1i. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
II • OCTOBER 9, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened
' with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren, Lori
Sietsema, Todd Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Dave Harmeyer, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
' approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Boyt wanted to
discuss Frontier Homes, Lake Lucy access, and Pleasant View speed control; Mayor
Chmiel wanted to discuss David Beadle's resignation from the Planning
Commission; and Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss the vacancy on the
Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Don Ashworth had an Adminstration
Presentation, an update on the Pauls' acquisition. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried.
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew 5 names for the recycling prize
drawing to split the $500.00 pot into $100.00 per each of the names.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
' recommendations:
c. Resolution #89-108: Approval of Resolution for Joint cooperative project
with Riley-Bluff- Purgatory Creek Watershed District, Lake Riley Maintenance
Program.
d. Approve Grading Permit, Rome Building Site, 1450 Park Road.
' e. Approval of Bills.
' f. City Council Minutes dated September 25, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes dated September 20, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 12, 1989
g. Resolution #89-109: Approve Resolution Authorizing Acquisition of the
Bongard Property.
' h. Set Budget W3rksession, October 16, 1989, 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATION: CCMIUNITY CENTER
TASK FORCE.
11 Lori Sietsema: As stated in the material that's in your packet, the Community
Center Task Force is planning to take their findings and the research to the
community in community meetings in the next couple of months. Their goal is to
get residential input on issues regarding the community center. This item is
1
- - --
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
s ,
appearing on your agenda tonight to answer any questions that the Council may
' have and also to make sure the community center is on the right track. That
this is the right way that you'd like to see them going. In addition to that,
they wanted to make you aware of the budgetary implications that a special
' referendum may have if it comes to that. There are members of the Community
Center Task Force here tonight to answer any questions that you may have and
hear your comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any specific questions? Most of you probably have read
already in the Council packet the statement of purpose for the community center.
Any specific questions that you may have regarding any of the information
' provided?
Councilman Johnson: I had one. Part of the whole overall plan is to acquire
some land at the grade school site. Is the cost to acquiring that land figured
into these and has that land owner been contacted and have any kind of idea what
kind of deal he wants?
' Jim Mady: Yes he has and...
Councilman Johnson: Good.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I had just one question. On the estimated budget that
you had pulled together indicates that the estimate was based on the information
11 were by Eden Prairie Community Center and Minnetonka Ice Arena. Teat years
were these provided fram then in costs?
Jim Mady: The information comes from the budget done for the 1988 year. That
was their budget for that year and then all preceeding actual data.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, what's the population of Minnetonka?
Paul Krauss: Approximately 45,000.
Mayor Chmiel: 45,000. Do you have an idea as to Eden Prairie's?
Paul Krauss: I believe they're up in the mid-thirties now.
' Councilman Johnson: Are you factoring in the size differences in this?
Jim Mady: Yes we did.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question of Lori. Lori, I received a letter
October 5th that gave me some information about the community center and then it
also had this questionaire in there. Did everybody in the community get one of
IIthese? Did that go out to everybody? Your four questions?
Lori Sietsema: This packet that was in your...
ICouncilwoman Dimler: No. I got it in a letter.
Lori Sietsema: That's because you're a community center task force member and
all the task force members...
2
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That has not been mailed out to the population at
large?
Lori Sietsema: No. That was just to let you know that this was coming to
Council. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you intend to mail that questionaire out or how are the
people going to be... '
Lori Sietsema: The intention was that it would be handed out after the
informational meetings and filled out by the people that are at those meetings
to get their input following the presentation.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have one more question that I have too on the
questionaire. We have one. Do you agree there's a need for a community center
in Chanhassen, either yes or no? What would you like to see in the community
center and what would it consist of? Do you think we should have something in
here regarding are you willing to increase your taxes to get a little better
feel to afford this proposal?
Jim Mady: We can easily. I believe each of the four proposals being shown
would actually increase everyone's taxes. That's nothing that we're going to be
hiding. That's a very obvious thing so anyone who wants a community center,
there's only one way of getting it I guess and that's to pay for it. There's no
free ride on this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have a small comment on the first question. The
first question says, do you agree there is a need for a community center in
Chanhassen. I'm wondering if that couldn't be reworded. It's a little bit
leading I think. Is there a need for a community center in Chanhassen in your
opinion so something like that other than do you agree.
Lori Sietsema: Perhaps it could read, do you believe there is a need. Would
that do it?
Councilwoman Dimler: Fine.
Councilman Johnson: In the project cost comparison, tax implication chart. Is
that annual? Potential tax increase. Is that annual?
Jim Mady: That's annual.
Councilman Johnson: For how many years?
Don Ashworth: 15.
Councilman Johnson: 15 year bonding? I
Don Ashworth: 15 to 20. Right now the market would be better on 15. If we go
to 20 and end up with a reduction in those, we'd use 20 but that's based on 15.
Councilman Johnson: When you put that out, you need to give all the
3 1
•
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
' information. Tell them over the next 15 years it's $60.00 a year, $484.00 a
year or whatever but they know it's per year and the length of time they're
talking.
Mayor Chmiel: On these caiunity group meetings going to be scheduled, are we
talking in starting this in the month of November?
Jim Mady: Yes. It's getting a little late to get on anybody's October agenda.
If we can squeeze a couple of the smaller groups in, same of the special groups
in we may but the public meetings definitely would be in November.
Lori Sietsema: I think the Rotary meeting was the only one that was going to be
scheduled for October.
Mayor Chmiel: And we don't have anything for the balance of the ones on the
bottam?
' Lori Sietsena: Pardon me? As far as dates? No. Those would be the open
meetings that would be held. We picked out those three schools and the dates
have not been chosen yet because we didn't know if we'd get your direction to
continue as planned or not tonight.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have one other question about the one that proposes help
from the school. I know that we have a letter here from Robert Ostlund stating
I his support but I'm wondering that in the light of the school district's
financial problems, if anyone has checked with Robert Ostlund. If that still
holds and I've asked several times to get an amount there and I've never seen
Iany money amount as to what that would consist of. Don, can you answer that?
Don Ashworth: His letter, we had a letter from a year ago and then the
committee asked that we try to reconfirm their position. The letter that was
' enclosed was an attempt to respond to that second question. As to the amount,
we have given some general numbers but we have not given a specific number and
one of the questions is really what's going to happen with the school
' referendum. That could change that amount significantly. But we would look to
during the course of the term of the bonds, the amount would be roughly 1
million dollars.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, this letter I was referring to is dated August 23,
1989. Is that the latest one?
Don Ashworth: That's the latest one.
Councilwoman Dimler: Now was that before or after the discovery of the problems
' with the budget?
Don Ashworth: It would have been after it was publically disclosed. I don't
II know if school officials knew about it at that date or not.
Councilwoman Dimler: This letter was written for to the
pr public disclosure?
IDon Ashworth: Yes.
Councilwoman Dueler: I would suggest that we check and get their firm
1 4
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
commitment and try and get an amount. A dollar amount. '
Jim Mady: One thing we could add to this Mrs. Dimler is that, I'm sure we will
check with Mr. Ostlund on this but the monies that the school would be making
available for this project do not cane out of their per pupil cost. It's money
that doesn't, it's not money they're going to gain or be able to use to offset
their deficit at this point.
Councilman Johnson: As I understand this money, it's tax increment money that's 1
what they call the windfall tax increment money. That if they pass their
referendum, then the businesses are going to be paying more tax increment money
and that would be a windfall to the city and the city has the option to passing
that on to the school district or if we can show good enough need to utilize it
within the city, we can keep it within the tax increment district and utilize it
within the tax increment district. In this case we'd be looking to pass it onto
the school with the school's assurance that they'll pump it back into our school
here in Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to make sure it's a firm commitment. I
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: Do we need some kind of motion here?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. What's the pleasure of the council as to indicating whether
the Community Center Task Fbrce should proceed.
Lori Sietseaa: I don't know that a formal motion is necessary as long as,
unless you otherwise indicate to us, we will proceed as we've outlined. Go to
those community meetings and bring you back the recommendation to you after
that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think maybe we should discuss the budget item if we have
a special referendum. If it's not going to be on the general election in
November and we're going for a special referendum, that will need to be budgeted
for. Do we want to discuss that now?
Councilman Johnson: `hat's the cost?
Don Ashworth: $8,000.00 to $10,000.00. I believe that's the number we used.
Councilman Johnson: I think I'm going to need, before I make a decision on
whether we're going to spend $8,000.00 to $10,000.00, a lot more feedback from
the citizenry. I think they ought to go get that feedback and then cane back.
If it looks pretty iffy like it was last time, I don't know if I want to spend
the $8,000.00 to $10,000.00. If it is looking overwhelming in favor, then it
may be a good idea to go ahead and do that and get it separate from the general
election.
Councilwoman Dimler: Should we make that a question on the questionaire then?
Do you feel there's a need for a special referendum or is November of 1990.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think we need, that's an executive type decision
that this body should be making based on our...
5 1
I
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: But if you want input from the public?
Councilman Johnson: Well on the project. Not on the details of the
aduinstrative way of how we handle the budget. I don't mind the question but
it's kind of an unusual question to go off. The normal citizen in Chanhassen do
not know the intricacies of the budget. In fact we don't know them that
terribly well.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: They don't really have to know them if you just state, a
special referendum will cost between $8,000.00 to $10,000.00. Do you feel it's
' necessary to go for a special referendum or wait until the November election?
Jim Mady: One little bit of information that might be helpful with that
question also is that if we wait 6 to 7 months to hold a referendum, that will
I increase the cost to any site by between $80,000.00 and $120,000.00 just because
of inflation. Construction costs and inflation.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you saying 10% of the total cost?
Jim Mady: No, not 10%. We're saying somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% to 4%.
3% to 5%.
' Councilman Workman: What is the eneral figure on the cost of
9 g this?
II Lori Sietsena: Depending on the site. The rough estimate that we've come up
with to date is, if it's at the City Center Park/Elementary School site, it
would be roughly 3.5 million. If it's at the site adjacent to Lake Ann, to the
Ieast of Lake Ann, it would be roughly 4.5.
Councilman Workman: I guess my biggest concern is I guess I don't want to start
II out negatively. I think the idea of a community center is great. Don't you
hate it when somebody prefaces something like that? I am looking closely at the
school situation. Taxes are going to rise there. I've been told by the school
district that potentially in 5 years we're going to need the new middle school
I and that will more than likely be in Chanhassen. I don't know how that's going
to affect the taxes. Chanhassen's, from my view, is a real classy town. I'm
not sure what we're doing different. Plymouth planned to build an 11 million
I dollar facility. It's now been re-estimated that it's going to cost than 12 so
they've stopped or haven't even begun. Chaska's building between 7 and 8
million dollar facility. I'm tempted to ask if in fact maybe we're not doing
enough? Then in that case, if we're not, can we afford to do that? We
1 obviously can't. So are we building a community unity center, because I know we're
going to hear and I've been hearing that a community center's the thing that's
going to draw our community together. It's going to be a focal point and we
II need that because the school districts split us up but is the premiere facility
that people are going to want to have their taxes raised for? Is there going to
be, are we going to have a fully operational hockey arena here? Is that going
Ito be pretty- much ready to go?
Jim Mady: It depends on definition.your The ice arena will have, obviously a
sheet of ice, air conditioning with boards. That will be the extent of it.
I There will not be locker rooms in it initially. We will not be putting stands
in it initially. Those are items that can be added to at a future date. We do
6
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
not envision holding tournaments or high school games where we would need to
seat upwards of 500 people at it initially so there isn't a need at this point
in time to do that. So we're trying to keep the costs down. We're not looking
to putting up a pole barn necessarily but we're not going to make it. You know
the thing that Chaska's doing over there with 3 swimming pools and all the
wonderful things, it's beautiful but we don't, at this point we haven't heard
input from the citizens to tell us to go that route so we're coming by to the
citizens with here's how we can do it. If you want more, we can always add.
It's always harder to go down so we're looking at here's how we can do it this
way and if you want more, we'll find the prices for you and then give us the go
ahead. But these are the things that we know we need now in the community so
that's what we're going to the citizens with and finding out if they agree or
not. If we're heading in the right direction.
Councilwoman Dimler: Jim, did you say there would be no seating at the hockey
arena?
Jim Mady: Correct. At this point in time. It's being built large enough to
handle it but at this point in time the seats won't be installed.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, this drawing does show the seating. So you're going
to put it in later? ,
Jim Mady: Hopefully.
Councilman Johnson: Any consideration for seating at the pool?
Mike Niemeyer: No seating is planned. Initial programming at this time...
Councilman Johnson: How many lanes is the pool?
Councilman Boyt: Mike, they can't hear you out there. '
Mike Niemeyer: The estimate in the budget established for the program has been
a bare bones. A starting facility rather than an endowed, enriched facility.
The plan being that we can build that as the community grows and wants to build
and invest more money in it. The space is there for seating in the skating
arena. There's no space planned in the pool area. However, there was a pool
expansion area identified with the anticipation of putting in a second potential
pool, possibly directed toward a different segment of the community. That
expansion could include seating should that be the community's desire at that
time. The lanes in the pool, I have to admit that it was 6 months ago that we
worked on this. I believe we had 5 but I could be off by a lane or two.
Councilman Johnson: Because I know there is a segment of our population that
are into competitive swimming. We participate in several different teams.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I still, I don't want to start mdne negatively either but
when I ran for election and I pounded all the doors that I possibly could from
last year. Lich the position that I had taken at the time was that I saw that
the City of Chanhassen would need a center, community center per se. But at the
time, because the population growth and where we're at right now, I didn't think
was probably the most adequate time to do this. What I saw was probably from 3
to 5 years down the line. I thought the city could basically go into providing
7 1
i
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
these kinds of entertainment for the citizens. I guess we're going to wind up
letting the citizens make that final choice. I guess I want you to know exactly
where I'm coming from. I still see that somewhere from a period of time of
anywhere from 3 to 5 years down the road. I think it might be just a tad
' premature but that's my own opinion.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's time to go forward with this. I do agree with
Tom a little bit here is that we may have gone too bare bones on certain things.
' Some locker roams and stuff like that might be nice if you've got a swimming
pool.
' Jim Mady: No there will be locker rooms in the facility. There just will not
be individual locker rooms in the ice arena itself and the locker rooms that we
have planned are not, they will be a step up from what Eden Prairie has in their
community center.
Lori Sietsema: Basically it's the team rooms that wouldn't be included in the
ice facility.
1 Councilman Johnson: So both teams would have to use the same locker roam.
That'd work for a swim team but I don't know about two hockey teams in the same
Ilocker roam.
Councilman Boyt: May I comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Having been on the community center task force for 2 years, I
1 think the last time we went out with a very specific plan. You're asking
questions about specifics. One of the things that came back last time was it
was too planned before it went to the community so I think the task force knows
a lot about different parts of the facility but they're not going out with a
pre-conceived notion about what the building's going to look like. I think the
question they've come here tonight to ask is if they came back and ask for a
special referendum, given catriunity support, is the Council going to vote to do
Ithat? Before they go out and spend 2 or 3 months working to get a feel from the
community, they want to know if this council supports what they're doing. I
think that's only fair. From my part, I do. I'd like to see a referendum on
1 this so we can make the decision and build if we're going to build in the 1990
building season and not put it off and build the cost up to 1991 or further.
But that's my opinion. They know my opinion since I've been on there for 2
years but I think they'd really like to know yours.
Mayor Chmiel: I already stated mine.
1 Councilman Boyt: Is yours then that you would support the referendum Don or
would you...
' . Mayor Chmiel: No. I'm at the point where I don't think that I'd support a
special referendum Bill. Spending another $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 more.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I had a comment. I am doing, I started about 2
weeks ago to do same polling with my citizens alert committee and I don't have
all the results in. I have talked to some of the people. I feel really
11 8
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
uncomfortable making a decision without some input from than and I guess right
now what I'm hearing is yes, we want a community center. We're not opposed to
it. We just want to see the school issue is foremost in our minds and we don't
see any hurry on the community center. Like I said though, I would like to
complete the polling and get a more detailed feel for what's going on out there.
I guess I would feel more comfortable if the question that I stated earlier
would be on the questionaire about what you want to spend $8,000.00 to
$10,000.00 on a special referendum or are you content to have it on in the
November, 1990 election?
Councilman Johnson: But the full cost impact should be there. A 1 year delay
will increase the cost by. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but let's make that accurate.
Mayor Chmiel: I think too, if that's what the citizens so desire, and they so
want, that's what we do.
Don Ashworth: We may have a problem. How soon we'll get back results but our
certification. Normally we would have certified to the County by October 10th.
We're now into December. I don't know if results will be known by early part of
December or not. '
Councilman Johnson: Are you talking about for the $8,000.00 to $10,000.00?
Don Ashworth: That's correct. I
Councilman Johnson: Don't we have the adminstrative trust fund that could cover
that next year? i
Don Ashworth: As we go through the budget, you're going to be looking at
certain alternatives but I thought you were saying you wanted to wait until you
had input back from the committee before you'd make a decision as to whether or
not to budget that money for 1990. And I'm saying, we will probably have
adopted the 1990 budget before they have completed their work.
Councilman Johnson: This would be, would have to make the decision next year to
modify the budget.
Don Ashworth: If you had the resources. 1
Councilman Boyt: So is the Council then saying that they want the committee to
go ahead and go to the community? That you envision supporting this is the
community strongly supports it or are you saying this really should wait until
November of 1990. Let's not do it now.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well Bill, if the question is on there, then the community
will tell us what they want. That's what I'm thinking to do.
Councilman Johnson: Let's take it out. Let's go for it and see what the ,
citizens want and really bring it forward like you're asking for citizen input.
The last time it did come off too much like, this is the plan. This what we're
going to do. Let's support it.
9 11
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
1
Helen Loebl: It's just a brief question. What was the population of Eden
' Prairie and Minnetonka when their community centers were built?
Mayor Chniel: Gee I don't know. I personally don't. Lori, do you know?
Lori Sietsena: It may be in this huge file but I don't know it off the top of
my head.
Helen Loebl: It seems like we're small comparable to those communities.
Lori Sietsema: It was quite a few years ago. Eden Prairie was significantly
smaller than they are now.
Jim Mady: They've doubled in the last 5 years so they were under 20. That was
in 1979 when Eden Prairie built theirs.
IIMayor Chmiel: I think we could probably find out.
Helen Loebl: It might be interesting.
Mayor Chmiel: Good idea. Are there any other visitor presentations at this
particular time?
Paul Oaks: I'm Paul Oaks from Frontier Homes. I'd like to address the Council
II regarding a letter I received signed by Jim Chaffee dated September 25th. It
refers to same homeowners who apparently have some complaints regarding Frontier
Haines. I called Jim immediately upon receiving this voicing our concern and he
' stated to me that he was not aware of any problems. I'm asking the Council now
to please tell us of any problems because we are not aware of apparently what is
happening. I mean the letter I've got here shows quite a bit of hostility if
II you will towards Frontier Hanes. We would like to know what the problems are.
We cannot solve than if we don't know what they are.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, do you have any comments?
IIJim Chaffee: I'm not sure if the Council got copies of the letter that I sent
to Mr. Oaks. However, I basically told than that we'd like for him or his
I company to take care of the problems that we have received complaints on in the
past 3 or 4 months and if such were not taken care of by October 6th, then we'd
be forced to take our concerns to the media as Council directed some Council
meetings ago. I believe Paul Oaks is aware of the problems that have occurred
with our new homeowners in Chanhassen. 'they may be 3 or 4 months old but we
have made those problems available to him. I did tell Mr. Oaks on the phone
that we have not had any complaints recently except for one from the Glaros' .
1 To my knowledge the problems with the Glaros' have not been taken care of
but I'm not sure of the other problems. Scott Harr was going to check on it
today and I was not there this afternoon so I don't know what he cane up with.
Mayor Chniel: Council?
Councilman Hoyt: Well this is on Council presentations. I'd just as soon wait
until then.
r10
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Do you think it will take a long time. We have the
representative from Frontier Homes here. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. It'd be appropos to do it now.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I can tell you that I don't believe you. So prove it. 1
Paul Oaks: Recently the company went under new ownership approximately a month
ago. Since then we've installed a lot of things to insure us, on bonus systems
and so forth. The homeowners signing off. That's how all our employees are all
paid. Based on the homeowners signing off that all their items are complete.
They're 100% happy with their home. Going back and taking care of the old items
which were 3 or 4 months ago as Jim stated, is a problem. We have one real
problem with the Glaros that has gone to legal way or whatever you want to call
it. That situation may not be handled for a while. All other complaints should 11 be at an absolute minimum. We have had a problem getting our carpet supply
there and our linoleum supplier. He's had a problem getting those supplies.
Those complaints may not be handled but all other legitimate complaints have
been addressed. Since under new ownership, we have put on the help we've needed
for a long time. Complaints should be at the minimum. Certainly less than
you'll find with any other builder. We will put up our homes again anybody.
For the quality and the price, they're unbeatable. '
Councilman Boyt: Well Mr. Oaks, it's pretty easy to claim that we've gotten new
ownership so we have a new attitude. I want to tell you that I spent the summer
reading the newspaper about Eden Prairie out here and the 38 homeowners that
were quite upset. Reading the letters that were sent to me by Frontier
Homeowners. Reading the response of the former ownership in which they flat out
lied to the City about what they were doing and getting a response the end of
August from a homeowner there that detailed what wasn't being done. The
response that wasn't happening from Frontier Homes. I can give you another
couple weeks but I want to see proof that those people are happy. '
Paul Oaks: What proof do you need? Do you want copies of the signatures from
the homeowners that they have signed off? That all their items are complete?
Councilman Boyt: That's a good start.
Paul Oaks: Could the Council then send out a new letter. The damage): that's
been done to Frontier Homes I feel is unjust.
Councilman Boyt: What damage has been done Mr. Oaks? 1
Paul Oaks: The letters that were circulated within this City that the paper got
a hold of in reference to one of the homeowners out there. Jim Chaffee
congratulated me the first time I met him out there before there was any press
at all on this. We jumped in. We said we would repair it. We didn't feel it
was our responsibility. At best a 50-50 shot. After that meeting Jim thanked
me. He said, Paul, I've got to thank you for handling this. He says, I cannot
put it on you. I could not put it on the homeowner. We assume that
responsibilty. We're willing to assume any responsibilities for items that are
legitimate. The Council has to know the difference. Once someone has moved in,
a stain on the carpet, we do not came in and fix that. The Council has to know
the difference also between legitimate and non-legitimate complaints. The
11 11
- ---- 1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
letter will go out to the homeowners asking them, we're willing to do whatever
it takes. Okay? It has been very slow in the past.
Councilman Boyt: And you were involved with that right? From what you just
said.
Paul Oaks: Yes I was. But I did not have the tools to get the things done that
needed to be done. Now under the new ownership, I have those tools. I've hired
the manpower. I've got what I need to do that.
Councilman Boyt: Well my purpose was to see people in those homes live in a
' good quality home with a responsive builder. If you're telling me you did that,
then personally I'm comfortable with waiting a couple weeks to see if that's
true.
Paul Oaks: That has been done.
Councilman Boyt: But I can tell you that if it's not, then I would be all for
proceeding with what we planned to do.
Paul Oaks: That's a fair deal. Who should I be in touch with at the City?
Should I go through Jim Chaffee with these items?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I would say Jim would be the individual.
Paul Oaks: Okay. I want to thank you for hearing me.
Councilman Johnson: Can I ask one quick question?
Councilman Boyt: Go right ahead.
Councilman Johnson: Was this the homes where mechanic liens were placed against
these homes for plumbing and heating all this other stuff and have all those
liens been cleared now by Frontier Homes?
Paul Oaks: The liens were placed in the process of the changing of the guard,
as you will. Those are being addressed by both the old and the new companies
legal. The subcontractors filed their liens to guarantee that they will get
paid. It's just a precautionary measure. The liens will be cleared up but
that's being worked out with the old and the new ownership.
Councilman Johnson: Because I know that really upsets a new homeowner when they
start getting the legal paperwork that there's been a lien put against their
house for something they've already paid for once.
Paul Oaks: Title insurance is purchased on every home which guarantees than of
a clear title.
I Councilman Workman: Aren't we kind of proving them correctly that there are
problems? There have been and why would we believe anything else? I don't
understand. Dave Peterson, I could probably ask, you can probably remember your
Iown newspaper articles better than I.
Mayor Chmiel: Chris.
12
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Workman: Oh it was Chris? Chris Burns. In your article, wasn't the
management of Frontier Homes kind of admitting that they had problems and they
had growth problems and they were maybe trying to do too much too quick?
Chris Burns: I believe that was the comment made.
Paul Oaks: Yes it was. I
Councilman Workman: So whether the management was new or old and swithced or
whatever, what else do we have to go on. There have been serious problems. I ,
don't understand where you say we're false in making those accusations.
Paul Oaks: I don't have a copy of the letter. There was a letter sent a few
months back referring to Mr. Glaros' residence where there was a major
structural problem. The homeowner ran a large amount of water into his garage.
The hydraulic pressure on that blew out a wall. He ran his garden hose in his
garage without a garage floor. To settle, take out the frost. Took it upon 11 himself to do that and it blew out a back wall. That's what started this whole
ball rolling. It's been nothing but gaining speed. We have had our problems.
We're not going to shy away from that. That's one reason we're under new
ownership.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's good Paul. I appreciate your comments and hopefully
with the approach you're taking now, these things will all get corrected and I
you'll continue with a...
Paul Oaks: We sincerely hope so. We're looking forward to building in this
city for quite a while.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Any additional Visitor Presentations?
PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: AUTHORIZE
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ,
Public Present:
Name Address I
Michael Bierlein 681 Bighorn Drive
Walter & Gelen Bielski 7209 Frontier Trail
Helen & Bill Loebl 7197 Frontier Trail
Chuck Diinler 7203 Kiowa Circle
Sandy & John Reger 7191 Frontier Trail
Cheri Sueker 7194 Frontier Trail
Dick Pearson 7307 Frontier Trail
Babs Axons 7211 Frontier Trail
Larry Leebens 7201 Frontier Trail
Susan Downs 7202 Kiowa Circle
Bob Scholer 7212 Frontier Trail
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, as Council will remember, September 11, 1989 we had a
hearing and received good public comment at that time concerning the Frontier
13 11
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
1
Trail utility and roadway improvement project. At that time the item was tabled
' and staff was directed to take the record, such as it was, and address any
outstanding questions that were left from that meeting and bring them back to
Council for further consideration. We have done that and attached in the packet
is a supplemental feasibility report, letter report from Bill Engelhardt.
Towards the end of your packet which basically summarizes as best as we could
interpret from the Minutes any of the outstanding issues that were still under
consideration. We also noted unfortunately that the legal notice did not get
published in the newspaper as required by statute so as we were bringing this
item back anyway, we did take the initiative to once again publicize this as a
formal public hearing just to make sure we were covering the bases. It would be
my recommendation that the testimony from the September 11th meeting be
incorporated into this record also as a part of the hearing. The residents have
all been notified once again. We thank them for coming this evening. I would
suggest either we can invite their comments at this time as a part of the
II hearing or we can give a brief summary of the items that we interpretted to be
outstanding that Bill has addressed in his supplement report.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that would probably be, we'll open it up for the people
as well. Those who have already spoken at the previous meeting, your
information is on record for our review. If you have something new in addition
I to that, we'll welcome your input. Maybe we should just address these specific
questions and then go from there.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council, I'm Bill Engelhardt.
II Engelhardt and Associates. We did go through the Council Minutes as Gary
indicated. We tried to pick out what we thought were some of the key questions
and concerns that the public had up on Frontier Trail. I've listed then just
starting out. The upgraded roadway width. That was a question on a number of
people's minds. The present width of Frontier Trail ranges from 24 to about 28
feet at it's widest point and it just kind of meanders through there. The
II average width of the present gutter line is about 27 feet. The curb
specification that we're using, the B618 curb is a standard curb design for
residential areas. It's also used in major roadway areas but where you have
existing homes and not a new residential area, you generally go with the B618 or
I the high back curb. By using that type of curb, we gain same additional width
and it appears that we could put the road in there at a uniform width of about
27 feet but would keep our gutter line at about the same area that it is right
now. In same cases where we hit that 24-25-26, there's going to be same minor
modifications in there but generally what we try to do is split the distance on
each side so it's not all taken on one side if that's possible. So I think the
question about are we going to put in a 31 foot roadway, the answer would be no.
' We'd be putting in a 27 foot roadway at the gutter line which gives us about a
29 back to back so it's a little bit less than the 31 feet.
IIMayor Chmiel: Bill, when you say gutter line, are you saying from the...
Bill Engelhardt: Face of the curb. Face of the curb to the face of the curb.
The second issue that I've highlighted was the question of existing curb on
Frontier Trail. We did see pictures that I believe it was Mrs. Bovey had with
her that night. I was guessing on the age of the pictures. I said 10 to 15
years and that may be high or low, plus or minus. That was my guess. Right now
I there's presently, and maybe she's here and she can tell me what the exact date
is.
11 14
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
' Gary Warren: The 1968 was the photo date. '
Bill Engelhardt: So 20 years. So I guess I was low but there is an existing
bituminous curb there. It looked like it was bituminous to us and it's
basically to control drainage. That's the purpose of what we're trying to do
with the curb and gutter that we intend to install. The comment was made that
some of the people had a concrete curb and gutter there at same time and we
can't find anything in the records where there was curb and gutter. There's no
way to really determine who paid for it. If it was there. Now it was removed.
Why it was removed or anything like that so we felt that we would be replacing
the present bituminous curb with a concrete curb and gutter. It's a new
facility and it should stay in the program and become part of the project and
those properties would be assessed like everyone else along the road for the
improvements. Another question was the unit method of assessment versus front
footage. I've done it both ways. Typically this type of street construction
where you have all of your properties abutting on the roadway, you do it on a
front foot basis. It gets more into a legal issue other than an engineering
issue because the front foot assessment is easier to defend if you're going to
be challenged during an assessment appeal. You have to remember that the
project can be assessed for benefit and benefit is defined as if the property
increases in market value equal to the assessment. When you have a front
footage assessment, it's my opinion from my experience in other municipalities
and this type of assessment procedure, that the front footage assessment is more
beneficial or it's easier for the City to defend. I guess my recommendation
would be to stay with the front footage. It's a policy that's been proven in
the past and it's highly defendable if it was to be challenged. Not saying it
would be but if it would be, it's highly defendable. I guess just one more
point. If we had properties that, and as an example the Bluff Creek Drive for
example was done on a unit method that we just got done with. But those
properties were off of the roadway but they did have direct benefit to that
roadway. Here, all of our properties that are being assessed are right on the
roadway. That's the difference, this distinguishing difference on those two
projects. The assessment policy, that was probably the most discussed issue and
it's one of the most difficult issues of the whole program. Our feasibility
study presented several options with breakdowns where we had different splits ,
between the cost sharing for the city and the cost sharing for the residents.
Our recatnendation was a 40-60 split where we had 40% for the property
participation and 60% for the city participation. The basis for the cost split ,
was derived from calculating the cost of new improvements which were not
previously in place such as the curb and gutter, and sane of the roadway base
and subgrade materials and that basically came out to be about 40% of the cost.
Driveway aprons. All of the new facilities that had not been there before. Now
we did contact several cities for the initial study to get their reaction and to
get their programs. At the public hearing we had available other cities that
we had contacted for about a total of 10 and our conclusion is that after ,
talking to all of the various cities that we did contact, was that their
assessment policy is kind of worked on over the years. Many of the cities that
we talked to have been in this process for maybe 5 to 10 years and working in 11 the cities and their policy is refined as they go. Your public hearings kind of
shake out on how the policy should be looked at. The worse case scenario was
where 100% of the cost was assessed back to the benefitted properties and there
were same cities that did that. There were also some cities that took it all
out of the general tax. The City of Burnsville for example assessed 40% of the
15 11
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
street replacement costs and then 100% of the new improvements like the curb and
' gutter. This seemed to be a hybrid policy to accomplish what we thought was the
work needed without putting a burden on the overall tax levy. I think that's
what they were looking for on that one. But it was apparent that the, at least
to me it was apparent that the people seem to agree that the street needed same
improvement. That the cost for paying the new facilities, although nobody likes
to pay costs, they seem to accept that. We still feel that the 40-60 split is a
fair and equitable basis for the assessment on this particular project. I think
that what you want to do is, I guess my recommendation would be not to look too
far down the road where you're trying to say well, the next project are we going
to do it a 40-60 split or are we going to do it a 20-20 because when you get
into these projects, each individual project has it's unique features and you
have to be flexible and it does give you same lattitude. Maybe after you do 1
or 2 or 3 projects, you can focus in on more of a defined cost split on them but
you want to look at reconstruction, rehabilitation projects, rates where you can
' review and update them annually so you could look at each individual project.
So that was kind of what I picked out as the key issues from the public hearing
and I guess I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have or the
public might have.
rMayor Qiniel: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to address the
Frontier Trail proposal?
rLarry Leebens: Good evening. I'm Larry Leebens. I live at 7201 Frontier
Trail. I want to speak to the issue of the unit versus foot frontage concept of
paying for this assessment. Normally I would agree with that foot frontage is
the most equal, equitable standard way of doing it. I would say it would take
care of 90% of the roads that are being built because they're straight. The
amount of foot frontage correlates to the size of the lot. In the case of
Frontier Trail, because of the curves, there are about 5 or 6 or 7 homes, mine
included of course, that have a large foot frontage because of the curve. It
doesn't have any relationship to the size of the lot. It just so happens that
we're on the curve so our assessment will be higher because the amount of foot
frontage will be greater. I think that adds a different light of this road
compared to sane other roads that are being built in Chanhassen. Is there a
benefit to living on a curve? I'm going to be paying more because I supposedly
have greater benefit from living in this area and I don't agree that there is
better benefit. If you can check my mailbox about once every 6 months after
it's been knocked or my yard that's been run into and the lawn torn up. I don't
II have a greater benefit by living there. I do appreciate that there is curbing
because that will help that kind of a problem. The second part of this thing is
that not only will we be assessed greater, but we don't have use of that road
II because there's no parking signs so I don't have the same kind of right of using
that road as everybody else on Frontier Trail but again I'm being assessed more.
At the last council meeting there was a reference to another assessment being
made for driveways that are circular and of course I have a circular driveway.
Again, if you look at the two houses that have circular driveways on Frontier
Trail, the Friedlander house and my home, they're at the very sharpest points of
those curves which makes it almost a necessity to have a driveway so you can get
11 out and be able to see the traffic in the road so I hope that that was a joke or
whatever and that that assessment isn't being seriously considered.
Mayor Chmiel: Larry, what is your front footage on your property?
16
r
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
1
Larry Leebens: You know, I don't know. I'm sorry. I think my lot is probably,
of all of them, is probably the least amount. I think the other 5 or 6 on the
corner have a greater front footage than mine but mine's right up there. Thanks
for your time.
Bob Scholer: Honorable Mayor and Council. I'm Bob Scholer, 7212 Frontier
Trail, Chanhassen. I also own Lot 2, Block 1 of Sunrise Hills Fourth which has
access from Longview Circle above. In other words, it's a double lot. My
concern of course is for the great amount of footage that I have on Frontier
Trail that I really don't receive any benefit for. That's what I want to talk
about. I agree with the engineer who says that ordinarily assessments are based
on benefit. I agree with that. I think the project has been broken down cost
wise into area served by the storm sewer. In other words, any drainage caning
off of the subject lot, I would have no argument. ...My first feeling would be,
I shouldn't be assessed at all except for anything but storm sewer but to be
fair I have to say, if you would do it on a unit basis, I would accept it
because it's fair to the rest of the people living in my neighborhood. That's
really all I have to say I guess to that. I haven't seen any revised 11 engineering drawings. I know there was a lot of discussion that may be over in
engineering and I guess that's probably playing it safe. I want to emphasize a
point that I think a unit base is more fair. I'll also say that being in the
real estate business, that it's been traditional, and I always flinch when we
hear that. I don't think there is any such thing as typical. I think every
situation has to be looked at individually. It used to be that we would think
of an assessment as being full on what was the front and then maybe 15%. It 11 used to be 15% of the side. The feeling being that it gave a builder and an
engineer, homeowner, an opportunity to decide where he wanted to bring his
driveway in or even if he wanted a circle driveway, in and out. I think there
are more people today that I see that you couldn't give a corner lot to so I
think that's a fallicy. Which brings me back to my original statement that I
think a unit basis on this project is more appropriate. Whether it can be
defended or not, I'll leave up to the attorneys. With your permission and if
you have time, I'd like to address the surfacing of Frontier Trail through the
2nd Addition of Sunrise Hills because at other hearings, other meetings there's
been a considerable amount of discussion on how that road was designed. Why it
was designed the way it was. Why it was surfaced the way it was. Who did it
and who paid for it. With your permission I'll read same notes that I made back
at that time and date. Is that alright Mr. Mayor? I'll summarize where I can
because I've also got same notes in here of same other telephone conversations
with contractors that really doesn't have any bearing on the point. On
5-31-1968, and these are notes that were dictated then, I contacted Tory
Flannilbel who was the Village Engineer, to see how much gravel would be needed
after the Village finished sewer and water work and the replacement of gravel
that I had already put on there when I built the roads. Tory thought very
little and went so far as to say that the Village might cooperate by giving
credit for dust coat by furnishing more gravel or sane similar workable credit
to enable the work, that is the blacktopping, to be done now. This would also
alleviate same of the problems between Scott and Erickson. That's down on the
lakeshore. I don't remember the lot numbers. I should say the Erickson house
and the Scott house. The last two homes on the lake on Frontier Trail, caused
by gravel washing off the road and into the drainage easement. Tory suggested I
call Mayor Gene Colter or see if the Village would cooperate. I called Gene the
same day and he thought this was a good idea. He'll go along with whatever
Tory, the Village Engineer recommends and suggests we put the plan down on black
17 I
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
II
and white and present it to the Council. Telephone conversation with Tory on
6-3-68. The Village is willing to go as far as they can to prepare for blacktop
if I want to do the blacktopping at this time. The Village will place the base,
shape, roll and prime and they'll give me credit for the sealcoat. I awarded
the contract to Northern will do the work and give me their bid the morning of
6-4. These are same other conversations. A review is this. Discussion between
the Village Engineer and myself followed by a letter from the Village
Adninstrator confirms the agreement as follows. The Village, at their expense,
t would install the base as required and prime the same. Scholer would install
blacktop and backfill the curbs. The Village would issue a credit to Scholer
for sealing in the amount of $922.00. The Village would sod or seed as required
to restore adjoining lots to original condition before installation of
utilities. In other words, I hadn't surfaced because they hadn't done the
utilities so the agreement was that they tore everything up when they put in the
utilities, they agreed to replace the Class V, the base and everything if I
would blacktop it immediately. Blacktop was installed on 7-11-68 by Phelan.
Engineers inspector stopped the paving on the inside of the curve past lots and
that's blank but that would be at the low spot down there by Ericksons on Block
2, Sunrise Hills. The inspector was on the job off and on all day, day 11th.
No comment to me that the curbs were not straight enough. The comment was that
the center line of the paving around the curve was moved from a foot to a foot
and a half off center to fit the existing base conditions but this was not a
problem. In fact it was considered a normal situation. Paving operation was
stopped about 8:30 on the 11th. On the morning of the 12th, the inspector
informs me the curbs are ready for back filling. I contacted John Anderson,
I/ Bollig, Brendon, Northern Contracting. Northern was the only one able to do the
work immediately but the foreman said Friday afternoon was too muddy to work.
8:00 a.m. the following Monday, the 15th of July, they would start backfilling.
3/4 of an inch of rain on Thursday night, 2.4 inches of rain Friday night, 5.5
inches Saturday. Started backfilling Monday morning July 15th. Adminstrator
informs me 7:15 Monday morning that same blacktop will have to be taken up
around the curve and the gutter line straightened. Northern and Phelan were
II notified. 7:15, attended the Council meeting. Reviewed my intention to lay the
blacktop, fill behind the curbs as per agreement but refused to be involved in
the drainage and other problems that are really restoration problems resulting
II from the contract between the Village and the general contractor. Then I have
the times that I have there and Northern foreman, that's Northern Contracting
foreman says that my part, Bob Scholer's part of their agreement was fulfilled
II on 7-17-68 at 10:00 a.m.. Their contract with Commercial Landscaping allows 2
inches of black dirt on the berms. A final brush-up of the power rake. I have
on July 17th we had .20 of an inch of rain. On the 22nd we had 1/3 of an inch.
On the 23rd we have .10. On July 30th sodding began on the boulevards. On
II August 3rd boulevard sodding was completed, 1968. That's about all I have to
say about Sunrise Hills. I can give you one letter. I have more but in the
interest of time. On Rosevine, which is now called Kiowa. With your indulgence
11 I'll just...
Mayor Chmiel: Bob, maybe if we could get a copy of that so we could review it.
II Bob Scholer: I'd like to have the people here hear, with your permission. I
won't take too much time.
IIMayor Chmiel: Sure.
18
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
11
Bob Scholer: I'll try to put it in order here. May 22nd, 1970. Letter from
Schoell and Madsen to the Village of Chanhassen. We've reviewed the proposed
grade for Rose Lane, now Kiowa, as submitted by Mr. Scholer and find that it
will be satisfactory as shown on the attached profile. He proposes to do the
grading, to rough subgrade elevation. That is 10 inches below the final grade
and to place a 6 inch tube in some sort of way to convey a drainage from the end
of the existing tile line. That's a fuel tile that comes in from the west.
Through the fill. This should prove satisfactory temporarily. Ultimately a '
storm sewer with two catch basins will have to be installed at the sag in Rose
Lane but desireably this should be done in conjunction with installation of
sewer and water. July 22nd. We've reviewed the proposed storm drain to be
installed by Bob Scholer across Rose Lane as shown on McCombs-Knutson plan. Is
satisfactory as shown. Should provide an easement it says. My letter to the
City, June 24th. Please be informed that I've entered into a contract to bring
Kiowa to rough grade in preparation for the Village's installation of sewer and
water. The contract calls for the work to be completed on or before July 30,
1970. The contract also covers the installation of the catch basins, the storm
sewer as approved by the Village Engineer in his letter of June 22nd. My letter
to the Village says please be informed that on July 10, 1970 I completed the
grading to rough subgrade elevation and the installation of the storm drain on
the above subject street as shown in the MCombs-Knutson plan dated 6-4. Upon
installation of sewer and water by the City as outlined by the engineer, Project I
so and so, I contemplate completing the installation of the base and the 2 inch
asphalt mat. On October 8, 1970. This letter to Schoell and Madsen, copy to
the Village. Regarding Sunrise Hills sanitary sewer, watermain extension,
Project 70-2. Before the contractor for the above referred to project is
released from obligations, this is the City now putting utilities and Rose Lane
or Kiowa, I would ask that you make a determination if there's been damage to
the underground fuel and drainage tile in the easements between Lots 1 and 2 of
Block 3, Sunrise Hills 2nd Addition to the west of Kiowa Circle. I've noticed
that the contractor has driven heavy equipment over that tiled area during
construction of Project 70-2 and it would seem very possible that the alignment
of the 4 inch clay tile has been disturbed. I kindly request a copy of your
report on this matter. That will clear up some misunderstandings as to who did
what and where the obligations are. Thank you for your time. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Scholer? You mentioned that you also owned a Lot 2 on
Block 1. Is that correct? Is that lot buildable? I guess I'm not real sure
that it is. I
Bob Scholer: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: It does not have a home on it though? '
Bob Scholer: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then the other one, you made a statement that an
agreement between the Village and the general contractor. It was my
understanding that you were the general contractor or not. Were you not the I
general contractor on Sunrise Hills?
Bob Scholer: And was this referenced to? I
Councilwoman Dialer: I don't know. You were talking about the blacktopping. I
19 11
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
have it under date 7-11-68. I was trying to write as fast as I could. I didn't
get it all down but you said something about that it was an agreement between
the general contractor and the Village and it made it sound like you were not
the general contractor.
Bob Scholer: No.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: You were not?
Bob Scholer: I was referring, in that instance I was referring to the contract
that the City had for the installation of utilities with that contractor.
Councilwoman Dimler: And who was that contractor? That wasn't you?
Bob Scholer: No. That was the Village's, I don't want to give a name because
I'm not sure. Now I could go back and look but I don't want to take your time.
I think it was Northern.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just a little confused because I thought you were the
general contractor on Sunrise Hills.
Bob Scholer: No. The Village was in control of the installation of the
utilities. You see you have to understand that I was the developer. I built
the street. I put in a base. I was told to hold it because the Village was
considering putting utilities through Sunrise Hills 2nd Addition. By the way
they also assessed all of the lots in Kiowa even before I built them. That's
why they came back in at a later time because I said now you assessed, now you'd
better do it so that's why we had this agreement that when I brought it to
grade, they would do it under the original assessment. But the general
contractor was whoever they contractor was that was in charge of the
installation of sewer and water working for the city.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you.
Bob Scholer: Any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Gary about this or Bill. One of the
two. On double frontage lots, Mr. Scholer's second lot. The lot that's not
11 currently built on is a double front lot. Now is that assessed?
Gary Warren: Well we would have to look at previous assessments against the
property. As far as what is it, Longview Circle which is the other side of the
frontage there, and see. Again, it would have to stand the test of benefit so
the starting point, the overall policy may be a front footage assessment but we
would look at specific cases such as double front lots. This outlot situation
that we've got 3 outlots on to arrive at the final benefit.
Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that homes are assessed by their address
generally?
Gary Warren: As far as what we consider their front footage? Well, I think
that doesn't hold in all cases. You have to look at, for example on corner lots
twe look at giving a credit to the one half of the shorter side so even though
the address may be on short side, the long side, if it's on Frontier Trail,
20
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
would be the full assessment side so where the address is doesn't necessarily
hold true all the time. I
Councilman Hoyt: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who wishes, I thought I saw one more hand I
back there.
Dick Pearson: Back when a lot of this was going on, I was sitting where you
gentlemen were, and the things that have been raised for the unit assessment
were the reasons that we did it at that time as a unit assessment.
Mayor Cruel: Is there anyone else? 1
Joel Jenkins: Joel Jenkins, 7226 Frontier Trail. I'd like to do two things 11 this evening. Real quickly since you have everything I said last time on
record. First of all I'd like to clarify my position in reference to the
sidewalk. It was my understanding that we had a choice of a 31 foot roadway at
that time, not the current roadway width. It would be my position that a
sidewalk still would be beneficial to our neighborhood. Yet I would prefer to
have the same 24 foot width across the board with a sidewalk as compared to the
31 foot full width road and Bill has assured me we're going to have maybe a 28
br 27 foot road so that's fine. I still think if you look at your feasibility
study, etc. maybe there is a rational reason to, if a sidewalk is ever going to
be put in our neighborhood, that that be considered now in the feasibility study
because it would be a lot less expensive now to have the engineers look at it at
this time because I'nm sure that they would change the roadway direction or path
a little bit if it was determined that there was to be a sidewalk sometime in
the future. So possibly, I don't know how you do this. If it needs to be a
neighborhood percentage of the majority rules or something like that but I think
there are same people in the neighborhood that are very pro sidewalks. Sane
people who are not pro sidewalks and I'm not sure what that percentage would be
or if it needs to be 100% for or 100% against. I'd just call your attention to
maybe, at least in the feasibility of a sidewalk, especially if it's the City
policy that the sidewalk predominantly is paid for by city funds throughout the
canmunity, that it be at least looked at in your study. I would also say one
other thing and that's, I would encourage you to do this project and I think our
neighborhood gives you full support. Thank you.
Bill Loebl: Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail. Mr. Mayor and members of the City
Council. Having heard Bob Scholer's remarks, I find that my remarks of last
September 11 are even more important and pertinent. that is becoming more and
more apparent is the fact that the City, your predecessors, accepted and
I/
approved a substandard piece of construction and my neighbors and I continue to
oppose the fact that we should be asked to pay for the City's mistake. Having
said that, I have given this a lot of thought and have came up with several
constructive suggestions which I would like to present to you. The first
suggestion I have is to postpone reconstruction of Frontier Trail until a road
restoration fund is available which should be started immediately. I believe
that every property owner would feel much better about paying a few dollars into
the fund everytime we pay our real estate taxes and then after 2 or 3 years,
there might be enough money to pay for Frontier Trail out of this fund and the
City could have it constructed the way it wants it. At the time the fund is
established, a priority list should be started and Frontier Trail should be
21 1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
first on the list because obviously it's badly in need of repair. There's no
I/
question that such a fund would be needed anyway in the future as the City grows
and the sooner you start, the better off you will be down the road. The
mechanics of setting up and operating such a fund can be investigated easily by
11 contacting cities which have such a fund in operation. Eden Prairie and
Shoreview are listed in the study here and I'm sure that there are others who
have such a fund which you could approach. This proposal also addresses the
long term planning which should have replaced the hand to mouth operation under
which the city is now operating. It would also be relatively painless for
everybody. We on Frontier Trail would not be paying for the original mistake to
the extent that we're asked to pay for and it would mark you as the wise city
11 fathers for which I'm sure you would like to be remembered in the future. The
second idea I have is...
Councilwoman Dimler: And mothers too.
Bill Loebl: City persons. My apologies. The second idea I have is to forget
about reconstruction and continue to patch the road when necessary. I have
lived with this for 11 years and same of my neighbors for a lot longer. It has
two advantages. One, of keeping down the speed at which people drive. Also,
people will be less inclined to use the road because there are better roads in
the neighborhood. Finally, I have a question which I would like answered. In
the past several weeks I've noticed in the newspaper several references to
exemptions from assessments being granted to homeowners age 62 and older.
11 Plymouth has such a policy and several others which I forget right now. What is
Chanhassen's policy on granting exemptions to people 65 or over? I hope my
suggestions will let you find a solution which will be less painful to us
property owners than what is proposed in the feasibility study. Thank you.
IDon Ashworth: State statute addresses the issue. The City endorses that and
there is a deferment for senior citizens but at issue is one of based on
financial need. So the senior citizen involved would have to show that there is
a financial need for that deferment. Records are kept confidential, from the
applicant, but that must be submitted. Did you wish to state anything else
Dave?
Councilman Johnson: That's a deferment?
Bill Loebl: A deferment is not an exemption.
Don Ashworth: I don't know of any exemption.
Bill Loebl: Plymouth has it for one.
Dave Harmeyer: It's a council policy but the State Statute that Don is
11 referring to talks about deferring assessments for senior citizens if the
Council adopts number one, either an order or number two, a resolution setting
up that procedure. One of the conditions that has to be addressed is whether or
not the particular deferment is a hardship on the individual that is requesting
it. As far as exemption goes, that would deal strictly with an assessment
policy that the Council might want to consider. It's an unusual kind of a thing
because a portion of law says that assessments have to be spread uniformly and
if you exempt senior citizens, not based on hardship, then you're uniformity
sort of flies out the window.
22
i
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Bill Loebl: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If hearing none, I would entertain a
motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilman Johnson: I think one of the issues brought up that I'm interested in
is unit versus front footage. I think we should set an assessment policy not on
what's defensible in court but what's fair to the people. In this case, when I
think the statistics was 60% or 70% of the assessments would be increased if we
went to a unit basis versus a front footage, indicates to me that 60% t0 70% of ,
the assessments are getting better treatment than the other 30% to 40% of them.
Those particular people with the longer front footages are footing a lot of bill
for other folks. When you have a street with a curve, you're going to have one
guy on one side of the curve with a whole lot of front yard and the other guy's
on the opposite side of the pie, he's going to have a very small front yard even
though they have exactly the same amount of square footage. They both may drive
2 cars and they both drive on the same street. They both get the same benefit
from the street so just because the other guy chose to live on the other side of
the street doesn't mean he should pay 2, 3, 4 times as much for the benefit to
live on that side of the street. He also gets a lot more snow plowed into his
yard every year as the snowplows come by. So in this case I think it needs to
go, every assessment needs to go on a case by case basis and to me in this
particular case with the curvatures of the streets and the unequalness of this,
that a unit basis seems more appropriate to me. And I think the project does
need to continue on. It is probably one of our worse streets. I also think we
need, we don't want to hold this one up for a couple years while we build a
fund. Another version of doing that versus building a fund is to have the fund I
capable of doing assessment reductions. So although we may levy an assessment
at this time, that we can also create a fund to help pay those assessments
versus having a fund that pays for the street, have a fund that helps pay for
assessments which is something that I've talked about for a couple years.
Especially in places where there's a hardship to help senior citizens and other
people out. There's been several times that we've, the past councils have
deferred special assessments to people for 5 years or something and at the end
of 5 years, all of a sudden they've got this whole special assessment to pay.
So what do they do? They close the family farm and they sell it off to a
developer to subdivide and they're off of their family farm and it's gone. I
don't think deferments have been a real godsend to anybody. I may have delayed
the inevitable but it also almost increased the timing of when somebody had to
sell off the family farm. In one particular case when I moved into my house, I
talked to the neighbor behind me and he said, they'll have to carry me out of
this house feet first. I've lived here 60 years. I don't plan on ever moving.
