1t. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 13, 1989
ii
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order a t 7:30 p.m. . The meeting was o pe ned
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman and
' Councilman Johnson
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Stephen Hanson, Jo Ann Olson, Gary Warren, Todd
Gerhardt, Lori Sietsema and Roger Knutson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda with the amendment of moving item 7 after Visitor's
' Presentation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
' approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
b. Resolution #89-30: Resolution in Support of State-Aid Road Funds.
Ic. Resolution #89-31: Approve Contract Amendment No. 2 for the Downtown
Redevelopment Phase I Improvement Project No. 86-11A.
h. Acceptance of Gift of $10,200.00 to Park and Recreation Department from
Chaska Lion's Club and Authorize Letter -of Thank You.
k. Approval of Communication Equipment for City Hall and Fire Station.
n. Approval of Fee Increase for Assessment Searches.
o. Accounts Payable.
p. City Council Minutes dated February 27, 1989
IPark and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 28, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
i
A. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAREDO DRIVE/CARVER BEACH ROAD TRAILS
AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.
Councilman Workman: I guess I removed this because I know the Mayor has some
' comments too and probably more than I do. I have just some basic notes as I
went through and I understand that, according to Don Ashworth, in reading
through the packet, there really isn't a whole lot of negative feedback in
' regards to that. The problem I have with a lot of it is on the fourth page of
the packet and the memo from Lori . I guess I'm just a little disappointed
because it was originally estimated that this would cost us $25,000.00 and it is
1
City Council Meeting - Mar_ch 13, 1989
I
now going to cost us $83,000.00. I guess I'm not quite how the $25,000.00, what
it was based on. There's a note that it was based on trail construction in
undeveloped areas and did not take into consideration the cost of restoration,
etc.. It really missed the mark and in that sense, we're having to pull an
awful lot of funds from another area which I'm not thrilled about either. I
guess those are my only real comments. It sounds like it's a trail system
that's needed. They are two hot areas for safety. Lori., maybe you can answer.
How did we ever get that $25,000.00?
Lori. Sietsema's answer was not audible on the tape. i
Councilman Workman: But other than that, we've got all costs covered and as far
as where they're all coming and that, nobody's going to be assessed.
Lori Sietsema: Nobody's going to be assessed...
Councilman Workman: Can you maybe give me a quick summary of what, in an
overall view, the public reaction has been. People directly involved. I know
I've read through an awful lot of it. It appears as though it's positive.
Lori Sietsema: The two trails, the combination of road and trail...requested by
the residents. .. .traffic coming down the street, down that hill and the sight
lines aren't that great... On Laredo it was also...a busier street and no
longer a safe street for children to be walking on.. .
Joe Felt: I do live along that trail and I did not go to these meetings due to
the fact that in actuality, they changed the proposal from their original plans.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you please come up to the podium and just give your name
and your address please?
Jeff Felt: My name is Jeff Felt. I live at 895 Carver Beach Road and I did get
a mailing stating the plan that originally was going to run the sidewalk up
Carver Beach Road and I didn't attend the meeting because the plan that I had
read called for a crosswalk at the west end of the park. At the meeting, that
was changed without notice to us. Today I took off work, and I live there on
Carver Beach Road at the corner of Nez Perce and Carver Beach and I have two
children myself and I walked around the park personally. I'm not a surveyor or
anything but I looked at it and from the point of safety, I do believe that they
should not have a crosswalk at the west end of the park. But also, being a
resident that lives there on a day to day basis, there used to be a two way stop
sign and you only stoped on Nez Perce and the people that came back from down by
the lake, they come up over the hill at Carver Beach Road and they're going
excessively fast and there was several accidents there. Finally someone ran
into a police officer which prompted them to put up a four way stop sign. I
live there day to day and there's still accidents that happen there. I went up
and down the road and I have estimates of the yardage and everything and
personally I think that there should be a crosswalk approximately in the middle
of the park which gives a viewpoint of approximately 80 yards up to the stop
sign and also gives 150 yards to the top of Penami.nt Lane where there's a hill
which most of the residents were concerned about so I think that would be the
widest safety spectrum for all people to use for a crossing. This is not
proposed in the plan. This is just something that I came up with and I realize
it's coming up at a late matter. The other half of this story is that this
2 1
■
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
II
would not interfere with my yard and fill up Gossard's yard which was the two
I affected yards that the plans were altered with notification. I just felt that
after I looked at it and really thought about where the kids are going to cross
and everything, that if you came to the end of the woods, I don't know if you're
I familiar with this part of the road. If you came to the end of the woods where
the Phillip Gossard land starts, that's about the midway point of the park and
if there was a crosswalk there, I feel that there would be a very minimal chance
II of people crossing and having danger of going across. Like I said before,
there's people on a day to day basis that come through there and run that stop
sign or they come up, slow down to 15 mph and go through. I personally feel
that it's a fairly dangerous intersection myself.
IILori Sietsema: Staff did notify everybody that lived along Carver Beach Road
prior to each of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings that were held on
I this item. The other thing is that the residents in the area, in trying to
accommodate their needs.. .a crosswalk and a stop sign. . .
Councilman Johnson: Lori, at what point in the plans did the sidewalk get
IIextended all the way to Nez Perce? At the very last meeting?
Lori Sietsema: We talked about it at the second to the last meeting and it was
IIfinalized at the last meeting.
Councilman Johnson: Was there anything noticed, on the last notice to go out
that told people, was there any indication that the sidewalk was going all the
I way to Nez Perce or did the blueprints or did any drawings that go with it not
) show that?
I Lori Sietsema: I'm not sure. ..staff report went out. I'd have to look that up
as to what exactly went out...
I Councilman Boyt: Just looking at the Minutes, it would appear that that
decision was made in December and you then adjusted your cost figures for the
February 14th public discussion of the matter. So you didn't make that decision
Iat your last meeting.
Lori Sietsema: It was finalized at the last meeting.. .
1 Councilman Boyt: But you don't know if we sent any notice to this gentleman
that it was now going to go in his front yard?
II Lori Sietsema: Again, I'd have to review the files and find out what exactly
was sent out. . .
Councilman Boyt: It would seem to me in looking through this that the critical
I issue was the controlled intersection. The public commented that they had tried
for quite some time to get a stop sign at I believe it was Redwing. True to
form, it didn't meet the engineering criteria for a stop sign so they didn't
pursue it further. That might be one possibility. Maybe they should pursue
,I that further and maybe that makes more sense. What I'd like to see the Council
i do is give approval to the basic funding of this project and let's take the time
to go back and do it right in terms of checking out the issue about where the
III--
crossing best fits. Gary wants to comment on that.
II 3
II
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
II
Gary Warren: I guess just so Council is aware. We did take the effort to have
speed checks done and to have traffic counts done and to look at the warrant
criteria for that intersection. It was our impression, first of all the
warrants clearly did not meet that criteria and secondly it was pretty evident
from the discussions from the neighborhood that the concern was to control speed
and as we've gone over time and time again, stop signs are not to control speed
and it can be a disservice in that regard. I guess if you would want to go
back and further look at that, I don't know that there's any other engineering
aspects that we could address. '
Councilman Boyt: Gary, I agree with you and the Public Safety Commission is
looking at controlling speed in that area as well as other parts of the City. I
don't disagree with you about that.
Mayor Chmi.el: I'd just like to put a couple things in here. From what
I undestand and I talked to one of the residents, they indicated too that they
originally started out this whole process by indicating they wanted a stop sign
and that's when they looked at the sidewalk system from my understanding. Is
that right Lori? I
Lori. Sietsema's answer was not audible on the tape.
Mayor Chmiel: Prior to the November and December meetings. Has anyone really '
looked at what Jeff has indicated? You're saying a controlled intersection as
opposed to being something in the center. That 80 yards whereby it'd be located
within the middle of the park. Does that have any merit Gary? • 1
Gary Warren: We had initially looked at that so we could save trail expense in
not having to take the trail all the way to the intersection so that was our
initial thrust was to consider it at that point. Then through the discussions
and neighborhood input, the intersection appeared to have a lot more value
because of the fact that is the arrival place that a driver expects to see
people crossing if they're going to cross. Amid-block intersection, I'm sure
we could drag up records that would show that the accident incident of having a
crossing where drivers typically do not anticipate a crossing is less safe than
at a controlled intersection.
Mayor Chmi.el: The other question that I had too Lori., as I looked at the
original estimate from $25,000.00, the $82,950.00, which is a 3:1 ratio and of
course the concrete over the bituminous is probably that difference in cost.
Have we had any other discussions with anyone else regarding this to see if
that's really ballpark figures or how assured are we this is the dollars for the
building dollar expenditure that we have? I
Lori Sietsema: I think Gary can answer that better.
Gary Warren: The unit cost that the engineers applied, $2.00 per square foot '
for the concrete, I guess I looked at those when they were submitted. I can't
take exception with his units and providing he did his take offs properly on the '
quantities which they don' t seem unreasonable either, that I think his costs are
L—
pretty accurate. The engineering testing and inspection, he's got 23% overhead
in the project. The project should be pretty straight forward. I would think
that that's probably a conservatively high estimate there. The bidding process
really will be the test of the putting here when we see the actual bids that
4
■
'City Council Meetin g - March 13, 1989
1
come in, the competitive bidding. We've had very favorable bids this
II construction season already. As you'll see later on with Lake Lucy Road
watermain and Audubon Road, we were $170,000.00 lower than the engineer's
estimate on a $600,000.00 project. Things are very competitive right now so I
' would expect that these estimates are conservatively high.
Mayor Chmiel: Of course we have that ability to reject any and all bids if
they're too. ..
Gary Warren: That's correct.
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see us, thinking of bids, reconsider this
advertising 3 times in the Villager and twice in the Construction Bulletin. I
would think we know who's probably going to bid on this project and we can run
it once as we're required to in the Villager and send a bid sheet out to the
' people who typically bid on our street and trail construction.
Gary Warren: Yes, normally we do. I didn't catch the bid notice until after
' they had gone out but normally we do only run it once. If it's over
$100,000.00, then it has to be run twice.
' Councilman Boyt: So we could do that in this case?
Gary Warren: Yes.
i = Resolution #89-32: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
_ approve Plans and Specifications for Laredo Drive/Carver Beach Road road trails
and authorize advertising of bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
F. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR MINNEWASHTA HIGHLANDS, SCHWABA-WINCHELL.
' Councilman Workman: I finally went out there today and met with Mr. Jim
Borchart who's in the audience and hopefully he'll add some comments to this and
' his now soon to be neighbor Mr. Geissen who I met out there. Just staking it up
out there. It's a real quagmire out there to say the least. This project only
begins to seem to lend itself to the problem of where water is supposed to be.
' Where the drainage ponds, there are some holding ponds that are supposed to be.
Maybe Jim can give you some more and I can fill in as I see.
Jim Borchart: My name is Jim Borchart. I live at 7331 Minnewashta Parkway.
' Our biggest problem out there is the Maple Ridge development. I've written to
the Village about it and my attorney has written to the Village. Then when I
received this information that they were going to try and drain this Winchell
' development, the Minnewashta Highland into the Maple Ridge, it just doesn't seem
concei.veable. My house is one of the lower houses along with Jim Jason who is
my neighbor. He just finished his. Unfortunately, it seems that all the water
' is going to run downhill and collect right in our backyards. What I'd like to
see done if possible would be a sufficient holding pond put on Minnewashta
4 Highlands. On Maple Ridge, the holding pond has been destroyed and that I would
like to see rebuilt and the water drain directly into the lake instead of
lit--
through Jason's property and my property. Then I feel we could handle the
water. We're dumping approximately 4 or 5 12 to 14 inch culverts to one 12 inch
1 5
■
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 II
culvert. Although there is an area in Jason's property that it is a wetland, or
he said he was going to leave it that way. He's out of town and the neighbor to I
the south of me is out of town. Dither one of them were able to attend this
meeting. If we could drain and relieve some of the pressure on that culvert
running underneath my property and we get two decent holding ponds, we would
probably be able to accommodate the water running through our property. ,
Councilman Boyt: Is your property that middle lot?
Jim Borchart: Yes. '
Councilman Workman: In looking at the holding pond out there today, now I
brought it up probably a month ago on that, apparently on the east side of this
new development there's supposed to be a berm there right? Which probably would
take care of some of the runoff that would go directly down straight east but
there's supposed to be runoff on the northeast side right? Into the road? Not
Minnewashta Parkway but the private drive there?
Councilman Boyt: I don't remember there being a berm. We talked about putting
a berm up and decided that wasn't feasible.
Councilman Johnson: It's not a continuous berm.
Steve Hanson: It's ongelating but the berm that we're talking about is simply a
ridge for the drainage. To keep the drainage from going east.
