councilwoman Dimler: So would that be considered a hardship then? '
Leigh Colby: No, we're not going, we just think it's a very straight forward
request. Gee, you'd like we were asking to build on a museleum for a new
religion or something like that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Again, I'll repeat that in this particular case I have no
problem.
36 1
is
11
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
1 _
Councilman Workman: I did finally get to get out there and it was a beautiful
day.
Leigh Colby: And the bicycle you ran over has been.. .
' Councilman Workman: We're still negotiating. There was nobody on that bike.
Councilman Johnson: You've got the guilt vote going now.
' Leigh Colby: Well Jay don't laugh too hard. We recused your kid on Saturday.
' Councilman Johnson: My kid on Saturday?
Leigh Colby: You were at the Cub Scouts. I think we're up to 4 votes now. If
' you want to bring it to a vote...
Councilman Johnson: We had a little Cub Scout sitting in the back crying saying
where's my daddy. Left him out in the wilderness.
' Councilman Workman: Anyway, that little bike instance was not supposed to come
out. I think you lost my vote. I approached said site and proceeded to pull
' into the driveway. Got out of the car and asked, is this the front of your
house or the back of your house? It was in fact the back of your house. You
have two driveways.
' Leigh Colby: Were you in the upper or the lower? I still don't know where you
were.
' Councilman Workman: I was in the upper. The one where your mailbox is.
Leigh Colby: It looks like the side of our house.
' Councilman Workman: Yes, that's the back. Not to say that that's in particular
one goofy aspect of your situation there. I think Judy was delighted to hear me
say that when I pulled up and this is kind of different. In looking at it, I
guess I understand the fact that there maybe isn't a hardship here. I had a
good conversation with the Mayor today on the phone about it and talked to
Roger, the Attorney here a little bit and had a good conversation. To tell you
' the truth, I really jumped around with this. Bill has some good points and so
does Jay in regards to granting variances and perhaps not setting precedence
because as Ursula says, each one is different and it's tough to set a precedence
' with different situations. But I have been trying to figure out a way in my own
mind and perhaps some justification or maybe not. Maybe I shouldn't be worrying
about it so much. That's usually the approach I take. On an earlier issue
tonight with a gentleman putting in curb and gutter, I say let the guy do
business. Let's make it easy for the guy to do business and let's make it easy
for people to live in town. But not too easy. Not too flagrant. One of the
things I did look at was where are we going to remove earth and how far is it
going to come out and how high is it going to be sticking out of the ground,
etc.? The foundation I'm assuming is level with the foundation that you have
now?
' 37
114
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 II
Leigh Colby: That's correct. There will be about a 9 inch step up. One step
to get onto the deck from the upper level.
Councilman Workman: That in itself to me looked like it was a very low impact
thing. Should this pass this evening, I would strongly suggest that no
building on top of the garage shall be done and perhaps that would have to be an
additional variance. How high is the railing going to be or what kind of a
railing are you going to have on top of that?
Leigh Colby: It will be whatever a standard height railing is. We've let this ,
out for bid with several contractors. Whatever the standard height is. I
really don't know and I've built a deck before so I should be able to answer
that but I would assume it's anywhere from 42 to 48 inches. '
Councilman Workman: What is the surface of the decking going to be?
Leigh Colby: Redwood. ,
Councilman Workman: So it's just going to be a roof of the garage?
Leigh Colby: Well eventually there will be a deck over the garage and then
underneath it there will be rubber, it's a solid rubber sheet that the entire
thing is custom fit. Apparently everybody is running away from tar because it
cracks. We've been advised to go with a rubberized roof.
Councilman Workman: So you mean on top of the new garage won't be like pre-
stressed concrete or anything set on top of there? It will be the foundation
and then on top of that will be this rubber?
Leigh Colby: No. You've got to have the beams. That will all be to Code.
Normally there's half inch plywood laid over the plyons or whatever the cross
metal deck and I've asked to have that upgraded a full quarter to a half inch so
it's 3/4 to an inch lamenated plywood.
Councilman Workman: Is this new base going to be able to, is it oin to have
g g ve
the proper footings that would allow future building on top of it?
Leigh Colby: It will be matching the foundations of the house. Part of the
goal is to make it look like it was originally built with the house and that
means we'r_e matching block and we will have to go down, regardless we will have
to go down below the frost line so the front 10 to 15 feet will be down what, 48
inches? Is that what the Code is? Then as it goes back into the hill, that can
be brought out. Then it will be blended into the foundation as it goes around
and joins the house. It will be matching and our goal is to make it look, if
you remember the plans, those plans were drawn up 10-12 years ago and our goal
is simple to execute those plans so it looks like it was part of the house.
Councilman Workman: Would you be removing the upper driveway?
Leigh Colby: No. Actually we would probably have no reason for it. We've
talked about whether or not we'd want to keep it. It's starting to break up. I 11
would be willing to bet you that once it breaks up badly, we would probably
remove it and sod it. That's our back kitchen. Practically speaking, where you
parked is our backyard.
38 '
115
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Workman: I'd be interested in removing a future parking lot for
' more boats and trucks. That's the situation we have now and that's the one that
the neighbors don't prefer.
Leigh Colby: Either does my wife.
Councilman Workman: Maybe we can make somebody remove a driveway, I don't know,
as a condition of approval. You've got two driveways there. You're covering an
' awful lot of your yard with driveways and garage.
Leigh Colby: I really think the issue is whether or not you want to have an
' extension there. That's the principle issue.
Councilman Workman: Right. I don't see the boat and the truck storage outside
as being a hardship reason. Boats and trucks come...
' Leigh Colby: We're not claiming any hardship.
' Councilman Workman: I do agree that you have an odd piece of lot. I don't know
that neighborhood approval is or is not a reason to grant variances. It is a
very private road. Your neighbors don't seem to have a problem with it. And
' maybe I can direct this to Jay and Bill, other than the additional structure
would be violating an imaginary line, what would the harm be?
Councilman Johnson: The harm is not as much a harm to the City or to the area
' as it is a continuous of us violating our own rules of procedure. State laws
that form those rules of procedures. We've got a map in our Comprehensive Plan
that shows the various lots that have variances on them. It's a very colorful
' map. Many, many variances have been granted over the years. They used to be a
dime a dozen. We've been getting stricter on them and that's one of the things,
if you establish a reputation for not following your own rules, it slowly gets
' worse and worse and worse. It's a trend I've been trying to reverse for 2
years. I've been on the losing side on a lot of variance things. It doesn't
bother me that I'm on a losing side of a variance anymore. I've lost a lot of
them in the last 2 years.
' Councilman Workman: Okay, getting out of the Code book. What is this going to
do in this situation to harm anything? In this situation? That's why we have
the BOA.
Councilman Johnson: BOA?
' Councilman Workman Board of Adjustments.
Councilman Boyt: Why is that?
' Councilman Workman: Why we have the Board of Adjustments?
Councilman Boyt: You said that's why we have them. Why do we have them?
Councilman Workman: Because of variance situations. That's why the State also
has said we can have them. So taking Ursula's view, and this is this situation,
' what will this harm?
' 39
-u-C-47ty Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Everybody, including Mr. Stockdale who was up here
previously, has invariably said, he did it. I deserve to get it done too. The
next situation can be totally different. They've been 100°% the opposite and
they continue with the same argument. Actually I don't see much harm here
unless they put a room or a 3 season porch up on top later. If it's going to be
a flat deck, it's going to be a flat deck. We can put whatever condition we
want but 10 years from now somebody's going to put up something on top of there
and the changes of our building inspector realizing that there's a restriction
is slim to none. There's just not the data management system established at
this time to record those. We've tried a lot of covenants and restrictions and
everything else and they just don't work. You see a couple years down the road,
oh my we built this and there was a restriction we weren't allowed to build it.
Once it's built, you don't tell than to tear it down. ,
Leigh Colby: I really urge you to be careful about putting restrictions in
covenants. ,
Councilman Johnson: This would be a bit more than a covenant.
Leigh Colby: Yes, but I think we're a little bit more conscientious than most '
people and the fact of the matter is, when we were handed our homeowner's
documents, we were given a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the covenants.
We could barely read it and I think we're more conscientious than most people.
Either you have to find that our request is consistent with the neighborhood,
which I think you all have to agree. .. And if it's consistent, I think that is
really your number one criteria for putting it to a vote. '
Councilman Johnson: Well you know there's a lot of criteria on traffic laws.
It's a State law. We have criteria to meet. If you do all 5 of those, you get
the variance. Basically, if you meet all 5 criteria, the State law, we have no
choice hardly other than to give you the variance. But if you don't meet any of
those, the State laws, basically you don't get the variance. We've tried to say
can we bring reasonableness into this. Is reasonableness allowed by State law
to be brought into this criteria of zoning and they said no. We've tried to get
our attorneys to rewrite our zoning ordinance and they said well it doesn't
really matter. It's illegal to rewrite your zoning ordinance to allow
reasonableness as a criteria. Criteria number. 6. If it's reasonable to ignore
criteria 1 through 5, do it. That has been the past practice many years ago. •
They just overlooked some criterias and added others.
Leigh Colby: Well I come from a keep it simple school of doing business. A
couple of the neighbors independently of each othere just said why are you
wasting your time with the City Council and I really want to be complying. I
really think that you should just put it to a vote as we've requested it. Don't -.
make it complicated. Don't put restrictions on it that are going to cause
people to fight over it 15 years after we leave. I don't think any good will be
served by that.
Councilman Johnson: So you don't think we should put a restriction on it to
restrict any future upward building? '
Leigh Colby: That quite frankly doesn't bother me but in keeping it simple, I
think that it would be a waste of time.
40 '
11
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
I� Councilwoman Di.mler: I guess I have a comment. I agree with Jay in that there
might be a mistake made in the future but I think as far as this Council is
concerned, we can only do what we can do right now and we can put a restriction
on it. Maybe they won't make a mistake in the future, who knows but as far as
I'm concerned, I think we should put a restriction on it.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, I can make it simple. I'd like to ask our Attorney for
an opinion. In your opinion, can the Council follow State Statute and grant
this variance?
Roger Knutson: It's well documented by the applicant and everyone else that
there is no qualified hardship. The answer is obviously no. The applicant has
admitted that.
' Councilman Workman: I guess I would add. I am concerned about the future
building on top of this. I don't know if that would be defended.
Mayor Chmi.el: I also feel the same on that only because of the fact that that
could change the appearance of that structure and not be aesthetically pleasing
' to the balance of the neighbors either. What's pleasing to one may not be
pleasing to the other. I look at that pie shaped lot as you do have it, even
though that's your sideyard or your frontyard, to me it's still the sideyard.
Only because of the upper drive that does come into your residence, to me that
' is the front of the house although it's still not facing onto a street. There's
a front of a house and the back of a house and the side of the house which abuts
the road. If it were a cross street, this could cause a problem too but in this
I Iparti.cular case, as I mentioned, it's on a cul-de-sac. It is an unusual
circumstance. I understand that you do want to make the request and get going
--- with this and vote it or don't vote. But I have a real hard, I've been leaning
both ways believe it or not. I'll be very honest and as I was hoping that you
would come in with a hardship portion that could really turn this around. Being
that there still is not that hardship, that's the part the bothers me.
' Leigh Colby: What do you declare a hardship? We are tight on storage space. I
have a table saw that I keep at my friend's house because I literally have no
place in the house to put it but I would not classify that as a hardship.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to just clarify those hardships as it indicates
within the ordinance?
' Roger Knutson: Qualifying hardship is something that because of zoning
ordinance restrictions prevents reasonable use of the property. Something that
is not just generated for example by the present owner's personal needs.
' Leigh Colby: Would you define the word reasonable use because we would like to
make reasonable use of a portion of our property that quite frankly we can't use
that part of the property. It's so sloped, it's unuseable.
' Roger_ Knutson: In implying that term, the Courts don't look to each square inch
of the property. They look to the lot as a whole. There happens to be a home
on your lot. You have a two car garage on your home. That's as much garage as
most folks have so I think by traditional looking at this, you have reasonable
use of your. property. Denial of the variance therefore does not deprive you of
reasonable use of your property since you already have that.
' 41
•
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Johnson: There's another restriction showing the hardship is that
the hardship cannot be self-created.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay I guess what I said in jest earlier maybe now taken
more seriously that because of the original mistake made by the builder and the
developer, that this is not a self-imposed hardship. It is indeed a hardship
because it now prevents then from enjoying their yard and had it been done
right, according to covenants, they wouldn't have this problem. '
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to respond to that in terms of when the covenant was
put on, which the City isn't responsible for enforcing, there was no city
ordinance in place so no one violated a city ordinance and if a covenant is
violated, it's up to the homeowners to deal with that. Not the City as we've
seen other times. They are talking about a 5 foot exception to a covenant that
was far in excess, since the City didn't have anything, and now they're asking
for 21 feet. I think Roger stated, I don't want to get into an argument on this
thing. I don't think that's the point. My standpoint, my decision is based on
what Roger has said. I take it very seriously when you stand up and take an
oath of office that says I'll enforce the State Statutes and the City
Ordinances. I don't see that we have any option, in spite of what may make
common sense. I just don't see an option myself.
Mayor Chmiel: The covenants actually ran out July 1 of 1987.
Councilman Boyt: They were renewed. I
Leigh Colby: And there after...by a simple majority of the homeowners and we're
addressing that.
Mayor Chmiel: You're in the process of addressing that.
Leigh Colby: We've already got approval by about 60% of the homeowners and '
we're going to just continue going around and get the rest.
Councilman Boyt: Leigh, you can't do that and modify the covenants. You have
to have a meeting.
Leigh Colby: But that issue is separate from this.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is. It's not a part of this. I guess it's gotten to the
point where I think we're going to have to call a question on it and come up
with conclusions as to either approving or denying the proposal for your deck
and garage. Therefore I'd like to have a motion from the floor.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess since I'm the only one, well you two haven't. . .,
since I'm the only one that hasn't been drawn one way or the other in the
positive, I guess I will make the motion that the front yard setback variance be
approved at 7307 Laredo Drive, the home of Leigh and Judy Colby with the
restriction that no further building can be done on top of the deck. '
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second to that motion?
Councilman Workman: Roger, is that restriction valid?
42 '
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
119
I
Roger e Knutson: Yes.
1
' Mayor Chmiel: If not hearing a second, I will entertain another motion.
Councilman Boyt: I would move that we deny the front yard setback variance
' request.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny the front yard
variance request #89-3. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
' Todd Gerhardt: The term of Commissioner Jim Bohn expired here May 31, 1989. It
is the duty of the mayor to appoint someone or appoint Jim since we didn't get
any other applications or appoint somebody else to fill that position.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it's my recommendation that Mr. Bohn be reappointed to the
HRA. In addition, he should also be commended for his efforts of attendance in
I the past year. He was at 100% attendance so I'd like to congratulate him on
that portion. I would like to make that into a motion.
Councilman Johnson: Second it.
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to confluent please. I have a question Don. What
happens when a member misses more than 25% of the meetings of the HRA?
Don Ashworth: Council procedures state that the individual is to receive a
letter from the Chairman to that effect. Staff is negligent if you currently
have a member who is that way. Chairman Whitehill was absent. In this
instance, or we have had that situation occur and again, the past policy has
been to notify that individual. A letter would then go out under my signature
or that of the Mayor's, whichever. I'll talk with Don and make a decision as to
who's signature it should go out under. In defense of Chairman Whitehill, there
have been a number of meetings this past year that were rearranged to
accommodate the schedules of developers. So in other words, the necessity for a
'
housing contract or a development contract, proposed sale of lands, etc., the
HRA has been trying to be more than accommodating to the individuals and in
those instances there have been a number of times where the normal notice has
' not been given. So in other words, we may have our meetings set up for a
Thursday night. The developer is not ready for the Retail West development
contract. The decision is made to delay it for one additional week. Well
that's nice but with schedules like Chairman Whitehill who has scheduled the
second and fourth Thursdays, to then move it to an odd Thursday becomes very
difficult.
t
' 43
•
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Mayor_ Chmiel: Are there also legal excuses or an excused portion for that? I
mean if someone's sick, they're sick.
Councilman Johnson: We had a Planning Commissioner break his leg.. .
Councilman Boyt: .. .the point would simply be that Mr_. Whitehill is an
exceptional member of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and maybe meetings
should be set up around his schedule as much as anyones. I think it should be a
matter of standard practice that when any members attendance falls below the
75%, it's followed up with. It's checked out. The City reaffirms that we think
these people are very valuable and we want them to attend. It's not saying that
we automatically ask for their resignation. I don't even know if we can do that
with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
Councilman Johnson: In 1989 he's only missed once.
Councilman Boyt: I just think we need to be on top of this issue.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm wondering where or if necessary
perhaps Council representation on the HRA might be appropriate? I know we had
it with Clark Horn. Clark basically retained his seat after leaving the
Council.
Councilman Johnson: Pat Swenson also.
Councilman Workman: We don't in fact have that now. Is that something you want
to look at? I'm certainly interested in the HRA. I don't have a problem with '
any of these members and I'm certainly free to attend the meetings.
Mayor Chmiel: That's basically what I do. I try to make each of those specific
meetings. In fact all the commission meetings, all except for the last 2 weeks,
being on vacation but I think that's our place to be there. It's not necessary
that a Council person be on this but I think it's our responsibility to attend
these meetings from time to time to make sure that you feel you're comfortable
with what's happening.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make one other comment. That is, as the 3 of you '
probably remember vividly last fall the redevelopment of the City was a hot
political item. Frankly I'm disappointed that no one applied for this position.
It's not because Jim Bohn isn't doing a good job but when you take an issue that
is on so many minds and this in my opinion is the pivotal group that sets up
what's going to happen to downtown and to have no one apply for that position,
something isn't right about it.
Resolution #89-75: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to appoint
Jim Bohn to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
[ii
44
121
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES, TH 101 AND PIONEER
TRAIL, DON HALLA.
' Robert Bruno: My name is Robert Bruno. I'm Mr. Halla's attorney. First of all
let me say that this is not a request for a variance. What we're requesting is
approval of the final plat of this property. It was on the last agenda and it
was laid over until this meeting to allow the applicant to submit a formal
request for phasing in of the development. This development originally started
2 years ago when we were before the Planning Commission. We had some
adjustments we had to make for lot sizes, streets running east or west or north
or south or having outlets here and there. Mr_. Halls worked closely with the
city staff to satisfy every concern that they had about this development. All
' through the course of that proceeding before the Planning Commission and before
the Council at that time, it was intended that the property development be done
in phases. This is a landscape nursery. It's property that my client is forced
to developed, I think as we're all aware, because the Metro Council has forced
the City to increase the lot sizes from 2 1/2 to 10 acres. If necessary
Mr. Halla will develop it as 37 lots unless he's given permission to develop it
in phases. Since the preliminary approval was granted by Council with the
' phases written right on the preliminary plat that was approved, my client has
bought out his brother's interest in the property. This was originally jointly
owned by Donald and David and Donald has purchased David's interest in the
' property now and now is the sole owner of it. Again, with the assumption that
these would be 2 1/2 acre lots. The proposal that he submitted for phases is
contained in the letter which is an exhibit to the papers that are before you.
I should say that these numbers, as far as time periods are concerned, are not
set in stone. These are what my client would like to see. These are his
intentions on how he would like to proceed. As you know, the septic systems are
not good in the area. He'd like to possibly wait until sewer and water is in
' the area to the grestest extent possible. That would be one factor mitigating
in favor of extension but there have been others that have been granted
extensions. The Lake Riley Woods has got a number of outlots that it is
' developing piece by piece. Outlot by outlot. I believe some of the golf course
lots are also being developed piece by piece. Extensions have been granted. We
are requesting simply that the plat be approved of the first 3 lots which is
Block 1, 14, 15 and 16 with the Council's approval for developing the rest as an
1 outlot in phases. This is not something that my client is rushing out to
develop property and dump another 37 lots on the City's resources. He'd much
prefer to grow trees than he would sell lots. As we all know the property is
' covered with trees now. He intends to continue in the nursery business and sell
lots as time goes by as he's described it in his phases. The first time any
question had been raised about the phasing process I guess was at the last
' meeting. Frankly it caught him by surprise because this is the way it had been
set up with city staff 2 years ago. That's the way it had been approved by the
Council 2 years ago. That's the assumption that he went under when he bought
his brother's interest in the property and I think if you look at this situation
' on a case by case basis, there isn' t any hard and fast rule here I don't think
about what should be done in the case of these window developers who came in
under the window under the 2 1/2 acre lots. If there were, we wouldn't need a
city council here I guess to make a decision. I think it's in the best interest
of everyone here to delay the development of this property. To leave it as a
nursery and I can't conceive of anyone who could be in favor of the immediate
development of the 37 lots. Cer_tai.nly other developers wouldn't be in favor of
it. Certainly it would add additional pressure to city resources and it's not
45
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
my client's desire to '
Y go out of the nursery business. He's been here since
1962. He and his family and wants to continue to stay here. Because of what
the Metro Council has done, he's forced to apply for this plat in order to
preserve the value of his property. You can hardly blame him for that but I
think if you look at the pros and cons and who would be hurt and who could
possibly be opposed to this, I think the merits here indicate that you should 1
approve this the way it's been approved in it's preliminary stages up to this
point which is to leave it at 2 1/2 acres. Allow him to plat the rest of the
property as an outlot and allow that outlot to be platted in the future as 2 1/2
acre lots. We have a sketch of the entire proposed 37 lots and it's been gone
over 2 years ago, like I say, and approved in that fashion. We simply request
that that understanding be approved by the Council that you would not force him
to go to the 10 acres for replatting of the outlot.
Councilman Johnson: Why is this different than Chan Vista? Chan Hills? Lake
Susan West or other places, well Lake Susan West is a bad example, but Chan
Vista and Chan Hills were under the old zoning ordinance when they did the PUD.
Don't meet the requirements of the new zoning ordinance. They put in
preliminary plats. When their outlots came up for platting a year or so later,
we didn't require them to come up to, we took what the preliminary plat was and
basically if they didnt' ask for any changes, we didnt' change the requirements
other than the preliminary.
Jo Ann Olsen: The reason I brought this one up to the Council's attention was
that I knew it was going to be over such a long period of time. The zoning
ordinance would definitely change from what was approved when the preliminary
plat was approved.
Councilman Johnson: It may change in the future.
Jo Ann Olsen: It has changed. If they wait, technically if they wait for the
5-10-15 years, when they come in to plat that outlot, the Council at that time
could say it does not meet the requirements of the 1 unit per 10 acre and could
deny it. I guess that's up to the...
Councilman Johnson: Council at that time.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilman Johnson: We can't control what they're going to do. But we can put '
our intent in and I believe that the intent of the prior Council was to allow 2
1/2 acres to be platted over the next century or whatever time period because
we're not trying to create lots out there. Met Council is trying to restrict
building out there by making the change. My intent in the original approval was
to allow, the preliminary play say okay this is what it's going to be. If we
get sewer and water there before he replats, I'd say all bets are off. With
sewer and water available in there, I doubt if he's going to come in and ask for
2 1/2 acre lots. In the first place he's going to ask for small lots as is
allowable.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then we'll have to hold him to the 2 1/2. [171
Councilman Johnson: Then the future council could say geez, the original intent
was to hold you to 2 1/2, which they won't get anywhere with that. Personally,
46 '
123
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
III have no problem with stating an intent that 2 1/2 acre lots. I don't see him
running out there and developing. If he does develop it right away at 2 1/2
II acres, that's fine and dandy. If he doesn't, that's fine and dandy with me too.
I understand why he did it. He's been extremely honest with us the whole way.
He says I don't want to be a developer. I want to plant trees. I want to sell
trees. The other option, if you want to plant and sell trees is just forget
' about platting any of this and sell trees until sewer and water get there and
then you can sell it for a heck of a lot more. Of course then your
grandchildren might be able to sell it for a heck of a lot more rather than you.
' I don't hold by breath to see sewer and water down in that area for a long, long
time. 2020 maybe.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have in response to Jay's comment that the
former Council had an intention of leaving it open ended, I guess I find in the
Minutes from page 5. Mayor Hamilton moved and Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the extension so he's already come in for one extension for the final
' plat approval for Great Plains Golf Estates for one year. Then he says, if
something has occurred at the end of this year's period of time, a second
extension will not be looked upon favorably. All voted in favor of that motion
' and it carried. So it's my opinion that that particular Council didn't mean to
leave it open ended.
Councilman Johnson: You're only taking part of the conversation. You have to
go back further than this. Back to January of 1987 with the preliminary. If
you go back to the preliminary platting, when we did the preliminary platting,
and looked at the discussion there, yes. However, because of the platting laws,
I something has to be done it one year of the preliminary plat which is the 3 lots
he's asking for now. The Council was saying okay, you didn't do the first phase
within a year. We'll give you one more year. You've got to do something. As
' they say, they have to do something and this is his something. Three lots. But
I think if you look way back to when we were discussing the preliminary plat of
this, there was no hurry to develop this. My recollection of it. I don't know,
Bill may have a different recollection on i.t. But again, I agree when he didn't
' do anything within the one year, that we definitely said, hey you've got to do
something. Now he is asking for another one month extension to that which I can
look favorably upon a one month extension because we caused it by throwing this
' monkey, when this monkey wrench came into it, we caused the need for the one
month extension. I have no problem with that. Bill, what's your recollection
of the preliminary platting of this one? This is one of the first ones that
tcame in in March of 1987 or something like that.
Councilman Boyt: You've got a big road problem out there. There was a question
about MnDot's not ready to do anything with the road. We don't know who's going
to do anything with TH 101 so it's kind of nice to not have it developed. But I
think maybe your recollection is right. You've got Gevi.ng, Hamilton and Horn
who all three said receiving another extension is not in our plans. Now to me
' the problem with this gets back again to consistency. If we had said to people
2 years ago, come in and apply during the window of opportunity that the Council
created and we'll let you hold that land basically until you're ready to
develop, everything south of TH 5 would now be in 2 1/2 acre possibilities and
that wasn't the intent of the Met Council and they were the driving force behind
this. What we seem to be able to live with was to say to people, we know that
maybe you're not ready to do this immediately but we'll give you a year and in
11 that time you have to come in and begin development. Dave wasn' t ready and that
' 47
22
1iy Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
was reasonable enough and people said okay, we'll extend that. Now to me
there's a couple problems here. One of them is, to go back to Chan Vista, again
a whole different deal. Let's go to Lake Riley Woods. They came in, they
platted every lot. Didn't they?
Jo Ann Olsen: There's one outlot with like 5 lots within it but they are coming
in like within a month to plat that. '
Councilman Boyt: How many lots did they plat? Like 40 lots?
Jo Ann Olsen: I can't remember.
Councilman Boyt: But a good many and they put in major development in terms of
road surface. They were very intent upon developing that property and I don't
think that they would have developed that property had it not been the for the
need to make progress in their window. Their land values were certainly going
up sitting right on the edge of a lake as many of those lots were. I just don't
think there's a level playing field if we come back and say we're going to give
you an infinite time to develop your property. So I need some way in which the
City has some financial assurety that you're going to put in the road
improvements that it would take to develop this property. I don't want to see
that land developed any more than I suspect Jay does or maybe even Dave wants to
develop it. I think that's what the Met Council said is don't develop the land.
They didn't want it developed until the sewer went in there. You just said that
Dave doesn't want it developed until sewer goes in there possibly.
Robert Bruno: Donald. '
Councilman Boyt: Oh excuse me, Donald doesn't want it in there possibly until
sewer goes in. Possibly now. I wouldn't say it was an absolute. That was the
whole plan and now to come back and say we're going to give you 2 1/2 acre lots,
Jay you've got to come up with a plan that makes developmental sense. That has
a time line that's reasonably short and then for my part I can say, okay this is
a realistic development. Don really is going to develop the property in spite
of maybe everybody's good intentions because that's how he gets his economic
return out of the piece of property. That I can accept. But going 5 years, 10,
15 years, I think that's playing it light and loose with the intent of the
Council 2 years ago. Certainly with the intent of the Met Council and I don't
think we're doing our job.
Robert Bruno: If I could point out, these phases have been something that have
been a part of the preliminary plat since day one. We're now developing phase
1. This is phase 1. This is the development of the first phase. The three
lots. I
Councilman Boyt: Do you have a developmental map? Phase map? It's not in my
materials tonight. Did we have it?
Jo Ann Olsen: The preliminary plat that was approved had p hases i
It did not have years associated with it and that's why we the applicant .
submit this letter which provided years, a time line with the lots. So the plat ,
had the phasing, again had lots but no time. So the only thing that has the
time line is the letter provided by Don Halla dated May 17th.
48 '
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Johnson: So we can play with those time lines too? Like you say, 5
to 10, 5 to 10, another 5 so there's 10, 20, 35 years for the full development
of the area. It's a bit slow.
Councilman Boyt: Well we won't be here to see it. I won't be here to see it.
Councilman Johnson: Well not sitting here.
Robert Bruno: It really boils down to, what do you want done with this
' property? Do you want it as a nursery? If you want it as a nursery, it doesn't
make any sense to force him to develop it, and how long do you want to leave it
as a nursery? Is 5 years, do you want to put it out. ..
Councilman Johnson: If we want to leave it as a nursery, we just deny it.
' Robert Bruno: Well you could approve 37 lots. That's his other option is to
just go ahead and plat the 37 lots and be done with it and be done with the
nursery business. I don't know that that's what anybody's wants. That
certainly doesn't fall in with the plans out there. Nobody wants this road out
there. The TH 101 is a white elephant that nobody wants.
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, can I ask another. question? If he plats the 37
' lots, has a plat of 37 lots out there, does he have to develop the plat?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
a
Councilman Johnson: Does he have to put the roads i.n?
Jo Ann Olsen: As part of that, there'd be like a development contract and
that's where we would probably have some sort of letter of credit. I don't know
if that changes the tax of the property and things like that.
' Councilman Johnson: It certainly does.
Robert Bruno: Yes, he would have to put a bond as I understand it.
' Don Halla: If we platted it as a nursery, we couldn't use it for agricultural
purposes so it would have to be developed.
Councilwoman Dimler_ : I have kind of a problem with this in that I think we're
asking for special treatment here. Everyone else that came in under that window
except Sever because of TH 212, has completed what they were asked to do and to
leave it open ended for x number of years to me is asking for special treatment.
Again, it has already been extended and I don' t personally want to bind a future
council by a decision that I make here. I think that when he finally decides
that he wants to go ahead with it, he will have to concur with the ordinances at
' the time. That's my opinion.
Mayor. Chmiel: Don, would you like to come up to the microphone?
ItCouncilman Boyt: Maybe before he speaks, I'd like to ask a question. If the
prelminary plat, historically how long is that good for? How long does that
bind the Council?
r
49
6
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
1
Jo Ann Olsen: One year.
Councilman Boyt: One year. A final plat binds for 2 years. So no matter how
this is platted, all bets are off if it's not developed within that time. Is
that right or no?
Roger Knutson: All bets are off, as you say, unless this Council extends '
s those
time periods. Statute says, rather than having the 1 and 2 year periods, you
can extend that for staging if you want to. The standard development contract,
you have a copy of it is Consent Agenda item 1(c) this evening, has the standard
1 and 2 year periods in it. You can extend those.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so it's possible.
Robert Bruno: That's simply what we're asking for is for this Council to come
up with when you want the property developed because when you want that
developed is when it will be developed.
Councilman Johnson: Really I don't think it's up to the Council to decide when '
an individual will develop his property. Don has to decide when he wants to
develop his property and do it within the ordinance restrictions.
Robert Bruno: The phasing we've suggested I think is the logical order that
these things should be developed in. In looking at the map, looking at the way
the lots are platted out, the phases that he suggested are the logical ways that
these lots should go into development.
Councilman Boyt: Doesn't the problem come in when, let's suppose that we
approve the first phase so you have 3 lots. The rest of it's an outlot so you 1
come back in 3 years and you want to do phase 2. But now we've got to take that
under the existing ordinances at that time don't we?
Robert Bruno: Not if there's been an extension. '
Councilman Boyt: Well if we've said you can develop it in 3 years, if we set
that up now, we could do that. But if we don't set up these timeframes... I
Jo Ann Olsen: Council has the option, they have to meet this.
Councilman Boyt: So then it becomes a problem for that Council to deal with.
So I suppose one question for this Council to ask is how much of this land do we
want to see coordinated together? Do we want to have the ability to
coordinate? If you want to take it 7 to 10 acres at a time, but I guess, maybe
you can help me. Either one of you, overcome the other people who went through
this and developed and how this is different.