Then he deferred a special assessment and 5 years later he sold off to a
developer when the special assessment came due. While I agree there are some
hardships, especially people on fixed incomes, the retired, that adding to the
cost of their homes is unfair and we need a mechanism to work with this. I'd
like to start looking at a special assessment reduction fund that is a
discretionary fund of the Council to approve.
23 1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
I
Mayor Chmiel: 1991?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. 1991 at the soonest.
Don Ashworth: I'd like to research that issue a little more. Anytime that you
switch from a special assessment program to some other type of program, you
typically end up with double costs. Right now you have projects that the city
property owners are still paying costs associated with the north sewer area.
Projects that have been done for the last 10-15 years. When you have a project
such as this one that will be assessed over a 15 year period of time, whatever
the timeframe we used, and there is going to be a city participation along with
that, we in fact are obligating outself, everyone here, to pay that amount, the
city portion, every year for the next 15 years. In a way you have established a
reduction program or means by which we're all contributing to that because we're
11 all contributing to costs associated with Kerber Blvd., Erie, than View. When
those streets were built in that neighborhood 2 to 3 to 4 years ago. When we
did Carver Beach. The assessments associated with that. Greenwood Shores. The
sewer and water. Those were carried out over a 15 year period of time. There
was a general obligation portion that went along with those. Again, if you move
from one method of paying your bills, you might say, to another method, you
typically will end up with a double cost because you still have those costs to
pay off and yet you're saying, establish a fund so we don't have to carry these
over a period of years. Again, we can look at that as a part of the budgetary
process but it is quite expensive because you are taking double hits.
' Councilman Johnson: I think one of the main purposes of this fund is for
rebuilding existing roadways. This is one of the first that the people have
already paid for the roadway once. It's now done it's useful life and we want
to rebuild it and there's quite a few others that will probably be coming up to
a useful life. Pleasant View and same in Carver Beach and some all over this
city. So this is something that's going to continue to rear it's ugly head is
how do you do these projects as we mature as a city. We need to, I think start
collecting monies now. Putting it aside for everybody's road. Your street and
my street in another 20 years is going to need to be rebuilt. Mine's falling
apart already but.
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor? Just a quick comment.nt. If the Council would be leaning
II in that direction, I think really what is the appropriate forum for that is to
establish a pavement management program wherein we do an inventory of the city
streets and prioritize streets and make same estimates as a part of that program
to establish what the total financial burden to the City would be. If we're
11 going to get into a 4 year, 8 year, 20 year type rehabilitation on these roads.
That's really the state of the art at this point in time that a lot of
communities are going to. Where they are able to, through this initial study
which does take some detailed inventory of the streets themselves, they came up
with some reasonable projections on the cost burden and then can look at the
financial avenues that are available also.
IIMayor Chmiel: I keep thinking about when I first moved into my home. I had
rougly about a $10,000.00 assessment on that with road, sewer, water, and curb.
Whether you provide for it now and set up something or you pay for it over the
II 15 year period, I'm not sure what the cost differences would be to put into a
fund as opposed to pay what your assessment basically is. You have timeframes
24
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
•
either way. You either start putting money aside or you pay for it as you go
and as I have. I'm not sure. I
Councilman Johnson: Was that rebuilding your road or just putting it in?
Mayor Chmiel: New road. Any other discussion? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to address something that wasn't addressed here
this evening and I did talk to Bill Axons about it. He is an engineer and he
expressed a concern and I know Bill net with Bill Engelhardt and also with Joel
Jenkins. About this storm sewer, and I realize that if you're going to have
curb and gutter, you're going to have to have collecting points but it was his
feeling that we had too many catch basins that were shown on the drawings and I
talked to Gary about that too today. I guess I would just like to reiterate
that if we keep the project costs down, that no matter what percentage we
charge, the cost will be down to the people that are affected and I would just
like to see that we do that. And that it was his feeling that we design for
what happens between 75% to 85% of the time and not for a catastrophe. Bill
said he had to be out of town this evening but he would be available to meet
again with the engineers if it were necessary. He would be back on Wednesday.
I guess one comment I'd like to make on the assessment. I don't think we need
to make a decision right now unless Council desires to do so. I don't think
that will probably be until 1991 or so when that will came before us but with
Mr. Scholer's explanation of how the Village was involved and the road has been
called substandard, many people feel it was substandard to begin with. I would
like to suggest that we do give a break and perhaps go with the 70-30.
Mayor Ctmiel: As opposed to 60-40?
Councilwoman Dimler: Right. '
Mayor Qriiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: I have a couple as we work down here. I think if the City's
proposing, as I understood it, that 60% of the cost of this was replacing the
existing road and 40% was bringing it up to city standards for an urban road.
So what I hear the City saying is we're going to pay for 100% of replacing the
existing road and we're going to ask the residents to pay for 100% of upgrading
the road. Now maybe there are other scenarios but that sounds like exactly what
we would do if this was a new development and we'd charge the residents 100% for
the new road they got. Is that right? Gary, did you follow that?
Gary Warren: I don't think I got all of it. I
Councilman Boyt: Well let's start at the end of it. When the City asks, when a
developer canes in and builds a new road, how much of that does a developer
typically pay for?
Gary Warren: The developer covers all his costs for the installation. Passes
than onto the property owners typically when they buy the lots.
Councilman Boyt: And that would be, say in than Vista that would have been
ashpalt plus curb and gutter.
25 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Gary Warren: Full city standard that is being constructed.
11 Councilman Boyt: So the property owner is paying 100% of that and the people on
Frontier paid 100% of whatever was built in 1968, I would assume. So now what
the City is saying is we'll replace that, paying for all of it. Then they're
IIasking the people on Frontier Trail to pay for the upgrade.
Gary- Warren: That's basically what we've been saying. The 40% recognizes what
11 for the most part wasn't built before. What's new to the roadway basically.
Councilman Boyt: I agree that this deserves a whole separate hearing all by
itself. Just on the face of it seems to make sense that we're asking the people
on Frontier Trail to pay what we would ask any group to pay. Now maybe there's
a hole in that logic somewhere and we've got a whole year and a half or 2 to
figure out what the hole is. That's how it would seem to me. The other, as far
11 as reconstructing the road or not reconstructing the road, I asked Gary to make
a very rough estimate and apparently we can count on spending, or this year
we've spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000.00 to patch the road. Maybe
more. Maybe a little less. In the ballpart of $5,000.00. Gary did an even
rougher estimate to suggest that 2-3-4 years from now that would be looking at
$15,000.00 a year. Maybe more. Maybe less but it's going to go up. That the
study shows the road is shot. I think most of us who drive it would say that's
probably right. So what I see the City looking at is do we want to rebuild the
road and I honestly don't know if the city has the money to do that personally
but if we go ahead, we're going to find the money somewhere. Or does the City
II want to continue to pay an increasing amount to repair the road and try to keep
it healthy from one winter to the next? Good question but I think a lot of
that, I think it's well worth doing the plans and specifications because some
day that road's going to cane out of there and when it does, we're going to need
this information so I'd be all for getting it. I think when we do, that we
should find out, because this is on the official city sidewalk trail map, we
ought to do the plans and specifications for the sidewalk. It's very little
II additional cost and Gary tells me that it will change the way the road's layed
out slightly if a sidewalk's put in there or not. So if we're ever going to do
it, we ought to design the road so it can take it someday. Whatever that day
II is. So I would like to see us authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications knowing that in all likelihood we'll probably proceed with this
because we're going one more step down the path in that direction but I think
the City needs to look at the question that Gary's raised about how are we going
to fund these things. I think we're talking about $700,000.00, in that
neighborhood, for this project and that's coming out of our bonding capacity, as
I understand it. That's a big decision. So how in the long run are we going to
II fund this stuff? I can tell you that we're not going to do very many projects
at $700,000.00 a pop out of our bonding capacity because we don't have that kind
of money in that capacity. So I would like to see the preparation for plans and
IIspecifications approved with the addition of sidewalk plan.
Councilman Johnson: Is that a motion?
IIMayor Chmiel: It's still open for discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would like to address that please. I think without
11 public hearing or public input for this sidewalk, I would be relunctant to put
it in and for one reason only and that is that once it's in the plan, people
26
City council Meeting - October 9, 1989
will cane back and say, well see here it is. In the plan. We've got to put it
in. I guess I don't have a real feeling for where the residents stand on the
sidewalk at this point and I would prefer not to put the sidewalk in at this
time.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think that's... I
Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to respond to that. correct me but we can't do
it both ways. We either approve this to include those plans or we lose the 11 opportunity to ever do that because that would mean coming back and redoing all
the plans and specifications again.
Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, would you address that? '
Mayor Chmiel: For a sidewalk?
Councilwoman Is it possible to do just Frontier Trail and then put a
sidewalk in later like we do with so many other roads?
Gary Warren: Well we have been doing that the last year and a half now that 1
we've gotten into the program. Let me say that it's more efficient to do it at
that time. The plans could be prepared to show the sidewalk as an alternate and
either bid it and not accept the alternate or don't bid the alternate but at
least the plans could show so the design of the roadway, any horizontal or
vertical alignment issues could be shown to accommodate the sidewalk and not go
any further than that so at least we have made whatever provisions necessary in
the road alignment to accommodate the sidewalk.
Mayor Chmiel: What additional costs would that involve Gary for that distance? I
Gary Warren: I think from a design standpoint, since the design firm would be
designing the sidewalk as part of it, he's entitled to his 6% fee which is
typical for that so if we're looking at a $50,000.00 rough estimate for that
sidewalk, it's a $3,000.00 cost roughly for including that in the plans and
specs.
Mayor Chmiel: Would it be the same distance as we have along Frontier as what I
we have on Laredo?
Gary Warren: Same distance? I
Mayor Chmiel: Length.
Gary Warren: I would think it'd be longer. It'd be pretty close probably.
Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, did I hear you correctly. You're going to do two
studies. One with a sidewalk and one without?
Gary Warren: Studies?
Councilwoman Dimler: I mean two specifications.
Gary Warren: It would be one plan set and basically it would be dealt with in
the actual bid proposal. Whenever the project is decided to be advertised for
27 ,
11
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
II
bids, at that time we either tell the...
Councilwoman Dimler: You can leave the sidewalk out at that point?
Gary Warren: Yeah, we can delete it at that time or include it or bid it as an
alternate to see what the dollars would be and still refuse to accept that
portion of the bid. So there is flexibility in it.
Cbuncilwoman Dimler: But you did say it would alter the road?
Bill Engelhardt: Can I just clarify one thing? If we take an alternate bid and
' the Mayor asked a question on the design fee of the sidewalk. If you take the
alternate bid, the engineer, my engineering fee is based on the award of bid so
if you were not to award the sidewalk, you wouldn't be paying for the sidewalk
as a design fee. What it does is it gives you the opportunity to have a price
in front of you. You can take a look at it and say, gee does it make sense to
put the sidewalk in at $1.00 a square foot because we got a good price. What
the residents say. What the...say of if we get a $5.00 a foot it doesn't make
any sense to do it so it gives you a lot of flexibility and then you can make a
good decision as to whether it should go in or not. I guess I would say don't
worry about the design fee which if it's not awarded, I don't get paid for it.
Gary Warren: That's quite generous on Bill's part but I would think he'd be...
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to repeat that in the mic Bill?
IIGary Warren: He'd be entitled to a fee if he wanted it.
II Councilman Johnson: So basically by including the sidewalk in the plans and
specs at this time, we'll have more information to put in front of the citizens
when we talk about doing this project when we have the next meeting, which there
will be more meetings for approval of plans and specifications. Which will be
II the time, at that time to say, okay do we want to do it? We'll have time
between now and then to discuss these issues with the citizens without having to
delay the project.
IIMayor CYmiel: And whether or not do all the residents want sidewalks.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That's the jest of it.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's alright with me as long as everyone understands
that just because it's in the plans and specifications, it's not automatically
IIgoing in.
Councilman Johnson: Nothing is automatic.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Well, sometimes that's the way it's presented.
Councilman Workman: I don't have a whole lot of comments. This is a really
II exciting topic. We're talking about an awful lot of money. It puts us in a
position the new council hasn't been in yet and we we're not talking about
cracker jacks. If there ever were a test as to whether or not we should have a
sidewalk on a certain road, this may very well be it. It's certainly not a
cul-de-sac. I'll let the residents decide if they want a sidewalk or not. I
1 28
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
think it should be 8 foot wide bituminous though on Jim's side. Just at Jim's
house. With a bridge. Covered. I think we should move on this. I'm not going
to bore everybody. I'm very interested in listening to this. I am intrigued by
the per unit cost. I know those curves, when you really ask yourself the
question what extra benefit is a person with more frontage in that situation
going to have, I don't know that I've found the answer yet so somebody's going
to have to, I understand why you're doing it per foot and everything but that's
a bend, that's a pretzel. I would I guess go along with the sidewalk again and
ask for Bill to restate his motion so maybe I can second it. I
Councilman Boyt: I would move that we authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications for Frontier Trail utility and roadway improvements including the
plans and specifications for a sidewalk.
Councilman Workman: Second.
11
Resolution #89-110: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for Frontier Trail utility
and roadway improvements including the plans and specifications for a sidewalk.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: Hopefull we won't, because a lot of the discussions we've
had that the other issues, the side issues of how are we going to do this in the
future and special assessment reduction funds and all these other issues... I
Mayor C oriel: Case by case situation Jay.
Councilman Johnson: Right but we need to be looking into that in a more 11
comprehensive as more of these streets start going.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF CSAH 14 RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson: You've got to open the public hearing first. 1
Mayor C oriel: I already did. I called it as a public hearing.
Councilman Johnson: I thought I heard somebody move to approve it.
Mayor Chmiel: Gary? 1
Councilman Boyt: Can we just see if there's anyone here from the public? Save
same time.
Mayor Qmiel: I think maybe that's a good idea. Is there anyone who has
crnments regarding the County State Aid Highway 14 right-of-way request to
vacate? I
29 ,
_ _ r
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
r _
Resident: I live there. I'd like to see what they're going to do there.
Gary Warren: CR 14 recently this summer has been upgraded by the County and
William's Pipeline has a petroleum easement that basically comes through this
right-of-way area. The County has a 100 foot right-of-way. 50 foot on either
11 side. William's Pipeline does not entertain or want to have to share an
easement rights with the County for the roadway which is not untypical for
petroleum products carrier so they have, in quite a bit of negotiations that
II they've had, they've actually moved their whole pipeline out of the project area
here at same considerable expense so what they have requested the County to do
and the County has agreed in the resolution in your packet and has asked the
City to also vacate because it impacts our Deerbrook subdivision, is to
basically vacate the 5 foot piece of our right-of-way here which has the effect
of adding 5 feet to each of these lots. Lot 1 and 2 and shrinks our right-of-
way from 50 feet down to 45 feet off the centerline so the total, at least in
II this area where it will be vacated of a 95 foot right-of-way. The road is
built. It's a County road. We have sufficient right-of-way for that. We see
no problems with vacating that extra 5 feet. It allows William's Pipeline to
11 have the sole dedicated right-of-way for their pipeline.
Councilman Johnson: So the two property owners of Lots 1 and 2 would then get
that land as part of their land but it would still have William's Pipeline?
Gary Warren: William's Pipeline easements still is there.
II Councilman Johnson: Right now it's not even part of their property. It's part
of the County highway.
Gary Warren: Right. So it goes from one to the other basically.
Mayor Chmiel: All you're doi ng dropping is dro i from 100 to 95.
II Councilman Johnson: And the guy's probably already mowing it and anything.
Taking care of it anyway.
Gary Warren: I'd say there's no visible differences out there that you'll see.
It's just from a legal standpoint to address William's Pipeline's proprietary
concerns for their petroleum easement.
rCouncilman Johnson: Does this go back then, would affect anybody's taxes?
Gary Warren: It's an easement so I wouldn't think so.
Councilman Johnson: So it doesn't increase his acreage?
II Mayor Chmiel: Property value, no. I would say not. Anyone else wishing to
address it?
II Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
r
30
r
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
11
Resolution #89-111: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve a resolution vacating the City's interest over said parcels of Lots 1
and 2, Block 1 of Deerbrook Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE DRIVE EAST AND 184TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 89-6, �
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Public Hearing: I
Jim Paulette - DataSery
Bub Osmundson - OSM I
Councilman Boyt: Let's see if there's any public.
Gary Warren: I see Jim Paulette from DataServ.
Councilman Boyt: But they're not opposed to it. I
Gary Warren: He might change his mind.
Jim Paulette: No. 1
Councilman Boyt: So maybe we can just move on this.
Jim Paulette: Can I speak on this?
Mayor Qriiel: Yeah. Gary, do you want to just hit rather lightly? I
Gary Warren: Okay. Bud Osmundson is also here in case there's any questions.
On August 28th the City Council accepted the feasibility study and called a
public hearing. This project is intended to provide frontage road access along
TH 5 to connect with 184th Avenue which is included in M Sot's next phase of the
TH 5 expansion. Timing being what it is and such, we have gone ahead with this
project to coordinate pretty much with the TH 5 improvements and to complete
this length and have work with DataSery among others here to cane up with a '
coordinated plan for the alignment of the road and the utilities. We're looking
to get council approval here after public hearing to authorize preparation of
plans and specs so we can proceed then for awarding this contract in time for
spring of 1990 construction.
Mayor Qmiel: Anyone wishing to address any questions or whatever? Please come
forward and state your name and your address please.
Jim Paulette: My name is Jim Paulette. I'm facility supervisor over at
DataServ. Over on Lake Drive East. I just wanted to mention that DataSery is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Bell South. The property is presently owned by
RG Properties out of Birmingham. Bell South will be purchasing this property in
November. They will be the owners of the property. Both RJ Properties, the I/
present owner and Bell South, the future owners, have reviewed this project and
they both support the project. That's all I've got to say.
31 1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this public hearing for
Lake Drive East and 184th Avenue?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
11 hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: I've got just one question just from what you said there.
11 Did we notify the owner of this public hearing or did we notify.
Gary Warren: The owner.
Councilman Johnson: I mean it says DataSery here on our list. There's nobody
out of Birmingham on this list of people notified.
Gary Warren: We put that description in for convenience so there would be name
recognition but the actual notices were sent out to RJ.
Councilman Johnson: I just want to make sure we're legal.
Mayor Chmiel: As you indicate under the notes there that this does not include
the watermain installation on 184th Avenue which will be constructed under a
II separate contract. Why don't we install that watermain under this existing
proposal?
Gary Warren: That watermain is included in MnDot's plans that Barton-Aschman
are drawing up for that intersection and that was running through the line as
far as contractor responsibilities.
Resolution 489-112: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
authorize the preparation of Plans and Specifications for Lake Drive East and
II 184th Avenue Improvement Project 489-6. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
IIPUBLIC HEARING: 1990 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION.
Public Present:
Name Address
11 Bruce Kotzian 1340 Stratton Court
Jon Thornberg 1320 Stratton Court
Kathi Clarke 6510 Devonshire Drive
Randy Karl 6391 Teton Lane
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address that?
IBruce Kotzian: My name is Bruce Kotzian, 1340 Stratton Court.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I just tell you that we have strictly a hypothetical budget
which is purely fictional because of the State legislature adopting those
guidelines for us to go by just this past session that they closed so the budget
32
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
r
that we had previously was really something that was hypothetical that we had to
prepare for accordingly until we knew which direction we were going.
Bruce Kotzian: Okay. I guess a few neighbors and myself just have a concern
that we'd like to get on the record so once you get to the point of speaking to
the budget, we'd like to I guess get our opinion on record or our concerns. The
subject is parks. Recreational parks and our concern is, one park is Curry
Farms and we're wondering as residents of what money, if any, has been allocated
to Curry Farms for next year. We've been to a few Park and Recreation meetings
and it's been tossing the ball back and forth and we'd like to know one, is
there any money allocated to the park for next year. I guess that's what we're
just going on record to let it be known. Secondly, when you do get to a point
or down the road where you are discussing budgets or when you have that items on
the list, how do you handle that? Is that an open meeting? A public meeting?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. It will be a public hearing and everyone can came back for
that.
Bruce Kotzian: So tonight's objection of the 1990 budget was to?
I/
Don Ashworth: We're meeting State Statute. State Statute said that the City
had to hold this hearing without any knowledge as to what our revenues would be.
Any knowledge as to expenditures. Why somebody would hold a hearing when you
have no idea of what it is you're going to spend, seems totally ludicrous.
That's what we were required to do. We received notice this past week that if
you have already published, which we had in accordance to the guidelines, we
were to open this hearing. Take comments. Close it and to start a new set of
procedures but they haven't yet decided what those are.
Bruce Kotzian: So what we have to do is cane back when it gets to that point? r
Don Ashworth: If I could get your name and address, I will contact you as soon
as we know what the process is supposed to be. '
Bruce Kotzian: Okay. It's Bruce Kotzian. 1340 Stratton Court.
Don Ashworth: And I'll assume that you're acting as a coordinator for others. r
Bruce Kotzian: Yeah. The concern is the money allocation for Curry Farms Park
for 1990.
Councilman Johnson: Will that be brought up in next Monday's budget session
that we're going to be having? r
Councilwoman Dimler: I've already talked to Lori about it. Lori, did you put
it in your request? Ranenber when I asked you to put it in.
Lori Sietsena: The Park and Recreation Commission recommendation to City
Council on the Capital Improvement Program did not include funds for Curry
Farms... I have information available to you...as you go into your preparation
of the budget, it will explain the Park and Recreation procedure...discussion of
that.
Councilwoman Dimler: okay, but now that the sidewalk was taken out, we had r
33
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
discussed that sane money could go to the park instead.
' Councilman Bout: No sidewalk money.
' Councilman Johnson: No.
Lori Sietsema: The money that would be collected from the developer would go
into the trail dedication fund.
' Counciisnan Johnson: Can't rob Peter to pay Paul.
' Cbunci]man Workman: Centex is going to do most of the developing in that park
anyway. Isn't that your concern?
' Bruce Kotzian: No they are not.
Lori Sietsema: They did the rough grading and they provided $2,500.00 for
totlot equipment. The fine grading has been done and the installation of the
' equipment has been installed and next spring the rest of the money will be, the
remaining money will be put in a volleyball court at that site. The remaining
facilities, there are no monies budgeted right now for the 1990 year. The Park
and Recreation Commission put that as a future item.
Councilman Workman: Do we have any new parks proposed?
1 Lori Sietsema: Yes. They allocated, they are recommending that the allocation
of money go towards Chanhassen Hills Park which has no facilities and Lake Susan
Hills West. There's a whole list in there and that will be caning to you...but
II the Minutes on those and the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation will
be caning to you...
II Councilwoman Dimler: It was my understanding though Lori in my last
conversation with you that since those parks are, Carry Farms is almost fully
developed and those people still don't have their totlot equipment.
Bruce Kotzian: That's corrected. It's in. The past week it's been put in.
Councilwoman Dirtier: Okay. That's great to know.
IIBruce Kotzian: And being put to use by the way.
II Councilwoman Dinmler: Okay, good. But that we thought maybe it would be better
to finish a park where it's fully developed than to dedicate monies to something
where there's nothing there yet. I guess we'll discuss that in the budget but
that was my understanding that Park and Rec would be in agreement with that.
IILori Sietsema: The Commission was not in agreement with that, no. That was not
their recommendation. You and I had discussed that there were some
possibilities of changing that. The Council chose to do that. That was not the
Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation.
I Bruce Kotzian: I guess our concern is I believe there is approximately
$30,000.00, $10,000.00 each for three parks and all we're asking is we're the
fourth park and just like to have our fair share dedicated to the Curry Farms
34
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Park. That's our concern and would like to have it on record.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else wishing to address anything? If not, is there a r
motion?
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed. '
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Hbrksnan seconded to table the 1990 Budget
Adoption. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: TRI AXLE D(}IP TRUCK.
Don Ashworth: The city has received bids. We were concerned. When we had
initially speced this out this past year, we felt that the amount being
allocated would be more than sufficient. As we went into the bidding process,
there had been a significant escalation in the prices this year and we were very
happy when the bids did cane in and they approximated the amount that we did
have in the budget. We are slightly higher. However, if you recall, we came in
significantly lower on the articulated blower and 2-3 other pieces of equipment.
Accordingly, the overall budget will stay within the amount originally approved
and we're recatmending the award to the two low bidders for the cab and chassis
and the dump body which would be Boyer Trucks for the cab and chassis and the
dump to Midland Equipment.
Resolution #89-113: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to 1
award the bid for the tri-axle dump truck as follows: cab and chassis to Boyer
Trucks, Inc. in the amount of $60,576.00 and the bid for the dump body, pusher
axle and sander to Midland Equipment in the amount of $15,997.00. All voted in ,
favor and the motion carried.
SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND REMODEL OF AN ADDITION,
JAMES HENDRICKSON, 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD..
Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting approval to construct an addition to
an existing have that requires a 4 foot sideyard setback variance. The addition
is part of a large scale expansion to the home. However, the expansion to the
south, on the south side, is the only one that does require a variance. The
addition in question would be located between two existing wings of the home
that already protrude to within 6 feet of the property line. The new addition
in this area is essentially infill construction. The extent to which it
protrudes to the side property line is consistent and no more excessive than the
existing protrusions of the hone. Staff gave this item a good bit of
consideration for considering a recommendation of approval. We believe that
there is a hardship pertaining to this site. While the owner obviously has use
of the parcel, there is a single family home on it, the addition is an
improvement of the property that we believe is consistent with the efficient
utilization of the interior of the home. It will be used to construct a laundry
room/mud roam that would connect an existing garage or where the existing garage
35
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
was into the home. Frankly, if this was an addition that could be located
anywhere on the property, a deck for instance or something of that nature, we
would possibly have reacted somewhat differently to it. We believe that the
package of improvements will result in the construction of a home that is
' consistent with current construction in the city. We also note that the
non-conforming home setbacks on often underside lots are commonly found in this
area and in several other older lakefront areas in the city. Normal ordinance
requirements are often inappropriate in dealing with these areas and potentially
the correct way of responding to that would be the consideration of special
provisions in the ordinance that deals specifically with these areas. Lastly we
note that there is sane precedent for granting similar variance to rennovate
older hares in this area. In March of this year, variances were given for side,
front and rear setbacks for the property at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. for James
Jessup. During the consideration of that variance request, there were several
' other similar variance requests historically that have been granted in that same
area that were brought out. Staff had recommended approval of the variance to
the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment ultimately voted 2 to 1
against approving the variance. The primary concern that was cited was the
' concern that you would be adding, if this was approved, you would be adding to a
non-conforming structure.
Mayor Ctmiel: Is Jim Hendrickson here this evening?
Raman Roos: Mr. Mayor, I'm representing Jim Hendrickson.
Mayor CSimiel: Raman, would you like to address this?
Raman Roos: I guess basically Jim is requiring that variance in order to
' refurbish the home and add a second story addition onto it. He's not
encroaching on the lake. The lot is almost 15,000 square foot which is I think
within the requirements of the City of Chanhassen. Staff's report is pretty
' much inclusive. It's an infill situation that would be very difficult. I guess
the only way to look at it, if you look at the 5 conditions to be met by a
variance, I think he probably meets all 5 conditions. You can ask yourself in
those 5 situations and I think cane up with a conclusion on that basis. Thank
you.
Mayor Cxmiel: Paul, I went out there and I looked at this. In looking at the
proposal as to where the fence is with the setback requirement, if we took that
additional segment of the building that's been put onto the south side, the 22
feet, I just sort of paced it off, it might be 23, and moved it to the north
' side of that, tome there appears to be more roan on the north side of that lot
from anywhere from the amount of 24 feet from where the existing building is
which I paced off, plus another 21 feet to the property line where the fence is.
Roman Roos: If I follow you correctly, you're saying.
Mayor Chmiel: Just turn it around, yeah. Put it on the north side rather than
the south side. Than that would not require any variance at all.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I could clarify that a little bit. We do have the
' building plans here.
36
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
(The Council, Paul Krauss and Raman Roos reviewed the house plans at this point
in the meeting.) r
Mayor QYmiel: The other thing that I was looking at too, the adjacent property
owner is probably about 8 feet from that fence line as well, or the property
line.
Paul Krauss: Right. We didn't measure it but we believe that it is short as
well. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I finally took a tape out of the car and I did measure it and it
is 8 feet. The other thing you indicated in here was there were shrubs.
I guess that's all I have. I was just looking at that observation. I thought
if you took that 22 feet, extended it over to the other side. Of course I
didn't realize they were going to be putting the garage here as well as that
screened porch and deck which would be interconnected because there's about a
foot that there's an overhang that there's no foundation portion under it.
Paul Krauss: Right and new footings will be under there. r
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's all I wanted to find out about.
Councilman Workman: Raman, they're proposing construction on the lake side then
in the future?
Roman Roos: On the lake side? ,
Councilman Workman: Yeah.
Roman Roos: We're not encroaching any... We're 80 some foot off the lake. r
Councilman Workman: So the deck? I
Raman Roos: There will be deck...
Councilman Workman: How far is that right now? I
Paul Krauss: It's 80 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? '
Councilman Johnson: My discussion is, I don't see Jim Chaffee here, is what's
going on about the demolition without the proper permits?
Mayor Chmiel: We're finding quite a bit of that happening lately with things
being constructed. No permits being acquired. r
Councilman Johnson: I think we need to continue the prosecution on that charge.
Councilwoman Dimler: What is their policy there? Do you know? r
Mayor Chmiel: A demolition permit wasn't acquired is basically what it was.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, there was no demolition permit.
37 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Raman Roos: Building permit...
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but they started demolition without demolition permit
and then came in and asked for it later?
Roman Roos: No...The building permit is the same thing.
tCouncilman Johnson: Okay. The applicant started demolition of the old
structure on his property before obtaining a demolition permit and was stopped
by the building department. Okay, we went out there and took enforcement
actions and stopped the demolition. Hence the building application permit was
submitted and discovered that the variance was needed so this is another after
the fact. I have no problem with the variance. I think what we're doing here
' is taking a non-conforming use and improving it. I still have a problem with
people going ahead.
Roman Roos: They can plead ignorance.
Councilman Johnson: Well ignorance doesn't help a whole lot.
Roman Roos: ...again, he just went ahead...
Councilman Johnson: It's almost every week we see somebody's already done
something and now they're coming back and we basically ask than to apply for a
permit.
Councilman Workman: Do we have an ordinance for fining?
Councilwoman Dimler: No we don't.
' Councilman Johnson: I believe it's a misdemeanor to build a building without...
Mayor Chmiel: Doesn't that normally incorporate a double permit fee?
iCouncilman Johnson: I think we added something to double the permit fee.
' Councilwoman Dimler: But that's not substantial.
Don Ashworth: It's going to be very minor. Council should be aware of it.
I Councilwoman Dimler: One of the things we did on the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals that after we went through these two processes, we discussed the
possibility of coming up with a policy and perhaps it should be handled through
Public Safety. I don't know. Cr maybe Council has to have sane input into it
but to make the fee substantial to be a preventative measure.
Councilman Boyt: Fee for what?
IICouncilwoman Dimler: For building without a permit.
' Councilman Johnson: See then we're doing a judicial thing.
38
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Well we can prosecute if that's what you want to do. Let's
just prosecute. I
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't think we want to spend the money or the time
prosecuting all these people. I
Councilman Johnson: There's possibility to settle with prosecution isn't there?
Dave Harmeyer: Are you asking me? '
Councilman Johnson: Well, through the Mayor yes.
Dave Harmeyer: Yes. I mean anytime you prosecute a case there's an opportunity
to settle it before it goes to trial. Either at an arraignment or a pre-trial.
If it's criminal in nature. ,
Mayor Chniel: What determines a criminal nature?
Dave Harmeyer: If it's an ordinance violation. I
Councilman Johnson: Would doing building modifications without a permit be a...
Dave Harmeyer: I'm sure it is a violation of your ordinance. I don't know the 1
specific ordinance but I'm sure it is.
Councilman Johnson: I doubt there's a city around that it's not. '
Councilman Workman: But how harsh is it? You know, that's the question.
Mayor Chniel: If it's a misdemeanor and it requires the individual acquiring an
attorney which becomes rather costly, is that right?
Dave Harmeyer: Very costly. 1
Councilman Johnson: There's an honest attorney.
Councilman Workman: How much is it Paul?
Paul Krauss: I don't know how much it is but it's Section 20-91 that says no
person shall erect, construct, alter, enlarge, repair, move, remove any building
or structure or part thereof without first securing a building permit.
Councilman Workman: Big deal. I'd chance it. 1
Councilman Boyt: I think we have an issue here that we've had before which
really sends a signal that people don't understand what we're asking. I'd like
to see the City I guess be more proactive. I think we should have literature
that says something to the effect of, so you're going to expand your house.
Here's what you need to know. Or you're going to build a fence or the other
typical kinds of things that we get confronted with. The citizen should be able
► to come in and in 1 or 2 pages pick up all the directions that they need to
follow. That's not going to catch everybody but right now we don't even have
that available.
39 ,
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
1
Councilman Johnson: How many basements in this town have been finished with
building permits? I think it'd be easier to count the ones that have been
finished with a building permit than the ones that have been finished without.
Councilman Workman: Maybe we can send those out with the water bills next or
something.
Councilman Hoyt: I'd like to comment about this variance. I think the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals raised a couple of good points when they turned this
down. One of them was, they said what we are doing here is expanding, they
described it as a non-conforming use. I'm not exactly sure that that fits but
' it's clearly a variance that's in existence and we're being asked to expand it.
I gather that they had a hard time and voted against it because of that. I
think if we're going to approve this, that we need to approve it for maybe some
' different reasons than the ones staff has identified here. As I've talked to
staff about this before this evening, if we stick with the definition of
hardship that Roger developed for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals that we
have turned people down who certainly had a good reason for wanting the variance
but it was not a hardship, this is not a hardship. Not in the faintest
imagination. This mud room is nice but so is the garage that the Colby's
wanted and we can go on down through the list of the variances that we've
' considered in the last 6 months. You do not have to have a mud room to enjoy
the use of your house and the way we've described hardship, it says that it
really comes down to whether or not you can use that piece of property without
the variance. And if you can't, then that's a hardship and these people are
clearly using this and this is not a hardship. I think there are other ways we
can pass this but I don't think we should be corrupting the staff report in
order to get it to an end result that we want to get to. We ought to just face
1 it. I think the way we justify this is because in this neighborhood we just
did this March 19th or whatever it was when that fellow came in and wanted to
build the big deck and expand his house. He was going to tear the existing
II structure down I believe and we said you can't put the deck on because that's an
expansion of the house out and beyond where it is now but you can sort of fill
in the square which meant that he got sideyards and fxontyards. He got several
I variances to do that. I could see this being a comparable situation. We're
saying to the person, well fill in the square. You're not going from 6 feet to
5 feet. You're not expanding the variance. Maybe under that standpoint we can
do that and I'd sure like to see Paul and his people come back with some sort of
II special zoning district so we can deal with the Carver Beaches and the Lake
Riley, specific areas where we know we've got house after house that has this
problem. Let's declare them a special zone and decide what the sideyards and
I such should be just for that zone so we're not playing havoc with the whole
city. If we declare this thing a hardship, then I've got real problems with the
people that we've turned down previously. It's not a hardship in my opinion but
I think we can still pass it given precedent we've set in that neighborhood.
' Councilman Johnson: Is there something on the books about having an existing
non-conforming use and you tear it down, you can't rebuild it or something?
IPaul Krauss: The restoration provision does not apply to single family
dwellings. For example a non-conforming commercial building, if it's destroyed
Imore than 50% by fire, you can't rebuild it. If that were a single family home,
you could.
11 40
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
11
Councilman Johnson: What if they took it apart themselves more than 50%? '
Paul Krauss: You're grandfathered in general principle.
Councilman Johnson: Well I'm just trying to get it straight in my mind on the
commercial building. If this is a commercial building and they remove the
building down to the foundation, could they rebuild on that old foundation?
Paul Krauss: Not if it was more than 50% removed or destroyed. 1
Councilman Johnson: Okay. Like I said, this is an improvement to that lot and
that neighborhood and what was there. I agree with Bill though. We cannot
expand. If he wanted 5 extra inches on there, there's no way in the world we
could expand that.
Mayor Chmiel: That existing structure of that proposal on the south side, that
all was remaining previously? Nothing was added? It's always sat back those
amount of feet?
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilwoman Dialer: Okay, Paul is it your feeling that this is the only way it ,
can be done or is there another way?
Paul Krauss: In my opinion, given the layout of the existing house, if you want
to make an efficient utilization of the space that's there, this is the way to
do it. You had that garage slab there. They want to maintain that garage use.
They want to connect the garage to the house. You can't do that unless you fill
up that space. At least not from the plans that we saw. The hardship
definition is always a tough one to grapple with. I've worked with different
definitions frankly in different communities and I'm not trying to overturn any
kind of precedent that was established. However, one of the definitions that
I've worked with a lot was that not only were you entitled to having a use on
the property, but you were to having a valid use on the property. That if you
had a 1920 or 1940 bungalow that had one bedroom and no bathroom or whatever,
that there was sane entitlement to upgrade that to a current standard. Now if
that's not been the precedent here, then you've got to be concerned about
establishing that. But in my experience, that's been used to establish a
hardship.
Councilman Boyt: accuse me but that's not the issue. We're not saying that
this house doesn't have something we now require houses to have. It has
everything we require houses to have. We don't require houses to have a mud
room. We don't even require houses to connect to their garage and so you can't
say that they're doing this because the city requires it. We don't. If they
did, they'd have a valid hardship.
Mayor Chmiel: Tam, do you have something?
Councilman Workman: I would approval.
Councilwoman Dialer: I'll second that. '
Mayor Chrmiel: I'd just like a little more discussion.
41 11
II
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Basis of your approval and your motion?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I guess what I'm looking at is the wall that's existing
where it is, whether you make that a laundry roam or a mud roan or whatever they
want, it's still all within those confines of those walls right?
Paul Krauss: It protrudes no further than the existing walls.
Councilman Johnson: There's was no wall going to that mud roan.
Councilman Boyt: That's protruding further. It's just not protruding further
into the setback.
' Paul Krauss: Right. It's infilling that hole.
Councilman Johnson: Basically rather than almost approving a variance, we could
also say that they are not making any change to the existing grandfathered
variance of a 6 foot setback at this location. So no variance is actually
required because the 6 foot setback is being maintained versus approving. I'm
not sure how planning likes that kind of logic.
Paul Krauss: We had a long discussion about that and as a planner I would have
traditionally taken the more lenient approach to that. That you're not making
anything worse so what difference does it make. But I've been coached by a lot
' of attorneys that when you intensify a variance, which essentially this is, you
no longer have grounds to assume it's acceptable and they have to came before
the Board and yourselves and get that reconfirmed. There's no entitlement to
intensification of that variance.
Councilman Johnson: So we have so many feet of wall right now that's in
' variance and he's going to add another 10 feet of wall that's in variance?
Paul Krauss: Right.
' Councilman Johnson: Or 20 feet. Whatever the length of this mud roan is.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to maybe take a different approach here. If we cane
' back with a special district, it's conceiveable that we could say that the
sideyard setbacks in this particular area only need to be 5 feet. I think if
you walk down through that neighborhood you'd see sane houses that are already
sitting about that close to their lot line.
Mayor Chmiel: Each of them. They really are.
Councilman Boyt: And if we make the districts small enough, what we would be
doing tonight is basically just pre-empting that process a little bit and saying
alright, go ahead and build it 6 feet because we anticipate changing the zoning
requirements anyway. That's a possibility. The only reason I'd vote against
this is if it's considered a hardship and then I disagree with that and I'll
vote against it for that reason but if we can cane up with a different logic, I
think we could pass it.
i42
I
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Workman: I think the logic is that nobody's going to do anything
down in this neighborhood unless we start tearing down all the houses and 11 canbining lots. I mean that's the logic. I think we've already got a special
district down there. Not that that wasn't a good idea.
Councilwoman Dimler: We didn't establish it but it established itself. 1
Councilman Johnson: It's there. It's just not called that.
Councilman Workman: And s think maybe Carver Beach has some of those same
characteristics too because Jay you bring that up. We're not going to be
combining lots. We're not going to be tearing down these homes. This is a very
nice area of the city and it can be made nicer I think tactfully and I think
that's maybe what's being done. These people should be given some credit for
what they are doing. You know, I remember the Jessup's and the same kind of
thing. Yeah, that was a little more drastic but they're looking to upgrade and
improve which is perfectly natural. I don't think they're asking a whole lot
here. I don't see how we can deny it. I don't see it as a hardship. I don't
have a maxi roan. I'm going to ask for one soon. I
Councilman Johnson: As your kids get bigger, you'll want a mud room.
Councilman Workman: But I don't think anything's going to change down there '
drastically as I've said so to allow these people to upgrade and update and do a
lot of things and straighten out what their forefathers created for them with
these different and weird shaped lots and skinny lots, that's where I'd like to '
think we have sage flexibility. That's where the variance process comes into
play. That's why I moved approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any additional discussion? Motion on the floor then ,
with a second.
Councilman Johnson: I still want to hear the logic of approval of a variance. '
What are we approving it based upon? Staff report or...
Councilman Workman: What are we denying it upon? 1
Councilman Johnson: It's not a hardship.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we approve it Jay on the basis that on March 19th or
whatever, we approved one in the same neighborhood. Basically the same kind of
thing I think. I haven't read those minutes but as I recall, we were all here
for that discussion. Another possibility is to turn this down and get going on
the special district and write it in so it doesn't require a variance.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would speak against that for the simple fact
that the neighbors there are real anxious to have it taken care of.
Councilman Johnson: In it's current state, it's a problem.
Councilman Boyt: That's right. It wouldn't be a good choice.
Mayor Clmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second to approve a 6
foot sideyard setback variance request for the construction and remodel of the
43
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
addition of 9131 Lake Riley Blvd..
' Councilman Boyt: I have a question. This is regl quick. Do we have general
agreement that this isn't a hardship? Tam agrees with that?
' Councilman Workman: What I was trying to get with Jay was that while it's not a
hardship, it's also by us doing it and not creating anything more of a hardship
on any.
IICouncilman Johnson: That's what I was trying to get you to say.
II Councilman Workman: The Colby's were going 20 feet and 3 feet from the road.
But I mean this is not, in the future that thing was going to bother same people
I had a feeling but this thing is not creating any more of what it's already
Isitting on and I think maybe that's what Paul's getting at.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's not an expansion.
Councilman Johnson: Not extending any further into the variance.
Councilman Workman: You can't go by that either because Freddy Oeschlager would
be in here too. He had other options and places to go. This is merely a
filling of the gap and it's a small part that helps the entire house.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve a 6 foot
sideyard setback variance request for the construction and remodel of the
addition at 9131 Lake Riley Blvd.. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
IICouncilman Boyt: I think it's important that the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals understands that from a hardship standpoint we agree with then. We
worked a long time to get that understanding. I'd hate to foul that up.
REQUEST FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A DECK ON A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, LOTUS LAKE
IIHOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Jo Ann Olsen: They asked to be moved to the next agenda. They went home.
CONSIDER REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, NORTHWEST WHOLESALE NURSERIES,
I9150 GREAT PLAINS BLVD.
Jo Ann Olsen: This item was brought up to the City Council after Mr. Finger
presented a Visitor Presentation with concerns about the activities at the
II nursery site. In the report we went through the history of the Northwest
Nursery. What was approved. What exists today and what they are proposing to
do in the future. I'll just go real briefly. In summary, we are recommending
II that the conditional use permit not be revoked. We feel that we are working
towards a resolution of those concerns. That they can be obtained in the near
future and to satisfy sane of the concerns of Mr. Finger. We have established
II conditions as part of that approval...and if you'd like I can go through all
those.
44
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think that's necessary Jo Ann. I had sane discussion
with Mr. Finger yesterday. We discussed the conditions. He doesn't want to see
the nursery go out of business either or for us to not approve the conditional
use. So with the additional conditions that you have had in here as to what
they should comply with, the only question I have is the filling of the Class B 11 wetland there.
Jo Ann Olsen: They actually have not filled in any wetland. They've been
filling at the edge of the wetlands. 1
Councilman Johnson: They still need a permit.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. '
Councilman Johnson: Have they applied for that permit?
Jo Ann Olsen: They had applied for the conditional use permit and the wetland
alteration permit. That's what was tabled last January and then we were
proceeding with that again with them when it was brought back for consider of
revocation so that's all been kind of put on hold until we see what happens.
They have made the application though. It's easy for us just to move ahead with
that. They have all the information. '
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here from Northwest Wholesale Nursery? Is there
anything that you'd like to address? Hopefully you've seen what the
recommendations were by staff. Are you basically in agreement with those
recommendations?
Mark VanHoef: Yes. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I've got a couple comments as we got through here. On the
plans for future, there's a pond on the north side. A nice little circular
pond. I'd like to see the 6 DNR or the 6 Fish and Wildlife normal
recommendations be instituted for that ponding site. The uneven sides. Rolling
bottoms, etc., etc. that we ask for. Looking at this diagram it looks like it's
a nice little circular hole in the ground.
Gary Warren: That's a set basin. '
Jo Ann Olsen: It's a sedimentation basin but that would be going through the
Wetland Alteration Permit process and we can look at that. Those conditions.
Councilman Johnson: We ask for that in a lot of sedimentation basins.
Jo Ann Olsen: As long as it can still do what it's purpose was. As long as it
can contain the water, we usually came to sane sort of compromise.
Councilman Johnson: It just has to be redesigned so it's not a little round 1
hole in the ground but still hydraulically do it's job.
Mark VanHoef: My name is Mark VanHoef. I'm a part owner in Northwest and the I
only comment that I wanted to make with regards to the presentation that Jo Ann
45 11
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
I .
made is that we definitely need someone to make it clear that we are a wholesale
1 nursery. Mir. Finger made some accusations in several presentations. One that
I did sit through in front of the Planning Commission and then also when he made
same convents in front of this Council as to whether we're complying with a
wholesale nursery. The definition that we ourselves pursued right into your
zoning ordinances back in 1985 with the direction of Barb Dacy, are somewhat
being questioned now as to whether they're complete enough. Whether they're
' specific enough and before we can really go any further, we need someone to say
that yes, they definitely comply with the wholesale nursery. Jo Ann has worked
with us. We've tried to get some things rolling but I don't want to keep going
back to ground one saying okay, you've done this. You've done this. You've
done this but now someone else has cane to the front and said yes, but once
again we question whether they are a wholesale nursery. I don't want to take a
lot of time here. Don't want to get into a lot of what Jo Ann has prepared
because I think it's basically stating our case very well but it is a major
concern to us that this issue of a wholesale nursery definition is laid to rest
because we can't stay there if in two years someone comes back to this Council
and says, well we question what they're growing and how they're growing it.
That needs to be clarified and put to bed. So that's all I'd like to say.
Mayor Chmiel: The only thing that Mr. Finger had indicated to me was some
' consideration of loading and unloading of the trees in the back area. I don't
know where you place those trees. That was the only consideration he has to
offer.
1 Mark VanHoef: My reference is, the meeting that I sat through when he made a
presentation to the Planning Committee and those notes are in your packet, he
specifically looked at our operation and accused it as being brokering plant
material. Questioned whether we were growing the material. Your attorney has
sent an opinion which would support us as being a growing. It's I guess how you
define growing of nursery stock but I guess I only appeal to the Council that
that has to be clarified. That right now the zoning ordinance is very broad in
spectrum and I just hope that before we get too far down the line and spend a
lot of our money complying with the request, that that issue is laid to rest and
that we are definitely defined as a wholesale nursery.
Councilman Johnson: I think that we need to look at that definition in
there
because I can't totally agree with our attorney that having a plant sitting in a
1 pot for a number of weeks on their property is growing it on site. But whether
a wholesale nursery requires to be grown on site. To me a wholesaler of auto
parts does not make the auto parts on site. He buys them. He brings them into
his warehouse and then he moves than off to some retail outlet. So if that's
what the City intends as a wholesaler is the normal definition of a wholesaler,
you meet that. But I have to laugh when we say that a plant sitting in a
II plastic bucket for anywhere from a week to a year is grown on site. That to me
just does not compute. Therefore our definition is either too strict so what we
need is a zoning ordinance amendment to amend the definition of wholesale
nursery to what wholesale nursery is. If we're only talking a growing nursery,
IIthen it would have to be a plan that's planted on site. Something like what Tim
Erhart's doing where he puts a tree in the ground and a couple years later
harvests that tree. There is no harvesting when you put a pot on the ground and
1 a few weeks later pick the pot up and put it back on another truck. I can't see
that that's harvesting that tree that's been grown on the site. Unless it's
harvested off the truck.
1 46
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Mark VanHoef: Can I respond? ,
Mayor Qmiel: Gb ahead.
Mark VanHoef: You bring up a good point and I'd like just to share two thoughts 11
with you. Number one, I would take exception to your comparing us with a
rewholesaler of auto parts because when that fender comes in and goes into
stock, it does not change. It stays a certain size. A certain part. It does
not change. When we bring stock in and you referenced shrubs for an example.
That material is brought in bare root. That material is then potted. It goes
on the site and it grows. The auto parts man does nothing to enhance his
product. In my writeup that is in your packet that I provided Jo Ann with in
terms of a better definition of our operation, every single plant this is on our
site, whether it's growing in the ground or in the pot, receives care.
Fertilization, pruning and watering and in our opinion, everything therefore is
in a growing state. Everything is continually changing. We are expending man
hours and fertilization and a lot of those expenses are changing that inventory
so it's our opinion that everything is growing. The other thing that I would
share with you...
Councilman Johnson: If you want to leave that in there, if you want to leave I
that part of this definition in there, you're opening up to argument in the
future because there's a logic to say that it was not grown on site unless it
sat in the ground. There's a logic there and all I'm saying is that if that's
what we intend, if we intend only to have something that is harvested, we ought
to say it as such. Something that is an agricultural operation. You could very
well go into an industrial park and do exactly the same. You could go into an
industrial park and within a greenhouse do exactly the same as what you're doing
out there as an industrial operation. It's a value added operation but I don't
see it as what you traditionally think of as a nursery where you're planting
something in the ground. It grows and then later on you dig it back up or repot
it but you are a value added type operation. Different than a car.
Mark VanHoef: Well I'd welcome you to cane out to the site because there is a
lot of material that is not just in pots. That is in the ground. The other
point I wanted to make and I'll reference again my write up for Jo Ann is in
1985 when we were in front of the Council when there was no "wholesale nursery"
on the books. We proceeded to have the ordinance changed. Barb Dacy put the
verbage in and then we had to apply to meet those zoning amendments. At that
time and I hope that you guys understand this, that we came in front of the
Council on an evening when we were on the agenda and I had prepared a complete
presentation on what exactly our operation was going to be. Even to the tune of
including a slide presentation from Bachman's Wholesale which is located in
Farmington, Minnesota. Maybe it was our error not to be more vigorous and more
I guess forceful in saying no, let's not table this. Let's discuss this because
at that time Mayor Hamilton says, well I don't think that's necessary. We
understand and they passed it. I agree with you wholeheartedly Mr. Johnson.
This is going to be up for review and up for discussion, then there's no sense
of us going any further until that is clarified for everyone. Fbr us and for
the Council.
Councilman Hoyt: Can I say something? '
47 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
1
Mayor Qriiel: I think maybe we're already at a point where we're just going to
belabor it.
Councilman Boyt: Well he's wrong. If you want to hear that, okay. If not,
it's up to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's take a vote on this.
Councilman Johnson: I'm the only one who's commented on this so far.
Mayor Qriiel: I think we know what the conditional use permit is and what it
' consists of and what's there. I think all this is, as we've been though here,
is more rhetoric regarding it. The applicant is in agreement with the proposed
conditions that are established. I think Mr. Finger is in the position of, I
don't know if he's happy or not but I think he's in agreement with what's here
because I did discuss it with him.
I Councilman Johnson: I just heard the applicant say he doesn't want to do it now
unless we clear up this issue of the definition. I think Bill has something to
say about that too.
IIMayor Qrtiel: Okay. Bill, go ahead.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, this is real short. The Planning Commission Minutes of
January 23, 1985. Your business was described in detail and I can understand
why the Council wouldn't need to go through that twice since they read it so I
don't know where Roger came up with that this wasn't discussed but it was
certainly discussed in the Planning Commission in which you said, your activity
would be limited to selling to licensed nurserymen and not to the general
public, and I assume you're doing that and to me that makes it a wholesale
nursery. That's just a very simple definition. As to whether they're growing
II it in the ground or out of the ground, you said we'll have a greenhouse. We'll
propagate, clip, root and plant outside. Now I assume you're doing that.