Councilman Workman: So then the water is going to have to go somewhere here. j I
Now the ideal place is into the cul-de-sac and into the road or down the hole - I
there right? But there's going to be drainage, or expected drainage down the —
private drive towards the lake. '
Gary Warren: The intent is not to allow the drainage, the site splits it's
drainage now and it will with the proposed grading plan. The drainage that goes
to the west is proposed to be conveyed through the gravel drive or the positive
drainage to the north through the gravel drive up into the catch basins on Maple
Ridge.
Councilman Workman: Okay, now when I was out there today, the way it looks now,
that is an impossibility and there's no way that the water from this development
is going to get into this holding pond just south of this house. It's an '
impossibility. There's a 5 foot berm there. So what's happening is it's all
going down the new Jason driveway which is full of silt and water. Apparently
what's happened up there in Maple Ridge, as each home was built, everybody kind
of dumped in on that holding pond so we've got a problem right there. This
house that's just adjacent to it and to the north is extremely close to that
holding pond. If they dig that out, I guess that's not the issue.
Gary Warren: That pond needs to be cleared out and I guess that's part of the
problem.
Councilman Workman: If that pond is cleared out, would a slight wedge be cut II
into this north side of this road that would allow the water coming down that
hill to go over? It just doesn't look possible.
6
11
■
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
IIGary Warren: Bill Engelhardt did the detail work for the developer on it.
3 Bill Engelhardt: My name is Bill Engelhardt. We worked on the drainage plan
and tried to accommodate the issues that the Planning Commission had previously
address in regards to the drainage and the landscaping. As I said in my letter
to the Council, the major issue is the drainage. There's no question about that
and we had tried to work with the City to accommodate some of the concerns that
' we have with the Maple Ridge subdivision together with this subdivision. In
other words, make the two of them work together. The Maple Ridge subdivision
had a problem where the pond had been filled in and was not constructed
properly. We went out and reviewed that and we reviewed the drainage
calculations that were used to size the pond and we found that the pond is in
fact, the way it was shown on their plan, correctly sized. There was some
additional capacity but it needs to be cleaned out. It needs to be graded to
' the contours that were shown on the original plan. Then we looked at the
ponding. The ponding would be needed for the Minnewashta Heights subdivision to
see if that pond could in fact accommodate their ponding because the Minnewashta
' Heights subdivision, when you look at a before and after, pre-development and
after development, you're talking about a very small amount of ponding needed
for the type of runoff that you have that will be generated off of that
subdivision. It seemed to us that if we could get as much of the drainage
' through that Maple Ridge pond as possible, that we would solve two problems.
One the problem that the Minnewashta Heights subdivision has one that the Maple
Ridge has. Your comment about trying to get it past that driveway to the north,
II j- I fully agree with you that it's going to be somewhat difficult but I don't
think it's something that can't be done and we don't have the real specific
details on that particular driveway. When we were out there doing some of the
' survey work, we just couldn't get at it and get the right shots but I feel very
comfortable that we can work that driveway in and get that water up into the
Maple Heights subdivision. Be it cutting a berm or cutting through the berm and
doing other work that has to be done in that ponding area by cleaning that pond
' out.
Jim Borchart: What are you going to do with the water when you dump it in? My
' property can't hold it...
Bill Engelhardt: Yes, I understand that.
'
Jim Borchart: We have to do something. We just can't be dumping water and
dumping water. It doesn't make any sense.
Bill Engelhardt: No. We agree with that. That certainly is a concern. If you
look at the way the Maple Ridge subdivision was designed, how the pond was
designed, it has a 12 inch outflow pipe and it has a baffled structured on it
' and that's to control the outflow through there. Now I don't know, maybe in
combination with the City and with your property we have to do something to
increase your pipe through your property or whatever, that may have to be done.
I Jim Borchart: Don't even think about putting a culvert across my road. That's
going to take a Court order. This man here has a problem with. ..building a
house and Maple Ridge where the drai.nfi.eld comes. ..
IBill Engelhardt: We intended to come around and come into the catch basins in
the front. We think there's enough grade through there. There's also, I guess
' 7
_tea
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
there's two ways of doing it. One is to go around or one is go through the
backyards. There are drainage easements and utility easements across the back I
yards of those property.
Jim Borchart: Utility easements. .. '
Bill Engelhardt: Normally they're written as drainage and utility easements. If
it isn't a drainage easement, then we can't do it. We're going to have to go
around.
Jim Borchart: Why can't you go from the Maple Ridge holding pond.. . I had the
DNR out there and they said I am not legally obligated to drain that area. You
want to tear up my driveway. You want to tear up my lawn. You've got straight
shots down to the lake but nobody ever grades it off.
Bill Engelhardt: If that's the easiest way to accommodate the drainage, we have
no problem with that either. Our intent was to try and get it into those ponds
to reduce the flow through there. The other comment that we previously heard
was that the void is taking as much drainage to the east as possible.
Jim Borchart: There is a culvert there and if you have sufficient ponding,
there's a culvert running underneath both of those driveways. '
Bill Engelhardt: Well we can try that. If that would serve the neighborhood
better, try and pond it but again, the ponding that you're talking about, if
you're going to go by the calculations to determine what the ponding size,
you're going to find that's very, very small. It isn't even going to do
anything. What's going to happen is that it's all just going to go directly
into the lakes. So if we can get it around the corner and get it into that 1
Maple Ridge pond, I think we're better off.
Jim Borchart: Why wouldn't you be better off. ..culvert there. See, I'm not an
engineering but I do know water.
Bill Engelhardt: You probably know more about it than I do because you live out
there. '
Jim Borchart: When you've got water in your basement, you know water flows
downhill. You've got a culvert running both driveways, a 12 inch culvert, going
from the Highlands to the east. If you utilize that, get some way from the
Maple Ridge ponding area to the lake, you would be looking at a 20 inch culvert
underneath there to take that water. Originally there was no water.
Bill Engelhardt: Well we can certainly try to work with Mr. Borchart.
Jim Borchard: Why tear up everything just for the sake of tearing it up? Our '
major concern is, I'm talking for the three neighbors. . ., we would much rather
have erosion control than one ponding area.
Bill Engelhardt: If that's what the neighborhood would like, we're certainly I
agreeable to that. To work something out with them. I know there are some
problems down there and they need to be addressed. I think with this
subdivision we can get these addressed.
8
■
' City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
II
r- Jim Borchart: Mr. Jason can not get into his house. Right now his driveway and
a ' yard is the holding pond for Maple Ridge.
I
s Bill Engelhardt: There is a problem with Maple Ridge.
IIMayor Chmiel: My suggestion probably would be, Mr. Borchart, that if we have
our staff with Mr. Bill Engelhardt, pull together the information, acceptance to
the particular area, then I would say that that should be resolved. Hopefully.
ICouncilman Boyt: But you're not proposing to run anything directly into the
lake? If you come up with that conclusion, you best come back to us.
IBill Engelhardt: No. I guess that was our original intent was not to and I
guess if they're saying we should, and I hope this is right, drain across. ..
I Jim Borchart: Run into a ponding area, come out of a baffle and then relieve
the pressure that's going through my property and. ..down to the lake.
I Bill Engelhardt: We have to go into a ponding area then because like I say,
we're not going to be running anything directly into the lake because then we're
asking for.. .
IGary Warren: The intent of getting this drainage, as Bill had laid out, up to
the City's pond, was to provide the sediment removal for the lake and I guess we
try to do that wherever we can. No matter what is done with the Minnewashta
I ? suodivision, the City intends to and will restore our drainage capacity and
retention capacity in the Maple Ridge pond. That needs to be done as a minimal
1 and we also need to look at the downstream culverts, the 12 inch culverts that
I go to the lake because I think that they have silted in over the years, it
wouldn't surprise me in the least and those needs to be restored to their
hydraulic capacities and sometimes those make some big improvements in some of
II these upstream ponding problems. I think a combination of Bill and the City's
interest here and getting with the neighbors, I think that this ought to be
looked at again and possibly a combination of the direct piping and some
additional ponding would be the solution.
IICouncilman Workman: Mr. Borchart understands the labyrinth of culverts and
everything under there. I had a half an hour with him today and it was a lot of
I now, wait a minute. Explain this a little so it's a little complicated but
I guess I'd just like to make a motion. I thought I guess the last time that we
kind of sent this back or we didn't approve it, that we were going to get some
of this discussion going. We haven't done that yet but to make the motion,
II I guess not to approve this at this point but get the parties together tomorrow
morning if they have to so we can get this thing all worked out so everybody
knows. We can get the conditions and recommendations to us next time, in two
II weeks, so we can then stamp approval on everybody because I think everybody
knows what direction we should head into and if we can get that on paper so we
can approve it.
IIIBill Engelhardt: I guess we'd ask to be tabled for 2 weeks. We have no problem
A with that and we' ll work with the homeowners up there because they want to be
1 good neighbors.
Ir--
1 9
I
- -City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I would propose that we not table it but instead we pass it
with that as a condition. I mean no one anticipates a problem from what you've
said so why should it come back to us if everyone agrees to the resolution,
staff and their engineer, and let's give them permission to proceed.
Councilman Workman: Well I said the last time I had this tabled it didn't work
out and I would just as soon see it tabled at this point. That's a shorter
version of my motion but I think this is fooling around with too much stuff with
too many neighbors and too much drainage to just shove it out the door and say
okay take care of it and then we don't have much to do with i.t.
Bill Englehardt: You have the say on the final plat. In other words, if we
don't get this resolved, the Mayor can't sign, the City isn't going to sign the
final plat. You have the last say. It sounds like Mr. Borchart, between he and
I we can work out a solution I'm sure of that and the developer, the owner of
the property is willing to accommodate those concerns. It doesn't do than any '
good to have neighbors so if it would be possible to proceed with it, I can
assure you that we would work with the neighbor and you would have the final
control that they couldn't sign the final plat until we were ready to go with
it.
Councilman Johnson: Tom, when we place a condition on a plat approval, we are
saying that the Mayor, when he signs that plat, he's signing off that those
conditions have been met so basically we're tossing this on Don and Don and Gary
and Bill and everybody else actually to meet those approvals but then the final
John Henry that goes on there is Don Chmiel. That's the last thing and Don can [ II
withhold that if he is not satisfied that the conditions were met, he can bring
it back to us at that point. I'm willing either way.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it could be worked either way but of course I'm not going y'
to approve that until I get your word and your neighbors indicating that it has
been reached and a conclusion is there and that everything is to the
satisfaction. I think Bill is willing to do that working with you to come up
with it. So if we can proceed with this and if it's in agreement with Mr.
Borchart, we'll go that particular direction. I'd like to involve you. Then
you will get back to me personally and let me know prior to my signing?
Jim Borchart: Yes.
Bill Engelhardt: I can guarantee you that we'll work with him because they're '
going to need that signature.
Councilman Johnson: So do we need to add a condition (i)? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. A condition (i) should be put in.
Councilman Johnson: I don' t know how to word it. '
Councilman Workman: Can I include the cleaning of the holding pond in this?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. II
Councilman Workman: Okay, I'd like to add
y, I' (i) that one of the conditions being
that the City will pursue the cleaning of the holding pond on Maple Ridge.
10 '
■
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
' a Mr. Geissen made a statement that could be heard on the tape.
Gary Warren: But you're south of the Maple Ridge subdivision? Lot 13 right on
' the corner? Okay. Have you submitted a grading plan yet to the City? That
would be the process basically is to submit a grading plan to the City and then
we'll look at that as a part of the drainage concepts and everything else out
there.
Councilman Johnson: Have you submitted a building permit application?
' Gary Warren: Part of that package would be a site grading plan. It sounds like
it would be wise for everybody. Typically it's not critical on all
applications.
' Councilman Workman: Okay, so condition (i) , the City of Chanhassen will look to
clear the holding pond on Maple Ridge and then (j) , the affected parties,
including Mr. Geissen I guess, come to a working solution on the drainage issue.
Councilman Johnson: Do you want to put in anything about ursui the outlet
p �
towards the lake or whatever?
Councilman Workman: I think that's included.
IBill Engelhardt: That's something that we'll have to work out.
Mayor Chmi.el: And Gary will look at that from the City.
Councilman Johnson: Are you making that as a motion then? I'll second it.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Final Plat
' for Minnewashta Highlands for Schwaba-Winchell subject to the following
conditions:
' 1. Execution of a development contract to include the following specific
conditions:
a. Provide necessary financial sureties.
' b. Applicant apply and obtain permits from Watershed District, DNR and
other appropriate agencies prior to construction.
c. Construction on Lake Minnewashta Parkway shall be prohibited.
d. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan for each lot will be
' required as part of the building permit application process.
e. All private access shall be served by the internal cul-de-sac.
f. The accessory building on Lot 3 shall be removed.