Don Halla: I really don't think it is different because what I'm asking and
what the others did is the same thing except I'm asking for a longer length of
time. You have two outlots on the property adjacent to us. One is being held
up because of roadway. You granted that as an outlot. Technically now that can
only have 1 lot per 10 acres if we follow what you're talking. If you look at
the other 12 1/2 acres they have there, 5 lots, technically now that would have
to be 1 lot per 10 acres. You granted last spring the development of the
property to the east of us into, I don't know the exact number of lots, 16 lots.
50 '
.12 77
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
' That was an outlot. That was given an extension. All of this has been done
before to the properties right adjacent. I admit that I went in for a 1 year
' 1 extension and was granted it from preliminary to this point. I am coming in at
this point and saying, I'm ready to do the 3 lots, which was the staging that we
had in the original preliminary that was granted approval by everybody. The
understanding was that the whole property could be developed in 2 1/2 acres.
That was the understanding. That was the intention. Everybody knew I wanted to
drag my feet. It was said that if I did not start it by July 10th of this year,
then I lost it. My intention is not to lose i.t. That's why I'm here. Now if
' I'm forced to do something different than what you have demanded of all the rest
in the area, then that's your choice because you have granted these outlots.
You have granted the slower development. It hasn't been forced that you have to
come in with, what was it, 60, 50-60 lots and do them all at once. They did
have the staging going there and it's in existence. I'm asking for a longer
staging. I don't disagree.
Councilwoman Dimler: Don, were those also in the 2 1/2 acre window?
Don Halla: That's right. And they started a little later with us because they
got extensions from you in the beginning. I'm asking for it at the end instead
of the other way around.
Councilman Boyt: It's pretty short though. Their extension in the beginning
was a matter of a couple months.
Councilman Johnson: Extending for preliminary plat?
' Don Halla: Right.
Councilman Johnson: The other difference that I see here is that there's a
viable business going on. This is not cornfields.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Cornfields' a viable business.
Councilman Johnson: Cornfields owned by absentee landlords who are leasing it
out and they thought they could make a better buck. Verne Gagne was not farming
that area.
Councilwoman Dimler: But he didn' t choose to. He was going to let us do it.
Councilman Johnson: He trained wrestlers there, I don't know but the difference
here is basically the business going on in there that the landlord, you live
there right?
Don Halla: No, I don't live there. David lives on pa rt of the land.
' Councilman Johnson: But you're there. You work there. You've got a business
that's been an establishment and well known throughout the area as an
established business that the City's proud of here. One of the best nurseries
in the State. That's the difference over the Gagne property and some of the
other properties.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you want to give him special treatment because he's
been in town and was an established business that we're proud of? We didn't do
51
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 ,
that for Pauly's. I
Councilman Johnson: We didn't do that for Pauly's. There's a lot of things
going on with Pauly's.
Councilwoman Dimler: But they were a well established business. I don't know
if we were proud of them but I hope so.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can make a recommendation that will move this along.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I have just one more question though? Did I hear,
is it Mr. Bruno?
Robert Bruno: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Did I hear you say that Don went ahead and bought land
from his brother with the assumption that it would too be in the 2 1/2 acres? I
Robert Bruno: That's absolutely correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is that not being presumptuous?
Robert Bruno: Well how can you negotiate a price when that's the only thing
that they've ever discussed the 2 1/2 acres.
Councilwoman Dimler: But they didn't come in and apply for the 2 1/2 acre
window. I
Robert Bruno: Both of them did. David and Donald did.
Councilman Johnson: This used to be a partnership. 1
Don Halla: It was undivided one half interest.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to pose two possibilities. The first one is the
roadway. As I remember the preliminary plat from a couple of years ago, TH 101
played a part in this thing. I don't remember exactly how it fit your phasing
though. Was that, the property around TH 101 in a later phase?
Don Halla: No. What took place on TH 101 was we restricted the building on
that one lot that would be involved with TH 101 if it was straighten out so
instead of really being a 2 1/2 acre lot, I think it's like 3 1/2, somewhere in
there acres, and the area that's involved that would be straighten out by TH 101 "
is non-buildable kind of situation. We gave up a lot in order to reserve for
TH 101. i
Councilman Boyt: Got it. And that was discussion that took place during that
preliminary plat sort of working through things? Well it would seem to me that
a reasonable way to proceed here is go ahead and do your final plat on whatever 11
lots you want to do it on. Then I would suggest that you come back in here
sometime within the next 2 years and replat those outlots. Deal with whatever
Council you find sitting here at the time and resolve the rest of it. As I
52 '
._29
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
understand it, up until that time you'd still be in possession of 2 1/2 acre
lots. I guess what I'm really proposing is start building, or at least start
pursuing your final plat and come back within that already established time
�# window with the next plan.
' Councilman Johnson: What's the 2 year time window you're talking about?
Councilman Boyt: From the time your final plat's approved until it expires.
' Councilman Johnson: But all you have to do with that 2 years is put the road in
and put the lots in for that final plat. That doesn't cause him to have to plat
the rest of it within 2 years.
Councilman Boyt: It's already preliminary platted. The whole thing. Right?
' Councilman Johnson: Right. If he gets approval for one final plat on that lot,
3 lots, he has to develop those 3 lots within 2 years? Is that correct Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: No.
Councilman Johnson: He wouldn't?
' Councilman Boyt: No, because he's got his road in. Maybe he can't sell them.
Councilman Johnson: You don't have to sell them, you have to develop them.
' Councilman Boyt: You have to put your road in.
Jo Ann Olsen: You have to develop everything in the contract.
' Don Halla: The road on those three lots is existing.
Councilman Johnson: Is there any time constraint within our ordinance or the
State law that says after he's preliminary platted Phase 1 he has to come back
for Phase 2 within so many years?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's what the development contract can cover. I don't know if
the State law governs that.
Councilman Johnson: In other words, we could put that as a condition of the
development contract. Have we put that in any other development contract, a
provision telling them when they have to do Phase 2? Phase 3? Economic down
' turn at Chan Vista, if it happened, there's been a lot of subdivisions where the
things have come back 4 or 5 years later because of the market.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is what you're proposing Jay basically then an extension
of the window for unlimited period of time? Is that what we're doing here?
Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is, he's got to plat by July 12th, final
plat. Or July 10th. Final plat something. Then he's got some kind of window I
IF guess to actually survey those and get the stakes in the ground. I don't even
know i.f he has to put them up for sale.
Don Halla: That has to be done ahead of that.
' 53
•
Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Johnson: That's already done. So he's '
Y got 3 lots platted. When he
does Phase 2 is up to him. What his economic situation is for Phase 2.
Councilwoman Dimler: So basically you're leaving it open ended though for 2 1/2
acres?
Councilman Johnson: The next Council has their choice as to what to do. We
can't tell the next Council what to do.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, but we're letting him leave it at 2 1/2 instead of
making him go at 1 in 10 after July or after the Phase 1.
Robert Bruno: Excuse me but we're not willing to leave it up to the next '
Council to make it 10. What we're asking for...
Councilman Johnson: We can't tell the next Council what to do. '
Robert Bruno: That's true but what we're asking for is what your City Attorney
suggested that is allowable under the State Statutes and that is to grant
staging of platting. You can extend periods of time off into the future in your
development. Even this Council can do that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then we do set time limits on it? '
Councilman Johnson: We could set you time limits but that does not say that
when you come in for Phase 2, 5 years down the road and there's 5 different
people sitting up there, these 5 different people can say, we don't think you 1
need 2 1/2 acre lots. You're going to get 1 in 10. Is that the way I hear it?
Councilman Boyt: No, that's not true. I
Councilman Johnson: If we give them phased?
Mayor Knutson: Give it to them one more time Roger.
Roger Knutson: Under an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, I lost track of
time, it must be going back 10 years now, State Statutues provide that unless
you say contrary in a development contract, a preliminary plat is good for one
year. That means any changes in the official controls occurring within that one
year period, they're exempted from. They can act as if those changes had not
been made. After final plat, the grace period is 2 years. Within 2 years after
final plat, they have the right to proceed with their development and be
exempted from any change in the ordinance requirements and the official
controls. But then the State Statute goes on and says, you can enter into that
development contract and extend those periods by agreement. If you enter into a
contract, it is binding on this Council and future Councils.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but does that have a time limit on how
extend that final plat? far we can
Roger Knutson: The normal thing; and I think the better practice is, if you
want to go beyond the standard grace periods in the Statute, you should call out
some period of time because I don't think you'd want a contract that binds a
54
•
131
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
IIr. Council 100 years from today as to what things have to look like.
Councilman Johnson: In that respect, I would think that what we would want to
' do is put in the development contract a time table for phasing. A reasonable
time table for phasing. He suggested 5 to 10 years for Phase 2 after he sold
' all 3 of the lots in Phase 1. That's a little longer.
Councilman Boyt: Let me suggest a problem. I'd like to suggest that one
problem with this phasing is a risk that the City takes. It's not simple
' putting a risk on the developer, although there's certainly one there. The City
is also saying, we'll let you build a fourth of your road. What happens if
conditions change and he doesn't meet the time line and he says forget i.t?
' Well, the City is sitting out there with a road that's only half done or a
quarter done. It's only done to the houses that are out there and now we've got
to deal with the next owner of that land so it's not all just completely on the
developer.
' Councilman Johnson: So we need that these phases will have a complete road or
the roads be of such configuration that you've got double access or whatever. I
don't know, would Phase 2 do that for you?
Don Halla: Did you bring the map?
Jo Ann Olsen: I've got them upstairs.
Don Halla: I believe that the phasing takes care of that problem because if I
' have to put in a road, I anticipated in what I told you is the lots. . .that I had
to put a road. For instance, some of them go in with a cul-de-sac. You have to
go all the way back to the cul-de-sac and it just makes sense to not do half the
' lots on one side of the road and not do the other half so in the phasing, I took
into consideration as to which lots were being developed so it made sense from
that standpoint.
' Councilman Johnson: We'd have to see that. That Phase 2 can stand on it's own.
Phase 3 stand on it's own.
' Councilman Boyt: The development that's adjoining this had a road problem as
well. When we approved the final plat on that development, I remember there was
a question of how can we connect these two roads? Remember that?
' Councilman Johnson: Oh yes. Over a ravine.
' Councilman Boyt: That's right. There was kind of a major. geographical.. .
Councilman Johnson: Plus he would have to replat his preliminary plat which he
didn't want to do.
' Mayor Chmi.el: Okay, I guess where are we going from where we're at right now?
What direction? What's going to be the recommendation?
11 Councilman Boyt: I'll make a recommendation that the Council not bind itself
more than 5 years from today. That all phases would need to be completed in
that time period.
' 55
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Johnson: I'll see your 5 and raise you to 10?
Councilman Boyt: In other words, what I'm saying is that all the roads would be
constructed within 5 years. All the roads necessary to whatever the City
standards are applicable to a development.
Councilman Johnson: 5?
Councilman Boyt: What do you want to go, 2?
Councilman Johnson: 10. Because of the economic downturn of the early 80's
went longer than 5.
Councilman Boyt: Well then they'd come back in with a new plan. I mean Chan
Vista is a perfect example because they had a final plat. They didn't act on it
and they lost it. They had to come back in. '
Councilman Johnson: Different owners buying parcels...
Councilman Boyt: I would think if you wanted to develop the land, 5 years is
pretty generous but if you don't want to develop the land, and that's what you
say you don't want to do, then 5 years doesn't make any sense. I think the
nature of what we were trying to do with the Met Council was develop what was
going to develop and lock the other stuff away. In being consistent with that,
I think 5 years is generous.
Robert Bruno: It's going to put my client out of business in 5 years. I
Councilman Boyt: Well out of the nursery business, that's right. He will have
either sold to a developer or become one.
Councilman Johnson: Or he will just say, forget the plat. I want to grow
trees.
Robert Bruno: That won't happen.
Councilman Johnson: And wait for sewer to come in with the grandchildren. '
Don Halla: If I have to do it in 5 years, I might as well do it now is my
opinion. If I'm going out of business, I might as well go out of business now.
I can see 15 years. I can see 10 years.
Councilman Johnson: Or relocate your business. ,
Don Halla: Or I have the option of staying in the business in the middle of the
development and develop everything around it? That's another option.
Councilman Boyt: Well is there a second for that?
Councilman Johnson: 5 years? '
Councilman Boyt: Staff work out with the developer's of a phasing plan?
Councilman Johnson: We'd have to be consistent and give everybody 5 years then.
56 '
133
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
If Councilman Boyt: Well we're going to get chances because those other folks are
going to have to come back in right?
Councilman Johnson: Does Pheasant Hills have any outlots left?
' Jo Ann Olsen: I don't believe so.
' Mayor Chmiel: I don't think there are.
Councilman Johnson: Because I know they don't connect all the way up to
whatever that street is there.
Don Ashworth: That's where you get the proposed park piece in there. The piece
that's outside.
' Councilman Johnson: No, this is on the north side.
' Councilman Boyt: Jay, when we agree to an outlot, whether it's behind our back
door or anywhere in town, if it's an outlot then if they don't develop it in the
time period given to the whole development, they come back in and say I want
this under the old rules and they have to play by the new rules. So if Don
wants an outlot for 90% of these and he doesn't develop it in 5 years, then what
he's betting on is that the Met Council is going to change their mind or some
other change is going to occur because otherwise it will be 1 in 10. That's
' what Roger tells me is what happened in Pheasant Hills or any other development
that had an outlot. Have I got that right?
' Roger Knutson: Yes, there was some development agreement there, PUD agreement
including a phasing plan over a period of years. If nothing is said, if they're
silent, you play by the new rules after 2 years.
'
Robert Bruno: That's right. I agree with that. That's why we need the
development contract approved by this Council to extend it for however long you
want to extend it because when you're done extending i.t, it becomes 10 acres and
' at that point he's gone.
Councilman Johnson: This is a discussion item tonight. We're not voting on
what we're doing. We're discussing it to provide you input. Is that correct?
Discussion of final plat? That you're going to do the final plat?
Don Halla: Well I think this all came up and Jo Ann correct me if I'm wrong, is
' Jo Ann wanted to make sure that we didn' t lose the 2 1/2 acres and she wanted, I
believe, correct me if I'm wrong Jo Ann, so she brought this up in the first
place because she felt that we had and were under the 2 1/2 acres but she wanted
to make sure there was absolutely no possibility that we lost it so she was
looking for written approval because we had done everything that was required of
us up to date. We were going to start the development in the 3 lots so we
didn't lose any of this 2 1/2 acres. I really feel she was trying to do her job
I! to make sure there was absolutely no misunderstanding anymore. I guess that's
why we're here tonight is to make sure there's no misunderstanding.
Councilwoman Dimler: Don, if sewer and water came in in 2 years, would you want
to be under the 2 1/2 acres at that time? Would you be bond by that?
57
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 II
Don Halla: I'd still stay with 2 1/2 acres if sewer and water came in in 2
years because you and I both know it's not going to be there until 2020.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know that.
Don Halla: We moved here in 1962 and when we bought that property it was
estimated at the year. 2000. It has now moved to 2020. That is a legitimate
number.
Councilman Boyt: Well I think we should take a straw '
says whether or not we support 5 w vote if nothing else that
ppo years.
Councilwoman Dimler: Wait a minute. I have a motion. There was a
recommendation that the City Council should determine one of the following.
Number 2 of that recommendation by city staff is that if the applicant plats the
34 lots as outlots, he will forfeit the approved preliminary plat and be
required to replat the outlots and meet all of the current zoning regulations.
I would move that because to me that's the only thing that makes sense.
Councilman Johnson: Not giving any extension?
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right. The others aren't getting it. '
Councilman Johnson: The others didn't need i.t. The others didn't ask for it.
'I!!Councilwoman Dimler: You're giving special treatment and setting precedence.
Councilman Johnson: You're the only person that asked for it. It's not like
we're denying everybody else it. Well we'll wait to hear if you have a second.
Councilman Boyt: Well I'll go back to the 5 year phasing model which may be
virtually the same thing. Is there a second for. that? ,
Councilman Johnson: I'll move 10.
Mayor Chmiel: How about if we satisfy him for 8?
Robert Bruno: Maybe you want to take a look at the phasing map to see how
things...
Mayor Chmiel: I think we have it indicated here in a letter as to what the
phasings would be. '
Councilman Johnson: I would like to say 10 years, each phase has to have a
complete street system. I'm saying this is the phasing plan we want. We want
to see the phasing plan when final plat comes in in 2 weeks or whenever the
final plat comes in here in the very near future, that shows us each phase and
how we'll have a complete road system with each phase. So we're making a dead
end street a half mile long with any one phase. So each phase will have a
complete safe street system built with each phase.
Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, the reason I said that you might be setting a
precedent here is because you know that Mr. Peterson's runs out in January of
58 '
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 �""
1990 and he'll be coming back here and what are we going to do with him then?
Councilman Johnson: Most of his is going to be taken up by TH 212. There's not
' going to be much left.
Councilwoman Dimler: They may not know at that time yet though.
Councilman Boyt: Right. That's a unique problem. There are parts of your
property that are a unique problem and I'm willing to deal with those quite
' differently but I think overall, Jay 10 years is, our population could double in
10 years. Personally I don't have a sense for what the needs are going to be in
this community 10 years from now. What specifics.
Councilman Johnson: If we don't get more sewer it's not going to double unless
we can put two families per house.
' Councilwoman W.mler: I mean the Met Council can change it's mind any time by
pressure from the public so that could be within 2 years. It's not unreal. If
development is really in demand here, it can be done within 2 years. It can be
' done within 5 years. It could be 20 years. Who knows, but I mean it's not
unrealistic.
Councilman Johnson: The trouble is the intrastructure to support that. We
' don't have the roads or anything to support that kind of development.
Councilman Boyt: Well have we got any sense on years here? Ursula says no
years. I can live with that. Do as much as you can do, outlot the rest of it
and see what happens. That's what everybody else seems to have done.
' Councilman Johnson: Ursula went with zero. You went with 5. I went with 10.
Nothing's working yet.
Councilwoman Dimler: Let's ask Tom.
' Councilman Workman: In the basic sense I don't want to see Halla Nursery go out
of business if they don't want to go out of business. TH 101 is a big problem.
' We don't want to use that heavily if it's developed out there and that's another
problem so I'm looking at some of those amenity kind of things.
Councilman Johnson: 37 homes is probably less traffic than Halla Nursery as far
as truck traffic and stuff.
Don Halla: I doubt it.
' Councilman Workman: I don' t know. I guess I leaned over and maybe I said it a
little more crassly than I would say it here but it appears to be time, from
what the previous Council has stated and what we're saying basically now is
' we've got to be moving on this thing and that's where I'm am. I don't care to
see Halla go out of business but it's kind of do it or don't do it and let's
move on with it I guess. Extending it way out there is I don't think proper.
Robert Bruno: The phasing was something that has been assumed I think since
this thing was applied for. It's something that the staff came up with. It's
something that the Council 2 years ago has approved in the preliminary plat and
59
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 '
granted they didn't put a time on that preliminary plat as to when those phases
are to occur but certainly they intended that they were not going to be all done
in one fell swoop.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just read you something else that was within the Minutes.
As it said here, by July of 1989 he should have this thing moving meaning
Mr. Halla. They also indicate I think perhaps that it can be part of passing
this, make Don understand that we'll extend it for a year and if he hadn't begun
doing something in a year's time, the chances of his receiving another extension
are pretty slim. ,
Councilman Johnson: That's what he's trying to do. He's trying to do
something. To plat 3 lots. ,
Mayor chmiel: Right. You're doing phases but those phases are the problems that
exist with the total amounts of years that you're indicating or proposing to
have for it and that's what is really a concern for the Council. We too don't
want to see you go out of business. I don't want to see you go out of business.
That's why I think maybe that 5 years would probably be the thing to go on
rather than to go by the other motion that was previously made. '
Councilman Boyt: So that's a second is it?
Councilman Johnson: You're going to second Bill's old motion?
Mayor Chmiel: I'm going to second his motion.
Councilman Workman: What does the 5 years actually do then?
Councilman Boyt: It buys him some time. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Gives a time limitation.
Councilman Workman: In the 5 years, what needs to be accomplished and what can
he do in that time?
Mayor Chmiel: Come back into the Council. ,
Councilman Johnson: All phases have to be final platted within 5 years.
Councilman Boyt: Which means he's got a development contract which means he's
paying property taxes which means it's developed. I mean it's just inevitable.
I'm inclined to think that the Council felt that you could develop what you were
going to develop and the rest of it was going to be an outlot but I can't read
their minds as I demonstrated any number of times while they were here. So my
inclination would be that 5 years is reasonable.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's real generous.
Councilman Boyt: Can we take a vote Don?
Mayor chmiel: Okay, we have a motion with a second.
60 ,
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
II
1 Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor_ Chmiel seconded to recommend that all phases of
' Great Plains Golf Estates be final platted within 5 years. Councilman Boyt,
Councilman Workman and Mayor Chmiel voted in favor, Councilman Johnson voted in
opposition and Councilwoman Dimler did not vote. The motion carried with a vote
of 4 to 1.
Councilman Johnson: My no vote was I thought that 5 years was too small a time
' period.
Councilman Boyt: No, I think all we said was that was what our intent would be.
We didn't vote on the final plat tonight. All we said is what our intent would
be.
Mayor. Chmiel: Just letting you know where we're coming from.
Don Halla: Is there any problem with say a one month extension.
' Robert Bruno: It's on the agenda for plat approval, he has until I think July
10th to file the final plat.
Councilman Johnson: You have to have the paperwork in by July 10th.
Mayor Chmiel: Does that create a problem for you? The July 10th date?
Don Halla: It probably does because I think I will then be forced to develop.. .
Councilman Boyt: Is one month reasonable? Co you need 2 months?
' Don Halla: I know that the 3 lots are all approved and all the surveying has
been done on the entire property for those 3 lots. ..
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to extend the final plat
review for Great Plains Golf Estates until August 10, 1989. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPLICATION FEE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CHANHASSEN TACO
SHOP.
Mayor Chmiel: This is the one that Ursula brought up that she thought should be
' brought back to staff and they determine as to what to do with it. Is there any
further discussion?
' Councilman Johnson: Is there a represenative of the Taco Shop?
Jo Ann Olsen: He was unable to make it.
I! Councilman Boyt: I would like to make a motion that we deny this reimbursement.
Staff put in time. We spent the money. I don't think it's fair to ask the
citizens to subsidize that so I would vote denial or make a motion that we deny
it.
Councilman Johnson: And I'll second it.
61
•
C.'
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny the fee application
reimbursement for Chanhassen Taco Shop. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. '
Councilman Johnson: I think we should also indicate that we would like to see
staff act upon this and it would only be brought to us after a denial by staff
if the applicant request it to be brought to the City Council rather than to be
brought to us before a formal denial by staff has been made.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I wanted to send it back.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, but in this case we're pretty sure he's going to come
back and talk to us...so save some time with Don.
RECEIVE DRAFT OF PRELIMINARY WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR WELL SITING,
AUTHORIZE PUMP TESTING FOR WELLS 2 AND 3.
Gary Warren: I believe this graphic probably summarizes where we stand at this
point. ...the draft and as positive off-shoot of this preliminary investigation
our consultants, Liesch Associates identified that wells 2 and 3 looked like
they can generate some substantial more development as a result of increased
pumping capacities because you have the equipment to do that. So in order to
wrap up the feasibility investigation here and also to. . .we felt it would be
appropriate to get Council input here and authorize the pump testing...wells 2
and 3. . . The off-shoot of this would be that if we can indeed generate the '
capacities which in Well 3 would be an additional 600 to 800 gallons a minute on
the well, almost a 60o increase in it's capacity, we can forestall the
installation of 5 until some future date. Rely on the other capacities that we
can get out of these wells. It would really be an expiditious way of getting
the pumping into our system and to maximize our existing facilities. So the
draft report has been submitted. To give you a little bit of background on it,
you've seen my notes in the report there. There are some things that we
obviously need to polish up on but I wanted to get Council's authorization to go
ahead with this pump testing on Wells 2 and 3 so we can nail down these
alternatives. ...I think it will give us some good flexibility. ,
Mayor Chmiel: We presently have 4 wells now in the State right? One that's ben
capped? '
Gary Warren: One in the middle school well.
Mayor Chmi.el: How many more wells would be required within the City and should '
all the wells be within one specific location?
Gary Warren: You mean for total development how many wells? '
Mayor Chmi.el: Yes.
Gary Warren: I believe our water study was done in 1985 showed a total of maybe '
8 wells total. We try to consolidate where we can. Where the hydraulics will
allow it. Where we have the capacity to space them closer together. It will
depend on what we will do in the future as far as water treatment. If it is
62 '
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 `x'
' decided that we need to start softening the water-:..some of these things that
r- , other cities do, then you'd like to have wells consolidated closely if you're
going to go to a simple treatment plant like Eden Prairie has but there are
many communities such as Edina for example that exist with sand filters at each
of their pump wellhouses so there's two schools of thought there. So they don't
have to all be in one place and actually today's modern day thinking with aqua
' fir contamination and those kinds of risks, it's not all that unreasonable to
have it spaced apart.
Mayor Chmiel: The other question I guess I have, we have the different St.
Peter sandstone, Prairie Du Chien group and then Jordan, would it be to the best
of the City's advantage to have three different kinds in the event that one of
those existing aquafirs have a problem of any contamination? Would it be best
' and behoove the City to keep it in three different veins rather than just one? --
Gary Warren: Well our interest, and the report addresses that pretty well too,
was to see if we could get a glacial drift well constructed. In fact on this
graphic here, that's what the G's are. Indicating that there are some
potentially good areas, and you won't know with the drift well until you
' actually go out and try to develop it but the geologic strata there tends to
indicate we could eventually supplement one of our additions to the City by
going with a drift well. Maple Grove for example uses drift wells extensively
and successfully. The down side is that you don't know until you get out there
' what you're going to develop on but going to say having them all spread out
between the Jordan-Hickley and going to the real deep wells, I think we'd want
to take a real hard look at that. If we had them in say two aquafirs, I think
that that would be a good enough redundancy for us. To go to the deep bed rock
wells is quite expensive. Pumping costs and installation.
Councilman Boyt: And the State is trying to keep people from doing that.
' Trying to protect that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I know. I realize that.
' Gary Warren: I think we have an excellent opportunity here to further develop
Well 3 as a minimum and get some additional capacity out of that well plus the
'
time line for getting it upgraded would be a lot faster. So the recommendation
right now is to authorize that testing and then the report would be completed
with those results.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see us build Well #5 as soon as we've got the
money to build it. In addition to what you're doing, I think we ought to
continue on the current schedule for. building Well #5 in 1990.
Gary Warren: Once we have a handle on what we can generate out of Well #3 and -
evaluate, if you recall in the earlier staff report we have a growth assumption
curve, we would be able then to get a better fix as to just what kind of time is
this buying us and when should we continue to press for Well #5. It is budgeted
technically in our schedule for next year.
Councilman Boyt: But my point's a little different Gary. We're going to need
that water. I don't want to be running constantly behind. I'd like to have a
well that's sitting there that we could tap off of moderately knowing that we
can get more rather than having people have brown grass.
63
y Y- Y
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 ,
Mayor Chmiel: What is dollar expenditure on those wells Gary?
['-
Gary Warren: The actual well itself? If you're doing a shallow drift well,
you're probably in the $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 range. If you're doing a deeper
well like we are currently into the Jordan, then you're probably into the
$100,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the GPM's that you have existing on 3, what are those?
Gary Warren: Roughly getting about 1,000 gallons a minute.
Mayor Chmiel: And then what would you be getting if you were able to increase
the rate?
Gary Warren: We figure 1,600 to 1,800 gallons a minute.
Councilman Johnson: In Well #3?
Gary War_r_en: Right. The drawned out showed 66 gallons per minute for every
foot of drawnout. If that holds true, which it could, then we could get upwards
of almost two-thirds of a new well.
Councilman Johnson: Have they also looked at neighboring wells to Well #3 to '
see if a dr_awdown of this size might affect a neighboring well?
Gary Warren: As a part of the investigation report here, they did locate and 111
it's shown on a bigger map. I only had one copy. I didn't put in this version.
They have sited all of the wells and the actual report is that thick so you've
got the text here but they did do an extensive research of all well records from
the Department of Health and DNR and we did site those and their feelings were
that we did not influence any, there are no other high capacity wells in the
area of Well #3 that we would impact by increasing it's drawn out.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Ni.elson's well is not very close?
Gary Warren: Not from what they've indicated. Most of the neighborhood and '
residential wells are in your drifts.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize the pump testing
of Wells #2 and #3 in the amount not to exceed $7,000.00. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY, AUTHORIZE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR AUDUBON COURT.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of Council, I am Bill Engelhardt. We
prepared the feasibility study for. the Audubon Court project. I'll try to be
somewhat brief for you tonight and hopefully hold it open for questions that you
might have. Let's go back a little bit. This was the original Audubon Road 11
feasibility study showing the upgrading of Audubon Road, McGlynn Bakeries and
future development which is now known as Audubon Court. Under this original [ji
feasibility study for the upgrading of Audubon Road, the first phase of
64 '
m.
141
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
' development was in the roadway and the road portion going into serve the
i McGlynn Bakeries with Phase 2 shown in blue as the completion of the looped road
IIi for the outlots that McGlynn had and Phase 3 as the future development for the
.4 Audubon Court. As it turns out, the developer and the land has been sold and is
ready for develop in Phase 3 so is in fact becoming Phase 2. Where the
I completion of the Buttercup Road will not be done until McGlynn proceeds with
their development. With that we prepared a feasibility study for Audubon Court.
In conjunction with that small development located in the overall scheme of
things right in this area right off of Audubon Road. We had to look at how the
I sewer capacity for the entire area would be served with the construction of a
lift station and what alternatives the city would have for future development
and how those alternatives could best serve the needs of the area. Right now
I we're proposing a lift station located in this area to serve the Audubon Court
area. It will also serve a larger area but only about 180 acres of the large
area and that's due to the downstream capacity of the sanitary sewer of Park
I Drive. We sized that lift station though to accommodate the capacity of Park
Drive to allow for development of 180 acres. This is by no means any magic
number...180 acres but it's what we felt was a reasonable area that could be
developed with TH 5 frontage along the railroad tracks. The extension of the
I Audubon Court and then also the extension of McGlynn Bakery area. We felt that
180 acres probably could be improved sooner than any of the other portions of
the district. The other options that we looked at, by increasing that lift
I station size does give us that 180 acres but it also would allow at some point
in time for future expansion to serve those areas with what's shown as the red
line as the Bluff Creek interceptor. The Bluff Creek interceptor is a future,
future interceptor line. Down the road quite a ways but you have an area up
along Lake Minnewashta that it is within the MUSA line right now and with the
partial construction of the Bluff Creek interceptor or a trunk sewer, we could
serve this area. We could also ask Met Council to expand the MUSA line and move
I it down to TH 5, include this area in the MUSA line and then serve those using
the Lake Ann interceptor_ as another temporary connection. So we're looking at
some alternatives for the City in the future and how these areas north of TH 5
I can be served without completing the entire Bluff Creek interceptor. So it
allows us some flexibility and it allows you a degree of development without
going through a major, major project with the Bluff interceptor. We did check
with the designers of the Lake Ann Interceptor_ and this is a feasible
I alternative. There is capacity for this area to be. ..Lake Ann Inter_ceptor_. So
that's a little bit of a background of how we arrived at the overall picture of
the sanitary sewer for this particular area. Then to get into the details of
I the development itself, which again is the small portion of that overall
picture. We're looking at just a short cul-de-sac, 6 lots on Audubon Court and
a lift station located in this area. Sanitary sewer down from the lift station.
I The green line indicates the force main back up to the gravity sewer that then
flows into the Audubon Road sewer and into Park Road.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Bill, let me just get a little clarification. Within the MUSA
I line, as I view this from one of your drawings number one, it appears as though
those lots are just outside of the MUSA.
Bill Engelhardt: No. This MUSA line has just recently been changed and it
comes down to include the McGlynn site. It comes down to the railroad tracks
and then comes over.
IIMayor Chmiel: So what is shown here though, I understand that's wrong?
I 65
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Bill Engelhardt: That's right.
Councilman Boyt: I would move approval.
Bill Engelhardt: Can I have a chance to go through the water?
Councilman Boyt: Well we've read this.
Mayor Chmiel: It's getting late.
Bill Engelhardt: That's fine but if you have any questions, I'll be happy to
answer them. It's relatively straight forward.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: One other question, with that extension are there any addition, I
can't remember exactly, are there any additional residents within that area? If
I remember correctly we have 3 right within that specific location.