1 Mark VanHoef: We have not put a greenhouse up at this point.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. So maybe you're not doing quite what you described you
do when you got the conditional use permit but you certainly did describe it and
so I take issue with the position that the City Council didn't know what you
were putting in there. I think they did know because you described it. That's
what I assume you're doing and I don't have any difficulties approving this
I but I think we've defined what wholesale nursery is and if you're selling to
licensed nurserymen, that's wholesale nursery.
Mayor Qmiel: Okay, is there a motion?
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to add just a couple of quick points.
I don't know how wrong Jay really is. I wouldn't call it growing myself. I'd
call it maintaining until I could sell it. I think by allowing that into the
wholesale nursery, you're not taking into account the traffic because if they're
just sitting, growing and maybe that's an oversight from the previous Council.
If they're just growing, that seems like a pretty peaceful place to me. If
they're caning in by the flatbed load, you're adding to the activity. Probably
by 50 times. That I guess is just one major concern of mine, the site plan.
11 48
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
11
Can they go out of this site plan? Can anybody go outside of a site plan
basically? 1
Paul Krauss: No.
Councilman Workman: Have they gone outside of their site plan from original to
other? Basically we're just kicking the walls out. So in other words,
basically they can go outside their site plan.
Jo Ann Olsen: They still have to go through the whole process. '
Councilman Workman: I know but why? Because if they can still go out of it and
then we have to explain it and everything else, I needn't have had this
probably. That's where I get excited. Again, when I think about a nursery and
I understand. Grocery wholesaling is groceries coming in, groceries going out
so if you look at this situation like that, they're definitely wholesaling but I
think we've got a gap there.
Councilman Boyt: They're only harvesting in the spring and fall. '
Councilman Workman: They're only harvesting in the spring and fall. Does that
mean they're not hauling in trees?
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you working in the wintertime?
Mark VanHoef: No we're not. ,
Councilman Workman: Are you selling shrubs and bushes all during the scrmer?
Mark VanHoef: Yes we are. 1
Councilman workman: So they're coming in and out all summer.
Mark VanHoef: The question that I think references on that...the talk on
machinery and the answer with harvesting our field operation. All harvesting is
done in the spring and fall when plant material is dormant and they're out
actually digging the plants out of the ground, which according to the packet,
when you break down the site, we have about 15 to 17 acres in plant production
which would be harvested in the spring and fall but the potted material that
we're talking about right now, that material is grown from spring to freezing.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I had a question and I argued with Mr. Finger
about this for quite a while. That was that, and I wanted to find out, that I
once you have your site plan approved, can you never, ever expand?
Jo Ann Olsen: You just have to go through the process again and get permission
to do that but yes, you can expand.
CDuncilwanan Dimler: Okay, but isn't that what they're doing. Isn't that what
they're applying for?
Jo Ann Olsen: They had it prior to receiving that approval.
Councilman Johnson: So are we prosecuting? I
49
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
11
Paul Krauss: There's no question that they exceeded the allowable use on that
site but you tonight here are part of the punitive action. You can very well
deny them for these past transgressions.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess being in the agricultural business ourselves I can
understand why, you know we grow sweet corn and we run out or our next planting
isn't ready, customers still want it so what we have to do is buy it from
someone else and bring it in. I can understand that if they are selling x
number of shrubs that aren't ready to go, where they would have to bring in
plants to fill the orders. I don't think it's our intent to, at least it isn't
mine to be dictatorial and say that every plant that is sold out of there has to
be grown in the ground right there. It's never been my intent to restrict
business expansion either. I think we need to have businesses that are making a
profit and I think Mr. Finger's concerns have been very well addressed by both
staff and by the willingness of the nursery to go along with it and I think that
we've got a real workable solution here to the problem. I don't want to approve
revocation of this.
Mayor Chmiel: Just make a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll make a motion that we do not revoke the conditional
use permit of Northwest Wholesale Nursery and that we approve the staff report
and the recce mendations that staff has made to rectify the situation.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? I'll second
it.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Jo Ann, is the current use of the property
larger than it was when it was approved in 1985?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: So one possibility tonight is we could quite easily not expand
the permit they were originally granted.
' Jo Ann Olsen: That's a whole separate that they'll be coming back
Pa process g
through.
Councilman Boyt: Right but I'm just, so as far as we can say. Okay, we're not
going to revoke it but at the same time, we could give them indication that we
11 may be asking then to go back to their 1985 proposal.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we want them to rectify their situation as well. I
don't think we want to deny them that opportunity.
Mayor Clmiel: TO proceed with their proposed expansion.
1 Councilman Johnson: Proceed with their application.
Councilman Workman: Paul, you had said on the phone that basically we had 3
points. Basic points. One, this Council is now aware of a problem that exists
which is good. Two, we're going to get some financial guarantees. On
specifically what?
50
i
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Paul Krauss: On correcting the drainage improvements, paving the driveway and
creating the berm and planting the trees along the TH 101 elevation.
Councilman Workman: And then 3? We've got a date certain which is what? ,
Paul Krauss: June 1st. If we don't have satisfaction with these things by
then, which includes bringing the site plan into compliance. Going through the
process. Getting approval of whatever they need to. If we don't have
compliance by then, we would anticipate bringing it right back to you and we're
back to the revocation again.
Councilman Workman: Could it be assumed that since activity would now be ,I
diminished for the industry, June 1st or May 15th, or just prior so they would
have some pretty good activity just prior to June 1st and we should be sitting
fairly quiet for this at this time?
Paul Krauss: I would believe so.
Councilman Workman: Is that shade structure being in back?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. I
Councilman Workman: Because didn't we ask them with same teeth to move that
back with the Council last year or a year ago?
Jo Ann Olsen: That was when I started the whole process. We let them keep it
there because it was such a hot, dry summer and they needed it to protect the
plans so we allowed them to keep it there with the condition that they would
make application for the conditional use permit for expansion along with the
variance if they were not going to set it back. And that did get going and then
it was tabled. We feel that we are moving ahead with it now and we do have the
teeth.
Councilman Boyt: Is there anything in this, in our approval tonight that would
be construed as a permission to expand their operation beyond what we approved
in 1985?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's just saying that you don't want to revoke the conditional
use permit.
Paul Krauss: We did ask however that they give us our ultimate development
scenario so you could see it and know what they're going to be coming in with.
But it was for information purposes only.
Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying basically there should be another condition '
onto this? Is that what you're saying?
Councilman Johnson: Under what authority are we asking for this $10,000.00
letter of credit?
Paul Krauss: As a conditional use you can establish, you've got sane lattitude
in establishing.)
51 1
11
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
I
Councilman Johnson: We're not establishing conditions. We did that in 1985.
We're now considering revocation.
Paul Krauss: Then you're amending the conditions of approval if you approve it
' the way the recommendation was structured.
Councilman Johnson: It's not before us to amend. The application's not before
us to amend the conditional use permit. We're saying here tonight that we're
not amending the conditional use permit. We're just not revoking it but we're
expecting than to case in with an application to amend it. As part of the
revocation hearing, I guess it could be a negotiated point that they agree to a
letter of credit.
Councilman Boyt: Aren't we saying Jay we're going to revoke this unless you do
the following? Don't we have the right to say that?
Councilman Johnson: I don't know.
Councilman Boyt: We do have the right to say that?
Councilman Johnson: Okay.
Councilman Boyt: Is that okay?
Councilman Johnson: As long as we have that authority. I just wanted to make
sure we had same kind of authority behind us to say this.
Jim Parker: I'm the fella who drew the site plan. I'm Jim Parker with Advance
Surveying and I think, as I sensed the needs of my client and why they were
preparing the site plan they were two fold. One was to address the problems.
The drainage problem. The shade structure. Screening the operation better.
Those kinds of concerns. The wetland. But the other side of it was that they
N wanted to know where they stood. In other words, they did want to lay out their
plans for the future and find that these were either(a) , acceptable or (b) , not
acceptable because then taken as a whole picture, they could either continue
I with their operation or they might say well, this operation can't be continued.
So I think they need a resolution of it as a package. I think that's what they
were looking for and it's why, it's what the staff wanted. They wanted to see
the future plans and so on.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right but that doesn't have anything to do with tonight's action.
II Jim Parker: Alright. I'm just saying what their position was as I understood
it. I'm saying I think they want to lay that forward and get it resolved so
they knew what they were going to have to do to comply and what they would be
1 allowed to do in the future and I think they did intend to follow up with a
subsequent submission for a new conditional use permit that would get a plan
developed that they could follow to avoid a problem in the future.
IIMayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor. Is there going to be an
additional condition contained within here? Is that what you're saying? If so,
please provide it.
52
_
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I think we talked about adding a condition that their use
would not be expanded beyond the 1985 without application being made for another
conditional use permit.
Councilman Johnson: That's condition 2.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's in there.
Councilman Boyt: Well if it's in there, we're covered as far as I can figure
out. Don, if you think we've left something out, then I'd be open to others.
Mayor Chmiel: I think you've got it right here. I
Councilman Johnson: The letter of credit not's in the conditions.
Mayor Chniel: The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by
the City Engineer and Planning Director to insure. That's item 4.
Councilman Johnson: I'm sorry, that's 4. I was looking for the $10,000.00. I
Mayor Qmiel: And it also covers the non-conforming shade structure by June 1,
1990.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's all in there, really.
Mayor Qmiel: Everything's in here as far as I can tell. '
Councilwoman Dimler: It's in there. Let's move it.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Cxmiel seconded to deny the consideration for
revocation of Conditional Use Permit #85-1 for Northwest Nursery Wholesale with
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall redirect runoff from the nursery by using one of the
alternatives shown on the drainage plans as shown on Sheet 4 of the plans
dated September 27, 1989 and approved by MnDot and City Engineer by June 1,
1990.
2. The applicant shall proceed immediately with the application for expansion
of the 1985 conditional use permit for the wholesale nursery and proceed
with the application for wetland alteration for existing filling and
proposed filling adjacent to the wetlands and receive such permits by June
1, 1990.
3. By October 4, 1989, the applicant shall install Type III erosion control
between the berm and holding area in the southeast corner of the nursery
site to prevent runoff and sedimentation from entering adjacent properties.
4. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City '
Engineer and Planning Director to ensure the drainage improvements and
proposed landscaping is completed.
53 1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
I
5. The applicant shall remove the existing non-conforming shade structure by
June 1, 1990.
All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
I
Mayor C oriel: Tam, do you want to state your reason why?
' Councilman Workman: We weren't going to just give somebody a little addition to
their house.
Councilman Johnson: We didn't give than anything here.
Councilman Workman: I know. They took it. You can't make comments to my
comment.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
RECONSIDER RECYCLING CONTRACT, MAYOR CHMIEL.
Mayor C3viiel: We had a vote on this particular decision at our last council
meeting which was a 3 to 2 to discontinue the contract with Waste Mangement. I
had sane discussions with Lynn the latter part of last week regarding what can
we do and how can we continue on with what we have going with our recycling
contract. Our major concern was that I didn't want to see this stopped even
though Council's decision was such and ask Lynn had mentioned the fact that
possibly there were sane things that could be done. Of course, I asked her
before that is there sane way a pencil could be sharpened and I thought she came
up with sane fairly decent ideas for us to hopefully reconsider if the
opposition who made the motion to deny were to entertain that. What it was,
II maybe Lynn you could just short of hit on it and I'll just mention it. What she
mentioned at the time was to keep the price where it is now at $.87 through
1989. Is that correct? Then in January 1 of 1990, increase that from January
through June to $1.35 and July through December at a $1.60. I've had same
discussions with the Commissioner Al Klingelhutz from the County in respect to
potentially what we could look from the County to provide to us in the amount of
a contribution because of the dollars that they'll acquire through the new
omnibus tax bill of the 6% increase on garbage which the County would be getting
approximately numbers $325,000.00. Of this I was asking the County as far as
the City is concerned, we are here maintaining their requirements as percentages
for recycling and was asking that we be provided a minimum of at least
$40,000.00 for 1990. That's minimum as I say. Hopefully we can get more. They
have certain dollar allocations they have to expedite for different things the
County has to implement in order to have these dollars and it's so stated in the
law. I will be meeting tomorrow morning to address this before the County Board
requesting their consideration to assist us with the recycling. It will be just
on a presentation. No action will be taken. It won't be taken until that
following week so I guess that sort of summarizes it. Lynn, do you have
something more to say than that?
I Lynn Morgan: No. I would say what you described is accurate Mr. Mayor except I
would mention as well that part of what we talked about is that we would like
54
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
1
to, if the Council is agreeable to this proposal that we made, also try and
increase the value of your recycling program to the City by upping your
participation and we're willing to put sane dollars behind that effort in the
form of helping the City develop artwork for a new brochure. Helping came up
with newspaper advertisement that could run in the local newspaper and perhaps a
few other items to try to help you achieve a higher participation which I think
will make your program a better bargain for this City.
Councilman Johnson: How much of this have you already done with us as far as
helping us advertise, etc.? Providing brochures and all that stuff.
Lynn Morgan: We've done a couple of things. For example a few weeks back at
Oktoberfest, we helped the City put together the recycling display that was up
which did draw a lot of attention from people that were there. We had a
recycling truck on display. We also recently reprinted the education tags that
our drivers leave if someone has made a mistake in what they put out in their
recycling containers so that's a little bit clearer and more helpful to
residents. I'm not aware of many things beyond that right now but I haven't
been here very long. I'd like to let you know too that we figured you're
probably getting sick of me so we brought in sane reinforcements and this is
Mike Berkepeck. He is the general manager of Waste Management of Savage which
is the caupany that actually comes in and services Chanhassen. Mike, I'd ask
you. Are you aware of any other public relation efforts? Okay.
Councilman Johnson: See that was one of the original things as I remember it
when we were selecting Waste Management is that they're going to help us with
all this advertising over the small guy who wasn't going to do this. I'm just
trying to find out, this is the second time that's been promised basically. I
was just trying to find out the first promise is kept before we got smiling
about the second one.
Jo Ann Olsen: The City took the initiative to have the brochure made up and
printed. Waste Management always offered to help with that and it was just '
something that I had already got started and we didn't really...
Councilman Johnson: So we just never asked than to fulfill... 1
Jo Ann Olsen: No.
Mayor Chmiel: One other thing that I forgot. I also asked the County to assist I
to participate with us for the balance of this year as well. In 1988 the County
provided us $5,000.00 to work on what we have going at that particular time for
recycling. In 1989 they provided us $95.00 so I'm hopeful to bring that up as
well to see if they would not try to assist us a little bit more to pick up the
balance that we have. Our dollars are expedited. They're gone and so
consequently we're at that particular point. I
Councilman Johnson: Don, to give you a little history on that. I believe
originally they had pranised us $10,000.00 and when they found out what we were
doing with it, they said well we promised you the money but we don't like how
you're spending it so we're only going to give you half anyway so they gave us
$5,000.00. So recycling has not, the County has not been real participatory
with us yet. I'm not holding my breath but we do get 2 county commissioners to
each of the County Solid Waste Committee meetings. Chairman of the Board gets
55
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
there. Of course they're pretty straight forward with what they're going to do
with the purse strings. They're always pulled tight.
Mayor C miel: So all I'm doing basically is trying to bring this up at this
particular time so at our October 16th meeting this can be reconsidered at that
II time but the opposition are the ones that are going to have to bring that back
up if they so desire.
ICouncilman Workman: So we're going to get $.87 per for November-December?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
ICouncilman Workman: Giaranteed?
Lynn Morgan: Yes. Our price to you will be $.87 for November and December.
IICouncilman Workman: And we still have the 30 day availability to jump ship?
ILynn Morgan: The 30 day cancellation clause?
Councilman Workman: Yes.
rLynn Morgan: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I guess nothing has changed then, at least until January.
I I'm delighted that we'd have the opportunity to again recycle. I think we have
sane very serious problems and again Bill addressed those last week about how
much it really is costing us for you to haul our newspapers away but hopefully
our recycling committee can kick in and do sane things and get same action and
maybe where the Council can all get together is go around and encourage as a
group people to recycle. That would be someplace where we could help. I would
Imove approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second.
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to discuss it a for a minute.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
ICouncilman Boyt: Now I want to be sure that what we're considering here is not
binding us in anyway fram 1990.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: No.
Councilman Johnson: No. We have to negotiate that in the next 2 months.
tLynn Morgan: I think it's a semantics issue but what we would ask is a contract
through 1990. However the question that Councilmember Workman posed was would
I we still have a 30 day cancellation clause and if that's something you want,
yes. We'll write that but I guess we would act in good faith that you wouldn't
use that to have the short term contract at a lower cost and then jump out when
the higher cost kicked in.
56
I
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Workman: But none of those 1990 costs are really locked in. I mean
we're going to see the $.87 but then it's going to go to, it could go higher or
lower than $1.35 in the first half couldn't it?
Lynn Morgan: No. We would commit to the $1.35 cost for the first half of 1990.
Councilman Workman: But there's no commitment to the last half?
Lynn Morgan: Yes. We would write that. What we want to do is to write that 1
into a contract with you so that you have sane certainity for now. I know that
this still leaves sane risk because you still need to find your long term
funding source for your recycling program but what we saw this as a way of
buying the city same time to develop the direct bill method. To develop the
County funding. To develop your long term sources for your recycling program
without damaging your recycling program by cancelling and then attempting to
restart it when you had resolved sane of these larger issues.
Councilman Workman: But we would need to know and have 1990's contract laid out
by the November 20th meeting. 1
Lynn Morgan: Why November 20th Tam?
Councilman Workman: Well for 30 days and because then we'd go into December. If 1
we didn't like what '90 looked like, we could go through December and then, I
mean that's a negative way to look at it. You know what I'm saying?
Lynn Morgan: I think so. I guess the way that you want to proceed, we'd be
open to sane discussion in that but what I would envision is that if for example
at your next meeting you were to vote to enter into a contract with Waste
Mangenent, that we would then begin to work with staff to write that contract
through 1990. Does that sound like that might work or does that not answer a
concern?
Councilman Workman: So that we wouldn't go into 1990 at all, we'd need to know
by the end of November what we are going to do for sure for 1990 because we're
not really approving that contract here and now are we?
Jo Ann Olsen: No.
Councilman Workman: Again, it rests on a whole lot of things. $40,000.00 from ,
the County isn't guaranteed. We don't have any guarantees really.
Councilman Johnson: I thought we were going to rebid service next year? 1
Councilman Boyt: Well actually I think we have to rebid service next year. I
don't think it's an option. '
Councilman Workman: When will that take place?
Councilman Boyt: It could take place anytime we want I suppose. ,
Mayor C oriel: I think we'd have to leave that to our attorneys to see that
we're meeting all of our legal obligations as well.
57
_ r
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
I
Councilman Workman: That's where if we're locking into a contract tonight I
think we've got a problem.
Councilman Boyt: Well, I think the Attorney will tell you that we've got to bid
this.
IICouncilman Johnson: Why?
Councilman Workman: It was a one year contract wasn't it?
Jo Ann Olsen: It allows you to extend it.
1 Councilman Johnson: With an extension.
Dave Harmeyer: My understanding, your taking tonight or the proposed action is
j merely to reconsider something that you did at your last meeting. That allows
you at a future date to take the next step and whatever action is necessary but
by your motion tonight you're not really doing anything except bringing back
I before you the opportunity to reconsider it. Whether or not advertisement is
leaglly required or not, I guess I would request that I be given a chance, at
least for me to discuss it with Roger and look into it and came back with an
opinion.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Well I'll put it in a different light. That makes a
lot of sense. 'Ib enter into a $67,000.00, potentially a $67,000.00 contract
II without looking for other bidders is something that I don't want to do
personally. I think that another thing that the recycling committee talked
about and we should be prepared to do is fund this sane other way than out of
I the general fund. If we're going to do this, then we should be looking at some
sort of a charge, a recycling charge if you will, for the households in
Chanhassen. That's one way to fund it that fits direct for the service received
but if we're going to sit here in good faith and say that we don't think that
we've got $67,000.00 or $27,000.00 to spend on this, then we're kind of wasting
everybody's time to pursue this further.
Mayor Cxmiel: I don't know if we're wasting everybody's time Bill but we don't
know the total amount of dollars that will be allocated but we should have a
pretty good handle on that within a short period of time if we can get a
I commitment from the County and that's the part that we may find out by tomorrow.
At least an inkle.
Councilman Boyt: I appreciate the work you've done on this. There's no
i question that you've made progress in this area Don and if by voting to
reconsider we buy another couple weeks for this thing to work itself out, then I
guess we haven't lost anything but I think when we take that next vote, we have
II to have.a lot of information we don't have now, in good faith for me to change
my vote.
ICouncil' znan Dimler: Right now all we're doing is reconsidering.
Councilman Boyt: Which is fine.
Mayor Ctmiel: We have a motion and a second to reconsider it at our October
16th meeting which is our budget meeting.
58
r
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to reconsider the 1
Recycling Contract with Waste Management at the October 16, 1989 City Council
meeting. A11 voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: The next item that I had to discuss was the vacancy of Dave
Headla from the Planning Commission. I'd like to say thank you to David for
serving that amount of time and donating all the time that he has to the City.
It takes a lot away from people's business and their evenings as well and it
really is appreciated. I would think that what we should do with this vacancy
is go through the process as we have with sane of these to advertise this
vacancy in the paper and review the candidates and go from there.
Councilman Boyt: I would ream-nend that we also give David the Maple Leaf
Award. I think anybody that serves out a term.
Mayor Chmiel: That's an automatic.
Councilman Boyt: It's good to hear you say that.
Councilman Johnson: His term expires the end of the year? ,
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: Dale Geving's term, as long as we're talking about, his ,
term expires on the Southwest Metro Transit. He's not shown up for the last
upteen meetings. I'm not sure if he made the last one because I was with you at
the Southwest...so I think we should advertise Dale's position for another
commissioner on the Southwest Metro Transit. The other thing we need to double
check on that is whether we're going to get the random, the commission is
composed of 2 members from every city and then I forget, every so often each
city has a third member. I think we're up next for that third member. I'm not
sure because 1990 so there may be 2 slots open for this city in 1990.
Mayor Chmiel: But what we should do is just advertise for the one and if that ,
does cane available then we'll do it again.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, if we have additional applicants. The previous '
Council's position was that members of the Council should be on the commission.
Primarily the commission composed of members of the Council with the exception
of I believe only 2 people who are no longer on the Council. One, he was on the
Council and his term expired. He didn't run for re-election. The other was the
third person from Chaska.
Mayor Chmiel: What days are those Jay? '
Councilman Johnson: Those are Thursday nights. On the third Thursday. I think
it's the third. When's our solid waste? ,
Mayor Chmiel: We had that on the 28th.
Councilman Johnson: So it's the fourth Thursday then. '
59 1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Mayor Chniel: Yep. You're right. It would be the fourth Thursday if that's
what you're saying.
Councilman Johnson: Because we usually have our solid waste meeting on the
third Thursday and the reason it conflicted was because we moved it this one
month to the fourth. So it'd be the fourth Thursday of each month but that
could change in January because it changed last January. We used to do it the
II second Thursday and we changed it to the fourth. But historically it's always
been on a Thursday. I'd like to get more bus riders on it.
Mayor Chniel: Okay. The next item, Flontier Homes. I guess we've already
addressed that. I didn't put it on here but everyone has a copy of the letter
I that's addressed from Teton Lane requesting the closure of the thru traffic.
Lake Lucy access.
Councilman Boyt: In the Actin Pack is a letter that says the DNR will pay for
that access if we put it in the Greenwood Shores Park. I think that that should
be on an upcoming agenda.
' Mayor Chmiel: Where are we at?
Councilman Boyt: I don't know. Two thirds the way through the pack I guess or
maybe a third of the way through the pack. It's a letter addressed to you Don
dated the 12th of September. Department of Natural Resources would agree to
design, construct and pay for an access on the southeast side of the lake in the
city park. The access would contain four car-trailer spaces and they're saying
it's temporary. So they'll put an access in and they're willing to put all that
money in there and then they'll let us put it somewhere else.
Mayor Ciiel: I've never seen a temporary.
Councilman Workman: Isn't that beach temporary down there?
Mayor Cmiel: Yep.
1 Councilman Boyt iell I'm not saying, it's whether it s temporary or permanent, I'm
just saying, the DNR is saying they're willing to spend same money in our city
to do something that would cost the city a great deal of money to do and I think
we ought to talk about it.
Councilman Johnson: In addition there's also the DNR, the MPCA said there's the
i possibility that if the City paid for the treatment but then EPA, Mr. Rogers
with EPA and the EPA neighborhood, or Roberts. Mr. Robert's neighborhood over
there in Chicago, said no but it seemed to an initial reaction. Initial
reaction in DNR was no. Initial in MPCA was no. We've turned those two around.
II We haven't talked to Rogers yet. Roberts. I think if he was a Presbyterian
minister he'd be easier to work with. Mr. Rogers is.
II Councilman Boyt: You're in his ballgame, maybe you'll give him a call. He's
convinced me through the press that that money's gone. That's too bad. I think
the City did everything they could do.
IICouncilman Johnson: If the money's gone, why are we looking to put in a boat
access then?
60
1 -
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Mayor Cvmiel: We don't have to really then.
Councilman Boyt: Well it's not a matter of having to. It's a matter of this is
something that I would think the City would want an access on that lake
eventually. The DNR's going to pay for it, we ought to look at it. 1
Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure that we do.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'm not sure that I do either. '
Councilman Johnson: Not all lakes deserve an access. Same lakes deserve to be
protected. We protect wetlands but on that particular lake, I'm not sure if I
want to put a couple more boats on there. The policy of putting an access on
every lake, I don't think is a good environmentally sound policy personally.
That's one of these little small, very shallow lakes that canoes don't bother me
but boats and motors, they can cause more damage to Lake Ann from stirring up
the bottom of that lake and then...
Councilman Boyt: We're not talking Lake Ann. ,
Councilman Johnson: I know. It's Lake Lucy but Lake Lucy is the top of the
chain. The damage you do to Lucy, you do to the rest of the chain. ,
Councilman Boyt: If the Council doesn't want to talk about this, then let's
drop it. If they do, let's put it on a future agenda.
Councilman Johnson: If the money's still alive, we should talk about it. See
I've heard that the money's probably not alive but I haven't seen the funeral
yet.
Mayor Ctimiel: I'd like to just add something to that. I'm hopeful that maybe
for some of the things of getting that aeration going with that into Lake Lucy
as well as potential of maybe killing the lake. I'm not sure about that yet.
After I read sane of these things on the poison pond. i guess what I'm trying
to do is to see if I can acquire some additional dollars whereby maybe the City
won't have to pay those dollars. I'm thinking a private source and more after
Wednesday I'll probably have a little better idea.
Councilman Boyt: Well, while we're doing this, I'd like to see this thing put 1
on a future, say the next agenda and if in the meantime we find out enough to
decide it's a dead issue, then pull it off. What's the thought of the Council
on that? '
Councilman Johnson: If it's an option, it should be made aware to the public
that it's an option that's going to be considered. I can guarantee you how full
this roam is going to be if it's considered.
Councilman Boyt: I'm not looking forward to that. I just think it's something,
if it's out there we should talk about it.
Councilman Johnson: Sure. You've got face tough issues head on.
61 1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Don Ashworth: One of the reasons Staff hasn't brought this back is there's been
a number of issues through the process as to what did or would do or wouldn't do
and even this notice came late in terms of I think the decisions had already
been made at the federal level. We can put the item onto the agenda but again,
I'm just wondering if. Isn't really the first issue to try and find out whether
or not the thing is alive or dead? Won't your decision be different depending
on whether or not the grant is alive or not or would you still pursue the boat
access if the grant is dead?
Councilman Boyt: I don't know. I might. It depends on what's going with it.
If the DNR is going to say we still have an interest. We're going to resubmit
that proposal to clean up the chain of lakes now that you've got a boat access
on each lake, yeah. I'd be interested. They're not saying one way or the other
now.
Councilman Workman: Nobody's taking into account how it's going to affect that
park. They're talking about putting an access in there and then eveything else
disappears.
' Councilman Johnson: I've said it before. You're not going to bring boats and
trailers down that road on that curve and everything. It's just one of the most
ludicrous places for a boat access personally. There's other more expensive
I/ places for boat accesses if you want to put it on there. That's not the kind of
traffic I want to see going into that type of park and neighborhood. I'm all
for putting still 4 parking spots in that neighborhood but I'm not for putting
boats and trailers in there. I have no problem with a couple cars and 3 parking
spots and a handicap spot for that little park but I do have a problem with 4
boat and trailers and the removal of trees.
Don Ashworth: I would suggest placing onto the agenda for 2 weeks from today
the issue as to whether or not funding is still viable or not and have the
decision at that point in time being one of whether or not you wish to advertise
and have onto the agenda pursuing the Greenwood Shores boat access.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, last item for me.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Next item that you have is Pleasant View. Speed.
Councilman Boyt: Speed patrol and I would like to see the City Council discuss
the speed at which we want traffic citations written.
Councilman Workman: On this road?
Councilman Boyt: On this road but generally any residential road. We had a
traffic study. It's in the admin pack.
Mayor Chmiel: One ticket was issued.
Councilman Boyt: No tickers were issued.
IIMayor Chmiel: One ticket.
62
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Where?
Mayor Chmiel: 42 mph.
Councilman Boyt: 42 mph in a 25 zone. I
Mayor Chmiel: The others were 30 and 32.
Councilman Boyt: And 36. I
Councilman Johnson: There was a 36 and no ticket was issued?
Councilman Boyt: There was a 36 and no ticket issued. There's two issues. I've
already discussed these with Jim. One of them is, if we're going to have a
traffic assessment done, I'd like to see the speeds written down for each car
that goes through that check as one officer did. Then I think the City Council
and we have talked about this at the Public Safety Commission and I will tell
you that I've gotten nowhere with the discussion so I'm bringing it to the City
Council after they've talked about it. That is that I believe that the City
should establish what we want enforced in our speed regulations. I'm frankly
very disappointed that an officer would sit there and watch a car go through at
36 mph in a 25 zone and not write a ticket but I would like to see the Council I
decide if they think that's accurate or if they think that I'm just being overly
restrictive. So if we could put this on a future agenda. Have Jim prepare
something. Maybe Al Wallin wants to came in and say something. I think we
ought to publicly discuss that issue.
ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: I
Don Ashworth: I simply wanted to alert the City Council that a counter
proposal, not counter proposal. Pauls' have met the requirements set by the
City Council from this last meeting and I will be asking the Mayor and do I ask
myself, to sign the purchase agreement. The City Attorney is in the process of
reviewing that document. Making sure that it is in accordance but they have
came back with the $100,000.00 threshhold that the City Council had set and the
other conditions of the temporary storage and I think that was it.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30
p.m.. I
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
i
63
R II
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 23, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman and
Councilwoman Dimler
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Johnson
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann
Olsen, Todd Gerhardt, Lori Sietsema, and Jim Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Coun i w
c 1 aton Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda amended as follows: Mayor Chmiel moved item 8 to the public
hearings after item 3; Councilman Boyt deleted item 12(d) ; and Councilman
Workman wanted to discuss sponsoring an ordinance banning cigarette vending
machines in the city of Chanhassen under Council Presentations. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dirtier moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recormendations:
c. Approve Development Contract for Cedar Heights Addition, Kelly Bosworth.
e. Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids for 1989
Sewer Rehabilitation Program.
g. Establish In-Service Date for Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain Improvement
Project 88-25.
' m. Approval of Accounts.
' n. City Council Minutes dated October 2, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes dated October 4, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 10, 1989
' o. Final Plat Approval, Ches Mar Farm 2nd Addition.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. PETITION TO ESTABLISH SCHOOL ZONE ON TH 101 IN FRONT OF ST. HUBERT'S SCHOOL.
Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled this one. I do agree that we should establish a
school zone on Th 101 in front of St. Hubert's School but I pulled it also, I
checked with Jim Chaffee today asking if that a school zone establishment
includes stop signs and he said not necessarily so. I do believe I have
requests from a lot of the residents that live on Great Plains and also on
Frontier that we re-establish 3 stop signs there. Make it a 3 way stop where it
11 used to be a 4-way. I'm wondering, as long as we have to contact+MnDot on this,
1
• , City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
school zone. Like I said, I agree with the school zone establishment but I
thought as long as you're talking to MnDot, let's do that at the same time.
Gary Warren: We'll send a separate letter to Bill Katz requesting a second look
at the stop sign.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Thank you. That was all.
Councilman Boyt: Are you going to move approval?
' Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of item (b) with the additional agreement.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the petition
to establish a school zone on TH 101 in front of St. Hubert's School and to
' direct staff to contact MnDot regarding installation of a stop sign at that
location. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
H. AUTHORIZE INSPECTION STUDY FOR REHABILITATION OF MURRY HILL WATER TOWER.
Councilman Workman: Gary, I'm sorry I didn't get to talk to you today. I think
' we both waved at each other as we were running. This would appear to be
something that we should rebid. Can you explain why maybe we aren't.
Gary Warren: Excuse me.
Councilman Workman: Isn't this something that we should rebid?
Gary Warren: Professional services?
Councilman Workman: Yeah.
' Gary Warren: The actual rehabilitation work will be bid, that's correct.
Councilman Workman: What are we paying for now?
Gary Warren: We're paying for now what's the equivalent of a feasibility study.
An inspection report of the tower similar to what we did of the downtown tower.
' To have an estimate of what type of repairs specifically need to be done to the
tower and updated cost estimate of the repairs. AEC is sort of a specialist in
this field and we're very satisfied with the work that they've done. There
' aren't really many firms that do this because they get in a rubber raft and
float down as the water's being taken out of the tank and inspect the inside.
Councilman Workman: And the cost of that inspection's going to be about
$1,000.00?
Gary Warren: I believe he had $1,800.00. If we can do it in one day which is
our intent here.
Councilman Workman: Okay, I see it. I thought we were going ahead with the
1 3
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
•
t
whole thing and you were suggesting that we go ahead with that company to do the r
whole thing. That was my misunderstanding. '
Gary Warren: No, it would just be for the feasibility study and then after that
we would have a handle on the plans and specifications which would take a
separate authorization.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: I had one other question on that. Can that be done in that one
day rather than incorporating another $800.00 charge?
Gary Warren: It's a matter of hydraulics. The Murray Hill tower being in a
high pressure zone doesn't always drain out in one day. It will depend on the
system pressures at the time. We'11 do it as fast as we can but it may take 2
days at the maximum. '
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to authorize inspection
study for rehabilitation of Murray Hill water tower. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
J. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A BANK AND OFFICE BUILDING, NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARKET
BOULEVARD AND WEST 79TH STREET, CROSSROADS NATIONAL BANK.
Councilman Boyt: I will start this by apologizing to the group that brought it
in. They asked me to call if I had questions and I just got so busy I didn't
have time to get back to them. Reading through, this is the Crossroads National
Bank. My problem here is understanding the nature of the temporary building.
I think that it's one thing to have a temporary building while they're building
the permanent building but as I read through the Minutes of the Planning
Commission, the impression I got was a temporary building was going in and then
they were going to begin pursuing the permanent structure. I'm uncomfortable
with that arrangement. Maybe they can clear some things up about it. Are you
open to hearing from them? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Tom Mork: Good evening Mr. Boyt. I'm Tom Mork and we visited over the phone '
briefly. In actual fact, as I understand it, we are here tonight to gain a
building permit approval for both our permanent building and our modular
building inasmuch as we are well underway in terms of getting our bank
organized. We have received charter approval from the office of the comptroller
of currency. We are currently awaiting approval of our holding company from the
Federal Reserve Bank. Our strategy in beginning in a modular building was to
essentially give ourselves some time to establish ourselves as a business
entity. To establish systems. TO get our staff up and running. To get a
marketing presence in the community and it is our intent to begin construction
on the permanent building just as soon as we possibly can. Hopefully in 1990 but
in reviewing the process and in getting to this point, we spent a lot of time
talking to a lot of bankers, both in this metropolitan area and even as far
south as St. Louis where there has been a lot of denoteable bank charter
activity in the past 24 months approximately. To make a determination for
4 11
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
ourselves that such an undertaking is not marketing suicide to open up in a
modular building and we have been assured and reassured by everybody that we
talked to that it is a smart strategy. It gives you a chance to establish your
presence and that is one of the principle reasons why we would like to start in
' a modular building. It is not our intent and in actual fact we run the risk of
forfeiture of the land through our purchase agreement with the HRA if we do not
begin construction and complete construction of the building within I believe a
2 year time frame although we'd certainly hope to initiate construction prior to
that.
Councilman Boyt: So you're buying the land from the HRA?
' Tom Mork: Correct.
' Councilman Boyt: And you're paying them about how much?
Tan Mork: $4.50 a square foot.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. And that's up front money?
Tan Mork: Up front money meaning? That's with all the improvements in.
Councilman Boyt: As soon as you sign the deal with the HRA you're giving that
$4.00 and something a foot?
Tom Mork: We have already negotiated a purchase agreement that has been signed.
It was actually signed back in May and under the terms of the purchase agreement
there's a one year window to effect closing of the property.
Councilman Boyt: Well you're investing a considerably amount of money in this
temporary structure. I think it was something like $200,000.00?
Torn Mork: That's correct. That's what our initial estimates are.
Councilman Boyt: That includes I imagine the asphalt and that sort of thing?
Tam Mork: Correct. All of the grading. The asphalt. Sewer and water
installation. Lighting and so on.
' Councilman Boyt: See, what I see you doing. What makes me uncomfortable is I
sort of see this as you just described it. As a test marketing situation.
When I think of temporary bank buildings, they're usually associated with
existing banks that have an equity situation in which there's no question the
building's going in. When I see discussions about potentially 2 years from now
and understanding that it's conceiveable that 2 years from now you could just
' start construction or 2 years from now you could core back in and negotiate with
the HRA to get an extension, I think it'd be much more typical if your modular
building went in at the point at which you were beginning construction on your
permanent building. I don't know. Does anyone else on the Council have that
concern?
Tom Mork: I guess I would like to add that in terms of how it has been done in
the past, I can point to a number of examples in the metro area in the last 10
years that have actually spent up to the first 18 months of their existence in a
5
II
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
modular building and I think, I want to be careful that we differentiate between
talking about test marketing and establishing a marketing presence. In actual
fact we have gone through a number of microscopes to get this far_, not the least
of which has been approval of an overall marketing plan by both the Comptroller
of Currency currently being scrutinized by the Federal Reserve Bank and also
more importantly to us, the investing public to which we are selling stock in
our bank. So I want to make certain that it's understood that we are not
embarking on a test marketing case. We just hope to establish a marketing
presence and turn our attention to issues which we feel at this time are
incredibly important such as establishing our operating systems. Developing
presence in the market place. Establishing a loan portfolio. Developing a
deposit base so that we have a stable enterprise. We will open the bank with no
less than 2.5 million dollars in capital so I don't believe we can be classified
as an organization that doesn't have the capital as some other banks that have
used a modular building as an expansion vehicle for example so I want to make
certain that it's understood that we are not an undercapitalized bank by any
stretch of the imagination. I believe the other bank in Chanhassen has f
approximately the same level of capital after 70 years in existence so we're
opening up with the same level of equity capital or approximately the same as
the existing bank in Chanhassen.
Councilman Boyt: Are you in partnership with another. bank? I
Tom Mork: No we're not. It's an independent group of organizers. There's no
legal or ownership affiliation with any existing bank holding company.
Councilman Boyt: So now you're starting?
Tom Mork: That's correct. 1
Councilman Boyt: With your modular building and 2.5 million in capital?
Tom Mork: That's correct.
Councilman Workman: Tom if I could maybe add to some of Bill's comments and
maybe what he's getting at a little bit. The HRA agreement is basically, you
term it basically a window or window of opportunity. Basically you're not going
to be closing on this property until the permanent facility is ready to go.
Tom Mork: No, that's not correct. We will close on the property prior to next
May. We will be closing on the property prior to construction of the permanent
building. 1
Councilman Workman: Can you maybe explain to Council the amendment that you're
proposing?
Tom Mork: Certainly. Under the existing purchase agreement we have, well let
me back up a little bit. We would like to install the physical improvements to
the site for a modular building at a minimum no later than this fall inasmuch as
we feel that as a result of our capitalization efforts, our hiring efforts, our
development of the marketing plan, we should be open for business sometime in
early 1990. Frankly we hoped we would be ready for business by the end of 1989
but as I found out from talking to other bankers that have done the same thing
that I'm doing, there seems to be no end to some of the delays that you
6 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Si•
encounter. However, to this point we have been unable to close on the property
for any number of reasons and what we have requested is an amendment to the
purchase agreement that would essentially allow us access to the site,
completely at our risk, to enable us to go on and make whatever physical
' improvements we need to make in order to accommodate our modular building.
Principally that would involve some grading according to an approved grading
plan. The installation of utilities to the modular bank site. The installation'
of lighting in the parking lot. Paving the parking lot and the construction of
a foundation for the modular building and ultimately the installation of the
modular building when it's delivered, hopefully as of now in the middle of
January or early January. Our sense is that if we're not able to complete the
' improvements, particularly the paving, within approximately the next 30 days or
at least no later than the end of November, then we will be forced to open the
bank sometime after the frost is out in 1990. Keep in mind that we have been
' undertaking our capitalization efforts now for approximately 60 days. We have a
number of people who have paid in considerably sums. I think the paper quoted
about a million and a half dollars and that's what we have paid in so far. That
potential delay presents some significant difficulties as far as we're concerned_
' in dealing with our potential investor base so that's the reason for the
amendment is to accommodate those site improvements.
' Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions Tom?
Councilman Workman: No, I don't.
' Councilman Boyt: How would this be different than saying to some other business
in town you can open up a Quonset hut and run your business out of it until
you've got everything in place to build the permanent structure that we've
' approved? Is this somehow different than that?
Tom Mork: Well I guess I come at it from a biased viewpoint but I believe it
' is. I believe for one thing the opportunity to have a new business in town with
the level of capital that we intend to bring, that we will bring, is in itself
somewhat unique. I furthermore believe that the addition of a commercial bank
to this marketplace is an enhancement to the consumers in this area. I note
with interest that already prior to our even opening the doors, the other bank
in Chanhassen has expanded it's hours from 3:00 lobby hours to 4:30 and
introduced full service Saturday morning banking. We expect that the addition
' of ourselves in the marketplace will just do nothing more but further enhance
the banking climate for consumers in the Chanhassen area. Furthermore, this is
not a Quonset hut. This is a building that is built by the Sun Corporation
' which for the last 18 years has done nothing but construct permanent modular
banking facilities. Currently for example Norwest Corporation has installed a
building for one of their branch facilities on a permanent basis up in Anoka.
' While the renderings that you may have seen I don't think do justice to the
building, when we're talking about total cost of improvements of an excess of
$200,000.00, I don't think that that represents an insignificant level of
investment on our part to satisfy our needs on an interim basis.
Councilman Boyt: Everything's relative and I didn't mean to imply that your
building was going to be a Quonset hut. You're talking about building a
' permanent structure that's around 2 million dollars so a considerably greater
investment than what you're going to have in the temporary sturcture, which I
guess is pretty natural. I think the Council, hopefully the other people on the
1
i
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
,mot
Council are going to be convinced that we're not sitting in a situation in which
this group of investors is trying out Chanhassen to see if a bank will work
because we're now, shortly later in this meeting we're going to be looking at a
shopping center which is talking about a significantly greater investment than
the bank is and I guess without having them here, I'm just curious as to how
they feel about having a temporary bank structure just down the block and across
the street. I don't know. I'm rambling so I guess I'm done.
Mayor Ctmtiel: There were some concerns I had too Bill about that modular
building. My main concern was whether or not it was in compliance with the
State of Minnesota requirements for a temporary structure and whether it did
have the state of approval by the State and it does so that made me feel a
little more comfortable with it. I also feel that sage of the concerns that
Bill has had has been some of my concerns. One basically is to the construction
start and they're saying it's being just a little bit of an open period of time
as we discussed the situation. I feel that the bank, with all intent, plans on
starting construction I would just as soon see that construction start as early
as possible. I'm sure you'd welcome that as well.
Tom Mork: Absolutely. I think all of us involved in the bank are very
reasonable people and certainly recognize the impact of competition. It would
not be to our favor when our principle competition in the community is the
resident of approximately a 2 mullion dollar facility, for us to remain in this
modular facility for any longer than we absolutely need to until we have our
permanent home built for us. I guess if I could just convent on the impact of
the neighborhood and some of the concerns that Mr. Boyt, you voiced. I think
one of the things that has to be considered is that it would be incredibly
difficult for a supermarket to operate out of a modular building just because
their spacial needs are considerably greater. We can as a result of a growing
and initially a zero customer base and a growing customer base, begin in a
modular building because we don't have those kinds of space needs. But
hopefully our growth will be a level that all of us expect it to and we'll be
forced to start construction as soon as the frost is out. I guess if I can give
you my convitment that it is not in our intent to be in this building any longer
than we absolutely need to.
Councilman Boyt: What would happen if your customer base didn't build? Then
are you still going to go ahead and build the permanent structure?
Ton Mork: Well, I would say that certainly we can't expect to be at home in a
temporary building or modular building forever. In actual fact, we have to
construct our permanent building within I believe it's a 2 year timeframe with
our agreement with the HRA or we forfeit the land. Someone else can cane in and
develop a bank on that site so we absolutely will construct the permanent
building under the conditions of the purchase agreement. I don't think there's
any question about that. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Tam, I have a question. It was my understanding that you
were going to build around the modular facility? '
Tam Mork: Correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could you explain that? It doesn't look like it to me. 1
8 11
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Tom Mork: We're intending to locate the modular building on the eastern portion
of the site. The bulk of the construction activity will be in the central and
western portion of the site and what we have attempted to do is locate the
' modular building in a fashion such that we can accommodate continuing drive up
traffic through our modular building at the same time that we're building.
I Councilwoman Dimler_: While you're constructing but after your construction,
what are you going to do with your modular?
Toni Mork: It will be down within a week after we receive our certificate of
occupancy. I believe the Planning Commission further put in the condition that
it would be no later than 9 months after the issuance of the building permit for
the permanent building and that's a time table that we can certainly live with.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I misunderstood you then because when I asked that
question to you the other day, I thought that you were going to incorporate it
into your...+ day,
' Tom Mork: No. Absolutely not. That will be Pa
reen space when it's all done.
9
Mayor C oriel: Any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: Can anybody think of a way to add anymore assurance to this
' list of conditions? Axe�you�going to have, if worse goes to worse and you do in
fact not build, how much money do you have in this piece of property 2 years
from now? You've got the $200,000.00 for improvements. Do you have anything
else in it?
' Tom Mork: Well at that point we would have closed on the property and I believe
that the aggregate purchase price is $4.50 times whatever the amount of land is.
It's approximately 110,000 square feet.
Todd Gerhardt: $470,000.00.
' Councilman Boyt: So your expenses and liability then would be somewhere around
$700,000.00 total?
Todd Gerhardt: He's incurred architectural fees and rendering, a site plan so.
Councilman Boyt: Well that's a ballpark figure Todd? $700,000.00?
Todd Gerhardt: Minimum.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I can live with that sort of risk. I would approval
of item 1(j) with the conditions noted in the staff report.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Site Plan #89-6
' for Crossroads National Bank as shown on the plan dated September 22, 1989
pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
I
9
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
K. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A CHUCH (ASSEMBLIES OF GOD) TO BE LOCATED IN THE UPPER
LEVEL OF BLOOMBERG'S DINNER THEATRE BUILDING, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES.
Councilman Boyt: ...in which we've said that we've changed that zone
restriction. Given all the discussion we had this spring about churches and
taking taxable land off the docket so to speak. Off our ability to tax it, I -
think there's a very good reason for not having churches in the central business .,
district and that is that that is our most tax expensive land in the city. I'm
concerned that we're creating sort of an opportunity if you will for that to be
challenged successfully.
Mayor C hmiel: Basically what you're saying is that the church could after a
period of time. ..that property in that particular district. I don't know if
that's the intent of the church. What I viewed here is that they're looking for
a temporary facility. Temporary sometimes becomes permanent I realize.
Councilman Boyt: As I mentioned, I agree with what we're trying to do. I just,
if the result of that was that a church could then buy that piece of property
and would in fact take it off the tax rolls. I think that's an awfully
expensive sacrifice for the City to make.
Councilman Workman: Is that a condition?
Councilman Boyt: Well I don't know how we could. I guess I'm open for
suggestions.
Councilwoman Dimler: Maybe I could comment on that. The way I see it, it was a
short term, 18 month lease with the possible extension for 12 months to follow
and also that it would not be considered a church but a cultural facility and
are cultural facilities tax exempt or did they intend to be tax exempt?
Councilman Boyt: I would venture that there's no chance in the world that this
is a cultural facility. They're defined as a church by the State and we're not
going to change that definition.
Don Ashworth: The only thing I would point to is the property is owned by
Bloomberg Companies. Their lease arrangement from the church between Bloomberg
Companies.
Councilwoman Dimler: And they don't pay taxes? ,
Don Ashworth: No, just the opposite. They would have to pay taxes. Roger, can
a church lease the property and then turn around and seek exemption? I find
that difficult to believe that they could.
Roger Knutson: As I think this Council is gaining tremendous expertise in this
area, there are two requirements. It has to be owned by the church and used for
a church function.
Don AShworth: And they do not meet number one. '
Roger Knutson: If they had a 100 year lease, I think we'd look at it
differently but a short term lease, I would not think that is an issue.
10 11
. City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Councilman Boyt: So from a leasing standpoint, we're alright. Once we've given
I permission to a church to be in that zone, to function in that central business
district, then can we exclude other businesses from using that zone?
' Councilwoman Dimler: Not from leasing.
Councilman Boyt: Well from owning. What our zoning ordinance says is here are
the things that you can do in this zone and by implication the things that you
cannot do. What we're doing is we're saying okay, you can do this there. I'm
looking for an answer for how we can allow the church to lease this piece of
property without saying that we have now permitted churches to operate in the
central business district when we don't want them. I don't want them to take
that property off the tax rolls. In this instance wouldn't. I don't want to
open the door so that another group can come in and buy one of Brad's retail
operations and begin operating a church out of it.
Roger Knutson: Two points. First, an economic point. The CBD area is very
expensive. I think for that reason you very seldom find churches in central
' business areas because of the cost. You do. There are churches in downtown
Minneapolis obviously but not very often just because of the cost factor. One
possibility, and I don't know where this is at, is that there is an ordinance I
believe before the Planning Commission.
Paul Krauss: In process.
Roger Knutson: In process, which will implement the new State legislation
authorizing what I would call temporary conditional use permits. They call them
interim use permits but temporary conditional use permits. You could look at
that way of handling it as well if you wanted to or you could look at it this
way. You're right. If you interpret cultural, what's the word Paul? Cultural
centers to mean churches, that's your decision. For this church you can't tell
the next church that comes down the pike that no, you aren't a cultural center.
IYou should be consistent.
Councilman Workman: So what are you saying?
' Roger Knutson: So I'm saying...
Councilwoman Dimler: Go with a temporary conditional use.
Roger Knutson: If you call this one a cultural center, then the next church
that comes along is a cultural center. My own reaction probably is you're not
going to see many of them because of the economics and an alternative way of
handling it is to wait for your temporary conditional use ordinance to make it's
way after it's been digested by staff and Planning Commission.
' Councilwoman Dimler: How long is that going to be?
' Paul Krauss: Given the time needed to get it on an agenda, get it through the
Planning Commission and City Council, have an ordinance become effective,
probably 3 to 4 months I would think.
Councilman Workman: Can't we add one of the conditions that one, this is a
lease arrangement and that makes it different versus owning or buying?
11 11
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Likewise, number two, thou shall not buy church property in our business
district. 1
Mayor Chmiel: You're shaking your head no. What I'm thinking too is can't we
someway indicate with a time limitation be used for that facility?
Roger Knutson: Those are good points but your ordinance doesn't make those
distinctions. You could make that distinction by ordinance. You have that far
to do that. Your present ordinance does not make that distinction. If it is a
cultural center and you determine it is a cultural center, I can't say a
cultural center is something that only lasts 18 months.
Mayor Chmiel: True. J '
Roger Knutson: It only has a lease.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe there's a way to do this. Let's refer the site plan
review back to staff and in the meantime let them operate until this gets
resolved. That means over the next 3 months this temporary conditional use
permit thing gets smoothed out. Worked through us. We pass it. Then the site
plan review comes up for approval or denial. In the meantime staff is working
on it and they can function.
Paul Krauss: One of the things we were using the site plan review to ensure was
that the building is brought up to Building Code requirements. There is an
increased occupancy there. We believe the owner has shown some desire to do
whatever is needed but what we propose is that a new CO be required for this
use. We would lose that mechanism unless some sort of an approval was given
tonight. They would still have to bring the building into compliance. It just '
wouldn't be as backed up as it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask another question. Is anyone here from the Assemblies
of God?
Councilman Boyt: They're trusting in us. Well, I think we can do that. I
think that any building that's occupied in the City has got to be safe so we
have the right to go in and insist upon that whether we have a site plan review
or not.