't g. Landscaping along the rear of Lots 1-3 shall be installed iicinediately
after the over lot grading is completed.
11
■
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
1
h. Approval based on plans stamped "Received February 3, 1989".
1. The City of Chanhassen will look to clear the holding pond on Maple (11
Ridge.
j. The affected parties, including Mr. Geissen and Mr. Borchart, come to a
working solution on the drainage issue.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
G. ORDINANCE AMENDMING CITY CODE CONCERNING ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS, FIRST READING. '
Councilman Johnson: This is one that we're requesting that all gifts in excess
of $50.00 or greater can only be accepted with the approval of the City Council.
When I start looking at the 4th of July celebrations and the businesses that
donate into that and everything else, $50.00 is far too low of a number. What
I've got a suggestion is that we move that up to $500.00 and strike the word
greater and also say $500.00 or which has an annual operating and maintenance
cost of over $250.00. We talk about operating and maintenance costs. I think
if somebody's giving us that's going to start draining our operating and
maintenance cost, we need to look at that also. But I think $50.00 is a very
routine type of a gift. In fact I think once you get up to the $500.00 level,
it's starting becoming something that a Board, if this was a business, a Board
of Directors or something might want to look at but $50.00 is just peanuts.
Staff should be trusted enough to accept a $50.00, in fact I think they should I
be trusted enough to accept a $500.00. At Honeywell we don't need to get upper
level approvals for purchases up to $1,000.00. Most everybody has to sign off
at that point. I debated going to $1,000.00 on this but compromised at $500.00
because it's easier to draw a zero in.
Councilman Workman: Jay, I'll meet you halfway at $250.00.
Mayor Chmi.el: Let me ask a question. Roger, in preparing this you came up with
that $50.00 fee or monetary value of $50.00. Give me your explanation?
Roger Knutson: It reflected the notes I took at your meeting. That was the
number that was used there.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment. I don' t know if David's still out there
but I thought your letter, your editorial a few weeks ago didn't reflect the
facts at all when you said we needed this policy. I think this is an ordinance
the City doesn't need. I think if you go back over the history of the city and
you look at Chanhassen's record for accepting gifts and how we've done that,
that until we got into the controversy about whether or not we have a police
department, this never would have been an issue and I still don't think the
issue is accepting gifts. I think this is just one more hurdel, if you will. I
can't imagine a non-profit group going to the effort of raising money for the
City and having the City turn it down. I can't imagine that but what if you did
II
that? What if you were in a group, Chanhassen Women of Today, and you wanted to
donate $250.00 to the public safety effort in Chanhassen so they could go out
and educate kids. Can you conceive of the City Council turning that down? I
think that this is inappropriate. I think what we're really saying i.s, the City
Administrator should use good judgment about what gifts are accepted by the City
12 '
I
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
and if there's a question, it should certainly come to the Council and I think
I if you look back through the Minutes over the past years, these decisions have
always come to the Council with a courtesy. But to put it in as a requirement
is simply overkill and $250.00 is a ridiculously small amount in today's world.
' If it's even reason today, 2 or 3 years from now it will be way out of line and
why put this hurdle in place when all we're really saying is, the City Manager
should use good judgment in how gifts are accepted. So I'm opposed to it.
Councilman Workman: If it's something that can be accepted and is going to be
accepted for the education of children or something, this is not a hurdle at
all. But perhaps you're right that it's not an issue of monetary value but
' sometimes, as we've seen in two instances this winter already, gift giving can
be construed as politics. By giving members of the Council who are elected by
the people to make a decision as to whether or not it's prudent or not, I think
' is only fair. $50.00 may be too small but something in there I think as a stop
gap would be nice. I don't think it reflects on the City Manager at all. I'm
not questioning whether or not he'd accept it or not. When it comes up to a
' breathalyzer, I think Jim Chaffee had more to do with it maybe than Don. I
don't think Don cared. So there's a lot of things going on with different
departments in the City and so we can get a handle on what is coming into the
City by whom, I think this is a fine ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: If you take that one instance, or if you want to call it two
instances, out and you look at the last 10 years of the City Council and it's
I interaction with gifts, there's no need for this and I don't want to make the
police department the issue that we're building this particular ordinance
around. We're talking about something that I don't think we need. Anyway, you
know how I stand on it.
Mayor Chmi.el: Are we going to have a motion?
' Councilman Workman: Roger, at this point, changing the monetary figure, is that
going to, do we just scratch parts out and add and go as we want?
' Roger Knutson: I'll give it back to my word processor tomorrow. Whatever.
Councilman Workman: I'll make the motion that we approve the ordinance amending
Chapter 2 of the Chanhassen City code concerning the acceptance of gifts but
' also amending it to read, the gifts to the City with a monetary value of $250.00
or greater may only be accepted with the approval of City Council et al I guess.
' Mayor Chmi.el: Also change that next to the last line with the $50.00 there to
be $250.00 may be accepted on behalf of the City?
' Councilman Workman: Do I have a second?
Mayor Chmi.el: I'll second it.
I Councilman Johnson: I'm just going to repeat that I even think $250.00, I was
compromising when I went down to $500.00 because I agree with Bill. I don't
think it's needed. I'm doing this to say $500.00 on here, I'm saying okay, I
I L feel that the new members of the Council are uneasy with staff and that's part
of the reasoning. They haven't really built the repoire yet. I don't really
think it's totally needed but minimum I'd say is $500.00. I'm not going to back
' 13
I
City Council Meetin - II
y g March 13, 1989
off of that. $250.00 is nothing nowadays.
Councilman Workman: Well can I amend my motion?
(11
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I'll amend it. I will come up.
Mayor Chmiel: To the $500.00?
Councilman Workman: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: There's an amendment to the proposal making that $500.00 or
greater. I will amend my second to incorporate that $500.00.
Councilman Workman moved, Ma y or Chmiel seconded to a ppove the first reading of
an ordinance amending Section 2 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the
acceptance of gifts as amended to include the monetary value of $500.00 rather ,
than $250.00. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
I. APPROVAL OF MASTER PARK PLAN FOR CHANHASSEN POND PARK.
Councilman Boyt: A quick point on (i) . There was quite a bit of discussion in 1
Park and Rec on the nature of the surface of the trail around Chan Pond Park.
What we're approving tonight is not the building of the trail but the plan
itself and I'd like to see the Council recommend that they use an asphalt
surface for the trail because I think the rationale that they used in going to a
hard rock surface was that it would keep dirt bikes and bicycles off the trail
and it won't do that. So we should build that trail so people can use it
easily. An asphalt trail, people can get out there and push their strollers
along that and I'd like to see it accessible to those sorts of folks and they're
going to have a devil of a time doing that with rock. So, we clearly have to
deal with inappropriate uses of the trail but we should make it as easy as
possible to use and I would like to see the Council modify their master park
plan for Chanhassen Pond Park to change the trail surface to asphalt.
Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. I have one question on that too. The memorandum
that was written from Mark Koegler to the Park and Recreation Commission and
staff. The first paragraph, the last sentence, it says the Commission referred
the item to the City Engineer for comment. What was that comment?
Lori. Sietsema: It was engineering's opinion that there should not be parking...
and the sight lines would be better. . . '
Mayor Chmiel: Is that a total of, how many parking spaces?
Lori. Sietsema: 7 parking spaces. I
Councilman Johnson: Has anybody looked into the pond issue that I brought up at
the Park and Rec Commission as to whether we need to increase that one pond? I
14 '
■
' City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
,-- Lori. Sietsema's answer was not audible on the tape.
II i
Councilman Johnson: I'm also caught between asphalt and rock. I know that with
rock, what the kids do is ride on the edge and create their own dirt trail right
' next to the rock. Here they would ride on the asphalt, even though we'll have
signs up saying no bicycles or whatever. It's really not meant to be a bicycle,
and I know the kids in that neighborhood because yours and mine are in that
neighborhood. I know the skateboarders over there and they will be trying to
' skateboard and ride. I don't know how we're going to control it but I don't
think the rock is going to slow than down and the asphalt might speed them up.
I think we ought to have Park and Rec reconsider the asphalt, not mandate it.
' I'd like rather than us mandate the exact design without, I'd like to see it
further reviewed. I agree with you, I'm not sure if rock is the right thing.
This is definitely going to be a nature type park. This doesn't even include
the plantings yet. That's the next step is what kind of plantings to get in
' there.
Lori Sietsema: If I could just make a suggestion that if the Council wanted to
approve the plans and at the time of construction, in the construction plans. ..
Basically the master plan gives you an idea of what's going to go in there. . .
It's a concept plan.
Gary Warren: Plus the construction plans would came back for review.
Councilman Johnson: Has there been any comment from the two people in Chan
II Vista where the trail comes down from the circle, Chippewa?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, have those people been notified?
' Lori Sietsema: They have been notified and the comments that were made.. .
Councilman Johnson: I know the one on the east side is aware of the trail being
there because I spoke with him. His father in law is the superintendent of
schools at Eden Prairie and I've been over at his house and discussed this with
him so he knows it's there. I have never discussed it with the person on the
other side and they have sodded right there. I don't want it to be too much of
a shock when we start pouring asphalt on top of their sod they planted last
year.
Lori Sietsema: We will invite them back in when we.. .plans and start talking
about construction. As that neighborhood fills, we will give them an
opportunity. . .
Councilman Boyt: I would move approval of this item with the recommendation
from Council that they consider an asphalt surface.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Master Park
Plan for Chanhassen Pond park with the recommendation that the Park and
Recreation Commission consider an asphalt surface for the trail. All voted in
1 L- favor and the motion carried.
' 15
••
I
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
J. APPROVAL OF YEAR END TRANSFERS AND CLOSINGS. _I
Councilman Boyt: Quite quickly, this is where we're giving $20,000.00, we're
adjusting our budget to move $20,000.00 into developing the lower level of the
new addition so the library can expand in that. All I'd like to add to this is
that the City be directed to send a letter to the County Board endorsing the
expansion of hours of operation. I know the Board has just, I believe this
evening agreed to provide additional books and supplies for the new area but I
think the current hours of Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, evening hours or
times when an adult can access that, a work adult can access that library 3 days
out of 6, that's simply not enough. So I'd like to see the City endorse, send
just a letter of endorsement that we would support the Library Board and the
County Board expanding the hours.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that a motion? I
Councilman Boyt: That's a motion.
Councilman Johnson: And I'll second it.
Don Ashworth: The total expenditures proposed at $40,000.00, we have $20,000.00
within the existing account and we're supplementing that by $20,000.00 is the
actual action that's being taken. Just a clarification.
Councilman Boyt: It's a significant one. Thanks Don. '
Councilman Johnson: I think we can note that in our letter to them. We're
expending $40,000.00 or whatever for expansion of this and we'd like to see the
hours expanded if it makes any difference.
Mary Hygeous: Good evening. My name is Mary Hygeous. I'm director of the
Carver County Library system. I have two members, or one member of the County
Library Board here, Nina Contrell. She's our current Board member and Lois
Fiskness is our former Board member who helped us shepherd the space into this
building in 1981. This afternoon we met with the County Commissioners to ask
them for funds in 1989's calendar year. This was an unbudgeted expense for us
because we didn't know we were going to get the space this year. We had
planned, when we had heard of the space becoming available to putting it into
our 1990 capital improvement budget and so monies for this year would have to
come out of the County's contingency funds. The County Commissioners are
relunctant to do this. To pull monies out of contingency funds unless it's an
emergency. However, this afternoon we did get a favorable reply from the County
Commissioners, spearheaded by Al Kli.ngelhutz by the way. A staunch library
supporter. So we think the money will be there. We would be putting in
$17,500.00 and some dollars. That would be for shelving, moving the shelving
around and for new furniture. New charge desk and changing the data circuit
computer lines. At this time we have no additional monies for increasing the
hours. We did increase the staff hours for 1989. The thought of increasing
II
them for 1990 with this expenditure for shelving and furniture, I don't think is
going to fly. But, this is what I thought perhaps we should do since we haven' t
done it since we moved in here is to take a poll of our users to see if the 6
days that we're open each week are the correct hours for the community. We now
have 27,000 people who are coming into that library every year. That's 2,200
16 '
I
II , .City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
people a month. Children. Adults. All ages. Perhaps our hours are not the
right hours for people. Our 40 hours a week and perhaps
I s g peop ps we should take some of
our morning hours and put them more into the evening. Not increasing the hours
this year and I would guess not next year either, but changing the hours to make
them more accommodating to people and that's what we usually do in our branches.
1 We every so often take a survey of our users and find out what we're doing
right. What we're doing wrong. Particularly with hours. With materials. With
everything. Maybe that would tide us over until we can grow even more and
' perhaps eventually even get a larger building that would be more what the State
guidelines call for for this community. This community is growing so fast, our
space is just not keeping up with it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that would be an excellent suggestion. Poll the people
that are utilizing that library to see what are the best hours. I think we
would like to be privy of that information as well.