Councilman Johnson: Residences?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I shouldn't say residences. One was one that was in for an
application. ,
Bill Engelhardt: That's on the other side of the tracks. That would not be
part of this project, no.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right it is. I was down a little too far.
Resolution #89-76: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to accept
the feasibility study and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for
Audubon Court Improvement Project #89-7. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
OAK VIEW HEIGHTS, PROPERTY ZONED R-12 AND LOCATED BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS '
BOULEVARDS, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, CENVESCO:
A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY
OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS ON 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND AND
STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO A WETLAND.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS.
Jo Ann Olsen: Just real briefly, the issue here is whether or not what they're
proposing meets the intent of the planned unit development ordinance. The
Planning Commission felt that it did not. They recommended denial of the PUD.
along with that they recommended denial of the site plan and the wetland
alteration permit. They recommended denial so it could be passed onto the
66
143
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Council for their decision. Th applicant a�plicant wants a decision made so they know
whether or not they should then pursue the R-12 zoning of the property. They
have made application with an R-12 site plan. It will be going in front of the
Planning Commission a week from this Wednesday. We have provided you with the
updates and the Planning Commission Minutes and I think the developer can take
it from there.
Councilman Johnson: We have another proposal going to the Planning Commission
' for the same?
Mayor Chmi.el: Under the R-12.
t Jo Ann Olsen: Right where it's going to be rental properties, not individually .
owned because that's where they got into the small lots because each of the
townhome units.
' Councilman Johnson: So they have two applications for the same piece of
property in the process?
Jo Ann Olsen: In case the PUD doesn't make it.
Mayor Chmiel: In case the PUD does not get approved tonight.
' Councilman Boyt: I can propose an interesting slant on this. I should start
out I suppose by coming out squarely against it and so the developer will know
that you can pretty much count on me responding that way. Now what I would
,. propose first thing we do is, if you've got some, either the reduced version or
the large version of the map, if you might turn to sheet 4 of 6. Feel free to
' look on. If we start at the top of the page, they are proposing to cut down
three 36 inch oak trees. That's at the top of the page. As we drift down the
page, you've got a 28, 24, 26 and they're saving some right in the middle there,
and a 30. Now we have talked about, not this particular council, maybe just
' lightly a time or two, but the previous council talked several times about the
need to protect large trees. You may recall, and I don't remember_ if it was the
Villager or the Sailor this past week, they had an article about probably the
' oldest Red Oak tree in the country, if not the world, is sitting in Chanhassen.
450 years old. Is that right? The Sailor, okay. They talked about some class
at, I think it was the Jr. High went out and measured it. Talked about what was
going on when this tree first sprouted. Obviously trees like that are
landmarks. We don't have, fortunately it's in the Minnewashta Park because we
don't have any way of protecting that tree. If that tree was in your backyard
right now, you could go out and cut it down. I think we need a moratorium on
' cutting any oak tree that's more than 100 years old and every one of these is
more than 100 years old. Any hardwood that's more than a 100 years old deserves
it's day in court. So I would propose that before we do anything here, we need
to study this and come back with an ordinance that deals with those sorts of
'
landmark trees.
Mayor Chmi.el: Any other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: Well is there a second to that?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
' 67
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to establish a moratorium on
the cutting of trees and to direct staff to study and bring back an ordinance
dealing with the preservation of landmark trees. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: Does this table this? '
Councilman Boyt: No, what we're talking about here is establishing a moratorium
that doesn't allow to cut any of these trees until we come up with a reasonable
ordinance in regards to that. We can do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Other cities have done that.
Councilman Johnson: Are we going to have a chance to discuss the overall plan?
Mayor_ Chmiel: Certainly. Any other discussion? '
Councilman Boyt: I have other things but I'd be happy to wait for other people.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor I'll start in. I had a chance to meet with Dean '
today. I know Dean and I chased each other a little bit so I was glad we got
together and talked about it. I had perhaps my own viewpoint going into my
meeting taking into account a strong Planning Commission disapproval and as
I mentioned to Dean, my experience, I am currently the owner of a townhome. I
live in a townhouse on what is actually the Cimarron Homeowner's Association.
So I have perhaps some of my own luggage there to bring into this. I mentioned '
in casual conversation with the Attorney here tonight that they were going to
basically be around the mid-50's to 60's range in price. He almost lost his
dentures. He said he hadn't heard of that low of a price in a long time. Maybe
that's something that we need for the people of Rosemount, the employees of
Rosemount and McGlynn, etc. to be living i.n. I don't know. That's another
discussion. i explained a little bit and Ursula was there too, I explained a
little bit about why I live in a townhouse. Namely because I got such a good
deal on the thing. One man's loss is another man's gain. That's why I'm in it.
My biggest concern going in was how in the heck am I going to get out of this
because the day I moved in, I planned on moving out. So we also talked about
the merits of who lives in this type of housing and I, in my quad, I have 3
retired couples that live there and I fully intend to probably sell to another
retired couple so it is good housing for that. Dean explained that mine
actually wasn't anything like what he's developing now. It's something smaller,
cramped I think a little more. It's something I don't think I would live in.
But with a homeowners association like this, I do see problems some of which he
is trying to head off. One being sprinklers already built into lawns. Take
care of the lawn problem which I know my homeowners association has a terrible
problem with and he admitted his previous one still has a problem with. Low
maintenance on the exterior, etc., although my homeowners association takes care
of that properly. My biggest concern are the one car garages. Parked cars
outside of buildings are not tolerated in my homeowners association, not that
that doesn't mean they can't be. I'm not trying to tie them in but there's
obviously an understanding of what that kind of thing does to a neighborhood.
L!!
In fact you can be fined in my homeowners association if you leave them outside
your garage which I think is a good idea. If you have a garage, use it. I know
the Planning Commission has a problem with the impervious surface is too high.
Cil
68 '
45
IICity Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Setbacks, parking, density, too high. Everything is inadequate. Inadequate. I
think that's what builds all the way up to why they do not feel the PUD is
I permitable here so I guess at this time I am going to go along with the Planning
Commission and perhaps Bill and wait for everybody else's comments.
' Councilwoman Dimler: As Tom indicated, I too met with Dean today and I asked
him some questions. I guess my main concern here is, and I know that this is
not part of his doing but this is in the HRA district. I asked him if he would
build this particular plan if it would pass the but for test. Would he build it
' if it were not for the HRA and he said no so the HRA is helping him in that
regard. But I guess some of the concerns that I have, because it is a HRH
district, is that this would probably attract some young families with children
' and they would be going to school and basically the taxes that they're paying
would not be going to the school district so the taxpayer would have to pick up
for those school children. I think that's a real concern of mine and I know
that's not Dean's problem. That's a problem of the HRA. I also have a problem
that it's zoned R-12. I talked to Don today and he indicated that that zoning
used to be commercial and it was just changed about 5 years ago to an R-12.
My feeling is it should still be commercial. So added to the concerns that Tom
has expressed, I guess those are my concerns and I know they're not Dean's fault
but those are my comments.
' Councilman Johnson: This city needs affordable housing. We don't have much for
that. This city does not have any subsidized housing to speak of. I know, does
the HRA have any besides the four that are in the new apartments that aren't
built yet? Subsidized housing?
I I Don Ashworth: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. There's not much of an H in the HRA yet. A lot of
redevelopment without much for housing. Working the last month to help resettle
a family of refugees from Ethiopia and became a lot more aware of the needs of
affordable housing in the western side of the Twin Cities. While I recognize
the need, I'm not sure if this is the place and if we need this much and this
dense. This is a lot of housing. The density, the original plan that came in
looked really nice. I think there was a lot less units than this. The original
one about a year ago.
Dean Johnson: This has less units...
' Councilman Johnson: Well I'm not too wild on this one. I think this should be
R-12. I think it makes sense to go from the commercial. You go up the hill.
Above the hill you put the apartments and then you phase in across the, I don't
want to say commercial, right across from the single family residential on the
other side of the ditch there in Saddlebrook because this is kind of over the
hill from the commercial area. I think R-12 is a reasonable, maybe R-8 even. I
' don't see what the City is getting. I don't think we need this much affordable
housing. We do need some. We've got some with these Village Apartments,
whatever they are. They're behind us. We need more and some of that can be
I brought up by apartments. I'd like to see us get some 3 bedroom apartments.
There's no 3 bedroom apartments in this town. They're all 2 or. 1 bedroom
apartments. I'd like to see the HRA do something about that. What is the HRA's
involvement in this?
11
1 69
m
-J f �+
--Cte Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
Don Ashworth: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority looked at this proposal
and determined, there's not a clear position and I guess that was the primary
issue. My recollection is that two of the HRA members felt that the item should
be submitted back to the Planning Commission to determine what the City wanted
to see for an overall housing plan before the HRA simple started going out and
subsidizing housing units. One of the members, potentially two were not really
interested in directly subsidizing units and I think that the Chairman was
successful in basically kind of pulling it together saying, if we can look to
traditional type of improvements, street, etc., that's maybe within our perview
but in terms of the actual units themself, I don't think that we should be
pursuing that further at this point in time.
Councilman Johnson: Without a plan, I agree. We can't just jump in and start
subsidizing housing but it's something we should be looking at. The HRA, it's
under their perview a bit to look at housing needs. That I guess and Planning
Commission together. It's a lovely little knoll. There's going to be a mess of
apartments. A mess of massive buildings. I'm very concerned about the loss of
trees. I don't think it meets the standards of the City of Chanhassen that has
high quality standard of fairly open areas. I don't know if I'd grant a PUD on
this.
Mayor_ Chmiel: I guess my turn then. I too feel basically the same way.
Density, storage, one car garages, impervious surfaces, too high a percentage.
Not enough useable open space and visitor parking spaces. The other perview
that I see in this thing too, my understanding with HRA, we were going to have
the HRA for basically downtown redevelopment and I don't see us subsidizing
residential development within the community for this. I think the main idea 111
was to develop downtown. Get that pulled together. Any additional residential
development should not be subsidized by HRA, at least that's my own personal
opinion. I guess pretty much what everybody else has said. I agree with it.
I'm not in agreement with the concept. I'm not too pleased with what's being
proposed and I guess that's where I'm at.
Councilwoman Dimler: I wanted to comment on Jay's. I agree that we do need
affordable housing. I think that is essential. I just wonder if we want, this
is literally our west entrance to the City. I just wonder if we want it right
there. And I guess that's why I would like to see it be commercial as the
southern end of that is commercial. Also, I think that some of the, in this
particular plan, some of the buildings were going to be below that berm.
Councilman Johnson: No, they'll be visible. '
Councilman Dimler: Yes south. So that's just what I wanted to add. Go ahead
Bill. '
Councilman Boyt: First, affordable housing is certainly a challenge. We all
know that. My feeling is if the HRA is going to subsidize something, we should
build the highest quality housing for the square foot size that we can and we
should subsidize enough of it to make it affordable for the people that will be
seeking that sort of housing. We shouldn't settle for something that's as
inexpensive as we can get somebody into a home. I don't think the City has the '
money to do the right kind of job of subsidizing housing. I hope someday we do
have the tax base that we can subsidize housing. Minneapolis has got millions 111
of dollars they can spend helping subsidize people buying homes. We're a long
70 1
MI
1417
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
IIways from that. There's a couple issues that this development pm really brings out
clearly and I'm real pleased at the things that I've heard the other Council
members saying about these. This business about one car garages. Or current
ordinance allows people to build I believe a one car garage. Is that right or
is it a house needs 2 and an apartment has 1?
IIJo Ann Olsen: Yes. It varies with the number of units, bedroom units.
II Councilman Boyt: I think Tom's development is a good example that everybody
over there seems to be able to fill up a 2 car garage. I think we should be
looking at the ordinance and making our ordinances present a minimum
construction that we can all live with. I think by and large 2 car garages are
I what's happening so I'd like to see us look at that. I think another thing, and
I've talked to Lori about this before and I don't seem to be able to make a lot
of inroads but this really points it out. The standard we have for park
I deficiency is unbelieveably high. We say that we can put 75 people on every
acre in a park. That we can size our parks so they can handle 75 people around
them. It doesn't work. It doesn't work because we've got different kinds of
parks. We've got the park behind my house, the Chan Pond Park. A lot of
I acres. A lot of it's water and there's no way that supports that number of
people. We take the school park over here or what we might call City Center
Park. You can't go out there any evening and tell me that that park isn't maxed
1 capacity and the fact that we're adding 140 units of townhouses but we're not
park deficient misses the whole idea of the park needs of a city and I think
Park and Rec should be going back and seriously considering cutting that number
III in half. Again, it just shows up in this particular situation. We owe, I think
we'd all agree, the City basically owes people easy safe access to it's parks
I and I think this is a chance to do that. We've only had one PUD that came in
since we've had the new PUD ordinance. Lake Susan West. Jay and I were here
II for that one. You saw a part of it tonight with the sidewalk mishap which I'll
be happy to see how that sorts itself out but when we granted that PUD, those
folks gave the city everything that we could conceiveably get from them. We got
II 100 acres in park. Somewhere in that neighborhood of which some of it wasn't
very high useability park but we got a lot of parks. We got sidewalks. That
community is, the intent was to help that community be self sufficient. I think
I when we grant a POD, what we're saying is, you're coming in with a development
that is a unit in itself. That it has open space. That you get that open space
by the way you arrange your housing units. Then the last thing and I'll get off
my soap box, the last thing is this shouldn't be zoned R-12. Maybe R-4 but not
II R-12 and you can see that when you look. This looks like a tennis complex. I
think it's too dense. That's all I've got.
II Mayor. Chmi.el: Dean, do you want to say anything? At least you know where we're
all coming from.
Marion Cully: My name is Marion Cully. I'm with Hedlund Engineering and I'm
II the site planner for this development that you have been discussing and we have
been discussing for quite some time. I want to address some of the Council's
concerns. First of all I'm a landscape architect and trees are very important
I! to me and they are to Mr. Johnson too. We looked at this area and we tried to
save as many trees as possible in the area. If you look at the grading, what
the grading means in this area and how those trees are located, you realize that
to develop this land.. .these trees should be grandfathered is maybe not an
IF-
appropriate time to discuss this now. That should have been done prior to this
II 71
IN
1 r1 0
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 I
but it's impossible to develop this property and to save every tree. Period. I
think one of the issues that we're taking for granted, we've lost 140 some
caliper inches. That's hard to take but we've also put in almost 2 1/2 times
that. Now we're into the different variety of not just the native oak but
different varieties dispersed throughout the development...poi_nted out. There
are hundreds, thousands of caliper inches of trees that we will not touch nor
any other developer will touch in the wetlands wooded area. They're protected
and they should be. Granted we're losing 142 caliper inches but we're saving
thousands as any developer would be. I understand the point about the trees
but I want to point out that whether it should be R-12 or whatever, the fact is
this gentleman bought the land at R-12 and we've done our best to involve that
in what we were told and what we could do with it. I'm hearing the R-12 is
synomous with apartment buildings. The R-12 designation as it reads now is
based on three main points. The coverage, impervious coverage cannot be over
35% of the overall site. That's buildings and driveways. That has always been
the case with every proposal that we've submitted. If you look at the overall
site, 35% has never been exceeded. Period, on the overall site. There is the
overall density has always been under and always will be under 12. It's 11.6.
If you look at the overall site and that's how the site was designed. That's
how we've always looked at this site as an overall unit. That's what PUD means,
as you know. Also, a lot size is based on a per unit 3,600 square feet.
Multiply 12 by 3,600 square feet and you get an acre. That's where it came
from. That gives you no land for right-of-way. No land for park development so
the R-12 is really hard to work with. That's why we've done our best to submit
a PUD plan that addresses the issues that the City wants to see in a PUD with
variety. Different types of housing. We've looked at orientation of these
housing. Different sizes of units. Apartments and townhouses and the developer
wants to see these units being individually ownership. If they are, it has to
be PUD. It's just the way the ordinance is written. We've worked with trying
to look at the efficiency of the roadway design. The entrance for the road are
pre-determined. Then it's hard to do anything else but to develop it in this
way. There's townhouses that are now on this part of the property that are
single apartment townhouses.
Councilman Boyt: I voted against that by the way.
Marion Cully: But they are there. ..so whether we think it's someone would think
it's commercial or R-12, whatever, this is what we're working with and we feel
that we've done the best that we can do with the product and the site. Are
there any questions as far as the design?
Councilman Johnson: How do you have a variety?
Marion Cully: There's different sizes of structures. There's 8 units and 10
units and 12 units and there's orientation in all difference as to views and
orientation. Then there's the apartment house and then there's the townhomes.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Anyone else have any more questions?
Councilman Johnson: Is there a rendering of the buildings? What the buildings
are going to look like? I don't see that in our packet. ,
Marion Cully: It should have been. A few of them have double car garage.. .but
if there's any question in the site design, I'd appreciate having the
72 1
EN
Ly 9
ICity Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
.; opportunity to answer those. Dean can
talk about unit designs.
IDean Johnson: The units are... It's a two story unit. The center units are
single car garages. The end units double car garages. The center units are 2
bedroom units. The end units are 3 bedroom so we are getting some 3 bedroom. ..
' We feel that's some of the variety. What we're trying to build here is a unit
that is affordable housing so there is another alternative but we want to keep
the quality high too as I had in the conversation with Tom and Ursula. We're
'
trying to build a unit that is maintenance free on the outside as vinyl siding
is what we're proposing. Garage doors that are steel with enamel baked on
finishes. Clad aluminum windows. Steel doors. We're also trying to build a
unit with some quality here. The unit has thermal pane windows with...so you
' can actually get better R value than... More insulation in the attic. It's 2 x
4 walls and as I talked with Ursula and Tom, we felt there were better places to
put the money because more of your heat goes out your ceiling and your windows
than it does go. out the walls so we have a 2 x 6 walls. We are trying to give
them something that is not going to be a burden to them when they own the
property. The exterior is maintenance free... The other thing though is a
sprinkler system. To keep their lawn green, they're going to be paying for lawn
mowing and chemical treatments to keep the weeds out and keep the bugs out.
Other than that, the fees are going to be quite low. Mainly snowplowing in the
winter and perhaps mowing and lawn treatments in the summer so they're going to
have lower association fees which is again something that has to... Other than
I guess if there are any questions.
Councilman Johnson: What is the interconnecting walls between the two units?
What's the construction there?
Dean Johnson: There's actually two walls. There's a dead air space in the
middle and there will be 5/8th sheet rock on both sides of the dead air space
and then two stud walls. One of each side and then the interior rock on the
buildi.ng...and then the insulation.
' Councilman Johnson: Okay, do you know what the noise.. .?
' Dean Johnson: I don't know the decimils but I built the same construction in
the Creekside at Plymouth project that I built in Plymouth and had absolutely no
problem there. . .
Councilman Johnson: The Brooklyn Park project, does that have the vinyl siding,
the steel doors and all that good stuff on it? The same as here?
' Dean Johnson: They.. .
Councilman Johnson: Do you know the address of that one?
Dean Johnson: It's about 96th and Russell. They have the same types of
densities as this one.
Councilman Johnson: Somebody mentioned a figure of $50,000.00.
1 Dean Johnson: We're seeing these in the mid 50's for a 2 bedroom unit and the
'�-- mid to upper 60's for the 3.
73
mar
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 II
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If not, thank ,
you. Can we have a motion
or further discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I did a quick little calculation assuming 2 1/2 people per
unit with 200 units when it's all built out, that's 500 people with 75 people
per acre of parkland, they need 6.6 acres of parkland to support this. Where
are we getting 6.6 acres of parkland? A PUD, we should be seeing this within
the PUD. I see a totlot. With as many kids are going to be in here, it's
solely inadequate.
Dean Johnson: Can I address that portion of the issue? In ,
built in Creekside, that was a ad the project that we
qu project and I think Tom would probably back
me up on this, there probably isn't going to be the large number of children int
his. It's probably going to be single people. Couples that are just married
without kids. Maybe having their first child but then after their first child
is there, probably looking for a single family home. Then you're going to get
divorced people, widowed people and then elderly couples. In the 128 units that
I built at the Plymouth project, we probably don't have 20 to 25 children of any
age in that project...because we did get some older children when some of the
widowed or divorced people came in and they had a child along with them so
you're probably not going to have very much park pressure from this project.
Councilman Johnson: If you compare this to, what is it Village West apartments 1
that are built right out behind here? That's filled with kids. Lots of kids in
there. I think there's a lot of children in the development. He's got 2
himself. Several friends of ours, my son that was rescued by some other folks -
here... He just went to a sleepover in that neighborhood. I think there are a
lot of children there. It may not be a majority. It may not be like my block
because it's really got a lot of kids on it but that's your starter where your
families are starting. There's a great need for park area. The closest park
would be I guess City Center or Lake Ann.
Dean Johnson: The School is right there.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that's City Center.
Dean Johnson: Let me ask a question of Tom. How many children are in your
development?
Councilman Workman: I have no idea. '
Councilman Boyt: Tom's development is sitting next to probably a 20 acre park,
Councilman Workman: Yes, we've got Meadow Green there.
Dean Johnson: I didn't know the park was next door but I guess what I'm saying
i.s, we had talked and there were a lot of elderly couples that were right around
here. Are there a lot of children? Do you see a lot of children?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I can guarantee that from pounding doors in that area. '
Councilman Workman: In fact they go over across the highway to get to the lake
CIIIby the Mayor's house so there's plenty of kids over there.
74 '
151
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
I Councilman-7- Johnson: His is a full PUD with quads, bi-attached and single family
y
1 homes all in the PUD and they supplied a large park.
IIICouncilman Boyt: It's considerably bigger than yours though.
II Councilman Johnson: Oh yes. Very much bigger. Two softball fields. Soccer
field.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to propose that we turn down the PUD development
IIconcept and development plan.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. One thing I had mentioned earlier,
I when I look at a PUD, we're giving something and we're getting something. I
don't see what we're getting here on this one besides affordable housing and
probably more than we need. There's no housing fight so we really don't know
Iwhat we need. Roger has his hand up Mr. Mayor.
Roger Knutson: I was just going to suggest that it may be appropriate rather
than, if you're going in that direction, prejudging what you're going to do but
II if the motion is to deny, rather than deny it tonight, the proper motion would
be to direct staff and myself to prepare findings consistent with denial.
Finding of Facts and Conclusions consistent with denial and bring it back here
IInext meeting and adopt it at that meeting.
Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that motion.
IIICouncilman Johnson: Second. '
I Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to direct staff and the City
Attorney to prepare Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law consistent with
denial for the PUD concept and development plan for Oak View Heights and to
I bring those back to the next City Council meeting for adoption. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
I Councilman Boyt: I would like to follow up Mr. Mayor by asking planning staff
and planning commission to review the zoning of this area.
ICOUNCIL PRESENTATION: This section was skipped due to the lateness of the
meeting.
IIADMINISTRATION PRESENTATIONS:
DISCUSSION OF LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES CLEAN WATER PROJECT, JO ANN OLSEN.
1 Jo Ann Olsen: The purpose of that memo is just to bring all the council members
somewhat up to date on the discussion over the work plan for the project. Most
recently there's been talk of having a committee formed that would look at the
work plan and determine what would be the best option for that work plan to
implement. It's pretty much just for to bring up for discussion. Just to allow
I� the councilmembers to know what's happening. Not asking for any recommendations
or anything.
I 75
ma
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 II
Mayor Chmi.el: Are there any recommendations from Council so staff can proceed
with a specific concept?
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make a comment if I might. The main comment is,
unfortunately we don't have the Park and Rec Minutes attached here in regards
to Lake Lucy but what I remember from reading them earlier, that project is too
expensive at $129,000.00. It's too environmentally damaging with a 800 foot
long, 20 foot wide cut through the marsh. I'd need a lot more justification for
why there isn't another alternative before we pursue that one.
Councilman Johnson: The DNR cannot expect us to cause such damage to the
environment in the sake of access to this lake. While we can improve access to
the lake other ways, while we may not get the total access as required, we've
got to get reasonableness out of the DNR in this case. This lake is quite
unique on trying to get access into it. Other than going through somebody's
backyard in Greenwood Shores which I don't think will happen real quickly. I
don't know who's going to volunteer to put a boat launch in their backyard and
having parking in their front.
Councilman Workman: I have been trying to keep as close an eye on this little
situation and Jo Ann and I have had fun conversations on the phone. Appreciated
Eric's and Mr. Carlson's and everybody's efforts. I mentioned it about a month
ago or so at a Council meeting because I definitely saw it blossoming into a
large issue. One in which this preliminary plan took many months to basically
put together and now we kind of have to get this through and we've got to do
this. Well, maybe we don't like this plan and what rights do we really have to
change the plan? I've researched Watershed responsibility and I've done a lot
of different things. Why is the City tied in? The City's tied in because of
the access. The access from what I heard prior to coming on the Council was the
big hot issue. That isn't the big hot issue. It's a secondary issue because
the people along the lake, particular Lake Lucy, want the money so that they can
clean up their lake but, and the big but is how technically sound is the
project? Being a very amateur lynologist, we are not sure of that. So given
perhaps some slight positive feedback as far as if Lake Lucy is going to make
some improvement, then people are generally in favor of the access. I've been
asking questions. Ursula's been asking questions. Everybody's been asking
questions and negotiating. We've got every large governmental agency involved
here which makes it even more fun. If in fact a committee could gotten together
of the Eric Rivkin's and the Carlson's and lakeowners, council representative,
PCA, EPA, DNR and everybody else, city staff, and we could accomplish something
and make those results know. Keep it simple and perhaps organized because I
know there's a lot of tempers and energy flowing, I would be happy with that.
I'm always more in favor of getting it as out in the open as we can. I'm not
going to be held responsible in the end for Chanhassen losing a million dollars
for lake clean-up because I'm asking questions. So somehow down the road before •.
this million dollar grant drifts away and out of our hands, I want to get some
of those answers so we can proceed and that's the whole idea behind trying to
get some answers. Bill has a different aspect at looking at the access. I
think if in fact we can't get answers to sufficiently clean up the lakes, I
would have a problem with the access and I know that the EPA and the PCA needs
to see progres towards getting that access so they can get the million bucks and
it's one big carrot on a stick going around. I do have concerns of course about
the environmental impact of the marsh also. Again, I asked Lori, we need to see
a time line before time slips away so that we can get it together. I proposed a
76 '
153
ICity Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
couple weeks ago that we possibly have a public hearing as early as this
f
I That hasn't happened. We're doing new things. Let's get it
together_ finally so that everybody knows where we're at. Where the money's at
and what we have to do to accomplish it. Get the answers to the plan and move
on with cleaning up the lakes.
Mayor Chmiel: Amen.
Councilman Johnson: There seems to be some misconception of the purpose of the
' project. The purpose of the project is to clean up Lake Riley. There are side
benefits that will the rest of the lakes. Ihe primary purpose of the project is
not to clean up Lake Lucy, Lake Susan, Lake Ann or Rice Marsh. I have my doubts
on the calcium nitrate. It may work in this lake. It's a considerably
different lake than Long Lake. Long Lake, I looked into it. They didn't do the
whole lake. They only did a little portion of the lake. They didn't have the
' baseline data to tell where they were starting and they didn't do enough
sampling to tell them where they ended so nobody has any idea what the affect of
the demonstration project was there. This is a full scale demonstration
project. The entire lake is going to be done. They're financing an experiment.
' If it works, it's going to be very good. We don't know if it's going to work.
I have another idea. I haven' t cost estimated it. Another way to do it that
may cost less than $300,000.00 that would have the same affect. I haven't
gotten down and sat around to cost estimate it yet but everybody has wild ideas.
I've talked it over with some of our lynologists, who knows, it might work. But
I think this is something we've got to go forward with. I think we need to
explain, get together with the residents and find out exactly what's happening.
' If we want to do some more, if we want to do Lake Lucy restoration, additional
work on Lake Lucy. Additional summer aeration, whatever, that's above and
beyond this project. We ought to look in to see how we can finance that. If we
' want to run aerators year round on these various lakes, we'll have to look on
how we can finance that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Can I just interject something? I had a call from Conrad
Fiskness when I came back from vacation and I haven't been able to get a hold of
him. He had graduation yesterday and he was going to be out of town until
Thursday but I asked Conrad to do some checki.ng.. .with a few of the lakes within
' the cities. One specifically in Robi.nsdale. Another in Golden Valley. Those
were some of the areas that some of these things had been done and...
manipulation and all the other. things. He had some results but I don't know
what those are. Hopefully by Thursday I will find out what those results were
on those lakes. I was just going to say, what I'm looking at as far as the City
is concerned is that sure, we're getting a million dollars to do the clean up of
' the lakes but I think what we should look for is how to best expedite those
dollars to get the best bang for the buck basically. If there's another or
better way of doing what's being proposed, then I think we should pursue that. I
think by getting all these other people involved with the PCA, EPA, the
' Watershed District, Council and some of the citizens, I think that's what we
should really do. Resolve the matter, get it done and move on.
Councilman Workman: It is for Lake Riley eventually but you've got to do
something to Lucy and Susan and Ann and everything else to do that so you're
asking, the thing that makes it unique and why the city is getting involved is
because of the access. So if Lake Lucy is going to see no benefit, those people
aren't going to be jumping up and down to get this access okay? So you've got
77
rw
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 •
to clean up Lucy and Ann, take care of ever ,
ythi.ng else. That's why it's the •
chain of lakes project. The word experiment keeps popping up and that's why
people are a little nervous because a million bucks down the chute you know. In
golf we have a phrase, were if and buts, candy and nuts it'd be Christmas
everyday you know. If's and but's. We've got a lot of if's and but's. But if
and we've got a lot of that out there so these people, that's where I'm in here.
The people have concerns about whether or not it works or not and let's try and
sell, I think Eric and Mr. Carlson can maybe add a ton here.
Councilwoman Dimler: I want to make just a quick comment, because of the
lateness of the hour. I agree with everything that's been said but I guess one
other concern is that, you know over and over again I'm hearing that data is
scarce if available at all. So I'm going to insist that if we go ahead with
this experiment, that we insist on gathering the data and I don't want it only
from the source of the agency that is doing the project but also from a fair
monitoring source to collect the data and come to a consensus on it. Then this
data would be made available to other watershed districts that are considering
such a project so that we don't keep doing experiment after experiment after
experiment and wasting the taxpayer's money so to speak.
Councilman Johnson: That's the purpose of the demonstration r
p o�ect rather than
experiment. It's to publish the results.
Councilwoman Dimler: Where's the data from all the other experiments they've
done?
Jo Ann Olsen: I've got it in my office. I
Councilwoman Dimler: You do? WOW. Terrific. Does it tell you anything?
Jo Ann Olsen: It doesn't make much sense to me but.
Councilman Boyt: Anybody who's warmed a chair all night probably deserves the
opportunity to talk to us. Is there a chance maybe you could be brief?
Dale Carlson: My name is Dale Carlson. I live on Lake Lucy. 6900 Utica Lane.
I'm only here to, not to get any aye's and nay's and so on. I'm just here to
inform and kind of let you know what we've been doing and hopefully you will
look upon this as some positive help in this very complicated project. A group
of Lake Lucy lakeshore owners met yesterday, June 11th, to discuss issues
related to the matter surrounding Lake Lucy. The general consensus of that
group was that we all felt the need to be better informed. We all felt the need
to have more input into the decision making process and I guess we all agreed
that we wanted to help wherever we could. We wanted to help each other through -
improved communication with each other and we certainly also wanted to help
those of you and other people who were to be involved in this very big decision.
Not only for people on Lake Lucy but for the city of Chanhassen as a whole. In
order to meet the common goals and objectives of that group of people, it was
approved by a majority of the lakeshore owners that were present at that meeting
and through those that weren't there through proxy, that we wanted to do two
things. Number_ one, to form a Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. Number two,
which we accomplished both of these things, to elect Mr. Eric Rivkin, Mr_. Tom
Hickey, we elected him because he wasn't there but he agreed and myself as
co-chairpersons to pursue and carry out the goals and objectives of the
78 '
155
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
IIassociation. I guess just in summary, I'm just here to let you know that we're
1 here to help and we want to help and all that kind of stuff. Ne understand' that
' you've got, this is kind of complicated stuff we're talking about here and
certainly we hope you'll accept our help whenever you deem it necessary. Just
very quickly, we also discussed, in particular the Lake Lucy access situation
I and that's what item 2 is on the handout. You can just read this very briefly.