Councilwoman Dimler: Maybe we should ask Public Safety. Is there adequate '
escape in case of fire?
Mayor Chmiel: They're putting in another staircase from my understanding. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: I know but with his plan they would be occupying it before
we did the site plan review. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think they can occupy it until once it's completed as far
as I'm concerned.
Paul Krauss: There may be adequate controls. They do have to bring the
building into compliance. This was just a nice strong firm mechanism.
Councilwoman Dimler: There are two ways to get out of there right now?
12 1
• City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1 y
1 Paul Krauss: Yeah. They're building a second staircase.
Don Ashworth: I think at issue though, at least from the owner's standpoint.
1 Bringing it into compliance, what we have to realize is the amount of occupancy
is a key factor in the building code so if you're going to allow or have a
portion of a structure housing 100 or 200 people, the improvements that you
would have to make to that building are significantly different than if there's
' simply 1 or 2 people who may be housed in that building. The question coming
back to the owner could very well be one of should I expend the $20,000.00, I
don't know what the amount is, if I don't know that I'm going to be allowed that
higher occupancy level. I think if I could ask Roger one question. In Paul's
definition in looking at this as a cultural activity, he looked at it as though
it was a lot different than a typical church. In other words, they were not
looking to the cross on the outside. I think there was a number of factors that
a permanent facility would not, that this facility would not require is a
temporary type of a condition. Am I not correct Paul?
' Paul Krauss: Yes. That's basically correct and it goes back to the ordinance's
definition of what constitutes a church which is quite lengthy but basically
says a church means a building or edifice consecrated to religious worship.
That's the traditional church sort of occupancy. We tried to draw a distinction
between renting space in an office building and the traditional church with a
separate...
Don Ashworth: The point there Roger is can we not put further into writing so
that we do not end up with a precedent situation? We may have a precedent
situation if somebody else in the future comes along and wants to lease under
' similar conditions as this church is right now. But if another church came
along who wanted a permanent facility with the traditional markings, etc. going
along with the church, that would be significantly different. My point there is
can we not just simply document the file to take and show what Paul's basis is
and thereby issue the permit as it's been presented?
Roger Knutson: Yes and as a follow up you might even go further and refine your
1 definition of what a cultural center is to make it abundantly clear that this is
what you intended. Yes. The answer is yes.
Don Ashworth: Then I would suggest that the Council act to pass this with the
understanding that the church would be allowed as a lease type of facility with
staff directed to draft that definition of what a cultural center is and return
1 it to your agenda for November so that you could finally agree or basically
adopt the definition that Paul would come back with. That would give the owner
the assurances he was looking for and I think relieve Roger's problems.
Councilman Boyt: I think that's the craziest idea I've heard in months. You're
going to say to me that we can now define what a church is after what we went
through last spring? I can't believe it.
1 Don Ashworth: We're not defining church. We're defining what is a cultural
center.
Councilman Boyt: Well you're telling me a church as defined in our ordinance
is, what was that?
13
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Paul Krauss: A building or edifice consecrated to religious worship. I
Councilman Boyt: And you're going to say that the cultural thing isn't going to
be that. Boy, I'd vote against that just to stay out of trying to define the
difference as you've laid it out. There ought to be a better way to get at it
than having to say that a church is a cultural center but a cultural center
isn't a church.
Don Ashworth: But a church is a structure and this is not a structure. The
structure is already there. It's only a question as to what are the activities
that are occurring inside of it. '
Councilman Workman: Would an ultimate worry Bill be that the owner of the Riv
or the Dinner Theatre would leave and sell it to the church and then we'd have a
church somewhere downtown like that?
Councilman Boyt: I don't want to see any of that central business district
taken off the tax rolls. If we can figure out a way to guarantee that, this is '
a great idea.
Councilwoman Dimler: What about the lease agreement? Don't you think that that
guarantees that?
Councilman Bost: I think the next church that comes in and wants to buy it can
then buy it. +They'll just say we're a cultural activity and we're not going to
put up a traditional church so we're in.
Councilwoman Dimler: The seller then has the ability to sell it to them too
right?
Councilman Boyt: Well sure. Anyway, I think that we can accomplish this by 11 just sending it back and letting them come back when we've got a temporary
conditional use permit. Then we haven't set any precedent. We haven't changed
a definition for anything.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm trying to digest basically the intent of what you have. The
other concern I had basically with this district is the availability of parking
within that area too. Of what days that they're going to utilize that facility
in conjunction with the business people who will need those spaces for their
customers coming in. That's another thing that I had thought about. But as I
read this, it indicated in here that at the point where the congregation does
not exist but is hoped that they will have time to grow to 50 to 75 people in
the first year. Additional growth potential is indicated in an earlier phone
conversation. It's indicated the church is negotiating a short term, 18 month
lease with the possible extension for 12 months to follow. Also in hexe they '
indicated something to the fact that once they have obtained that 80 number, of
which is all that can be housed within that area, they just automatically will
have to move.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the 80 number is generated by our Public Safety people.
80 would be all that would be allowed in that room at any one time. If they
wanted to exceed that, the way the conditions the Planning Commission
established are, is that they would have to crane back for site plan approval.
14 '
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
They would also have to lease additional space.
Mayor Oriel: Right. And does existing space that's there now, can that be
incorporated into it or do they have the additional space adjacent to where
they're at now?
Paul Krauss: Yes, I believe they do.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I don't think that approving this gives us anything
that we don't have by tabling it and I would suggest that we table this for 3
' months unless that proves to be a problem to the church itself.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and there's no one here to.. .
' Councilwoman Dimler: Paul, do you know their timeline?
Paul Krauss: In speaking to them, in fact we got them on this agenda because
they wanted to accelerate their ability to enter into an agreement and occupy
the building. I know that they would like to do that as quickly as possible.
Councilman Boyt: They can do it. They can go right ahead and occupy it. It's
just that we're not giving them a conditional use permit. We're reviewing that.
In the meantime they can do anything they want there as long as it's legal.
Mayor Chmiel: With those ramifications with what Bill's saying Roger, can we do
that part of that? In other words, let them occupy the building. Within 90
days then view the plan and have that as a temporary conditional use within that
facility or within that district?
Roger Knutson: Depending on the timeline to getting that ordinance up to you,
it could be in granting it, yes it could be a temporary conditional use in 90
days or 120. Whatever the timeline would be.
Councilman Boyt: So all the public safety stipulations are still there. We
haven't ignored those or set those aside. To move into that building, they have
to have a second entrance and the other appropriate situations but as far as us
giving official approval to it, we're saying, I would recormend that we table
' that until we have the tools that we need to act appropriately. Does that make
sense to everyone?
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you comfortable with that?
Paul Krauss: Well, I would depend on our City Attorney for some advice on that.
The reason we originally thought of a creative way of doing this is because the
ordinance didn't really specifically allow it. When the building department
first came to us, we said well I don't think you can do it and then we looked at
it a little more closely and said well maybe there is a way. I think if you
11 strictly interpret the ordinance as I would prefer to do in the absence of
having some direction from the City Council, then I'd be somewhat relunctant to
allow it. It means don't look at the ordinance right now. They're there. I
would defer that decision though to Roger.
Councilwoman Dimler: The temporary conditional use permit, is that going to be,
how do you feel about that? Is that going to be acceptable that we would be
I
15
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
allowing this church at that time?
Paul Krauss: Weil depending on how that's written you could allow anything ,
reasonably anywhere for a period of time. Now we'd probably want to have some
limitations on it so, our whole rationale for doing this is that this is
somewhat similar to a cultural facility. The ordinance would probably be '
structured so it had some similarity to other permitted or conditional uses,
then we'd recommend that you look at a temporary conditional use. So yeah,
theoretically it could well work out.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dirtier: I kind of hate to leave it hanging. I guess I agree with '
Paul that I'd like to have something concrete for them to move in there on.
Councilman Workman: You're not worried about setting a precedence? I
Councilwoman Dimler: Not really because the only precedence we'd be setting is
that they have to come in under a lease agreement. 1
Councilman Boyt: I think that when we allow a use, we allow a use. Whether
it's a lease or ownership or whatever, we've never differentiated that in any
other zone. It's been a matter of can you do that particular activity in that
zone.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well if that they use that as an example, we'll say and ,
that was a lease agreement and you can have a lease agreement.
Councilman Workman: If we're not setting a precedence and we're not hurting
anything, they can occupy the church, why not wait?
Mayor Chr'iiel: You're in agreement of tabling is what you're saying Tom?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. We're still allowing them to use it. They're still 11
going ahead and using it so it's just a matter of a technicality.
Roger Knutson: ...you have staff's interpretation of the ordinance that this is '
a cultural center and staff saying go ahead and do it. What will happen, you
will not have endorsed it or rejected it.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would move that we table item 1(k) .
Councilwoman Dirtier: Let me get this clear now. By tabling it we're calling it
a cultural center?
Roger Knutson: No, you're not calling it anything. You're just tabling it.. .
interpretation of the ordinance.
Councilman Workman: I'd second the motion.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the site plan review
for a church, (Assemblies of God) to be located in the upper level of
Bloomberg's Dinner Theatre building. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
16 1
1
' City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
VISITOR PRESENTATION: There were no visitor presentations.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER LAND SALE FOR A PORTION OF MURRY HILL WATER TOWER
SITE, GIL KREIDBERG.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Gil Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road
Wayne Fransdal 6200 Murray Hill Road
Don Kelly 2081 West 65th Street
Terry Atherton 2082 West 65th Street
Don Ashworth: Why don't I start it out and then Gary will finish. This item
was tabled on September 25th to allow for this public hearing. Notices were
sent out. City Council previously did consider this. There were questions
brought out at the last meeting regarding sale of public property. Is there a
requirement for lowest bid. The answer there is no. There are a number of
considerations that must be looked at by a City Council and State Statute
recognizes that. The sale process question is one that staff feels badly about
because we felt that we had entered this item at the direction of City Council
to meet with some of the neighbors when there was concern with the Ostrom
development and that's basically how this entire process got started.
Culminating with again some concerns by the neighborhood that potentially the
City might sell a part of that property in the future and to stem off that
concern if the city would look to a sale of part of the property to Mr.
Kreidberg with certain conditions to ensure that the large stand of trees that
were up there would stay. That a trail would be put in. That the City would
still maintain a driveway into the property for access to our water tower but
that none of those activities would be interferred with in terms of potentially
having a single family home there. Again, we had looked at it as though it was
a win-win situation for both the neighborhood and for the city. Again, one of
the primary concerns of the neighborhood was to be able to get from Murray Hill
Road over to the school and part of the agreement was taking the dollars that
would be received from the sale itself and building the driveway and the trail
with those dollars and again reserving enough area to ensure that that trail
would be built. Staff continues to believe that that is a recommendation which
provides benefit to both the City and to the neighborhood. Gary, did you wish
to add anything?
Gary Warren: No. Mr. Kreidberg is here and I think this matter has carried on
for quite a while. I think in good intentions on all parties here to try to
address sort of a complex issue that may be up front doesn't appear or shouldn't
appear to be this complex but I appreciate the efforts that Gil has had in
actually coordinating and dealing with a lot of the neighbors in Pleasant Hill
here to keep them abreast of some of our activities here. I think the proposal
here meets the interest of Gil. I think addresses as best we can at this time
' the trail issue and also the needs that the City has as far as wanting the
auxiallary access to the water tower site from the east across our property.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this issue?
I
17
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Don Kelly: My name is Don Kelly. I live at 2081 West 65th Street. My property
is immediately east of the Ostrom development. I'm concerned with what Mr.
Ashworth says because he said that the primary purpose is to provide access to
the school from Murray Hill Road. That means that we're dealing with access for 11 a limited number of people here. One of the main concerns here, I talked to Mr.
Ashworth about this on September 26th is that we're providing access to the
school for among others, the 6 homes that were built in the Ostrom development.
8 years ago I appeared before a body with different faces and supported Mr.
Ostrom's subdivision, the way he wanted to do it. The way he wanted to plot it.
The way he wanted to bring the road in. The way he wanted to sewer it and there
was one issue that I brought up at that time that was important to me and that
was that the development not cut off access to the school from my neighborhood.
When I moved into my home in 1977, I had no children but I looked out the window
and I saw that we had junior high students at that time that were walking
through my yard to get to the school. At that time we kind of reorganized
things and I asked the people to walk through a different area of my yard and
for several years we had junior high students, joggers, people wandering over to
play tennis, going through the woods at that time to get to the school. When
Mr. Ostrom developed the property, he agreed to include a pedestrian easement.
The pedestrian easement, perhaps you can show us Gary. Can you show us where, I
think my house is green on there right now and the pedestrian easement goes down
the west side of my property. That's right, and over to the school immediately
after his development was agreed upon. By the way, the Council directed staff
to follow through on the pedestrian easement and get it included so it was
included in his development agreement. As soon as that was firmed up, my
neighbor across the street and I paid the legal fees to have a pedestrian
easement across my property to Mr. Ostrom's property. We dedicated the
easement, the cul-de-sac on our street because I don't know if you can see on
there. Most maps indicated that the street goes right up to the Ostrom
development but it actually has been...
Gary Warren: Yes it does. The right-of-way goes right up to the Ostrom ,
development.
Don Kelly: I didn't get my money's worth then. There's been a cul-de-sac '
dedicated and the right-of-way has been abandoned.
Gary Warren: The half section shows a 60 foot right-of-way that goes up to the
back end of the Ostrom development. Now the half sections, there may have been
a vacation since that time.
Don Kelly: That's what I'm saying. At the time of the Ostrom development about 1
September 21, 1982, the City Council did approve the partial vacation of West
65th Street and anyway there's a 22 foot utility pedestrian easement along the
watermain across my property and then the cul-de-sac was dedicated so the I
right-of-way doesn't go up to that property line anymore.
Gary Warren: The utility easement does. I
Don Kelly: That's correct okay? And the utility easement is on the south side
of the street. What appears here to be the street. In any case, we arranged
for a pedestrian trail for the neighborhood up to that line. We're now talking
about a pedestrian trail going from Murray Hill to the school and there's a
18 1
r
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
' mussing link in there. The pedestrian trail that Mr. Ostrom was to provide
through his development was not deeded. He did not pursue it and the City staff
did not follow through on it. My understanding when I talked to Mr. Warren a
year and a half ago was that Lot 6 on that development still had not been sold
and that they would not permit Mx. Ostrom to sell it until the issue of the
pedestrian path had been resolved. I don't know exactly, was that lot sold
without encumbrances?
Gary Warren: We recorded the development contract against the lot. The
development contract had not been recorded prior to that time so our action,
' once this was brought to our attention, was to record it against that lot and at
that time the conditions of the agreement unfortunately did not reflect
specifically Lot 6 as you addressed earlier. The actual configuration for the
' easement addressed in the development contract was for the trail around the
southerly perimeter of the subdivision so as it related to encumbering Lot 6, we
couldn't hold it hostage to get something that had already been released so to °
speak.
11 Don Kelly: Okay, I don't know what a development contract means. A contract to
me means an agreement between parties with certain recourse if the agreed upon
things are not met. It would seem to me that Mr. Ostrom is responsible for
providing a pedestrian trail that goes from the street on which I live to the
school. If that trail is provided across Lot 6, that's perfectly convenient.
Unfortunately, well first of all I think with regards to the matter you're
looking at tonight, I would like to see the entire trail issue covered as a
whole matter rather than consider the trail through the water tower as one
little piece and then bring up this other issue at a different time. I'd also
' think that it would be convenient to use the money from the sale of that
property to cover some of the expense of any acquisition costs that are required
for the trail going all the way through. It would seem to me that it's
' Mr. Ostrom's responsibility to provide a trail through that property and that
it's the City's responsibility to ensure that the things that we were promised 8
years ago and have been promised with frequent conversations with city staff
over the intervening time, actually happen. Thank you.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address the issue?
Terry Atherton: My name is Terry Atherton and I live at 2082 West 65th Street.
I live across the street from Don Kelly and my children are grown up so I don't
have as large a stake in this as he has but I've been at many council meetings
that Don has testified to and most of the things that he has said I've known
first hand also as far as the development on the west side of our property. So
I do feel that the Council should listen to what Don has said because I
basically will someday be selling my home and if same new people move into it
with children, they certainly would want access to the school. Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: Mx. Mayor, can we get Lori's corments on this trail? I think
it was a pretty hot item about a year and a half ago. Maybe you remember how it
worked itself into it's current situation?
Lori Sietsema: As Gary said, because all of the lots were sold before the
easement was recorded, deeded over to the City, we didn't have a willing
seller...
19
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
11
Councilman Boyt: As I remember the situation, it had something to do with one
of the lot owners, maybe Lot 5 or Lot 4, had built a fence and that fence was
where the trail was supposed to be and so then, when it came in and there was
some discussion I recall about I think that lot owner had talked to Bill Monk
about where the trail is supposed to go.
Gil Kreidberg: That's correct and there were some differences at that time. ,
That was Mr. Boudrie who you were referring to and that is correct.
Councilman Boyt: Didn't that get resolved? I mean didn't we talk about putting I
the trail down someone's driveway or something?
Gil Kreidberg: My name is Gil Kreidberg. I reside at 6444 Murray Hill Road. '
That is correct Bill and what has happened and Don's aware of this. There is a
pathway between Don's yard and Mr. Boudrie's property which they put some bark
chips down. It may not be part of the Chanhassen trail system but it does
accommodate anybody who wants to walk through there. The missing link has been
the access once they get to Murray Hill to get back to the school. The proposed
transaction discussed here this evening will eliminate that issue. What they've
been doing now is walking across the City's property when they cut down the
barbed wire fence that was there but this way you'll have a nice roadway in
which to walk though so I think that people, while they may be part of the
sanctioned Chanhassen trail system, are not...from being able to walk inbetween
the houses, Mr. Boudrie's home to Murray Hill and then back to the school.
Councilman Boyt: Could you show that up on the map here? 1
Don Kelly: It's the dark stripe.
Gil Kreidberg: This is Mr. Kelly's lot right? I
Don Kelly: Right.
Gil Kreidberg: Right in here Mr. Boudrie's fence runs sort of on the inside
here and then he put barkchips down along here up to where his driveway begins
and he has no problem with people coming right through here to Murray Hill. All
they do is go here and then they'll go down there.
Don Kelly: Okay, there is a utility easement. The water line was looped
through the area that Mr. Kreidberg was just showing us and there is a utility
easement on that property line. Mr. Boudrie has put a fence approximately on
his property line so the bark chips are actually on Lot 6 and the kids trot down
the bark chips and then when they get down to Boudrie's driveway, they walk down '
the driveway. It's fine access. We don't have a problem with that access. My
son goes to school that way every day. I know do have kids that go through
there and will for quite a number of years. The problem is that Mr. Boudrie has
said that that path is, he's quite comfortable with my kids and his kids using
that path but he doesn't want it to became a general public path. On that we
kind of differ because I feel that if other families move into our neighborhood
that have children, that I can't tell them that hey, his kids and my kids can
walk through my yard but your kids can't. Also, if he sells his house, he might
sell it to someone who might say that my kids can't walk through there because
as long as there's no easement across there for pedestrians, we don't have a
path to the school.
20 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
Councilman Boyt: So what you're proposing is that the City buy that easement.
Is that accurate?
Don Kelly: I think you'd find that challenging but yeah, that would be great.
Councilman Boyt: Does anyone recall, I'm not the best source for information
about this but I recall that there was quite a discussion with Mr. Ostrom a year
and a half ago about how this was going to be resolved and I thought that the
City Council gave the direction to get it resolved. So I guess I'm a little
surprised that in the meantime it hasn't been. My memory may be selective here.
' Does anybody know more about this?
Gary Warren: I guess I could offer qualifying my memory as you have and maybe
Roger can throw in a few cents here is that yeah, there was direction to pursue
the easement and internally we did, through the help of Tim Berg from Roger's
office, initiate contacts with Mr. Ostrom to indicate that the City intended to
have him make good on his obligations under the development contract and that we
' were willing to pursue that. I think it was after that contact that Mr. Ostrom
then got to the Pleasant Hill neighbors and indicated to them the situation and
made allegations that it was the City's responsibilty and because the City
hadn't pursued getting the easement, therefore it wasn't his fault and sort of
deflecting it back to the City's problem and then concluding that you folks
don't want the easement anyway or words to that effect. I think it's true that
people that we've dealt within the neighborhood there said hey, we moved in here
' with the understanding that there wasn't an easement req►.iired and therefore we
don't want the value of our properties depleated because of an easement going in
there. So we ran up against that and then there was a subsequent Council
meeting where it came back and I think those neighbors pleaded their case with
the council saying great, we understand you want a trail but sort of not in my
backyard type of philosophy. So we were faced then with, the Council I guess
was faced with then pursuing the easement or the conditions of the development
contract by basically one or two ways. They're sort of related. One was to
condemn the easement which was going to be quite upsetting I think to the
residents there and also to pursue legal action with Mr. Ostrom to reimburse the
City for the cost related to that. It was in that area that basically we
started talking about other alternatives. One, we opened up the fence on the
City's property along Murray Hill Road which relieved a lot of the pressue and
' in the interest from having Cardinal Lane and such, get through the City
property to the school so that addressed some of the interest there from the
neighbors to the north and I think has been a good solution there. Plus with
the willingness of Mr. Boudrie to allow the use of the common lot line there as
a trail as it already has been, people were getting through so we at that time,
it was concluded I guess not to pursue Mr. Ostrom or the condemnation of the
easement because that was not going to be palatable to the existing residents so
' that's, I know I rambled there but that's some of the highlights that I recall
on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who like to address this?
Wayne Fransdal: My name is Wayne Fransdal, 6200 Murray Hill Road. I guess at
this point in time I have no concerns about the same of the property if the City
Council and staff are convinced and the studies have been done that this
property is indeed surplus, there's no future use for the property and it has no
' 21
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
value for the City in any of their plans. The only concern that I have is that
the trailway in the future that is built is in fact a true trailway. Has access
through that kids can get their bicycles through without having theoretically
being able to get through it or practically not being able to get through it.
That there is thru access and there is a path and a gateway that they can get
their bicycles through. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Is there anyone else who would
like to address the issue? 1
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, do you have something? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, do I. I guess I was relieved to hear Wayne say that
he has no objections to the sale. I guess my concern is too that the trailway
that is there must be a true trailway and have true access and I don't know how
we're going to go about assuring that. I wish somebody, maybe Roger could
address that. Is there someway we can assure that that remains to be a true
access for the children to get to school?
Roger Knutson: The purchase agreement says it and it's going to be the City's
trail so you're guaranteeing it. '
Councilwoman Dimler: We are guaranteeing it?
Roger Knutson: As long as you're sitting here you can make sure it happens. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Well that's good news.
Don Kelly: Did you mean the entire trail or just the water tower portion?
Roger Knutson: The water tower portion is all I'm talking about. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, your concern was that the entire trail be a true
access. Well that was my question. How do we guarantee that it remains a true
trail? Do we have anyway of doing that?
Roger Knutson: As far as this particular piece of property goes, 6(a) of your
purchase agreement says you're going to do it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. But I mean the other portion. We can't really
guarantee it? ,
Roger Knutson: You don't own it.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's not ours to decide. '
I
22
11
• City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
Mayor Chmiel: I think something like that would have to be worked out with the
residents and staff at this time along the 65th Street portion and not just
verbalness but to have it done.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Other than that I think it's a good agreement. I think the
City gains. I think Mr. Kreidberg gains and I think if we have the access
there, that the neighbors gain as well.
Councilman Workman: Hadn't we decided that there was going to be a fence across
there? Is there going to be a fence across there? Maybe the access for this
parcel could be somehow notify the neighbors of the design of what kind of a
' fence because if it's 10 foot wide and we're going to still have trucks getting
through there?
Roger Knutson: 6(b) of your purchase agreement, pargraph 6(b) says it's going
to be a controlled access gate.
Councilman Workman: In that light then, perhaps neighborhood input once again
' be used to make a decision. There's all sorts of different ways that we can,
I mean that's pretty broad so when it comes down to bikes or whatever happens to
be at that time, that the neighborhood once again be asked. Get together with
' the neighborhood and find out what kind of a gate. I thought we had a concern
or there was a concern both by buyer and neighbors that this lot's going to
become part of your lot?
Gil Kreidberg: That is correct.
Councilman Workman: Are we going to have as a condition in here that that
realistically it becomes a part of the lot, realistically he could then
subdivide?
Mayor Chmiel: No. That's not the intent.
Gil Kreidberg: Not at all. I have no problem with incorporating it in my lot.
Councilman Workman: Is it in there?
Councilwoman Dimler: It says no home would ever be built on it.
' Councilman Workman: Where is that exactly?
Gil Kreidberg: It's in the purchase agreement.
Councilman Workman: You probably have one with more detail.
Gil Kreidberg: Yeah. Gary was very specific in laying that out.
Councilman Workman: Is that in there somewhere Gary?
Councilman Boyt: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: We discussed that I think last time.
23
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
11
Councilman Workman: When you have to read War and Peace before every Council
meeting it gets, but those are my only concerns then that that be looked at and 1
that we also look at that other. I know for at least a year now I've had people
question me about the trail situation up there in regards to the other side also
and that that be rectified and I know that we somehow, as a City, something
slipped through the cracks there and I'd like to see that rectified.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Bill?
Councilman Boyt: Well I'm for the sale. I think it clears up a lot of things
that came up a year and a half ago and it was such a relief to have Mr.
Kreidberg say that he was interested in purchasing the property so I agree. I've
thought a couple times that the trail issue was resolved. It clearly isn't and
my personal bias is I think there's a combination of former city staff and
developer that sort of each chose to interpret what they wanted to and do, in
this case, the developer did what he wanted to do and I'd like the City to
pursue that. I would move approval...
Mayor Chmiel: Can I put my two cents in? '
Councilman Boyt: Oh! I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm also in complete agreement with the sale of the property but
the position as I indicated when Ursula was talking is that the staff should
work out the problem with the residents along 65th as far as the balance of that
trail is concerned. I see no reason why we shouldn't come up with a motion at
this particular time.
Don Kelly: I'm also definitely in favor of converting this property to a nice I
taxable use and I'm all for trees and kids and things and I think that's going
to work out very nicely. But one of the issues I raised with Mr. Ashworth was
that here we have $30,000.00 of windfall revenue that is going to vanish. I
don't know exactly where it goes. In the staff's presentation it says that the
money will be used for development of the roadway and the path and so forth and
of course it's talking about the roadway and the path by the water tower. I
suggest that you amend that to leave that money available until the entire issue
of the path is decided in case there are expenses in acquiring the rest of the
path so that money can be used for the development of the path to 65th Street.
I have for 8 years been communicating with city and staff and I've been told '
that we'll get back to you and that it's going to be coming up. There will be a
hearing and we'll let you know before it happens and so forth. I don't know
exactly how to go about that.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that we can probably give that direction to staff and
possibly if you don't hear something within a very short period of time, like
within... ,
Don Ashworth: I'm not sure what's going to. What is it?
Mayor Chmiel: Make sure that you're coordinating this with the people within '
the area as to what's going to develop with the balance of that path of the
trail system that is going along the portions that were previously shown and
come up with some kind of a conclusion so that the access is there for the
utilization of everybody within that particular area I guess.
24 '
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
•
1 Don Ashworth: We would be ready to put it onto a City Council agenda within a
short period of time. What I'm hearing the Council say is that they'd like to
see staff potentially meet again with that group of owners before the thing
comes back to City Council? Again, if I'm hearing you correctly, we've been
' told by the owners of Lots 3, 4 and 5 that they will fight condemnation. The
City Attorney has advised that Ostrom was responsible to obtain those easements.
Record them and the City does have the ability to go back and seek, to obtain
the easements and then to bill Mr. Ostrom for that. A question is really
whether or not we're going to be reimbursed for that. What I'd like to be able
to do is to prepare a report, I guess I'd like to be able to meet again with the
owners out there. Explain that there is a strong possibility that the City
' would start that condemnation process and then to put the item onto a future
agenda for a decision. So I guess we'd start our informally. That should be
able to be accomplished within a 2 week period of time. Then to take and have
it back potentially to City Council within 2 weeks after that.
Mayor CI-viiel: I would hope that there would be sort of a friendly acquisition
rather than condemnation.
Don Ashworth: I don't think that would be possible.
Mayor Ch,'iiel: Okay. We have a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would you repeat the motion please?
Wayne Fransdal: If I could make one final corment. That the review of the
access for this trailway and the neighborhood input, that the neighborhood be
defined more than the 6 or 8 lots on the Ostrom development. There are other
neighbors that are equally as concerned and involved.
Councilman Boyt: I believe the motion is to approve the sale of the property
with the noted conditions. I would be open to also adding to the motion that
the $30,000.00, since that's what it is, $30,000.00 received from the sale be
expended on the property per the City Engineer's recommendation previously and
that any surplus be held until the issue of the second trail access is resolved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the sale of a
portion of the property at the Murray Hill Water Tower site to Gil Mr. Gil
Kreidberg with the condition of making such a part of his existing lot and that
' the $30,000.00 received from the sale be expended on the property per the City
Engineer's recommendation previously and any surplus be held until the issue of
the second trail access is resolved. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET
AND MARKET BOULEVARD:
' A. PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF A PORTION OF WEST 78TH STREET.
Paul Krauss: If I can address the vacation of 78th Street. It was my
understanding that we were going to do the vacation of 78th Street in
' 25
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
conjunction with the plat that we were going to process with this project.
While we have all the information we need to process the PUD, the platting
documents were unfortunately delayed so that we don't know exactly how much of
the street we'd like to vacate at this time. We've asked that you continue
action on the plat and would also ask that you continue action on the vacation
to be handled at the same time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you want us to table the segment for the public hearing
vacation of West 78th at this particular time?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Mayor C iiel: Can I have a motion?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table the public hearing
for vacation of a portion of West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
B. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The applicants are
requesting approval of a PUD to construct a 94,000 square foot shopping center
that would be anchored by a Super Value supermarket. It would also create a two
acre outlot called Outlot A that would be located within the PUD and would be
available for development in the future, although we don't have any concept for
that right now. The Council last reviewed this project on September 11th when
it received PUD concept review. Based on comments received at that stage, the
project was modified and then returned to the Planning Commission for
development stage approval. The Planning Commission reviewed the development
stage plan on September 20th. Staff had recommended approval to the Commission
subject to a lengthy list of stipulations. The most significant of which dealt
with future development on Outlot A. Restrictions on how that parcel might
develop in other words. Access issues in general and a variety of site plan
improvements. The Planning Commission generally agreed with staff's position
but indicated concerns with the project's appearance from 78th Street. They
recommended approval of the PUD with additional conditions. .. .since that
meeting the applicant has worked with staff to resolve the issues that were
raised and to reduce the number of conditions that are attached to this
proposal. The most noteable revisions are to the northern end of the PUD and
this was to respond to issues that were raised by the Planning Commission. The
vet clinic has been relocated from a central part of the site along West 78th
Street to the northwest corner of the property and the size of the shopping
center building itself has been decreased and a second free standing structure
which would house a dry cleaners is proposed along West 78th Street. Along
with architectural refinement, it's hoped that this gives more of a feel for
this CBD type of development you experience to the east on 78th Street. Those
building are oriented to the street. They're finished on all four sides and the
shopping center itself is now finished on 3 sides at the north end where it
would house a restaurant. During the process of this refinement, the gross
building square footage has been decreased slightly for the shopping center but
at the same time the size of the initial Super Market development has been
increased up to 20,000 square feet.
26 1
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
Mayor Chmiel: Can you clarify that difference that you just said? It was
decreased on the shopping center? How many square foot is that going to be?
Paul Krauss: Originally it was 99,416 square feet. It is not 94,158 so
' approximately 5,000 square feet smaller and that includes the two out buildings.
There's also a number of other modifications that were included in the plan
basically to resolve issues that had been raised by staff and the Planning
Commission. We believe that the modifications will respond well to the issues
that were raised and that the current proposal represents a high quality
project. Staff is recommending that the PUD plan be approved subject to
' appropriate conditions. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is the developer here?
' Jim Winkles: Good evening. My name is Jim Winkles and I'm part of the
development team regarding this project. With me tonight also are a couple
representatives from Amcon who are the designers of the project and we'll
actually ask Bill Brisley to cane up and kind of go through, walk you through
the project very quickly. In short, before Bill comes up, I think what I'd like
to just add to what Paul was talking about is in fact what we have been trying
to do in the last few months. We actually submitted these plans for the first
time for the Planning Commission and staff review this last summer. Actually
in July and have been working steadily with them and with the City's consultants
to make same refinements in terms of access, parking, architectural design,
' detailing of the building, the lighting, signing, just about everything that you
would imagine on a project like this we have reviewed. In fact have spent the
last couple of months just refining those and making changes that we believe now
has more or less I think incorporated everything that we've heard from everybody
along this route. We've been the HRA. We've been to the Planning Commission on
a concept basis. We've been to the Council on a concept basis and then took
everything through on a formal basis so we start at the bottom. Went up the
ladder. Came back down and started up again and we're working our way up to the
top until we are here tonight. We have in fact tried to incorporate everything
that we can think of. At the Planning Commission level, the Planning Commission
has in fact recommended approval subject to a number of conditions which are
really just relating to same things that are very standard that are put into
development agreements and we don't have a problem with that. We've been to the
' HRA last Thursday night and the HRA did approve the development contract for
this project and now our last step is here tonight. Our goal in terms of what
we've been trying to accomplished and what we talked about last Thursday night
and also in other meetings we've had here in the last few weeks is that we're
' looking for closure or a closing on this particular property around the middle
of December. That's very, very important in terms of where we're at right now.
Everything kind of backs up because we then have to get into our financing and
get that done so we can close the middle of December so we are right on track
and have been for the last few weeks and would very much I'd like to stay there.
When we talked with, when Bill comes up here, we would like to kind of go over
the conditions. In general I think that we just received the staff report with
the conditions tonight. We've been reading them and going over them. I think
in general we don't have any problem with any of the conditions with maybe one
exception and that's something that as Bill comes up here he can talk about but
it essentially involves the access to Outlot A. We've changed the road on
Outlot A to put the road, the north/south road caning inbetween the one building
27
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
and on the west side of Outlot A. There's also another access driveway on the
south side of Outlot A. Right now we just simply don't know exactly what's
going to go out on Outlot A. The only thing that we would like it to just have
the opportunity to come back when we know what that use is. To come back and
just put it in front of you and say this is the use. Now can we just talk about
that access rather than just simply shutting the door at this time without
knowing what's going to be there, we'd simply like the opportunity to cane back.
We fully understand that you might say no, we agree there shouldn't be any on
West 78th or on Market Blvd.. We understand that that might be the case but we
would like the opportunity to at least come back to this body and say this is
the use. This is what we think and this is how we think it could work. The
reason for that is because the way the access is right now and the driveways may
work fine. May absolutely have no problem with it. On the other hand, we may
find in working with the traffic engineer that maybe there's a better solution
and we don't know what that solution is right now. We'd simply like the
opportunity to came back. With that one exception, we do not have any problem
with the conditions the way it's worded in the staff report on pages 11 and 12.
We don't have any problem with the language in there. We can live with any of
that.
Mayor Chmiel: And 13.
Jim Winkles: And 13. Right. I'm sorry. And 13. Those 3 pages. The way the I
wording is on that, we can live with that. Just the one exception. We'd only
like the opportunity to come back. With that I guess I'd ask Bill to come up
and kind of walk through the plans. We certainly would try to answer any
questions that you would have. Either myself or Todd Kristoferson who's also
from Amcon or Bill or myself. Again the schedule, as Bill's coming up here,
we're looking at a closure mid-December. We would then want to start the
project just as soon as possible. There's always things you have to go through
with financing and the weather at that time of the year, towards the end of the
year can always wreck havoc on you but the idea is that we want to be in this
building, end of next summer we want to have people in this space. We do have a
couple of our people that will be going in this building present tonight that
are very interested in what happens tonight. Bernie Hanson's here. Chanhassen
Lawn and Sports who would very much like to go in this project and also Gary
Cooper from Cooper Super Value is also here too. Both of which are key people
in this project and both have a very big interest in what happens here tonight.
This is Bill Brisley with Amcon.
Bill Brisley: Good evening. Let me walk you through the building. Just talk
about what the materials are. The building massing basically is organized in a
way to minimize the negative effects of a very long building with basically the
same type of use the full length. Large anchor buildings will be 20 feet high
and pulled forward. The shorter infill buildings between the larger buildings
will be only 18 feet high and will be recessed back between 4 and 8 feet from
the larger buildings. The materials used on the larger buildings will be
cement, plaster or stucco in varying shades of light to medium gray. The
shorter infill buildings will be sided with gray wood lap siding and white trim
boards. The buildings will have 2 foot steps in elevation occurring 8 times as
it extends from north to south on the site. These steps will occur at the
transition points between the lower and higher buildings and really lend to the
variety of the massing. For a unifying effect I have given all the buildings a
2 foot high warm medium gray rock face base pediment that extends up to 4 feet
28 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
at the piers and the corners and runs around the full perimeter of all the
buildings including the two outlot buildings. Also unifying the whole is a
continuous color of burgandy coping for the top corgal course at the eave.
There will be step cordling at all the roof edges on the project. The length of
the eave will be punctuated by slight notches over the piers at the low retail
buildings and by the step gabled parapets on the anchor buildings. All shop
fronts will be articulated by individual burgandy canvas awnings at geometric
intervals between the piers. These awnings will not be the rubberized
r translucent and back lighted variety. There will be orarmentation on the
buildings in the form of stucco cannon balls center on the middle steps of the
parapets. All piers will have a blue green ceramic tile medallion centered at
10 feet high. These medallions will continue on the back of the center at the
same height and interval. At each pier you will see a burgandy goose necked
decorative light fixture with it's illumination focused downward. This same
' light fixture will also be found over each rear entry tenant door. The stucco
building fronts will be articulated with recessed panels painted darker shades
of gray to enhance their depth and sculptural impact. All shop fronts will be
clear rd l finished aluminum. The back wall of the center will be 14 foot 8
' stepping down 2 feet at the transition points. The material used will be an
alternate from smooth, light gray, single score concrete block and darker gray
rock faced block stripes and will have the same gabled parapet treatment at the
center of the anchor buildings. Again, the back wall will have the same 2 foot
and 4 foot rock face base pediment details as the front walls. The tenant rear
entry doors will be painted out, door and frame, blue green to match the ceramic
tile medallions. Please note the diamond shaped opening at the center of the
gable of the anchor tenant. Suspended into space will be brightly painted
burgandy steel tubes criss crossing the opening. At the intersection of these
tubes will be a 16 x 16 inch painted steel frame holding a medallion of similar
' ceramic tile. Somewhat visible by day through the diamond openings will be the
brighly painted undersides of the blue green steel roofing seams and burgandy
structural components of the gabled roof. The sense of drama will be heighten
at night when the inside of the gables will be glowing from uplighting within.
The effect creating sillouettes of the suspended medallions. The lowest portion
of the diamond opening will still be 5'4" off the surface of the roof providing
the necessary parapet for mechanical screening. This construction will extend
back 24 feet from the front face where it will die into a similarly detailed
stepped and gabled parapet wall of stucco. The side walls of these front
mechanical screens will be 9'4" off the roof. A similar screen at the back wall
will be 4 feet at the side walls and extend 12 feet forward into the building
terminating into another stepped and gabled parapet wall as does the front
section and will have medallions centered on the stucco and gabled area in lieu
of the diamond openings. Mechanical units on the lower retail roofs will be
kept forward in the front half of the building and will be screened by a 5 foot
parapet wall at the front. For the view from the rear, the mechanical units
will be painted light gray to match the back of the parapet walls to draw as
little attention to than as possible. The Planning Commission voiced great
concern about the end treatment of the building nearest to 78th and how we would
handle this very visible part of the center. Our solution has been to make the
front, the end and the back the same front wall design as specified on the other
parts of the frontage so that in effect that portion of the design will only
have shop front design with awnings in finished details. The vet and the
cleaners will have small buildings that will be in character with the center.
The vet building on the corner will be a brick building with asphalt shingled
roof. The rock face foundation will be the same as that used on the shopping
11 29
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 •
center. The cleaners to the east of the vet will be even more similar in design
to the shopping center. You will have the same color standing seam metal I
roofing as the gables over the anchor tenants. The walls will be detailed in
wood lap siding with white trim boards as we have done in the retail buildings.
There will also be the same rock face concrete foundation wall that is found on
all the buildings in the project. The gabled end of the false dormer to the
street side and the drive-thru canopy will be open. This is the cleaners. It
will be opened, framed to resemble the gabled design of the anchor tenants.
Window frames and doors will be the same mil finish as the center. If there's
any questions?
Councilman Boyt: Have you got any pictures of this besides this one? I
Bill Brisley: No.
Councilman Boyt: So you don't have a picture of the vet? 1
Bill Brisley: What you've been passed out. Not any renderings.
Jim Winkles: The renderings just show the rendering of the initial building...
or the expansion of the center either. For what would be expanded. That'd be
looking I guess right through one of these outlot buildings is there. In total
what we have then is a project with the main shopping center would be, as Paul
said, somewhat over 90,000 square feet in size. With the outlots, depending on
what all happens here, that would be approximately another 20,000 to 25,000
square feet of additional space so when it's all said and done, the entire
project is built out, you'll be looking at a project probably scniewhere between
110,000-120,000 square feet in size. To put that in perspective, tax wise the
initial project would probably pay a little bit over $200,000.00 worth of taxes
and all totaled, when this project is all built out, there'd probably be a total
tax on this property of between $300,000.00 and $350,000.00 a year that would be
paid once the project, the initial project plus the future outlots are
completed.
Councilman Boyt: That's not counting Outlot A right?
Jim Winkles: No. $200,000.00 would be initially but when you finish out Outlot
A and the two, initially the first 70,000 some square feet. 75,000 square feet,
is only going to be about 200,000. When you finish out everything, the entire
project, Outlot A included, you'd be up in the $300,000.00 to $350,000.00 range
for total taxes paid. Including Outlot A.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. Is there anyone who would like to address this
issue? As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would
like to indicate their concerns one way or the other? This is a public hearing.
If not, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? I
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Bill we'll start at your end.
30 i
i
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Councilman Bout: Okay. I may want mote than one opportunity here but I'll
start by saying that one of my issues that I'd like to hear more discussion
about is the part of the shopping center that faces to the west. Monterey
Drive. To me that looks like the back of a shopping center. While the
' shopping center has to have a back somewhere I supposed, except I'm quite
concerned that eventually Monterey Drive is going to have traffic to other
retail customers and I'm concerned that they're going to be driving down a
' rather long back to a building. It just seems odd to me. It's like creating an
alley. So that's one concern. I have another concern that wasn't presented
here but there in the discussion from the Planning Commission they got to
talking about the signs on this. I'm concerned when we start talking about
' letters that are 5 feet high. That's a big letter and I think it's out of
character with what we have in the rest of the city so that's another concern.
My third area of concern is anytime we have drive-thrus, I'm a little wary I
guess and I don't know that I have an excellent reason for being concerned. It's
just a red flag to me so when I see a drive thru for the dry cleaner, I just
wonder about the kinds of problems that might create. So those are my three
areas of concern. My fourth area of concern is that I think the City is, the
' Housing and Redevelopment Authority is investing a good bit of money in this and
from what I see, this is a kind of a negative tax situation. It's not
generating more than it's costing us in tax dollars in there but they have the
' whole district to deal with and I understand that. They're making a substantial
investment here and I see this as potentially costing than more in tax dollars
than this site is bringing in. So those are my four areas of which really 3,
the first three are the legitimate ones for the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Who'd like to address those particular issues that Bill has
brought up? Jim?
Jim Winkles: I'd ask Bill to come up too. Taking the first one of Monterey
Drive. That's an issue that came up repeatedly at the staff level and at the
Planning Commission level. What we have tried to do, maybe Bill can explain this
but what we're trying to do on the back side, which is the west side of this
property over there, we've taken a couple different views on this thing. The
first one is that what we have in terms of Monterey Drive is a cul-de-sac. Our
' feeling is that as a result of that, we're probably going to have very limited
traffic. It's not a thru street. It's a cul-de-sac. We have entrances off of
Monterey Drive in the back of our property that are really, we believe are going
to be used for deliveries. For employees and for other people, maybe bringing
something to the back of a Chanhassen Lawn and Sports or something like that.
We believe that's going to have rather limited traffic. We've also recognized
' that there still could be businesses over to the west and you have to be
sensitive to that so what we've tried to do, carry a lot of the same materials
around from the front, put it on the back. Take landscaping, some bermings,
things like that to create a softer image over there. It won't be nearly as
' busy as the front of the building obviously with all the customer parking but
the idea was to try to handle it architecturally with materials. Try to handle
it architecturally with plantings and berming over there. Hiding all of the
trash enclosures so you don't see those from the road. Inevitably though you
still come down to some project has to have a back. You can't just design
everything the same but we've tried to take into account that it is going to be
visible. On the northern end of the project we've actually carried some of the
window treatments, some of those other treatments around all three sides of that
northern end of the building which was something that the Planning Commission
11 31
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
was very concerned about that we do. What we've tried to say is that's the most
prominent area in the north side of the building so let's actually carry the
materials all the way around. Glass materials, the whole works there to
effectively make that look like a three sided building which it could be
depending on what tenant actually works out there. Signing, I guess I would
ask...
Councilman Boyt: Let me ask a question about that second point if I might. The
drawings that we have make it look like there's no accesses to the building from
that side. You can't have any employee parking if they don't have any way of
getting in the building can you?
Bill Brisley: There are doors. If you look at the elevations, there are doors 1
up and down the entire... All of these are doors.
Jim Winkles: There is a service door in the back for every tenant. 1
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Now that's different than this elevation.
Bill Brisley: What that is is a massing study to give, it really addresses the
roof line... This elevation is inaccurate. The elevation that we will
presently build from. That is just a massing computer study to show the roof.
On that subject I'll bring the actual drawing, they're showing it up on the
overhead. One of the things we've achieved on this back wall is we go in and
out, created these gables, created these small mechanical units and give a lot
of variety going on in the back of that building. A lot more than you'd find in
most backsides of centers. Some of the materials that we've used and the
colors, I have two colored photographs here. One is, and keep in mind that
there's not any signage which adds to the gaiety and adds to a lot of the
quality of, I might pass these around. One is the back. You almost can't tell
the difference between the two except there aren't any gables on it or there
aren't any canopies so I think we've gone to a great extent to make that back
interesting and be of some quality.
Councilman Boyt: Well I feel a little bit better about it having seen this.
What about the possibility of putting same windows in back there?
Jim Winkles: I think windows always becomes a little bit, in terms of who the
ultimate tenant becomes, in terms of what their use is and what they're going to
do. It's hard to say in terms of right now, if the tenant wanted windows and
that was necessary for his business, they would go in. One of the things that
you face with windows in the back is they can become a real security problem for
tenants. Kids can go by, rocks can get thrown, things like that and they can
become a real security problem not only for the tenants but for the police
departments so it really depends on the tenant themselves. In general we don't
want to encourage a lot of activity in the back of a building. We don't want 1
that to be a place that is welcome to a lot of people. It should be an area
that should be a little bit more secure and we don't want to encourage a lot of
activity back there. A lot of people waiting back there or anything like that.
We want to really avoid any kind of security problems. Signing, Bill can you
cane and explain the sign program? I guess the first issue in terms of the 5
foot signs. What that is is for the larger, the end cap type users,
specifically the best example being for the Super Value store itself. Many of
the particular people that will go into a center like this will have their own
32 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
type of sign criteria. Their own logos. Their own type style. Their own color
type letters that they use that is really a trademark for their particular
business. One of the things in this particular case it happens with Super Value
has a very large logo that they typically use from building to building. Same
color. Same style. It's also felt necessary here because part of the draw of
' the center is going to be towards Th 5. To get something that far away, you
want to have something of some size that is visible. They very much want a
market towards TH 5 and towards that traffic. That is the thought process
11 behind that. It's also as you see in the report, is based into the anchor type
tenants type situations so that the majority of the tenants will not have those
kind of signs. The other idea in terms of signs is that people would be able to
' use their own type style colors. That sort of thing to bring out the variety in
this particular building. I'm not sure if that was exactly, you mentioned the 5
foot signs and maybe Paul, you want to elaborate.
Councilman Boyt: Well it's not a sign. We're talking about a 5 foot letter.
Jim Winkles: Right.
Councilman Boyt: And not one letter but a series of them.
Paul Krauss: If I could respond to that a little bit. We were originally
working with a 2 foot high letter size for all the tenants exclusive of Super
Value. Super Value always had a samewhate different sign package which we knew
from the start. I received some calls from the developer asking that major
tenants be allowed to have somewhat larger signage. The 5 foot in particular
came about becaues MGM Liquors, one of the proposed tenants, and they have a
sign that is currently using that height in letters.
Councilman Boyt: In Chanhassen? The MGM store has got a 5 foot sign on it?
Paul Krauss: According to Brad Johnson. That's what it measured at.
Brad Johnson: To our astonishment, we found when we went over and measured the
MGM, the letters on the MGM are almost 6 feet high and the small letters are 3
feet high.
Paul Krauss: What we did though is we took it a step further which I think was
more important information for our recommendation in that I contacted some
compatriot planners to see what they were doing on shopping centers recently and
generally found across the board that most everybody gives some sort of an
allowance to major tenants. And letters in the 4' to 5' height were not out of,
were fairly consistent with what I was hearing from other cities. You know you
look at the size of the letters sounds real big. You know 5 foot against a
building sounds real large but you've got to realize though it's a very large
1 building and it's going to be set back quite a ways from any external view and
the letter size diminishes tremendously when you put it up against a building
mass. All I can say is that's a fairly consistent standard and in exchange for
that, we are getting a comprehensive sign package. All the signage there will
use individually lighted letters. There will be some standardization for that.
lib know what the smaller tenants are getting. We've proposed that this sign
package be extended over to Outlot A. We know what we're looking for in terms
of monument signage so there's a give and take situation here as well.
33
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, just as a point. It's not a sign but the cross on St.
Hubert's, as Don mentioned, is 8 feet tall.
Councilman Boyt: Well it's good to have that as a frame of reference. I
appreciate that. It looks to me like if the diagram is correct, your sign is _ 1
facing Market Blvd. and not TH 5. Am I wrong in that?
Paul Krauss: There's additional signage on the rear of the building that would
be oriented to TH 5.
Councilman Boyt: So we don't even have a picture of the signage on here?
Paul Krauss: Well yes you do. It's hard to look at it but it actually is
illustrated there.
Bill Brisley: The major tenants have signage in here.
Paul Krauss: That is not the 5 foot letter size that is illustrated on that
drawing. This was a relatively recent development while the staff report was '
being drawn. In fact, to acconmodoate the 5 foot letters they have to modify
the gable ends a little bit on the front to provide enough room for that.
Councilman Boyt: So we don't know what the signs are going to look like is what
you're telling me.
Paul Krauss: Well we know it's a 5 foot letter and we know where it's going to
go. It's just a matter of making the changes and I can leave that to Bill to
see what would be required to acconniodate it.
Bill Brisley: Maybe this is not appropriate to bring this up but I will anyway.
This is what the sign will look like but that's a little bit smaller one.
That's contingent on him agreeing to put his larger sign on the back side which '
will look like this.
Councilman Boyt: And again these signs are facing the Market Blvd. right? '
Mayor Chi/del: Yep.
Councilman Boyt: Alright. Well the... '
Jim Winkles: It's relative to the issue. I think what we're trying to
accomplish is a sign plan that has some sense of fairness and some sense of
equality to each tenant within the building with the bottom line being we're
trying to do something that is aesthetically going to fit with the building and
going to also allow for a good clear, uncluttered signage as well as something
that will be a benefit to the ultimate user which is the tenant which really
depends on that sign for ultimately his business. We would hope that what we're
suggesting is workable. We have a fairly massive structure. A very big
building. Very tall building. We're going to have a big areas to sign. We
want to have something that is consistent with what they've done elsewhere and
also is going to provide a very nice clean image to this building. I guess I
would share the fact that a big building, this kind of signing is probably not
going to look out of place at all. In fact it may even look small compared to
the size of the project we're building here right now. What we don't want to
34 I
1
, City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
let happen is we don't want a building that's going to be cluttered with a lot
of unnecessary signs. We like to keep our signs on our buildings very clean,
very bright. We want the color of the signs to add color to this project. At
the same time we want to recognize that it's vital to businesses to be able to
sign their buildings. Their product or their name appropriately and we hope
that what we're doing fits all those things. It's clean. It's bright. It's
not being obnoxious in the sense that it's being too big for the size or
anything like that so it's also consistent with what major tenants tend to want
' in any project. They typically tend to want bigger signs. Some preferential
treatment.
Councilman Boyt: Jim, there's some natural contradictions between the desire to
' design a building that has clean signs that stand out. That conflict on the one
with the desire of the owner of the business to stand out and our desire to not
have them stand out too much. So how big are the letters on the development
here on the west end of town?