Mary Hygeous: Yes, absolutely. We're very happy by the way to get the
increased space. It was sort of a bonus last year when we found out that the
' space was going to be built and we ran over here right away and talked with Mr.
Ashworth saying, can we have some. Fortunately we worked with the architect on
the first of March and I think we've got everything lined up. The final key was
this afternoon, it getting the money to move into the space and that seems to be
I happening contingent on your action this evening of course so I think we're all
moving towards a better library for this community.
Iq Councilman Boyt: Didn't the hours go down?
' Mary Hygeous: No they did not.
Councilman Boyt: Not this year.
Mary Hygeous: No they have not gone down since we moved in in 1981. We thought
' we had to go down I think it was 3 years ago and we mustered a large support
from all the communities in the County and went en masse, the community did,
into the County Commissioner's Chambers. Wrote letters. Had the Friends of the
' Library in all the communities. The room was packed and we got the budget put
back.
Councilman Boyt: So this library hasn't lost hours or staff since it's been in?
Mary Hygeous: No. In fact this year we've increased staff hours. We couldn't
increase public service hours. What we increased were staff hours because the
staff that we had in there couldn't keep up with the business, with a 93%
increase we had.
' Councilman Boyt: Is there a library in the County that's busier than this one?
Mary Hygeous: Oh yes, Chaska.
ICouncilman Boyt: Okay, so these are the two busiest ones?
Mary Hygeous: They are the two busiest.
' 17
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Does it strike you as ironic that the City's putting —
$40,000.00 into this and the County, which is a County library, is putting in ( 1
half that amount?
Mary Hygeous: Yes. For the increased space. The City of Chaska, as an 1
example, put in several hundred thousand dollars and we put in $42,000.00.
That's the contract that we have with the cities and the County. You provide
the space and utilities. We staff and stock.
Councilman Boyt: It's good to have that education.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to make one quick comment. On the survey we need I
to look at winter versus summer. School hours versus summer hours. I think you
do adjust your hours when summer comes?
Mary Hygeous: Yes, we do in the summertime.
Councilman Johnson: Because right now the kids are in school during the day.
There's not as much use of it. But it is a valuable resource in the summer.
Some of the programs we have at that library are very good for the kids in the
summer. It needs a little more advertising. I think we could really get you a
lot more crowd flow through there with a little better advertising on it. 1
Mary Hygeous: We have 200 children plus in this room as it is. Have you ever
been with 200 children in a 90 degree day in this room?
Il
Councilman Boyt: I would move approval. I guess we've already done that
haven't we?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, a motion's been made and seconded.
Resolution #89-33: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the Year End Transfers and Closing as presented. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
M. APPROVE RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING GIRL SCOUT WEEK.
Mayor Chmiel: One more final item. Approve a resolution proclaiming Girl Scout
Week and I'd just like to read that. The proclamation i.s, Whereas, Girl Scouts
of the USA recognizes that the today's girls will be tomorrow's leaders; and
Whereas, Girl Scouts of USA is the largest volunteer organization for girls in
the world and draws a large resource of positive adult role models; and Whereas,
the Girl Scout movement continues to emphasize leadership and personal and
career development for girls; and Whereas, our community and world would be the
direct beneficiaries of the skilled young women who are Girl Scouts, Now
Therefore I, Donald J. Chmiel, by virtue of the authority vested in my as Mayor,
do urge the citizens of Chanhassen to support the Girl Scouts in their
II
endeavors. I know proclaim this week, March 12-18, 1989 Girl Scout Week in
Chanhassen.
18 '
I
II
City Council Meetin g - March
13, 1989
Resolution #89-34: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
I approve a resolution proclaiming the week of March 12-18, 1989 as Girl Scout
Week in Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations.
' VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
Mayor Chmeil: We have moved up item number 7 which we held at the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments just prior to the Council meeting. The Board of Appeals
and Adjustments had reviewed the proposal and because of the many conditions and
many things that have happened within the area of the setback requirements that
were done previously for other homes, had approved this particular item. Now of
course it comes to Council for discussion. I'm not sure whether Mr. Jessup
would like to make a presentation. If so, please proceed.
' Councilman Johnson: Was this passed unanimously?
Councilman Boyt: It was.
Councilman Johnson: Does any member of the Council have a problem with it?
ICouncilman Boyt: Yes.
James Jessup: I am James Jessup. My wife, Mary Ellen is here with me this
evening. The two kids are at home and the goal of our request is to establish a
long term residence with the proposed property changes.. . The action that we're
requesting is for you to approve Site Plan dated 3-6-89. I apologize if you
looked at the staff report at the number of site plans that have been modified
and changed along the way. The fact is we tried to accommodate input from
neighbors and staff and do other things to the project. What I've got is an
existing structure and this is covered in your handout on page 4. This same
' drawing. .. The orange highlighting shows portions of the existing structure or
outside of the project. The proposed structure sets inside the existing
structure on 3 of the 4 sides. On the east side of the property the existing
' setback is 4 1/2 feet. I'm proposing a 10 foot setback. On the street side of
the property or the front, there's an existing 16 foot setback. I'm proposing
17. On the west side of the property, the garage actually encroaches onto the
neighbor's property which is not a good situation but I'd like to change that.
I would propose a 5 foot setback on that side of the property, the west side.
So it's. . .8 1/2 feet. On the back of the property, I propose a 10 foot setback
that would have a whole new deck in that setback. Behind that sketch is a rough
house plan that I put together that shows the main level of this 2 story home
with 3 bedrooms. We have a 2 car garage, kitchen, dining room area and den are
all.. .pretty standard home. ...3 bedroom home, 2 bathroom. Similar to what you
probably. We're trying to build a home here that's similar to what's already
existing.. . I think the colored pictures there that you've got, the front page
has that red home there, that's the existing structure and garage. It's not the
greatest. That's what's existing there today. If this is approved, that would
II - be gone. It's a tough site and the reason for the setback requirements are the
fact that the lot.. . The minimum frontage across the street side is less than
11 19
City Council M eeti ng -
March 13, 1989
I
minimal standards. It's a tough situation. It's an existing situation that I'd
like to improve. I'd like to get rid. ..I'd like to improve the setback. ..and 1
the Board of Adjustments agrees. As an alternate, not as an alternate but to
further talk about the hardship... That's the setback as proposed by the
guidelines. Within that area you can see that there's very little space on a
main floor to build, after you include your 2 car garage, a stairway to get to
the upper level, a deck and a shall room for...
Councilman Johnson: You're putting a bigger deck on that example than on the '
house you're planning.
James Jessup: I think they're the same size. What I've got here is a situation
that's difficult by design of the lot. It was a pre-existing condition. The
previous owner experienced similar frustrations in that property is too close to
the street and too close to the east side. The garage encroaches on the west
side and the deck sits in the lake area. The situation is, I appreciate your
consideration. The precedent for this situation as the staff has reported in
the report to you, variance 89-2, a home 250 feet down Lake Riley Blvd.. Here
are some pictures on 13, page 13 of your handout, excuse me the fourth page.
The bottom home. The home that's tall. That home was granted a 5 foot variance
from the property line. It was granted a 33 foot variance on the lake side and
the front yard setback also so there's precedence very close by. . . Just in
summary, I'd just like to restress the hardship criterias. I think this meets
pretty well and this plan shows what's there, what's proposed. There's just not
room to... I think I've got a pretty reasonable strcuture that's 2,000 square
feet on two levels. ..so I would ask for your approval.
Mayor Chmiel: I know we have a neighbor here who would uld also like to address
this. I
Don Sitter: First of all we would definitely like to see this property improve.
The house next to us right now is an eyesore. I have no concerns about that at
all. We want to make sure that the plans are consistent with the neighborhood
and fit on the lot that it's being put on. The City ordinances call for an
establishment of a hardship of some sort. I don't believe any hardship has been
established. If you look at the site plan, they have approximately 1,470 square
feet within setbacks which they can build this plan. I think that's plenty of
room to build a fine home. If they want to go two levels, they've got nearly
the 3,000 square foot. Specifically we're concerned about a few things. One is
the overall size of the house. What Jim calls a 2 story house, I call a 3 story
house. His plans show for a full basement which is a walkout basement and being
on the lake, that's nearly road level or whatever so it is literally a very
large home. The 3 bedrooms upstairs, if you include the dun and playroom and a
piece of the rec room that could be finished off, we could be looking at a 6
bedroom home on a lot of 7,000 square feet and lakeshore of 25 feet. I think
the Jessup's are fine people. What if they sell to a family of 6 teenage kids?
Where's all that activity going to fit on a lot of that size? As for the
precedence being set, the house down the road I think was 40 feet back from the
lake which is a 35 foot variance or whatever. The house is approximately 30
II
feet deep. That means the back of their house is 75 feet from the lake and
they're already too close to the road. They literally had no room to build on
their lot. As far as the 50 foot wide lot...so as far as the side setbacks, I
think there's a considerable difference in that condition and in this condition.
We also have a concern with the drainage on the property. Right now you can see
20 1
■
' City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
their existing garage, the existing home, all the water runs out. . . It was
I brought up at the Board of Adjustment meeting before us that some of the water
is coming from our house, running down the driveway and through their property.
That's a small problem. The big problem is the entire area north. . .and I think
' you can ask them. I know of at least 3 or 4 times in the last few years that
they've ended up with 6 inches of water in their house and they had plenty of
water damage to show that. He had to do a lot of repairs on his home to fix
that. That's no small problem and I see no drainage plans at all whatsoever for
' this. We're also a little worried about the overall height. The two homes to
the east are single story homes. His is up close to 35 feet in the air. I'm
not sure that really fits with the rest of the neighborhood. You might ask why
I'm opposed to this and it seems kind of strange. They're looking at building a
very, very nice home which would help improve our property values and I think
that's a good point and like I said, we want to see it improved. We think it's
' too much improvement. We think the house is just too big for the lot. I'm also
very concerned about the encroachment on the lakeside. Because there has been
no hardship established here and you're allowing them a 10 foot variance there,
you're basically saying the City Ordinance is not good at 75 feet and you're
basically changing it to 65 feet. I'm not too sure that's what you really want
to do here. I guess if I saw some hardship or some reason why these variances
should be granted I'd say fine but I think they can do very well within the
setbacks and I'm pretty sure we're maybe establishing precedence on this one.
Not a precedence on the ones that were done down the road. I don't think they
apply to this case. I think it's different. Thank you for your time.
I Councilman Boyt: I think that the important point here is that there are
criteria that are set up by the State to use when we're considering variances.
Variances are not meant to write ordinances. Variances are meant to handle
'
hardship situations that the ordinance could not be written to adjust to because
it was in fact a unique hardship. If we're unhappy with our ordinances, we
should rewrite them but if we're going to give a variance, we really ought to
follow the guidelines the State has set down for us. Now we as a Council are
acting on this kind of variance for the first time. Previous Councils have
acted on it and they have made decisions. 6AWFe might be able to make a pretty
strong argument that that does not bind us to making similar variances but once
we make it, we've then created a precedence for this particular body and anyone
who wants to come in and say I want to extend my house within 65 feet of the
lake and we say to that person you do not have a hardship, they can say to us,
' and neither did this situation. So I think from that standpoint, Mr. Jessup's
presentation is a good one. He makes a lot of very good points. The one about
the existing footprint of the home I think is an excellent point and should
" allow us to make some reasonable adjustments. So I can understand the need to
allow some variances but I think we have to be very careful that we don't allow
any that haven't already been approved for this particular location. I would
prefer to see us have a building, house, that does not come closer than the 68
' feet the current residence comes. I think anytime we can improve and as
Mr. Jessup's second plan, his modifications from 2 weeks ago is certainly an
improvement over the first plan and in some regards we might be able to make an
I argument that it's an improvement over the existing variances on the current
house. But where it's not an improvement I think that we can't afford to pass
that. Not when he can not show a hardship and he can't because he can develop
this property without variances so I think we should consider this very
carefully. This is not simply a matter of looking at this particular instance
but it's establishing our willingness to grant anyone the opportunity to build
' 21
I
, 1
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
within 65 feet of the lake.
fil
Mayor Chmiel: I guess there's been several thoughts on that portion. Steve,
will you read the specific conditions that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
have indicated? '
Steve Hanson: Yes, the Board of Adjustments in their recommendation for
approval had. . .as follows. First was that the drainage in the area be reviewed
by the City Engineer to come up with a viable means for handling that between
the neighbors specifically. The second condition was that the deck remain a
deck and no porch or any type of enclosure be allowed either up on that top
level or on the walkout level below. The third condition was that the plans for
the building be reviewed by staff as part of the building permit process to
insure that what they're asking for in the building permit complies with what
the Board of Adjustment approves. Then the fourth condition was to specifically
make a plan that's contained in your packet and dated March 6th as the official
plan.. .Board of Adjustments specifying what those setbacks were. That was the
extent of the conditions placed on there.