Getting public acceptance of a lake access, Lake Lucy access, was to be
conditional upon public confidence that Lake Lucy would be cleaned up. We agree
that the success of the whole project is highly dependent upon cleaning up the
I lakes starting with the head waters. I believe that was in the plan. The
public feels that spending money on this project is worth while if we have the
confidence that our water quality goals can be met and results must not be
II purely experimental. We have a feeling that we read quite a bit of that into
that plan and that we require methods that have a beli.eveable and reasonable
degree of success. I don't know if you can have any kinds of those things
dealing with Mother Nature but anyway. Issues that were discussed were the
IIongoing expense of that access and I'm talking more specifically now about the
public access. We talked about was it likely to pass the wetland ordinance.
The existing plan as it was last proposed with the Dirk's property on the east
I end of Lake Lucy. Some discussion on the mechanical assists between the two
lakes, Lake Lucy and Lake Ann and we also discussed briefly an alternate option
in that we understand the need to "clean-up" and I think that's not really what,
II it says clean-up but I'm not sure that that's really what's being proposed. But
anyway, the possibility of financing a Lake Lucy clean-up independently. There
was discussion of that. It didn't go too far. It didn't go beyond the
discussion stage. So again, my only objective was to kind of again inform you.
IInform you what we were hoping to accomplish and certainly let you know we'll
i help all we can. I guess a few more heads are better than, the more the
merrier, that kind of thing right and thank you for the opportunity to take up
Iyour time at this early hour.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, as they're switching here, do you think it would
I be worthwhile to get some cost estimates from some of our local consultants here
in the Twin Cities or nationally, whatever on a dignosti.c feasibility study of
Lake Lucy. It's been done for Lake Riley and part of that said we've got to get
rid of all the rough fish upstream in order to help Lake Riley. That's what
I they're doing here but this study really doesn't address water quality of Lake
Lucy. That's outside the scope of this study so should we see what a cost
estimate would be to start the first process of a Lake Lucy study? Because of
I the lakes in our chain, Lake Lucy probably has some of the most problems. Being
the oldest lake. The lake that's dying the fastest. Geological time wise, it's
pretty well filled up. Ann's got a long life ahead of it.
ICouncilman Boyt: You're talking about getting an estimate?
Councilman Johnson: An estimate. Putting out a proposal and getting estimates.
IICouncilman Boyt: I'd second that. Costs us nothing to get an estimate.
Councilman Johnson: Except for staff time to put the proposal together.
Councilman Boyt: Well okay.
II
t 79
IN
City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
II
Eric Rivkin: I have a little input to that that '
When I talked to Barr Engineering last Friday, this question help one amewur that.
reason is because of the issue that they were�maki.ng�recorYmendattiions•onT4eto 5
lakes that didn't have any data or feasibility to back them up for these
recommendations. I said, well what plans would there be to have feasibility
studies done on that other 4 lakes in the chain and they said well that would
become part of a phase 2. They're going with Phase 1 and this could be part of
the Phase 2 implementation. It's normally supposed to be part of Phase 1 but
it's been non-traditional all the way along. This could either be done by Barr
Engineering or another consultant.
Councilman Johnson: With that solicit the financing to be helped by the
Watershed District because that's part of their, if we get into the actual
dignostics of it. I think we should push, maybe the Watershed District should,
maybe request the Watershed District to put out the bids because they have the
staff to do it versus doing us do it. Talk to Conrad.
Councilman Boyt: Let's send him a letter and request it.
Councilman Johnson: Maybe do all 4 lakes. Dignostic feasibility study for the
upper 4 lakes. I think Rice Marsh they're pretty well doing.
Mayor Chmiel: It's pretty much in Rice Marsh. '
Councilman Johnson: That's where the main phospherous problem is.
Eric Rivkin: That's where they think it is now because the feasibility study
that Dick Osgood did only involved the assumption that the nutrients main source
from Riley was Rice Marsh Lake. It didn't look all the way up the chain. How
much was feeding into Rice Marsh Lake.
Councilman Johnson: They had some data on the other lakes as far as what the
phospherous levels were but considerably less. '
Eric Rivkin: Well Barr indicated to me that there wasn't enough data to go by
and in order to make sound recommendations on what to do, they had to study the
lakes.
Councilman Johnson: There needs to be more sampling.
Eric Rivkin: We need to study the lakes they're intending to treat with
whatever.
Councilman Johnson: Maybe that should be added to the work plan?
Eric Rivkin: That's all part of the proposal. Eric Rivkin, 6095 Stellar Court.
Dale took the first 2 items on the discussion items and I'm going to take the
rest of it. But before I go to number 3 here, I wanted to make a comment about
the mechanical assist I did that I think was proposed by Bill Boyt in our last
meeting that we had with the lake users. We would like to encourage as a group,
we have agreed to encourage the exploration of that option because ecologically
it makes a lot more sense. We think it would pass the wetland ordinance because
of that. It would not be detrimental and could prove a benefit because it
really doesn't have any detriments that we can see so we'd like that explored
80
, City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 Y C V
fully. Okay, getting onto number 3 here. The public acceptance of a work plan.
These were agreed by both Lake Riley Association and the recently formed Lake
I, Lucy Association. That before getting public acceptance of a work plan, that we
have to have a process and a schedule in place so that we can be sure that the
work plan as revised would be acceptable. In other words, acceptance of a work
I plan would be conditional on a confidence that all lakes will meet agreeable
water quality goals that could be set up with an advisory committee. The
expectations here were not based on, well let's have all our lakes look like
I Boundary Waters' lakes. They were based on presentations that I made and others
made based on lake restoration results on lakes done in the region. Our own
region of southern Minnesota and evidence to that effect. A lot of that
evidence was given to Jo Ann and to Barr Engineering and Barr Engineering is
I also investigating these possibilities. Hal Runkey called a meeting to ask Bob -
Lang from Clean-Flo for instance to meet with them at noon this morning which
after 19 years of never returning phone calls to each other, this is... The
II handout in the agenda there addresses some of the concerns that we had on the
lake users meeting on June 6th. I'll just run quickly through those. The
formation of an advisory committee. We've already talked about that. Our
II concerns are that we are a legitimate part of the process from now on. This is
a recommended step in the EPA guidelines. The book I hope one of you did try to
order this from Mark Tomizak from the EPA. It's a good guideline and it's got
some chapters in here on how to do it all. It's a complicated process and it's
I a good premer on where do we go from here. What kind of questions could we ask.
I did talk to Conrad. I don't know what the timing was here but after I talked
to Barr Engineering I talked to Conrad Monday and he has given us his support
and involvement in this advisory committee where we could set ourselves some
1l goals for this committee. Namely redefining water quality problems, objectives
and methods to acheive those objectives. One definition that I got out of this
I book was what is a lake problem. A lake problem is a limitation on the desire
to use this by a particular set of users. It's that broad and it's a specific
as you want to make it. We have to take care not to confuse some of the
problems with the causes of the problems. I'll give you a for instance. On
II Lake Lucy we had a total fish kill this year. It's been registered with the DNR
officially. Most of the bullheads died and when they go, just about everything
goes. That's a sympton. The problem is low oxygen levels in the lake. The
II cause could be a variety of things and that needs to be explored. These
conditions exist on the other 4 lakes and Lake Riley which was not explored with
those parameters in mind. Atrophic data only deals with the top 2 meters of the
lake which is top surface water quality. Algae, water clarity, phytoplaktum
Icontent. It does not deal with things like bottom sediments and the generation
of toxic gases like nitrates and amoni.a and hydrogen sulfite which contributes
to the fish kill and growth of algae and smells. Weed growth and all those
I things. A public discussion of the methods. The 14th was brought up. I don't
know if that's still on. Parties involved are prepared for it and if there's a
meeting to be called, I'm prepared too. But on the other hand, maybe we should
1 postpone it when the problems and objectives are defined, then we can review the
methods. Maybe that would be a better order, okay. So we need to buy ourselves
some time to do that. Pure review of feasibility of future work plan revisions.
We talked about that. Monitoring of employed restoration methods by an
II independent team. Those are other experts that, why take our word for it or an
advisory committee's word for. it. Let's come up with a work plan that we like
and then have it reviewed. Al Klingelhutz recommended that we solicit input
II from the CCSWD. What's our deadline? I got a couple of different responses on
that. The substate agreement is up June 30th. That's one deadline. Then
II 81
NI
,£ Fr-3
'Ciy Council Meeting - June 12, 1989 '
I heard another dealine that was July 15th. Some kind of extension. You'll
notice on the next page there that the specifics about the extension of time. I
think that's the most crucial thing right now, has to be applied for by the
Watershed District to the MPCA. Mark Tomizak said that he will review it.
There's no need to send it up to Chicago to the EPA. It can be done rather
quickly and the Watershed District's board said they have to approve writing up
this formal extension. Requesting more time, how much do we need? I don't
know. My estimate is the work plan came out 2 months ago. To have all these II
meetings and work out the issues might take until the end of the year. I think
that's reasonable. I don't want to apply Murphy's Law in here and say we're
going to take to the end of the year but at least give us that because we've got
the summer. It's going to take a while for people to get together all the time.
So we don't want to lose the grant opportunity here and timing is of the essence
there. Conrad said that he would bring it up to the Watershed Board on his
meeting before he left to go out of town this week. He said he would get back
to find out whether or not they really are going to do that. I would like to
request that somebody from the City be assigned to keep on top of that. The
specifics about the project advisory committee. Based on concerns of the
advisory committee that were brought up in this meeting and in other sources
from Ursula and Tom that have also been investigating this, to get public
acceptance of a work plan several things can take place. First of all we do
have the support of Mark Tomizak who told us that without public support the
project cannot go through so we have a great deal of control. He needs us. The
EPA needs us to have public acceptance of some kind for the work plan. The work
plan, I emphasized many times in my conversation with Barr. Engineering that it
is preliminary. They expect changes. Every party in this expects changes. If
it changes drastically, that's fine too. We can just justify them and the 111
budget is not limited to a million dollars if indeed the feasibility study of
the other 4 lakes indicates that we do need to address inlake water quality more
than we do watershed quality and it needs a bit more money, they can ask for
that in a revised work plan and it will have a new budget. There's nothing
wrong with that. It's a good first step to have serious consideration of more
feasible alternatives that can help achieve these new objectives in a discussion
group meeting that has already been brought up. We don't know when that's going
to be but again, maybe we want to review this in at least a first meeting of
some kind of ad hoc advisory committee. I'm going to skip who should be it in.
We already know about that. Another issue. Enough money for the watershed
district. Conrad told me that his attorney advised him that it may not be
possible to spend any more money with Barr or any other consultant on this
project because there isn't enough to cover it. That needs to be checked out by
Council I think. Barr Engineering is expected to have public hearings included
in their work plan budget. So we need to find out, if they need money, how much
do they need and how long will it take than to carry to the end of the year or
whenever we want to carry this out. Mark Tomizak indicated to me, I asked him,
what does he need from us right now or what would cause the grant money to go
away by default. He said well if you don't show progress number one. And
number two, if you don't address non-point source pollution issues. Two key
factors. Must always include that so whatever our correspondence is, it's got
to happen soon and include in the correspondence, it has to address non-point
source pollution or we lose the grant. Summary of meetings with Barr.
Engineering and Conrad Fiskness on the watershed. This is all within the last '
5 days. Barr Engineerings seems to have, they are more open to listen to the
lake users. We have devised a questionaire. Three of the people that are
Cilinvolved in this pretty heavily right now from the lake users side were
82
ICity Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
' professionals at devising questionaires. A sample is a first cut at them is
indicated in there. These are normal types of things that are done, that the
EPA recommends in this book and it wasn't done and it'd be a good thing that we
Ido it so we get a wholisti.c view of what our focus on our water quality problems
are and how we should start to resolve them. They also indicate that they to do
further study before anymore recommendations are made. To make a clear work
' plan is necessary if changes are expected and they are willing to listen to
alternative methods and they have demonstrated by action that they are willing
to listen to alternative methods. Although they did make an appointment with
' Clean-Flo, they did stand them up this morning and I don't know why that is but
Hal Runkey didn't show up for the meeting.
Councilman Boyt: Eric, could you draw a close?
' Eric Rivkin: Two sentences. We just have to have, we want to continue to offer
help to make your job easier and that a successful chain of lakes restoration
' can take place for the long term and we hope that Council will continue to work
with us and make us feel that we are really making a difference here.
Councilman Johnson: I think we need to move to a more formal advisory committee
to get this going.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's the direction we should give Jo Ann. See what you
can pull together to get that moving as Jay had mentioned.
Councilman Boyt: This advisory committee should come out of the Watershed
District. I'm glad they're interested in doing it. Maybe it can be jointly
I appointed but they're really the lead group here.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes they are and I think as it should be, the Watershed, Council,
as I said, landowners, PCA and EPA and come up with a conclusion.
Eric Rivkin: PCA and EPA's role on this is not to be on the advisory committee.
'
Mark Tomizak make it clear to me that he's there to review what we do but not to
be a participant.
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see the Watershed appoint these folks. I think
the City can do everything we can to help them but I'd like to see,
especially. . .
' Councilwoman Dimler: I think we could appoint the council member.
Eric Rivkin: The extension is key here too. Getting the Watershed to apply
' for the extension.
Mayor Chmiel: There's one last item that we have and I'd just as soon get to
that.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor? We have another person who is sitting out here and
I‘ there is a critical issue in the community. Could we deal with that first?
It's the TH 41 and TH 7 Supe.rAmer_ica station and Roger Zahn's development. A
hot issue in that part of town.
1 83
m.
z y Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
1
Roger Zahn: You can pass on it if you'd like.
Councilman Boyt: Well, you may not think that in a minute Roger. There's about
to be an occupancy certificate issued for the SuperAmerica on TH 7. When that
came through the Council, one of the greatest fears of the residents in that
area was that the SuperAmerica station would be opened up and operating before
the shopping center that was a buffer was in process. Now there might be a way
to allow Roger to open a shopping center and still keep the credibility of the
Council which I think is at stake here even though nothing's been violated in
the development contract. I think the intent is shakey. I would suggest that
we issue the certificate of occupancy, of course assuming that everything fits
the occupancy standards of the city with the condition that by December, 1989
the improvements will be in place for the shopping center. That means asphalt
paving, curbing, or the City will be empowered to exercise the letter of credit
to do that.
Roger Zahn: That's in the development contract already.
Councilman Boyt: I don't think there's a deadline on it. Is there? Okay, then
good. I'm done. Well I'll call some people up there and let them know that
that's the deal.
PRIORITIES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS, JO ANN OLSEN.
Councilman Boyt: In the first group, item 3 was my number 1. The blending
ordinance. Item 4... 11!
Mayor Chmiel: Can I interrupt you for just a minute Bill? As I looked at this
I thought what we should probably have done is have four different categories
with having a high, medium and low and intermediate as well. That's what I did
when I went through this is coming up with thoughts that I had on it as to what
I thought was a high priority and which was a lower priority. 1
Councilman Boyt: Do you know off hand how many highs you had?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I had 8.
Councilman Boyt: Well I'll tell you. I'd be happy to turn over my 5 and the
rest of them you can order them any way you want.
Mayor Chmiel: I've got these too Jo Ann that you can have.
Jo Ann Olsen: You can just pass them in and I'll work on them. 1
Councilman Boyt: There were some of those that I thought were not the Planning
Commission's perview really. They were Public Safety Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: Council Presentations, we're going to hold back on all of those.
You can bring them at the next meeting if you'd like.
84 1
iai
' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1989
1 Councilman Wornan moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the -meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55
a.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
' City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
i
1
1
1
1
3
1t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 85
II
,F
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
IJUNEL7,z 19891NG
I -
N
IChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
I MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and
David Headla
IMEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson and Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND FOR A CATCH
I BASIN AND DUCK POND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND
LOCATED AT 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY, ALAN LENHART.
Public Present :
I
Mr. and Mrs . Alan Lenhart
IJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad : Thank you Jo Ann. The point of the permit is simply to create a
'( pond period. And staff' s opinion with Rockwell and Burke and whoever says
that will benefit the wetland .
I Olsen : If it' s done with to the conditions or recommendations of the Fish
and Wildlife.
IConrad : And who monitors?
Olsen: They will have to be receiving a Watershed District permit , a DNR
Ipermit, a Corps of Engineers permit and we review once they. . .
Conrad : During construction who monitors , just out of curiousity?
IOlsen: I know we monitor it .
Conrad : The building inspector or who would do that?
IOlsen: It would be building inspectors and most likely the engineers. The
engineering techs would be going out .
IChairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
I Alan Lenhart : My name is Alan Lenhart and I live at 6575 Pleasant View
Road. On page 4 there, you ' ve got a few things on there like this 12 inch
t— pipe . Well I don ' t think that ' s a 12 inch pipe in there for an apron.
That was an old drain tile from back when still the farmers farmland that
was draining from up above. They put a new drain tile in going out of the
I
me
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 7 , 1989 - Page 2
. II
east , out of the upper wetlands. It ' s way up back behind again and there ' s
not too much that comes down that anymore and like I say, I don' t think
it' s a 12 inch pipe . It ' s probably about an 8 or a 10 at the most .
Conrad: How can you respond to that Jo Ann? I
Olsen: The reason that they referred to it as a 12 inch is because on the
plan it shows it as a 12 inch pipe. We can work with, the engineers could
go out there and determine the size and how much drainage comes through and
if it really is necessary to have the apron. It is also for his benefit
but if the cost is such, we can work with him.
Alan Lenhart: And then the other one I had, the item (b) in there it was I
asking for a topsoil of muck from an existing wetland to be filled back
into it. Well there' s going to be muck left in it because I 'm not going to II
dig it down that deep. If you take muck from another wetland , is that the
same thing as taking a bog from another wetland and sticking it in another
wetland?
I
Olsen: No, you are right . You have already had that muck there. This is
for when somebody is creating a wetland they have to provide that. You
won' t have to be providing that. It ' s already there. I
Alan Lenhart: Oh okay. Then the item (e) , I didn' t quite understand what
they mean by a culvert or raised pipe , etc. at the other end to let the . ,
f water out. Is that a pipe that has to be x many feet above a surface of
A. water level?
Olsen: No and again, in discussing with the engineers we would be working 1
with you probably just to have like a little swale going out when you grade
it. A pipe, you don' t have enough depth for a pipe but a swale would do .
Alan Lenhart: Then one of the reasons to create the duck pond and stuff is
for the view of the wildlife and stuff like that so like along the north
edge of it where they were saying to let the grass grow back up and stuff,
I
I would like to keep that down at a lower portion so we can view the duck
pond and have the animals come in there because we still have deer and
pheasants and a lot of animals that do come in there . Now like this spring
I
it was down low and stuff and we had a fox come through and a deer and
ducks were landing on it and stuff and we got to view that. If the grass
grows real tall on the north side, it will block that view and we won' t get
to see as much. In the DNR rules and stuff they were saying that they only I
need 30% of grass around the edges of the pond for wildlife. Like the
whole east side and south side would still have, over half of it would
still have the cattails and the grass and stuff growing on that portion
so I 'd still like to be able to go down on the north side pretty close to
it. I can only get too close and then it' s going to be too close to go any
further .
Conrad : Were you talking about grassing it down to the wetland? II
r
L Alan Lenhart: I 'd probably basically leave it to the natural grass that' s
already growing there and I ' ll probably just mow it. I probably would put
.
M
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 3
I
Ifin a blue grass or pine grass that would be there . It probably would be
the natural but I probably would mow it.
Conrad : I think the problem is that we ' re trying to let the wetlands do
I what they do best and that' s in your case, you' re right next to Lotus and
make sure that the fertilizers aren ' t going in. If you start putting grass
in there, that' s not a real good filter . It' s not a good filter so if
I you' re fertilizing your yard and you' ve got low, if you really are grassing
to the wetland, you' re maximizing an impact on the wetland and reducing the
effect it can have on keeping Lotus Lake clean.
IAlan Lenhart: Like right now there' s grass down to it but it' s not the
regular lawn type grass . It' s the wetland dig bladed grass that ' s there.
That' s what' s there right now and I probably would not change that. But
I like I say, I would probably mow down to where I mow at least now anyhow.
. . fairly high up to the yard like just about at the edge of the pond and
stuff there is a row of trees there that I would leave in there that I mow
I down to right now and I think they' re below that footage level that they
showed . Then like the other thing that I had a comment on.
Conrad: Let' s not lose this one. What do you see, is there a solution to
IIthis? Jo Ann , I guess I 'm not sure what the benefit or . . .
Olsen: We can go back out and look at it and see if what' s there now, if
Ithe maintains that.
Conrad : The trouble is , we' re not really going to be monitoring in the
II future you know. I ' ll wait for other comments later on but. . . Then your
last point is?
Alan Lenhart: On the disposal site , he was asking to be sodded within 10
I days. There might be, is that my only alternative that I have to sod it
because there might be a portion of it that I might to put like like rocks
over it to make a garden on it with rocks with evergreen shurbs and stuff
Ilike that to grow there too .
Olsen : That' s fine . As long as there ' s some sort of vegetation or some
sort of cover .
IAlan Lenhart : Okay. Then I guess that ' s all I had .
I Conrad: Any other comments? Any other public comments on this public
hearing?
IEmmings moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
I Headla : Ladd is that the end of the lake where it ' s heavily loaded with
loosestrife?
IConrad : Used to be. I don' t know about right now. There used to be a
fair amount down there.
I
IN .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 4
1
Headla : I think his intentions are good and what he' s doing sounds good .
Overall I 'd say yes, I 'm certainly in favor of this. I guess I 'd kind of
like to take this as an opportunity to reinforce that they've got to
control loosestrife on anything that they do. You' ve got to pay strict '
attention to that, especially until new grass comes up. I was trying to
place it exactly and it seemed like that 's where it was. I 'd like to see
something worded in that that would pay attention to loosestrife . That 12
inch pipe, I think if we just say drainage pipe. I don' t even think that' s
pertinent information . It' s function is a drainage right on that item 5?
You're talking a 12 inch pipe to spend all the time and money doing that,
going out and looking at it, I don' t think the diameter of the pipe is
pertinent at all . The other one is, I would tend to favor not allowing
cutting right down to the pond . The reason is you don' t get that much
wildlife activity in the middle of some of your foliage, etc. . In the
spring , fall , winter , the foliage is down. I don' t think we'd be
inhibiting your view very much of some of the life. Now yes maybe on the
actual pond you wouldn' t be able to see some of i.t. Maybe something can be II
done to cut down the heights of some of the weeds but I certainly agree
with Ladd and the function of the wetlands is the filtering . Maybe we can
work out some type of compromise but cutting right down to a pond, I don' t
think would be appropriate . That ' s all I had .
Batzli : Jo Ann, how far, what kind of distance are we talking between the
896 and 897 elevation here? II
Olsen: It' s not a lot.
Batzli : I guess isn' t that the part we' re talking about whether he' s going 1
to be allowed to let it go back to a natural state?
Olsen : Right. The 897 isn ' t necessarily right where the grass yard does
end right now. It's close to that elevation so it' s not that big of a
strip.
Batzli : From the way the applicant spoke , it sounds like to me that he
mows down to the willows and the willows run between the 896 and 897. If
he' s going to dredge this down to, or the top of the pond is going to be
896 about, so he' s going to have a portion, if he left it as it is right
now which is kind of what ' s being discussed I think, there ' s going to be a
portion of it that' s mowed down to the pond and a portion of it that' s got
cattails and a portion that ' s prairie grass or whatever ' s there . '
Olsen: We just wanted what is the willow, the prairie grass and type that
is there now inbetween those areas , we do want to try to maintain .
Batzli : But do you want him to actually get rid of that and let it go back
to cattails or isn' t it going to be that low right there? What part are
you actually telling him to let go back? '
Olsen : When they come in here, this will be altered and . . .just around the
fringe but it' s acceptable also to have areas of it opened . We' ve allowed
that before . i know the Fish and Wildlife allows that but a lawn that ' s
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 5
1(7 well maintained and fertilized right up to it we don' t like to promote.
That' s something that we can work with. It' s not, that' s not flexible.
Batzli. : Well I live a short distance away and I ' ll agree there ' s a lot of
I wildlife down there and I think he ' s actually doing the area a little bit
of a favor for it in general and I guess I 'd like to see us work with him
to have something like this done. I don' t see it as a big deal what size
I the pipe that drains in there if there' s not a lot of drainage in there .
He had a comment about water level control , culverts, riser pipe, etc. and
all you were asking for there was like a swale or something?
IOlsen: Something that allows if there is one of those big rains, that it
doesn ' t just flood over all the edges . We have to allow some of the water
to be able to run off so if there are habitats around it, that those don' t
Iget flooded out .
Batzli : Okay. Then I think it' s just more a problem of us including the
IFish and Wildlife Service criteria verbatim in there.
Emmings : I don' t have any trouble supporting this thing in that it sounds
I to me like the issue about the grass around the edges and whether it should
be mowed or now seems to me to be kind of a technical issue. If it' s
important for Lotus Lake or for the wetland that there be left a strip that
is not mowed, then he shouldn' t be allowed to mow it but if it' s not
ICimportant to the wetland , then I can see that he doesn ' t want to have an
obstructed view and if it' s not important, then he shouldn' t be able to mow
it as far as I 'm concerned but that and some of these other issues all
I sound more like technical issues where we ought to have some, you hate to
spend a lot of time on kind of a really small deal but we ought to check
maybe with Fish and Wildlife and say is this important to this wetland. If
they say it doesn' t really matter , then I think we ought to go ahead and
I let him mow it but I can' t decide that because I don 't know really how to
think about it. As far as the apron is concerned , what is the material of
the apron? Is it just rock or is it concrete or what do you expect them to
Ido there?
Olsen : They' ve got different designs and it can be just rock and rip rap
I or whatever engineering terms are. What they showed in here was a real big
major one but what engineering is requesting is just something similar to
that that disperses the water .
I Emmings : Okay, so if he puts some rock down at the end of that pipe , and
that' s something that he can talk to the engineer about so that it' s
appropriate to whatever water flow might be coming out of there , again that
I sounds to me like a technical issue that ought to be taken up with the
engineer and between the engineer and the applicant. I don ' t really have
any other comments.
IErhart : I pretty much agree with everything that ' s said . My preference
would be only to make it bigger. If you' re going to spend the money to do
this and you could actually make it a little bit bigger and more productive
but in the past I 've generally favored these things. I think there' s a few
technical words that we could change in a motion maybe to help clarify some
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 7 , 1989 - Page 6
I
things for the applicant . Mowing , I think my concern would be, if we mowed
more than 25% of the shoreline but looking at the shoreline, it doesn' t il
appear that that' s possible in any way. As long as 75% would remain in
it's natural state so I guess that' s the only comments I had here.
Conrad : My only comment is that we minimize any nutrient runoff into the II
wetland from the adjacent grass or properties so based on the technical ,
whatever is necessary Jo Ann . I don' t think the height of grass matters . I
I think it' s more of what it is and how thick it is. I could be wrong but
I 'm not concerned with height but I am concerned with runoff. From that
end of the lake, there' s so many nutrients from the old farms that have
Igone in there that I 'd prefer to keep as much out as possible.
Erhart: Should we be looking at things like restricting fertilizer within
certain distances? Is that the kind of runoff you' re worried about is
I
nitrogen?
Conrad : Pretty much yes , and my thought would be yes .
II
Erhart: Do you have a distance in mind?
Conrad : I don ' t have a clue. It would be an arbitrary, if I made I
something up Tim, it 'd be real arbitrary. Tough to do. I 'd prefer that
there were certain fertilizers not permitted at all within 100 yards of any
lake but it' s arbitrary type of thinking right now and I think I 'd trust . I
the staff in terms of. . .
Olsen: Actually the pond is helping that.
II
Alan Lenhart: The pond is about 600 feet away from the lake so there is
still a big area of cattails and grass between the pond and the lake
itself.
I
Conrad : Yes . Any comments? Is there a motion?
Erhart: Yes, I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of II
Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as stated with the following exceptions .
Item 4 add, as an alternative the applicant shall install a method for II preventing erosion of spoils within the 10 day period . Clarifying that, in
other words, if you can provide staff an alternative to sod, you still need
to do it within the 10 day period . Change number 5 to , the applicant shall
provide a rock apron at the end of the existing drain pipe instead of the
II
12 inch pipe and remove the 12 inch from all of that line. Clarify that
item (d) that he can use muck from the basin if it' s already there. Item
(e) , add in the parenthesis , an overflow area . I 've seen some of these II small ponds built, you don ' t need a culvert specifically as Jo Ann stated .
Just a flat area on one end , on the outflow end that ' s got good grass
cover . Will serve to control the water level . And I ' ll just add number 8 II is to minimize the drainage of fertilizer and chemicals into the wetlands
more or less as a request I guess .
Batzli : Second .
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 7
if: Conrad : Good motion . Under discussion, Jo Ann do you agree with what Tim
said for item (e) ? An overflow?
Olsen : Yes.
IConrad : You' re comfortable with that . Dave brought up purple loosestrife
which is a problem. I don't know how to work that into this thing . What
I we ' re doing is really not purple loosestrife . I don' t know how to resolve
the problem. It' s a really valid problem but I don' t know how to make a
connection between the pond and purple loosestrife. Do you see , is there a
connection?
I
Olsen : Disturbances to the wetland can promote purple loosestrife so we
just have to keep a good eye.
IConrad : So disturbance too?
I Olsen : If there is purple loosestrife where they' re dredging, then you
have to dispose of that in a different way.
Headla : Remember what Ms . Rockwell said about loosestrife? Disturb it,
I
you break up the roots, you just create more and more of a problem. I
remember the way I was telling her I was pulling it up and tossing it off
and letting it dry. She all that' s doing is making the problem worse. I'
IlL guess that tend to make me a lot more sensitive to that and it seems like
r this might be an ideal opportunity to control it more.
IConrad : What do you suggest? What are you thinking of?
Headla: One of the things she said, you ought to burn it but on here. . .
IConrad : You' re thinking of disposal then?
Headla: The way we dispose it and I think what he was suggesting is a
I garden . Now he' s not going to let loosestrife grow in his garden . He' s
going to control it so I 'm all in favor of that he moves it up. I think
that ' s an ideal situation but the rest of it, if I understand it correctly,
I that depth on there, we may be propagating it. Putting in ideal conditions
for loosestrife. I guess I 'm with Steve, it' s kind of a technical thing
and I just don' t know that much about it except an alarm went up.
I Olsen : I ' ve got information on purple loosestrife and I could just give
that to the applicant and talk with Paul Burke. He' s coming out again on
Friday. This does have a lot of purple loosestrife in that area and see
Iwhat we can do.
Headla : Is that the same information you mailed to us before? Okay. Your
8, Steve made a good point that we' re probably not that technically astute
I
on runoff . Steve I think made a good point that maybe we should get a
little technical help on it. It does make any different or doesn' t it? I
2 don ' t know which appropriate group would be Jo Ann but maybe if we could
IFjust get a comment on it. From the north, it' s going to run right into the
pond . If they say, well if you leave it up an inch or 2 inches , that all
I
M
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 8
1
you need , that' s fine but I certainly don' t have that knowledge and I guess
I 'd kind of like to see something worked in where the people technically
knowledgeable on it would comment on it.
Alan Lenhart: One other comment I have, if you' re there in the spring, you I
can tell which way the water runs down through to get to that wetland . It
comes down through and it enters just south of where I have the spoils ,
where I want to put it and it runs halfway across my yard and then down to
the pond so like the runoff is stopped from the hill and the other two
neighbors and stuff , goes across my yard first before it turns and goes
into the wetland anyhow. Then it enters more to the east end of the duck
pond than anyplace . So a lot of it filters down through my lawn and grass
before it gets there.
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as shown on the site plan
dated May 8, 1989 subject to the following conditions :
1. The applicant receive a permit and meet any conditions from the DNR,
Watershed District, Corps of Engineers and a grading permit from the
City prior to any dredging of the Class A wetland.
2. The applicant shall provide Type II erosion control between the
proposed duck pond and Lotus Lake prior to any dredging of the wetland . _ I
3. The area between the proposed duck pond and the existing grass yard
(897 contour) shall be allowed to return to it's natural state.
4. The disposal site shall be sodded within 10 days of placement . As an
alternative the applicant shall install a method for preventing erosion
of spoils within the 10 day period . '
5. The applicant shall provide a rock apron at the end of the existing
drain pipe in the pond . '
6. Dredging shall not occur during breeding or spawning season as
determined by the DNR.
7. The six recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service shall be met
as follows:
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase
shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting
birds. '
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10 : 1 - 20: 1
for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent
vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable
water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife
feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3. 0 feet) and (b) encourage growth
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 9
I .
I of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby
increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from the existing
I wetland being filled) on the bottom on the basin to provide a
suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. The applicant may use
existing muck in the basin if it already exists.
te. The basin will have water level control (culverts , riser pipe ,
overflow area, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the
wetland .
If. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the
basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland .
I8. The applicant shall minimize the drainage of fertilizer and chemicals
into the wetland.
IAll voted in favor and the motion carried .
IPUBLIC HEARING:
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF ONE ACRE OF
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R -
ILAND LOCATED IN SOUTH LOTUS LAKE ADDITION, MICHAEL CARMODY.
Public Present:
IName Address
Bobbie Kussard 7604 South Shore Drive
IJudi Podevels 200 South Shore Drive
Eunice Peters 7660 South Shore Drive
Jeanette Lappen 140 South Shore Drive
IJudy Schmieg 200 West 77th Street
Michael Carmody Applicant
Paul Struthers Architect for the Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
uConrad: Don' t we have a zoning district called PUD?
Olsen : That ' s the zoning and this is the Comprehensive Plan .
IConrad: So back in the Comprehensive Plan, that is not carried forth?
That is still broken down into the other categories so a PUD does not over
ride a Comprehensive Plan?
IOlsen : What it is is you just want them to be consistent .
ihChairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
I
m
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 10
1
47
Conrad : This is a case where the zoning is there. We have changed the
zoning. In essence we are allowing high density. We' re now bringing the
Comprehensive Plan back into sync.
Emmings : I'm curious why the City isn ' t the applicant on this . Why do the
property owners have to go through this? This is a housekeeping thing for
the City really isn' t it?
Conrad: But the City is not the owner .
Emmings : Yes but the City is the one who ' s concerned about the
Comprehensive Plan being coordinated with what it' s done with it' s zoning .
It doesn ' t matter , it' s here but I was just surprised that it wasn' t the
City and I 'm surprised that there' s a condition on it too. I don' t quite
understand that but anyway.
Conrad : This is a public hearing, are there any comments?
Jeanette Lappen: I just wanted a clarification? I live in that area. Are
we talking about one lot to be zoned high density or two lots? 3 acres?
Olsen: It 's the outlot that is 1. 5 acres .
Jeanette Lappen : Okay, so we' re just talking about one lot? Then all the ,
other lots are zoned residential low density?
Olsen: They' re all zoned PUD-R. Planned Unit Development but the
underlying, the Comprehensive Plan, the land use is low density.
Bobbie Kussard : That means you can ' t have multi-unit dwellings?
Olsen: No, you have a certain number of units per acre that you can have
and it comes out to I think 3. 4 units per acre. With a high density we ' re
talking about 12 units per acre and that ' s where you need the high density. I
Bobbie Kussard: So right now they don' t have that density so they can' t
build those 14 units until they get the high density?
Olsen: Technically they already have approval of the zoning .
Bobbie Kussard : That ' s what I mean , what are we doing here?
Conrad: The zoning takes precedent and the zoning was achieved basically
the last time when we reviewed this issue and we allowed the townhouse
units there. What we' re doing right now is saying okay, the zoning was
already approved . Now this little master plan , this theoretical plan that
we give to the Metropolitan Council , we' re trying to put that back in sync
with the zoning that we' ve already granted . We try to just keep those two
in sync.
Bobbie Kussard : They don ' t have to go back to the City Council or
anything? I mean they' re approved and everything .
I
1r Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 11
il
ir-
irConrad : This is really a formality than anything else that we' re doing
tonight.
IIOlsen : It does have to go in front of the Council .
Conrad: It does go to the Council but the fact that they have agreed at
I this point in time with the zoning , with the townhouses , that is what the
City follows and that' s the law basically. The Comprehensive Plan is this
ivory tower little document that we' re now adjusting to reflect what we've
granted already. I know it' s not easy for me to communicate what' s
happening .
Bobbie Kussard : Then you guys made a boo boo. It shouldn' t have been
Iapproved until . . .
Conrad : No , that' s not true . We gave it, that whole area to be a PUD. We
I said in that area we' ll let it be a PUD and when you allow it to be that,
then you can do exactly what they did . You can have some high density over
here and some low density over here. So no, we didn' t make a boo boo. We
knew what we were doing and now we' re just trying to sync things up. There
liare a lot of mistakes we do make. This was not a case where it was bad
planning .
Bobbie Kussard : When I first looked at the site development and selected
It
by lot, there wasn' t a little picture of 14 little squares up over there soy
to my knowledge there wasn' t going to be 14 little square up there . So I
1 assumed we were probably. . .and it was low density. Originally I thought
there was going to be a couple houses up there and not 14 little things.
Conrad: It' s a real valid point and yet you almost have to know, I 'm sure
Iwhen you bought your house you would have had to come into the City and say
what are we zoned and somebody would have said, well you' re zoned PUD. And
you probably wouldn' t be, and this is not a criticism, but you wouldn ' t
II know the right questions to ask. You wouldn't say well could there be high
density across the street from us .
I Bobbie Kussard : No, but I would have said can there be 14 little squares
across the street from me. That I would have said.
Olsen : And they would have been told yes .
ilJeanette Lappen: I 'm not sure, is the whole area PUD so that means any lot
in that whole 30 lot area can be zoned for multi-unit dwellings?
IOlsen: It' s already been, the PUD had a concept plan originally. That' s
where everything was approved . What could happen . The only way that they
I could change that would be to come through with an amendment. Again, this
outlot was approved for 14 units per acre .
Jeanette Lappen: And was that the only one in that area?
I
i
•
IN
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 12
Olsen : We had some duplex lots but those are there. That was the only
high density.
Emmings : And you should understand , if my recollection is correct , when
they showed us the concept plan, the lot on which the townhouses will sit,
were intended for high density right from the beginning as I recall .
Jeanette Lappen: I think then as a secondary issue that has nothing to do I
with you is , well in a way it does , is the fact that when we looked at this
beautiful map of our area that the real estate agent gave us, or whoever
gave us, it showed parkland . It showed supposed swingsets and supposed
tennis courts and supposed houses and all the lots had little houses drawn
on them but lo and behold , that one square that will have 14 units on it
now, showed this big square that looked like it was a continuation of the
park. So in a way it was , I feel like we were intentionally misled so if
someone knew what they were doing and there was nothing on it that would
ever lead you to believe that , in fact it was . . . led to believe that that
was part of the park. '
Emmings : Now you' re talking about the honesty of the developer .
Jeanette Lappen: Well I wouldn' t say that. 1
Emmings : I think you are . You' re talking about number one, whether it was
misrepresented to you or not, I don' t know but part of the sales pitch may . I
well have been intentionally constructed to make you feel that way so that
you wouldn' t ask what' s going here. I don' t know if it was or wasn' t but
that ' s not unheard of either .
Conrad : It' s a tough issue and it goes back to how forthright usually
realtors are in communicating that and sometimes they don' t know
everything . They know they have some land to sell and they' re not sure how II
the rest of it' s going to be developed. The point of a PUD is hopefully a
valid point. We allow them and in many cases it allows some of the land to
be put to different uses. We break rules in PUD' s where we feel that if
you have a significant amount of land , you can cluster some houses and put
higher density and then give other houses a much lower density. In many
cases it' s really fine planning . It ' s what you wanted to do and we' ve been
trying to encourage that over many, many years here. It doesn' t always
work out . The Planning Commission typically has different standards than
the City Council on what a good PUD is. In fact we very seldom, we don' t
always agree on what a good PUD is . On this particular one I can ' t
remember if we agreed with it or not but anyway.
Erhart : More importantly, what did we get in return for the high density?
Usually an area like this that was zoned RSF and we provided high density
in one area , we had to get something in return for the neighborhood .
Olsen: There was a transfer of land for parkland . I
Erhart: So there was some additional parkland that we picked up.
Unfortunately it wasn ' t, was it in that neighborhood? I
•
i
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 13
il
Ii7 Conrad : So the City got the boat launch is what it got out of this land .
The neighbors didn' t want the boat launch but it got something .
Emmings moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
1 favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
I Emmings : My only question is why there ' s a condition on this. What
happens to the land, don ' t we want to amend the Comprehensive Plan anyway?
Olsen : The only reason I can think that it wasn' t done originally was that
in case they did come back and go through the amendment and then use it as
single family or low density.
I Emmings : Right now we know that this piece is going to be some form of
higher density. We' re not going to give them low density on this so why
wouldn ' t we amend our plan anyway?
IIBatzli : They could come back in and redo their PUD if they decided not to
build the townhomes there.
I Olsen : That ' s the only reason I put that condition is just to , it ' s not
that necessary of a condition. We know that they' re going to go through
but once they do plat it into those 14 individual lots , townhome lots , then
ILwe know that it is going to pretty much go through.
Emmings : It' s not worth anymore . I ' ll go along with it. I don ' t feel
strongly about it .
I
Batzli : Well he asked by question so it' s okay.
I Headla: I asked the question before on the previous thing and I lost so
I ' ll go along with this one .
IConrad: I have no comments .
Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #89-1 to change 1. 5 acres Residential
Low Density to Residential High Density with the following condition:
1. Final plat approval of the 14 townhome units .
1 All voted in favor and the motion carried .
IPUBLIC HEARING:
ARGUS DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE EAST OF AUDUBON
ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD
IADDITION:
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 35 . 79 ACRES INTO 55 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS .
IFB. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND.
I
IN
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 14
1
Public Present:
Don Patton, Applicant
Ray Brandt, Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad : Jo Ann , you mentioned that there would be grading of Outlot A but
I don't see that in the recommendations . Is that bundled in someplace?
Olsen : That should have been under the park.
Don Patton: I think it' s on the PUD concept.
Olsen : It ' s already in the contract that they have to do that. We could
add that though.
Conrad : Whatever you think.
Olsen : It is on number 1. I 'm sorry, I 'm reading the Park and Rec one ' s.
Yes, we should probably add that to be consistent because I 've added. . .
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .fr Ray Brandt: I 'm Ray Brandt. I don't know how I did this . The right-of- '
way for Heron Blvd . is platted 60 feet wide and way back 2-3 months ago
when I was putting in the dimensions, I put in 25 feet. . . One of my
earlier preliminary plats I erased it but I didn' t erase it on my computer
so it' s drafted at 60 feet so the lot areas and that are correct. Then
that one lot that I have 12, 900 and some, that' s just an oversight also . I
don' t think there were any others. Oh yes, I guess what I was thinking on
that wetland , what we' re going to do is encroach , our setback is going to
encroach but now that I read the report I 've got to put a ponding area in
there so that will have to come back and change that . '
Conrad: Okay. Any other comments?
Batzli moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla : I 'm glad to see them putting in hackberry. I don' t know if you
read the Minnesota Volunteer but they talk about the pine bark beetle that
hit Woodbury last year . Part of their conifers are taking quite a beating .
Stay away from all conifers. Use deciduous and I 'm very glad to see you do
that. Will you explain to me again the rationale for a 90 foot frontage
that we just insist that all the builders have?
Olsen : With the PUD you can go down to 80 feet and that ' s one of the
benefits of the PUD. Why we have 90 feet though?
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 15
I
IHeadla : We' re so unforgiveable with that 90 feet with all our builders and
now we come in and there are several 80 feet. This doesn ' t seem to be
consistent at all .
I Olsen: That was one of the benefits of a PUD. Smaller lot sizes .
Narrower lots .
I Headla : Aren ' t you saying that' s the way it is period if that ' s the case .
I take a look at a 90 foot frontage as not being a rigid rule but certainly
can be negotiated in the future. It ' s hard to believe that it ' s got to be
' this for one place and another place, ah, we can lose 10 feet. It won' t
make any difference.
Conrad : Well we do have a minimum.
IHeadla : It ' s 90 feet but they allowed 80 feet here .
IBatzli : That' s in a PUD.
Headla : But it' s still in a development . You' ve got homes here , you' ve
I got homes here, what' s the difference? I 'm not going to be that hard nosed
on 90 feet when I can see it used so often here and I 'm not saying 90 is
the magic number over 80. I 'm looking at more consistency in our reasoning
as we say yea or nay on more people in the future.
Batzli : Isn' t that just part of the whole PUD plan though that we' re
getting something i_n return so we' re being more flexible .
IConrad: Is there a minimum Jo Ann for our frontage?
Olsen : In a PUD?
IConrad: Yes .
Olsen : It ' s 80.
Conrad : It is 80. So normally without a PUD, what ' s the minimum?
IOlsen: 90.
Erhart : But remember if it' s not PUD, in RSF it ' s 15 , 000 square foot
Iminimum. In a PUD, it' s 12, 500 square foot minimum.
Headla : That part I can buy. I think there ' s some pretty good rationale
I for that because they compensate in other areas but when I see so many 80
foot wides , I don' t think that our 90 foot has that much substance to it .
It' s a good guideline but to hold to it, I think we should look at it a
I little bit different . That ' s over a 10o change. On recommendation 1, you
refer to having a minimum of 12,000 square feet and provide block numbers .
What ' s a block number?
IOlsen : It ' s when you have Lots 1-3 , Block 1. Lots 1-10, Block 2. It ' s
just another little technicality.
I
Eli
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 16
Headla : Oh okay. That' s all I had .
Batzli : Dave got me thinking on this 80 feet . Lot 3, which is 2 to the
east from the lot that' s below 12,000 square feet. You see where I 'm at?
We have a frontage at 79. 96 . Not to be picky or something but .
Olsen: I was picky on the 11,900 so yes, that' s just, when the final plats 1
come in , the lot lines always adjust a little bit and we check those .
Batzli : Just curious. I think this is an interesting plan in that we have
several lots which are enormous compared to lots on the southern end here.
I 'd be personally kind of interested in, and I don't know that I was really
here for the entire PUD concept plan for this . I 'd be really interested to
know why we have several lots that are so big. 1
Erhart : That' s where that pond is going .
Batzli : All the way around there? '
Erhart : That' s a low area.
Olsen: It's wetland, yes .
Batzli : So that' s going to be back, well we don ' t have block numbers , II
okay. One other just idle curiousity note here before I get to my one real
question. Is this 20 foot strip out to Outlot A from Heron Drive, did I
miss something? Why is that in there?
Olsen: That ' s access to the park.
Batzli : Is that down into the park or is that going to be. . . ,
Olsen : It will be part of the outlot. I believe dedicated to the City
isn' t it?
Batzli : Is the outlot dedicated to the City? Is the City going to be
maintaining that?
Conrad : Was that your real question?
Batzli : No. This is my real question. In item 11, the right hand turn,
will that affect any lot sizes over in that corner? Are you going to be
moving the road over actually?
Ray Brandt: It ' s all within the right-of-way. '
Batzli : It' s all going to be in the right-of-way? Okay. That was my only '.
real question .
Emmings : I have a couple of questions . I don' t know if they' re real or
not but I ' ll ask them anyway. Over on the left hand edge of this thing ,
there' s Lots 4, 5 and 6 on that one cul-de-sac that looks like they' re
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 17
I
It: double frontage. They front on Audubon and that street. Do they?
Ray Brandt: Are they double frontage?
1 Emmings: Yes .
Ray Brandt : Yes . Actually 7 is too . They really front both ways but I
Iwould imagine that there won' t be any access on Audubon.
Emmings : I assume that' s what you' re doing there but I know that in the
I past when we've had this situation, just to make it crystal clear, I don' t
think that the County would let you do it anyway.
Olsen: It' s a city road.
IEmmings: It' s a city road, but I think maybe we ought to just put that
down that all access for those lots will be on the interior streets .
I That ' s what you plan to do anyway but just so it ' s spelled out . Then the
other thing I have on those double frontage lots is I have a recollection
and I 've been feverishly searching through the ordinance here and maybe
it's not in there or I just couldn't find it but it seems to me that we
always do some things with. . .
Olsen: You always have to have an additional depth.
IlL. .
Emmings : Where is that in the ordinance?
IOlsen: In this new codified ordinance, I can' t find it .
Emmings : Yes , I couldn' t find it but there are things that apply to double
frontage lots and I don' t know if these double frontage lots were evaluated
Iin terms of whatever those provisions are.
Erhart: There' s an extra 10 foot setback.
IOlsen: Yes, and they definitely have the depth. There ' s also additional
landscaping. I can' t remember right off hand where exactly it is but I
I know when we were looking at the PUD concept , we were looking at the
additional depth for that .
Emmings : I guess I 'd just ask that between now and the City Council that
I that be checked just to make sure that all of the provisions are being met
and if there ' s any problem, that it be brought up to the City Council .
Then the only other thing I wonder about is, right now there ' s nothing
Ideveloped to the south of this property correct? Yes , that ' s correct?
Olsen: Yes, there' s nothing.
IEmmings : And how about to the east? Is that the first subdivision?
Olsen: First phase.
I
IN .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 18
Emmings : And how are these lots on the east edge matching up with lots
that have already been platted to the east?
Olsen : They' ve all been consistent with the concept plan.
Emmings: That's all I ' ve got .
Erhart : Jo Ann , why do we request a developer to pave sidewalks but yet
not the trails? What' s the thinking behind that?
Olsen: The trail easement?
Erhart: Yes .
Olsen: I 'm not exactly sure if that was a condition between the Park and ,
Rec and the PUD contract . Maybe Don can fill you in on exactly why?
Erhart: I was just wondering what the rationale was?
Olsen: I think it ' s along Powers it ' s going to be improved and it depends
on when all of the improvements for the road will take place. The
developer might not . . . 1
Erhart : Powers , what 4 lane all the way? When?
Olsen: In the next 2 years. 4 years. They' re planning on it now. •
Erhart : That' s right . Going down to the railroad bridge it is 4 lane and I
it looks like it' s a temporary jog there. Okay. The thing I might suggest
when you' re doing a wetland thing, in order to react to Brian ' s concern
about those large lots, they' re putting a conservation easement on a
significant portion of those lots so we should try to keep them wild if you II
think that fits. After studying that in detail , if you think that fits .
Olsen : We usually put a conservation easement along the 75 foot setback. '
Erhart: In that sense making it a pseudo public area because it' s a lot
of . . .maybe you could help me Dave but what ' s wrong with pin oaks?
Headla: I looked at that and couldn' t figure out why they changed?
Olsen : The DNR forester said the pin oaks grow real fast and get brittle.
They' re fast and the mature tree really sooner but it wasn' t as long
lasting .
Erhart : I don ' t know why they don ' t just use red oaks instead of pin oaks . I
The PUD ordinance requires, is the 1 tree per lot on just the PUD ordinance
or is that in. . .
Olsen : That ' s in all our ordinance .
Erhart: That' s in all our ordinances? ,
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 19
I _
Olsen: It ' s always a condition of any development contract .
Erhart: On Audubon Road there where we have those nice evergreens that
we ' re putting in , is that going to be also bermed or is that just going to
Ibe level with existing?
Olsen : It showed a grading plan . Again , Audubon Road , there ' s some
I improvements being made to that too. There are plans to continue that all
the way down to Lyman .
I Erhart: Yes, I 'm aware of that one.
Olsen : The grading plan , it shows slight berming .
I Erhart: I think that' s real valuable to take a double fronted lot like
that when the rear abuts up to a major street or arterial like that , or a
collector, to put a berm in addition to the trees but I guess I 'd ask that
I you consider that in the final plan of this thing because it does , it
really provides some immediate screening but it also provides somewhat of a
barrier for kids running in the back yard and running out onto the street.
I Ray Bradt: The street, Audubon Drive, the existing elevation is at it' s
lowest point is 946. That' s about 12 feet higher than the backs of the
lots .
k. Erhart : So I see a berm would really be useless . Okay. I think that ' s
all I had on my list.
IConrad : Okay, good comments Tim. I was not an advocate of this as a PUD
and I still am not. I do have problems with lot configurations as certain
lots back into the sides of other lots . I just find that that forces
Ifences and is not good planning. I have no other comments .
Headla : Can I make a couple more?
IConrad: Sure .
Headla : I ' ve got one real comment . On number 10, the sanitary sewer shall
I
be jack-bored to the west right-of-way. I know what jack-bored is. Is it
appropriate in this type of situation that we require it? My real concern
is this is appropriate in this type of condition, that' s all .
IOlsen : I 'm sure the engineers have reviewed that and that' s what they
determined .
IHeadla : Well it was in their comments but does it fit in here? To me
that' s a question if that' s appropriate. The other one I have is that
these dedication fees . Where do they go? I ' ve never seen any of that
Imoney spent west of CR 117 or south of CR 18.
, Olsen : That ' s not Chanhassen .
Conrad: It' s not supposed to. That ' s the law.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 20
i
Headla : Let ' s change that to eastern Chanhassen? I had to get that shot
in.
Batzli : Jo Ann, just following up on Dave' s point , they' re going to start
a watermain down along Audubon Road there right?
Olsen : Right .
Batzli : And also the sanitary sewer down there as well so what they' re
doing is basically putting it over there for if and when they do start that
project? I
Olsen : Which project? The Lake Susan?
Batzli : No, aren' t they going to make some improvements? Utility
improvements down Audubon Road there?
Olsen: Correct . '
Batzli : So you ' re just asking them to jack-bore it for when the
improvements are put in that it will have already been done? I
Olsen : Yes . To loop everything .
Emmings : I found one thing on double frontage lots . There ' s a provision ,
under Section 20-908 that says the required frontyard has to be provided on
both streets .
Olsen : That ' s not it. There' s another one .
Emmings: There may well be but I found one and I ' ll just bring that to
your attention.
Olsen : I know the other one too but just where it is in this new one I 'm
not sure.
Batzli : I 'm sorry, did you say the frontage has to be provided on both
sides?
Emmings : No , required front yard .
Olsen: Two front yards and two side yards .
Emmings: Yes instead of, you don ' t have a back yard on a double frontage
lot so you have two front yards .
Batzli : So is that just for setback purposes then?
Olsen: Yes and what can be placed in it and stuff like that .
Conrad : Anything else? Is there a motion?
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 21
I
1rjr Headla : I thought Steve had one comment in there that I can' t remember
what it was now.
Erhart : Yes , I ' ve got it . I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend
Iapproval of the preliminary plat #89-2 PUD dated May 12 , 1989 with the 15
conditions cited by staff plus a condition 16 that all access on double
fronted lots shall be from the interior streets only.
IEmmings : Access to all lots should be from interior streets because there
are some on corners too I guess .
Erhart : Yes . Did I miss something?
Batzli : I ' ll second it for discussion purposes. Are we going to talk at
all about conservation easements?
Conrad : Or grading the outlot?
IErhart : I think that' s going to be part of the wetland alteration.
Olsen: The easement would be.
1 Batzli : The conservation easement but grading the outlot is going to be
part of the wetland alteration as well?
IFErhart : No .
Ns
I Olsen : The conservation easement around the wetland would be part of the
wetland. I don' t know where the edge of the wetland is yet.
Erhart : Now you' re talking about grading Outlot A for a park? I thought
II read it in there as one of the conditions already.
Olsen : The Park and Rec Commission put it in.
Erhart : Then let' s add that as number 17 . Further discussion that was in
the report.
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #89-2 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat
Idated May 12, 1989 with the following conditions :
1. The applicant shall provide an amended preliminary plat showing Lot 1
to have a minimum of 12, 000 square feet and provide block numbers .
2. The applicant shall provide staff with an amended landscaping plan
prior to final plat approval replacing the Pin Oaks with Hackberry.
I3. The applicant shall install 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the
north side of Heron Drive.
li-
II
IN
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 22
4 . The applicant shall provide the 20 foot wide trail easement along the
west side of Powers Boulevard.
5. The applicant shall receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and 100%
credit on trail dedication fees . '
6. Approval of wetland alteration permit.
7. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and II
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the
proper installatin of these public improvements .
8. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
9 . The sanitary sewer located within Heron Drive shall be held at a grade
of 0. 40% throughout the run to Audubon Road.
10. The sanitary sewer shall be jack-bored to the west right-of-way line of II
Audubon Road for future connection and service along Audubon Road .
11. The right-of-way for Heron Drive needs to be 60 feet in width to '
conform with Phase I construction and a right turn lane included at
Audubon Road to meet anticipated traffic demands of the area .
12. The storm sewer sytem needs to be modified so that it drains to the
wetland pond provided on site and eliminate the storm sewer/parkland
development conflict as outlined in the PUD report.
13 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations
for sizing for the roadway and utility improvements shall be submitted
for approval by the City Engineer . As-built mylar plans and tie cards
will also be required upon completion of the construction.
14. Appropriate utility easement shall be provided over all public
facilities .
15. A feasibility study should be considered to facilitate the looping of
watermain along Audubon Road from the railroad tracks to Heron Drive or II
incorporation of this work into the Audubon Road improvement project if
initiated this year .
16. All lots shall have access from interior streets .
17. The developer shall be grade Outlot A at the same time as grading of
the lots occurs .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
tabling of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-4 subject to an amended plan being
submitted to the city staff for review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 23
RECOMMENDATION OF OFFICIAL MAPPING OF TH 101 RIGHT-OF-WAY, FRED HOISINGTON.
Fred Hoisington: Mr. Chairman, I ' ll be very brief with our presentation.
I For the most part the Planning Commission has seen the alignments . The
alternative alignments. One of those, Alternative 1 has been selected for
consideration for official mapping by the City Council . That was with a
I great deal of input from the neighbors , the folks who live along the
alignment , the owners of the land along the alignment . If you recall we
brought this matter to the Planning Commission, the matter of selecting an
alternative and while we did not vote formally, it was an unanimous choice
I
for Alternative 1 at that point. What we didn' t know then and what we do
know now is that considerably more right-of-way will be required to
accommodate a roadway section that we' re talking about here than we had
I originally expected . It' s primarily because the road goes up and down a
lot and the present road doesn' t. The present road is at least reasonably,
it just goes this way and what we' re going to do is we' re going to replace
I the road that has a very bad horizontal alignment with one that has not bad
vertical alignment but simply one that has considerably more up and down
than what you see there presently. In order to do that, there has to be a
number of cuts and fills along the alignment and rule of thumb is that you
I don' t necessarily have to acquire all of the right-of-way to cover cuts .
That whatever is in the cut slopes can be credited to density or whatever
and in fact, the adjoining length will be graded down so you would in fact
ILuse that area . So you normally don' t have to have quite as much right-of-
way in cut sections as you do in fill sections. Fill sections, MnDot and
the folks who know recommend that you take all the way to the ends of the
I fill slopes. Now what we' ve done in this case was originally tried to put
150 foot right-of-way on this and we were going to bring that to you in the
way of a recommendation and take our chances on the slope easements and so
forth later . What we decided to do instead was to come to you with 200
I feet of right-of-way for official mapping and then at the time, whenever it
seems appropriate to build the roadway and the design occurs , it ' s possible
that some section or some parts of that will be less than 200 feet, which
I will be a savings for the City or whoever it is that ' s going to acquire .
The value for us in official mapping is that there will be development
throughout that corridor between now and let ' s say the turn of the century
when we might expect the TH 212 to be built and this will be built pretty
I
much in conjunction with that so we' ve got to protect the right-of-way
during that interim period. So all we' re recommending to you is that you
recommend to the City Council the official mapping of 200 feet of right-of-
I way with one small bubble and that bubble happens to be just a little ways
north of the creek. It goes between the two lakes and that happens to
correlate with not only where the future roadway or I should say the
Iexisting TH 101 will tie into the new TH 101. There will be some geometric
problems accommodating that but also because the fill is almost at it' s
maximum through that 150 feet section so that ' s what we recommend to you.
I 'd be happy to answer any questions you might have in that regard .
IErhart : Fred , on the lots that would be between TH 101 and the 200 foot
l right-of-way then, what is the distance there?
I
I
---
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 24
Fred Hoisington : Tim, the depth is about, I think we were trying to get
180 to 200 feet of right-of-way. ,
Erhart : So it would be adequate for a 15,000 square foot lot?
Fred Hoisington: Yes, and then on that side we had talked to you before
about this concept of kind of an expanded right-of-way. What we' re able to
do is raise that within that 100 feet on that one side. As you can see I
from the section we will be able to do some berming and some landscaping to
kind of protect those single family lots .
Erhart : But this is a four lane? '
Fred Hoisington: It will be four lane.
Erhart : Okay. So another 25 feet really isn ' t going to adversely affect
putting 15, 000 square foot lots along TH 101?
Fred Hoisington : Those will be substantially 15,000. '
Erhart: Just to Dave' s point, if I can excuse the subject here a minute,
regarding the 80 foot frontage Dave. If we take a 15,000 square foot lot
and divide it by 80 foot frontage, you get a lot that' s 188 feet deep. I
think that' s one of the problems with that is you get a real narrow long
lot. Where if it' s 90 feet, it' s only 160 feet deep. I think that' s sort
of on the side Fred . Again , as I stated at the last meeting , I think it' s
real exciting from the prospect or for something living to the south the
prospect of having this done maybe in my lifetime someday. I 've got a
couple more questions Fred. The 25 foot median is what, concrete or what?
Fred Hoisington : It would be a grass median . The possibility still exists
that there could be some sort of shurbery type material in that median but
we' re still looking at that .
Erhart: Or a rubber tree.
Fred Hoisington : Anything you can drive over or bounce off of.
Erhart: Let me ask you this, the City, we do not have the official mapping II
of TH 212 yet adopted in the City?
Fred Hoisington: No . But we do have the maps here and they' re in the
process of being reviewed and so about a month from now I think we' ll, come
back with those .
Erhart : And that puts this whole thing , that takes us through that step?
Fred Hoisington: Yes .
Erhart : Then after that , if somebody comes in and wants to do development
or building, we have the option in 6 months to buy that?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 25
I
1(7 Fred Hoisington : The good thing is , if nobody comes in or if the landowner
does not come in and request a building permit, of course it can go on
indefinitely or never have to worry about it . But yes , if a person comes
in and wants a building permit, you can say no. Your building department
I or your planning department will say no because it ' s officially mapped . It
will have to go through the process whereby the City makes a decision and
has 6 months to make that decision to acquire or not. If the decision is
Inot, your Board of Appeals will actually the permit or be charged with that
and they will be compelled to do so.
Resident: Can we ask one question so we can go home too?
IConrad : Sure, go ahead .
IResident : With north of TH 5 approved and everything on TH 101, that
choice made. You had a couple choices for north of TH 5 also to choose.
IFred Hoisington : That is not part of this request .
Resident: This is just mapping for future.
IFred Hoisington : Right and only the portion to the south of TH 5. The
portion north, there were several different alternatives considered as well
and the one that was selected was the one that comes through the apartment
ILbuilding. Takes the apartment building and comes down right at Dakota. In
other words , leaving the intersection exactly where it is today. Some
reconfiguration of Eden Prair_ie' s . That has been selected by the City
I
Council as the alternative that is to be. . .and fortunately we think we have
the dollars also to begin the project except the Governor did veto the
spending bill which has our bill in it or our provision in it . We think
that' s going to stay in September when they go back but yes that' s the one
1 we ' re working on. All the rest of them on the north side was addressed .
Conrad: So those are State dollars. Does the City contribute to that at
I all?
Fred Hoisington : No, what it is, on the north side those will be tax
increment dollars. They' ll come from the extension of the economic
I
development district by 3 years . What that will do is raise a certain
amount of additional money and it will all be spent on TH 101.
IConrad : So it' s not State funds?
Fred Hoisington : Some state dollars will be spent there but most of those
Iwill be from that tax increment district.
Erhart : What ' s the right-of-way going north on TH 101 up to the Eden
Prairie line? Is that 200 feet now?
IFred Hoisington : No, no . TH 101, there' s a common roadway between
li— Eden Prairie and Chanhassen is only 66 feet I 'm assuming. It' s very
limited roadway. Two lanes of course and then it has ditch sections which
it ' s a dangerous road .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 26
Erhart : It would be difficult to upgrade to four lane going north.
Fred Hoisington: It' s going to have to be upgraded. It will never be a
divided roadway. It will be comitted to probably just to be lucky to get 4
lanes.
Erhart : You visualize it being 4 lanes?
Fred Hoisington: Oh absolutely Tim. That road is going to carry, it' s '
already carrying more really than it can accommodate and it will be
carrying 15,000 to 20, 000 in the year 2005.
Erhart : When would you expect something would be done to make that four
lane going north?
Fred Hoisington : Well there ' s going to be for some period of time a '
question about that stretch that the City is trying to build right down to
TH 5 and up to , is it TH 7 or TH 12. I guess it ' s TH 12 where all of TH
101 north of TH 12 has been turned back into Hennepin County and all of
that stretch between TH 12 and just north of TH 5 is very much up in the
air. It' s a temporary state trunk highway and nobody is coming forward to
try and do anything about improving it there. It takes a special approval
of the Commissioner . . . Very difficult problem.
Erhart : Yes , the tone of your voice it sense me there ' s something eminent . .