Jim Winkles: Which one? On Town Square?
' Councilman Boyt: Whatever we call this right over here by the Superette.
Jim Winkles: Okay, Town Square. There we have a maximum sign area out there of
' 30 inches. Now some of our letters are not that. Some letters are about 30
inches exactly and some have double stacked letters. The maximum sign area from
top to bottom is 30 inches so we have some letters out there that ate in fact 2
' 1/2 feet and we have other sign people that have put one word on top of another
word and within that they've used the total 30 inches so in general up there, if
you look at it together, you'd see 30 inches is the size of the letter.
Councilman Boyt: I remember when that came through. We had, not you and I but
there was a similar discussion about signs size and at some sacrifice this
center accepted letters that were smaller than what they wanted. Now we're
turning around and saying to the next center that comes in, well forget that
standard. We're now going to give you 5 foot letters for your major tenant. I'm
not sure that that's being fair.
Jim Winkles: The difference there, and since we were involved in that project
obviously and since we still own that project, in fairness to those people out
there, I think the type of lettering that when we were involved in that project
we went back to the tenants and said can you live with this? This is where
we're at and they decided that they could. The anchor tenants in that
particular case. The difference though is that that project in terms of the
1 building, the road relationship, this building is set back almost 4 to 5 times
greater distance from the road than what this building is. Town Square right
there is set back only about 70 feet from West 78th Street. Now some of the
distances, now I haven't measured it but just looking at it, I would guess that
the western portion of some of these projects is going to be set back 500 feet
from Market Blvd. so the distance in terms of the automobile driving and looking
at the sign is going to be substantially greater on Market Blvd. and West 78th
Street than they would here. Granted however that the Super Value is closer.
I mean Super Value is probably set back about 40 to 50 feet farther than the
closest point from West 78th Street to Town Square. I grant you that is
probably an exception which is I guess in my experience has been that the anchor
tenants, the big tenant has typically been given some preferential treatment so
11 35
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I guess I would argue that the differences here is simply the distance back from
the road which I think has a significant impact in terms of visibility. I
Mayor Chndel: Jim, what's the difference in structure heights?
Jim Winkles: Structure heights, where the signing, the peak of Town Square is 1
probably a little bit lower than some of the peaks on this building that will be
out there. The difference also in this particular case is you've got to
remember that we've got, where Town Square effectively has a very level
situation to it. Not much elevation difference. You see the parking lot
there's probably a foot and a half grade difference from one end of the parking
lot to the other end of the parking lot and this site from the north side to the
south side, we're talking about a 20 foot grade elevation difference and I don't
think anybody would believe that if you went out and just looked at the site
right now, there's 20 feet difference from West 78th Street down to the south
part of the site which means the buildings will have a step to it too as you
down which means that the building in some areas is going to be much lower than
the road so you're going to be looking down at different elevations and at quite
a distance. This is going to be going all the way through. If you look down
front, you know the intersection of West 78th and Market Blvd. down to the
southwest corner of the site down there, you're probably talking about a
distance of 1,100-1,200 feet. You're talking about quite a distance here.
Councilman Boyt: So one of the assumptions we could make is that the ro sed
P Po
vet clinic and dry cleaners would certainly have letters or sign areas not to
exceed 30 inches. We could just assume that because that's fronting... 1
Jim Winkles: Yeah. They wouldn't be allowed the 5 foot sign, wall signs.
Councilman Boyt: It seemed to me that when we put this center in, it was at
some sacrifice that Total Mart or whatever the name is.
Jim Winkles: It's Brooke's. 1
Councilman Boyt: That Brooke's accepted that they would put their gas pumps in
but not put prices up and yet because of the City's overwhelming concern about 1
signs and the low impact we wanted to have with signs, there's no gas price
signs over there. They had than temporarily but they're gone now. I think we
need to have that same sort of conservatism when we consider. Now maybe on the
wall that fronts on TH 5, I can see the need if you're going to try to pull
vision off of that highway to have a big letter but I would think that once you
get people down into Market Blvd., they've already decided they're coming to see
you and the letter just needs to be big enough so they can find you out of the
whole strip. So I'd sure like this idea of letters to be examined. I agree
with you. You are considerably further off the road and that needs to play a
part, from Market Blvd. While I was surprised to hear MGM's currently at 6
feet, the thought of a 5 foot letter just has a shock value I guess.
Jim Winkles: I think it does because when a person thinks about that, as you're
standing out here and thinking my, that's really large. On the other hand, a
distance factor can change that. It really does and I would agree. You think 5
feet or 6 feet, I would never have guessed that MCI is 6 feet myself. I would
never have guessed it. 1
36 1
11
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
Mayor Chmiel: Besides Bill, there's a lot of near sighted people.
Brad Johnson: Bill, if you go over and look at the video store over there.
That's about 3 1/2 on that tenant. They all were put in because they wanted, I
believe it was built before they had the new building...but the idea was that
was supposed to be attractive to TH 5. We actually could not believe the
height. I went over and looked and...go over and look because I could not
believe it but it is and really the distance you are away. Like he's saying,
we're 400 to 800 feet away from the major traffic area and signage is, in our
leases they're asking for certain kind of signage. The major tenants. Super
Value alone is bigger than all of Town Square. Town Square is a 18,000 square
foot center and the first phase of the Super Value store is 22,000 and you're
just kind of got to get this all in, this is a big building. We're still
sticking with the primary idea...150 of it's frontage to be signage. Isn't that
correct? That's kind of the standard. There's no letter size but 15% of the
frontage that they use to ban for signage. We have in our first center, in all
of our centers, set a sign standard in every single one that fits each
' particular area. Each particular location. So the clinic has like a 2 foot
basis. It just depends on where they're located and how far from the road and
how big the tenant.
Councilman Boyt: Well Brad you know that we've got some real specific
requirements on sign size. In the City ordinance we have maximum area that you
can have.
Brad Johnson: 15% of the front of the building.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't it 6 feet high and sanething in terms of total sign?
Well, I'm ready to move on.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to do that too.
Jim Winkles: There was just one other concern was the drive thru that came up
and the drive thru was in fact eliminated from these plans and the Planning
Commission just said, come on back. Effectively said they would agree that
they'd let us come back again. Leave the issue open whether or not we could
have a drive thru...to prove to them whether or not it could work. Now with the
1 cleaners that's out there, that has to be proven I guess that that works like
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, what I'd like to do is probably have Mr. Cooper just address
that issue.
Brad Johnson: The drive thru is not a drive thru on the cleaners. It's a
covered parking lane. It's not like a window where you're going in. It's you
drive in, get out of your car, go in, come back out and go. It's not like, it's
a different situation.
Jim Winkles: It's a canopy.
Gary Cooper: I just wanted to address the signage. My name is Gary Cooper and
I'm the perspective proprietor. I think I've learned to look at supermarkets
differently now than I looked at them 10 years ago. We own two supermarkets and
I used to think they were our stores. What I've realized is they're not our
37
1 -
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 •
stores. The people that shop in our stores consider them their stores and I
think in regards to the signing, I think there's some reasons why when this
becomes your store, there would be some reasons why you would like good signing.
If you look up and down TH 5 at our competition. At Rainbow. At Driskill's
down here. Driskill's up there. If you look at supermarkets all over that
we're competing with, they all have very significant signage and what will
happen is, in order to give you the kind of quality and the kind of low prices
that we'd like to give you in this store, we're going to need as much volume as
we can. Those signs will help drive that volume and in my business I can have
all the intentions in the world to deliver you quality products at low prices
but in order to do that you've got to have the volume. So like those signs
we're talking about, there's probably $20,000.00-$30,000.00 worth of signs. It's
a big expense. The only reason we want to spend that money on those signs is to
help us give you the kind of store that you'd like to call your store and that's
a store where we can get the traffic in the store to get the volume just to keep
those prices and to keep that quality down there. Just the cost of the signs.
If it wouldn't drive that volume, if it wouldn't be a necessary ingredient to
give you that kind of quality store, we wouldn't want to spend the money on it
so that's all I wanted to say about that. I
Councilman Boyt: Can I ask a question? You mentioned Rainbow Foods. How many
square feet is that? ,
Gary Cooper: I don't know.
Councilman Boyt: What about Driskill's? Do you know how big that is? I
Gary Cooper: I don't know but Rainbow's is half the front of the building. It's
gargantuan. '
Councilman Boyt: No, I don't mean the size of the sign. I mean the square
footage of the building it's on.
Gary Cooper: The square footage of the building is, I think it's a 60,000
square foot building.
Councilman Boyt: Three times the size?
Gary Cooper: Yeah, it's 3 times the size but the sign is much, much larger than
what we're talking about. We're not asking for that kind of signage but I'm
just feeling that we need the presentation so that we can, it's just part of
what we need to have the volume to give you the kind of store you deserve.
That's the only point I have to make.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Gary. Tom?
Councilman Workman: Bill started out with the first item on Monterey and I 11
think that's one of the biggest concerns that I have and then going to item 4.
One of item 4's, outdoor storage area to be enclosed by a rock faced wall. What
I would like to see as a condition and incidentally, I like the detail of this
report. I guess that's a compliment to staff. We look at a lot of different
things and a lot of things were uncovered and looked at. The condition that I'd
like to add is that all the conditions must be completed as a part of the
general construction of the project and shall not be left to tenants. In
38 ,
1
' City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
particular the outdoor storage, rear outdoor storage areas. In other words,
these improvements shall not become a requirement of a current or future tenant.
Taking into account that I think it's something that needs to be completed so we
don't have to go back to tenants and say that looks ugly, let's cover it up. My
only other point is, if we can somehow between the developer and the City in
regards to the existing bus stop on Market Blvd., take into account current and
future transportation problems and that a curb cut be made to move a parked bus
off of Market Blvd. for safety. Does everybody kind of know what I'm talking
I about? I don't know how we would work with that. If we'd have to require an
easement. I think as Market Blvd. opens up and that's going to be this season
yet, I think we're going to have a lot of traffic there. We had a situation up
on West 78th where the bus stops in the morning now and evening I believe and
it's a problem. I think the bus stop is an amenity to this site and I think
somehow we should work to move it off the road for safety. That's it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm looking at item 1 and especially that the PUD
agreement provide for landscape bond as outlined in the staff report. I'm
assuming that that's a requirement that you put forth on page 9. Paul, is that
correct?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Has anything been done to have this be a
requirement for all developers rather than just this particular one?
Paul Krauss: Yes Councilwoman Dimler. We have made that proposal to the
Planning Commission and they indicated that they would support us bringing them
an ordinance amendment that would make that requirement for all non-single
1 family development in the City. We've got a lengthy list of these things that
we have to bring to them but that is one of the ones.
I Councilwoman Dimler: That is being done and relatively fast I hope. Also on
item 5, I guess what I heard Jim to say is that he, it says in there that no
additional access will be provided to serve Outlot A. Is that what Jim was
' talking about when he wanted a time?
Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. How does staff feel about that?
Paul Krauss: We have very serious reservations of any additional access to
Outlot A. As you noted with the bus concern, there is going to be a significant
' volume of traffic on those area streets as the CBD develops. We're doing
everything we can to channelize that. To make it flow smoothly and we've talked
to B1 about this. Our engineering department has done a lot of work on it as
well. We believe there simply isn't room to safely do it between any of the
existing curb cuts or the proposed ones and the corner. Everytime you introduce
a new curb cut, you have traffic slowing down. Speeding up. Turning in.
Turning out. We also have a site plan here that gives Outlot A the best access
of any property in this project. It has the two main access points on either
side of the property. It actually has better access than the Super Value does
so not only do we think it's a hazard and don't recommend that it be allowed, we
don't see the need either.
1 39
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
11
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess with that information I would recommend that item
5 stay as is. i
Mayor Chmiel: Is that it?
Councilwoman Dimler: That's it. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the only thing, no sense reiterating what everyone else is
saying. I think that the sign size of the letters to be put on that building of
5 feet, because of distances and size of the structures that are compatible in
my opinion. The other thing that I see within the staff recommendation as you
indicated in there, that there are 10 following conditions. That should be
indicated as 11 conditions. With Tom's that would be 12.
Paul Krauss: That's supposed to be the, not ten.
Mayor Chmiel: With the following conditions instead of teh? Okay. With that
I guess some of the concerns, the only concerns I had too was given adjacent to
Monterey but I think from what I've seen in those pictures, it's sort of
clarifies to me that it's not just going to be the back side of the building.
Will each of those businesses have access from the back door or is that going to
be just a back door policy for loading and unloading?
Bill Brisley: Each business will have their own back door.
Mayor Chmiel: Will it be accessible from the back? O That's all I have.
I'm ready to entertain a motion. Okay.
Councilman Boyt: I have a couple more questions. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Are they...
Councilman Boyt: They're pertinent to this. I
Mayor Chmiel: Let's try to pull it together within a short period of time
though. '
Councilman Boyt: I'd love to. Parking. We talked about parking. I guess I
can just start out by saying that I think grocery stores demand a great deal of
parking and if it's going to work Gary, you want to have a lot of parking. I
see the staff going to 4.5 which they say is standard for shopping centers. I
just wonder if that's standard for grocery stores.
Paul Krauss: The standard that I'm using...
Councilman Boyt: Wait a minute. We've got our expert here. '
Gary Cooper: The development people from Super Value say it's outstanding.
That there's reserve parking for expansion and that they have people that are
experts in this and Plan Mark reviewed it and they said the parking situation we 1
have is just outstanding. We don't have to fudge on it at all. We negotiated
real hard to get what we want and we got the kind of parking that we think will
be excellent for the supermarket. 1
40 1
• City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
•
Councilman Boyt: On this landscaping plan there's a berm between Monterey and
' the back• sidefof the building. How high is that? Are we talking about
something that's going to shield the back of that building?
' Paul Krauss: No. I believe it's in the 2 to 3 foot height range.
Bill Brisley: 4 feet at the.. .
Paul Krauss: It's 4 foot at the top.
Bill Brisley: 4 foot at the top but that's only. ..
Councilman Boyt: Interestingly enough, given their desire to have visibility
off of TH 5, we're putting in 10 and 12 foot firs along that south face. That's
' going to contrast somewhat with their desire to have visibility. Why can't we
do something like that on Monterey where I don't think Monterey's going to be
simply a back access. It may be to your shopping center but there's bound to be
development on the west side of Monterey which people are going to be driving
into. I'd like to see us do more to screen the back of your building from that
road.
Paul Krauss: Councilman Boyt, perhaps I could respond to that. The reason we
were so sensitive about the back of the building is that there are a lot of
things back there that no one off site really need look at in terms of truck
' loading, trash compacters, outdoor storage areas, that sort of thing. It's also
more difficult to screen than the Monterey exposure. The Monterey exposure you
can put a berm in so they're putting 6 foot trees on a 3 to 4 foot high berm.
Due to the lay of the land, it's not possible to put a berm behind that section
' of the building facing south to TH 5. In the absence of that, we elected to
recommend oversized installation of trees at initial construction.
' Councilman Boyt: What I'm asking you is do we have enough trees between the
building and Monterey, even given the 3 foot or 4 foot berm, is staff convinced
that we have screened that off?
Paul Krauss: If you're asking if you won't see the back of the building, no.
You will see the back of the building. If you're asking if there's enough
landscaping to soften the image and to screen the trash areas and that sort of
thing, we believe that that job's been accomplished.
Councilman Boyt: Just one second and maybe we're done here. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, you wanted to make a point?
Jim Winkles: I guess one question and one convent. The question is regards to
the bus lane. What's the thought there? Is this kind of a drop off type lane
or place for the bus to pull in?
Mayor Chmiel: Bus to pull in off the main road.
Councilman Workman: As it sits now, the bus is really blocking traffic there.
It would be.
Jim Winkles: On that southbound lane you mean?
r 41
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
Councilman Workman: Correct. 1
Jim Winkles: The only question I guess there is what's that mean in terms of
what are we going to be doing? Do we control that I guess or is that a MTC type 11 of a function? It's on the public right-of-way. I guess I don't know. Is that
something that we have control over or we can do or something that we should try
to work with the City and MTC to try and accomplish?
Councilman Workman: Well I would throw the word try out but to accomplish it, I
think MTC would only look favorably on it. MnDot. Whoever, would look
favorably. Public safety. I
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, would you like to address that?
Paul Krauss: Well it's a design issue. We've asked the developer to put in I
turn lanes elsewhere. In having looked at it though, it looks as though the bus
shelter would have to be relocated. I don't think there's enough roam to
actually make a 12 foot wide lane. As to how that would be done. 1
Jo Ann Olsen: It'd have to go through the Southwest Metro Transit Commission.
Councilman Workman: Well then I guess if you want me to change it, then I would
say it should be moved because I'm saying it shouldn't be there then. This is
going to be a flurry of activity around here and we're going to have a bus at
peak times sitting there and then people trying to get around it. ,
Paul Krauss: Do we have the two southbound lanes over there Gary?
Councilman Workman: There's not enough roams to make a curb cut there? ,
Gary Warren: You can get by. I think right now, what do we have? Two buses
that cane and leave. It's not like we have buses all during the day there but I
believe you can get around them. That's my own opinion. There's enough width
in the lanes out there to do that.
Councilman Workman: At 7:00 a.m. when I'm coming through downtown Chanhassen
and people are getting on the bus in front of Hooked on Classics, you're right.
I can get around. I don't feel comfortable with it and it might only be for a '
couple of minutes but it's causing problems.
Todd Gerhardt: You're talking of a different width of street there. I have
talked to Southwest. It was brought up at a HRA meeting of this concern and
they asked us to look at the issue of a cut in. I did talk to the director,
Beverly, of the HRA's concerns and she was somewhat opposed to the idea of a cut
in. She felt that the bus is there for a short period of time and it does pull
off to the side. It is early in the morning and she's happy with the location.
I mean they did a lot of work and study on where to put the bus stop and they're
happy there. On the going have side of the street, individuals are to park over
in the bowling alley parking lot and they have an agreement or working with an ,
agreement with John Dory to park over there. That was a concern of Super
Value's if people were going to park in their parking lot. There will be
signage put up there asking them to do that but Beveraly is scheduled for the
HRA meeting in November to bring HRA up to date on what they were looking at
42 1
1
. City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
doing in those areas but that was my conversations with her.
Councilman Workman: I'm going to maintain my stance with a condition. Do we
want to temper it somewhat and say let's look at it. I think again, this is an
example of where we're not quite fully looking long road down the future at the
transportation problems that we're creating. Certainly I don't need somebody to
tell me every day how thin downtown is and everything. I think we have all
sorts of problems and I think we need to look a little more in the future at and
' this is just one little problem. I resided in the city of St. Cloud for several
years and I'll tell you what, the bus situation, and believe me they have more
buses than our city does but we're going to be big someday. Where are buses
going? Where are they parking? Where are they dropping people off? It was all
you heard and so I think we're going to create a problem here. I don't see this
being anywhere near wide enough for a full bus to stop and have people board and
get in and off of. I would suggest either a curb cut or we remove the bus stop
from this location totally.
Jim Winkles: Could I just suggest that I don't necessarily disagree. I think
' your logic in the sense of looking at this as an issue that should be looked, at
is very good. I agree with you that we don't know what's all going to happen
but could I suggest that since the MTC may or may not like the way it is right
now and there could be some issues on whether it should be moved or whether it
shouldn't be moved, whether this location is exactly right, I guess could I just
suggest then maybe that we be required to work with the MTC and the staff to
take a look at this and maybe come back to you as a separate type of issue on
something like this. I think there's some issues out there right now that we
don't all have our hands around. I've never talked to the MTC but I guess I'd
be willing to do that with your staff and sit down and say, where should this be
and what's the best thing to do here. Curb cut, apparently we don't want
anymore curb cuts on Market Blvd. so that might be...
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying Jim that I don't see, and I'll have to talk
to Todd tomorrow about it but I just don't see MTC saying you know, it's going
to be a lot safer for us to leave that bus in the road and not move it a little
bit off to the side and out of traffic. I don't see them saying that. I think
they're going to let us put this bus stop wherever we want.
Jim Winkles: Again, I'm not opposed to working with the city and MTC to get
' this thing done. It's just I'd like to make sure I understand what it means and
where it should go and try to look down the road as you suggested. Not
necessarily 1989 but what it's going to mean in 1982 when there's hopefully
going to be thousands of more people out here.
Councilman Workman: And we're going to have 5 buses a day.
' Jim Winkles: My other corment then, if I could make one last pitch. Just
giving us the opportunity to come back on the access. I understand and we
understand from the City Engineers and frati the staff that they don't see it and
I may not see it right now but there are those uses and there are those things
that might suggest it could be different. Otherwise, I guess we would just like
that opportunity to come back and not necessarily, we understand full well that
it might be impossible. Thank you.
43
r
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I have a quick question. The 13 stalls for the grocery
expansion. What happened to them because they've dropped out of your conditions I
and yet in your staff report you said they were hazardous?
Paul Krauss: There should be a condition that says to delete those stalls. ,
Councilman Boyt: Eliminate the 9 northern stalls located on the east side?
Paul Krauss: Right. I
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I will entertain a
motion. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'm going to make a motion. Try to put it all
together here. The subject being the rezoning of a PUD #89-2, development stage
approval for the preliminary plat for Market Square with the 11 conditions
proposed by staff and Councilman Workman's condition making it number 12. Also
that Jim work with the City and the M'C on the bus issue to accommodate future
traffic on Market Blvd.. Did- I include everything? '
Councilman Boyt: It's Southwest Metro.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Southwest Metro instead of M . Also, condition 5
stays as is.
Paul Krauss: I was just trying to clarify something. Tom, you proposed a 1
stipulation regarding all conditions must be incorporated. Was that part of it?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. I think that was condition 12 and then the bus thing ,
was 13. I would second that motion basically then, the condition for the bus
stop, I guess I would like to amend it to basically say move it or lose it.
Change it or move it. '
Mayor Chmiel: I like the other one better. MDve it or lose it. Okay.
Councilman Workman: Do you accept that? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: That's fine. I'll accept that.
Councilman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded PUD #89-2 Development Stage
approval for the preliminary plat for Market Square subject to the following
conditions:
1. Enter into a PUD contract with the city that will contain all of the
11
conditions of approval and which will be recorded against all lots platted
in the project. The PUD agreement should provide for a landscape bond as
outlined in the staff report.
2. Obtain final plat approval for the site prior to requesting building
permits.
3. Enter into a development contract with the city that requires financial
sureties with construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and
City Council for all public improvements.
44 11
• City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
11
4. Revise architectural plans as need to:
1 -confirm that the Vet Clinic will have windows on the north and west
elevations;
-trash enclosures are to be constructed from rock faced block compatible with
the main building;
-relocate the trash enclosure serving the dry cleaner to the west side of the
building or incorporate it into the structure;
-outdoor storage areas are to be enclosed by a rock faced block wall;
-the trash compactor is to be provided with a rock faced block screen wall
and relocated to the north to provide a 24' wide drive aisle; and
-the addition of any drive-up windows will require site plan approval wherein
' it will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that internal
circulation patterns and parking provisions will not be impacted.
5. Outlot A is required to have buildings designed to utilize architectural
compatible with the shopping center. No additional access will be provided
to serve Outlot A. Only one additional monument sign is to be allowed when
the outlot is developed. The sign must be identical to monument signage
allowed elsewhere on the PUD. Until development occurs, the owner shall
establish ground cover over the site and keep it in a maintained condition.
Parking requirements for the outlot should be satisfied on it.
6. Modify and/or regulate access and parking as follows:
-provide a triangular traffic island in the West 78th Street curb cut;
-delete the sidewalk south of the crosswalk that connects to the sidewalk in
front of the super market. A pedestrian crosswalk shall be installed
on Market Boulevard adjacent to the bus shelter. The crosswalk shall be
painted and signed in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota
Manual on Traffic Controls. That the applicant work with the City staff and
the Southwest Metro Transit Commission on moving the bus shelter to
accommodate for future traffic on Market Boulevard;
-eliminate the 9 northern stalls located on the east side of the super market
expansion and modify the Vet Clinic parking area to provide a turning space
at the end of the aisle;
-all leases for the main building should require that employee parking be
located at the rear of the center; and
-any restaurants proposed in the center are subject to a site plan review
procedure. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate parking
adequacy if it is to be approved. The restaurant spaces illustrated in the
two northern tenant spaces in the main building are exempt from this
requirement; and
-all parking lot curbing shall be B-6/12 concrete.
7. The landscaping plan should be modified as follows:
-increase the size of conifers along the south property line from 6' to
1 10-12' ; and
-remove the snow storage area along Market Boulevard and landscape the space.
8. Provide final grading and drainage plans for approval. The plans should
incorporate the following:
-the 72" storm sewer is to be installed by the developer;
-Installation of the line should be covered by the development contract. The
City can reasonably allow building permits to be issued with the
r45
r
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
understanding that the 72" storm sewer, together with other public roadway
and utility improvements will be installed simultaneously with the
construction of the buildings;
-the existing catch basin adjacent to Manhold #21 in Market Boulevard should
be relocated into the new curb radius;
-project approval by the Watershed District is required prior to building
permit issuance; and
-an erosion control plan acceptable to the city should be submitted prior to
requesting building permits.
9. Provide final roadway and utility plans for approval. The existing 10" PVC
sanitary sewer shall be placed in an oversized ductile iron casing
acceptable to the City. Existing watermains to be abandoned shall be
removed. The applicant will submit detailed construction plans and
specifications for approval by the City Engineer and provide as-built mylar '
plans upon completion of construction.
10. Provide written and graphic sign covenants consistent with the description
in the October 23, 1989 staff report. The covenants will be filed with the, ,
PUD contract.
11. Review the site lighting plan to use the ornamental fixtures east of the
super market and between the two Market Boulevard curb cuts.
12. All the conditions must be completed as a part of the general construction
of the project and shall not be left to tenants, i.e. rear outdoor storage
areas, etc..
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL MAP FOR HIGHWAY 212.
Paul Krauss: The City Council is being asked to adopt the official map for
Highway 212 corridor. The official map procedures are designed to assist in the
identification and preservation of land that may be needed for highway right-of-
way. I'd also point out that Eden Prairie, Chaska and I believe Carver County
have already adopted the official maps for their communities. The alignment
illustrated in the official map has been reviewed extensively by the City and by '
area residents over a series of meetings. It incorporates the desire north Lake
Riley routing and modifications to the TH 101 alignment that were advocated by
the City. The Planning Commission reviewed the map on September 14th and
recommended that it be approved. If the official map is adopted tonight, staff
expects to have requests for funding using what is known as the RALF program to
acquire and preserve right-of-way. The program allows the City to use a
revolving loan fund administered by the Metro Council, funded by the State, for
early acquisition of right-of-way in those cases where the property owner has
eminent development or the fact that there's an alignment creates a hardship.
I'd also point out that work is proceeding on the envirnomental impact study for
the TH 212 corridor. A draft has been developed and it's anticipated that the
final document will be completed and approved by early next suppler_. Mr. Evan
Green from MnDot is present tonight and can help answer any questions relating
particularly to the highway corridor. Thank you. 1
46 ,
' City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
' Evan Green: My name is Evan Green. I work for the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Golden Valley office. We've been out here many times on this Th
212. I know as Paul stated we've had many meetings and what we brought before
you tonight is the proposed official map for a north Lake Riley corridor. The
Environmental Impact Statement is still under study. It may be same time before
it's completed. What this map will do will preserve a right-of-way and the City
has a, it's up the city whether they want to do this or not and keep it clear of
additional development. The other routes along the line are filling up as
you're probably aware of. I know I see the plats come into our department for
review all the time and as time goes on I'm sure this area will fill up also
with development. If there are any questions I guess I'll try to answer them.
At this point that's all I have to say.
Councilman Boyt: While you're there, it's my understanding that before the
official map can be adopted, the EIS has to be completed. Is that wrong?
Evan Green: No, that's not correct. This is an action the City can take on
their own. There's a law on the books that they can adopt an official map
within the metro area of a proposed highway. It's actually the City's map. I
want you to understand that. This is not MnDot's map. We are cooperating with
the City in establishing the alignment and surveying.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, I don't see it in here but when we approve the process
and basically designated two routes, or Jo Ann didn't we establish some
conditions with that? I don't see them in here.
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't recall that we did.
Evan Green: There are two routes still under study in the EIS process.
Councilman Boyt: But we can't map them, we can't put official maps on anything
more than one right?
Evan Green: Well that's up to you. That's up to the City.
Councilman Boyt: So we can officially map both of them?
Evan Green: Yeah, but we will not provide you with another map for the south
Lake Riley.
Councilman Boyt: What does that mean? We can do it but you won't give us any
money?
Evan Green: Well you can do it on your own just as you mapped TH 101. You did
that alone. Between proposed TH 212 and TH 5.
Councilman Boyt: What if, so the advantage of putting this on the official map
is that we now, then we qualify for these funds?
Evan Green: That plus you have, you can protect that corridor from additional
development.
Councilman Boyt: Without using these funds. I mean we can't just say you can't
develop them?
r
47
i
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Evan Green: Right, and that's where the rub comes normally. The developer's 11 ready to go and you can't stop him. With the official map adopted, you would
have the opportunity to get a loan from the Met Council, interest free to
purchase that right-of-way.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, how much money does the Met Council have to help us out
here?
Evan Green: I don't have the exact figures. Paul, do you know? I
Paul Krauss: I don't either. The State has appropriated several million
dollars several times. In speaking to Ann Braydon at the Metro Council, she
indicated that right now there are still funds available but basically that
you've got to get it while the getting's good because they anticipate a lot of
demand. If I could too Bill, there's also the concern that this official
mapping process does more than just make the RALF funding program funds
available. It provides a level of certainty or greater level of certainty to
property owners as to what will be the impact of the highway. Where will it go 11 or where do we anticipate it going. It also allows for a process whereby when a
subdivision comes in, we know what to ask for in terms of dedication. We would
be in a position to say, we want to take as much for public purposes as we have
a right to. The third thing is that it has that building permit process where I
it takes a variance to actually pull a building permit for a structure located
within the official corridor.
Councilman Boyt: Well Paul, one, both of these routes are extremely
environmental sensitive. Once we do an official map on one of them, then we
have by default let the other one go and the interesting question to me is we go
through and we do this and then we don't have the money. A developer comes in
and says well, now that you've got it, I want to put a hotel in there, or
whatever is the maximixn that's allowed by the zone so we go and we apply to Met
Council for the money and they say, well we'll give you half of it. Or we don't
have any to give you. Now what?
Evan Green: That could happen. There's all sorts of things that could happen.
I think what you're trying to do with this official map is look a little bit at
the future in trying to protect a possible alignment for that future highway. I
know most of the developers along that alignment have been in and I know Chan
Hills has platted according to this alignment. I know there are several others
along the alignment that are about ready or I don't know where they're at with
their developments exactly but it's bound to happen I know that.
Councilman Boyt: I remember the discussion of about a year and a half ago when I
the room was filled with people and there certainly was not any uninemity over
whether this should be the north or the south route. One of the key questions
was what's it going to do to the wetlands? How are we going to protect the
wetlands? What's it going to do to noise in my neighborhood and so on and now I
see us doing something that I'm real skeptical that the Met Council has that
much money because I know that we're not the only highway in town that's
appealing to those funds. I see us making a decision, for good reason. Clearly
we've got a lot of pressure from developers and they have a right to know but I
don't see the City in a position where we can win no matter what we do.
48 '
1
• . City, Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
11
Evan Green: I don't see where you can lose by adopting it.
Councilman Boyt: Because then we take the south route and we say, well we're
' not going to do that.
Gary Warren: If I could add a convent maybe. I guess from my perspective in
looking at the process, what we're doing is putting the control in the hands of
11 the City, the City Council in particular, to decide once we do official map
whether we do want to restrict development there or not because and Paul you can
correct me if I'm wrong here, if a plat canes in, a bonafide proposal or
subdivision and we choose for whatever reason that we don't want to buy the
property. I mean we let the plat go ahead right? Just because we've officially
mapped it doesn't mean that we have to buy the property. It's our option all
the way through the process here. It does provide us the control on a plan,
methodical basis I think to react with this tool to developments that do come in
to the benefit of both parties. Concerning mapping both alternates, if that's a
consideration, I think the last thing that anybody wants to do is imply that
this route that we have foregone any further consideration on the other routes
that are being looked at in the EIS but it's I think limited resources game
here. MnDot has taken their best evaluation of what they believe in all good
conscience to be the most preferred route taking in a lot of factors here.
That's their decision and they took the effort, survey expense and whatever to
plot this map for this route. To look at the other alternates would be city
expense I guess obviously to do the surveying and to do the amount of effort
that they've done similar to what we did on TH 101 at our expense to officially
map it, which we certainly could do as Evan catmented here but it's a financial
resources game I guess.
rCouncilman Boyt: What happens when we get a million dollars in loan? Does that
mean that MnDot is now fully committed? We're not going to postpone this
thing? It's actually going to be built?
Evan Green: I can't say right now that we're fully committed to building the
whole route. I do know that we have 9 million in the '93 program, 25 mullion in
our '94 program and 22 mullion dollars in our '95 program to construct out here.
Councilman Boyt: So if there's no legislative cut in your request?
Evan Green: That's right and that's where the official map comes in though. I
mean you know yourself sooner or later some sort of a highway's going to be
built out here. TH 5 is not going to handle all of the development that's being
proposed out here day after day in your city and in Chaska. And I might say,
we're committed to making whatever we build there environmentally sound. I mean
we're also concerned about the wetlands and stuff and we share your concern
there so that will be considered in whatever we do out here.
Councilman Boyt: This is a very major decision. I hope there's some public on
this to convent. I'm done. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Unless someone else has some specific questions.
Councilman Workman: Is this a public hearing?
11 49
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing and I'm waiting for some public comment.
Anyone who's wishing to address this, come forward and please state your name '
and your address.
Craig Mertz: I'm Craig Mertz. I'm here representing Lakeview Hills Investment 11 Group which owns the Lakeview Hills Apartments. The Lakeview Hills Apartment
property is on the east end of Lake Riley Boulevard where it terminates at the
Eden Prairie line and the property is bounded on the north by Rice Marsh Lake
and on the south by Lake Riley. That's R-12 zoned property. We have 52.8 acres
there approximately and about 170 apartment units on that property. When the
investment group bought the property, it was with the intention that they would
ultimately develop the balance of the property. The history of this property '
goes back to 1963 when the Chanhassen Town Board approved the plan for the
apartment complex and that plan contemplated that there would be 350 additional
units on the property and the owners have had that intention of ultimately
developing the property to it's full potential. The corridor in question here
takes a very wide swath through the property. We believe it results in the loss
of virtually all of the building sites on the property. It diminishes the value
of the residue which will be located north of TH 212 where we will have no
access to that property seriously diminishing the value of that residue. On the
southerly portion, which includes the buildings, the apartment buildings, we
believe that it also will have an adverse affect on the apartment buildings in
that there will be additional noise. We won't be able to have ready access to
that particular highway. The character of the project will change as a result
of the project. We lose the country living type atmosphere that goes with the
project. Our buildings are turned into a highway buffer type of apartment
project which has a totally different character from what we are accustomed to
doing and in summary, the owners are opposed to this particular alignment
because we believe it has such an adverse affect on the value of our property. I
Mayor Chmiel: Any specific questions? This is a public hearing. I knew you
were going to come up Al. 1
Al Klingelhutz: Why do you think I was sitting here for all night. I'm going
to wear two hats tonight. One as a County Commissioner and one as a resident of
Chanhassen and the road which really affects my property considerably. First
I'm going to be a County Commissioner. Eden Prairie, Chaska have already
approved the mapping of this project. Tomorrow at the County Commissioner
meeting we will be approving the mapping in Chaska Township and I hope you go
through with the mapping here in Chanhassen tonight. I've sat on the TH 212
Corridor Commission upwards of almost 30 years now. It's been a long battle. I
personally like the south of Riley Lake aligrnient better but since all the other
communities and Chanhassen has indicated that they prefer the northern route,
I'm not going to fight that route even if it very adversely affects my property.
I think it's time that we get a cohesive effort and tell the highway department
this is where we're going to put this road. If we delay mapping in Chanhassen,
it could delay the putting in of TH 212 quite a few years yet. There's been an
awful lot of discussion on this road for I don't know how many times there's
been meetings up here. There's meetings over at the Carver County Courthouse
and I think it's very important that you go ahead with the mapping of this
project tonight. I think there's one thing I'm going to say about, as a citizen
and a land owner in the corridor. Especially in the TH 101 corridor. Last
spring I had Keith Batts' property for sale. Had four different offers on the
property and came up to City Hall here and asked where TH 101 was going to go.
50 1
, City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I/
I was pretty much told where it was going to go and when the offer came in, one
of the buyers came up to City Hall and they were told it was going to go on a
different area. Eventually there were four different alternates for it to go
where it is now, where it's proposed it's going to go to the east of Barts'
barn. We didn't lose the sale and I don't know if it's still hanging in there
' but they said they wouldn't go any further on the purchase of that property
until they definitely knew where TH 101 was going to go. That's why I think
it's important for landowners to know what's going to happen and I think it's
also important, and I understand the Planning Commission is going to start
working on some zoning on some of these areas, that the zoning be completed as
soon as possible in the areas where this highway is going to go. You can't let
everything hang in limbo until someone comes in and says this is what I want to
do here. I think the zoning should be put on the property so that developers
and landowners know what they've got. Thank you.
Councilman Workman: That's three hats Al. Resident, realtor, commissioner.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who'd like to address this issue? This is a
public hearing.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't have any specific concerns and I'm ready to move
on it.
Councilman Workman: I think I'll remain silent at this point.
Councilman Boyt: It may be difficult to recognize the emotional atmosphere that
we had a year and a half ago on this issue. I can only guess that the people
that wanted this to go through the south route have given up, since we didn't
hear from them tonight except for the apartment owners. I can see the need to
have an official map. I just, it really, I find it difficult to get pushed into
' something and we really are. Eden Prairie has pushed us into this thing. Our
own desire to have the road pushes us into it. Eden Prairie dealt with their
official map quite some time ago. Chanhassen didn't. So now we find ourselves
with I think very limited options and maybe officially we still have a south
option but I maintain that once you drop, we accept this map, we've given up on
the south option financially. I can understand the need to do this. I'm real
relunctant to see us go forward and vote on it. We ought to have the EIS done.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Is that it? Okay, I guess I feel that the TH 212 has been
something discussed ever, much of the Minutes that I had read back in 1987. It's
been here for a long time. It's been a discussionary item to try to pull the
traffic flow coming off through Eden Prairie and of course in adjacent to TH 5
and caning off of the TH 212 corridor. I think as the city's growing and the
city's progressing, the need basically is there. There's no question. Having
11 problems with TH 5, if any of you drive TH 5 as I do every day, it becomes
rather congested and I wouldn't want to see that corridor become any more
congested within TH 212 either. Having another access going through means it's
going to move that flow a lot better, a lot quicker and it's going to
accommodate more of the people within the area to make Chanhassen grow as well.
51
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I guess I'm coming from that particular area saying that I think we should move
ahead and have the official map for TH 212 indicated. Any other discussions?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd just like to add that I do believe that MnDot
does have our environmental concerns at heart and I think that they will include
everything that we would include as far as protecting our environment so I'm
really not concerned about that. I can understand Bill's concern about that but
I think they're taken care of.
Mayor Qriiel: I'm assured too that MiDot does look at the environment very
closely. Has as much concern as the balance of the state and in all locations
they're constantly looking as to how to divert and go past some of those
specific real concerns. With that I will entertain a motion.
Al Klingelhutz: I know you've approved a portion of TH 101 mapping but have you I
approved it from that portion to where it connects on the south end of the farm?
Councilman Boyt: TH 101? '
Al Klingelhutz: TH 101.
Gary Warren: The official map has been approved to the TH 212 connection. ,
Al Klingelhutz: Not the portion from TH 212 south? To where it turns south to
Shakopee again.
Gary Warren: It's been approved from TH 5 to Lyman Boulevard basically.
Mayor Qriiel: With that I'm entertaining a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I move that we approve the official map of Trunk
Highway 212 as presented in this report.
Mayor Qrdel: Is there a second? I'll second it.
Councilman Boyt: This doesn't take a unanimous vote does it? Three-fifths will
do it?
Mayor Qriiel: Three-fifths will do it. '
Councilman Boyt: I'm going to vote against it so.
Mayor Q oriel: Roger, clarification?
Roger Knutson: A question. Are we going to have any abstentions? I
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you voting?
Councilman Workman: I should probably abstain. ,
Roger Knutson: I'd recommend that the matter be tabled until your next meeting.
Councilman Workman: Maybe I should explain.
t
52
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: No. Your abstention is understandable because of one of the
11 other positions that you hold. Yeah, why don't you explain it.
Councilman Workman: How come Workman's so damn quiet during this whole thing.
11 I'm chomping at the bit. I'm the coordinator of the Southwest Corridor.
Transportation Coalition which is promoting Highway 212 and the development of
expanded TH 5 so I've chosen to be quiet and I choose not to vote this evening.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe I don't have the luxury of voting against this. I'd
like to but on the other hand, give me an alternative. There isn't one. That's
what led to the vote of a year and a half ago and that's what will lead to this
' thing being approved so if Tom isn't going to vote, then let's be on with it I
guess.
Resolution #89-114: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve
the adoption of the Official Map for Highway 212 as presented by MnDot. All
voted in favor except Councilman Workman who abstained and the motion carried.
11
DISCUSSION OF LAKE LUCY PUBLIC ACCESS.
Lori Sietsema: This item has been placed on the agenda to tie up some loose
ends on the whole chain of lakes clean up project. I've received verbal notice,
nothing in written form yet but I've received verbal notice from the MPCA that
1 the grants for the Lake Riley chain of lakes clean up project will be diverted.
The bulk of those funds will be diverted to other projects. They do not feel
that the money can be spent quickly enough for then to keep the funds in that
project. They are however leaving enough funds for the project to complete the
work plan and all the revisions that are required of the work plan. That's
EPA's way of showing that they feel that it is a valid project and that they are
supporting it although they can't continue to keep these funds in this project.
They've indicated that once the work plan has all been revised and the access is
in place on Lake Lucy that funds, another grant can be applied for at a later
time. They also did caution however that it is likely that if a future grant is
' pursued, that the local matching share will very likely be greater than it was
on this project being as much 25% to 50% of the project. If a future grant is
sought, a public boat access will be required to be in place prior to
' consideration of any application. The EPA has indicated they will not consider
the City's offer to fund the Lake Lucy portion of the project as they feel there
are benefits that will go to that lake with the rest of the project being done.
Given that, three options remain on what to do tonight. We can choose a site or
we can choose to do nothing and wait to see if a future grant is applied for. In
the meantime the DNR has offered to construct a boat access, a temporary access
that would be gravel, just extending the gravel road that's in Greenwood Shores.
Putting in four parking spaces and a concrete plank ramp into the lake. That
would be at no cost to the City. What could happen then in doing that, it would
allow us to monitor the traffic amounts that this access is going to generate
when we look at a long term, permanent access for the lake and reviewing how the
access is used, we can take that into consideration as we design and purchase
property for an access elsewhere. If a temporary access is pursued, it's likely
that the Dirk's property will not be available in the future. They have offers
on their property or they're looking to build a home on their property and sell
it. That would limit our choice for a permanent access right now to either
53
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
•
remain at greenwood Shores Park or for the Christensen property. To tie up this
whole project process, what we are looking to tonight is if we're going to go
for permanent access on one of the sites or have the DNR put in the temporary
access or to wait and see when a future grant is applied for.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I'm still in the position of saying wait and
see right now. I'm also in contact with an individual to see if we can't get
some dollar allocations for Lake Lucy of which the request was asked about
$52,000.00. I've not had a response back yet. Hopefully I will get a response
back. Put that life back in to a condition as to what we are looking for.
Number one, the killing off of whatever fish are contained in there. I still
have some real concerns. I don't know if you've seen this Lori but On Poison
Pond. This is something that was put out, what affect it really has on the
lake, the fish and whatever else happens for years to come. It specifically
addresses the DNR and those issues. Digressing a little bit what I expect to I
see a potential of having that fish kill in there with some aeration within that
lake which would be part of it and the restocking of the lake with fish.
Hopefully, probably by next council meeting I should have some indication one
way or the other but as Jay has indicated previously, that would be ludicrous to
put this in in that particular location. I think I've indicated some of the
reason before hand when that park was given to the City it was indicated as a
walk in kind of park and remain as such. There are safety factors contained
within that area. It's within a residential area. A lot of children there and
that's one of my real concerns. I don't think it's a location of having
fishermen coming in with their boats and cars and it's not a very safe area to
locate or to even go in and out. So it's some of those concerns basically I see
there's, and I'll reiterate the dangers to the neighborhood children. I think
I'm still in that position of wait and see. I'd like to get the balance of
those lakes cleaned up. I think if we can sit in on the position as I've
indicated, we can eliminate a lot of those given problems.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess Lori you said that another grant could be applied I
for. Do you have any indication as to what our chance of getting after we
apply, getting another grant although it would be smaller, at all because do
they tend to see that once, they put lesser importance on it because we passed
it up once?
Lori Sietsema: They've indicated by funding the completion of the work plan
that they still feel that it's a valid project. EPA has never waivered really
from that point. That the cleaning up of Lake Riley and the upstream lakes is a
valid project. They're only contention is that they cannot hold these funds for
this project any longer at this time. They've encouraged the Watershed to
complete that work plan with all of their conments and make the revisions and to
reapply once we have all of our ducks in order. The grant was applied for and
received before all of this stuff that really should have been done was done.
The cart was a little bit before the horse on this one but it's likely that with
the DNR's participation again and agreeing to do the work of it which is half of
the project, that the funding portion of it would be split between the EPA and
the Watershed would continue to be the local sponsor or if Eden Prairie or
Chanhassen would have to do a joint thing or one of the cities would pick up
that local sponsoring agency is really not determined at this point.
Councilwoman Dimler: The work plan originally indicated that the major lake of I
concern was Lake Riley and that we could go ahead and I think we could do
54 '
I
. City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
something with Lake Riley and Rice Marsh Lake and not really touch the upper
lakes.
Loir Sietsema: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I know it flows down into and has some affect but you
know, if push comes to shove, we could do that couldn't we?
Lori Sietsema: I don't know. I've never heard that before. Everything that
I've ever heard is that they can't do anything, spend dollar one on Lake Riley
until they clean up the upstream lakes because it would not do anything. All
they could do is prevent what's caning up from the river, to come and put that
r fish barrier in and clean up Lake Riley but anything that's upstream, the rough
fish would come right back down into it so that would be, of everything that
I've understood and read, I think that would be fruitless. I don't think that
that, I've not heard that that was a possibility.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my feelings is if the funds are really that iffy,
whether we'll ever get the project is real questionable, I think maybe also that
I would be in favor of letting the Lake Lucy public access rest at this time.
Especially in light of the fact that we're looking at other ways to cleaning up
Lake Lucy.
Councilman Workman: The work plan is nowhere near completion. According to Don
Roberts, the work plan that we had was a work plan to do a work plan basically.
Without the work plan, basically the Watershed will not spend any additional
money on that work plan without the access. With the access at Greenwood
Shores, the park is dead. We have high traffic in a neighborhood. We have
' serious safety problems. I don't see anything moving on this. The funds aren't
there, and you're not an EPA person. If Lake Lucy was completely blocked in by
developed land and homeowners unwilling to sell, would EPA, PCA, be concerned
about the conditions of the 4 lower lakes? Would DNR be concerned? What I'm
saying is would these government agencies be concerned, are they concerned about
the condition of Riley, Susan and Rice Marsh?
Lori Sietsema: The concern, the whole jist of this project was to clean up Lake
Riley. There would be added benefits in that there would be come clean up
procedures that would happen to the upstream lakes but that was not the focus of
the project. The project was focused on cleaning up Lake Riley.
Councilman Workman: Right. And without that, without the
g , access on Lucy which
there's very limited clean up in the plan. Kill off the fish. Put same
aerators in and what I'm saying is, I think Christmas Lake was a situation where
there were no willing sellers but finally somebody did and they jumped on it and
they got it correct?
Lori Sietsema: Yes.
Councilman Workman: If there were no willing sellers on Lake Lucy, imagine that
for a minute. Would anybody be worried about cleaning up Lake Riley? Would
anybody be concerned about these lakes if in fact they couldn't get their access
because it seems as though the access, and I'm not being ignorant of the fact of
how the mechanism works. The access has become so important that actually the
clean up of the lake and the health of the lakes has become so secondary that
55
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
•
1
we're willing to compromise just about anything to get for DNR that access.
Lori Sietsema: I know that from a local standpoint it really appears ,
Po ppears that way
and I can see where people would think that that is probably the case but I
don't think that, the State law, the legislation says that we cannot spend
public dollar one of state or federal funds without a public access on the lake
that you're spending that money on.
Councilman Workman: So if Lake Lucy were landlocked, they would not be I
concerned and could not be concerned about the health of Lake Riley?
Lori Sietsema: It's not that they wouldn't be concerned. They'd either have to 1
condemn property to obtain access.
Councilman Workman: They don't have that option do they? '
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes they do.
Councilman Workman: Everybody has that option. But you know what I'm saying. I
That's where the frustration is because they're, I see some private initiative
by the Lake Lucy homeowners and I like what I see there. They're putting in
some effort and I like a lot better the way they're planning to clean up their
own lake than the government agencies are planning to clean up their lake and
they're willing to spend some of their own money and we're willing to lose a
neighborhood park in the process I think so. '
Councilman Boyt: I think that 2 years ago when the City entered into this
agreement, there was same discussion about the need to put accesses on Lake
Susan and Lake Lucy and the discussion, if we had the Minutes, would show that
we said it will be no problem on Lake Susan. The City has property there and
anticipates getting more. It's going to be a problem on Lake Lucy. Are we sure
we want to do this before we commit $8,000.00 of the City's money to this ,
project? The Council unanimously said yes we do. We're going to put access
on Lake Lucy. Now if the paper is accurate, the newspaper, they've said if I
interpret it correctly, that the MPCA has said we will clean up Lake Riley if
you put an access on Lake Lucy. You do it and we'll do our part. There's going
to be a shift in kind of the, the City isn't going to get the deal that it had
and lost but it's going to be a very good deal and I think we need to remember
that Lake Riley is not in very good shape and it has a great many people that
live on it both in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and we're doing them a real
disservice. We're basically holding then hostage because we're afraid to put a
temporary access into a neighborhood. Now in my neighborhood we've got an
access on Lotus Lake and I'll match that against Greenwood Shores Park any day
in terms of difficulty to access. The access has been there for years and I'm
not aware of anybody being hurt there. That's not to say that we don't have to
be cautious. We're on a terrible curve. We've got a narrow road. We've got a
long gravel path to get down to it. It's not a good situation and I personally
don't use it but I know a lot of people do in our homeowners association so it
can be done. My point is, if the DNR is willing to spend money on a temporary
access that costs the city nothing, that the city can then turn around and say
this isn't working, let's spend $100,000.00 and get it right in another location
on Lake Lucy. It's a real shame that we're not going to take them up on that.
That we're not going to get that piece of data. I think that there isn't one
chance in a thousand that the DNR is going to spend any money in Lake Lucy
56 '
_-r
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
without an access because legally they can't do it and I don't think they're
going to spend any money anywhere else in the chain because legally they can't
do it. Not because they don't want to do it and here we have an opportunity
where they're coming out to us and they're saying we'll put in a minimum access
' operation and I just think it's too bad that it's not going to pass. I agree
that there's safety problems and they have to be dealt with but there's also a
serious lake problem here that has to be dealt with and we can't do that as a
city without federal government and the state being involved. So I think we
' should put this in.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd just like to clarify again that the funds
really are not available to clean up Lake Riley at this point and if you put an
access in and we're not assured that the funds will be available in the future
so to me it doesn't make sense at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make a motion?
Councilman Boyt: I'd just like to clarify that point. Chris, in your newspaper
article, did you talk to the people at the MPCA?
Chris Burns: Did I talk to the people, about what?
Councilman Boyt: About funding. Wasn't it your article that reported that they
would fund this if we got an access on it? Not the access but the clean up.
Chris Burns: I don't think there was any guarantee. I don't think there was
any story that I wrote where they guaranteed that. ..
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Thank you. Is there any way we could fund one of those
other accesses?
' Don Ashworth: Not without a grant. You could go back to referendum. You could
g g
remodify your park capital budget but I mean you're talking about major, major
expense and I personally don't see where there's anyway to fund it without
assurances that there'd be a grant to cover at least 50% of the cost.