Mayor Chmiel: As we looked further into this, and in a particular case on a
variance that was granted previously just in an adjacent, in addition to the one
that Mr. Jessup has indicated, in this particular case the applicant was granted
a 5 foot sideyard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance as
well. That was at 9239 Lake Riley Blvd.. At 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. there was
also a single family residence be 50 feet from the southerly ordinary high water II mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinary high water mark. Unfortunately, as
I see it, there has been an awful lot of variances within that specific
area granted on all those homes. True it was granted by the previous Council. I
don't think in my good conscience and probably from the. ..aspect, can we deny
those variances with all the other variances that have already been granted.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. .Mayor, if I might respond to that particular part of it.
What you were granting a variance can not be United to one lake in town. When
you grant this variance, you in effect grant a variance for anybody that can
come in and make the argument that they have a similar situation and you have
taken hardship out of our criteria.
Don Sitter: I'd also like to make a point on those two instances. Both of
those lots were reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and they
determined that they were literally unbuildable if there weren't variances
granted because they had no roam left to build. So if that's the same
conditions that this is, I don't see that as being a precedence for this issue.
I think that they were considered very carefully and if you don't allow some
variances in those, you were deeming that property unbuildable and therefore
taking away the value of the land altogether and I think that's totally
different and I don' t picture this.. .
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to agree with Bill a little bit here. When you
look at a variance that was granted in 1982 which is a long time, 7 years ago,
I
and you look at another one is 1986 which was 2 Councils ago and the variances
that were granted with the last Council have had primarily totally unbuildable
lots. There was down on Lake Riley that I don' t think is on this list that we
granted where I think he got down to several hundred square feet of buildable
property by the time all the variances. He was on a peninsula and the 75 feet
22
' City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
II
came in from 3 sides on the guy and it was an improvement. I do not think that
II there is in any variance, every variance has to stand totally on it's own. I've
been staunch on variances for years, or for 2 years. That there has to be a
hardship shown. I don't want to put, I agree with Bill, 68 feet was the
I existing setback there. I would say if we can go to 68 feet there. I think
he's trying to put more house into here than there has to be. I think that it
can fit with the neighborhood. I'd like to know if he tried to get the
neighboring property where his fence is that appears to be his yard, whether he
I tried to obtain that from his neighbor and whether his neighbor is willing to
negotiate some of that which would change that setback because there is no house
right next door on the one side. I think the neighbor is actually here.
IJames Jessup: What was the question?
Councilman Johnson: Have you negotiated for the purchase of part of your land
I where his fence is on your land up to his existing fence so his fence that
designates his yard is actually your yard.
I James Jessup: We talked about that. If you'll also notice from the plans, my
driveway cuts across the corner of his property so we were talking about
swapping back and forth there or some easements or whatever. But in the area
I where the fence is, we're only talking about a foot or 2 on my property so it's
no. ..
Councilman Johnson: Well it does change the variance a little bit but I think
I ', that needs to continue to be worked on. I'm against expanding a bad situation
and going any closer to a lake. While I don't buy the argument that if we do
this somebody else someplace else, each variance has to stand completely on it's
I own. If we do this, tomorrow his next door neighbor could come in and ask the
same variance and we could turn it down. It'd be tough. It doesn's seem
reasonable that way but we would have to justify this variance and for some
I particular reason on this lot does he need that variance to put that deck on
there? In my opinion is no. There is no hardship. If you can justify in your
mind that there's a hardship that he has to have that deck. That he has to have
2,000 square feet of home plus a full basement underneath it and a double car
II garage, the double car garage is required, I think that there's just
overbuilding for this lot. That's the long and the short of it. I'm going to
vote against it.
IMayor Chmiel: Willard, would you like to come up to the mic?
II Willard Johnson: I'd like to defend the first two issues of the variances up
the street. I was on the Board in both cases. We could have deemed them both
unbuildable if we would have wished to and then does the City want to purchase
the property? That comes into effect and I feel this one here is the same
II situation. If you want to maybe you can negotiate with the gentleman to chop
off the 10 foot deck. I'm always for negotiating if that's the proper procedure
and maybe he's willing to take the deck off because I don't see nothing wrong
with this piece of property either. I felt the same on the two in the past.
I I The gentleman says we could, they were unbuildable, you've got either two
choices. Either make them unbuildable and the City buy them or that's all I
have to say.
II
II 23
II
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Willard you said that the previous two
were unbuildable. This is not any way unbuildable.
Willard Johnson: No, I didn't say. The gentleman here says the Board says they
were unbuildable. ,
Councilman Boyt: You're saying the previous two were not unbuildable?
Willard Johnson: He says the previous two were unbuildable. I guess what I'm
getting at, he's trying to say that the Board says the previous two are
unbuildable. We could have just told them no, we won't grant no variance and if
the City didn't want to grant a variance, he couldn't build.
Councilman Boyt: That makes them unbuidable doesn't it?
Willard Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so they were unbuildable?
Willard Johnson: Well you could put something on it.
Councilman Boyt: 200 square feet or something? '
Willard Johnson: Let me word it this way. There isn't a lot in this whole city
you can't design to fit a house, even if it's 90 feet tall and 10 foot wide.
That's what I'm getting at.
Councilman Boyt: Alright, but what we were saying earlier was those two lots,
as you recall, would have required an extremely small house?
Willard Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: So we gave a variance to make them more buildable. This
allows a house of 1,300 square feet. Are you saying that makes it unbuildable?
Willard Johnson: I guess I compare it to some of the planned developments we've '
got in this city and it's up in my neighborhood too. You've got, let's use x
number of dollars, $250,000.00 homes in there from lot line to lot line so
I guess how do you compare apples to organes? I guess he wants to put a decent
sized home on there and I feel that maybe you can chop off the deck if that's
what the Council would wish to bring it within the 75 foot of the lake. The
rest I have no problems with. The 5 foot on the west side. The 10 foot on the
east side and the street. I don't have no problem with that. If you wish to
chop 10 feet off the deck, I have no problem with that either. I'm not sticking
up for the applicant but I'm just saying, it's a hard thing to do. We've got
three areas in the City, Carver Beach is one, Red Cedar Point is one and Lake
Riley is another one. We've just got lots that you've got to work out
individually.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with you where a lot is unbuildable and the City has
to look at purchasing the lot or granting the variance but that's not the case
Ellhere.
24 1
U
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Willard Johnson: No, I realize that but what kind of home can you put on it?
I'm looking from the standpoint, a building standpoint too.
Councilman Boyt: A 1,200 square foot home.
' Willard Johnson: That sounds dumb. You might as well put up a good one in
order to put it up. Not that I'm sticking up for the applicant. Make a decent
' home instead of a house that, he's going to put a garage in the bottom part so
you're losing quite a bit of home space. We require a 2 car garage. I don't
know if it's a good arguing point. I hope I made my point clear.
' Councilman Workman: I'm not going to argue with the expertise of Willard. To
me it all looks like a little bit of a hardship case with these lots. Going all
the way back to when they were designed. To me it looks as though this is kind
of, this is cleaning up this lot a little bit and improving it. A bad situation
into maybe not as bad a situation. I'm going to take the advice of the Board of
Appeals and approve this.
' Councilman Boyt: Show me the hardship. Not that you have to but show me the
hardship.
' Councilman Workman: You're right, I don't have to. But we've got a situation
if you just look at this map right here alone and we've got problems with the
oranges. I don't see where, we can keep it the way it is and we've got all
I sorts of problems along both sides. I don't see where taking this and bringing
it in, maybe up, bringing it closer to the lake. I'm looking at before and
after situations here. It's like the southern area of Chanhassen. It's not
going to turn into a wheat field down there no matter how hard we wish. This
' situation, all along this lakeshore isn't going to improve because we wish it
to. So to me, this is a situation, they're coming in and spending an awful lot
of money to improve a situation.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, why don' t we just have them build it up to the lake
then?
' Mayor Chmiel: Well that's silly. Let me ask Mr. Jessup, would you be willing
to remove your deck from that particular building?
' James Jessup: I would ask if you would be willing to buy a lake house without a
deck?
' Mayor Chmiel: I might.
James Jessup: The neighbors on one side of me have.. .and the neighbors on the
' other side have a three season porch and they have a door in. .. Decks and a
lake home go together. Look at the pictures that I provided you. You'll see
many decks on Lake Riley.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask another question. Bill's concern is the setback 68
11,4 feet to be in conformance with the other homes. Would you be willing to cut 3
feet off that deck?
James Jessup: It makes it very difficult to put a table on top of that deck.
bah have a round table.
' 25
. II
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: What's the total length of that deck? Is the total 10 feet?
(11
'
Jam es Jessup: It's 10 foot width but. ..would be less than 7. By the time you
get a railing you have a 6 1/2 foot wide deck to put a nice round table.. .how do
you get around it?
Mayor Chmi.el: I've got one. My deck is exactly that and we have a round table
on it.
Don Ashworth: If I may ask the question. The 3 feet wouldn't necessarily have
to come off the deck. It would be maybe adjusting deck and house. The
important point is that it's back 68 feet. It would appear as though your plan
might be able to be adjusted to allow the back portion to be increased one
dimension slightly more to lose the 3 feet the other way.
Councilman Johnson: To follow on that Don, how big is don't
, g your garage? I don t see
any dimensions on here?
James Jessup: It's 23 1/2 by. ..
Councilman Johnson: Saying that the existing pump house is the existing setback
where I think they went to the wall of the house rather than the pump house
before but that's 16 foot. Sliding the house forward to meet the existing 16
foot setback, going to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus the 23 1/2, losing a foot
and a half there. Sliding the entire house to the right to give you a little
1-1111
more because if you lost a little bit there. Then we're to a 9 1/2 foot deck.
See what I'd say is go to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus a 23 1/2 x 23 1/2. I
realize that that's getting small but that's what I've got actually is a 22 x 22
and my wife's big Chevy fits in there with my little Horizon. I think that
would also give you a little bit more on your west side if you went a little
narrower on the garage. If there's anything you can cheat on and not mess up
your living space, it's your garage. You just have to walk a little tigher when
you bang your doors into each other's cars.
Councilman Workman: How much are we going to gain by doing this?
Councilman Johnson: We'll gain 2 1/2 feet if we cut a foot and a half off the
garage and slide it towards the street a foot to get to the 16 foot mark. That
gives us 2 1/2 feet so take a half foot off his deck, he's added a 68 foot.
He's got a 9 1/2 foot deck. So he has not exceeded the previous deck footprint
of the previous variance that was on there. I think it's workable. It's not
that big of a deal.
Councilman Boyt: That would certainly be acceptable from my standpoint because
we're not exceeding any variances. ..
Councilman Johnson: In the existing condition.
Councilman Boyt: In the existing condition.
II
Mary Ellen Jessup: How does that affect then what we discussed during the
Board of Adjustments? One of the addendums or whatever where you mentioned that
we had to use that exact footprint as the exhibit for approval? For this permit
26 ,
City Council MLctin g - March 13, 1989
to construct? How does that affect it?
IICouncilman Johnson: We're modifying it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's being modified right now. The Council has the final consent
for proceeding with what you have. As it looks right now, you're looking at a 2
to 2 vote where it's not going to go anywhere so I think discuss this with your
husband real quickly to see whether or not you can go in that particular way.
' Mary Ellen Jessup: What I needed to know is, are we going to have to come back
for an appeal?
Mayor Chmiel: No. It could be resolved right now and see it proceed.
Councilman Johnson: While it seems like we're really measuring the straws to an
inch degree when we talk about a half foot there, but it does seem to crawl on
you. A half foot this time. A foot, just to give them some time to get some
patter going here.
James Jessup: If we would establish the guidelines as being a 16 foot setback
from the road and 68 from the lake and let us maneuver around inside the house
and let us make the tradeoff for whether shrink the garage 2 feet or whether we
shrink something else a little bit, is that agreeable?
Johnson: Fine.
ICouncilman
Mayor Chmiel: And that's a part of what the conditions basically are.
tJames Jessup: Very good. Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: I would move approval as just mentioned that we retain the 68
' foot setback from the lake. The 16 foot setback from the Lake Riley Blvd.. 10
feet from the property to the east. And is it 7 feet?
Councilman Johnson: It's 5 unless he gets the property next door. Then it goes
' to 7.
Councilman Boyt: Are you going to work out the property next door?
Don Sitter: We'll certainly work together. I guess I would like to ask one
more consideration of the Council here. Your suggestion of him shrinking the
garage and pulling in another couple feet off of my property will help my
attitude a lot. Could we make that instead of the 5 foot setback from his
property line, 7 or 8 foot setback and have that. ..