Fred Hoisington: Not on that stretch. The eminent projects are, assuming
funding stays intact , the north leg will be built, I 'm guessing 1991.
Conrad: The north leg of?
Fred Hoisington : This portion of course is under construction now north of
Lake Drive and then this section down to a temporary connection here will
have to be going in 1991 as well because once we commit to move TH 101 onto
the new alignment and take it off of 78th and Great Plains , we' re committed I
also to make a connection here at Market to existing TH 101. So what you
see here is the ultimate and what will happen inbetween is an interim
connection . TH 101 will just tie Market Blvd . into it.
Erhart : Let ' s say Al Klingelhutz comes in here with a development which
you' re probably going to see. Are we going to respond to that by making
this change then instead of when they build the freeway? Is that a
possibility to find the funds to do that?
Fred Hoisington : No . What Al will have to do is to set the right-of-way
aside and plant around it. Incorporate all of his access so that it works
with the new future roadway. One of the good things is , because of the
availability of utilities and everything , they will be able to develop all
of the properties along it and that ' s why it ' s so critical that we do the
official map. For the most part, all of them will set the right-of-way
aside. I don' t think you' ll have any difficulty with that. The only
question that will arise will be seeing when are you going to buy it from
us and if they press the issue , you will be forced to have to do that.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 27
I _
Maybe sooner than you want to do it.
Erhart : Well there ' s another issue . The other issue is trying to plan
around the future abandonment of that TH 101 section down here.
Batzli : That' s going to have to almost delay development in some cases to
the west of the road there because you' re going to have to stay out of the
right-of-way but you can ' t stay in the current right-of-way.
Fred Hoisington: Everything in the vicinity of the interchange itself, the
people who own that land realize that they will not be able to do anything
and the way it was planned that we showed you as sort of an illustration _
there until it changes as well , there' s no reason to have it until the
interchange is built. Otherwise it' s single family residential and they
don ' t want to do that .
Erhart : Just eliminate the jog that ' s all . That' s about three-quarters of
a mile?
Conrad : So this southerly portion, we' re increasing the right-of-way Fred
and basically there' s a cost implication but that is , the funding source
' for this for purchase is from State funding?
Fred Hoisington: No. The only things that are certain right now Ladd are
we know that when the north leg is built and we assume the funding is in
place for that so we know, and of course this stretch of Market coming up
to TH 5 is already in the process of construction very soon and will be
II partially assessed. The right-of-way was dedicated in that case and it
will be partially covered by I forget. . .but whatever the non-local share or
non-local road share. . . the City is picking up the tax increment here. This
stretch down here , then the temporary connection we' re acquiring that land
I now through condemnation the same way we' re. . . to the north to make that we
can make that temporary connection . So that will probably be taken care of
and paid for now. Everything however beyond that temporary connection in
through here , we have no funding source right now at all for that . But
what I ' ve learned over the years is when you have to have something ,
somehow or another it works out and you will end up getting it when the
I time comes and hopefully it will be delayed as long as you can delay it and
you won ' t be against the wall to have to acquire it sooner than you want
it.
IJeanette Lappen : . . .north of TH 5 will not be started until 1991?
Fred Hoisington: The construction of that section north of TH 5, it' s
possible it can start before that but at least the way we' re looking at it
right now, it probably will start in the summer of 1991.
Jeanette Lappen : And it will be 2 lane or 4 lane?
IFred Hoisington: Just to the north it will be, immediately north it will
be kind of a transitional . It will be 4 lanes at the intersection and then
It- it will taper back to 2 lane.
I
J
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 30
little bit of a curve, just a slight curve in the bridge itself. MnDot
doesn ' t like curves on bridges so what they' re trying to do is they' re
presently trying to straighten this out . It will have a slight impact
through here but by the time we' re ready to describe this in a meets and
bounds description , that will be resolved. So what you' re looking at is
something that' s very close to what' s going to be right in it and it could
shift let ' s say 5 feet, something like that but it' s going to be a minor
change.
Conrad : Anything else? What do we need? Is this for our note Jo Ann?
Olsen: You need a recommendation.
Conrad : We do need a recommendation?
Olsen: A recommendation of the official map.
Conrad : Is there a motion regarding the presentation on the mapping of TH
101?
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
official map as proposed in our packet for right-of-way to be described and
recorded at the County Courthouse as officially protected TH 101 corridor .
Headla: Second.
Emmings : I just want to be clear . Maybe I missed something here but is
what we have in our packet, this is not the official map?
Fred Hoisington: That Steve is not the official map. That map will become
the official map as soon as the Council approves it. The legal
descriptions and everything will be prepared for it.
Emmings: But right now you' re not asking for approval of the official map.
You' re asking for authority to go ahead and prepare the official map?
Fred Hoisington: We' re asking for the approval of the official mapping of
something very close to what is on that map. The 200 foot right-of-way,
the 250 foot bubble and that alignment is very close.
Batzli : Let me amend my motion to say that we' re recommending approval of
an official mapping in conformance with what we've perceived here. The
concept received here .
Emmings: Okay, I think that clears it up for me.
Batzli moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of an official map in conformance with the concept presented by
Fred Hoisington for the right-of-way to be described and recorded at the
County Courthouse as the officially protected TH 101 corridor . All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
I
L_
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 31
I _
ii7 Olsen : We' re close to coming to finalization of, this is where Kenny' s is
and Colonial Center. We just wanted to bring it in front of you to let the
Planning Commission look at what the site might be like and to provide your
comments now. It will be going out for bids when?
IFred Hoisington : It will be going out for bids on the 20th .
IOlsen: So we just wanted to let you get your shot at it now.
Conrad : Bids for what?
I Fred Hoisington : You have to understand , this one is a bit different in-
that the City is involved. I guess I shouldn' t say the City, the HRA is
involved in this case with the design and development of a new facade for
I Colonial Center. The way that's all going to be done is that the land for
the parking lot will essentially be a compensation. We' re going to swap a
parking lot in front for the facade improvements and then we' re going to
I improve the parking lot and improve the front of the building so the City
or. the HRA has a very big involvement in it. What they've done is asked
Jack to design the facade treatment for Colonial Center . He' s been working
with the owners of the building and I hope you' re real close now to having
Isome agreement . This is the facade that they would like to have.
Conrad: So the City gets the parking lot?
kFred Hoisington : The City gets the parking lot.
IConrad: Why are we looking for the parking lot?
Fred Hoisington: Because all of the parking on the north side, the
Colonial Center parking and the Cenex which will be gone, and all of the
1 parking associated with the Medical Arts building , plus a good share of the
parking at the Riv, all will be city parking lot .
IConrad : So this is consistent with what ' s going in?
Olsen: Yes. We wanted to let you have input .
I Jack Anderson : I 'm Jack Anderson , project architect with EOS . I ' ll give
you a little briefing of the project that we' ll be working on here. This
is the Colonial Center and Kenny' s Market is located here . What we' re
I trying to do here is a very economical budget, do something that blends in
with the city developments that have been done and some of the existing
things. Then work it in with codes and so forth in working with the
Iexisting building . The existing building , this is showing it in brick,
face brick which is a red face brick back here, we' re encapsulating the
existing canopy and moving the signage above that . We' re coming off of
that with a gabled . . .then it has gabled ends that accentuate certain
Iportions . Those correspond with the present entryways .
Conrad: So the gables come out this way?
Jack Anderson : Right .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 32
1
Conrad: Is there any covered walkway? '
Jack Anderson : Yes. This would still be, this is a side view of it. Both
an east and west elevation so this would be covered. The existing canopy.
We' re just putting a sloped top on it.
Erhart: You' re not putting a roof on the building?
Jack Anderson : No. A roof on top of the canopy essentially is what we' re
doing.
Erhart: Yes . The building is still going to be a flat roof when
essentially all of the other new buildings in downtown are going to have a
steep roof. What you' re trying to do is somehow from an appearance
standpoint in one direction make it tie in?
Jack Anderson : Yes . This is quite a large building itself and this is a
way to give it a store front that blends in with some of the new
developments . We' ve got, as far as materials, we' re reusing and cleaning
up the brick. We' re veneering the columns and putting a new brick face on
them. The fronts would be wood . This would be a wood lattice material
here. Wood siding and wood trimwork. We have signage insets located as we
show there . Then the asphalt shingles . Then the underside of the canopy
would be wood also with the recessed light. Down on the sidewalk we
removed the existing corresponding with development of the lot out here and
then put in a new sidewalk with. . .
Erhart : What' s the roofing material of the medical arts building? Is it
cedar?
Olsen : No , it was asphalt shingles I believe. Heavy duty ones . '
Erhart: That 's the building that 's going up right next to this . Whereas
the Dinner Theater is all cedar . '
Jack Anderson : Well this would be a timberline type asphalt shingle which
would be a gray color very similar to the cedar . The Timberline shingle is
like, it' s a better quality shingles and it does have that look but has the I
durability of course. As far as cost, it ' s about the same cost .
Erhart : More durable than what?
Jack Anderson: Then the cedar. Less maintenance.
Erhart : Cedar is supposed to be the most durable roof that there is .
Batzli : What' s going to be right across the street?
Erhart : Where Pauly' s and them used to be?
Olsen: I don't know that they're going to be torn down. There ' s not any
immediate plans to tear those down .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 33
I
irBatzli : Are they going to do anything with those right now?
Olsen: What the immediate plans for those are, I 'm not sure .
I Batzli : We looked at concepts last year . I was wondering if that ' s going
to blend in at all with what' s going on here or if this is going to be,
vice versa , if this is going to be blended in.
IErhart: Which building are you referring to?
Batzli : Pauly' s. That group of buildings right to the west of the square .
IErhart: Have we looked at anything on those?
IOlsen : Just some facades .
Batzli : Facades and things .
IErhart : Oh yes , that' s right .
Jack Anderson : We are going to take as an alternate and see if we can get
Iit in on the budget and that is to redo all the windows and doors .
Headla : When I look at that and I think about it as you go west , the north
IEside, it' s early American. On the south side it ' s western. I 'm not sure
' they' re all that compatible.
I Fred Hoisington : Well David , when the original plan, the architectural
plans were drawn by Arvid Ellness for CHADDA, what they were proposing was
sort of like exactly that . A western theme on the south side because of
the Dinner Theater such a major force there, takes up so much of the south
I side. On the north side it was proposed to be very contemporary. Very
much different on the south side.
IHeadla : That was the plan huh?
Fred Hoisington : Yes , almost contrasting totally with one another .
I Unfortunately, we don' t think we' re going to get enough of that original
concept on the north side . We'd like to see a contrast , we'd like to see
some life on that lower side and we' re still struggling for that. However ,
things that are proposed here are a substantial improvement over what' s
I there and by the time we get signage and so forth on there that' s
appropriate to this building , it' s going to look a lot like Retail West .
Not like it but at least consistent with Retail West or the Town Square
I shopping center building which is going to be so much better it' s
unbeli.eveable.
Erhart : What ' s it going to look like from the east end?
IJack Anderson: We have proposed a paint, exposed concrete block that ' s
there blending color .
II-
MI
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 34
( Erhart : It ' s too bad we don' t have the money to put a roof over the
building .
Headla : Do you think that ' s what will happen in time Tim?
Erhart: That' s the only way you could really tie the building in would be
to put a roof on it.
Fred Hoisington : It would sure be nice if we could but the number of '
dollars we' re talking about here and the additional rents the owner
actually has to get to support this improvement plus . . . , we think they' re
willing to accept that or very close to an agreement. Probably Monday or
Tuesday. Probably will not do a roof here for a long time. It' s not in
the cards.
Conrad : A number of shopping centers have, the Retail West , is there a ,
canopy out over the walkway Fred?
Fred Hoisington : Yes . The Retail West , yes . '
Conrad: These canopies just go up to the parking lot.
Fred Hoisington: They cover the sidewalk.
Conrad: They do cover the sidewalk?
Fred Hoisington: Yes, this is covered .
Conrad: Anything else?
Erhart : What about a partial roof facade just behind that?
Jack Anderson: What do you mean? On the existing?
Erhart : On the existing roof.
Jack Anderson: Well you see you run into real code problems. We were
limited on our height here. We would have liked to have gotten a higher
pitch on this but we can only extend by code 3 1/2 feet above the existing
roof line or else we' ll have to, we run into snow removal problems. We
have to reinforce the entire structure.
Erhart: Because it traps snow in there? '
Jack Anderson: Yes . Theoretically the snow will come in the back and
could cause snow drifting. So the code addresses that. That would be a
substantially more expensive venture.
Erhart: You've just thought of everything . ,
Conrad : What kind of landscape are we putting in here? Do we have a
landscape plan for this area? '
I Planning Commission Meeting
•
June 7, 1989 - Page 35
I _
It7Olsen : I haven' t seen one yet .
Jack Anderson: Our charge is not that aspect.
I Fred Hoisington : You have reviewed site plans . When they were brought to
you a month ago, most of the discussion, I wasn' t here but I guess most of
the discussion centered on the walkway and the rear portion of the site
Iplan. They were showing the landscaping plans and everything at that time.
Olsen : That was for the north parking lot .
IEmmings: That was only the medical building . .
Fred Hoisington : The landscaping and the walkways and the lighting and
I everything is part of this public improvement project which includes
everything from this site down through the Riveria building . They really
should review what was . . . I thought they had already done that.
IConrad : Without landscape here , you know you' re dealing with a limited
budget so it' s hard to really critique this. It' s clean and fine and we' re
not, I don' t know how we can give you any other comments . I really am
I interested in landscaping for this area however because that can soften it
up and it can tie it together with other parts of the downtown and I think
we need to see that.
Olsen : I ' ll get copies of those and bring them in for you to review. We
just wanted you, so if you ever saw this improvement you'd know. . .
I Erhart : What about wrapping the canopy around the ends? Have you
considered that?
I Jack Anderson : One side here is not even owned by this property. The west
side. In fact we have to get a variance even for this little bit of work.
The property line is right on the building line.
IErhart: Who owns the parking lot then? Who owns west of that then?
Jack Anderson: It' s in the process of being purchased .
IErhart : By the City?
IJack Anderson : The City' s trying to purchase it.
Erhart: It might do the job of covering the building if you could go
I around the canopy and go around the east and west side I guess . What is
it, 3 feet? 3, 4, 5 feet from. . .
Jack Anderson : We' re extending out about 10 feet there .
IErhart: My concern is that it will come out obvious that someone tried to
, cover up the building and obviously that ' s your profession to try to avoid
Itthat with a limited budget .
I
El .
•
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 36
1
( Jack Anderson: Yes . I think this is the type of project that, as a
designer you have to look at where it came from. It is substantially
improving the existing building there .
Erhart : But like you say, if you' re spending a buck, if you spend a $1. 10, II
could you get another 50% return I guess is the kind of thing I 'm searching
for .
NEW BUSINESS .
Conrad : Under the new business category I 'd like to bring up something .
that I suggested last time and Jo Ann I need your advice on that. I think
the Eckankar project brought it up because of community interest and it
brings up tax issues and a whole lot of things related to financial aspects I
but what I 'm interested in is knowing what the impact of the planned
residential development is in Chanhassen for the next 5 years and that
impact on taxes in Chanhassen . Obviously where that goes is, I 'm just
plain interested year by year. As we build 100 new houses, is there an
impact good or bad to an average house? But once we find out that
information, it may be able to be converted into well if there' s a negative
impact taxwise because of services , then I think there ' s an implication for II
residential commercial . The City' s agressiveness to develop and also the
ability to have enough land to maybe offset some of the costs of
residential growth. Right now I know nothing about those impacts . I don' t II
know if there are plateaus and then all of a sudden you grow and have to
add a whole lot to tax increase. I don't know how schools are impacted. I
don ' t know how. . .so what I 'm asking and if the Planning Commission thinks I
it' s worthy of time. I 'm asking for you Jo Ann to give us a recommendation
how to go about looking at this issue . And it maybe something as simple as
Don Ashworth could come in and with his computer he can tell us what he
thinks the growth implications are for the next 5 years and how residential
growth impacts the city and the average taxpayer. On the other hand maybe
it' s a subject for a consultant to map that out . I have no idea but I 'd
like you to talk to Don and if you understand what I 'm saying and advise us II
next meeting so that we could forward that recommendation onto the City
Council . Anybody else interested in something along that line? Is that
just a me concern or is that a concern for . . .
Erhart: Your concern is that we provide adequate space for commercial
development?
Conrad : My biggest concern is what' s new residential costing us out here? '
What I 've been saying is typically a new residence and typically what they
say in planning is a new residence that comes into Chanhassen is costing
each one of us money. It' s not benefitting taxwise me or you because of
the services that have to be provided to that new residence, it' s costing
us. The things that keep cost down for that is a corresponding or an
incremental increase in commercial/industrial growth . So I 'm just kind of
interested in what all the residential growth that we've got on the books
is going to cost us and to see how the commercial growth that we 've got is
off setting that. I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 37
I
IErhart : I heard that we were going to indefinitely grow the size of the
city staff through continued sales of building permits. Actually that' s
kind of funny. Obviously you can ' t have an indefinite set of building
permits but the odd thing about it is, a major portion of the city' s income
Iin the last few years has been from building permits .
Conrad: Is that right? I 'm not aware of that.
IErhart : I think I would like to know that too . What the net contribution
is of commercial versus residential property?
I Conrad : And where it leads us , or leads me is I feel better about new
development coming in, residential or commercial. Right now I don' t have a
clue . I don ' t know.
Headla : I think that would be an interesting analysis . We could probably
learn a lot from it.
IConrad : And it will get back into some land use issues . Do we have enough
commercial? With Eckankar out of the picture is that good or bad and I
really don' t know what I 'm asking . I really don' t know. Obviously it' s
I not a science but I think we need, at least I do some kind of guidance on
that issue .
Emmings : You' re really bringing financial planning into the land use
planning to see how land use affects it and how it affects land use.
Obviously they' re very closely linked but it' s an area we' ve sure never
I been into before and I don' t know if somebody is looking into this things
in the City and is coordinating them but it' d probably be Don if it ' s
anybody. But it might be nice to have him talk to us about how he thinks
about these things.
IErhart : I would have to believe that at sometime before we were on this
group that that was discussed when they first put the zoning map in place.
IConrad : Not since I ' ve been here . We ' ve never touched it . We ' ve just
sort of said, here' s a blob over here. Let' s make that commercial . There' s
never been a tie to finances and I think if the Mayor and some of the new
I
council people, they've always been concerned, at least in their campaign
about minimizing tax increases , I think this is real relevant information
and most of what I get is hearsay and it' s not scientific or it' s not even
Ibased on relevant data in Chanhassen .
Emmings : In fact we' ve heard here not only do the new residences , not only
I are they a net draw on city resources , but that remains true for their
entire life . Somebody has told us that here.
Batzli : I think it was Ladd.
IConrad : No , it wasn ' t me.
IEmmings : I think it was Steve Hanson . If that ' s true , that' s very
significant.
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 38
C
Erhart : In addition to that , I guess I 'd also like to see some data then
that shows us what the lot size affect and that is. It goes back to my
argument that 2 1/2 acre lots are even a real net loss to the city because
essentially a 2 1/2 acre takes the same amount of taxes as a 15, 000 square
foot lot but you' ve got to maintain 200 foot road frontage and the other
city services. Public safety and stuff like that .
Emmings : Pack them in , you get more efficient services like that. I guess I
the paradime or the graveyard would be to stack them up 3 deep.
Erhart: Again , I ' ve heard some people say that well gee they' re expensive '
and if we' re going to get data, it'd be nice to get a little bit more
accurately on what that really is at the same time.
Conrad: So could you come back next meeting and advise us, so basically
what we have next meeting is we can make a motion to City Council that we
recommend something that staff studies, consultant be hired, Don Ashworth
presents , whatever makes sense to you guys .
Batzli : I ' ll bet you 10 to 1 that it' s not staff studies.
Erhart : This is the kind of thing that Don really is good at.
Conrad: Don is. Literally, I don' t personally need an absolute graph that . I
says here is total forecase for the next 10 years but . . .
Emmings: A general idea .
Conrad : Yes .
Batzli : That would also help on our long range goal of maybe getting more
industrial park. We' re filling up.
Conrad : Okay, is there any old business?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 17, 1989 with the
following changes: Brian Batzli had changes on page 24 changing the word
"half" to "have" and on page 11 changing the word "ever" to "never" . All
voted in favor except Headla who abstained and the motion carried .
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. '
Conrad : Anything on the City Council Update? That was a good report Jo
Ann by the way. It was fun to see.
Emmings : On the City Council update , Dave Stockdale ' s not on here . Wasn ' t
he in front of them?
L 'Olsen : He goes on next Monday.
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 39
Batzli : For all of you who didn' t attend the City Council meeting last
time, I would like to report that I attended and they actually asked me
questions as a Planning Commission representative. It was exciting to be
Ithere.
Emmings : Did you know any answers?
IBatzli : I knew 50% .
IOPEN DISCUSSION. .
Emmings : The temporary conditional use permits is the last thing .
IBatzli : Yes, the temporary use permits. That was interesting.
IEmmings : Now do we have to draft an ordinance?
Olsen: Yes. We got this at the last minute but I threw it in and yes, if
that ' s something that you would like.
IConrad: I think so .
ILEmmings : It would go under the conditional use chapter and would allow us .
to apply. . . Are we only going to allow the conditional uses we already
allow and say in a certain district. If they' re all conditional use , are
we only going to allow that use on a temporary basis in some conditions or
I is this for all kinds of things even if it' s not now listed as a
conditional use?
' Olsen : Right . I think that ' s how it could be used .
Batzli : It would be more flexible that way.
IEmmings : I think it should be kept as general as possible . I feel like it
ought to go under the conditional use chapter just to say that this is one
alternative to , there are conditional use permits and there are temporary
Iconditional use permits and leave it that vague as to what we apply it to .
Batzli : In other words, we could make a conditional use temporary under
Iyour , unilaterally on the applicant?
Emmings: Yes .
IErhart : Can we arbitrarily assign that or do we legally have to show
something consistently? Like all retail nurseries in the A-2 area are
going to be a temporary conditional use .
IEmmings : I think as long as you present, if we do it on a case by case
basis and present some rational cases for limiting it to time. The
It- interesting part is going to be defining the end and they put that right in
the law that you have to be very specific about it and that makes a lot of
I
1.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 40
sense and that ' s going to be the tricky part. But like Tim suggested
before when we were talking , you might take a use that' s going into the A-2 I
and say this can stay here in the A-2 until such time as it becomes
residential . If at some future date this property is ever zoned RSF, it
has to get out of there and that' s kind of neat idea I think. There might
be some kinds of things you'd want to do that to.
Batzli : Like a contractor ' s yard . '
Emming : But there might be all kinds of different reasons to terminate it
or define the end.
Erhart : I can think of an example and I 'm not proposing but an example
would be, we discuss from time to time the idea of allowing, we have some
wholesale nurseries , in fact we have Halla which is more or less
grandfathered in as a retail nursery in the rural area so it' s really a
non-conforming grandfathered use but you could make it conforming by giving
that guy now a temporary conditional use permit to do that. Say you can do I
retail , which he' s currently doing , until such time as the area is zoned RR
or RSF. I 'm not proposing that we do that but I can see that would be an
application .
Batzli : Well who ' s going to study and recommend how we implement this?
Olsen: When we did it before it was real general. Like when we had Bryan
Pike , the pastor from the church , we allowed him to have a temporary
conditional use in the IOP district . In fact he' s still there but we did
it illegally because we did not have the basis to really do that. Now this
would allow us to do things like that.
Erhart : The other example was with Jay here up at Lotus Nursery. See he
wanted to build out on TH 5. We had no mechanism to say okay you can build II
there until we go residential . We turned it down and I always felt that
that was a good use of that land on a temporary basis and that ' s where this
would apply nicely.
Olsen : It would be real general unless you wanted it more specific . I ' ll
bring something back real general .
Emmings: Wait a minute . We had a temporary conditional use permit
provision in here that we deleted at one time.
Olsen : Because we did not have the Statute to back it up . '
Emmings: Can' t we just resurrect that?
Olsen : Sure.
Conrad : I don' t know if that ' s good or bad .
Emmings: There are a lot of specific conditions under the legislation too
that have to be addressed . That' s right .
•
NM
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 41
I
liOlsen: But Roger could work that up.
Conrad : Okay, what' s coming up two weeks from now?
IOlsen: Mike Gorra is coming in to get his land within the MUSA line. Do
you know where his property is? It ' s west of Lake Ann Park and that ' s
going to be coming in.
IEmmings : What can we do about it?
Olsen : You would recommend approval to amend the MUSA line to include his
Iproperty.
Batzli : We have to do that before he can go to the Met Council .
IOlsen: Plus where the Natural Green was, their property is coming in along
with that too . The Legion wants to buy that and put the Legion out there.
I We' re getting a lot of pressure. . . Oak View Heights is coming back with
R-12.
Batzli : Is anything being done to include in the MUSA line that area kind
I of north and south of TH 5 out past where the MUSA line now runs? I recall
seeing in the Villager the week that Steve Hanson resigned something to the
effect that we were applying to the Met Council to adjust that MUSA line
IFand include a big portion . .
- Olsen: Where was that?
IBatzli : I don' t know. It was the big article in the Villager and I was
kind of looking at it saying, golly I never heard of that before. He was
quoted as saying the City was applying to adjust the MUSA line to kind of
Isquare off that corner where it goes up and down.
Headla : On TH 5 and TH 41?
IBatzli : I don ' t know. It was going to be north of TH 5 and kind of west
of Lake Ann towards TH 41. You don' t read the local yocal paper?
Okay, I' ll get you a copy.
IConrad : Yes , Steve made a lot of comments that I hadn' t heard before .
IErhart moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 50 p.m. .
ISubmitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Asst . City Planner
1 Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
I
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING . t
' ? ' : Ei '''' Imili -
IJUNE 13, 1989
IChairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Jan Lash, Jim Mady, Ed Hasek, Larry Schroers
and Dawne Erhart
MEMBERS ABSENT: Curt Robinson
ISTAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator
IAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved, Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated May 30, 1989 as amended on
page 28 by Jan Lash to change the word "timers" to "timbers" and on page 10
I by Jim Mady to include Lori ' s response to the question concerning whether
the money can be used anywhere other than Herman Field. The answer should
read , the money is availabe only at Herman Field . All voted in favor of
approving the Minutes as amended and the motion carried.
APPROVE PLAN FOR LAKE ANN PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZE PURCHASE.
ILash: This is now $546.00 over budget?
I Sietsema : Right . This change would bring this , let me just back up a
second. At the last meeting you directed staff to revise the first phase
of the plan that was proposed to include swing sets . What we' ve done is
shown free standing swing sets in the corner. The same ones that were
Iattached on Phase 2. Put them in the corner and as Jan noted , it would
bring the amount to $10, 546. 00. That would be roughly $550. 00 over budget .
I Hasek : We knew that that was going to happen when we started playing with
numbers .
ISietsema: Right and there ' s probably $500 . 00 to play with in there .
Mady: We didn ' t have to expand the play area at all?
ISietsema : No .
Lash : So then is this going to reduce the budget for next year then by
I $550. 00 that we' re taking from next years?
Sietsema : Well the way our budget is, we ' re not down to exact dollars
Ianyway so there is a buffer built in there that $500. 00 isn' t going to blow
us out of the water . If it came back over $1, 000. 00 or $1, 500. 00, then we
would need a budget amendment and that would mean that we would have to
take something out of something else but for $550 . 00, I think that will be
1 in there.
Lash : So are you planning on just swinging this , once you put the next
Iphase in, you ' re just going to swing this thing around so it connects like
it was shown before?
I
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 2
1
Sietsema: No . It would stay free standing and that probably works out
better because it gets it further away from the slide and the kids running
around and that kind of thing . I think it ends up being a better design.
Hasek: The thing that I like about it is the fact that now you can' t crawl II
off of the structure onto the timbers of the swings. My kid would be up
there. I can tell you that' s the first place he would go. The highest and II
most . . .place to be so I guess I 'm in favor of the redesign of the
structures.
Schroers : Have we looked at this , is it north or south? '
Sietsema: It could be laid out in any direction.
Hasek: The one comment I would have that I ' ve seen before , I was out at 1
Rebecca one day and they've got this huge tin slide out there south facing
and there was a little girl that slid down that thing and by the time she
got to the bottom, there was nothing left of the back of her legs. So if
here ' s any chance that we can make it so that the tin slides face either
east or north. I think there' s probably enough space out there that they
could probably lay it out any way that they want to .
Boyt: I had talked to Jim a little bit about a different design that' s in
this book. Interconnecting ramps and walkways . If you have little kids
you know they like to run around and around and around whatever they can
find . Whether it ' s running from the dining room, living room to the
kitchen. We could do a ramp plan. . .something like that so it' s all inter-
connected and they could go around and around and around . I would like to
see something different up there. Something that is unique. On page 19 it
shows that there is the possibility of connecting things. That ' s a
handicap play area. I 'm not interested in one that' s 3 feet off the ground 1
but it shows that you can do something . If we did this , it would delay
putting the playground in by a couple weeks. 4 weeks?
Sietsema: I can' t get it on the next agenda because the next agenda is
packed so it would go on the agenda the first meeting in July. Then if we
ordered it the very next day, it takes about 6 weeks to get here after that
and then whenever they can get to putting it up but it can probably be in
place for fall softball season. I doubt it if it would even be there for
softball tournaments but we' ve got the equipment that' s existing and we' re
not going to take that out until this comes in so it' s not like we ' ll be
void in that area all together .
Lash : Is that something we could do with Phase 2? Have these chain walks
and make that something that would connect.
Boyt : We could redesign the whole thing that part of it is Phase 1 and
part of it is Phase 2. 1
Lash : But like right now with Phase 1, they' ve got the clatter bridge. . .
I
1 ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 3
I
I Boyt: The chain walk and vertical ladder . I 'm talking about maybe not
having those there.
Hasek : Or they would have to be below whatever we put above them.
IBoyt: Right. Something they could walk or crawl through.
I Hasek : Let' s just take a quick look at what we' ve got and see how
different that would be. If we did put something over the top of the,
what' s it called?
ILash : The chain walk in the middle? .
Hasek: The chain walk I see. What is this over here?
ILash : Those are the . . .monkey bars .
I Hasek : Alright so we'd have to have something go over that . Now we' ve got
56 inches. I see 29. This would have to tie into the 70 right? That
would leave us, yes but if we have to go across over to here . It would
have to come over to this 70 in order to make a connection and it would
I have to tie into this 70 over here right because that ' s all got to be 70
inches high.
I Boyt : No, you know what? You can have them going at angles . There ' s that
Cornelia Park in Edina that they've got them going up a little bit.
Sietsema: So you' ve seen this type of thing at another park?
IBoyt: Yes. At Cornelia Park yesterday.
I Hasek : But if we design it we don' t have to maybe change Phase 1 cost at
all . It will only change Phase 2 cost I guess is what we' re thinking . This
bridge that goes over , the clatter bridge , that could stay exactly where
Iit' s at right?
Boyt : Yes .
I Hasek : Alright so then it' s a matter of connecting this 42 at this end to
something maybe at 70 up on this end?
IBoyt : This is also something that we told the guy who designs this what we
want. He can sit down and do this .
I Hasek: I guess what I 'm wondering is if there ' s anyway we can get off of
this first phase. Leave it in place the way that it is and then just go
ahead and have him work with what we' ve got left .
IBoyt: I think with different options , how tall is this?
Hasek: This is 26 or 28 , whatever that is . See I think we go over the top
Iof that and that could tie into this 70 over here again. The question is
if there is enough distance between 42 and 70 for the kids to crawl through
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
June 13, 1989 - Page 4
1
there. That would be a crawl space through there and they could tie this
across then maybe at an angle or this would be the chainwalk.
Boyt : It could be a tunnel at an angle or it could be. . .
Hasek: You bet. It looks to me like we might be able to leave Phase 1 in
place and aren ' t some of these pieces , it' s a matter of having some place
to attach them. You can raise and lower them if you want to. Yes, I don' t I
think there ' s anything wrong with thinking about something for those kids
to run around there but I also don' t think it has to affect the first
phase . I 'd rather get going on this first phase. Leave it in place and
just tell him to work with it and then we' ll make any alterations we have
to .
Sietsema : Would you be available to meet with him and myself. His name is
Dave Owen and just so we make sure that we' re getting the same ideas
relayed to him and then to come up with a revised plan .
Mady: He is a landscape architect, Dave Owen? ,
Sietsema : Yes , I think he is. He' s with Earl F. Anderson .