' Councilman Workman: I guess our only options are either spend $250,000.00 to
put in an access or lose a neighborhood park when really we don't have the
funds, we're not going to have the funds right now to do the clean up and then
the clean up itself has proven from the residents as questionable in itself as
our city received prominence in the Tribune as far as the chemical treatment of
Rice Marsh Lake. It's all very questionable so I don't know that we've got, we
don't have a guarantee that, EPA will not fund something unless it is a
permanent clean up and that work plan missed by a long shot from being a
permanent clean up. So with all those things hanging, I don't know how we can
support, I can support.
Councilman Boyt: Well the EPA said they'll came back and complete the study so
it is a good clean up when they do it. They are going to be responsive to the
City and the neighborhood when they came back to do that.
57
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 •
Councilman Workman: But it's not their project. It's the Watershed District's
project which will not do a thing or spend another penny.
Lori Sietsema: But they've been given the funds to complete that work plan with
EPA's, EPA has approved the work plan and what revisions need to be made. They -
have allocated the funds for that to be completed out of this project and
they're diverting the rest of the funds so the work plan would be completed and
approved by EPA. I
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone from the audience that wishes to discuss this?
Councilman Workman: Lori, are you saying you support this access in Greenwood ,
Shores Park?
Lori Sietserla: I'm not supporting a permanent access at Greenwood Shores Park
but I don't think that I would vehemently oppose a temporary access if it truly
was temporary in nature.
Councilman Workman: Where would we go after Greenwood Shores? '
Lori Sietsema: At that point we could review what kind of traffic levels are.
Councilman Workman: Let's say we were going to leave Greenwood Shores. Where
would we go then?
Lori Sietsema: The Christensen property is very doable. It's probably... ,
Mayor Chmiel: Have you ever seen a temporary situation? Every temporary
situation I've ever seen has always been permanent unfortunately.
Councilman Boyt: Write in a sunset clause in this thing. Tell them we'll
accept it for 3 years and then it's going to have to close. See if they'll take 1
that. In 3 years we figured out a way to fund the other place.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm ready to make a motion, if I can put it all together
here. Due to the opposition to a boat access in Greenwood Shore Park,
recognizing existing policies and potential dangers to neighborhood children and
without assurances that grant monies will be available and noting that the City
does not have funds to acquire the Dirks or Christensen properties, I move that
we instruct staff to notify the Watershed District, the EPA, the PCA, the DNR
and the property owners that we will not be pursuing access to Lake Lucy at this
time. I
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Wittier moved, Councilman Workman seconded that due to the
i
opposition to a boat access in Greenwood Shore Park, recognizing existing
policies and potential dangers to neighborhood children and without assurances
that grant monies will be available and noting that the City does not have funds
to acquire the Dirks or Christensen properties, the City Council instructs staff
to notify the Watershed District, the EPA, the PCA, the DNR and the property
owners that the City will not be pursuing access to Lake Lucy at this time. All
voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried.
58 1
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
REQUEST FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A DECK ON A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, LOTUS LAKE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION:
A. SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST.
' Jo Ann Olsen: On the Lotus Lake Estates beachlot, the first thing is they are
applying for a variance to the 75 foot shoreland setback for a deck. The deck
was located on the site without prior permission from the City. It did not
receive a variance, an amendment to the conditional use permit or a building
permit. They did go in front of the Board of Adjustments for the variance to
the 75 foot setback and it was denied by the Board of Adjustments. They are
appealing that decision to the Council. This goes along with the amendment to
' the conditional use permit. They are requesting to allow the deck to be located
on a recreational beachlot. The zoning ordinance does not allow structures,
decks to be located on recreational beachlots. In addition, Lotus Lake Estates
has a conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot that also prohibits
any structures on the recreational beachlot other than those specifically
allowed in the conditional use permit. So you have two actions tonight. The
first would be the appeal of the Board's decision for the variance setback and
the second one would be whether or not to approve the amendment to the
conditional use permit. Staff is recommending denial and suggesting that if the
Council feels that structures such as a deck should be permitted on recreational
beachlots, whether that should be allowed. Number two, the ordinance and the
conditional use permit that are a variance to the ordinance, that they should
amend the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone in the public who wishes to address the issue?
Nick Gassman: Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Nick Gassman. I'm with Lotus Lake
Homeowners Association and Jo Ann has described to you what we'd like to do
tonight is pretty much to ask the Mayor's and the Council's permission or
assistance in directing us as Lotus Lake Homeowners Association to go down the
necessary paths and approach the necessary channels to allow Lotus Lake to
maintain the 12 x 14 deck which has been placed about 60 feet off the high water
mark on our 1,500 foot site of lakeshore on Outlot B which we maintain with your
permission and the conditional use permit which we now have. The Association is
here to readily admit that we had erred in the construction of the lot as you've
outlined in the previous meeting Minutes or the Planning Commission Minutes. We
built a deck in my misinterpretation of what I didn't know existed at that time
as a newly appointed officer of the Lotus Lake Homeowners and we had the 12 x 14
deck constructed to take care of a part that Mother Nature played. In 1987 we
had a very large rain that took a portion of the hill onto the sand blanket that
we had on our outlot so we built the deck the size of the, approximate size of
the washout to take care of that eyesore and to better improve the outlot and
it's appearance. Since that time, as Jo Ann did not say, the deck's actually
been constructed since the first part of July. We've realized same additional
advantages that we didn't consider. Other than the fact that it beautifies the
outlot, it makes it much more accessible to members of our 44 homeowners and
their children and for their enjoyment in that it allows for some shaded area
1 for the people not wishing to be on the sand and out of the sun and what I mean
by that is by parents and/or grandparents that do want to come down there and
11 59
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
•
• 1
enjoy the beachlot which we have. Also, one of the distinct advantages that
we've noticed and taken note of throughout the summer was the advantage of being
able to have a better birdseye view so to speak, kind of on the same principle
as a lifeguard chair in that you're about 38-40 inches off the sand area so you
have a better visibility down toward the lake water and watching the children
playing etc.. But the deck is not permanent. There's no footings involved at
all. There's no concrete. It's imply a platform that's laid upon two cross
beams and with the appropriate man power could be moved. It could be considered
almost a little bit larger than the 10 x 10 swimming platform that we now have
floating on pontoons in the swimming area that we have marked. What we've done
is in good faith and when I was notified by staff, by Jo Ann that we had erred,
we did fill out and follow her direction. Filling out the necessary permits and
paying the necessary fees to go through the process in order that we may
maintain and keep this deck area. What we've heard now through the first two
meetings that we've been through is that Lotus Lake Estates cannot prove that we
have gone through any type of hardship. That we cannot use the beach area with
or without this deck. Well, it is not true that there is not some hardship.
Obviously there are for some of the older and less capable homeowners in our
area but that is not an unduly hardship in that we did have the beach area and
that we did use the beach area and that is true but what we did when we built
the deck is not how we did it. We did err in how we did it but why we did it
was to beautify and to increase the value of our outlot and of the 44 homes in
the Lotus Lake Estates. It just goes with the attitude that we have in our
homeowners association and what we've tried to do is take the fees that we
collect from each homeowner and beautify the area so that we have a better place
and that goes, I don't know if many of you are familiar with the front entrance
that we've tried to improve and certainly beautified that with trees and flowers
and additional rock work so that it's a pleasant place to come into to show that
we do have interest in maintaining and presenting a good community on Lotus
Lake. But we're here tonight simply to ask what is the next step? We're here
in good faith. We're here to make it right with the City and we'd like to
maintain the platform. It is an advantage to our outlot and we didn't build it
with a big gazebo in mind where we could sell soft drinks or cold beer. It's a
mere 12 x 14 platform and it certainly adds and beautifies the outlot that we
now have as a conditional use permit. If you have any questions of me right now
I'd be happy to answer them. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes Nick, could you tell me how many feet do you need in
variance? It's a 75 foot setback and you said you had how many?
Nick Gassman: There's no way in the way God created the landshore there on the
high water mark. When the earth came down from the rain, it broke off some of
the hill and when it did, it washed some of the dirt away. What we did was move
the dirt away to make a cleaner area and with that, it's from the front end of
the platform to the high water mark or to where it's been the highest since the
rain, it's about 56 feet. To the back of the deck would be with 12 feet, that's
about 66-68 feet away from the water. I tell you that this thing is above
grade. It's not on the beach level. It's not on the water level and again I
reiterate that it's not a permanent fixture. There's no footings. There's no
concrete footings. We did not dig any holes. It is simply a platform laid
across two heavy timbers. That's it.
Councilwoman Dirtier: So you're requesting about a 19 foot variance is that 1
right?
60 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
•
Nick Gassman: Yeah, from the 75 foot, right and again as I recall, the
information that Jo Ann has supplied us, if it's not a man created problem,
' which indeed this is not, that that would be a reasonable request.
Mayor CImiel: Tom, did you have any questions?
Councilman Workman: I got an opportunity to stand on it today and I wish there
were a cold beer down there. It's very tastefully done as I mentioned to one of
your neighbors. It certainly doesn't look malicious.
Nick Gassman: No, and when we put it in Tom we didn't have, again we were very
sensitive to the environment around it. We didn't want to make it obtrusive.
' We were very conscience of the fact that we do have neighbors other than the
people that live on our part of the lake and from my informal survey, I'm a
fisherman as well as a lot of people around the lake, and just when I'm asking
how they're doing, I've also proudly asked them what do they think of the deck
' on the beachfront and I didn't have one negative convent. I had several
convents that said, it's good to see that there's something in that damn hole.
Excuse me.
' Councilman Workman: Yeah. We've got an awful lot of building going on that we
don't know about and we end up finding out about and then it really makes it
double tough for the Council because then we...
Nick Gassman: We understand and that's why when Jo Ann notified me that we had
erred, that we wanted to get this up front, on the table and go through the
' necessary paperwork. Pay the appropriate fees to make it right. I mean that's
why we're here is to make it right and to do what we can to maintain it and if
you agree that it was done tastefully, that it doesn't hurt anything. There are
certain things in our conditional use permit for instance that to a lot of the
' new people that have moved into Lotus Lake Estates since the signing of the
original conditional use permit, that we would just as soon gladly give back to
the City of Chanhassen like a fire pit for instance. To me a small 168 square
' foot platform on 1,500 feet of lakeshore is a lot less of an eyesore or a
hinderance that a 6 foot fire pit would be in the middle of that beach which we
have permission to do and to me, and the rest of the homeowners, the majority of
' the homeowners in my association, it seems to be a very good trade-off I guess
if there is one. I don't want to say that I'm in a position to trade because
I'm not. I'm here for the next step. For the next step to be able to maintain
our deck.
Councilman Workman: Maybe there's more than 2 ways of looking at it. One is to
look at your instance specifically and look at it on it's own merits in regards
' to our ordinance and everything else. The other side is to look at it in the
general scope of things and look at it in the general scope of the entire
boundary of the lake or each lake and I don't know how many lakes we have, 11
lakes that people live on in this town?
' Nick Gassman: I would responsibilities.agree with As a person that has
9 � Po
the task and employed to make those decisions and considerations, I would ask
that you look at each set of circumstances that were brought to you and evaluate
them on their merits as opposed to trying to consider other things that may have
happened in the past or may same day happen in the future. The facts as you see
61
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 •
. 1
them evaluate them for what their merits hold. I would hate to be the person to
say that we know all but I think at this point in time our good faith and
honesty...
Councilman Workman: Well Jo Ann, the difference between a portable, this being
portable, versus permanent.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's still a structure.
Councilman Workman: Doesn't change a darn thing does it?
Jo Ann Olsen: And again we're saying the proper way, if you want to approve
it, the proper way to do it would be to amend the ordinance.
Councilman Workman: What does that create?
Jo Ann Olsen: Create?
Councilman Workman: If we amend the ordinance.
Jo Ann Olsen: Then they would still have to go through the amendment to the
conditional use permit. Their conditional use permit but it gives them...
Councilman Workman: Are we talking about just decks?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's something that we could look at. We could look specifically 1
at just decks. At small decks. With other stipulations. Currently right now
there are no structures at all permitted on a recreational beachlot.
Nick Gassman: The interpretation of that now is a deck isn't one but it would 1
make sense since the comments that I've had and some of the other discussions
that we've had, we've not had staff really say that decks may not be an
appropriate use for an outlot or a beachlot, which I think the majority of you
if you were to see what has transpired here would agree but if the City Council
were to maintain or retain the authority to say and modify the conditional use
permit with the variance to such thing, I'm not sure of the legal term, but that
anything like that would have to be run through the City Council for approval.
Whether or not it maintains the environmental considerations that the City
Council would like to see. Whether it is environmentally conscience. Those are
types of issues that certainly ought to be addressed to the City Council. That
would make sense.
Councilman Workman: What I'm trying to get at is we have a 75 foot setback and 1
the past leaders of the City decided that 75 feet was as close as they wanted
. people to get. That was based on something. If we decide that we wanted it 56
feet or 50 feet or we don't care. Maybe the deck can hang out over the edge of
the water. We're a long way from amending I think because what would be proper
there I have no idea.
Jo Ann Olsen: They would still need the variance to the setback and that is the 1
DNR regulation that we've adopted.
Councilman Workman: These rules from people that want to boat accesses through 1
7 acres of swamp so it's a mixed up world and that's an inside joke. You have
62 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
to attend all these meetings if you want to catch all these jokes. I guess I'm
interested in listening to everybody else. Again, it looks tasteful. It's
inside the 75 foot setback. That's a problem. We've got all sorts of sides to
this.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, before I go to you, I have a question I'd like to ask
Roger. How clear are we in classifying this as a structure and is staff correct
in their assumption as to calling that a structure because it's not on
foundations.
Roger Knutson: The definition is very clear and the staff is right. Let me
read you the definition. It's all encompassing. A building, fence, shed,
advertising sign, portable structures, stockpile, dock, boardwalk, culvert, hard
surface parking area, anything constructed or erected...and that includes
portable structures specifically.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: A canoe rack is a structure also?
' Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we do allow that?
' Roger Knutson: Yes. That's spelled out.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we can spell out decks?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I think you're right. If you want to pursue this, you need to
go through some sort of ordinance change. As a variance, it doesn't, in my
opinion, it doesn't meet the definition of a hardship and it doesn't have a
chance as a variance. I would suggest before you launch into an ordinance
change and it's a legitimate thing for any citizen to do that, is as your
neighborhood knows as well as any, your walking into a field with land mines all
over the place. You ask about the 75 foot shoreland setback. When that was
' developed and went through a committee that was formed to look at this whole
thing along with recreational beachlots, fortunately I wasn't actively involved
in that but from what I hear from a distance, it was a bloody affair and so
before your neighborhood decides to open it back up, just be sure that you
really want to wade into something that will take a great deal of time. I don't
venture you're going to have this straighten out by June would be my guess and I
think the reason is because it's such an emotional issue. It's not that your
deck is such a big problem. It's that when you open up the recreational
beachlot ordinance to amendment, I think the room will probably be full of
people because so many people live on lakes as Tam mentioned and recreational
1 beachlots to same, as you neighborhood knows, to some people they see that as a
threat all by itself. Even without a deck so I'm just saying, go ahead and
pursue an ordinance amendment. I think the chances of this, even if you had
approval to put a deck in a beachlot, which might very well make sense to do,
your particular beachlot doesn't have the 75 feet to put it, if I understand
that correctly and I would say the chance of getting a variance to that, even if
decks were allowed, the chance of getting a variance is very slim and I would go
Iso far as to say impossible because those five criteria require that you have to
have a hardship. You have to have something that is required to be there in
63
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
. 1
order to use that beachlot that you don't now have.
Nick Gassman: Can I ask you a question? Take a for instance then. Because of
what the rain did a couple years ago, would we then be obligated to put up a
gigantic timber wall to hold back the hill which would not be 75 foot off the
water?
Councilman Boyt: That's a really good question about your obligations to
prevent erosion. I suspect there is some obligation there but I don't know what 1
that is. Gary would be a good person to involve and I'm sure if you put, if
that land had slid down in the lake, you would have been obligated to get it out
of there if you could reasonably. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Bill if you're done, I have some convents.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would just supvarize. I'd just say, yes. Go after the 1
ordinance. I still think you've got a problem with the variance.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd pose the question to Roger and maybe Roger can clarify it a
little further with the DNR with their new proposals.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, the DNR came out with a new shoreland regulations either
in June or July of this past year which the cities now are just getting and
examining and there are some new rules on decks which I have just read once and
I can't tell you for sure what they are but they liberalized the requirements.
Now cities can be stricter than those requirements so you could be and that's
something you may want to, and it might not have any affect at all. I'm not
100% can't recall exactly what it said but they do liberalize requirements on
decks. That's a possibility and another one would be of course amending your
ordinance if you wanted to amend your ordinance.
Councilman Workman: What do you mean Roger, liberalize?
Roger Knutson: Can be closer to the water.
Councilman Workman: Because that might be seen as something that might help say '
an elderly person or a child safely enjoy the...
Roger Knutson: As I understand it, it hasn't been for recreational beachlots.
That's not where it's been aimed. There's an awful lot of old cabins on lots of
lakes all over the state where people in the old days, I guess they wanted to be
right next to the edge of the water or fairly close to it and now they want,
scmeone's buying it and they're upgrading it and they want to put a little deck
on the front and under the existing rules they just couldn't do it. They yelled
and hollered at DNR and had input and DNR said yep, that's reasonable. We'll
allow you to put some small decks in front of these old cabins under these rules
so I can't tell you for sure what they say but I know they liberalized than and
it's something you'd want to take a look at or you might want to take a look at.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a few convents. I guess my main concern with this '
is that I would like to see us be able to dispense justice with mercy and I
think that the applicants have indicated that they're well aware that they did
something that was illegal at this point but they are trying to make it right an
I think the problem is the City doesn't have a procedure in place to help them
64 1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
make it right. I think they've paid their application fees and they've applied
for all the required permits again showing that they're willing to do everything
to make it right plus they applied for the variance. I'm wondering if we can
follow a 3 step procedure here which I would favor. Number one would be that we
' do change the ordinance to allow decks on beachlots. The stipulations can be
considered by staff. Whatever is reasonable. I don't know if we need to go
into all of that now. I did do a little bit of research on decks on beachlots
' and how the public would react and I called people on Lotus Lake, on Lake Lucy
and on Lake Riley and so far I have found no opposition to decks in general. A
lot of riparian lot owners have decks already on Lake Riley and so I see no
reason why they can't be included on a beachlot which is owned by a number of
' homeowners in joint. Also I think that the original purpose was that, for the
ordinance, number one. No decks or no structures were allowed because it was
not aesthetically pleasing perhaps or there were no stipulations in place.
' Also, my main concern is to protect the quality of the water. That's why
structures shouldn't be any closer than 75 feet is to protect the quality of the
water. In this case, it's aesthetically pleasing and I can see that it doesn't
' do any harm to the quality of the water whatsoever so again, if those were the
reasons for the ordinance, then I can see why we might be able to do a variance.
Also, I would recommend that we change their conditional use permit. I can't
see that if we are all willing that that would be a tough thing to do to include
1 a deck. Then having done that, then a variance would seem like it would come
under a hardship because we're going to allow than to have a deck and they
cannot meet the 75 foot setback requirement because of the configuration of the
lot and this configuration was not self imposed so they do meet 3 of the 5
criteria.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too like everybody else have gone down there and looked
at the deck. One of your neighbors escorted me down. I didn't find the deck
very obtrusive of course. There as we've had our discussions and some of my
concerns, but I think I can agree with some of the positions that you're taking
' on it. It's really not harming anyone. The appearance is there. The safety
aspect is another thing that I look at. Children are important too and you do
get a little better observation from that deck in looking at that water. I have
' a question, how many more people are here from Lotus Lake Homeowner's
Association? Okay. With that, at least we agree with some of the things that
Ursula has indicated. With that, any other discussion?
' Councilman Workman: Again, I'm trying to figure out where we're going to go
with this. Given if this was approved, where are we headed with decks on
recreational beachlots?
Mayor Chmiel: Well there's one of the factors yet that Roger is looking at too
and of course to see what DNR's new requirements are and they can be, we can
always have things more restrictive than what the DNR puts out but we can never
have it less than what they basically have either.
Councilman Workman: Is that what he's be doing though?
1 Mayor Chmiel: That would be one thing that we could look at, yes.
Jo Ann Olsen: We're doing that anyway. Right now we're looking at adopting the
new shoreland ordinance as part of our ordinance.
65
t--
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Councilman Workman: And that says what?
Jo Ann Olsen: We don't have it specifically in front of us.
Councilman Workman: Is that the one that Roger's talking about? '
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilman Workman: But it will have specific... 1
Jo Ann Olsen: It will have specific setbacks a certain number of feet that it
has to be back.
Councilman Workman: Why don't we wait? Leave it as it sits and create a big
agenda sometime down the road and wait at this point and wait until we see it. '
Councilman Boyt: I think somebody's going to have to pursue putting decks on
beachlots. That's a whole separate issue from the setback and if this
neighborhood feels that that's important and wants to pursue it, I think they
should do it. I think that conditional use permit in regards to your beachlot
was set after a great deal of struggle between your association and the City as
I recall. I don't think we should be messing with that. We should do this
through an ordinance process. If it passes through the necessary groups and
gets approval, fine. I think there's a very good reason for having that 75 foot
shoreland protection and that's because we want to maintain some sense of lake
shoreline and so maybe 75 feet was picked somewhat arbitrarily but it provides a
cushion between that house and the shore. To see how close people can build, go
out to Lake Minnetonka and look at sane of those older homes out there. You can
sit right on the rocks next to the shore. Without some sort of a setback,
that's where people would build. I don't know what the magic distance is. Maybe
the DNR can intuite that for us so I'd be all for postponing a decision on this
if that would help. I still think the homeowners association has got to pursue
an ordinance change to get it through.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you willing to do that? Pursue an ordinance change?
Nick Gassman: Your advice. I feel the homeowners association is committed to,
we firmly believe as you heard tonight that we are, it's a very unobtrusive
structure and it is back off the water to the point, where, other than the '
railing, you don't know the deck is there. Like I say it's as far back into the
hill as possible given what's been placed there by Mother Nature and our
intention by no means is to build it out into the water. There are a couple of
decks on Lotus Lake unfortunately already that were long before any ordinance
was probably passed that are out over the water. There's also a couple boat
houses that are of recent construction that are on the water and that is
something that I don't like either from the standpoint that that and the big
concrete, or I'm sorry, not the concrete but the stone boulder walls that have
been placed around the lakeshore, especially last summer during the low water
time, that when you mentioned Councilman Boyt that we want to preserve
lakeshore, that is totally the intention of Lotus Lake Estates. Perfectly the
reason why there's absolutely manicured beach area and preservation of the 1,500
feet that we're blessed with. Much to our chagrin to the development along the
Lakeshore, of the water to the lakeshore, has been much to our chagrin as well.
Especially the boulder walls but you write it up to well, it was a decision that
66 1
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
was made and we live with that decision but this 168 square foot deck or 12 x 14
and again, I would invite you or any of the members of the Council that have not
been there and seen it, your fears would be calmed if you were to see the way it
is placed. I'm amiss at not having a photograph to show you but like I say, the
compliments that we've had have been all. The complaints we've had have been
nil.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd just like, I know we gave there's a gentleman
that had a deck built and what was his name, I forget. Anyway, basically what
we said to him was we aren't going to grant you this variance but we're not
' going to do anything to you for another year so in light of that, if we're not
going to go ahead with these steps that I proposed which I still recommend, that
we start with the ordinance change and maybe the association should pursue that
but I know that you have at least a year because we have to be consistent. '
Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to think that we could get this resolved before
the ice is off the lake.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would too.
I Councilman Boyt: I think we should table this. I don't think we should pile up
variances that we haven't resolved. It doesn't leave anybody in a good
situation.
' Councilwoman Dimler: What does tabling do?
Councilman Boyt: Hopefully staff can came back with how the DNR is going to
' impact on this thing with their change in ordinance. If they're already changed
their statute, it's there. It's done. With that we can either pass this or
reject it based on what the DNR is proposing. Or we can at least say to them,
go back and if you can get the recreational beachlot ordinance changed to allow
this sort of structure, the setback will take care of it and we've got some
confidence it will go through.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I intend. Do that rather than table it.
Because whatever the DNR comes out with or whatever they have already come out
with and then we find out what it is, they'll still have to go through the, I
1 would think they'd still have to go through the ordinance change. Because decks
are not allowed at all right now no matter what setback. We'd have to allow
them to have the deck in the first place.
iCouncilman Boyt: If the DNR didn't change the 75 feet, then we can save them a
lot of trouble.
' Councilwoman Dimler: No, but they still need to have decks as a structure
allowed on beachlots regardless of the setback. If the DNR does not require the
75 feet any long and maybe in fact only requires 46 which you have.
Nick Gassman: 56.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Or 56, then you won't need the variance. If they still
need to change the ordinance to allow decks on beachlots so I'm saying that's
1 67
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
why we should go ahead with that and not delay the process any further. The DNR
ruling will only affect the variance and not the ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: If they don't get the variance, I'll bet they're not going to
pursue the ordinance very hard.
Mayor Chmiel: That will be up to their discretion.
Nick Gassman: Only one thing that maybe I'm not making clear. The 56 foot is
quite a ways and plus the deck doesn't sit on the grade. It's up about 38
inches I think was what the measurement was. It doesn't sit on the flat so if
you were to, even if the water came all the way up to where it was in the rain,
it would not be in the water at all. Again, I would invite you to take a look
at it. It's a long way away from the water. It's not like it's close to the
shore at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll look for a motion.
Councilman Boyt: I would make the motion to table this and direct staff to come
back with the DNR regulations that impact on this decision.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? It dies for lack of a second.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would'make a motion that we follow the three steps that
I've proposed. That the homeowners association and staff get together to draft
changes to allow decks on beachlots and that stipulations be, oh what do I want
to say. I'm tired. That staff come up with the stipulations on size, color,
etc. or characteristics of the decks. That number 2, if we need the change in
their conditional use permit, to allow than the variance then. I would
recommend that they go ahead with the change in their conditional use permit and
then number 3, that after we find out what the DNR new rules are, that we see
whether they need a variance or not. If they do, then they apply for the
variance. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Jo Ann has all that done. Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Can I have 2 explained?
Mayor Chmiel: Clarification?
Councilman Workman: Explain to me 2.
Councilwoman Dimler: They have a conditional use permit which allows, how many
items are you allowed?
Councilman Boyt: 7. '
Councilwoman Dirtier: 7. Okay. I couldn't find anything in there that says we
can't add or subtract to that. Is that correct? Can we add to their
conditional use permit at this time? 1
Jo Ann Olsen: No. You'd have to go...
Mayor Chmiel: You'd have to reopen the conditional use hearing.
68 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
' Councilwoman Dimler: Is that a long procedure?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right now we probably, until you amend the ordinance to allow a
deck as part of a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot, you really
can't approve it unless you approve a variance.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. The variance still has to be there.
Jo Ann Olsen: You probably should just table everything to work on this and
bring it back.
' Councilman Workman: Table with those conditions?
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Oh dear. We don't have a starting point at all?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. Not unless you grant a variance which have to show a
hardship.
Councilwoman Dimler: We can't change an ordinance without.. .
' Jo Ann Olsen: Without public hearing.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I'm saying. To start that procedure. Can we
do that?
' Jo Ann Olsen: That's what we're doing. We'll have to take it back in front of
the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's my motion. So we don't want to table it right?
Jo Ann Olsen: Are you denying...
Councilman Boyt: You have to table it unless you deny it or pass it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think by tabling with the conditions as such. It will come
back with the answers so we know what they are.
Roger Knutson: What you're doing is tabling with direction.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I move that we table with those 3 directions. Is
that clear?
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
' Councilman Boyt: Not exactly. On question number 2 which Tani brought up.
You're saying to go back and...
Councilwoman Dimler: If they need a change in their conditional use permit, to
make the variance a hardship. If it's not necessary, then let's not do it but
if the conditional use permit, having it in there which allows them to do it
then and then makes the variance a hardship okay because they cannot meet the 75
' foot setback because of the configuration of the lot which is not self imposed.
69
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Let's ask Roger_. Roger, if the conditional use permit is
changed so they are allowed to have a deck, does it then become a hardship when
they can't find a place for it?
Roger Knutson: You have to look at the property as a whole and are you getting
a reasonable use of the property. It's a Council judgment as to whether they're
getting a reasonable use of the property without the deck.
Councilwoman Dimler: See that's why I'm saying if you include it in their
conditional use permit.
Roger Knutson: That's what they're asking for.
Councilman Boyt: But see what we've done in the past...
Councilwoman Dimler: They're saying they can have a deck and now then we have
to grant the variance because you can't meet the requiraments.
Councilman Boyt: If we go on what we've done in the past, we have said if the —
City doesn't require it, then it's not a hardship if you don't have it. There's
a big difference between required and permission to. Now I just lay before you
the bodies of all the other people who've lost their variance because the City
didn't require it. I don't think we want to mess around with those dead bones
out there.
Roger Knutson: It's just like, if someone has a house right now and let's say
they, I'll just make up sane dimensions. Let's say there's a 20 foot rear yard
setback requirement and their house is built to the 20 foot mark. They came in
and said I want to build a deck on the back end of my house. I would advise you
that they probably don't meet the requirements for a variance because they're
getting a reasonable use of their property by most standards because they have a
house there.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand what you're saying. My main purpose with
this was to dispense same justice with mercy and I don't think we necessarily
want to be seen as a city without mercy and these people are really trying hard
to right the wrong that they've done.
Roger Knutson: If you find that not having that deck deprives than of
reasonable use of their property, then they qualify for a variance.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, they don't have any grass area where they can have
people that don't want to be in the sand. Older people don't like to be in the
sand. Babies are not good in the sand. They don't have any area where they can
do that. Would that be something? They need the deck for that.
Roger Knutson: I know the answer you're looking for. '
Councilman Workman: Ursula, I would not for my own...
Councilwoman Dimler: Is this a football game?
Councilman Workman: What was your statement here? Your original statement on
that?
70 ,
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Justice with mercy?
Councilman Workman: Oh, that basically because somebody did a wrong we want to
help them because I think then what we're doing is we're promoting to go ahead
t and do wrong.
Councilwoman Dimler: No. We have a lot of those.
' Councilman Workman: I don't want that. We've got two of those tonight with one
more I think this evening.
rCouncilwoman Dimler: I understand that.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to just suggest something. That we let staff take a
look at what we've got. That we table the situation with all those conditions
to see the alternatives and pursue it from that point. Okay?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the
shoreland setback variance request and conditional use permit request for the
' placement of a deck on a Recreational Beachlot for Lotus Lake Homeowners
Association with the following direction for staff:
1. The homeowners association and staff get together to draft changes to allow
' decks on beachlots and come up with the stipulations on size, color, etc. or
characteristics of the decks.
11 2. If the conditional use permit needs to be changed, to allow the variance at
that time.
3. After finding out what the DNR new rules are, to see whether they need a
variance or not. If they do, then apply for the variance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
r
Mayor Chmiel: Let me make a statement. As we are quickly progressing towards
midnight. We normally cut off at 12:00. We will take the next agenda item and
discuss that. The balance we will do, what nights is everyone else going to be
available?
Councilman Boyt: Thursday?
Councilwoman Dimler: Wait a minute.
' Mayor Chmiel: I know you've sat here all night. What are you here for this
evening?
Councilwoman Dimler: The Curry Farms one.
Councilman Boyt: Can we do 12(b)?
Councilwoman Dimler: The wetland alteration.
71
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
•
1
Councilman Workman: Raman doesn't look happy about that. '
Councilman Boyt: Roman's not happy about that?
Councilman Workman: I say we give each of these items 5 minutes. I
Councilman Boyt: 5 minutes. It isn't going to do it.
Mayor Chmiel: No. We won't be able to touch then. There's a meeting on
Thursday that I've got with the neighborhood group.
Councilman Workman: Let's set a new record for longevity. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to continue?
Councilman Boyt: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Let's go. I'm all for it. Let's keep moving. '
RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO CANCEL RECYCLING CONTRACT. '
Mayor Chmiel: Basically everybody knows what it's about. What we're looking
at. We have had the different costs brought before us and maybe a quick
summarization. I
Jo Ann Olsen: The quick surviary is we're recommending that you continue the
contract. Tomorrow Carver County Board will be acting on it. The staff is
recommending that they provide us the $5,000.00, whatever the odd dollars are to
pay for the rest of this year. Again, that ties you into 1990. We still think
you should go. We should continue with the contract. We have lots of options
that we can pursue that will take the cost out of the general fund so right now
you just have to make the decision whether to continue with the contract. We're
recommending you to.
Mayor Chmiel: You hear recommendations. Don and I are going to be before the
County Board tomorrow morning bright and early to discuss the issue on this and
to see if we can acquire the additional dollars to offset our cost for carrying
it through to the end of the year. In addition to that, of course there's also,
what about the balance of the contract for 1990 Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: You mean as far as paying for that? Well they are not, as far as I
Carver County staff, they are not making any recommendation on a number, dollar
figure. They are essentially saying let's wait and see.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussions?
Councilman Boyt: Okay. If we pass this, it should only be with the condition
that as of January 1 no money is taken out of the general fund. There is, do
you have the percent of participation for the month of October? We're not
finished with that. The month of September?
Jo Ann Olsen: Not yet, no.
72 '
-- 1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
•
' Councilman Boyt: Well just doing a rough survey through our neighborhood
Ursula, I would guess it's 1 in 8. This is awfully expensive. I know we've got
to do it. I think that this is probably the most reasonable plan that we're
' going to see. We're down from looking, before we started this discussion at
possibly $2.00 a household a month sometime during 1990, to now the guarantee
that it will not exceed, what is it a $1.60?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: There's no question that the City's going to be involved in
some kind of curbside recycling by the end of the year but I have equally strong
commitment to this money will not come out of the general fund, in my opinion.
It's ridiculous to fund it that way and so I think the only way we can pass this
is, the only way I feel comfortable voting on it is if the Council said yes, we
agree that it's not going to come out of the general fund. Then that forces the
recycling committee to get on it and get these public hearings done and get this
resolved in the next month and a half. Otherwise I see, this thing could
easily spread out in October, we still won't have a decision about how we want
to do this. A lot of issues here.
Mayor Chmiel: Of course my major issue, Bill you know what it is. It's an
implementation that we started back in May and I just don't want to see this die
because we're going to be forced into it. As our citizens look at us, they'll
say well they can't make up their minds one way or the other so why should
I even recycle. Throw it all in the garbage and I can understand that. I guess
from my standpoint, I want to see the recycling continue because I think it's
something that we have to do. It's something that's going to be necessary. It's
going to be mandated by us and it's a necessary function by this state through
the County's implementing that cities do this. It has to be started by October
of next year to be in place and start moving and therefore we're so far ahead of
what we've done as a city. I don't want to see this thing die.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Don, can you tell me how long it will be before the
recycling committee is ready to make a recommendation to us?
Mayor Chmiel: I think we have one of the members from the recycling committee
here.
11 Victor Halberg: Victor Halberg, 411 Del Rio and the commission I think is it's
fair to say really wants to move away from an approach that requires us to use
city funds for recycling. I think most of us have talked in that format and
we're really looking at here is a time frame in which to develop one of several
different options in order to move it to a feed base service. It could take one
of several different forms. Perhaps the best one is one that Jo Ann recommended
in a micro that I think have you all read that, in preparation for tonight?
Which is to pass an ordinance requiring our current haulers to add recycling to
their services. If they do that, then we don't disrupt the normal course of
business that has been occurring in Chanhassen for the last couple of years.
Well, we're going to look at that tomorrow night. I don't know, none of us are
in a position to predict how quickly we can move on it but I think we do want to
move in that direction and as quickly as possible. January-February I think
' would be a realistic guesstimate.
73
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 •
1
Councilwoman Dialer: Okay, I guess what I see is that we have to go to this
anyway. The question remains really can we get it done any cheaper. Have there ,
been any studies done? Whether the haulers will do it cheaper? The regular
haulers.
Victor Halberg: We haven't gone out to get another... 1
Councilwanan Dialer: You don't know at this point?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's fair to say Ursula that many of regular haulers
will not be able to do this. That when we start looking at what appears to be a
pretty reasonable idea of requiring haulers to do this, they're going to have to
contract with somebody to do it. They just don't have the trucks to do it and
you can't recycle. The trucks aren't designed that they use everyday, aren't
designed for recycling so they're going to have to have a different truck.
Councilwoman Dialer: Okay. Already there's somewhere too about the possibility ,
of doing it jointly with Chaska to reduce cost. Has this been pursued and
what's the status...
Mayor Chmiel: That was another thing that I understand that they were going to '
pursue with Chaska. Whether that has been done or not.
Jo Ann Olsen: I spoke with somebody from Chaska and right now they have that ,
successful drop off center and they're not actively pursuing curbside. If they
do and when they do, they're most likely will just pursue the once per month.
Mayor Chmiel: All cities of 5,000 or above are required by next October.
Councilwoman Dialer: They have to by next October... '
Jo Ann Olsen: Right so they're not pursuing anything as ambitious as what we
have had or it sounds like we wish to continue but they would be willing to work
with us. That is an option. It's not one that we are reconmending. It is an
option.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see us pursue that a little bit more with them. I
Craig Mertz: Craig Mertz, 510 Laredo Lane. I would like to see the recycling
program continue rather than be abandoned and then we have to start up again. I
would point out that in Hennepin County, Bloomington and Brooklyn Park have
taken the recycling costs off budget by declaring recycling program be a public
utility and there's a bill going out quarterly going out to each household for
this service. There are ways to get it off budget... '
Councilman Workman: I would think if people saw it on their utility bill,
they'd dang well get their stuff out there and use the service because I don't
think there's anybody that's not using their water.
Councilwoman Dialer: That is a good way to do it. Those are the only questions
I had.
74 ,
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Councilman Workman: I say continue it.
1 Councilman Boyt: Well what about some kind of cap on how long we're going to
continue with this sort of funding?
' Councilman Workman: Well where's the funding going to come from? Finding an
option such as utility bill or something?
' Councilman Boyt: As soon as we start to say to local haulers here are
additional conditions on your being able to work in Chanhassen. I suspect
they're going to line up in here and tell us why they can't do that, some of
them. I'm saying that I think for us as a City Council to fund this out of our
' general fund is to spend a great deal of money to pick up newspapers and I don't
think we can do that. Especially not when we've got a neighbor just down the
road that says we're not doing it.
Mayor Chmiel: But they're doing something Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Right and we tried to do something and we can go back to that.
I'm not encouraging us to do that. I'm just saying let's, sure let's continue
this thing. We've got a pretty good rate for the rest of the year but let's
continue it with some kind of a push on the committee and the Council and the
' community to get this thing resolved quickly. If they need to go to February,
okay maybe February's reasonable but if we don't have it resolved by February,
then somebody doesn't think this is a priority.
Jo Ann Olsen: We do have funds until April to cover the cost with the 1990
budget.
Councilwoman Dimler: Wait, I'm getting a little confused. Are we approving
this contract to go all the way through 1990?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's part of the deal is yes, we would have to go into the
contract but that would have the early release clause.
Councilwoman Dimler: With penalty though.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
1 Councilman Workman: And what would that penalty be?
Jo Ann Olsen: I've got it, it's listed.
11 Councilman Boyt: It's the amount we're paying not. It's not a big penalty.
Mayor Chmiel: I can't see where that's going to be a big problem.
' Councilman Boyt: They're reducing our price and just saying if we buy out, we
have to pay what we're paying now. It's no big deal.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would say we continue.
' Councilman Boyt: Well then let's make a motion that we continue the service,
paying for it out of the general fund through the month of February and at that
' 75
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 •
I
point, an alternate funding source must be in effect. Is there a second to
that? '
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to continue the curbside
recycling contract with Waste Mangement paying for it out of the general fund
until February, 1990 at which time another funding source must be available.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST TO AMEND BUILDING PERMIT FEES, HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS, BRAD JOHNSON.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Todd. Where'd Todd go? ,
Don Ashworth: Todd has left. You do have a request to modify the building
permit for Heritage Park Apartments. I recognize that this is a larger amount
of money for them. However, we did ask the City Attorney what type of problem
this would create and it was his opinion that this is simply not a good idea.
You're going to be opening the doors for literally every other party that
doesn't really care to follow the Uniform Building Code to come in and ask for a
rebate. The policy is to use the Code and to determine the valuation in
accordance. So staff recommends denial.
Mayor Crtiel: Discussion? ,
Brad Johnson: Can I say something?
Mayor Chmiiel: Sure.
Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson. I'm with Lotus Realty representing the Heritage
Park, the partnership that owns the building. I think this is mainly a point of
principle on my part at this point after reading all these letters and having a
negative staff recommendation which we try not to do. The setting is that we
had just written out a check for $135,000.00 and then when we were taking our
permit out on this particular building then we're asked to write another check
out for $35,000.00 so we're at $170,000.00 and we thought we were done. We had
budgeted another $11,000.00 for a building permit and we want in to pull the
building permit, and we're already $90,000.00 over budget on city fees. The
point being that there's no method of appeal. We went to city staff and said
this doesn't sound reasonable. We've got documented evidence that the building
is going to cost us $2.3 million and somebody said to us that the cost has to be
$3.5 million because that's what the State said and it wasn't. it was $2.3
million and we went down. We had the Assessor reappraise the building. It's a
2 million dollar value. The value of our building is less than our cost because
in this particular case the building happens to be a subsidized product and
therefore the rents don't bring it up to it's true value. My concern is there's
no method of appeal of something when we're 50% higher fee and the valuation
based on the State guidelines is set at 50% higher than our actual cost of the
building. So my request was that we look at it fran the point, and as the
letter states from Roger, and it's a letter not an opinion I think right Roger?
It's technical. The fact is that there should be sane method for appeal because
we're sitting here looking at something that on one side, the guidelines says it
76 ,
i
, City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
should be a $3.5 million building which is an equivalent of a for sale townhouse
and we're in a rental business trying to build as least expensive building that
was going to cost us $35,000.00 a unit and we have no way of doing it. And I
don't like staying here until 12:00 to talk about $5,000.00 but it doesn't make
sense that there's no method of appealing this so I'm here. It seems to me that
that procedure should at least read that if in fact somebody, because you also
say in your letter that normally it underestimates value right Roger?
' Roger Knutson: That's what the Building Inspector tells me.
Brad Johnson: Yeah. And here we are 50% over. He couldn't figure it out
either. The building inspector couldn't figure it out. Nobody could figure out
I/ how we could be where we are yet we've got evidence that this is what our costs
are so I'm just looking to appeal this particular one and suggest that some
guideline be set up with the staff so we don't have to stay here and keep these
people here longer than they should have to stay. That if in the future there
is, just nothing should be this firm. Especially when we're that far off. We
couldn't believe it and that's my corment so I'm asking for some relief. You
I may not give it to me but the worse case this evening is at least set up some
kind of appeal policy so if this happens again, and it will happen every time,
based on what I see here, the next apartment building. The reason it doesn't
happen very often is you only had 2 apartment buildings built in this city in
' the last few years of this size. That's it. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: As I see here that that $3,595,000.00 which was arrived by using
' State guidelines which was the 85 Uniform Building Code and they basically
designate these different building uses and construction types for square foot
in costs. I guess I come from the same position as that there are different
ways of figuring buildings. With your overheads in or your overheads out and
that's probably some of the questions that I'd raise. Does this fully consist
of all your overheads?
Brad Johnson: Everything but financing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, financing is part of that particular project. I still see
' that the $3,595,000.00 value of that where it's at, I guess I agree with the
Attorney's opinion as well as the Building Inspection area.
Councilwoman Dimler: I see that another apartment building, the West Village
1 Heights, or is that what we're talking about? I'm tired.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
' Councilwoman Dimler: They too came in with a complaint and a procedure was not
changed for them. Also I concur with the building inspection department and
' also with the law permit at this point that we should not change the procedure.
Don Ashworth: The only issue I just wanted to bring out is the procedural one,
when the letter was first brought in, I've sent that back over to the building
department and this is what has occurred as a result of that. Brad did have the
right then to talk with the inspectors. Talk with our people. We also went
back over to the State trying to figure out if there were any changes. Anything
different there and then back up to myself and finally to the City Council so I
feel that there are steps to take and pursue. It's just not that in this
77
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
instance that it's coning out well for the apartment people but I think this is
the tool that we have used for all of the people to date and it provides some
form of benchmark, even if there may be some holes in it.
Mayor Chmiel:. Any discussion? Bill?
Councilman Bout: Well I can see your point. It sounds to me though like what
the City is saying is we set our fees based on some formula that really has
nothing to do with market. It's just the formula. This is interesting. We've
got appraisals that people get that are under the City's at certain times and
appraisals we get when we're trying to buy the property that are always over the
City. I don't know how the appraisal process works but I know if I was a
million dollars off and I suspect any of the rest of us, that we'd be in here
doing the same thing so it's a legitimate procedure. It sounds like staff is
saying we just did it the same way we always do it. If the Council is trying to
be consistent, I guess I vote to support that.
Don Ashworth: May I make one quick addition content and that is, we require the
appraisal from the County Assessor and that comes about as a part of the HRA
activities and what we want to do there is assure that there is going to be a
certain minimum value for tax purposes that will be used. So if there is any
form of an incentive program that's going to be considered, what is the absolute
floor. If you look at that, all he's saying there is, here is the absolute
minimum value that we would be assigning to this property. I'm not saying that
that's what Orlin is going to take and have as a final value. I'm just saying
my initial review of this is this is the absolute minimum that would go on that
property.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I get a motion? If not, I will make a motion that we
deny the request as so indicated in the cover letter that we have.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dirtier seconded to deny the request for
reimbursement of $4,527.00 to Heritage Park Apartments on the basis that it
would violate the intent of the State Uniform Building Code valuation tables
used by the City of Chanhassen in determining building valuation. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY, NORTHWEST CORNER OF
PARK ROAD AND PARK COURT, ROME CORPORATION.
Paul Krauss: The applicant's proposing to build a 32,000 square foot office/
warehouse building at the intersection of Park 'Road and Park Place. The
additional building shown on the plans conceptually that would be built in the
future. We thought it was a fairly well designed product. Basically they
responded to most of the issues that were raised by staff. Our only concern
with the proposal was in regards to the eastern access on Park Road. Staff
believe that it represented an unnecessary traffic hazard in that the site could
be basically adequately served by the two other curb cuts that had already been
proposed. We went to the Planning Commission with this several weeks ago and '
the Planning Commission agreed that the general concept was a good one. After
78 1
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
examining the issues with regard to the curb cut though, they ultimately decided
' that, they recommended approval of the site plan with that additional curb cut.
They believe that the traffic hazard was not as great as had been expressed and
they noted that the second building being proposed with no additional curb cuts.
At the same time there was a grading permit requested through the City Council
that was acted on the Consent Agenda recently prepared by the engineering
department. The applicant wasn't present to argue it but that grading permit ":
had in there a stipulation that they could leave that access point they were
concerned about. Since the Planning Commission meeting we've reassessed it.
The Engineering department has some additional information. We retrain concerned
about that curb cut. The new information that we have is that not only is it a
' hazard due to it's proximity to Park Place but it also interferes with a couple
curb cuts located across the street. So we're continuing to recommend that it
be approved but we are moving to recommend that the. ..curb cut be deleted.
' Councilman Boyt: Might I ask, this is so straight forward. If we could focus
everything on the curb cut, maybe we could get out of here on this issue pretty'
quickly.
Mark Johnson: I'm Mark Johnson from Rome Development. I'll just bring up a
couple of points if I can. We were trying to be sensitive to the access onto
Park Road with the site. It is a 4 acre, slightly under that, parcel of land
and on that we have just two points of access to the site. We were trying to be
sensitive I say in that we had two building pads proposed for the parcel and by
doing the one further to the west, we incorporated the one drive into the two
' sites. The property line on Park Road is 600 feet long. We've got 300 feet of
distance between the two drives. We are approximately 130-140 feet from the
corner curb of Park Place and Park Road so we were trying to be sensitive. We
think that due to the size of the property, that it is reasonable. We
anticipate seeing the traffic pattern on the site being semis and delivery vans
and things will enter the curb cut to the west. Pull in behind the two
buildings and then leave the property onto the Park Place road so that's really
the main reason we wanted to have the drive entering Park Place was for the
lower amount of maneuvering that these semis would have to make. So due to the
distances between and the size of the properties, we feel that it is reasonable.
I did not know of any conflict that was across the street there. There happens
to be another curb cut right there?
' Paul Krauss: There's actually a double curb cut across the street. It's
illustrated on the aerial photograph...
Mark Johnson: Do you have any questions that I can answer?
Mayor Chmiel: I guess basically the major concern that we have, Bill mentioned
this is very straight forward and in the staff recommendations they are asking
' that they eliminate that eastern curb cut on Park Road and place it with a
maneuvering area for use by parked cars and redesign the remaining curb cuts as
required to facilitate truck turning movements and to reduce the grade on the
' remaining Park Road curb cut from 10+% to less than 5%. I don't know if that's
a real problem with you in regards to that. If there isn't, I think we can,
besides the other conditions contained on there and I'm sure you've had a chance
to review those Raman. Do you have any objections to those either?
79
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
Roman Roos: Yes Mr. Mayor. As Mark eluded to, the property's about 600 feet
along Park Road. In that park, we checked everything after made the report the
first time with the Planning Commission. In that park there's four major
companies. United, Victory, CC and DayCo and all of those people have curb cuts
identical to mine but even shorter distance to the corner of the curve.
Park Place is a cul-de-sac. A dead cul-de-sac. The intent is somewhat
unreasonable when you have a piece of property that's 600 foot long that one
single curb cut coming in to service two potential building projects is just
unreasonable. As far as the traffic pattern, I can address the amount of
traffic you have on Park Road going through the park east/west would be no
greater than that which is coming in the main drag coming off of Park Place
which is the main street coming in off TH 5. If I thought there was a traffic
pattern, I would say definitely we'd change that but as far as a hazard I do not
see that. We envision the main traffic that Mark eluded to would be coming off
of Park Place and off of the co rton drive between the two buildings. The drive
closest to the east would be strictly a small car entrance for the personnel
working in the office department in that building. I have a very difficulty
with staff's opinion that there's a traffic problem on that site.
Mark Johnson: Particularly when I drove down Park Road this evening before
coming here just to look at the other drives and I would say that the majority
of the on centered distances of the drives down that road, which there are quite
a few, were 100 feet, 150 feet apart and you're looking at 300 feet for two
sizeable buildings and being a full 140 feet off of the intersection of the two
roads which are, the Park Place road is not a very major road at this point.
Will not be adding a lot of traffic counts to Park Road.
Gary Warren: Park Place from the engineering perspective, we look also with an
eye to the future here. The closeness of that curb cut is part of our concern
here. In fact as recent as this morning we're talking with a package delivery
service was interested in Lot 6 at the end of Park Place for. example. Was
talking about establishing a tandem trailer route in the city that's going to
be, if approved, would cane into this area here. Ten trucks a day and I think
the activity in that area has got a lot of potential for traffic and especially
with the closeness of that cut to the corner and the fact that it's opposite two
cuts was our concern. You could move that thing to the west in our opinion and
live with it or. indeed Planning Commission said to further restrict any cuts in
the expansion. We could tolerate a cut I think in the expansion more than we
could tolerate a cut at this location. I'll readily admit that there are other
examples of cuts that are close to corners but I don't think that should be the
justification why we should continue to tolerate a bad situation in my opinion.
That's our rationale.
Raman Roos: When you analyze it from a traffic Po int of view, what criteria and
what type of accident are you talking about?
Gary Warren: What type of what?
Raman Roos: Accident. I
Gary Warren: We were looking at conflicts. Turning movement conflicts from the
two driveways and it's best shown I guess in the graphic, the aerial graphic,
from the cuts across the road and also from turning movements. The tandem route
that is proposed for traffic is coming off Park Place to the west down Park Road
80 11
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
and then up Audubon so we see a lot of movements going out towards the Audubon
Road area.
Mark Johnson: I guess I think in my mind about the distance whether the drive
' is entering Park Road directly across one another or they're 50 feet one way or
another but the closeness in proximity to all the drives down Park Road, they
cannot be that far off that there's going to be that much of a reduction of
danger of one car pulling on, turning one way and one from the opposite sides of
the road and just continuing to look at the distance between the drives here.
Roman Roos: Gary, what is the width of those roads on Park Road?
' Gary Warren: It should be 36 I believe.
' Roman Roos: That's at least a car and a half per side. For a passing lane if
somebody's trying to turn into it. I don't care...
Gary Warren: We talked earlier this evening about having to divert around buses
and things of this nature. I guess sure, it's manageable. The question here I
think is, is the site adequately served with the two cuts and I guess in our
opinion we felt there was adequate service without having to tolerate further
' congestion at that intersection and could indeed support a further cut to the
west in the expansion if that would be a trade-off.