Councilman Boyt: I don' t think his garage isn't over on that side of the house.
Don Sitter: No. What I'm saying is shrink the garage so he can pull it farther
off of my property.
IY Councilman Boyt: No, I don' t think that was how that was going to work Don.
}
Councilman Johnson: I was doing that too Bill. That was in my suggestion too
is make the garage narrower and then they could move further away from the 5
27
I
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
foot setback. The existing condition is that he's 2 1/2 feet into your
property. This would be an improvement over being 2 1/2 feet into your property iji
by 7 1/2 feet but this fence remains into your property quite a bit when it gets
down to the lake.
Don Sitter: But as I mentioned in the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, right 1
now that garage is on our property but it acts as a buffer between their
activities and ours. It's like a little wall or fence. By removing that
garage, all the activities are coming around our side of the property. That's
why I'm standing on that setback a little bit.
Councilman Boyt: I would make the motion that it's either 5 feet or 7 feet.
I'm open. To follow my logic, we're staying in the existing footprint and to me
that's critical. So the situation with the garage I think is maybe something
you can work out in your property swap, if you're going to swap property but
from my standpoint of protecting our ordinances, I think we don't want to exceed
the existing building footprint and 68 feet from the lake is part of that.
Councilman Johnson: Previously, the closest sideyard setbacks was 6.8 feet. On
the previous house. If you don't count the garage. Now his closest sideyard
setback is going to be 5 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Well I hate to get into a situation where we've got a '
negotiations that's open ended.
Councilman Johnson: So what do you want the west side property setback in your I
motion? That's what we're down to.
Mayor Chmiel: That presently is 5 feet right? '
Councilman Boyt: Presently it says it's 5 feet. We all agree 5 feet?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, 5 feet. '
Councilman Boyt: 5 1/2? I would make my motion that it's 10 feet on the west
side and 5.5 feet on the east side. 68 feet from the lake and 16 feet from Lake 1
Riley Blvd.. If you can work out something better between you, marvelous but I
think from the City's standpoint we've got to require that.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
James Jessup: I'd rather you keep it 10 feet from the east side.
Councilman Johnson: We did. I
James Jessup: You said west.
Councilman Boyt: Which side do you want what on Willard? I
Willard Johnson: 10 foot from the east side.
EllCouncilman Boyt: Okay, and what do we do on the west side?
28 1
I
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
I1 Willard Johnson: 5.5. The reasons I come up. ..
3
II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the variances to
the front, side and rear yard setbacks for the construction of a new single
family residence at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard with the following setbacks: 68
I feet from the lake, 16 feet from Lake Riley Boulevard, 10 feet from the east
side of the property and 5.5 feet from the west side of the property. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
IPUBLIC HEARING:
IA. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 87-17 FOR THE NORTH SIDE PARKING
LOT.
I B. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR NORTH SIDE PARKING
LOT.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
IIGary Warren: I don't know that it needs much of an introduction. I didn't see,
our facsimile machine at the last minute today a letter came in from Mericor the
I owners of the Town Square retail center. They're in support of the project.
Just had a concern about the assessment issue as far as the 23 parking units
` that were added to the building which I guess from an assessment standpoint,
this is not an assessment hearing but the discussion and the request in the
Iletter is appropriate that City staff meet with than to explain the rationale
and that. Basically I'll speak for Fred Hoisington but in general terms, they
were added to the assessment roll for two purposes. One, they have drainage
I that flows to this new parking lot area for which we will be accommodating their
flow. Secondly, because they have a more intense use than what was originally
planned and that intense use ends up using more parking stalls and has impacts
Ion the Riveria.. .they were assessed the parking and 23 units so we have gone
through and applied the logic basically from that standpoint. But we certainly
will follow up as requested in the letter and talk with Mr. Winkle from Mericor
and review that with him. There will be the option at the assessment for
IIgetting further into that when the project is complete.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this public hearing?
IBrad Johnson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Brad Johnson. 7425
Frontier Trail representing the Heritage Park Apartments and the professional
I building. We've gone on record in your, I believe the staff also outlines the
fact that we do not feel nor do our experts, whoever they are, they're not here
tonight, that there's additional need for the water line that's furnishing the
water to the hydrant. That's an additional cost to the project of $50,000.00.
We've been requested by the City to upgrade our building from originally,
especially the apartment building, from the original unsprinkled building to a
J totally sprinkled building with additional costs to us of $100,000.00 thus far.
In checking with all those that know and we're willing to listen but we have not
heard anybody feel that the additional fire hydrants on the south side of the
apartment building is anything but overkill in the case of fire protection. In
II 29
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
addition, we have brought the apartment building completely through
the whole planning process that is now approved to be built and nobody ever
raised the question about additional fire hydrants on the south side of the
building. So therefore we suggest that this be looked at. I'm going on record
as to our feelings. We're meeting with the folks from the Fire Department
tomorrow to further question that but it's a $50,000.00 expense and we're just
not sure it's needed. There may be a need for a fire hydrant somewhere there
but this is maybe not the right way to do it, in our opinion. Thank you.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Johnson: I think we ought to look into those two points. The 23
parking stalls and the staff further review the necessity of that fire hydrant.
I think we looked, when we looked at the apartments, we looked pretty
thoroughly, the Fire Department looked over the plans. But if the Fire
Marshall now says he goofed, missed and it is necessary for fire fighting, then
it's necessary we put it in as far as I'm concerned. I think we need to look
and see if it is overkill. $50,000.00 is $50,000.00. Another straw on this
camel's back.
Mayor Chmiel: I agree. '
Don Ashworth: I should make the Council aware of the fact that I did receive a
call from Mr. Krueger a little more than a week ago, must have been shortly
after his notice. At that point in time he was disturbed with the design and
the amount of the assessments. We did set up two different meetings with Mr.
Krueger to try to adjust the plan to insure maximum spaces and we got into a
number of other issues dealing really with the Retail West project, not
necessarily dealing with the project before us. I think that is resolved. I
would just like to make the council aware of the fact that again, Mr. Kruger was
quite concerned and I think the final plans that we bring back to you will
address the issues of concern to him. Do you wish to say anything more in that
area Brad, Gary or.. .
Fred Hoisington: I would just briefly. We met with the Kruegers this morning '
and had a very good meeting with them. We have adjusted the plan which means we
do have to bring it back to the Planning Commission and the Council for an
adjustment in the site plan but they were very pleased with the outcome and the
modifications that have been made so I think we have that very well resolved. I
think Tom would have probably been here tonight if we hadn't.
Gary Warren: On the watermain issue, since we will be asking for authorization '
to go ahead on the plans and specifications on our next item, Fire Chief and
the Inspector have looked at that based on earlier concerns mentioned from
Mr. Johnson and as you see their memo in the packet they are still saying that
it is a necessary item for fire fighting even in light of the sprinklers.
Primiarly because of the congestion in trying to get fire support in there with
the parking. Invariably there's going to be parked cars and the closest
II
hydrants are going to be out on West 78th Street. That's at least the way
they've explained it to me and I know Chief Gregory is here in the back hall
waiting for one of the next items. That's their position on it at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: What's the distance from the 78th Street complex?
30 r
■
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Gary Warren: It's over 300 feet.
IIDon Ashworth: You're referring to the apartment complex?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Any other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: A quick point. In Fred's letter to us he said, if we had a
choice, we would prefer to have no curb cut to West 78th Street at the location
of the clock tower. It's my intent to vote against that as long as the curb
cut's in there.
' Mayor Chmiel: The existing curb cut is what you're saying?
Councilman Boyt: That we're changing what's there and putting a new one in and
I recognize that the new one is going to be an improvement over what we have now
but I do not think we should do anything to complicate that corner and this will
complicate it and it's not our consultant's first choice. It's what they felt
they had to negotiate to get. My experience in talking to people about that
' corner is that the general public will not understand that we negotiated to
inconvenience them. So it's my plan to vote against it. I don't think this is
the point when we need to vote against it but eventually we're going to get down
to that vote and if that's still there, that's how I'll vote.
Councilman Workman: I also have reservations about that curb cut. Are we
II 1
looking for a motion for A and B?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes,y if you have no further discussion I'll entertain a motion
for items 2(A) and 2(B) .
Councilman Johnson: So moved. I'll make the motion and modify it a little here
to try and get things moving I guess since there's no second coming quickly.
That we look into the items that were discussed tonight, if that's part of the
problem of the second. The fire hydrant, whether there's any alternatives. If
we can cut some costs there. Maybe split the differnce and put the hydrants
halfway between or wherever. Looking at the issue of the 23 parking spots for
Mericor as to whether their business warrants an additional 23 parking spots to
be assessed against them. I'm not sure what we can do about that curb cut but
it would be better for the overall traffic flow on West 78th not to have the
curb cut there. It would be worse for the property owners that are paying, that
are being assessed for these parking lots if the curb cut were eliminated so I'm
kind of stuck on that one. I'd say further review of the curb cut situation and
discussions with the owners of the property to include getting feedback from the
owners of the property whether that curb cut is required for them.
Councilman Boyt: I'll second it because it's going to the Planning Commission
and will be back in front of us again anyway. I'm just sending the signal.
Resolution #89-35: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to
approve Downtown Public Improvement Project No. 87-17 and to authorize
' preparation of plans and specifications for the north side parking lot. Further
L_ directing staff to looking into the fire hydrant requirements, the assessment of
23 parking spots to Mericor and to further review the curb cut situation onto
West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 31
I
6 J
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 88-25. '
Public Present:
Name Address '
Eric Rivkin 6095 Stellar Court
Pat Johnson 1730 Lake Lucy Lane
Terry O'Brien 1420 Lake Lucy Road
Warren Phillips 1571 Lake Lucy Road
Al Harvey 1430 Lake Lucy Road '
Gary Warren: This is a public hearing on the feasibility study that was done
for the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain. As Council will recall, we had the
feasibility study and then subsequently it was amended to also include the
connection policy that was reviewed and then subsequently also approved by the
Council. In talking with counsel, legal counsel, we thought it best to protect
the City's right in the event that if we ever would need to assess the project,
Chapter 429 requirements dictate that we notify anybody that we think we're
going to assess at this time so really the public hearing is a formality in that
regard. It is not meant to address the trail issue as that is on the Park and
Rec Commission tomorrow night and is scheduled to be back here on the 27th.
However, I know there are several people here from the public and there was some
handouts distributed at City Hall today. Has the Council received them? 1
Mayor Chmiel: I just had one copy and I requested that these be provided to the
Council.
Gary Warren: I've got copies that I can distribute here. I haven't had a lot
of time to get into this handout but I did have a follow-up meeting. If it's
your pleasure to talk about the trail at all this meeting, I could give you the
benefit of some of the work that we have done since our last Council meeting
with the State and also with our consultant to try to come up with another
version here that actually parallels some of what's on this handout but it's
your discretion.
Mayor Chmiel: I think just touch on it rather briefly as to where you're at and
what you've come up with so far. I know we have a couple of the residents here
that have had some concern.
Gary Warren: Basically a lot of the discussion from our previous meetings has
centered around trying to strike the compromise to deal with the trail issue and
keeping the trail active in this area and also to address the need and desire of
the local residents for a parking area. It also, because the State is involved,
we spent 75% of their funds on this project...criteria. The current section of
Lake Lucy Road again is 36 feet in width and that's where we're starting from.
But we subsequently felt an option and I present the section here. ..because II
that's the most extreme. It would provide on street parking on one side of the
roadway and an 8 foot off street trail. Two 12 foot travel lanes and basically
a shoulder. The section that is generated is a 33 foot wide section and as you
recall we have a 36 foot section right now so the actual curbing right now is to
be moved in 3 feet from the south to accomplish that. State Aid criteria says
32 1
rJ
(._
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
II
II I that in order to have one parking lane and two travel lanes, you need for a low
density collecter to have 34 feet in width. We have 33 feet. I believe in
talking with Chuck Wei_selbaum from the State Aid that we probably could achieve.
They sometimes try to apply a 36 foot criteria to look at all State Aid roads on
II a high density collecter but I believe.. .to negotiate on that. That would
provide us then with the ability to take the trail and put it off street. The
Glaccum property would be basically paved surface from the curb right up to the
I wall but it would be an 8 foot trail or multi-purpose lane, whatever you want to
call it. You get on either side of the retaining wall area, we have the ability
to get again away from the curb area to put in a green space. Probably a 2 foot
is minimum of green boulevard area between the curb and the trail to get good
I separation there so somebody doesn't happen to just glide off of the travel
lane. Again, this is the area where we have the most constraint because of the
retaining wall and avoiding moving the wall which would be an expensive
I alternative. Nothing is without a cost. We've done some crude estimate on this
kind of an option and a high guesstimate, if we would do the sealcoati.ng of the
roadway which needs to be done out there next year.. . Instead of having to
sandblast all the pavement markings off which we've found out can be quite
II expensive out here, if we're going to sealcoat the road anyway, we can do it at
this time as a part of our regular maintenance projects or even State Aid
II dollars for that matter and then go back to the center line stripe and probably
a parking stripe. .. So we're basically talking I would say $601,000.00 to
$70,000.00 additional costs.