Mady: Can we move on this item pending the plan being adaptable? If staff II
finds that Phase 2 can ' t adapt to this as we' ve discussed , then we would
have to bring it back. II
Hasek : Why don' t we do this . Why don' t we see if there ' s any major
alterations to the overall plan that are needed to accommodate that. If
it' s a matter of a platform here or there , that' s okay.
Boyt: But otherwise, you all think that this is an acceptable thing?
Hasek : Sure. As long as it' s not rigid . As long as it ' s not a flat
circle. . If there' s a little bit up and down that they can play in , that
would be great with me. I guess I 'd just like to move to approve Phase 1
with some discussion between Lori and Dave Owen of Earl F. Anderson on
accomplishing , I ' ll call it racetracking . The connection of all of the
parts with some sort of a walking structure.
Lash: Second .
Hasek moved , Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve Phase 1 and direct staff to change Phase 2 to include
the ramps and bring it back to the Commission if major changes are needed .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Sietsema : So basically you want to approve Phase 1 and direct staff to
change Phase 2 to include the ramps and bring it back if major changes are
needed . ,
Hasek: Sure . I think he might even be able to suggest some other things
that might make connections in there but I think you know what the concept
is that we' re trying to accomplish .
11 ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 5
I _
DISCUSSION OF BATTING CAGE AT LAKE ANN PARK.
Sietsema: At previous meetings staff was directed to talk to the owners of
I the home that' s surrounded by Lake Ann Park and TH 5 regarding the batting
cage that' s being proposed out there as to whether they would be for it or
against it or whatever . I talked to Mrs . Noderman and she said she had no
I problem with it at all . There was a buffer with the garage between their
home and where it would be placed and she didn' t see a problem with it.
Then I talked to Dale to find out if he would be able to install it and
construct the poles that we had talked about and for $600. 00 he says he
I
would just go ahead and order it. He can' t really do it much cheaper when
you put in the cost of his labor and that kind of thing and besides that ,
he wouldn't get to it until next fall or winter because that' s an indoor
I project . Then I asked him if it would be possible to move the structure,
the frame from Lake Ann to Lake Susan in 2 years when the ballfield at Lake
Susan is ready because we' re going to want all of the baseball stuff at
I Lake Susan at that point in time. He said that he did not see how it would
survive the move. They' re cemented in and he didn' t feel that it would , he
said either buy another one and put it out there or else wait to do it. So
as I noted in the report, the best case scenario is that the field at Lake
I Susan will be done in 1991, ready for use. If we do the batting cage, my
suggestion is to either do two, one at Lake Susan and one at Lake Ann or
just wait to do it at Lake Susan. I talked to Dwayne Alseth also who is
I here regarding the Babe Ruth. He's one of the coaches and it was his
feeling that he didn ' t feel it was worth the money to do it now if we ' re
going to move it or try to do dugouts or anything else. He said we' ll just
I use the field as it is until the baseball field is ready at Lake Susan and
then we' ll have everything that we want and they were willing to live with
that . So I guess given that , my recommendation would be to not take any
action on this item at all for this year and schedule it for 1991 with the
I Lake Susan project and we can just include it in that project at that time.
Amend that plan to include a batting cage.
IHasek: Would they still be willing to participate in the cost of that next
year? I thought there was some comment made that they had the money now
and they needed to spend it.
ISietsema : I don' t think that we can count on them. They may be willing
to. They may have the money but I don' t have that assurance from them.
IHasek : Did you talk to Dale at all about the possibility or did he mention
the possibility of putting the sleeves . . .
ISietsema : No , I didn' t talk to him about that .
Hasek: What the additional cost would be because you can set the sleeves
at the same time you set the posts . . .
ISietsema: I don' t know what the cost would be on that.
I Schroers : I would say if CAA has the money and wants to do it for the
meantime, tell them to go ahead .
I
me
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 6
1
Sietsema : They were going to buy the net and they wanted us to do the
frame.
Lash : Why don' t they go ahead and buy the net if they have the money and
they have to spend it. It doesn' t necessarily mean. . .
Schroers : He was also talking like he would like to see it up by July or
something .
Sietsema : The earliest it could get done would be the end of June and I
don ' t think that' s going to happen with the 4th of July coming up. He' s.
got all the tables to move around and getting grounds ready for that big
celebration. Plus keeping up with the mowing and he' s trying to get totlot
equipment up. He' s looking at me like, what do you want me to do first? I
What' s most important to you? Do you want totlot equipment at Curry Farms?
Do you want things mowed? Do you want things picked up? Do you want
barbed wire removed? Do you want trails swept? What do you want done I
first? There ' s things that need to be landscaped . There ' s plantings to be
done. There's weeds to be moved and taken care of at South Lotus Lake and
he ' s just screams through there hoping I won' t give him another thing so
I 'm not thinking that he would even be able to get to it until after the
baseball season this year is over anyway. Realistically.
Schroers: I wasn't suggesting that Dale do it. I was suggesting that if - II
CAA wants to spend the money for the entire thing themselves and put it in
so they have something to use while they're waiting for their facility at
Lake Susan , then I would say let ' s give them the okay to do it .
Sietsema: They didn' t have the money for the whole thing. They had the
money for the net and did they talk about putting it in themselves too?
Lash: They said they could put it in. Jim had suggested they check with
the Rotary or the Lion' s or someone who had money. Maybe they could find .
Sietsema: Yes, if they wanted to do it on their own, I ' ll let them know '
that that ' s available to them. I think that would be fine and I ' ll let
them know that.
Hasek: Maybe that ' s what we should do. Simply plan on putting one in at
Lake Susan when Lake Susan goes through.
Schroers : If they don ' t want to wait you know, if they want something
right away, then let them put it up there themselves .
Hasek: We' ll give them the spot and we ' ll give them permission to do it '
but they' ll have to do it themselves .
Mady: So do you need direction Lori? '
Sietsema: No. If that' s the general consensus , I ' ll just relay that to
them. I
•
. Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 7
I
REVIEW REQUEST FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS AT CHANHASSEN HILLS PARK.
I
Sietsema : I had a request from a homeowner in Chanhassen Hills regarding
development at the park there . He wanted to know when and what was going
I to be done. I asked him if he received the letter about the public hearing
we held a couple months ago asking for ideas from their neighborhood and no
one showed up from their neighborhood if you might recall . He didn' t
Iremember getting it but thought that probably he did and didn ' t pay
attention to it. At any rate, he wanted to know what he could do to get
things done sooner . I told him to write me a letter and that' s the letter
that he wrote. He' s hoping to have development in the park as soon as
I
possible. Phase 3 of Chanhassen Hills, the development contract was just
approved last night. They' re just starting on that now. I am going to be
trying to include that they do the grading and the seeding for that park. I
I have Mark working on a grading plan for the plan that was approved by you
so that they can work that right into their plan as long as they' re out
there already anyway with the roads and whatever . That' s all I see getting
I done in 1989. We just simply don ' t have the funds available to do anything
more but we do have the $10,000. 00 tentatively scheduled there if the
Council approves as you' ve recommended it and we ' ll know more about that at
the end of July probably. Whether they approve our budget or not.
II
Remember we were trying to place that last few $10, 000 . 00 that we had taken
out of the reserve. So there is $10, 000.00 and that would put in a first
phase totlot equipment, small , and a volleyball court and maybe a parking
Ipad. That's pushing it.
Boyt : Gravel .
IHasek: Even if we went with the gravel , I would just as soon , I know what
tar can do out here if it doesn' t settle properly so you put the gravel in
there to begin with.
ISietsema: Yes , we probably would do that. That ' s what we did at Meadow
Green Park is just put in the gravel at first. I told him that this was
Ibasically what I was going to be telling you tonight and that I didn ' t see
much chance of their getting anything done yet this year other than the
grading and if we can get that grading done, then we' re ready to just plop
things down next year. I sent him the agenda and the staff report so I
I kind of half expected him to be here but given my bleak forecast maybe he
decided not to show up. So the recommendation is to just go as we had
planned . It ' s unfortunate and I have it on my list of things to do, to
I contact some of the developers and ask them not to tell people that the
parks are going to be developed the first year they move in because it ' s
really causing us some problems.
IHasek: Not only the developer but I think the realtors are kind of taking
advantage of that too and that ' s a real cheap trick. Yes , you' ve got a
park and it' s coming next year .
ISchroers: Do you need a motion on this?
I Sietsema : Yes , I really should have something to respond to his request .
His request is requesting that Chanhassen be developed as soon as possible .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' I
June 13, 1989 - Page 8
1
If you just want to direct staff to tell him what I 've just said , that as
soon as possible would probably be next year if budget' s are approved as
proposed . If the contractor doesn' t do the grading , then that $10, 000. 00
will all be eaten up by grading pretty much so that would mean it would be
the next year after that would be the soonest if there ' s money available to I
budget for that area.
Mady: Then I ' ll move that we direct staff to work with the developer to do I
grading as they' re doing site work for the rest of the third phase of
Chanhassen Hills and that pending the grading being done , the City will do
it's best to start the work with it' s budgeted items for 1990.
Lash : Seeding too . Grading and seeding .
Hasek: Second . ,
Mady moved , Hasek seconded to direct staff to work with the developer of
Chanhassen Hills to do the grading and seeding as a part of their site work
for the third phase and pending completion of grading , the City will do
it' s best to start the work with it' s budgeted items for 1990. All voted
in favor and the motion carried .
REVIEW APPLICATION TO AMEND LAND USE PLAN ON PROPERTY NEXT TO LAKE ANN •
PARK.
Sietsema: I 'm not real familiar with the details that led up to this
proposal except that I believe that the owner of the property discussed in
the proposal is suing the Met Council for additional money for the easement
for the Lake Ann Interceptor . What he wants is a settlement is that they
would include his property within the MUSA line for development sooner than I
what is scheduled. So what this proposal is in essense then is a land use
amendment to change this from rural residential to residential low density
which would be a typical urban type development. Typically I would not
even bring this type of a request to you because it ' s a planning issue .
The only reason that I brought it to your attention is that the area around
Lake Ann in the land use plan , if you look at one of the attachments , this
one is the land use plan and the little, what looks like tree tops is parks
open space on the land use plan and it shows land all the way around Lake
Ann as potential parkland. I just wanted to make sure that that is still
our intent so if they rezone that , that they continue to include the area
around the lake as park open space so we can make that future trail
connection . We do have, as you well know, the connection along the east
side of the lake and we want to continue that. It may not happen soon or
even in our lifetime but in the long range plan , I think that ' s something
we would probably want to continue to plan for . Maybe I should just back
up and clarify some things because I know we have some new members and
maybe even some old members don't know this but the land use plan is in the I
Comprehensive Plan . When someone comes in to develop their property, they
have to go by the zoning that' s on the land use plan and the types of land
uses . If it' s park open space, they know in advance , before they put their II
development together , that we' re looking for park space in that area .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 9
' Maybe in some areas it might be something real nebulous in an area but this
is very specific that we want it around the lakeshore so they know that we
want that property and they can count on not developing up to the lake. So
that' s the purpose of the land use plan is to keep everybody informed so
they know, they don' t waste their money on developing plans that they' re
going to have to be changed because the City needs certain things.
' Lash : So the City doesn ' t actually own that portion?
Sietsema: We don' t own it, no but they can' t develop it without either us
' signing off on it and saying no we don' t want it anymore or us buying it
from them or them dedicating it to us or whatever . We have first dibs on
it.
' Lash : So if he develops it, as far as your park fees or whatever , would
that then qualify or would he then also have to give the City more?
Sietsema: What' s the total acreage of this?
Hasek: I think it kind of depends upon whether you take it as a trade . . .
I Sietsema : If we take it as outright dedication or if we just get a trail
easement around it, it' s 140 acres so in a typical development is 420 lots .
Lash : He ' s talking about low density. Changing it to residential low -
densi_ty.
' Sietsema : That' s single family.
Hasek: That' s low density.
' Lash : That ' s low density?
Hasek: In the sewered area , yes . They can go down to what, 10, 000 square
Ifoot lots.
Sietsema : 15, 000 square foot lots . But then you take roads and everything
' else.
Lash : I thought low density was like 2 1/2 acres .
ISietsema: No. That' s rural residential . That ' s what it is now.
Hasek : I certainly think it' s important that we continue to show that on
Ithe actual . . .
Sietsema : That 980 people so what' s 980 divided by 75? 7.
' Boyt: 7 acres.
(There was a tape change at this point in the meeting . )
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' II
June 13, 1989 - Page 10
I
Mady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend I
to maintain the parkland designation around Lake Ann to preserve the
integrity of this undeveloped lake and to enable the City to continue the
trail system around the lake. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, VINELAND FOREST.
Sietsema : This proposal is 9 . 5 acres proposed to be subdivided into 18 I
single family lots. It' s south of Pleasant View Road and east of Powers
Blvd . . It' s quite a bit south of Pleasant View Road . I think there ' s some II
land in between there so it' s not on the frontage of either Pleasant View
or Powers. Basically this area is served by existing parks and with the
water tower site that was proposed to be a passive type piece of parkland,
developed into a passive picnic area type thing , this area is served .
I
Therefore the recommendation of staff is to acquire the park and trail
dedication fees in lieu of land and trail construction.
Hasek: Just a quick question. Where is north on this map? I
Sietsema: At the top.
Boyt: Is the water tower just north of Peaceful Lane? II
Sietsema: If Lake Lucy Road went straight, it' s at the corner of Lake Lucy,. I
Road and Powers Blvd . .
Boyt: Which is the lot?
I
Sietsema : It ' s not divided .
Boyt : Okay, there' s a for sale sign on the corner lot right where Lake I
Lucy Road splits and the water tower is right up above. There' s a for sale
sign right there .
Sietsema : That ' s Carver Beach Estates in there and there ' s a lot of houses II
for sale in there.
Boyt : Yes , I was wondering which is the piece of property that ' s passive
II
park.
Sietsema : Straight up that hill to the water tower . I
Boyt: Is it on here?
Hasek : Not it' s not shown .
I
Siestema : No . The lot line isn' t shown on here because this is an old
map. I
Schroers : It' s actually the water tower site itself that' s parkland .
Sietsema: I think that it' s like 3 arces or something like that . II
MI
I ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 11
ILash : So you' re looking for a motion to get park dedication?
Sietsema: Right.
I
Hasek moved , Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
I recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land and
trail construction for Vineland Forest . All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
ISITE PLAN REVIEW, MINNEWASHTA FARMS.
I Sietsema : This site is located just off of TH 41 about a half mile north
of TH 5. North of the Crimson Bay development and south of Camp Tanadoona .
It ' s a 100 acre site and they' re proposing to split it into 3 lots and an
I outlot. The big item here is that it is outside the sewered area so they
have to go with the 1 per 10 with 2 1/2 minimum lot size . That' s why they
have the one big lot. Staff feels that their intention is to further
develop that larger piece at the time that the MUSA line changes and
I includes that piece of property. So if we take this item alone as it
stands , as it is proposed , staff would recommend that we accept fees in
lieu of park dedication and that we connect the trail that' s along Crimson .
I Bay as the trail plan shows, goes along straight through that development. .
The other thing to consider, if you recall in Mark Koegler ' s report that we
recently reviewed , it calls for community parkland in the western part of
Chanhassen. We' re not going to get a large piece of property in western
IChanhassen any further west than this I don ' t think because the area on the
west of Lake Minnewashta is pretty much smaller lot sizes. So I think that
in the long term plan , that the Comprehensive Plan, we may want to consider
I amending it to include this as a western, I don' t know if any of you went
out to look at it. I know Larry did and I did and I think there ' s enough
topography there to work with for a community type park and there ' s some
I natural areas on it that would make it very amenable to a community park.
I don' t mean to say that we want to identify this now for sure and forever
and ever amen that this is going to be the parkland that we ' re going to
acquire . As other things come up and we look further , there maybe other
I spots that we want to look at also but if we amend the land use plan to
include this 79 acres as potential community parkland , we have to sign off
on it before they can develop it. They have to come before us and we sign
I off on it which is similiar to the other item we just reviewed . I think
that might be in our best interest to do that.
I Schroers : Another nice thing about it is is that the majority of this area
is a cornfield right now so it is already cleared so we don' t have to cut
down a bunch of nice vegetation.
IBoyt: It' s pretty rolling in there isn' t it?
Schroers : Yes, it' s rolling .
ISietsema: It' s actually a pretty piece.
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
June 13, 1989 - Page 12
1
Boyt : Yes it is . I 've been out there.
Hasek: When the trail comes up, is this Crimson Bay road at the bottom
here? '
Sietsema : Yes .
Hasek: It shows on here, it looks right an awful narrow right-of-way. Is
it actually wider than that in reality? Is it a normal 50 or 60 foot
right-of-way? This one looks awfully narrow to me.
Sietsema: I think that it's your typical residential type because it ends
in a cul-de-sac right now so it would probably be 50.
Hasek: Are you suggesting that we would connect that to the road that' s
just to the north of it then?
Sietsema: Not to the road. We would want. . . '
Hasek: To go west or east along that property line into the larger piece?
Sietsema: No, I 'm suggesting for the trail . The trail plan, I should have
included a copy of that in here . I 'm sorry. I apoligize. This is Crimson -
Bay Road ends in a cul-de-sac right here right now. I
Hasek : Okay, this is what shows .
Sietsema : What the plan calls for is the trail to just go right across
here. See it ' s really wooded and a lot of topography down here by these
houses where this road is so if they' re getting access down there and
they' re approving that, that would be the place to get it. But just
basically to get an easement so we can make that connection up to Tanadoona
because it shows the trail coming through this development to Tanadoona and
up. '
Lash : So this is Crimson Bay Road? So that ' s this right here?
Hasek: No. It comes right now, this piece has been developed right here
and there' s a road that comes in that' s this . It ' s actually to about here
and there' s that easement and that' s where we' re seeing this cul-de-sac .
This road deadends and this narrower piece is platted . '
Sietsema: This is Dogwood and it serves these homes that are on the lake
here. So this would come in and follow whatever access these homes get.
Hasek: I guess I 'm just thinking from the standpoint of that guy who' s got
that piece of property down here.
Sietsema: Yes, it doesn' t work very well with that one.
Hasek: Yes . Is there any reason why we could go this way with the intent
of crossing this piece up to here at some point?
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 13
1
Sietsema : What I would suggest , instead of crossing the big piece, because
we don' t know. That' s a cornfield until they develop or it becomes park or
whatever happens, is just follow this entire lot line out to TH 41.
' Hasek: It looks like there' s an. . . in here of some sort.
' Sietsema : I think that' s part of road right-of-way though because I think
that goes into, I 'm not certain but I think that goes into the Arboretum
there. That ' s how you get access in here. So what I would suggest then
' and maybe that' s a better plan. It doesn' t cut the front of these lots, is
to follow and go all the way to TH 41 and come up here on TH 41 rather than
go to Tanadoona and up.
' Hasek: At least we can take it and there' s always the chance if it doesn' t
work out, we see a better opportunity to take it up to Tanadoona for some
reason, we can do that . I think isn' t the intent of this trail to kind of
I serve whatever might happen up along TH 41 and get them down and over to
the Arboretum without going along TH 41 and TH 5.
Sietsema : It would be a connection of the Minnewashta Regional Park down
I to the Arboretum and they both have indicated working with us to include,
be able to get on more city wide trail system.
' Hasek: What ' s happening up here? Is that proposal for that higher density
residential still in the works or has that failed? There was one that had
kind of a funny stovepipe going down to the lake . Remember that one? It
' had like a 50 foot wide outlot going all the way down to the lake.
Sietsema: If you look on the other. one, I think that ' s on this piece .
I Hasek: Yes, okay. That ' s up a little farther . This is what was
approved? Has this happened yet? No? Yes?
' Sietsema: I don' t know.
Hasek: Because they had a deal that came down like this .
ISietsema: Yes they did .
Hasek: The regional park ends in here someplace doesn ' t it? Isn ' t that
Ikind of the boundary?
Boyt : It ' s around these houses up here . It touches the back of the
Ifurther north house.
Hasek: So do you think this is it right here?
I Sietsema : I think it does but it does some kind of a weird jog down here
too .
' Hasek: It took in a wetland or something down there . Picked something up.
I 'm wondering if that is, is there any plan that we have to try to put a
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
June 13, 1989 - Page 14
trail through the regional park or is that possibly leading to them?
Sietsema: That' s definitely a possibility is that if you got on TH 41 or
you got on TH 5, you could go out to TH 41 and go up and get into the
Minnewashta Regional Park. '
Hasek: The question I have is, is there a way to access that park other
than through the front gate? If we were to propose a trail that come in
along the south end or they not amendable to that?
Sietsema: There isn' t right now but they are amendable to doing that.
They' ve indicated that they would make a break in the gate or something -
that we would be able to just walk in and stroll around.
Hasek: I would rather see it go that direction and I guess I 'm not against I
us proposing taking an easement out along the south piece out to TH 41 but
I would have to have to assume that we got within, run a trail all the way
out to TH 41 or the park. I don't want to suggest that that' s our only
alternative. I think it would be from the standpoint of people using a
connection from the regional park to the Arboretum more. . .suggest that we
go somehow through those parcels when they develop. It may be farther down
the road.
Sietsema : The big parcel?
Hasek: Yes and you may be right . The most immediate connection might be
out to TH 41.
Boyt : Well if it does go through, here' s a line . If we were able to walk
there.
Hasek: These pieces when they come in, they' re going to come in as chunks .
This was an oddball deal because this had to do with some. . . They will be
a big chunk. There are probably some big owners in here who own some
chunks of ground and they' ll come in and choose, like this one, when this
comes back, I think this whole thing will go .
Sietsema: So are you saying, what if we got a trail easement along the I
southern lot line and then at the time that it develops in the future, that
we would go through the property.
Hasek: I would make a suggestion at this time that we want to connect I
somehow from that line up to Tanadoona so we don' t have to use TH 41. Maybe
that' s how the motion is made. We' ll take an easement but we want them to
understand at this time, with this approval . . .
Boyt : Along the east?
Hasek: Yes . '
Boyt : Do we want easements along the southern end?
IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 15
I .
I Sietsema: South for now and through the outlot at the time it develops in
the future.
Hasek: It may end up that we' ll take it along the east but I think rather
I that just suggest that we take it on both sides here, I would like to be
able to go , I would love to be able to go up to Dogwood but I think to
suggest that is going to cut that gentleman off.
ISietsema : I think that at the time that the 79 acres comes in , we have a
lot of options to get trail easements through there.
IHasek: And again , this Council may not even be here when that happens. .
Boyt: Something else we need to talk about is if we' re interested in land
I in western Chanhassen because the Met Council ' s going to be moving the line
within a few years and then the property values are going to rise again
quickly and we won' t be ready. And we need to find a way to get another
I big chunk of money so we can buy some property. That' s where we really
need . Like it says in here, we need another 180 acres in Chanhassen for
the entire future of Chanhassen.
I Lash : And to buy it now while it' s still cheap instead of waiting because
you know that MUSA line is going to be pushed out.
I Boyt : So are we going to ask for another referendum or ask for direction
from Council on how to go at this problem?
I Erhart : This acquisition fund that we started with this budget already,
how much did we put in there?
Sietsema : Those were for specific pieces . They were for the Carrico
Iproperty. For the Lake Lucy access .
Erhart : But I thought that we had . . .
ISietsema: There wasn' t a fund that was just for something , no . We wanted
to start one like that but because we don ' t have the funds, we just don ' t
have the money in there, all we could do was put money aside for future
Iacquisition of parcels we' ve already identified .
Schroers: I wonder if we could approach the Metro Council with something
I of this nature and just tell them our situation and see if there would be
any funding available to help us acquire parkland for future needs .
I Boyt: I think we need to approach our Council first because they might
have ideas. We have the use of more funds than just what we bring in.
Erhart : We should schedule a meeting with them and talk to them about
I this. If there is talk about pushing the MUSA line out. It could happen
for 2 years . Even talk about it makes the value of property go up. It
doesn' t even have to be moved but just people anticipating the MUSA line
Imoving .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
June 13, 1989 - Page 16
Boyt : These people are anticipating it right now.
Erhart: Then the property' s probably gone up.
Hasek: But that doesn ' t mean we have to stop.
Erhart: No, and I 'm not suggesting that either .
Lash : I guess I 'm confused because I was thinking when we were working on
the budget, at one point there was something that was earmarked for park
property in western Chanhassen and I asked you, I said have we specifically
said and you said something along the lines of, well yes we decided we
better put a name on it for western Chanhassen so that it wouldn' t look
like it 's just a slush fund or something like that. I thought that that ' s
what we had . . .and I was thinking it was a pretty good chunk of money. '
Hasek: I think what happened is through the course of time here it got
redirected .
Lash: I thought right off the top we took a big chunk.
Sietsema: You' re right. I don' t have the final in here though. I think
there was $75 , 000. 00 in there for property in the Minnewashta area . I
think that you' re right.
Mady: The west side of Minnewashta .
Sietsema: I don' t have the final here but according to my notes , you 11 didn' t take anything out of that so I believe there is $75, 000. 00. That
was for parkland on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. Like in the Lake
St. Joe area .
Boyt : Do we have anyone looking for property out there for us now?
Sietsema: No. But the thing to remember that we do kind of lose focus on
is that the park dedication fees are for neighborhood parks . It ' s not
really for the acquisition of community parks because those developers are
putting fees into a pot to develop neighborhood parkland to serve their
neighborhoods and the City is suppose to provide the community parks .
Mady: Part of my commission presentation tonight is going to deal with
park dedication fees . '
Boyt: Well then maybe we do need to meet with the Council because the
funding will have to come from outside of our sources. '
Mady: Possibly.
Schroers : Jan , did you get it cleared up what you were talking about? I
Lash: Yes , she did find that we have allocated $75, 000. 00 for park
acquisition . I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 17
I _
Boyt : For neighborhood parks .
Lash: Well we didn' t say that.
IBoyt: But that' s what our funds are set aside for .
Sietsema: Technically, when you get right down to technicalities, the park
Idedication fees are for neighborhood park acquisition and development.
Boyt: In the area that the development takes place.
I Erhart : And we really don' t have any money set aside then for acquiring.
land. If we do, it' s a very small amount right?
I Schroers : I thought that we set $50, 000. 00 into a land acquisition, park
acquisition fund. Did we do that?
I Sietsema: We put money, funds aside for acquisition for Carrico, Lake Lucy
access and for the Lake Minnewashta area .
Schroers : We specifically earmarked that money?
ISietsema: Right.
IBoyt : And the $75, 000. 00 needs to go to a neighborhood park.
Schroers: I thought that we established that fund with the idea that there
I would be money there available in the event that property may come for sale
like in western Chanhassen or around Lake Minnewashta.
Sietsema : And there is .
ISchroers: These other areas, then we can' t . . .
I Sietsema : There' s three funds. There' s one for the Lake Minnewashta area .
One for Lake Lucy access and one for Carrico.
Boyt : What we' re saying is , after reading Mark' s report it' s apparent to
us again that we need to be looking for more community parkland. We can' t
use our funds for that .
ILash : The we shouldn' t have this earmarked for it .
Boyt: $75,000. 00 will buy a small neighborhood park. It won' t buy a park
Ilike Bandimere Park like we just did.
Sietsema : Typically community parkland is acquired through the referendum
process , LAWCON grant process . That ' s how we acquired Lake Ann Park is
I through referendum and through LAWCON and dedication as well and outright
purchase so we could ask the City Council to set aside funds out of the
general fund for parkland purchase or we could recommend to them that we
II think that there needs to be another referendum at some point in time for
the acquisition of parkland in these areas that are going to be deficient
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 18
given that if we don' t do it now, it' s going to be much more expensive 20
years from now.
Hasek : I think if we do decide that that' s the route we want to take, I
think we ought to sit down with the Council and talk about it before we run II
into any kind of. . .
Sietsema: I think so too. I think so too . I just wanted to bring to your I
attention that this is a piece of property that is the right size and the
right topography, just looking at it has the look. Has the right look for
a community park in western Chanhassen.
Lash : Is this property north up there developed between here and the
regional park?
Sietsema : That' s Camp Tanadoona . It' s a Girl Scout camp.
Lash: All of this? i
Boyt : Part of it is privately owned between these houses and the lake.
Lash: But there would be no lakeshore available?
Sietsema: No .
Schroers : At our last meeting with the City Council we did touch on
acquisition. I don ' t remember exactly if there was an outcome.
Boyt : It ' s probably time to be more specific and maybe send them Mark' s '
report ahead of time.
Sietsema : I think with Mark' s report, it really outlines what our needs
are and what our goals , if we want to adopt that type of philosophy, that
that ' s what our goals are .
Schroers : I don' t think we have a choice . If we want parkland , we' re '
going to have. . .
Boyt : That ' s the same thing with our $75 , 000. 00. If our budget is '
approved, we need to start acting before that budget comes into being so
that we can make an offer on some property. If we wait until next year to
start looking, the prices just go up all the time. We' re going to miss out II
again .
Hasek: And that piece is within the sewered area of the city too .
Western.
Boyt : Western Minnewashta .
Mady: We need a motion on this item.
Hasek : I guess I would like to suggest that maybe after some discussion
with Sue here , that we ask for a trail easement along the southern edge of
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 19
I _
I the property from the end of Crimson Bay Road extended to that property
line. From that point east to TH 41 and I don' t know if we want to go
through the property. Maybe let' s at this point suggest that we'd like to
also an easement along the eastern edge from the southern property line up
I to Tanadoona . Suggesting that we would like to make a trail connection to
Tanadoona before it gets to TH 41 and alternatively to the north and into
the Regional Park along the south edge rather than along the TH 41 access.
IAnd whatever else the staff recommends .
Lash : Is there anything east of this?
Hasek: Another piece. .
Lash : I know there ' s a piece of land there but is there something on it?
ISietsema: Yes, there' s a farm site. Oh, that might be this. I 'm not sure
if that farm site that ' s out there is on that triangular piece or , it looks
Ilike it' s vacant and the farm site is on the outlot.
Schroers : That triangle is kind of a nice maple woods with pines going on
the highway there isn' t it? I think that is .
ILash : And there' s nothing south either?
1 Sietsema: South is the Landscape Arboretum. Apple orchard .
Lash : Oh, that ' s right . So we ' re asking for trails to kind of go through
nowhere. You ' re just splitting a bunch of nothing?
IIMady: The easement is for when development occurs .
ISietsema: 20 foot trail easement .
Schroers : Between TH 5 and the property is the apple orchard?
ISietsema: Yes. And some vegetable stuff. I just wanted to clarify that
that was a 20 foot trail easement?
II Hasek: Yes .
Mady: Is there a second?
1 Erhart: I ' ll second it .
II Sietsema : The motion was made by Ed to accept park fees in lieu of
parkland and to acquire a 20 foot wide trail easement along the south
boundary from Crimson Bay Road to TH 41 and to note that a future
connection through the outlot is planned and this would be done in lieu of
trail fees .
Hasek: I 'd also like, if you would , when you put that together mention the
I intent that we' re trying to get to the south boundary of that Regional Park
without going out to TH 41. That ' s why we ' re going north. . .
I
•
se
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
June 13, 1989 - Page 20
1
Boyt : I think if you want to ask for this you can . '
Hasek: I think we did didn' t we?
Boyt: Yes. You also asked for this line.
Sietsema : South and east .
Hasek: With the intent that we wanted to let them know that we want to
make a connection. '
Boyt: If when it' s developed it works better to go through the development
and up to Tanadoona.
Lash : . . .rather than having it on TH 41. ,
Boyt: Well it won' t be up TH 41.
Lash : I know because there' s no property here on TH 41. Alternately I
guess I would like the trail to go on TH 41 rather than having it go
through all these other places and having to screw around with it but I can
see where there would be some logic in having it connect up here to
Tanadoona because then you could go from Tanadoona out to TH 41 if you
wanted to have access. II
(There was a tape break at this point in the meeting .)
Hasek moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park fees in lieu of parkland and to acquire a 20 foot
wide trail easement along the east and south boundary from Crimson Bay Road
to TH 41 and to note that a future connection through the outlot is planned II
and that trail fees will be accepted in lieu of trail construction. All
voted in favor and the motion carried .
SITE PLAN REVIEW, OAK VIEW HEIGHTS.