Roman Roos: With the lot like it is, you have to, because of the odd shape of
'
Park Place and Park Road, it's very difficult to take the building and set it
into this area and make it useable. Okay? That's one of the reasons we backed
it off so we have a lot of visibility effect on the front of that building come
' down Park Road. We've tried that building at several different locations. The
site was configured to put two building pads on it. ..the day I bought it but
after... The one time we had it over here which was a straight line into this
bypass area and we shifted it all the way over to this point. That's 100 and
some 40 foot over to that corner. There's no drive in that park that is that
far from the corner to the building. 20 foot is conmon. Now I'm not saying
that's precedent. I'm just saying I just don't see the justifiable reason saying
you can't have a curb cut off of Park Road. It's an industrial park.
Councilman Boyt: It's also a collector.
' Roman Roos: Bill, there is no ordinances contolling that at all. If there was
an ordinance saying that you can have 35 foot or 40 foot from the corner, we'd
comply with that ordinance but there's no ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: I thought I heard Gary saying move it further to the west and
he could live with it.
Roman Roos: Well I did. I shifted it as far as I could Bill on that site.
Councilman Boyt: If you shift it to the east you're then too close to the
corner I gather from what staff is saying and as far as your shifting it to the
west, I can see where it lays up by your building. It appears to do that pretty
nicely. Unfortunately it's right across from a couple other existing drives. I
' think staff is pretty consistent Roman when they're saying to us, we don't like
to have that many accesses in such a tight area.
t 81
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Gary Warren: Roman, have you looked at that cut being on the east on Park Place
instead of on Park Road?
Roman Roos: Again, the site, what I tried to do is have the access into the
property from the primary road on the site and that is Park Road. We were not
going to have a truck entrance at all because I'nm going to have a cormon
easement for this building to access this site but it seemed to be the best
method to get truck traffic in there...in this front section so that was a whole '
site to have truck traffic carting in on Park Place and back out. This traffic
here is car traffic. It is not truck traffic. You're talking about tenants,
the tenants in that end of the building, you're probably looking at I'd say
ballpark maybe 20-25 individuals having cars parking in the office department of
that building. It is not truck traffic. That is coming out of the other
western driveway.
Councilman Boyt: What are your hours of operation?
Raman Roos: Typical office hours. 8:00 to 5:00. I
Councilman Boyt: So it's going to be dumping the cars about the same time the
others in that, is that what you were saying Gary? Does it make a difference
that it's car traffic? I'm sure it must make a difference. Does it change your
opinion knowing that it's car traffic?
Gary Warren: I guess anything would help but car traffic is more easily managed
I think at an access like that than truck traffic.
Councilman Boyt: So if Roman posted that no truck entrance or exit, could you '
live with it from a staff standpoint?
Gary Warren: It would improve the situation. 1
Councilman Boyt: What a diplomatic answer.
Mark Johnson: I liken the distances down to Park Drive which goes up to TH 5
and Audubon Trail and the traffic going like this and splitting at that point to
get onto TH 5. We're about dead center there so the traffic would be about
50-50 each way for the businesses down to the western part, they would go down
Audubon to TH 5 and the others to the east of us would go to Park Drive and take
that way would be logical.
Roman Roos: ...It was never intended for trucks in the first place because '
traffic that would turn around with a truck is very difficult. Very difficult.
Mayor Chniel: I think we've probably discussed it enough back and forth here. I
Councilman Workman: I don't see a problem and I would think to me the logic is
to have it across from another entrance but I don't see it is as a problem but I
do see it being kind of a void for this building if it isn't there too so I'm a
fence sitter.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I appreciate staff's consideration here and I I
think they have more of an expert opinion than I do. We did approve it on the
82 1
- - 1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
consent agenda with the elimination of the eastern curb cut so I guess I'd stick
with that.
Mayor Chmiel: With?
Councilwoman Dimler: Keep the curt cut eliminated like we approved in our
consent agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Roman Roos: .. .the reason for the grading permit was initially we were trying
to get this thing ground breaking. .. When it became obvious that one tenant
couldn't get in the ground that quick so we're going to stall it until spring so
the grading process...so that's the primary reason there wasn't anybody present
at that time...
' Mayor Chmiel: How about if we were to just post that for cars only and no
trucks?
Gary Warren: I was going to suggest, it depends on the timing of Roman's
situation but if he's talking about springtime construction, he mentioned some
other alternatives for the building site that he had gone through and I don't
know if Planning has looked at those in the past but I'd be interested to look
at those also to better understand the restraints that he's talking about for
' other alternate curb cuts here. It depends on the timing here but I would
suggest that maybe it's appropriate to table the item or approve it with the
understanding that we'll resolve this curb cut issue.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd like to just as soon approve it with resolvement
between the two of you. Between staff and yourselves.
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. That's fine with me.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded that Site Plan Review #89-8
' for the Rome Office Building be approved without variances subject to the
following conditions:
1. Provide trash storage enclosures built with materials compatible with the
building or store all trash internally.
2. Roof mounted HVAC equipment should be provided with a screen constructed of
Materials compatible with the building exterior. Details should be prepared
for staff approval prior to City Council review.
' 3. The developer will work with the City Engineer to resolve the curb cut
issues.
' 4. Revise the landscaping plan to illustrate seeding or sodding of the Phase II
building area. This area is to be kept in a maintained condition until
construction occurs.
' 5. Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District.
83
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
6. Utilize concrete curb and gutter and design it to connect to improvements in
Park Place that will be installed by the City. Add an additional catch
basin at the Park Place curb cut. All storm sewer located in public
easement or ROW shall be reinforced concrete pipe.
7. Erosion controls are to be in place prior to start of work on the site and
maintained until site restoration is completed. Additional erosion control
may be required along the south property line by staff to prevent erosion
into Park Road.
8. Add a fire hydrant on the parking lot island located off the northwest
corner of the building.
9. Provide lighting and signage details for staff review.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: Could I ask, could we go right to 12(b)?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
12(B) CURRY FARMS WETLAND ALTERATION, SENIOR PLANNER.
Jo Ann Olsen: This was brought in front of the Council tonight because there's
been some activity out in Curry Farms which tpyically would require the
residents to go through a wetland alteration permit to remove the vegetation
around the ponding areas. The whole purpose for this was just to, I know that
they were going to be contact with the Council, was just to bring them up to
date with what was happening and to allow the residents a chance to speak. I
know it's really late and this could be a really long item so I'll kind of open
it up to for them but essentially when Curry Farms went through the subdivision
process, they also went through a wetland alteration permit and there were some
low Class B wetland areas that were dredged and allowed to be dredged and used
as ponding areas. As part of that, those areas have taken on qualities of a
wetland. They now have cattails and other wetland vegetation. There has been
some removal of that vegetation. Staff has contacted the residents stating that
they would have to go through a wetland alteration permit process for that to be
permitted. We understand their reasoning for wanting to remove it is to allow
views into the ponding areas or to allow them to be used actively like in the
wintertime and we acknowledge that there might be a compromise that we can come
to working on but they do have to go through the process because what is •
happening now is not the correct way and it's removing a lot of the vegetation
and taking away the benefits of the area. So with that I guess I'll let them,
however you want to do this. Maybe have one spokesperson.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'd really like to do. Can we have a spokesperson
for this?
Jo Ann Olsen: And there would be no decisions made tonight. Also, there are
residents who also do not like what is happening out there and wish to see the
vegetation remain too.
84 1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
Councilman Boyt: I would encourage us to listen to anybody that wants to talk.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm all for that too but as long as we can confine y
� it to very
short, brief point. Please state your name and your address.
' Barbara Spiess: My name is Barbara Spiess and I live at 6610 Arlington Court.
I think first of all that the whole situation didn't need to occur. It was set
1 up as an advesarial situation with people from City Planning coming in,
informing people they were going to fine them because it was a registered Class
B wetland. I don't understand. We checked the plat and I called and several of
' us have checked with Carver County. The recorded description which was approved
by the City has it listed as a drainage and utility easement and the Certificate
of Title show no covenants, no restrictions, absolutely no conditions.
Dedication of the plat shows no wetland designation so we continued to move on.
' I called Miss Olson who told me that on Friday and we had a meeting on Friday
afternoon, she informed that yeah, they possibly were remiss and this is
something that should have been done and probably would be done in the future
1 but hasn't been done to date. So my question came back to, this was not even a
pond prior to it being created as a detention pond for the area. So then
I picked up the zoning codes. Well page 1189, Section 2404 Establishment of
Wetlands, if I can read the last two sentences in that section. It says the
' wetland map entitled Chanhassen Wetland Map dated May 22, 1984 is hereby adopted
as prima facia evidence of the wetland areas and an official copy is on file in
the office of the City Clerk. Land within the wetland area shall be classified
1 as Class A wetland or Class B wetland as delineated on said map. Now we've got
a copy of this map and we're not delineated as a Class A or Class B wetland. It
didn't exist in 1984. It was a horse pasture from what we understand so then
' there was a little bit more confusion. There's no notification in the form of a
letter or public form or anything calling us together. There was simply a
notification by City Planning of 3 families out of 34 that are impacted. When I
asked why the rest of us weren't notified so that we could then understand the
' information, it was explained to me that Ms. Olson assumed that those 3 families
would notify the rest of Curry Farms. I think that's a little, well anyway. It
didn't happen and I don't really feel it was their responsibility. Again, back
1 to where is it designated as a wetland? I can find it called everything except
a wetland. Now Ms. Olson told me that it has been a wetland forever. Well, I
picked up some additional information and that information says that in 1987
when Curry Farms was proposed and when you were going through a City Council
' approval of the plat, that a Dr. Rockwell was called in and I assume that's Dr.
Rockwell who's from the federal government? Fish and Wildlife. Dr. Rockwell,
if it's always been a Class B wetland, why was Dr. Rockwell called in to
' determine whether it should be dedicated as a wetland or not? I think we're all
so totally confused as to whether this is a wetland and I think it brings us a
lot of issues. Number one there's a safety issue for our children. The reeds
' and cattails have grown up to the point where we cannot see to the interior of
that pond. There are 67, approximately to 70 children about 55% under the age
of 5. We can't see that water. Those reeds totally now, or prior to them
taking them out, encompassed all of that. I think there's a safety issue and
that it needs to be cleared out. We're not asking that it be environmentally
raped or whatever. All we're asking is a parternship with us. Discuss it with
us. Don't come in weilding a club and telling us that we have violated a
1 wetland ordinance where we can't find anything that designates a wetland
ordinance. Not on the map which zoning says is prima facia evidence of wetlands
and the City of Chanhassen nor on plats or on certificates of title or
' 85
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
dedications of plats, nothing. And I think maybe there were some hurt feelings +
because we didn't just simply accept what we were told to do but there was
research done by the people who were impacted by this in Curry Farms. I mean we
didn't just say, ah, too bad. City Planning. Let's go out and pull reeds. We
did look at it. We looked very carefully at it. We've also understood from
calls that we've made to Fish and Wildlife and the DNR that we're going to lose
what wildlife we have there or had there last year in the form of ducks and
geese because if they have no access to shore, they will no longer come in there
to nest. So my next question is, what are we dedicating this to? What is our
plan? What is the long term goal that we're looking to do? Is it preservation
for the sake of preservation for a detention pond or are we looking to bring in
wildlife and who are the ecological environmental subject matter experts that
are going to help us and tell us what we should be doing. We are more than
happy I think and I think I can speak collectively for the people that are here,
we're more than happy to be cooperative but we'd like to see some sort of a
plan. Technically, if you get down to it, there are drainage areas all over.
Drainage easements are everywhere. Are they all considered a wetland? What
constitutes a wetland? One cattail that grows where there's water? We don't
understand and we are seeking that information. Now one resident was told that
he would get that information but that has not been sent out to him from the
City and we have sought the information. Then what happens when you get to the
park. I mean is the park a wetland? Can the people around the park not do any
grooming of that at all because technically if we're using the same standards,
then they have to be unilateral all the way around Chanhassen so the park is
also a wetland. We're a little confused as to what direction that City Planning
would like us to take and I think we're also a little confused and maybe, if
there's any anger at all I think it's over the fact that what people were told
is we can do this to you because we're the City and I think what we're confused
about was we thought maybe we were the City. Maybe as taxpayers we were the
City. We weren't trying to destroy the property for our property values. We're
trying to upgrade it. We knew we were responsible for maintenance and we
thought we were maintaining and we were given no other options except stop.
Don't touch it. You do not have the right and I think, I just don't see that
that's a very pragmatic approach. Suitable for the City or for the residents of
Curry Farms. It doesn't make a great deal of realistic sense to me. Long term
or short term. The cattails can stay but I don't see that we've accomplished
anything and right now the way it looks, if they overgrow and those drainage
sewers or the grates are clogged with all of this that are going to fall
eventually when we let it grow in, then what happens? Does it block up and go
back in our back yards as it did last spring and then what's the impact to
Christmas Lake? I think there's a lot more to it and I don't see that anyone
had a long term plan as to how it was supposed to be handled. No perameters
seeded to have been created at all and I guess I'm a little bit concerned. I
don't understand, if City Planning wanted to take a stand on wetlands, which I
think is fine, I don't understand why the time and the tax dollars were spent on
a manmade drainage and utility easement, essentially a detention pond. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who would like to add to that? ,
John Willman: My name is John Willman. I reside at 6510 Wellsley Court. I'm
one of the 3 of which they're speaking who removed reeds from the land. What I
would like to do is show you some pictures of the pond if I may of when my house
was first being built. It will show you basically the natural aspect of the way
86 '
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
the pond looked and was always meant to look in my opinion. I wish I could be
as eloquent as Barb was in explaining our thoughts. Our main concern with the
pond, my wife's and myself was not just to open it up for open water but for the
fact that we have two young children and we were very, very concerned about them
getting lose in the reeds so to speak. So we took those down. Not only did we
do that but we went and we were very ecologically, for lack of a better word,
motivated. We called the DNR. We tried to get in contact with the City
Engineer. My wife left repeated messages for him to call. My wife is always
' home. She does not work and we also have a recorded. We never received any
information back from this gentleman. I realize that he is a busy man so what
we did do is we called the DNR and I asked them about removal, first of all if
it was a wetland according to the State which it was not. Since it was not, I
asked him if there was any problem removing the reeds. Not only did they tell
me that there was no problem but they also told me exactly how to get rid of the
reeds. So I guess we were concerned when people came around and told us that
this was an improbable or something that should not have been done and I'd just
like to say to you all that it wasn't done to impact or to hurt the environment.
It was basically done to protect our children and to give a chance for the ducks
and the geese to be able to get to land so some of can feed them. We appreciate
that. Thank you.
Tom Schafer: I'm Tom Schafer. I live at 6501 Devonshire which is Lot 12 on
there. I chose that lot because of it's climate orientation. That was very
important to me. When I walked that lot in the spring of '88, there wasn't a
drop of water in that back yard and when we went to look at the plot plan of the
1 subdivision, I noticed the water shown on there and I asked the salesman what
that was and he said it was a storm retention pond. That was his words. He
said that all the runoff is eventually going to fill that thing up to a set
point and that's the way it is but you own that property. That's your land back
to the center. Where the lines were shown. I'm here to say that there wasn't
any water there in the spring of '88 and if that map was done in 1984, how could
this have been designated a wetland area? That's my comments. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Tam. Anyone else? Okay. Questions Council.
' Barbara Spiess: Could I say one more thing? I'm sorry but...and I think it's
very relevent and possibly not to the detention pond we're discussing but in
driving around and now becoming conscience about this and in looking at
registered Class A wetlands around the area, there are a number of Class A
wetlands and it's very visible from the road. One doesn't have to travel far to
find them, that trees are being felled on them. Dirt is being mounded so water
is diverted. They are legitimate Class A wetlands and I guess that concerns me
from an ecological point of view that Class A wetlands or what would appear to
be legitimate Class A wetlands are possibly being destroyed or altered and I'm
certainly not casting aspersions at these people. Maybe they have a right to do
it but I think if a map has never been updated since 1984, priorities should be
such that we start looking for those Class A wetlands now in protecting them and
listing them, if indeed that is prima facia evidence on a map because it is
happening and they are all over the area. And I took an afternoon just to drive
around and see and it's amazing how many, you can find lumber stacked this high
were trees have been felled on wetlands. Some have been designated on the map
and some are not. But if we truly are concerned about the wetlands and there is
' something that we want to do about them, I think it might be a terrific place to
start in possibly those Class A wetlands are being destroyed might be a great
' 87
1 --
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 •
1
place to start. Thank you.
Councilman Workman: Gary, aren't we mapping right now? '
Gary Warren: From the engineering department we have no wetlands map that's
being prepared, no. We've done aerial topography of the entire city in April so
we have a database.
Councilman Workman: Apologies all around for everybody I guess. It's kind of
an issue I guess that, I didn't ask if there was anybody else that wanted to
speak either I guess. I'm jumping in but somewhere a misunderstanding got in
the way and now we're, usually it's your whole neighborhood against us. Not the
neighbors against each other. When we have developments and we need to create a
retention pond and we're going to need clarification on wetlands ourselves
probably. Take one pond for example, say the Rosemount pond which they had to
basically create or any other housing development, we ask than to make uneven
bottoms on those ponds. How it should be sloped. What should be planted around
than. They're meant to do many things. One, take care of the filtration. The
water that isn't going to go anywhere because of the homes up and around and I'm
winging this one here, to sift through the mud and so that it won't go into
other larger wetlands and to also provide for wildlife. Correct? So it's
supposed to do everything. It's not meant to be a sewer. It is meant to be an
infiltration place which because of development has been taken away and so where
the City decides and when they decide this thing is a Class A wetland, is
probably up for anybody's guess.
Councilman Boyt: There's a procedure. 1
Councilman Workman: But it's meant to be, and Bill's had a lot more and I'm
sure if Jay Johnson was here he'd be foaming at the mouth right now. So you 1
know, I'm sure if it looks like a wetland, it probably is one in my mind but how
the legal, how the exact description of what that is.
Councilman Boyt: I think staff opened it up with the right approach when they
said they thing they can work with the neighborhood to get something that people
can live with. There is apparently a good bit of confusion here. Anytime that
I think those of us who work with these issues a lot make some probably
assumptions that the rest of the community, maybe we don't do a very good job of
educating that about. The wetland map in no way designates all the wetlands in
Chanhassen. I think it was a pretty convenient way of saying we know these are
wetlands but everytime a development comes in, if we suspect that there might be
a wetland there, we ask Fish and Wildlife or the DNR to come out with our staff
and go out and they investigate. It's our intent as a city to not drain
wetlands so we require an alteration permit for anyone who wants to change
those. If Mrs. Spiess discovered some damage being done to wetlands, you should
report that. I think that's your responsibility to do that so we can follow up
on them. There is, Tom let me take a minute here and just say I think if you
can come up with a plan that improves the ability of the wetland to do it's job,
then I'm sure staff will be happy to work you with to accomplish that and made
arrangements with the DNR and Fish and Wildlife and as a community, you may well
be able to accomplish some of what you want and still protect that area. It
seams to me like the reasonable thing to do.
88 '
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Barbara Spiess: Can I ask a question, and I'm confused again. So you're saying
' that what we thought we purchased as real property, even though there is an
easement on it, we understand that,.but what we felt was purchased as real
property you don't have to designate on a wetland map. You don't have to
declare a wetland? You can just simply at any given time say this now becomes a
wetland. You should all be aware of this and as you are subject to whatever
fines will ensue if you touch that particular wetland?
' Councilman Boyt: Mrs. Spiess, it's fairly conmon for the City Council to
require developers to build wetlands whenever there's an opportunity. So if
there's a drainage pond we, as Tom just mentioned, we've got 5 pretty specific
criteria that the developer needs to follow so that that will become a wetland
if it isn't now one. There are criteria that Fish and Wildlife have that set
apart these wetlands in terms of whether they're Type A or Type B. The City is
much more restrictive in how it handles wetlands than the State of Minnesota is
by intention. We have a great many wetlands in this city and we feel they're
extremely valuable. Staff can go through all this with you. They have a+lot of
background and I think that they'd be quite willing to see if something can be
' resolved with the neighborhood but it's my understanding that the development
contract set those up as future wetlands. I know that given the history of the
Council, at least during the 3 years I've been on it, that would have been our
' intention. If there would have been any possibility of creating a wetland, we
would have done it.
Barbara Spiess: I think that's fine. I don't think we...and I'm back to my
original question. There is no process then? Once it does collect any water,
then even though it is not designated a wetland, then we should take the
initiative to call and say does this now constitute a wetland?
Councilman Boyt: Well I can tell you that a wetland is a wetland by •
characteristic, not by identification on the map.
Barbara Spiess: Right. And where do we get those characteristics? Are they
documented?
Councilman Boyt: Yes they are. Staff can give you those.
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than having a lot of conversations going back and forth
' here, what I'd really like to see done is that staff does work with the
neighborhood. I'd also like to see that they set up a specific meeting night.
Bring in the DNR. People who can inform you as to what it is and what it
consists of and hopefully we can resolve the given problems that are there. So
' with that I'd suggest that that's what we do and we appreciate the fact that you
did come in this evening. We're sorry that you had to wait so long but it's one
of those things.
Councilwoman Dirtier: I just wanted to ask Jo Ann, did I read somewhere that a
75 foot setback is not required?
Jo Ann Olsen: That is correct. With this, the only area the 75 foot setback
was required in Curry Farms was with the Class A, the large wetland to the west.
' The reason that the 75 foot setback was not required with these areas was that
it would remove all those lots around there. They felt that they were low Class
B wetlands. That they were going to be improved but that the 75 foot setback
89
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
wasn't necessary at this time. That was part of wetland alteration.
Councilwoman Dimler: It wasn't necessary because it wasn't considered a wetland
worth considering then?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well it wasn't a large Class A wetland. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I find that a little bit...
Jo Ann Olsen: It's just that part of working with the developer, it was just
one of the things...
Councilman Boyt: Compromise. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: But I mean, that does give a double message. That was my
point.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyway, I would like to see that direction Bill and to work with
the neighbors and to have a meeting and invite DNR in. Who would be the
individual spokesperson to be contacted that Jo Ann can make the contact with?
Don Ashworth: Maybe if Nann, you could pass around a sheet, we could get
everybody's name and address and we'll send it directly to each one of these.
Jo Ann Olsen: I've already got their addresses.
Mayor Chmiel: You have a list of their names already and addresses?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's why they're here tonight. '
Don Ashworth: What you have is the ownership for the Curry Farms area? Is
there anyone out there who is not an owner in that area? Okay. So we have your
names and addresses.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. We appreciate your carving in and having you sit
up with us this late. We needed it to keep us awake. '
REVIEW APPRAISAL FOR CARRICO PROPERTY. '
Councilman Workman: I would denial right or move on with it? Is it something
we have to discuss?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah.
Councilman Workman: Isn't it dead?
Lori Sietsema: Basically the Park Commission reviewed the appraisals that were
prepared for the City and the one that was prepared for the landowner. They
came in at the, the two that came in that were prepared for the City came in at
$58,000.00 and $85,000.00 for the entire 11 acre site and Mr. Carrico's came in
at $330,000.00 for the site. The Park and Recreation Commission felt that going 11 through the condemnation process, there was no guarantees that it would be come
in close to our appraiser's price and recommended to the City Council not to
90 ,
1
Cit' Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
pursue condemnation procedure for the entire site. They did want to reiterate
' to the Council that it is a priority for them to acquire a piece of park
property in this area as it is park deficient area. Since the time of the Park
and Recreation Commission, we met with Mr. Carrico and he's planning to proceed
' now, pending your decision. If you decide that the whole entire site shouldn't _
be pursued, he's decided to proceed with his site plan and proceed with his site
plan and see if the MUSA line can be moved. He's talking about a willingness to.,
sell or dedicate a portion of the site.
' Mark Williams: My name is Mark Williams, 1655 Lake Lucy Road. Initially I got
the report from the Park and Recreation Commission meeting and was a little bit
disappointed that I didn't think they were going to pursue any other ideas and
I'm glad to hear they were coming up with sane ideas because instantly some came
to mind such as trying to work with Mr. Carrico and come up with a portion of
that property. That might allow him to develop it and also a chance for us to
get a park in that area because the bottom line is, if that piece of property
goes away and there's no park on it, there's really nothing left in that
immediate vicinity so I'd just like to see some people use some innovative ideas
' here and come up with something that could be benficial to everybody in that
area including Mr. Carrico and not have to go through some condemnation
proceedings and everything. I'd just like to see people not drop this issue and
' keep working on it. I guess I'm going to speak for a few neighbors that are
home in bed with their kids right now but there are several people that are
interested. There's a general interest in the area to have a park there and I'm
sure if there's any concerns about the Council or the Park and Rec Commission on
' that, that that voice could be heard very quickly and loudly. Thank you.
Lori Sietsema: There were a number_ of people here. ..they decided not to come.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Mr. Carrico, did you want to say
something?
' Carl Carrico: Your honor, I had a 45 minute dissertation but we're running a
little short so I'll do it in 4 1/2 seconds. I want some action on the
property. I've owned the property since 1971. Have purposedly waited this long
' to develop the property. I'm not a newcomer to Chanhassen because I originally
zoned the Sinnen property around the American Legion Club so I've had a great
deal of empathy for your problems in Chanhassen and for your future. All I want
is a decision. For the last year and a half I've followed all the procedures of
the City and I can't get off dead center. I'd just like a decision made one way
or another so I could get plan accordingly. Thank you.
' Mayor thmiel: Thank you. I should ask if anybody else wants to talk but I'm
sure Chris doesn't so we'll move on.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make a motion that the City pursue arrangements
with Mr_-. Carrico to acquire part of the property.
Mayor Chmiel: That's it?
Councilman Boyt: That's it. That by implication says we're not going to
acquire it all.
' Councilwoman Dimler: For parkland?
91
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
1
Councilman Boyt: Yes. For parkland. Do you need a second to that?
Councilman Workman: I want to figure out how we're going to acquire it.
Roger Knutson: I would interpret that to mean that as part of the platting 1
process you're entitled to take a certain percentage of the property for
parkland and that's the process.
Councilwoman Dinder: When he goes for development you say?
Roger Knutson: Yes. That's how I interpret it.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to direct staff to acquire a
portion of the Carrico property for parkland through the development process.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ACCEPT DONATION FROM CHANHASSEN LIONS CLUB AND ALLOCATE PROJECT. '
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to accept the donation of
$15,850.00 from the Chaska Lions Club and that a portion of the funds be used to
construct a fireplace in the Lake Ann Park Community Picnic Shelter and to
establish a fund for soccer field lights with the intention that future
donations will be added. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPOINTMENT TO SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT BOARD, SENIOR PLANNER.
Mayor Chmiel: Appointment to Southwest Metro Transit Board. In addition to '
that I'd also like to have Ursula sit on that, Metro Transit Conmission. The
reason I say that is because that leaves 2 council people with a staff person on
there at this time.
Jo Ann Olsen: If they still have a third position, do you want us to go out for
ads for that? This year we have 3 people. Do you keep Dale? '
Mayor Chmiel: No. We need 2 people. Jay is already on.
Jo Ann Olsen: You need 2 additional.
Mayor Chmiel: Two additional would be one, the senior planner or...
Jo Ann Olsen: We already act as an advisory role.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, then I suggest that we go out for one more person to sit on
it as a citizen.
Councilman Workman: I'd like to Ursula's view on transportation.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a 30 minute speech.
92 1
- - 1
Cit' Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
Councilman Workman: Does that require a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that it does, yes.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to appoint Ursula Dimler to
the Southwest Metro Transit Board and to run an ad in the newspaper to fill the
' third vacancy with a citizen at large. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
FRONTIER HOMES, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR.
Jim Chaffee: I'm going to try and make this short since it's 10 after 1:00 in
the morning.
Mayor Chmiel: We'd appreciate it.
' Jim Chaffee: Two weeks ago the Council directed me to pursue complaints by
Frontier homebuilders and buyers. We did that. We sent out 26 letters to
Frontier homebuilders in the city of Chanhassen. As of October 20th we have
received 7 responses back with various problems. Of the 7 responses, at least 5
of them have had mechanic liens filed against their homes. I have memos from
Scott Harr dated October 20th with the itemization of the complaints and I won't
' burden you with those tonight. I just wanted to let the Council know that we
are pursuing this. Frontier Homes continues to receive bad press in the papers.
In Eagan, in Eden Prairie and in Chanhassen. I've talked to our City Attorney
' who indicates that we're still pretty much tied as far as what actions we can
take against Frontier but rest assured we are doing something. We are keeping
them on the forefront of publicity if you will and after conferring with Roger,
I think what we will do is dog them, if you will, and every move they make on
' every building that they build in the City of Chanhassen and make sure that they
do comply with every letter of the Code. To my knowledge though they aren't
doing anything in Chanhassen. The one house I am aware of that they are
' building, no work has been done on that for at least 2 weeks now due to sub
contractors not willing to do the work. That's pretty much where we stand.
We're still pursuing it. Scott now is attempting to contact the homeowners who
' have responded back to us to see if they will let us release their names to the
Frontier Home Corporation so that action can be taken and this is all because of
the data privacy act and we just want to make sure we comply. But we are
following up on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
' Councilman Boyt: I have a response before you leave. I think that the City
should run the ads. We said we would and we should do that and we should run
them, normally I wouldn't run them in the Sailor because it's not the official
' newspaper but they have done a lion share of the work in researching this thing.
I think we should run an ad separate from the normal city notices. I know
Roger's ad is pretty innocuous but I still think we ought to run that and I do
not think we should dog them. I think the City shouldn't be doing that. The
' City should be enforcing the Code with everyone but I do think we should run the
ads. That guy came in here and did not tell us the truth and so I think we
' 93
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
should follow up. I would move that we place ads in the Villager and the
Sailor. They can be small but I think they need to.
Jim Chaffee: If I might convent on that. My problem with that Bill is that we
haven't really given them enough time. We haven't even contacted Paul yet with -
these problems. What I'd like to suggest is that during this next 2 week period
that we do contact Mr. Oaks with these problems and have him do what he can do
to take care of them. I know it's another timeframe but in fairness to Paul, I
did tell him we would contact him. I was out of town for a week. It took some
time getting responses back from the people. I think it's only fair that we do
give him another 2 weeks to see if he can correct these problems and if he can,
it's going to help the citizens who are complaining. '
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that's reasonable. I'm looking for adjounment.
Councilman Workman: Can I mention something under presentation just really . '
quick? -
Councilwoman Dimler: Vending machines. '
Councilman Workman: Go home to your papers today and it was, I heard about it
last week but they had a nice big article in there. Few mourn Bear Town's
cigarette machine ban. Bear Town being White Bear Lake. They are being called
leaders, international leaders for doing this. I'd like to see us pursue it in
the City to, not to aggravate cigarette smokers but to keep a product away from
children self serving themselves with this deadly habit and I'd like to work
with staff if I can to arrive at that.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it'd be a good idea. '
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:12
a.m..
Sanitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
94
•• r
II CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION :?
REGULAR MEETING ?;
OCTOBER 18, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth
' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner
PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A DOCK
IN A CLASS A WETLAND LOCATED AT 745 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, JEFF MAY.
Public Present :
Name Address
Jeff May 745 Pleasant View Road
Steve Decateur 6645 Horseshoe Curve
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order .
Conrad : The applicant ' s here. Any comments?
Jeff May: No. She' s accurate in what she' s said. I did want to state
that just to reinforce that we' re very sensitive about the wetland . We
have tried to do nothing to change anything that wasn' t already there.
That path that' s there is on high ground and it' s been there for at least
25 years because the people that we bought the house from had indicated
that the path was there when they first had the property. They had not
' used it for a period of time so there was a dock there and he left the
materials there and footings to indicate there was a dock there. We only
placed the dock over the exact length of the dock that was there so we' re
just trying to utilize essentially what was there and in no way trying to
alter the equipment other than that.
Conrad : Okay, thank you.
' Steve Decateur : Steve Decateur , 6645 Horseshoe Curve. I'm curious about
your intent for disturbing any of the aquatic vegetation that grows in the
' lake. Do you intend to have a large boat on the dock? A small motor boat
or . . .?
Jeff May: By the way I do want to make a comment. It came to my attention
indirectly that somebody had complained that we had tampered with the water
or done something to disturb the lilly pads because the path through the
pads down in that area. When we looked into this, first of all the type of
lilly pads that the individual , who they might be, they didn' t contact us,
had indicated they were concerned about a certain type of pad. The type of
pad they were concerned about is not the type of pad, we had the DNR come
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 2
' out and look at that . They have no concerns at all as indicated in some
letters that we have. Our intention is to have a small motor boat. We
have it there now. A small 14 foot fishing boat with a small motor on it
so my son can use it to fish. That's all we actually intended to use.
Steve Decateur : . . .weeds?
Jeff May: That' s not determined yet. We don' t want to do anything that ' s
going to do anything negative to the area. What we did when we had the
boat there is we simply created a path by the action of the prop going
through the weeds. Now the DNR did tell us that if we wanted to that we
could ask them to treat a path probably 5 feet wide or 10 feet wide, enough
to run the boat through if we wanted to do that. They would have no
' problem with that. I have not asked for that. We' re pretty sensitive
about that area. We just want to get access to a small motor boat so we
can use it for that purpose . Mainly fishing . We don' t intend to have a
large power boat in there to waterski . We just want to have access to and
from the edge of that land so we can fish .
Conrad: Any other comments?
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
' in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Steve Decateur : Can I address the commission on a general topic related to
this? I 'm curious what kind of precedent might be established. There are
adjacent lots in Fox Chase area and I 'm assuming additional requests will
come through. I 'm concerned that by looking at that one case we not
disturb that end of the lake to any great degree. There' s already been . . .
We' re not adding greatly to it. Is there any intent on the part of the
Council to establish a policy for what additional applications might be
expected for similar kind of development on the lake?
Conrad : Jo Ann , in writing the staff report , basically in a Class A
wetland, which this is, docks are not permitted?
Olsen: Without a permit . Without the wetland alteration permit.
Conrad: Yeah, without a permit but basically they are not allowed .
Olsen: You have allowed them in the past and what we've always done is try
to minimize the disturbance whereas we typically, even like in this case,
' we would have required a boardwalk to go through the wetland all the way to
the open water rather than a path. When we have the opportunity, when we
have a new subdivision and there' s a wetland, we usually prohibit at that
point, will prohibit any docks going through that wetland but what' s
' happening now is there' s lots of existing lots along where in the past we
have allowed them under circumstances with the least disturbance to the
wetland . As far as Fox Chase, there' s a conservation easement all along
there and they do not have any right. I think there' s one dock. There' s
like 4 lots that can share one dock.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 3 li
II
Steve Decateur: So it can' t be. . .
Olsen: Not on Fox Chase. I
Wildermuth: Was that done at the time of the subdivision?
Olsen: Yes. And that' s right when the wetland alteration. . . I
Wildermuth: Process was installed?
Olsen: Ordinance. That' s when we had more control than lots that already
existed.
Steve Decateur : Is there a penalty and enforcement situation should 1
somebody develop without knowledge of the easement and what would be the
intent at that point should that occur?
II
Olsen: If Fox Chase did something like that?
Steve Decateur: If it happens to be in any wetland that would apply to the
wetland policy.
Olsen: The oridnance now requires to double the application fee plus there'
can be a misdemeanor and fine. The Council has the power to have them
remove whatever has been installed and to restore the wetland .
Conrad: Did we allow a dock out on Minnewashta? Dan Hertz? Did we allow "
that?
Emmings: For each lot . Five. I
Conrad: We gave them access?
Emmings: They had permanent docks through the wetland and then temporary, 1
seasonal docks from the edge of the wetland out, if I remember right.
Olsen: Right. They have boardwalks through the wetland part. I
Ernmings: Essentially a permanent dock to the end of the wetland.
Olsen: I think they only had four . Two of the lots had to share. I
Enmiings: That rings a bell .
II
Conrad : Was that an A wetland? Must have been.
Emmings: That' s the one I thought of when I thought about this one.
II
Steve Decateur : I hate to dredge up old business but . . .
Ernmings: Don't say dredge. II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 4
' Steve Decateur : I 'm sorry. But on the east end of the lake there I know
was an issue and to my knowledge it' s not been resolved for wetlands
' disturbed brought up to the Council ' s attention. Planning Commission' s
attention and I 'm interested, as long as we' re discussing it, finding out
where that situation is. I 'm not objecting. I understand one person and
you obviously have a process and this gentleman has gone through the
process. That doesn' t create a problem but I have a problem with people
who flagrantly go ahead and destroy the wetland. It was brought to the
attention of the Council . There' s a remedial action prescribed and there
seems to be no resolution to those types of cases . It lays in limbo for
months and I 'm interested in an update on that. . .
Conrad: Let' s wait. Steve, let's wait until this one is taken care of
and then maybe we can bring that up. What did we do Jo Ann to, there was a
resident on the east side of Lotus Lake who had put in a trail and
something and something?
' Olsen: We made them put in a boardwalk and allowed them to keep the dock.
The reason we' re not requesting that here is because again, this trail , the
path has always been there and they' re not changing anything . Essentially
it' s grandfathered in.
Conrad : Is that true? Is it grandfathered in?
Olsen: It was an alteration that' s always been there. It would be almost
the same if a dock had been placed, if the original dock were still there.
From our visiting the site with the DNR and the applicant, it doesn' t
appear that that ' s been widened over and above what ' s there.
'
Conrad: So once upon a time I heard there was fill but really the fill was
on the trail .
Olsen : On this site? There is fill next to it. The lot next to it .
That' s where there' s been lots of fill .
Wildermuth : From the sewer project?
' Olsen: No. They were filling in.
Jeff May: You' re not talking about my site?
' Olsen: Mike Clark.
Jeff May: Oh, okay. But not on mine. I haven' t filled my lot .
Olsen: No.
' Jeff May: I want to be very clear about this okay? I want to reiterate
something. That we' re sensitive to this gentleman's point of view. We
bought the property because it had lake access . We bought it because it
had a dock and we bought it with the intention of using that but we also
have tried , I think we' ve almost bent over backwards not to run afoul of
the intent that we have in the ordinance. We just want to use what' s been
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 5
there for years . That path was built there years ago by the previous '
residents who had a dock there. It' s always been a dock in the past. It' s
a high land point and we' re just asking to be able to use it as it was.
Not trying to change anything . '
Conrad: I appreciate your attitude and that' s one of the things that
Chanhassen residents 3-4 years ago subscribed to in terms of the value of II
wetlands and it' s sort of an education process and I 'm not going to preach
for talking about the purpose of them but they are quite significant. And
any break in the wetland can basically reduce the value of that wetland .
This commission and previous commissions have spent, and staff spends hour.
reviewing these things and we'd rather not. Yet on the other hand , we know
that there's a water quality issue that the residents really are very
interested in. Being blunt, based on the staff report, there seems to be 11
series of communications with you and lack of response and actions before
permits. The Chanhassen ordinance does come before DNR ordinance. We are
more restrictive in some cases here and it' s not that the DNR has final
say. The City of Chanhassen has final say. Jim, comments .
Wildermuth: Who would have done the filling that the area hydrologist
talks about? The previous owner?
Jeff May: Let me explain that please. I 'd like to explain, or have
response to the comments that you just made. There' s one thing to
knowingly violate an ordinance. There' s another thing to not know you
violated anything and I think what you are, the impression I have is that
you feel , through reading what you read , that we knowingly violated the
ordinance. It' s not true. We had a misunderstanding but I took action toll
talk to the City about what it would take to have a dock out there . I
wasn't sure, I 'd been told there was a dock out there. I wasn't sure that
we had a dock out there and when I talked to the City, I don' t think, in ,
fact I know I didn' t indicate that there had been a dock out there.
I subsequently when winter cleared, went down there and found out that
there was a dock there and I asked people. I made probably a boo boo here "
but I asked people, it wasn' t intentional , about that and almost the
universal feeling I had was gee, you' re grandfathered in. It shouldn' t be
any problem so we went ahead and did that. Went ahead and put the dock in "
but we were extremely careful not to do anything that wasn' t there
previously. Now the only fill problem that we had is on the high path that
again has been there for years. There were some ruts down there and I
tripped and I fell and I felt it was a safety hazard so I put a very thin II
layer of fill , probably the rut's about like that and a very thin layer of
fill . Spread it out a little bit along the pathway only. What happened
here is that when the City came out and saw that there was some activity orl
the property next to mine, they noticed that. They were rightfully
concerned about that because if you look at it, it looked like it had been
filled in. Okay? And that was the right thing. I wasn' t around . The
next thing I knew I received a letter from the DNR concerned about it. I
responded immediately on that. They came out. We worked well with the
City on this. They came out. Took samples. Immediately saw that we went
down that far to solid black dirt. Saw that we hadn' t violated anything II
and the letter that they wrote is attached. So if I 'm guilty of something ,
it' s because I wanted to get rid of those ruts because I thought that it
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 6
was a safety hazard and there were about 4 of them that were filled in. It
wasn' t oux intention to fill in any wetland. It was kept right on that
' path and we have not filled in a wetland area . Now you made a mistake I
guess because I listen to people, . . .we all do that I felt were
knowledgeable and it seemed logical to me that we had a dock there. ' That ' s
why we bought the property and so we went ahead and put it in because the
people said gee you' re maybe grandfathered . Now the reason I didn ' t
respond as quickly as Jo Ann would have liked and I should have done it.
I indicated in the letter , if you read the letter , was because I travel
extensively and I was in Hong Kong and also in China during that timeframe
because I had business relative to that area and involved in the Teniment
Square problems, I was out of the country a lot. So we weren' t trying to
' dodge anything there. When I got Jo Ann ' s certified letter , I was in the
process of filling out the application anyhow so I got it to her quickly
and I explained it to her and the City Manager at that time because I was
' concerned that it not be misconstrued that we were trying to dodge anything
so I hope you' ll accept that because that ' s exactly what happened .
Wildermuth: It was apparently above the ordinary high water line anyway as
it turns out so it really isn' t a big issue . I guess my thinking is that
the dock was put, or the upgraded dock was put in with some degree of
sensitivity and it looks like a grandfather situation. It would appear
that the requirements for the wetland alteration permit have been satisfied
in terms of letter of spirit . There' s only one thing that bothers me and
that is that the dock and the work was done and was in existence before the
' application was made again . At some point we' re going to have to put some
teeth in oux regulations and requirements I think. There' s going to have
to be a penalty. As we talked about earlier this spring . Was it last
spring or this fall that we had another issue on Lotus Lake?
' Batzli : I agree with Jim' s comments. Jo Ann? How do you determine
whether something is grandfathered in? There's a statement somewhere that
it has to be, if it' s less than 50% destroyed it has to be replaced within
1 year?
' Olsen : I 'm not saying the new dock is grandfathered in. That' s why I 'm
making . . .
Batzli : But on the old one , how did we come to the conclusion that it was
in such a state of disrepair that it had to be repaired within one year?
At what point do you make that decision?
Olsen: I don't know if I'm following you but all that was left were the
supports.
Batzli : So it was that bad?
Olsen: Yeah.
Batzli : Other than echoing what Jim has to say, if we do approve this I
would adjust two of the conditions slightly by saying the existing path,
the first one, rather than just path. And add at the end on the first line
of the third condition, or other filling so it would read, any expansion of
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 7
the dock or path further into the wetland or any other filling shall '
require wetland alteration permit.
Wildermuth : Just out of curiousity, why have woodchips fallen out of
favor?
Olsen : We' ve found that those wash out into the wetland and they' re a lot "
of maintenance towards that.
Wildermuth: You have to keep renewing them?
Olsen: Yes .
Ellson: I really don' t have anything new that the other two haven' t said.
Again I 'm disappointed that it happened after the fact but I think that hi
intentions are , it' s not like he put in twice the size or 3 times the size
or something like that the dock in replaced but you know it still calls toll
me that we aren ' t communicating or sending out information to people who
live on these wetlands that they know if all his neighbors feel this is
grandfathered in and that' s just another indication that people who live o
them and deal with them still don' t understand what we want out of them so
�
maybe we ought to be looking at communicating directly to these people
either through some sort of mailing vehicle or something like that. I
realize that most people should be notified when they're buying so they
have it but we see it time and time again and it' s just another example
so I think it' s got to more than us just having an ordinance and then give
us reason to slap somebody on the wrist. We also have to be a little more
proactive on educating people. His neighbors for example. That it ' s not
necessarily grandfathered in. I can understand how the majority rules and
you think, well geez 5 people who' ve lived here 15 years , they ought to
know. It's not necessarily the case but as far as this particular request,,
I could see approving it.
Batzli : Jo Ann? Do we have an overlay of the wetlands in Chanhassen? I
Olsen: We've been working with the Fish and Wildlife to update that
because what we have doesn ' t show all the wetlands.
Batzli : So if we wanted to generate a nailing to all the property owners
in Chanhassen about the rules within Chanhassen, we couldn' t generate that
right now? I
Olsen: Well we've been putting that off until we did get that map. The
updated one. We can still do it but as you' ll be seeing, there will be
other cases coming similar to this but where they did get the wetland map II
and a wetland wasn' t on there.
Ellson: Right. I like them having a map of the details. . . '
Emmings: Generally I 'm satisfied that this is a reasonable thing to permit
and I also don' t really have much suspicion that there were anything but II
bad communications here. I don't think there were any bad intentions
so I don' t care about that very much. I'm interested in, I just have a
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 8
couple of 'questions here. On that drawing that' s up there Jo Ann , there ' s
a line there, a dashed line and it' s indicated to be an approximate
' location of ordinary high water mark and edge of wetland .
Olsen: That' s how the DNR determines their edge of wetland.
' Emmings : From that line at the bottom it says shoreline. There ' s a line
way down there. Do you see that one? Now is the wetland between those two
lines?
tOlsen: No. It also shows the edge of the cattails. There is still
wetland vegetation over here too. Not necessarily cattails. This is more
' the open water .
Emmings: Where' s the wetland on this?
' Olsen : The wetland is, not having the specific survey, is approximately in
this location. . .
' Emmings : So the line that ' s indicated to be ordinary high water mark and
edge of wetland, that ' s not the edge of the wetland on the landward side
but on the lake side? Is that what you' re telling me?
' Olsen: That would take. . .
Emmings : It is? So that is the landward side of the wetland , that dashed
' line? Is that right? Put your finger on it. Okay. So that' s the
landward side of the wetland? Landward edge of the wetland?
' Olsen: Right. This is where the water . . .
Emmings : It says shoreline down at the bottom so that ' s confusing to me.
Can you tell me on there where the wetland is? From where to where? Put
your two hands . Okay. That' s what I was asking . That ' s the wetland .
We've got dock in the wetland?
' Olsen : Right .
Emmings : Is it all seasonal dock? Is it all going to be taken out and put
back?
Jeff May: I guess it possibly could be. Right now the way it' s set is
this is left in and then the part that goes into the water is actually
taken out .
Emmings : Okay, so you've got a permanent boardwalk in the wetland and a
temporary or seasonal dock in the lake?
Jeff May: I guess that ' s it .
' Emmings : Okay. That' s good because that ' s what we've done before and I
didn' t see that was what was going on.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 9
Jeff May: I'm not familiar enough with the terminology to make it clear_ .
Emmings: Well, I may be making some up here anyway so don' t feel bad . II
Jeff May: Again, as I said, we were aware of that and that actually serve
as a boardwalk. Not a dock. In fact it was very expensive to do that and
we did it with that in mind . There' s only a small part that gets used as
dock. This is all boardwalk by your definition. It's just enough dock to
go into the water so I can have a 14 foot motor boat .
I
Enunings: I understand. I just wondered if that part in the wetland would
be put in and taken out every year but it' s permanent. Okay, good . ,
Jeff May: It' s like a boardwalk, so that's what it is. It' s not a 120
foot dock by that definition . It 's about 20 feet.
Batzli : I think we may want to reflect that in the conditions that that iJI
a permanent portion that won' t be removed seasonally.
Emmings: Then my next question is , is there any problem with the fact that'
this dock is on a lot that has a separate legal description and I know you
addressed it briefly in the report but it seems to me, is that a buildable .
lot?
Olsen: No .
Emmings: It isn' t? I
Olsen : Well if they separated it . Right now it ' s only separated by an II easement that he has ownership of so it's a continuous piece of property.
Emmings : Okay. So this is Tract B of a registered land survey and where
your house is, is that also Tract B? I
Jeff May: No .
Emmings: It's Tract D? I
Jeff May: Yeah.
II
Emmings: So it has a separate legal description. It' s not the same lot .
Olsen: No. It' s not the same lot but it's continuous . I
Emmings: But is that alright? Do we let people live on one lot and as
long as they own another lot.
II
Olsen : It' s not a separate lot. If it' s not separated by a street.
That' s the definition. . .
Emmings : It is a separate lot with a separate legal description period . I
It is .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 10
' Olsen : Well we can confirm that. It was under single ownership.
Ernmings: Both lots are, yes I agree. There is no problem with that? It' s
my own curiousity.
Olsen : I think it was okay because it' s just separated by that easement
description which they also, it' s not even an easement.
Jeff May: It' s solid all the way down there. There is an easement
granted.
Olsen : D is actually a parcel . This isn' t even an easement. It' s a
parcel . Parcel D.actually
Jeff May: A constant strip of land separated by a small tract. . .
Emmings: The land is contiguous but has separate legal descriptions and
I 'm only asking if that makes a difference to us .
' Olsen: When we have done, the situation when it' s caused a problem before
is like on Lake Minnewashta when they own two lots but separated by public
right-of-way by street. This is, he owns this lot but then he also owns a
portion of Parcel D which is that .
Emmings: I know what he owns . I 'm only asking if it matters . I don' t
know. I can' t see that it would necessarily matter. Can I have a dock, if
I live in Minneapolis and I bought Tract B here, can I put a dock on it?
Olsen: If you bought this big piece?
Ernmings : No . Well , whether I did or didn' t. If I bought Tract B.
Olsen: If you owned Tract B and that's it?
Emmings: If I owned Tract B and lived in Minneapolis , can I have a dock on
that lot?
Olsen : No .
Emmings: Why not?
Olsen: Because it'd be considered, it' s not a principle structure.
' Emmings: Because it' s an accessory use?
Olsen : Yes .
Erhart: Your question Steve regarding two parcels of the same ownership
came up about 6 months ago in another issue and it was clear at that time
that the City treats two parcels with the same ownership as one parcel in
the way it applies . . .
Emmings: Out on Ches Mar?
r
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 11
Batzli : That was if the County considered it one lot for tax purposes.
Jeff May: And they do.
Batzli : They had to go through subdivision because the County considered II
it one lot and if in fact the County considers this one lot for tax
purposes , I think we'd have a tough time arguing both sides of the coin .
That'd be a nice distinction. I
Olsen: I can verify that.
Emmings: I'm not opposed to this in any way. It' s just a question that
came up because they' re different lots and I just wondered if it made a
difference I guess .
Olsen: The fact that they were continuous I think made the difference '
rather than them being separated.
Batzli : I 'd rather see the distinction being that they' re considered one
lot for the county's purposes .
Olsen: Tax parcel and that they would have to, that if he wanted to sell II
Lot B, he would have to come through the subdivision process?
Batzli : Right. They would . I
Emmings: Really?
Batzli : They did on Ches Mar . I
Emmings: I'm not sure that' s the same. You don' t have to go through a
subdivision if you own, because this is a registered land survey. Tract B ,
and Tract D are separate lots .
Olsen: Parcels.
Emmings: Absolutely separate legally and they can probably both be built
on and no subdivision is required. You would have to tell when the deed
came through separating them, then they would change that in the Assessor' l
Office or in the Auditor's Office but I don' t believe there'd have to be
any other , there certainly wouldn' t have to be a subdivision.
Olsen: . . .Let me confirm that.
Batzli : I thought there were two lots that the County combined under
common ownership out on Ches Mar . Two separately recorded lots and they II
even had different property interests because someone held a life estate
out there and they combined those and I couldn' t believe that.
Olsen: It was the City requiring them to get the subdivision.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 12
11
Conrad : Steve, do you see any negatives to that? Let ' s say you' re right
in terms of this. I 'm trying to search for the negative impact. The
precedent or whatever andjI don' t see it yet.
j
Emmings: I don't see it here because they' re contiguous so that doesn' t,
it doesn ' t bother me in this case . What does bother me or what I would
worry about is, I think that technically it probably that there' s a problem
here and that just under our ordinances I think that there' s a technical
problem but I think who cares basically is my answer . I don' t think it' s
an important problem. I think these folks ought to have, they bought that
to have lake access from their home and I think they ought to have it. You
don' t buy a lot on the lake and not have access to the lake in my opinion
so.
Conrad : So your assumption is it' s. . .
' Emmings: And if he should ever sells off Lot B, he' s going to lose his
access to the lake and that' s up to him.
Batzli : But then will that dock be grandfathered in?
Emmings : That dock would be grandfathered in to the new owner of Tract B.
Not to him obviously.
Batzli : Do you mind?
tEmmings: No.
' Batzli : So if you lived in Minneapolis , you would have access to the lake
through that lot.
Emmings : No .
Jeff May: No . You wouldn' t necessarily have it because you wouldn' t have
a right to drive into it.
' Batzli : Yes .