II Councilman Johnson: Gary, why 8 foot? What I'm looking for is something for
people that are there walking. I'm not looking for a bicycle trail for people
to ride their bikes on as much as the guys with their tricycles or as I was out
1. there this weekend, there was a group of 5 people walking one time I was there.
I The other time I went in there, there was a father and 2 kids and pulling one in
a wagon and they're going down the street this way. I think a 5 foot wide
asphalt trail along there would be plenty sufficient. 8 feet you can get 2
IIbicycles going both ways. I don't think we need that much there.
Gary Warren: Part of the trail plan and some of our construction.. .we looked at
trails that would be in more rural areas, be that wide as a practicality that
Irelates to maintenance of the roadway. We come back in and sealcoat these trail
like we should be in 5 to 8 year cycles, with your truck boxes, for getting
equipment in there, 8 feet is really the practical length. Snow removal, if you
I get anything less than 6 feet, we've got a lot of problems downtown right now
where we're removing snow with our Bobcat loader but.. . 8 feet, the extra 2
feet, the equi.pment.. .almost more for a maintenance standpoint. ..
ICouncilman Johnson: I drive Valley View and I watch Eden Prairie plow those and
they get on there with their pick-up truck and plow the 8 foot wide trail they
II have. That does make sense to me. Overall, that 8 foot would be, on a long
term basis, most cost effective.
Councilman Boyt: Can we refer this to Park and Rec and let them hash this out?
I IIIIt's 10:00 now.
Mayor Chmi.el: Yes. I think it would be a good idea. Being that we're just
I strictly discussing the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain improvement project,
IIL-- hopefully I know that we have some people here from the area and I don't think
this is going to jeopardize us proceeding without looking at some of the things
II 33
I
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
1
that Eric Rivkin has pulled together as well.
Gary Warren: The only thing Mr. Mayor that you might want me to address at this
time is two other options that I think are the options that they are giving
strong consideration to. Alter the movement of the watermain 8 feet south from
it's designed alignment.
Mayor Chmiel: Coming into the existing tar now?
Gary Warren: Yes. Basically what it would do is put it right underneath the
existing curb. The original goal of the design was to avoid damage to Lake Lucy
Road from two aspects. One I guess is politically, that it wasn't desirable but
also from the standpoint that removal, if we encroach on Lake Lucy Road in any
significant fashion here, in order to retain the sub-base and we've got
geotextiles and we've got road drains and we've got a lot of just construction
section as I would call it out there, we would be forced into probably a
sheeting type of construction that would be very expensive. Otherwise we'd be
losing the rest of the road while the construction is going on. So we don't
gain anything by moving it south from a utility standpoint. We've got a lot of
utilities to deal with no matter where it is within this range. It just would
add a lot of dollar also, probably another $12,000.00 in pavement removal.
Mayor Chmiel: I think you understand what we're saying basically back there? ,
Eric? If you'd like to come up here and it is a public hearing.
Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin, 6095 Stellar Court. As long as you've got your
handouts there, I wanted a replacement for the last page. This reflects a
little more accurately what resulted from our neighborhood meeting. My question
is I guess to Gary. Have you considered, I wasn't aware of how much more cost
it might be to move the watermain to the south. I thought if we were going to
do restoration anyway along the north side of Lake Lucy Road, that instead of
having to deal with telephone poles, underground utilities, more culverts and
restoration and dealing with the terrain itself, inconsistent depth. Having to
do something with all the dirt. That if you went down the road you'd have a
consistent depth. Does that have any affect on the cost at all?
Gary Warren: We're putting in a watermain so as far as, I don't know if I
follow your inconsistent depth. The watermain will follow the lay of the land
so we don't increase or decrease the section with the topography. Basically we
follow the topography.
Eric Rivkin: There's a considerable amount of, in some places, the land changes
in contour and you're dealing with a swath that's 6 to 8 feet wide for this drag
box. It's going to take out contours. You've got to do something with that
dirt. You're going to take out a lot of trees and shrubs that may have to be
restored.
Gary Warren: We've calculated some restoration in there. A lot of the, some of
the trees and shrubs that we're actually looking at have almost been thanked for '
some of them that are going to go because they're just kind of scrub type of
material. Any restoration work, we aren't expecting any outrageous type of
challenges in that regard. I guess we've looked at the right-of-way. Whether
you move it 8 feet south or keep it where it is, probably the impact is going to
be very similar.
34 1
I
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
1
I Eric Rivkin: My other question I guess i.s for general here. If the Park and
Rec meeting tomorrow night affects the design, the recommendation is that, is it
too late to incorporate any changes after tonight if you approve the plan as it
' is?
Gary Warren: As it relates to the trail issue, unless you would want us to move
the watermain which in all honestly I think would be quite an extreme
' recommendation and expensive, no. Any of the trail issues we've anticipated and
that's why the Park and Rec schedule and the Council meeting on the 27th was to
allow us time to deal with that. We can do a change order on the contract and
negotiate that with the contracter or whatever we bid it and accommodate it I
think. Our intent is, as the restoration work is done on the watermain
construction itself, we're going to be smart about it. We're not going to be
planting sod out there if we know we're going to be coming back in with a trail
' so the construction economies that would be achieved by doing them together, we
still should be able to protect very well.
Eric Rivkin: Okay, that answers my questions.
Pat Johnson: My name is Pat Johnson, 1730 Lake Lucy Lane and I'm also affected
by the project. I note that the next item on the agenda is the award of bids.
Aren't those contracters, whoever's going to do the work, don't they have some
sort of responsibility for replacing the land back as it is or is that going to
be the City's responsibility?
II 1
Gary Warren: The contract provides for restoration as a part of the contract.
Pat Johnson: Therefore, possibly we may have a separate bike trail. You'd sure
hate to have to do restoration and then put a bike trail on top of that or vice
versa. It would seem to me that it would be a consideration in those bids for
the watermain project that they take into consideration the bike trail itself.
Gary Warren: The restoration is the last thing that is done on the project and
we're talking about a project that, I don't know Dick, when we get to
' restoration we're probably talking about July or even after the line is in
service when we would be restoring it so.. .
' Pat Johnson: But are those part of the bids now?
Gary Warren: But it's a unit price bid. It's not a lump sum.
Pat Johnson: Okay there is no lump sum?
Gary Warren: Well, there's a lump sum for the booster station but that doesn't
impact these. So it's a unit price contract, pay as you go so to speak.
Pat Johnson: That would be my concern with it. I agree there, I think Eric's
done a great job of putting together these things and it's probably more
appropriate for tomorrow that we discuss it at the Park and Rec but my concern
is, a lot of work being done on this road and we don't want to see duplication
Lon these efforts.
IMayor Chmiel: Right, and I think we're watching that.
35
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
i
Terry O'Brien: My name is Terry O'Brien and I live at 1420 Lake Lucy Road. I'm
just curious on when the watermai.n's coming through.
Gary Warren: Our goal is to have the project awarded hopefully this evening and
a contracter will have 10 days to get his documents in order and be able to
start any time after that. Our intent is to have it completed by the beginning
of July.
Terry O'Brien: Just real quick on this proposal we got. Are you going to go
past the easement, the 33 foot with this 8 foot trail?
Gary Warren: No. We would be strictly within the City's easement.
Right-of-way.
Warren Phillips: I'm Warren Phillips, 1571 Lake Lucy Road. I have a question ,
just to clarify something in my own mind. When the watermain goes through, are
you going to put T's in there for every property or only if you ask for them?
Gary Warren: We have got, if you're on the south side of the road which I know
Mr. Phillips is, we have 7, I think it's 7 stubs that are being jacked
underneath the roadway and those stubs are avaialable for adjoining property
owners in general terms to be able to connect. I believe we have one right on
your property.
Warren Phillips: I asked for one but I've since heard that they'll probably put '
them in for every property owner.
Gary Warren: No, that's incorrect. ,
Warren Phillips: You're only going to put in for those that ask for them now is
that correct?
Gary Warren: That's correct. The policy adopted by the Council says only those
who ask. y
A resident asked a question from the audience.
Gary Warren: It's not does but how much. Yes it does cost. There is an
adopted policy, connection fee policy that has been established for each
connection.
Pat Johnson: Okay, you're talking about the south side or the north side of the
road? My understanding, it really follows the north side of the road, the
watermain itself.
Gary Warren: The trunk watermain follows the north side except when we get by
the retaining wall and we bump to the south side for that small area but stubs
are put across so people can equally access the watermain from the north and the II south side.
Al Harvey: Al Harvey, Lake Lucy Road. 1430. I'm wondering if we can get a
light down on the west end of Lake Lucy Road, if it's within this contract? We
had one on our original and since the road has already been completed, we don't
36 ,
, City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 IA
IIhave one now and maybe that at could be included.
I Gary Warren: At Galpin you mean?
3
Al Harvey: On Galpin.
IIGary Warren: There is one on the schedule right now with NSP to be installed as
soon as the frost comes out of the ground.
11 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
II
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Lake Lucy Road
I Trunk Watermain Improvement Project No. 88-25. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
1 AWARD OF BIDS: AWARD OF BIDS FOR LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 88-25.
I Gary Warren: We opened bids Friday after the packets went out so we've got hem
here. We had 11 bidders. Very good competitive bids. The engineer's estimate
for the project was $387,935.00 and our low bidder is S.M. Hentges and Sons at
I 3 $375,805.00. The grouping's very competitive. S.M. Hentges has done work in
the City here. There's a little bio information that Westwood included here for
you and we're very comfortable with it. I'm sure they will come in here and do
— the job that we need. I therefore would recommend to the Council award of Lake
I Lucy Road trunk watermain project to S.M. Hentges and Sons in the amount of
$375,805.00.
IResolution #89-36: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award
the Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain Project No. 88-25 to S.M. Hentges and Sons in
II the amount of $375,805.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS FOR AERIAL LADDER FOR FIRE STATION.
IMark Littfin: We'd like to recommend that we award the bids tonight for
manufacture of Simon LTI. Grp had started the process approximately a year ago
II as determining which apparatus we would like to go to purchase. We had visited
different manufacturers and talked to different fire departments. Simon LTI did
come in at low bid which we were pleased with. We feel they have one of the
closest and more equipped repair facilities located up in North Branch if it
Idoes need repair work or maintenance on it that is above the City's capability.
The clarifications that they had listed, we felt, the Committee felt were
II complete and to the committee's satisfaction. That's why we're recommending
that company.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I think one of the other factors too, which I sat in on a
II particular meeting and you indicated that the ladder was going to be all steel
as opposed to aluminum which I feel is a very important factor. Being in
II 37
■
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
fighting fires with intense heat, they seem to stay just a little better put
together.
lir
Mark Littfin: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions by Council? '
Councilman Workman: Don, I don't understand why we're going with the 90%
payment. I don't understand what we're saving there. It seems like we're
sticking our neck out but then we don't want to stick it out for a few thousand
more. I don't understand.
Don Ashworth: We have 3 levels of protection that we're basically looking at to
insure that we do not get stuck. A performance bond, basically a letter of
credit and finally holding back cash of about, the final payment of 10% or
$46,000.00. I feel that those 3 levels of protection are well worth the
$38,000.00. They can be achieved in a bid reduction by the company. Councilman
Boyt is looking at me with question. Did I misquote the amount of the savings
at $38,000.00? '
Councilman Boyt: But that's not the real savings. Why don't we deal with the
real savings.
Don Ashworth: Bill's referring to, I prepared a listing that basically showed
two optional plans. One in which we, right now we have bonded for $225,000.00.
That means we will have a deficit financing that will occur from the period of I
April through when our secondary bonding would be put in place this fall, an
additional $225,000.00. I compared what would happen if we withheld, just went
in with the traditional payment plan. In that case we ended with approximately
$9,000.00 or $10,000.00 in the hole. In other words, we can not purchase all of
the equipment that we had wanted to purchase. Going with the recommendation as
laid out, taking into account interest received and also savings from the
company, etc., we would end up with about $2,000.00 to the good under that
projection. I did in total about 6 projections that looked at all different
ways that this may occur so my numbers may be a little bit different. My
recollection as to which of these alternative plan produces the greatest savings
but in every instance we were able to accomplish the full acquisition of the
truck and all of the equipment going along with it within the $450,000.00
authorized to us by the voters. If we went to the traditional plan, we would
either have to cut equipment or sell more bonds.