Sietsema : This next item is the Oak View condominiums. It' s a
subdivision. We saw this item before as a PUD. The PUD request failed at
the City Council last night and this is a request for subdivision of 18 . 93
acres into 11 high density lots for 182 condominium units. When we look at II
our ordinance for park needs, if you take the 182 units and you take that
times 2 people per unit, you create the need for about 4 to 5 acres of
parkland . Although this is in the area , it' s served by other parkland in
the area, those parks are heavily used right now so instead of making them
give up 5 acres of their development and instead of us overtaxing our
existing parks, I indicated that perhaps they could put in some
recreational facilities to meet their immediate needs, their immediate uses
of the people in their development that would be privately owned and
maintained . That would take some of the pressure off of the park . Still
the organized things would be going through the park system and whatever II and then they would pay the park dedication fee. Is that clear to everyone
II ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 21
I _
Iwhat I 'm trying to propose there? It ' s a little bit different than what
we've done before but I don' t know, I think it could be worked out. The
developer called and he said that he didn ' t feel that it was fair that we
were asking for recreational facilities and for 1000 of the fees. He felt
I that he should get some compensation for the facilities that he' s putting
in there. I said well basically the way I see it, you can give up 5 acres
of land for park because that ' s the need you' re creating or , and that ' s the
' minimum that we accept, or you can provide some facilities and take the
pressure, meet some of your own needs that you' re creating .
Boyt: Is there any guarantee that you would not later develop the 5 acres
with something else?
Sietsema : Well it wouldn' t be 5 acres that he would develop into
I recreation. If he were to give up 5 acres, then it would be parkland then.
I mean that ' s what we would require. This would be just. . .
IErhart: Instead of.
Sietsema : Instead of parkland , recreational facilities on site that would
be available to the people who are in those units and therefore take some
1 of the pressure off of the public parks .
Hasek: Okay, I understand. So in essence we ' re not going to take 5 acres
I here for a park, then we ' re going to take it someplace else but he ' s
providing some facilities for the people.
IISietsema : Right . He didn ' t feel that that was fair that he should have to
pay the whole thing and he felt that he wanted to know how much those types
of facilities would cost . I said at best $15, 000. 00 unless you put in
bigger , more equipment that that.
IErhart : He ' s going to need more than that .
IMady: A lot more than that. There will be over 400 people in that park .
Sietsema : What he suggested is that he pay for half of that and get the
other half as a credit to his park dedication fees . $7, 500. 00.
Boyt : I would think he' d maybe put in at least a $20, 000. 00 piece of
playground equipment.
IMady: I was thinking more than that . We' ve got a school up here that has
far more kids and we' re looking at putting over $40, 000. 00 worth of
Iequipment .
Sietsema : Right but you' re not talking about just 400 kids moving into
I this development. It could be some elderly.
Boyt : Do you know what . . . How many people per unit?
IISietsema: I figured 2 people per unit. I think that' s high.
El .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
June 13, 1989 - Page 22
Boyt : For houses it' s 2.something .
Sietsema: It's 2.8 for single family.
Boyt : You think it' s less for apartments? '
Sietsema: Yes .
Boyt : We' re getting a lot of kids from the apartments into the schools. ,
I 'd say it' s more than 2.
Sietsema : Maybe you know there' s 2 is what they figure but usually it' s-
less.
Hasek: I think they figure 2. 3 per family and that' s generally across the II
board. Apartments , it's strange to predict that. It changes almost yearly
based upon the economy. Even if we counted one whole child per family for
each unit. ,
Sietsema: And they' re not all duo parent families .
Boyt: No , but they still have kids . ,
Sietsema: But I mean when you figure people per unit .
Boyt: I 'm looking at the number of kids .
Erhart : Are these going to be rental units , these condos or are they going
to be privately owned?
Sietsema: I think they' re privately owned .
Boyt: Then I wouldn' t expect it.
Erhart : I can see single parents in rental property with kids . People
that are going to buy condominiums are usually with one child at best. Most
of them don ' t have children , I wouldn ' t think.
Boyt: Most of the people moving into Chanhassen are young , just starting '
their families . That' s why our . . .are growing tremendously.
Erhart: Yes but I mean that's why I was asking if it was going to be
rental .
Hasek: There are two types of people moving in condominiums. Old empty
nesters and young starters.
Boyt : And the old people aren ' t moving to Chanhassen from what we' ve seen
so far .
Hasek : They can' t afford the taxes .
IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 23
1 _
I Boyt: Well there ' s nothing out here for them. I 'm concern that we' re not
providing enough for them.
Sietsema : Keep in mind that they are in the service area of an existing
park.
Boyt: But they have Kerber Blvd . to cross and Powers Blvd . to cross . I
I saw kids out playing on the new playground equipment at the site next to
them today and they' re playing there. They' re not going over to the school
which is a lot safer for them to stay where they are.
I Schroers : There are children in the rental units . Mainly the plan is to
come out here. Get your condo. Get established. Start your family. Get
out of your condo and into a single family house but there may be a few
Iyears in there where, especially younger aged children.
Mady: Do we know what his park dedication fees are?
ISietsema: $300. 00 per unit.
Lash : Per unit? Per condo unit?
ISietsema: $54,000.00 I think .
ISchroers : Do you need a motion on this Lori?
Sietsema: I need something .
ISchroers : Should I try it? I 'm going to move that we recommend that the
developer provide a large playground structure, a standard size sand
volleyball court and a half court basketball to prevent overtaxing the
I existing facilities and recommend that land for this recreation area be
approved by the Park and Rec Commission and that park dedication fees be
required in lieu of parkland . We'd also recommend an 8 foot wide
I bituminous trail to be constructed along Powers Blvd . within the 20 foot
easement. 10 foot of additional street right-of-way be dedicated along
Jenny Lane which is a thru street and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk
Iconstructed within that right-of-way in lieu of trail dedication fees .
Hasek: Do you want to put a dollar figure on the play structure Larry?
ILash: I think we should set a minimum on that .
Mady: Is there a second?
IHasek: Yes , I 'd like to second that . What do we feel is reasonable? Can
we have some sort of consensus?
ILash : For the play? I 'd say at least $20 , 000 . 00 for the play.
Hasek: So we've got a volleyball area and half court basketball , you can
IIget those two for $5 , 000. 00 right?
IN
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' II
June 13, 1989 - Page 24
1
Sietsema: What ' s shown here is a $9 , 000. 00 play structure so if you wanted
to double that, it would be $20,000. 00.
Hasek: Okay, the $25, 000. 00 would include the basketball and volleyball .
Okay, is $25,000.00 a reasonable number? '
Mady: I think so .
Hasek: Okay, do we want to set a minimum of $25, 000. 00 for construction ,
costs for the facilities?
Mady: Was there any reduction in fees due to the construction?
Hasek: No .
Boyt : And I want to ask that this be constructed in the first phase.
Hasek: I think that' s fairly smart. Then when people come in, they won' t
be coming in here asking .
Lash : I have just a couple of questions . Where is Jenny Lane?
Sietsema: It' s shown on the site plan.
Lash : It goes through to Kerber right? ,
Hasek: No it doesn' t. Not yet .
Sietsema: It doesn' t go through yet. It will hook up to what goes through II
the apartments right now and go all the way from Kerber to Powers Blvd . .
Boyt : I don ' t see where he has room on this plan to do this? '
Sietsema: That' s why I put the stipulation in there that he has to come
back and show us what he' s proposing .
Boyt: I 'm concerned that it's not going to be big enough. That we' re
going to have another case of the condominiums between you and me where the
kids spend all their time on the road. We know that they need 5 acres to
meet the needs of the people moving in there. . . They will have other
parkland near them but now right there and we' ve been hearing over and over
again that people need something within our neighborhood . I think we need
to make sure that it' s enough to serve this neighborhood. This is a
neighborhood .
Hasek : In and of itself. '
Schroers: So you want to amend the motion to . . .
Hasek: Let' s look at it this way. If we took 5 acres out of there and
the units that go along with that 5 acres , how many acres have we got
total? '
II • Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 13, 1989 - Page 25
1 _
IBoyt : 19.
Hasek: So that ' s 20% of the development so we would now cut it back from
almost 200 to 140 people.
IIBoyt : But this is 25%. . .
I Hasek: Are the condominiums only going into what is shown or does it
include this future apartment? The 19 acres isn' t the total parcel. The
condos are 182 units . So we ' ve got an additional future apartment building
II going in here?
•
Sietsema : Right .
IIHasek: So there ' s more units then even .
Boyt: You see this corner where it says future apartments , that' s about 5
Iacres .
Hasek: So we' ve got additional . How dense are they developing that parcel
in the district that they' re in? The zoning district.
II Sietsema: R-12.
IHasek: 12 units per acre .
Erhart : And there will be a lot of kids in the apartments .
IBoyt: There might not be in other towns but from what we' ve seen in
Chanhassen, it' s little kids. And yes there might not be 10 years from now
but we know what' s happening right now.
IIMady: What are we trying to accomplish here? Are we trying to get 5 acres
of land out of this guy as well as build a park?
IIBoyt : No , I don' t think we need to do both . I 'm concerned that we get
enough so we meet the needs of the people.
ISietsema : I think that' s up to him though to come back to us with a plan.
If we aren' t asking for parkland , the notice is on him to come up with a
decent plan that you' re going to accept that will meet those needs .
IBoyt: But I don't know if could vote for this or if I could go vote for
taking the parkland . That ' s my concern. I don ' t know if we could get
II enough from him but I 'm only one vote. All we have to do is move on it and
then the Council can get it.
Sietsema : And he' ll come back to us with the plan . So the motion I have
I added to what Larry said is ask for a minimum of $25, 000. 00 on the
facilities . $20,000. 00 of that going towards totlot and that it be done in
Phase 1. Ed seconded?
II
1
IN
•Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
June 13, 1989 - Page 26
1
Hasek: I 'd like to just add something to that. If we' re going to take
$25,000. 00 worth of equipment, that goes to the facility, not the grading
or seeding or landscaping for the facilities .
Sietsema: On facilities . '
Schroers moved , Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the developer provide a large playground structure, a
standard size sand volleyball court and a half court basketball court so as
not to overtax the existing park facilities. To recommend that the plan
for this recreation area be approved by the Park and Rec Commission and -
that park dedication fees be required in lieu of parkland. Additionally
recommending an 8 foot wide bituminous trail to be constructed along Powers
Blvd. within the 20 foot easement. 10 foot of additional street
right-of-way be dedicated along Jenny Lane which is a thru street and a 6
foot wide concrete sidewalk constructed within that right-of-way in lieu of
trail dedication fees . A minimum of $25 , 000. 00 on recreation facilities
($20,000. 00 for totlot) and that it be constructed during Phase 1 of the
development. All voted in favor except Sue Boyt who opposed and the motion
carried. '
Lash : Lori , just one quick thing . When we have developers put in
sidewalks , concrete sidewalks, when those things deteriorate and need to be.-
replaced , who then pays for that replacement?
Sietsema: The City.
Lash : So all these things that we ' re putting in all over , ultimately we' re
going to have to pay to have replaced.
Sietsema : The City does . The park maintenances doesn ' t but the
engineering department does .
Mady: Because they do that in Minneapolis . You' re responsible for the '
sidewalk and the trees.
Lash : But that ' s not the city paying for it. ,
Mady: They' ll have to make a decision on that when it comes 30 years from
now. '
Boyt : And it might be assessed to the homeowners . It depends on who ' s on
the Council at the time. '
Lash : I think that ' s something that needs to be considered before we start
putting these things in all over .
Sietsema : It' s being considered when they came up with the trail plan .
All those considerations were taken at the time the trail plan was
developed . '
IIPark and Rec Commission
June 13, 1989 - Page 27
' Boyt : We had so much budgeted per year for upkeep too and for maintenance
equipment. We didn' t talk about who would be replacing it in the future
because that' s quite far in the future .
' Mady: The sidewalk in front of my parent' s house was there for 70 years
before it was replaced and it was only replaced in front of their house
because the City felt that a 2 inch gap in the sidewalk was too high and
they have to tear it all out . That was 70 years .
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
Mady: I don' t know if anyone else has anything . I have a couple things I
want to talk about tonight. First off, real quick. The new sidewalks down
' Laredo Trail , they' re just putting the sod in, they started last week and
they' re continuing this week. I 'd like to see staff send a letter to every
homeowner who lives along Laredo reminding them of their duty to water that
' sod. It looked pretty rough that first day and if we hadn' t got rain the
last 2 days , it would have been dead by now. So if we can get a nice,
friendly letter to them.
' Schroers : Can I ask you a question? How does a homeowner ' s . . .
Sietsema: They asked for it.
IIBoyt : The ones I 've talked to like it . Two people. One of them is just
thrilled. She has a 3 year old boy and a 1 year .
' Schroers : They' re happy with the construction part of it . The way it
looks.
Boyt : You haven ' t heard any complaints and you would .
Hasek: Just a little side note to that. Larry you' re the one that ' s
I familiar with my neighborhood . It' s 3 cul-de-sacs up there and the parents
up there, and I 'm talking about 3 cul-de-sacs and that go noplace in the
neighborhood . I mean you can' t get thru to anywhere , have expressed some
I desire, they wish that sidewalks had been put in because they' ve got little
kids playing on the street. When we first moved in out there, it was
fairly quiet but there' s been a turn over and we' ve seen lot younger kids
coming into the neighborhood . Older parents with high school kids and
I we've got kids tearing through the neighborhoods right now and there are
some concerned parents out there that wish they had sidewalks in a
cul-de-saced neighborhood . Just to get the kids off the streets . I don' t
I think it will ever happen but there is a desire out there on the part of
some people.
Mady: One of my good friends lives a block from me. He' s very much
I against trails. Has two little children. One' s 4 and the other one is 2
1/2 I believe . He keeps telling me his kids will never use the sidewalks
yet every day they take their children to the sidewalk a half a block away
to teach them how to ride their bike.
Park and Rec Commission II
June 13, 1989 - Page 28
Boyt : Many of our neighbors are really against sidewalks . I 've seen all
of them walking on the sidewalks because it makes a nice loop around .
Mady: Now you can go around the Chan Pond Park.
Boyt: I think it's as we put these little segments in, people are going to II
realize that they' re not as bad as they thought and become more acceptable.
I think some people like them.
Erhart : Especially if they have little kids.
Boyt: And some of them are older people. All their kids are gone but they II
go for an evening walk.
Erhart : I was thinking of the Preserve with many, many cul-de-sacs but no
sidewalks in there.
Sietsema: Was that a motion to direct staff to ask homeowners to water
sod?
Mady: Yes .
Hasek: I think just direct staff to do that . Does it have to be a motion?
Sietsema: It has to be a motion to direct me otherwise I 'm doing something . II
that he wants and not necessarily what the group wants .
Boyt: Second. '
Mady moved , Boyt seconded to direct staff to write a letter to the
homeowners along the newly installed trail on Laredo Drive to water the new II
sod . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Boyt: Do you keep a little list of items that we think should go to budget II
next year? Just kind of a curb list?
Sietsema: Not formally. '
Boyt : We need benches for the players at Carver Beach Park. A real simple
thing. '
(Dean Johnson, the developer for Oak View Heights arrived at the meeting at
this point and Lori Sietsema informed him of the action taken by the Park
and Recreation Commission on his development . )
Dean Johnson: What about some assistance for playground because if it' s my
understanding that you could give park dedication. Now what you' re causing II
me to do is pay park dedication and put in the facilities so you' ve over
burdening me.
Mk
Park and Rec Commission
June 13, 1989 - Page 29
' Boyt : I don ' t think that ' s what the motion said . I don' t think we' re
charging full fees are we?
Sietsema : Yes .
IBoyt : Well you' re getting away with a lot less land . We 'd ask for 5 acres .
Dean Johnson: 5 acres of. . .
Boyt : That ' s to meet the needs of the number of people.
Dean Johnson: I 'm in an area where the present park system should be
adequate for them or to your staff?
I Sietsema: No , that' s not what I said . There is existing parkland but it' s
already at a near capacity level of use. Therefore, that's why they' re
requiring that you put in facilities to meet your own needs instead of
I parkland because the land that we have currently is already at almost full
capacity.
Dean Johnson : What happened to the $10, 000. 00?
ISietsema : They decided that what you' re proposing is . . .
I Dean Johnson : Instead of spending it on playground equipment, if you' re
going to do anything you should spend it more on say adult activities
because the people you' re. . .are not children . I know the Planning
I Commission and Council feel the same way. They think this is going to have
a lot of children and that just isn' t right . You' re going to get single
people. You' re going to get married couples just starting out. As soon as
they have that first child , they' re not going to be sitting there in a
Itownhouse, some $50, 000. 00 townhouse.
Boyt : That' s not the way it ' s happened so far in Chanhassen . That ' s the
I information we have to use to predict. What' s happening right now in
Chanhassen .
I Dean Johnson : But what you' re doing is spending an enormous amount of
money for children. . .
Boyt : No , it' s not all children . We' re asking for basketball and
Ivolleyball as well .
Dean Johnson : A volleyball court has 2 posts .
Boyt: Is this something that you guys should discuss or is it something
that we all have to discuss since our motion is passed?
' Sietsema : Well if you want to hear his comments. He might want them for
the record to go along for the record .
I Dean Johnson: You' re just not going to get that many children. I ' ve done
townhouse projects before and with . . .we got less than 20 children .
Park and Rec Commission
June 13, 1989 - Page 30
1
Boyt: It depends on the town you' re in. '
Dean Johnson : . . .You' re spending $25, 000. 00 on children and probably
$5, 000. 00 on adults . '
Boyt: You can spend more.
Dean Johnson : If I 'm going to spend it, I 'd rather spend it on something
that' s going to attract my customers into the thing. That' s not going to
be a huge playground facility. It' s going to be. . .
Lash: You don' t feel that people with children are going to be moving in
there?
Dean Johnson : Not to the degree that $25, 000. 00 is going to be. Are we
talking about $25, 000.00 just to install it or we talking about. . .
Hasek: We' re talking $25, 000. 00 for the facilities that you put in ,
exclusive of grading and seeding and landscaping. I think rather than
trying to convince us of something that we really, we' ve got information
that we use to make our decision. If you want to change the minds of
somebody, it would have to be the Planning Commission and the Council . If
you'd like to spend $25,000. 00 or you can convince them that you' re going
to have all adults and no children, fantastic . That would be fine by me as I
long as they' re provided for within their own development. That would be
great .
Dean Johnson : . . .recommendation, you people. . . These are obvious things. '
You' re just not going to get that many young children in this thing .
You' re going to end up with single parents , families who are divorced and
they have one child or two, that are now probably 12, 14 years old and
married for 8 or 10 years and 12 years and didn' t see eye to eye and split.
That was a majority of what has moved into other townhouse projects that I
have built. You talk to Tom Workman. . .he says the same thing . He' s in a
building that 's all elderly except for himself and he bought his on a repo
or something like that he had told me. That' s why he was there and he
fully expects to sell to an elderly person.
Sietsema : The difference though, what we have to go by is what we have
experienced. The three buildings around Tom Workman' s building had 9
children in them each.
Lash : I could certainly see with this going in across the street from an
elementary school that it would be a real drawing card to people with
elementary children .
Dean Johnson : I would say no going in behind a commercial . . . Yes , I see
what you' re saying. I understand that but then on the other hand . . . '
Sietsema : What would you rather see in it?
IPark and Rec Commission
June 13, 1989 - Page 31
I Dean Johnson : Obviously I think that having to pay a fee and . . .you' re
talking about is overkill. I think you' re overstepping it. . . If
you say you can take 5 acres , but that would be. . . I would rather see, if
anything, I would rather see something more for the adult, a tennis court
I or something like that. . . .you' ll see a lot of just married couples and
you' re going to be seeing a lot of single couples coming back from divorces
and that kind of thing . You' re just not going to see a lot of children in
Ian area like this.
Erhart : That' s what I was trying to drive at . That some of your luxury
' condominiums they don ' t cater to families .
Dean Johnson: These aren' t going to be luxuries though.
IIErhart: How many bedrooms?
Dean Johnson : These are 2 and 3 bedrooms but if you look at the plan,
I you' re going to see, I don' t even know if you have a plan in front of
you. . . Two single guys or two single girls or that type of thing . Put in
two bathrooms so each of them has their own bathroom.
IMady: Okay, we ' re going to move on now.
Hasek: I 'm sorry that you missed us. I guess the only thing we can say,
I I 'm a planner myself and I always ask the same question when I go to these ,
types of meetings about the time you expect to be on. Historically I 'm
there about a half an hour before then because I know these things can get
I screwed up so I apologize that you didn' t make the meeting but it' s in your
own interest to be here.
I Mady: The last thing that I had on Commission presentation. We keep
running into this in the last couple of months and that' s the park
dedication fees and parkland being developed in new developments . People
I expecting a park to be there immediately. Just a problem we've run into
really with new developments in the past couple of months . What I want us
to do is look at two different things. One is when do we get what we' re
I getting from the developer . Be it land , be it park money, whatever . If
the development comes in with 100 lots in it and he sells 30 of them,
already we have a need for a park yet we might not get all the money and
may not be able to do anything for 5 or 6 years. We have a problem. We
I had Curry Farms in here . We had Lake Susan. Chan Hills . They' re all in
here. They' re all screaming for their park that they were promised from
the developer or the real estate agent or whomever. As this city is now
I standing at 10, 000 people, by Mark' s estimation we' re going to grow to
35, 000 people over the next whatever years. As the MUSA line gets changed
in the next couple years , and I hope it doesn' t personally, but if it does ,
that needs going to grow real , real fast and we need to be proactive and
' find a plan now so we can plan for those extra 25, 000 people. Not wait
until the third phase of their development comes in and hope that we get
some money. In view of that, I want to look at our park dedication fees .
I Those 25, 000 people moving into Chanhassen are going to create, what is it,
180 additional community park acres . A need for 180 yet we' re not gaining
•
Park and Rec Commission
June 13, 1989 - Page 32
1
anything from our park dedication ordinance with that and I believe we can.
We need to look at that.
Sietsema: For a community park?
Mady: Yes. They' re going to create a need for 2 things. Community park
and neighborhood park.
Sietsema : The State Statutes don' t allow for any, there' s no vehicle to '
collect money for community parks. The park dedication is to provide
neighborhood parks .
Mady: Pull that out because I don' t remember reading that in the Statute .
We haven' t looked at it for a couple of years but could you pull that out
for me . I think we' re missing the boat here. Everytime we need a
community park, we expect that 10, 000 people already live here who pay
taxes and get what they needed are now going to pay more taxes to provide
for the new 25,000 people. If we can split the park dedication fee so that II
x dollars goes toward a community park fee and x dollars goes to a
neighborhood park fee, and we start ballparki.ng it out, what we have to
have to develop a park, to buy the land , develop the park and charge for II that now and get it when the developer puts his final plat in, we get it at
that time instead of as the building permits come in here, we can then do
something for these people rather than sorry, we don't have any money and
gee that' s too bad . We need to start planning and doing this right. If II
this city starts to take off like some people are suggesting , we better be
looking at this with open arms instead of doing it as we are now which is
really working very well .
Boyt : One of things we ' ve been asking lately is that the parks be done in
the first phase. Grading and seeding be done in the first phase. Maybe we
need to be more explicit. Do they need to be done when the first door
opens or by the time. . .
Mady: If they' re selling that land , saying there' s a park there , then the
park should be there when they' re selling it. Not because it' s on paper
hoping that the city someday is going to put it in . If the developer is
saying he' s got a park in his development, then he should be putting in a
park in his development . At least doing the grading so it' s a flat piece
of land that is useable .
Boyt: Maybe we need to change the way we do things too. Do more like with II
this but have it be parkland. Take Chan Hills, we want our acreage graded ,
seeded and the equipment put in. Order the equipment for that neighborhood
right away.
Mady: All I 'm doing here is I wanted to bring the point up. I spent about
an hour on this the other day trying to come up with some formulas and
calculations . What I want to do is cause some thought . I don' t expect an
answer tonight. I don' t expect it in the next 3 months but I would hope
that by the end of the year we would come up with some kind of a plan to
start addressing the needs of the City in the future because we' re going to II
grow by 2 1/2 times in who knows how much time but if the MUSA line gets
IPark and Rec Commission
June 13, 1989 - Page 33
I changed , as some people are suggesting , it' s really going to change quickly
and we' re going to really have a problem so we need to start looking at our
community needs as well as the neighborhood .
I Sietsema: I think that' s a good point. It' s a very good point to include
if we take land in lieu of fees , that we should include the development of
that land as well . I think that' s very reasonable and I think that other
Icities do that .
Hasek: The discussion of asking for the money up front so we' ve got
something to work with is not new either . We've talked about that before.
Sietsema: No, and I apologize for not bringing that back. I 've talked to
Don about it and I have a note to myself about it but I was going to stick
I it on this agenda and then this one got to be 10 items and next meeting is
already.
I Hasek: What was his feeling? Did he feel there was anything wrong with
it?
Sietsema: It can be done . I have to look at my notes to remember what he
Isaid exactly.
Hasek: I had a guy develop 80 acres up in Champlin and he had to pay
I ` ?5,000. 00 up front in park dedication fees. Up front.
Boyt : If we had the money up front, then we could order the equipment to
Igo on the grading of the property.
Lash : We could end up with a timeframe that when a development was going
in, there'd be a priority list so if the development started this year and
I they graded and seeded it , it would automatically go on our budget for the
next year to be developed. I can' t see that we could develop it right away
because we wouldn ' t know the specific needs of what kind of a neighborhood
it is. We wouldn' t know if it' s mostly kids or maybe retired people .
Sietsema : But you can get the basics. If you look at our neighborhood
I parks , they all have the basics. They have totlot , basketball and a
backstop. If there' s some extra room so people can come in and say, we
would really like a tetherball or we would really like something that' s
different that ' s not typically put in there , you' d have the room to put it
Iin there. Going back to Sue's point that at the time that they dedicate
the land , if we required them as part of that dedication to put the
facilities on it. Grade it, seed it and put on the facilities and it has
Ito be done in Phase 1.
Lash : If they were to earmark x amount of dollars for us then .
ISietsema: It' s better for them to do it than for us because it takes ,
you' ve seen the red tape that we have to go through to get anything done.
' Boyt : We could still have the input on how it was developed .
I
M
Park and Rec Commission
June 13, 1989 - Page 34
1
Sietsema: Right. We would approve the plan at the time, instead of just I
looking at this and saying , we' re going to acquire 5 acres of parkland, we
give him the plan. We' d show him what we want on there as well and where
we want it. We'd go through all of that now.
Boyt : Then we wouldn' t have to order the equipment.
Sietsema: We wouldn' t have to get our budget approved. We wouldn' t have
to get contracted out for grading . We wouldn' t have to go through
contacting Dave Owen and figuring out a play structure. All that stuff
would be done now.
Lash : So we'd give them specs so they would know exactly the supplier and
the way it has to be installed for liability type things? It has to be
inspected by someone from the City that it meets everything? '
Sietsema : Yes . And that frees up Dale.
Hasek: When I first got out of school 12 years ago, the first 3 years I
worked as a planner for a number of large home builders like Vern Gagne,
. . .New Horizon Homes, etc . . Not the quality stuff, that' s true but a lot I
of homes they were building . There wasn' t a single project that we didn' t
work on where we weren' t responsible as planners going to the City to work
with the park board and the recreation staff to come up with a plan for the
parks. Those weren' t developed by a consultant. They were developed by us - I
as planners and we had to work with them. Show them what we wanted to put
in the park and justify it. A lot of times the city. . .
Sietsema : We save money all the way down the line. We save time and
money. Staff time. Maintenance time. Consultant fees. All the way down
the line we would save time.
Hasek: To be frank with you, when I started here I was very surprised at
the way that it was being done. It seemed backwards to me. It' s like you
say, when you move into a neighborhood and there' s supposed to be a park
there, you expect there to be a park there. There's no reason why. . .
Sietsema: And if it' s their responsibility, they' re going to have the I
people barking at them to get the park done. It' s also a selling point for
them.
Hasek: Every one of them is using it as a selling point except where
there' s no park. There is nothing there.
Erhart : That ' s what happened in my brother ' s neighborhood in Savage. He
moved into a new area and they told him there was going to be a park and
that was over a year ago. He hasn ' t heard anything.
Schroers: I agree that that' s definitely the way we'd like to work and
approach it but the bottom line is we' re asking more from these developers
and I think that' s fine and I don' t feel bad about it but I think that it' s
only decent to show them a little bit more consideration when they come in
here and they have some concerns. I think we should at least listen to
• I
L
I ' Park and Rec Commission
June 13, 1989 - Page 35
I their point of view and not cut them off short and tell them, hey if you
don' t like it, go talk to the City Council .
Boyt : He came in here defensive. He came in here late .
IHasek: It' s his responsibility to be here and he felt that we had screwed
him. That' s not the way it was . I don' t care who told him 9 : 00, it
I doesn ' t make any difference . He knows the meeting starts at 7 : 30 and it' s
his own like it' s my own when I go to these meetings myself to be there.
If you walk into a council meeting someplace, you' ve missed the issue,
I they' re not going to sit and listen to you. They' re not going to go
backwards. It' s your fault for not being there. Period . Doesn' t matter .
What you do is you roll the dice when you call . I know I called the city
here and they don' t like to do that at all at Chanhassen. They don' t like
Ito predict what time it might be.
Sietsema : It' s impossible to predict. You can think that an item' s going
I to go, I ' ve told people well , it' s the second item after the consent agenda
at City Council and probably it will go maybe 8 : 30 and it doesn ' t get on
until 11: 30. Midnight because the first item on the agenda is Eckankar or
Iguesstimate.something that that ' s lengthy so it ' s impossible for us to try. We try to
I can' t judge how windy you guys are going to be.
Schroers : That ' s not the thing . They probably understand that too and
I they've dealt with this same situation in various other communities and I 'm.
sure they understand that but I got the impression that they went out of
here not happy. Less than happy.
IBoyt : I don ' t think they' re going to be happy.
Mady: No, they' re only going to happy if we give them only what he wanted
Ius to do .
Boyt : They' re wheeling and dealing to get the most they can for their
I buck.
Hasek: Larry, if we had told them we weren ' t going to charge them
I anything and we were going to take parkland. . . It' s their nature. It' s
their job . They don' t want to spend dollars that they don' t have to spend .
Sietsema: Let' s move on .
IMady: The item was park dedication , is an item I 'd like to see us discuss
with Council .
ISietsema : Does anybody else have any other commission items?
Lash: This has been brought up a couple of times tonight with this tape
I
recorder . I think we need to find a better system because I think some
important things are being missed. As an example that Jim brought up
earlier . Your response to the people from out by Herman Field . I think
I that would be important to have in these minutes for anyone years down the
road . If it goes to Council , for them to read it to see that these people
1.
Park and Rec Commission
June 13, 1989 - Page 36
1
were notified of the meeting and that doesn ' t come across when you read the
Minutes so I think you were slighted in that particular instance and I
think it' s because of the tape recorder . Another one was on missing a big
chunk of something that I think should have been in there and that was
discussion of the playground equipment for Curry Farms Park. All it says I
is the motion. Granted we didn' t discuss it very much but I think what was
discussed should be included in the Minutes for all to hear and see. I
don' t know what we can do about it. If there' s a different kind of machine 1
or a tape or a beeper on it when it runs out . Something that you will kick
you.
Mady: My hand held one beeps when it gets to the end of the tape .
Sietsema: That won' t pick all you slight voiced people up.
Mady: But I would think there' s a new model available. I know a couple of
people who sell those things .
Sietsema: I ' ll check into it. Has anybody seen the bridge? '
Mady: I 've seen it from the trail but not from Kerber .
Sietsema : It ' s a nice bridge. Needs to have the ramps put on and Dales
going to do that.
Mady: It' s wide enough for Dale ' s park equipment? I
Sietsema: Yes .
Mady: Did you talk to Dale about the other bridge? Should that be
widened?
Sietsema: No I didn' t. I ' ll put it on the list .
Mady: That was put in at 4 feet and I think we should go to 6 feet. '
Sietsema : Does anybody want to go to that workshop?
Lash: I thought it would be beneficial for the two of us, since we' re new.
Erhart : Is that the 24th?
Lash: 22nd .
Hasek: We as an office participate in government training services and
it's got some really excellent programs put together and they do do ,
they' re bringing some really top notch people to kind of inform those like
us who really don' t know what the heck is going on. What our job
responsibilities really are and they' re good things to participate in.
Mady: It'd almost be a nice to see if they could do a private one for the
City of Chanhassen .
Park and Rec Commission
June 13, 1989 - Page 37
1
Hasek: There are cities that do that. That would be an excellent idea .
Lash: Dawne and I will go.
tSietsema : Do you want me to register you?
' Erhart: It's just for the afternoon Lori on the 22nd?
Lash : It ' s noon to 5 : 00.
' Sietsema: So Brooklyn Park on June 22nd .
Erhart : If the Commission thinks there is something to be gained by it,
then I think it would be good for us .
' Boyt moved , Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned .
' Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1