Jeff May: Would you?
Batzli : Sure. You can' t necessarily sell a land locked lot and then not
provide access .
Emmings : Anybody' s going to get access to a lot but I think the point here
is that his home is on D and since it's all contiguous, I don' t have a
problem with that.
Wildermuth: Boy, get two lawyers together and you get all kinds of
trouble.
Emmings: Like I say, I think technically it' s a little strange but I think
it ought to be overlooked. I just thought it was kind of a funny thing .
The wetland ordinance is also kind of weird because oddly enough the
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 13
prohibited use in the Class A wetland is operation of the motorized craft '
of all sizes and classifications . It doesn' t say anything about docks and
then in Division 2, under wetland alteration permit it says a dock is a
prohibited use unless you give them a permit.
Conrad: That' s real confusing . It sends a real strange message.
Emmings: Yeah. It's written in a funny way.
Conrad: It' s like fill out this piece of paper and then we flip from
prohibited to accepted is the implication.
Emmings: Yeah, but I think all and all , I think it should be allowed and 1�
agree with the changes that Brian wants to add to 1 and 3. I think those
are good changes .
Erhart: I really don' t any more to add and I would agree with staff ' s
recommendations with Brian' s changes . I think it's okay.
Conrad: I don' t know. I have some concerns . I think the applicant
resolved some of my concerns in his comments . I get concerned a little bit
when people are not working well with the City but it appears that that was
not necessarily the case.
Batzli : Is that it?
Conrad : Yeah. The silence is it Brian. The silence is it I 'm afraid. III
r
have 3 concerns that are not relevant to this particular application. The
grandfathering in of a dock. I 'm not convinced that that' s really what the
ordinance intends and I think the ordinance has to be picked apart because "
I don't believe that ' s true and I don ' t believe that if a dock was, if a
dock section, I don' t understand the grandfathering that we were talking
about here. Typically Jo Ann, when a grandfathering , when something hasn' t
been used for a year, I thought that use is no longer . . . ,
Olsen: And that' s what happened here. The reason I 'm making them go
through the wetland alteration permit is because it wasn' t grandfathered
in. The new dock.
Batzli : This is not a true grandfather situation?
Olsen: The reason it wasn't grandfathered in is the reason they had to go ,
through the permit. If that dock had been there last spring and then fell
apart, they would have been able to restore it without having to do
anything .
Conrad: Okay. I don' t have any comment . Is there a motion?
Emmings: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #89-7 as shown on the site plan dated September
27, 1989 subject to the following conditions . Number 1 will be altered as "
Brian indicated by adding the word existing between the first and second
words. Number 3 will be altered to add the phrase, or other filling at the
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 14
end of that first line there. And we' ll add an additional condition 4 that
will state that the portion of the dock that's within the wetland will be a
permanent boardwalk and not a seasonal dock.
Batzli : Second .
' Conrad : Discussion. My thought on discussion, Jo Ann? Based on the plan
that the applicant has given you, is that good enough in terms of
monitoring?
Olsen: The plan does give us elevations and dimensions so yeah. This is
something we can work with .
Conrad :, Okay. How do we monitor Jo Ann? Is it sort of, there' s really
not a very good way to monitor .
11 Olsen : We don' t have a sytem.
Emmings: Don' t tell anybody.
Batzli : Can ' t they go down there with little soil PH testers?
Olsen: Yeah. Althought I do go out on Lotus Lake once a year on a boat.
11
Enmiings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-7 as shown on the site plan dated
September 27 , 1989 subject to the following conditions :
1. The existing path shall be seeded with low growing vegetation and shall
not be widened beyond 5 feet.
2. The path may be mowed but shall not be fertilized.
3. Any expansion of the dock or path further into the wetland or other
filling, shall require a wetland alteration permit.
4. The portion of the dock that' s within the wetland will be a permanent
boardwalk and not a seasonal dock.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Olsen: Do you want me to talk about. . .the property on east of Lotus Lake?
Conrad : Almost . I just want to talk about penalties on wetlands. Do we
have penalties?
Olsen : Yeah . We can go through with the criminal misdemeanor and
I/ citations .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 15
Conrad : So it just goes into any kind of a misdemeanor type category and
that's what it would be?
Olsen: Right. And what we do is double the fee so for an individual it' s II
$50.00.
Conrad : That 's not much. Have we reviewed the new DNR wetland ordinance? I
Olsen: The Shoreland Ordinance?
Conrad : Well no. The new ordinance that is now sort of being down played II
by the DNR in terms of wetland preservation. It's one that they' ve had in
for , they' re going to let it stay in for 2 years before they start
enforcing it. I
Olsen: That ' s the shoreland .
Conrad: Is it shoreland? And you've reviewed it? II
Olsen : Yes. And we will be implementing, we have to add it in. I
Conrad: We can add it in any time we want is my understanding .
Olsen: And that was our intention when we went through the zoning I
ordinance amendment, we kind of left that section open that we would be
adopting .
Conrad : The DNR has implemented , has drafted an ordinance that is far II
more, well more restrictive. They' re being more aggressive about
preserving wetlands and how quickly they're being abused and eliminated but
they have a phase in of 2 years which basically says that the new ordinance,
is not really being applied for 2 years but I think it would be appropriate
for us to take a look at it and make sure.
Olsen : Yeah. We are working with the DNR. They are going to, in fact II
they've got monies as far as grants to give to cities to help implement the
ordinance and we have been in conversation. They' re going to be coming out
and meeting with us and going through it.
Enimings: I've seen a copy. You sent me a copy. I think I asked for a
copy. I was looking at something for myself and they sent me a copy. I
Olsen: The new one?
Emmings: Yeah so I looked through it a little bit and it is . Now it' s I
shoreland though. The one I saw. I don't know if they've done anything
with wetlands or not.
II
Conrad : The article that I read was in the Star and Tribune and it sure
gave me the impression we' re talking wetlands but I 'd be real interested.
So Jo Ann the plan is to incorporate this in our ordinance? I
Olsen: The shoreland ordinance?
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 16
11
Conrad : Yeah .
Olsen : Yes . Paul and I will be working on that. There' s a lot in there
that doesn' t apply to Chanhassen. We' ll be taking out the things that do
apply and Roger Knutson has already sent me a model ordinance that has
11 used, taken out portions of the new shoreland ordinance so we are working
on that. It should be on the ongoing list .
11 Conrad: Is that thick? How many pages is that?
Olsen : I ' ll send it out to everyone . It' s thick. I think I did request
them to send us a copy of where they crossed everything off unless I
might already have that . I ' ll send you copies out .
Conrad: I personally would appreciate a copy. I 'd like to take a look at
that. Okay. I 'm talking specifically about what Mr . Decateur is
interested in. The person across . . .
Olsen : Right . With VanKoch and Frost . What happened , why that' s taking
so long .
Emmings : I don' t know what we' re talking about . Can someone fill me in?
That name doesn' t mean anything to me.
Olsen : VanKoch? There was on Sandy Hook Road right about here. They did
come, did it ever come in front of you while I was gone?
Conrad : Yes .
1 Olsen : And it was tabled .
Conrad: Right.
IOlsen : One of the reasons was because the DNR was involved and the Corps .
11 Batzli : We never pronounced it VanKoch I don' t think .
Enmiings : Okay.
Olsen: They' re the ones that filled in the wetland to get rid of the
purple loosestrife. Anyways, the reason it' s taking long is because we
were trying to , the City in their action, their recommendation was going to
be remove the fill but we were waiting to get a coordinated plan from the
DNR and the Corps of what they would like to see removed and how much. I
spoke with C.L. Strauss from the DNR again last week asking about that and
they do have something . They' re supposed to be sending it to me. Once
I get that. Once I have a plan to say okay, this is what we want them to
do, that' s when I 'm going to bring it back.
Conrad: But my impression was, they didn't think that what we had
recommended was worthwhile. In other words, the restoration of the
triangle.
I
r
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 17
11
Olsen: They didn' t like that idea but I think one of the problems was they
wanted to actually determine where the ordinary high water mark was and
have them remove everything up to that. So they will have to restore but
it' s just that we had to determine. . .
Conrad : And the thing that' s taken so long is because we've been kind of II
contingent, waiting for somebody else from another agency?
Olsen: Yeah. I just wanted to let the experts say what should be done yo
know. I knew we could make them do it. I just wanted them to tell me wha
they would like. I kept saying what do you really want to see happen .
Batzli : Weren' t we trying to get the next door neighbors? I
Olsen : We do have the application. We did include the beachlot itself.
Steve Decateur : Do you think, are we talking a 30 day process? 6 months?
Olsen : I still haven' t got their plan but once we get it , it won' t take I
long.
Steve Decateur : It will be next spring . . . Again, I 'm not interested in
making an example out of this gentleman or the other party. I am
interested in the Planning Commission' s position on education and getting
some teeth in the enforcement. It appears there is some in this case
that' s partially satisfied but if that' s going to be the policy going
forward, that based on complaints . It' s one thing to respond and restore
but another thing to make sure that the message is in the community that
you people are proactive and also that there' s some teeth behind the
ordinance so when there is a problem, that word gets out to the community
to stop this sort of flagrant abuse of what I consider a very precious
resource. . . .my soapbox . ,
Conrad : I think it will be a nice precedent actually to restore something
that's been tampered with. We haven' t done that before so I guess it' s
quite nice. Jo Ann another comment on my part. Chemical treatment of
wetlands. Specifically, I keep thinking of the DNR allowing the people toll
chemically treat which has happened on the north end of Lotus Lake. A boat
path. ,
Olsen: That' s more in the open, in the lilly pads in the open water .
Conrad: So it's not really a wetland? ,
Olsen: No .
Conrad: Okay. ,
Wildermuth: That' s outside the shoreland? I
Olsen: Yeah. And they do allow it. In fact a property next to Jeff May
does have that big path and they do have a permit.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 18
11
Wildermuth: Are you thinking of doing something stronger for these wetland
alteration permit violations?
Olsen: We have that in lace to fine them and the City' s never taken that .
P City' s
It' s not much of a fine.
Olsen: You have the double fee but I think that you could still pursue the
citation.
Conrad : It ' s barely a penalty.
Emmings : The potential fine and even jail but no judge is going to do that
and he shouldn' t. You can argue if they should or shouldn' t but they just
won' t.
Steve Decateur : Certainly if you have restoration, it' s just a precedent
that would be very expensive. If you people are willing to enforce that,
that' s the teeth right there.
Emmings : That' s on the civil side. That ' s not criminal .
11 Wildermuth: Yeah, that' s one thing and I think the contractor that does it
has almost got to be tied in. . .
Ellson : Yeah, what about that contractor from Lake Minnetonka . . .and you'd
like to somehow be able to punish that contractor.
Wildermuth : Well not punish him but just make it difficult for him to do
something like that again.
Conrad : As long as we' re going to do some things on the new shoreland
1 ordinance, I ' ll be real interested in that. I don' t know what we do in
penalties but monitoring becomes , still becomes an issue with me. There' s
just no way we do a good job of monitoring and there's just a lot of cases
where these things get expanded you know.
Wildermuth: It sounds like the DNR detected this .
1 Conrad : I think Jo Ann did is my impression. The sleuth . Which is real
good. It turns into a little bit of, which is real positive that she, that
Jo Ann found that and brought him in. I think that' s really great.
' Emmings: The other part that makes, the criminal side of it is kind of
ineffective or less effective because there' s cost associated with
prosecution and I think making the restore it is, that really puts the
burden on them where it belongs. I think that' s the best thing to do.
Olsen: Or installing those boardwalks, those are real expensive.
Emmings : I 'm sure they are .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 19 II
SITE PLAN REVIEW 1
PL N REVI FOR A CHURCH (ASSEMBLIES OF GOD) TO BE LOCATED IN THE
UPPER LEVEL OF BLOOMBERG DINNER THEATRE BUILDING, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report. II
Conrad: Is the applicant here or somebody representing the applicant here t
who'd like to make some comments?
Don Finger : I 'm Don Finger the pastor of what will hopefully be a. . .churcl
someday. We came into Chanhassen last summer looking for some space to
begin to hold a meeting where we can be together in someone' s home and the
space that we've got here in Chanhassen with Mr. Bloomberg is about, it' s 11
the only place we could find . We have a need , with him particularly the
rooms and the amount of space that we would rent from him. I 'm sure that
it will be at least that one room. . .with an office next to that. There ma
be some additional space. . . I think there' s a little over 6 ,000 square
feet upstairs and we're looking at a maximum of 1,600 to 1,700. But
anyway, hopefully when we get this started, I foresee in the next year fron
50 to 75, possibly 100 people. You don' t know how fast a church might
grow. Some people, they grow real fast and that' s a problem we have to
deal with but certainly our intent in talking with Mr . Bloomberg and . . .so
he took care of that and actually brought it forward and came to the idea II
of. . .and wrote Paul a letter and we brought it from that point. But the
intent was simply to find a place temporarily until we could of course
locate, buy some property and build a building somewhere else . Probably II
somewhere in the southern part of Chanhassen area so it purely is a
temporary situation. Probably I would say on the outside 18 months before
we'd be looking to go somewhere else. I reviewed the list of things Paul
would like to have us meet and it ' s all fine. I have no problem with any
of it. The services are on Sunday morning. Our denomination also likes t
meet on Sunday evenings and it' s also been part of the tradition, since our
denomination is basically been in existence for 75 years, we also gather oll
Wednesday evenings. Some churches call that a service. Some call it a
prayer service. Some call it a study time. Some call it school. Bible
School . They meet in various ways .study there' s a meeting on
Wednesday evening, it' s usually not attended as well Sunday morning. It's 11
usually about half or a third but we do meet on Wednesday evenings so I
would like to have that considered and I don' t think, I 've talked with Mr.
Bloomberg about that. I believe the stores are closed and the parking is
usually not totally used on Wednesday night, even when the dinner theatres II
have performances on Wednesday evenings so even a meeting of our group of
say maybe 20 or 50 people, I don' t think would drastically impact parking
spaces around the area so I guess I 'd like to throw an exception to also b�
allowed to meet on Wednesday evenings.
Conrad : Paul , how would you react to that in terms of a recommendation? II
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that we have a particular problem with
it you know. We' re dealing with something that has to do with a number of
people that are up there. If we' re talking about a small percentage or a II
percentage of the total group, it can probably be accommodated. I don ' t
now how we'd change the language exactly to allow that. That a study
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 20
11 meeting is allowed on a Wednesday night . We clearly want to avoid having a
full bore service with the whole congregation that may be a 100 plus people
up there when the Dinner Theatre is active. The reality of it is , if
there' s not a problem, we won't know about it and we won' t react to it.
It' s only there to allow us to intervene if a problem does materialize.
11 Conrad: This is a site plan review and I 'm having a real problem with that
because the building is there and it sounds like it' s being rented to the
church. The church is not buying it.
Batzli : We' re being inflexible up here.
Krauss: I have to admit this was an unusual request and it took a lot of
thinking about it before we figured out a way of dealing with it in a way
that we thought the City's interests were protected and that the parties
got what they felt they needed . Mr . Bloomberg though is technically the
applicant on this as the owner . technically
Erhart : I agree with you Ladd . Should it be a site plan review or are we
talking. . .
Wildermuth : Conditional use permit.
rKrauss : No. There is no provision for a conditional use of this nature
and we weren' t going to make up a conditional use for something that wasn' t
listed.
Batzli : How about a temporary use permit?
Krauss: We don' t have that yet either. It could have been done that way
if there was that provision. The ordinance is pretty specific. It ' s not
actually taking hammer and nails and building square footage that requires
a site plan . It could also be an increase in intensity and we think that ' s
clearly the case here. The building code even reviews that type of use
differently.
Conrad : When it' s rental property, how do we have control over rental
property?
Krauss : Through the owner and the owner ' s the applicant.
Batzli : And the owner is co-applicant here.
Erhart: We haven' t got the temporary use through Council yet?
Olsen: It hasn' t gotten through you yet.
Batzli : I thought we reviewed it. Are we discussing it?
11 Olsen: We just discussed .
Conrad: Okay, Tim. What do you have?
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 21
Erhart: Well okin beyond g bej nd the issue of whether we should be talking
about it at all here, I personally would welcome the Assembly of God church
to the community. I think it would be a positive addition. Just a few
things relating to that building. Maybe I 'd start out. Do you have that II
building site on an overhead Jo Ann?
Krauss: No, we don't have an overhead for that .
Erhart: I guess I have a hard time understanding what it is we' re talking ,
about there.
Krauss: The interior floor plan?
Erhart: Yeah. ,
Krauss: Yeah, it' s tough to figure out . They repeat the circular
staircase twice. There is a room there that I label church. The room that
they' re looking at renting is that one and probably the one just below
that.
Don Finger : Just above it .
Krauss: Above it?
Don Finger : Below it is basically the porch area .
Krauss: The staircase that' s going down there is new. I
Erhart: Where does that come down? Does that come from the hardware
store? I
Olsen: In front of the seating area and Milly' s Deli .
Erhart: And is the fire inspector, be able to read something in my packet
but has that all been. . . my
Krauss: Yeah. That ' s how we became aware of this . There was some initia
contacts made through the building department and they asked us what we
thought about it. There are two staircases that are going to be put in
there and I don't know what other modifications would have to be made but II
our building inspector and fire marshall believe the building can be
adapted to this use and meet code.
Erhart: Aren' t you tying a limit to the number of people that can occupy II
there?
Krauss: Yes, there will be and they have a calculation for how many peopli
can fit in there.
Erhart: And we' re not going to include that as one of the conditions? I
Krauss: No. It will be on the building permit .
I/
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 22
Erhart : They are going to be required to have a building permit?
Krauss: Yes, they are and it' s the same way that a fire marshall posts an
occupancy rating on any building whether or not they' re coming in, you know
a restaurant has it. Any kind of congregation place.
Batzli : That' s separately enforceable whether it ' s in this condition or
not by the fire marshall .
Erhart: Yeah.
Wildermuth : Why would he need a building permit? Because they' re putting
in the stairway?
Krauss : Yeah . Exactly.
Wildermuth : Because otherwise there isn ' t going to be any other building?
Krauss: No. Whatever modifications were required to meet Code, the
stairways are the largest ones . I 'm not aware of any others but they may
have to oversize doors or something else.
Olsen : They have to receive the occupancy permit. That ' s where it first
came to light.
Erhart : What are all the other offices currently or planned to use for
them out there? Is somebody in them now like Lotus or somebody?
Olsen: Lotus is up there but I don' t. . .
Wildermuth: These offices are where Bloomberg Companies used to be but
Herb has moved .
tErhart: It' s potential that somebody will be occupying the remainder of
these offices. Okay, then I question. So you' re saying, the fear that I
would have is that at some point before you get a new church built or
something, that people would come and they'd be standing outside. The
temptation would be to exceed the number of people allowed. How would
you. . .
Krauss : That can happen in anyplace of assembly in an existing church
building or whatever .
Erhart: I understand but the big difference here, what I 'm getting to, is
this facility is being shared with other offices and it relates to the next
' thing you' re going to have. Are you going to have music? Are you going to
have band instruments, which I 'm sure you' re expecting to have and how does
that relate to other people who office? Hopefully the services will be
Sunday morning and offices will be unoccupied and Sunday night and
Wednesday night but let' s just say we do have a service. With the hours
you've got Paul , essentially they could have a service anytime during
business hours except from 11: 00 to 1: 00 so I just think we should add some
conditions that make sure that they respect the other occupants of that
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 23
office iven that other churches g xc have their own building and noise and the
people thing isn' t a problem.
Batzli : I would be against that. I think that ' s between the tenant and II
the landlord. The landlord is not going to let the services disrupt his
other tenants. i
Wildermuth: The offices are Bloomberg Company offices so the landlord is
occupying the space.
Batzli : I think you' re right . If this was in an RSF district and you' re
going to be impinging on surrounding homeowners that don't have any other
recourse and they' ve come to the City to get us to stop it but here
Merlyn's Hardware or Millie' s Deli or whoever , if they hear organ music al
hours of the day, I think they' re going to be the ones going to Bloomberg
Companies and saying you know we've got to do something about this .
Erhart: I don' t genally disagree with you either but I 'm treating this
like anything else. The first thing we look at is intrusiveness on other
people and maybe it will take care of itself. I only bring it up because
those are the things that I 'd be concerned about so whether we want to deal"
with it or not . Other than that, it' s a very appropriate temporary use and
get the organization started . 1
Emmings: You can' t sell this to me as a site plan. It' s not. I don' t
think anyway at least. I read the stuff in there and again I think that' s
hypertechnical . I think it' s fine and I think Tim' s issue, I think we' ve
got to be a little creative. You've got to find a way here and I think yo
found an appropriate way to get something done that I think is appropriate
and I think Tim' s concerns I agree with Brian. Those are a landlord-tenant
problems and I don' t think the City should get involved in those.
Ellson: I think the applicant answered by first thing which is why did we
say temporary. You feel that you' re looking at the longest of 18 months oil
being in here? Is that what you said?
Don Finger: Yes. When we were looking, to talk to Mr. Bloomberg, we just "
began talking with him about a temporary situation which at that time may
be up to 2 years or so. Paul is the one that kind of reinforced the idea
of temporary. Even Herb did not want to see a long term lease of 5 years
or longer and even if we. . .
Ellson: Well I always have a problem with even temporary in it' s nature
and I know because this is a different situation, you' re going to be a par
of somebody else, that they can always yank you out of there if they don' t
want you there versus the City. So you'd be moving into this and you'd
still be looking for a place to build or a better facility to move into? II
Or you' re trying to grow and then if you grow that' s going to follow?
Don Finger : We would hope. I would hope that we would start looking for t
some land probably this next summer and continue to grow to the point wher
we could actually build the following year so that' s why I 'm thinking 18
months. Very close to that. We were thinking of drawing up a lease with
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 24
Herb for 18 months with an option of another 12, from 6 to 10 months if we
needed it. If we were running into snags as far as getting the building
going or that sort of thing but I 'm sure that the people I 've been talking
to already will look. . .into a building as soon as possible so we' re .pot
looking to nest there for a long time .
Ellson: And are you going to have, use any of the offices up there during
the day like a rectory?
Don Finger : The plan, I believe that room that is just above that major
room and that major room is about 1,300 square feet. That is kind of an
office space and I would probably office there. We' re considering, also
that following up from that room, you see two restrooms and then another
room above that . There is also I think some closet, sinks and other, things
and we' re also looking at that room as an additional meeting room where, we
can make coffee and things like that . Initially I think I believe those
will be spaces . . .
Ellson: I think my only concern is you know landlords can come and go and
maybe if somebody new comes on and they wouldn' t mind the idea of this
church turning into a full fledged congregation and wiping out the whole
upper floor or doing what have you. I guess I like the idea of us trying
to have some control over the phrase temporary. I 'd welcome any other
comments but I don' t know how to do that. I always get a little gun shy
with temporary but you' re looking at someone, I went to a church in a
warehouse for 3 years while they were building and things like that and
growing so I realize the benefit of doing something like that so I 'm not
opposed to doing it. I 'd just like to know that it' s temporary.
Batzli : That does kind of raise an interesting point in that it doesn' t
appear to me that the portion labeled church is going to be the only
portion that ' s labeled church and technically you'd normally have someone
come back in to expand or modify their site plan but it doesn' t appear to
me that you' re going to do that . Are we going to know before the City
Council meeting exactly what part is going to be the church?
Don Finger : Paul is the one that labeled the church.
Krauss: My information came from building inspector so yes, we can
1 certainly clarify that.
Batzli : I guess I 'd like, if in fact we pass this, I guess I 'd like to see
it clarified.
Wildermuth : Do we care?
Batzli : I think we do if we' re trying to keep it to a certain size . If
they expand, then at least then we have a reason to look at it again.
Don Finger : Maybe I can address that from the standpoint that the larger
is for the church to meet as a unit, as a group. We have room to
facilitate other uses where we break down into the smaller groups or have
other functions. There's no restraint. There will be no changes in walls
r
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 25
11
or any of those other things other than possibly. . .
Batzli : I think our concern is that as you grow and you may eventually I
contemplate taking out walls and making larger meeting spaces on that
floor, it'd be nice to have a set floor plan as to what was initially
contemplated so you couldn' t expand without coming back in and asking for
another site plan so to speak.
Conrad : That' s a good idea Brian. I
Batzli : I had another question. One other one. Otherwise I agree with
the comments that have been made. It had to do with, you wanted to be abl
to meet on Wednesdays . Aren' t there other times during the year when you'
be meeting on evenings that wasn't Wednesday evening or a Sunday?
Don Finger : Possibly. Thanksgiving day. I
Batzli : Those types of events are the ones I 'm thinking of and I just
don' t think it' s covered adequately in these conditions right now.
Emmings: How about making 2 and 4 alternative? Either number 2 or number
4? Would you have to have the restrictions that are contained in number 2
if for sure there was, if Bloomberg went ahead and built them parking
spaces that were adequate for their use, would you still need number 2?
Krauss: No, but that raises a different set of issues . I
Emmings: Okay. Then forget it. I thought it was simple and if it' s going
to get complicated, let' s not do it.
Conrad : But 2 is not all encompassing or is not satisfactory to the
church.
Krauss : Well possibly if we modified it by saying full church services oil
something of that nature?
Batzli : But I think on a Thanksgiving evening, that it might be a full
church service.
Krauss : That 's true but that wouldn' t, I don ' t believe the Dinner Theatre "
would be going at that time.
Batzli : Yeah, I don' t know when the Dinner Theatre operates . Christmas . II
Christmas Eve. I don't know.
Conrad : The Dinner Theatre doesn' t, I don' t know that they operate on
Christmas Day.
Krauss : We' re not trying to restrict the church' s freedom of action.
There's just certain times we don't want them to have a full scale service"
Any other time they have one is fine.
Conrad: Certain times. Because?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 26
I
Wildermuth: Because of the parking?
Krauss: Right. That' s the sole reason.
Wildermuth : But I think the parking situation is addressed in 4 right?
So I really don' t know why we need 2. That's kind of a tenant-landlord
situation.
Krauss : 4 is there as a fallback. If a problem materializes that we can' t
deal with any other way.
Ellson: Even if number 2 doesn' t do it. . . I mean if 11: 00 to 1: 00 and you
still have problems parking, you still have 4 to say go back and . . .
Emmings : I don ' t like telling the church when it can meet . I think they
can meet whenever they want.
Wildermuth : Right . I agree.
Emmings : And if parking becomes a problem, then they have to build a
parking lot or somebody has to build a parking lot.
Wildermuth : Yeah . That ' s a tenant-landlord problem.
Conrad: The only case I 'm interested in is if it starts affecting other
properties that are not under the ownership of Bloomberg .
Batzli : We should at least make sure that the projected number of people
in these area . . .and I think there' s a concern about that .
Krauss: There is a concern about that because it' s quite clear that when
the Theatre' s in operation or a Wednesday matinee or something like that,
with the noon rush hour, there' s inadequate parking. What we want to do is
make the church or have the church fit in as inconspicuously as possible
1 yet there is a fallback position that the Bloomberg Companies will pave the
parking lot to the rear but frankly we'd just as soon that nothing had to
happen back there. The way we thought to approach that was to limit those
few hours or few times during the week that it would be inappropriate to
have a service.
Emmings : So to speak.
Conrad : You know, Bloomberg has meeting rooms all over the place. They
have their downstair meeting room. It can hold 150 people. And therefore,
how do we schedule parking for that? Those meetings can occur while the
Theatre is in session and we' re not controlling that. They' re controlling
that. They schedule them when they can book them. Their party rooms.
This is another party room.
1 Krauss : I think we were explicit as to theatre performance.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 27
Conrad : I don' t see it any different than when another room that BloomberJ1
has to fill . You need for every square foot of space, the building code
should say you have to have so many parking spots . Period . And it should
be covered. It should be covered.
Krauss: Yes. It is covered you know and I suppose we could go through th
analysis and say what's the maximum number of stalls you have to put in
here and then as a condition, require the church or Bloomberg to pave it
before allowing the church in. What we've got here though is a multi-
tenant building with shared use of parking . It' s the same kind of thing II
that we have in the shopping center that we' ll be confronted with with
Market Square. You try to avoid parking the place or supplying sufficient
parking for the day before Christmas . You try to assume that there' s goin
to be some cross utilization and it' s in the City' s best interest to do
that. We'd just as soon see as little asphalt as necessary to adequately
serve the project. In the case of the Dinner Theatre. I think there' s a
hope in the back of a lot of people' s minds that the rear area behind the II
theatre will someday be redeveloped or new development could occur back
there. I just as soon not see a parking field go back in there that
prejudices the case at all against that expectation if it didn' t have to . II
Batzli : Is there a problem right now with the amount of parking in the
Dinner Theatres when they' re full? I guess when I 've been there, there' s
never been a problem parking.
Conrad : I don' t recall . There are very seldom any times when the front of
the hardware store is packed. 1
Wildermuth : Noon is about the only time and I don' t think the Dinner
Theatre really has much influence on that at all because usually the
matinee attendance is so low that the main parking lot can accommodate II
that. When parking is really going to be a problem in that whole complex
there is when that hotel comes in. Parking is really going to get to be a
serious issue then. 1
Krauss : We had witnessed some problems on Wednesday afternoons in the
summer when there's a big matinee scheduled and everybody' s trying to go t
the shops as well . Also, Fred Hoisington has done overall studies for tha
area and shown it to be underparked. Generally it works but there are
occasions when it doesn' t.
Wildermuth : There is more parking across the street too right?
Krauss: Well yeah but that' s owned by another property owner. As long as
they' re not parking on a street , it' s really not, or blocking fire lanes o
whatever , it' s really not a problem.
Wildermuth : But that parking across the street is never , I 've never ever 11
seen that filled. Day or night.
Conrad : So Paul , on the point number 2, you' re saying you like it. The
fact of the matter is, the church is going to meet on Wednesday and they' r
going to meet on holidays or they' re going to meet on religious days.
1
II
$ Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 28
11 That ' s true . They' re just going to do that.
9 9
Wildermuth: This would preclude that though.
Conrad : The way this is worded doesn' t work for that so it' s not
practical. Your solution, saying the word full still doesn' t work. Do you
want to eliminate , do you want to get the intent across in this statement
or do you want to get some absolutes? We don' t have the absolutes here.
This is not good enough but are you comfortable with the intent statement
more or less?
Krauss : I 'm comfortable with it probably because of the minimal nature of
this proposal . The likelihood is that it' s not going to cause us a
problem. We were only trying to cover our bases to avoid that potential .
If you wanted to change it, some sort of directive that church services
should try to be scheduled when the Dinner Theatre is not in full operation
and then have the fallback of stipulation of condition 4, that' s probably
sufficient protection.
Conrad: Okay. Brian, any other?
Batzli : No .
Wildermuth : . . .the fact that I 'm glad to see that the Public Safety
Department has looked at it because it is a wooden structure, even though
it is sprinklered . The fire potential is pretty great and because it is a
wooden structure and it' s going to be a second floor meeting area, there' s
a load factor that has to be looked at and that probably dictates that any
addition or any expansion beyond a certain number like the 75 or 100 that
was mentioned here, I think that should be included in the staff
recommendation. If we' re looking at expansion beyond a particular number ,
this thing has got to go before the Public Safety group again.
Krauss: So in other words you' re establishing a maximum occupancy load?
Wildermuth : Right . So many people per square foot in that meeting area.
Krauss: I think we can do that easily enough. It' s already been
calculated .
Wildermuth : Good . And if it exceeds that, then I think it has to go, that
has to trigger the Public Safety investigation again so that something
happens . Either he shores up the first floor or something . That' s all .
As far as the parking is concerned, I think number 4 really adequately
covers it. If there' s going to be a problem, the landlord and tenant will
have to work it out and the lease is short enough so if there is a problem,
18 months , nobody' s going to have to live with pain too long .
Batzli : But this doesn' t expire at the end of the lease term.
Krauss : No . In fact the temporary nature of it was good information but
it was incidental to handling this as a site plan. Presumably once we
allow this , something like this could be there forever .
r
Planning Commission Meeting
li
October 18, 1989 - Page 29
IF
1
Batzli : People could keep bringing in new churches .
Wildermuth: My point is that if it's a problem for Bloomberg, he' s not 1
going to be inclined to renew the lease or if it ' s a problem for the
church, they' re not going to be inclined to want to renew the lease. I
don't think we should put a restriction. A time restriction on it. I
Conrad: You mean a time in terms of the lease?
Wildermuth : Yes . I
Conrad : That's none of my business . I don' t have a. . .
Wildermuth: I have no problem at all with the church being in here. II
Conrad : On point number 2, whoever makes the motion, I 'd just eliminate II
those hours. I 'd just say church services shall be scheduled so they don'
coincide with performances or you can water that down or you can eliminate
it as far as I 'm concerned. I guess we could get rid of those hours
specifically and that might soften it a little bit.
II
Batzli : I 'd just add at the start, to the extent practical .
JIConrad : Yeah, and that makes sense to me. Site plan Paul should be, ther
should be an absolute site plan. There are absolute dimensions that this
facility could expand to and that has to go to the City Council . They hay
to know the physical limitations that we' re talking about right now. The II
maximum occupancy. I don' t know if that should be in here or not. I think
Paul ' s going to do something with it. I don't know how we, I don't know i
that's a recommendation. Somebody certainly could make that motion becaus
I think it' s appropriate to be found someplace. Is there a motion?
Wildermuth : I ' ll take a run at this . I 'd like to move the Planning
Commission approve Site Plan #89-7 with the following conditions. 1. Omi
2 altogether . Include 3. Include 4 and for 2 substitute words to the
effect that the site plan is contingent upon so many square feet with a
specified load factor . Something you' ll have to work with the Public II
Safety people. With the Department of Public Safety having looked at this,
that means that the Fire Departments has looked at it too?
Krauss: Yes . II
Wildermuth: Okay. That would be all .
II
Emmings: I ' ll second it .
Krauss : Could I get a clarification on that? So stipulation 1, 3 and 4 1
would stand.
Wildermuth : Would stand as they are. 2 would be struck as it stands and
we substitute a requirement for a specific dimension or physical dimension
for the site plan and a load factor . People restriction. Not to restrict
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 30
the size of the church but just to trigger another review by the Public
Safety people.
Batzli : You don' t want any sort of intent statement in the conditions that
they're going to try and schedule church services around peak parking
hours? 11:00 to 1: 00 p.m.? That kind of thing .
Wildermuth: I think if he's smart, he's going to try and schedule around
it. Otherwise the faithful are going to have to walk. Or Bloomberg ' s other
tenants are going to have to walk.
Batzli : Yeah. I guess I don' t know if there' s a problem or not
there. I 'm so rarely at Chanhassen at noon, I don't know.
Wildermuth : I think we' ve got number 4 there to fall back on.
Conrad: I agree.
II Wildermuth moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
that Site Plan #89-7 be approved without variances subjec to the following :
1. All improvements required by the Public Safety Department to bring the
space into code compliance be completed prior to taking occupancy.
2. The church is limited to the space outlined on the attached floor plan.
' Maximum occupant load has been set at 80 persons by the Building
Department . Any expansion of this use into other areas of the building
will require additional site plan approval .
3. Signage shall be consistent with normal tenant provisions . A city sign
permit is required.
4. If parking demand exceeds the availability of spaces in the front lot,
the building owner shall be responsible for constructing additional
spaces at the rear of the building . Plans for the expansion are to be
approved by City staff.
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to approve pages 40-69 of the Planning
Commission Minutes dated September 20, 1989 as presented. All voted in
favor except Ladd Conrad who abstained and the motion carried .
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Planning Commission Minutes
dated October 4, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor except Jim
Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried.
I
i
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 31
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: 1
Krauss : On October 9th the City Council approved a grading permit for
Roman Roos for his office building. It' s scheduled to be heard, or the
II
site plan is scheduled to be heard on Monday. You may recall the
discussions that we had on the curb cut there. Engineering still feels
pretty strongly that they'd like to recommend against the curb cut and
they've done some more work and found that it conflicts with some curb cut
across the street as well . But again, the Council is going to get that
with your recommendation as well on Monday. We had a variance request for
a property on Lake Riley. Now the reason why this one' s of interest to th
Planning Commission is it brought into focus problems that we have with the
ordinance in dealing with neighborhoods such as this that had unusually
configured or undersized lots with older homes on them. The Council
ultimately approved a variance for a sideyard setback there but after somell
discussion we concluded that the ordinance has some deficiencies and
probably could stand to have some language that addresses these sorts of AI
conditions specifically so we' re not shooting in the dark trying to resolv
them with variances every time.
Emmings : What was the size of the setback that was approved on this?
II
Krauss: It was down to 6 feet. It has a 6 foot setback so it' s a 4 foot
variance. In this particular case there were 2 wings of the house that
protruded to within 6 feet of the property line. There was an open area
inbetween the two wings of the house and as a part of a substantial
rennovation, he wanted to infill that space which required the variance. II
Emmings: So it was already built that way?
Krauss: There was a pre-existing condition yes. He would intensify the
variance by filling it in but we' ll be adding that to the lengthy and
growing list of ordinances .
Conrad : It ' s growing every week. ,
Krauss : They were scheduled to act on Lotus Lake Homeowners Association
that you had heard but it got too late and they went home. I think we told
you the last time that we met that the Council was going to consider the
revocation of Northwest Nurseries conditional use permit. We were
responding to a complaint made by a neighbor and there had been a list of II
outstanding issues that had to be resolved from our part as well .
Ultimately I guess you'd have to say everything was worked out. There were
some site plan improvements that would resolve grading and erosion
II
problems. Resolve drainage problems. Improve screening and remove a
variance situation on a shade structure that had been constructed in the
setback. There were also dates certain set for these acts to be brought II
into compliance and financial guarantees as well to bring the site into
compliance. With that the Council approved or basically reaffirmed the CUP
and did not revoke it.
Olsen : They are still going through the process though. They will be II
coming in front of the Planning Commission in a couple of months for an
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 32
amendment to their conditional use permit and the wetland alteration
permit. The same thing that was before you in January with some of the
11 questions answered .
Batzli : Does that sideyard setback impact that person that wanted to
subdivide on Pleasant View at all? That long skinny lot? He didn' t have
enough setback from the road . Are you going to be addressing any of that
type of thing? You have the same situation where the lots were created a
long time ago .
Olsen: Which lot is this?
Batzli : The one on Pleasant View.
Olsen: Curly McNutt?
Batzli : I think so . Well , it was about , I don' t know, a couple hundred
feet in from TH 101. He didn' t have enough setback from the road was the
problem. He didn' t have enough depth in his lot . It was a long skinny
lot.
Olsen : Curly McNutt .
Krauss : And there was insufficient lot area .
Batzli : Was there lot area also deficiency? Okay.
Krauss : No , what we were trying to address or to attempt to specifically
deal with those areas that had been platted before the ordinance came into
existence and has a bunch of smaller homes or cottages where people are
expanding.
Olsen: Carver Beach. Red Cedar Point.
Batzli : What are you t to take into account then? People that are
already. . . trying
Krauss : Well the fact that those neighborhoods are out of compliance to
begin with and that if the ordinance is used in a punitive way to prevent
these properties from being upgraded, the better interest of the City is
probably not being served. The goal of it would be to come up with some
sort of a flexible standard that recognizes those deficiencies in those
neighborhoods and tries to deal with it. There' s been an ad placed in the
paper for the vacant position on the Planning Commission. I 'm not sure if
it' s been published yet but it should be shortly if it has not been and
there was a November 1 deadline for applications that was set.
Conrad: So in two weeks can we review applicants?
Krauss : Well , that actually might work. If we can contact everybody in a
sufficient amount of time.
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 33
Conrad : I hate to wait another month. By the time we review them, if we II
make a decision. Get it to City Council and get them in here, we' re
talking another 6 weeks . We shouldn' t wait that long . I
Krauss: We' ll certainly try.
Conrad : We should also , any applicants that have had their names in, we
should reinform them. We've turned down a couple of them a couple times .
Olsen: We always tell them on the third time.
Conrad: Third time. Third time is magic.
Krauss: The last thing is we have a special meeting scheduled to work on
the land use plan for next week. We're actually going to be bringing you
map with magic markers so we can start putting pen to paper . Mark Koegler
and I have taken a crack at it and we 've worked with Jo Ann and Gary Warrell
and we think that there' s sufficient information for people to start
looking at it and really having something they can see and touch and work
with it that way. I
Wildermuth : We' re planning to meet next Wednesday night?
Krauss: Right. I
Wildermuth: Is there a chance we could move that up?
Krauss: Up which way? 11
Wildermuth: To Tuesday night .
Krauss : We investigated meeting on Tuesday and that did not work for Mark
Koegler. We had some other requests to do that so we called everybody and
tried to figure out whether Wednesday or Thursday would be better . It
seemed like Wednesday would.
Wildermuth: I' ll be gone both days .
Conrad: Can everybody else make that?
Erhart: Thursday' s out. Wednesday' s very difficult for me. I can take all
later flight but I 'd still have to leave here about 10 after 9: 00 so my
request with Paul , if we have to have it Wednesday, to have it as early as
possible. I request that the Commission consider an earlier meeting if
possible.
Emmings: I can meet earlier . 6: 30. I can do that.
Ellson: I could do that.
Conrad : I probably could . Can you make it at 6: 30? You have a tough timll
making it at 7:30.
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 34
Batzli : Yeah, I can .
Erhart : Going back to Council issues . Is Council dealing with the issue
of the Halla Nursery subdivision? Right now because their time was up to
actually do the subdivision.
Olsen: They gave them a 5 year time line that they had to plat the whole
property or else the plat was void and they'd have to go through the
process again .
11 Erhart : That was something that was done recently?
Olsen: Yeah .
Erhart : Because I would just hope that the City would not put anybody in
the position that would encouraging people to subdivide the rural land into
2 1/2 acre lots . I don' t think that ' s probably a good one. I understood
that we might be actually forcing them to complete the subdivision today.
Olsen : Actually it is .
Krauss : I had heard from somebody today that I think there' s an ad in the
paper saying that they' re selling plant stock because the City' s making
them do it.
Erhart : I heard that today too and I got a little disturbed and I said,
gee we certainly don' t want to be in a position of forcing people to
subdivide rural lots . I 'm glad it' s not the case .
Batzli : It might be in 5 years .
Erhart : Hopefully we would reconsider then in 5 years. The situation may
be different. I 'd like to see it indefinitely. If we' re looking to put on
the record here.
Olsen : I think the factor in that though is they had no intention of ever
platting it so the Council is saying, well then, they went through and they
weren' t going to plat it for 20 or 30 years .
Erhart: Right. We discussed that with that applicant when they came in
and did that plat. I thought that was pretty clear to everybody during
that meeting that they had no intention of doing it.
Conrad : Then why did they do it?
Erhart: Because we changed our ordinance.
Ernmings : To grab the 2 1/2.
Conrad : Absolutely. So they want it to their advantage.
Erhart: I understand that Ladd. I 'm just saying it' s to no one's
advantage to encourage rural land owners to subdivide their land . We' ll
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 35
take whatever position we have to take so we don' t find ourself in a
position of forcing people to do that.
Conrad : But then why did they come in and ask for the 2 1/2? !,
Erhart: Because the City, at the encouragement of Met Council , we down
zoned every rural landowner ' s land without compensation. They found
themself in that position and I guess rather than suing the city, they too
that route . That' s why they did that.
Conrad: They don' t have to develop. They don' t have to develop. I
Erhart: No . But the fact is that the City, by changing their ordinance,
we downzoned their property. We took something of value away from that
property owner and we forced them in a position to react.
Conrad: But if they had no intention of developing it for 30 years, I
I wouldn' t have done anything .
Erhart : Let' s say they did want to develop in 25 years, you can look at II
our ordinance today and say, in the prior ordinance they could have
developed it into 2 1/2 acre lots. Now we were changing it and let' s say
they did want to do it in 25 years. Now we have an ordinance that says
they can' t do it even in 25 years from now. I think we put , the City put II
them in this position. That' s the whole big philosophical argument and
probably some day will be a legal one but I just want to make sure we' re
or I just wanted to express that I don't want to find us in a position
where we' re encouraging subdivision of rural land and apparently they foul
a solution. A temporary solution.
Conrad : We have a note from Sieben , Grose and Emmings here. I
Batzli : I couldn' t find his name on there. Oh, there it is. Way down the
list . I
Emmings: Oh, you' re so funny.
Conrad : I looked under counsel . Steve, do you want to introduce this? I
Emmings: No. I just threw it out for consideration. I assumed it was
something we'd cover . I assumed it was something that would be covered at "
the meeting next week.
Conrad : Anything you want to bring up on this subject Paul? I
Krauss: No. I guess particularly in view of the fact of the late hour in
which you got your packet, it' s kind of tough to get into that in detail all
this point.
Conrad : You' re just lucky Headla wasn' t here tonight . Actually we' re
lucky. We saved 5 minutes of ranting and raving. Actually when I called
Paul about the packets , he said it was his new strategy. He wanted more o
a natural reaction to things other than any kind of detailed review. Okay,
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 36
let' s talk about Steve' s things next week in out meeting . There ' s a note
here on land use planning workshop.
Batzli : Is that a hint? -
Conrad : I assume there' s money to fund somebody to go? What is it,
$35.00?
Krauss : It' s pretty reasonable.
Batzli : Where is it?
Krauss : There' s a couple of the. There ' s one in Bloomington on November
30th and then later in February in Brooklyn Center .
Olsen : Interesting things. Sometimes they' re pretty good .
Conrad: Well Paul is there anybody on the Commission that you think really
needs to go? I went to one once upon a time a long time ago and it was
11 good.
Emmings : Do they offer anything in letters and teaching you how to write
letters to the editor to your fellow commission members or anything like
that if you don' t agree with them?
Conrad : As you get on the commission for a couple years, you get less and
11 less inclined to go to stuff like this. However, the new people that are
on, it' s almost like, I 'd like to make it a requirement. Not a requirement
but I 'd heavy hand them to get to it. I really would put on as much
pressure as we could to get a new member there.
Emmings: I was thinking just the other way around. I was thinking this
would probably actually mean something to me now.
Conrad: That' s probably true.
Emmings : When I was real new. . .
Conrad: But you' re not real motivated anymore.
Emmings : I 'd like to. It' s just time you know. There are 3 or 4 of them
here that I thought sounded real good. That one, Beyond the Basics one
looked good to me. The Planning Institute looked good . That Planned Unit
Development approach to Land Development looked real interesting to me.
And Updating your Comprehensive Plan. What could be more relevant? I
don't know.
Batzli : If we went to the one in April , we'd probably be right about on
target.
Emmings : Or starting to.
Batzli : Yeah , or starting to. We might get past the goals by then I think.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 37
IIEmmings: Maybe if one person could go to one , I don' t know. We could do
little report back you know kind of thing. Get different people to
different ones .
II
Conrad: Was there anybody else interested in going?
anybody g 9
Erhart: Any of these in Miami? J
Batzli : Actually had one for CLE credits not too long ago Steve. I don ' t
know if you saw that. I
Emmings: No, really. Now that'd be interesting .
Conrad: It'd be nice if somebody could go. 1
Emmings: How long do we have to get to you? Some time yet I think.
Krauss: Well there's a whole series of meetings so just let us know.
We' ll sign you up.
Conrad : The trouble is , if you don' t get a commitment right now, it' s not i
going to happen. Anything else?
Krauss: Yeah, two other things that we' ll touch on a little briefly if well
could. In your packet there was some recent articles on development. . . in
the Minnesota Real Estate Journal . We were featured as the headline
article in the Real Estate Journal . They did an update on the City that 1
thought was fairly upbeat . It talked a little bit about MUSA line issues.
Chanhassen chugs along.
Erhart: Did the first downtown plan show 4 lanes street down there? I
Krauss: Probably. The original BRW plan? I think I recall that. II Emmings: I like your optimism Paul .
Krauss: After talking to the editor , apparently he used some of that
conversation to make their editorial statement for the week on Chanhassen
and MUSA line issues in general which was a little bit taken out of context
and I 'm not sure what their point was at the end of it but I guess it was
well meaning anyway. But contrasting that, on the back page is the
II
editorial by Steve Keefe on the Metro Council and he speaks glowingly of
the MUSA system in general terms and a desire to see it maintained. I put
that in there because depending on how you interpret it, there could be
II
some conflict between the two. We shall see. Also, I 've got in your
packet or I just handed out tonight information on a meeting that I held
with Metro Council 's staff on Tuesday. Basically I wanted to sit down wit
Metro Council ' s staff and reviewing whatever we come up with in the guide
plan process and first of all let them know that we' re doing something
because they were not aware of what we were doing and secondly to lay out
strategy for taking it through a review. I 'd have to say that the staff
person I met with was Ann Perlbert who is the director of whatever their
local planning assistance department became. She' s the person that would
II
r
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 38
Y
r
coordinate the review. Was very receptive to the process and Mark and I
had put together a paper that' s attached to this that basically lays out
how much developable land we have left in the city and how rapidly we' re
using it and it fits well within the Metro Council ' s guidelines.
Apparently they feel we should have a 10 year supply of land plus a 5 year
cushion. At best we have about a 7 year supply of residential land and
virtually nothing left in industrial so we left without talking about
specifics. About a plan but feeling a little bit upbeat about how this
11 would be reviewed by the Metro Council . I think it' s important to note
that Ann is relatively new down there and she came out of local planning .
She ' s not somebody that came up through the ranks in the Metro Council
which is refreshing in a way. She' s dealt with the same kinds of problems
we have to so we' ll keep you informed on that.
Conrad: Good. Anything else?
Batzli : Yes . The fill that' s been happening on Pleasant View by Powers
Blvd . there. Just kind of north of where the water tower is. What' s
happening there? Is anybody watching that? Did we approve that?
Olsen: South of the water tower?
' Batzli : North of the water tower .
Krauss : Is that Art Owens?
Conrad : Out by Art Owens , right .
Olsen: Right . Yes , we are looking at that one. It is Art Owens '
property. It' s another one of those cases that he doesn' t feel it' s a
wetland and so we are going through the process with him to require him to
go through the wetland alteration permit.
Batzli : He not only dumped it but he graded it now.
11 Olsen: Since this week?
Batzli : In the last 3 weeks . He used to just have piles of dirt and he' s
smoothed it out now.
Olsen : Over on the east side?
I/ Batzli : Yes. All the way around the little swamp.
Olsen : We've been out there twice with the Fish and Wildlife and with the
11 Corps and it is a wetland and they have filled it. They haven' t filled in
the open water area yet. Actually, the reason it all came to light was
that they came to apply for permission to dump contaminated fill so that' s
when we went out and went whoa . I said, not that' s a wetland so we went
out and checked it out. Again, it takes a long time.
Erhart : Is this a case where we can make the guy remove it and restore
it?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 39
K
I
Olsen : Oh yeah but what we determined. . .
Ellson: Why doesn' t he like stop until this is all resolved?
Olsen : He hasn' t dumped anything new that we can tell . I
Batzli : Have you been out there since it' s been smoothed over?
Olsen : I was out there last week. I
Erhart: Can you do a stop work?
Olsen : Yeah , we did that and we have them even put up a posting where the I
driveway was because for a while there they were dumping asphalt and we had
them remove that . It ' s on two properties so that' s why it' s a little
difficult. Plus we were trying to work through the person who was applying
to put the contaminated fill .
Conrad: What's the contaminated fill? I
Olsen : I'm not exactly sure. Gasoline.
Batzli : There was a lot of that sitting there in Tonka Bay.
Olsen : I think that' s where it was coming from. Minnetonka . Lake
Minnetonka.
Batzli : There was an underground tank that had leaked and they had just
mounds of this contaminated fill and they couldn' t find anyplace to dump II
it. They put tarps over it and it just sat there for about a year .
Olsen: That's why they wanted to move it.
Emmings: Where was this?
Batzli : County Road 19. Right where it takes the corner at Tonka Plaza II
there.
Emmings : Where they put in that new gas station? I
Batzli : Yep. The other thing I wanted to ask about was the nursery on
78th Street. Lotus? Is that the new one there? Is that all they' re going'
to do for landscaping and berming? They've been open for almost a year
now. They've got 2 little sickly pine trees in front.
Emmings: He can' t get a hold of any. I
Olsen : I believe he did submit a letter of credit to cover for that and he
was in this fall requesting an extension. I ' ll have to double check on
that one but we do have the letter of credit covering that.
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18 , 1989 - Page 40
11 Batzli : It just seems to me that that kind of company, if they can' t have
that in there in a week, it' s just beyond me how they can stay in business .
Olsen : He ' s coming in. He came in again this fall claiming that what he
has out there is plant material and he'd be screening plant material with
plant material . It ' s not a done deal but I ' ll look into that. Also I
think that one of the reasons is that the City is still working on the
ponding area back there and we' re still trying to plat it and go through a
wetland alteration permit. He might be waiting for that. For those final
improvements .
I/ Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 30 p.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Director of Planning
I/ Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
I
I
I
11
I
I/
1
I
I