Councilman Johnson: Are you saying at the 90% pay level that the end of the
whole financing, when we paid off the bonds and paid off all of our interest on I
our money and everything else, we'll be $2,000.00 to the good?
Don Ashworth: I'm sorry, it would be $9,000.00 to the good. ,
Councilman Johnson: It would be $9,000.00 to the good. If we don't do that and
we go back and do the partial payments and the whole thing will be $9,000.00 to
the bad?
Councilman Boyt: More than that.
38 I
■
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Councilman Workman: I'm trying to compare this to the 100% versus the 90%.
That's what I'm comparing it to.
I "' Councilman Johnson: The way I think of 100% versus 90% is when I bought my
house I didn't give the builder the full 100%. My lawyers held it back in the
' Purchase Agreement until I was totally satisfied. You don't get that last
$40,000.00 until we're satisfied with that truck.
11 Don Ashworth: We would have two additional forms of security. A letter of
credit and a performance bond which would insure that for whatever the company
just goes bankrupt, we get our $450,000.00 back.
' Councilman Workman: So potentially we could save a little more with the 100%
but safety reasons, the 90% is much better? That's all I really wanted to know.
Don Ashworth: Right. I misunderstood the question.
Councilman Workman: Then my only other comment is, we met with Mark Littfin and
the committee last week a little bit to talk a little bit about it and maybe to
save some time here tonight. I find it to be a very, or at least the committee
seemed real anxious and they seemed like they did a really good job and they're
happy with it and I guess I just want to commend them on behalf of the City, the
citizens of the City for doing such a good job. It tooks such a long process to
do it and it looks like you guys stuck, the packet that we got originally on all
the detail with it, which I went through, is just incredible. It's an
4 incredible machine. It's the kind of thing that kind of builds a little bit of
pride with the department and everything that you guys are looking for and
I just wanted to say that.
1 Mayor Chmiel: If I remember correctly, there was over 1,000 hours put into
this.
Mark Littfin: 1,000 man hours into the project.
Mayor Chmiel: Without cost. I like that.
' Councilman Workman: We all noted that we'd be honored to have that in front of
our house if our house was ablaze. But again, thanks for all the time that you
guys spent. I know it's something you guys have spent a lot of time and you did
a good job.
1 Resolution #89-37: Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to accept the
bid from Simon LTI in the amount of $457,370.00 for the Fire Department's Aerial
Platform Truck with a 90% payment plan. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
AWARD CONTRACT FOR CURBSIDE RECYCLING.
111 Jo Ann Olsen: We received two bids for the recycling and one of them was Waste
Management which is a larger corporation. They were the more expensive one at
87 cents per household per month and that would be for 8 months for the
remainder of this year. The other one was Gnade and he is, it's a family run
r 39
11
i I
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
business in Chaska and that's $4.00 per household per year. My calculations in
the memo, I used 3,750 households. Actually it would be 3,400. We used the Met ,
Council's number so it would be, Waste Management would be $23,000.00
approximately and Gnade would be $9,000.00. Both of them met the specs. Neither
could do it in one day. Cade would do it over 3 days and Waste Mangement
proposed to split the city into four sections and to take it two days for each
section. Other than that, they both met the specs so we would recommend going
with the lowest bid.
Councilman Boyt: Two days for each section so once every 8 days? And the other
one was?
Jo Ann Olsen: Three days.
Councilman Boyt: Once every 3 days. The one every 3 days, was that the 87 ,
cents per household?
Jo Ann Olsen: No, it's the $4.00 per household. Gnade is going to essentially
split the city into 3 sections and do it in 3 days. Whereas Waste Mangement
would split the city into 4 sections and do 1 section in 2 days.
Councilman Boyt: So for less money we're going to get picked up more often? '
Jo Ann Olsen: No.
Councilman Workman: Can we go over those number quickly again. I missed them
too.
Jo Ann Olsen: Gnade is charging $4.00 per household per year and he would be t
picking up the whole city in 3 days and he'd be doing it twice a month. Waste
Mangement would be picking up every other week so you actually get two extra
weeks throughout the year but they would be sectioning the city into 4 sections. '
So it would be 2 days for each section, it gets confusing. So Waste Mangement
would take 2 days to pick up each of the quarter of the city and they would pick
up every other week so it wouldn't necessarily just be like the first and third. ,
Councilman Boyt: Twice a month is probably easier to follow.
Jo Ann Olsen: It might be easier to do it every other week too. Whatever. ,
Councilman Workman: If I could make some quick comments. We just had 2 bids
come in? '
Jo Ann Olsen: That's all.
Mayor Chmiel: Super Cycle didn't bid on this? ,
Jo Ann Olsen: Or B & R.
Councilman Boyt: There's a lot of demand. II
Councilman Workman: There seems like there wasn't much action on this and that
we're kind of getting a short end of the stick on this as far as bidding. How
much was Waste Mangement?
40 ,
■
1
' City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
IJo Ann Olsen: That would come out to about $23,000.00.
Councilman Workman: I mean per household?
Jo Ann Olsen: 87 cents per household per month.
Councilman Workman: And Gnade was $4.00 per household per month?
' Councilman Johnson: Per year. Apples and oranges. You should take it at the
same dollar amount. What's the cost per year?
' Councilman Workman: So what's the low bid?
Jo Ann Olsen: The low bid is Gnade.
Councilman Workman: So we're suggesting that Gnade get it.
' Jo Ann Olsen: He's got a drop off service there and then he also does curbside
recycling for Victoria and. ..
Councilman Workman: St. Boni I think. So we're kind of giving it to the little
guy. I was worried that because we didn't have much action that we were putting
too many restrictions and that we weren't getting enough good bids and that a
big guy was going to get it naturally.
Councilman Boyt: It turns out that there's actually so much business out there
that they can pick and choose where they want to bid.
Councilman Workman: And this is all based on a one year trial basis? Did that
restrict us?
Jo Ann Olsen: That made the bid not as financially favorable to us.
Councilman Workman: So in a year are we going to redo this? We're going to do
it every year? 3 year? 4 year?
Mayor Chmiel: Just try it for that first year.
' Councilman Johnson: We're trying to establish a committee that will, we're
going to do this this first year, establish a committee to look at it, to look
at other cities and advise the Council on what type of recycling the city of
Chanhassen should have. At this point we haven't really received the citizens
input that we really need on this but we're kind of behind the 8 ball too. We
really need to get our recycling program going so this is to get it started.
And I volunteered to be part of that committee.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to accept the low bid,
Gnade Recycling to do curbside recycling at $4.00 per household per year for the
City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
11 41
11
� 3L-i�
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
REVIEW MEDIAN CUT PROPOSAL FOR KLINGELHUTZ PROPERTY, 7811 GREAT PLAINS BLVD..
Mayor Chmiel: Al was here this evening. He was ill with the flu. I didn't
want him to infest this whole Council chamber so he asked if we could table it
and I would make that motion that we table this to the next Council meeting. ,
Councilman Boyt: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table the review of the median
cut proposal for Klingelhutz Property at 7811 Great Plains Blvd. until the next
Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ,
WOODCREST NEIGHBORHOOD DISCUSSION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS. 1
Councilman Johnson: I think before we get started on this, as a starting, I
think this is a good learning point. This was I think a mistake we made and we
should all learn from it. The lack of power of a covenant and how we thought we
were protecting something and it didn't work out. It's good hindsight.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve, should we clarify that anymore? ,
Steve Hanson: I won't elaborate on it a whole lot. It was presented to the
Planning Commission in January and Larry Brown had been handling it and taking
it through. When he left, it kind of got dropped a little bit. Bill Eggert is
Ell
here who's an adjacent property owner which really brought it to light and made
a presentation to the Planning Commission. I know he'd like to take a few
minutes of your time just to bring you up to speed on it. ,
Bill Eggert: Thank you. I'm Bill Eggert and I reside at 800 Preakness Lane in
the Triple Crown Estates development. Steve, everyone has this packet I was
provided with. Is that correct? Okay. If you've had an opportunity to review
this, it is pretty much a situation where everything that could have gone wrong,
more or less went wrong. If I could take you back just for a few moments and
review. I'll go back to the City Council Minutes back in May of last year.
What I'd like to address are a couple of different issues here. One is the
encroachment on the covenants. The set aside for the protection of certain, a
setback of 140 feet. The other issue is the issue of the protection of the
trees in the area. Back in May, and I'm just going to take some excerpts out of
the Minutes. Councilman Boyt expressed concern on the trees and he quote says,
I think that it should be added in reference to trees being proposed for cutting
should be reviewed by the Forest Service and the City Engineer. He then goes on
to state that I'd like to see fill minimized to save trees as much as possible.
He makes some comments about the road situation at that point. Mayor Hamilton
at that time comments on the discussion on trees that this is a beautiful piece
of property and there are many trees out there and I think a lot of them will be
saved because the building pads will be on the north sides of the lots. He goes
on to state that he likes to see a nice trees area and some of these trees are
II
being taken by development but it's a valuable asset to the property in that
people will be looking for property with trees on them. I'd like to then talk
about the correspondence that went out from the City to Ron Krueger and Roxanne
Lund who are the principle players in R & R Land Ventures. It was stated that
there should be no clear cutting of the lots at any time and that the applicant
42 I
■
Z19
II .
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
1
T should file a proposed deed restrictions upon satisfactory review by the City
staff. The City Engineer and the DNR Forester shall review the site regarding
tree removal, grading and fill and fill should be minimized to prevent
unnecessary removal of trees. It was then brought before the City Council again
' in July. Again, the same concerns were brought up regarding the tree removal
and Councilman Hoyt again voiced his concerns and he said, I know we had
discussion as of notes and staff comments that this will go through DNR and the
'
City Engineer approval. I want to be reassured that they're not just going to
come in and just wipe the trees off of the northern half of the lot. Councilman
Johnson also expressed concern at that point too and then comments were made
about restraints before trees were cut on the property. Then Councilman Horn
' commented that a tree removal plan will be reviewed by the DNR forester. In
your packet is the statement from the Department of Natural Resources. I'd like
to take some quotes, some excerpts out of that. It's stated that the existing
tree cover consists mostly of sugar maple, basswood and oak trees that are 6 to
8 inches in diameter. Trees which will require either soil added to or removed
from their root zone will need to have wells built around the trees in order to
preserve the health and vigor of the tree. Apparently paths used by heavy
equipment operaters need to be kept to an absolute minimum and with a little
care exercised by the construction company will go a long way in maintaining the
good health of the trees in this area currently enjoy. The DNR recommendation
' was attached to the final plat approval correspondence sent up from Barb Dacy to
Don Ashworth on August 8th. In the analysis portion of that correspondence, it
states that the development contract and the plans and specifications review
address the 13 conditions of the preliminary plat approval except for condition
1 regarding tree removal on the property. The DNR forester reviewed the site
with staff and has submitted his comments. The recommendations of the forester
are incorporated now into the condition of approval for the plat. Then finally
on August 8, 1988 it was brought before the City Council for final consent and
it was approved. What I'd like to pass around the Council are some pictures of
the properties. There are two sections to that little brochure and the first is
' in regards to the 140 foot setback that was encroached on. Then as you proceed
through it, you'll soc the results of the clearing of the property in the area.
As the DNR forester noted, there were a number of trees 6 to 8 inches in
diamater, beautiful mature trees and there's very little evidence of that left
on 3 of the 5 lots. Additionally, I wanted to bring to the Council's attention
what I believe is, it's at least a concern on my part, on the intent of the
developers on this particular project. When the initial meetings were held with
' the residents and the community, it was proposed that a covenant be established
to maintain the beauty and the integrity of the property behind our development.
It was initially proposed with 120 foot covenant and subsequent meetings with
1 the concerns of the residents in the community, the developer moved to 140 foot
covenant. Subsequently it was embraced by the residents in the community and
then approved with concern but assurances by the developer by the Planning
Commission. Unfortunately, shortly after that approval, and I believe it came
out of Planning Commission, well it was finally approved here in August. The
first home was surveyed for building in September. That initial survey and that
was presented to the Planning Commission, it's also a part of your packet,
encroaches on the 140 foot covenant. The survey was drawn by Ron Krueger. Ron
Krueger was one of the two people in R & R development that put this whole
1 program together. I would tend to believe that if anyone should have known that
that property was going to be encoraching on the covenant, Mr. Kruger would have
known that. Just a matter of days prior to bringing this to the public
attention in the Planning Commission meeting, the 3 people who are involved in
11 43
MI
1
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
lir
the committee on the Covenants and Restrictions for Woodcrest met and the
Covenants and Restrictions was altered from 140 feet to 100 feet. That occurred
just prior to the Planning Commission meeting. When Larry Brown inquired into
that, he was told that Roxanne Lund was a principle participant in making that
change. Obviously there's nothing that can be done with regard to what's
already taken place there in our development. My concern was to bring it to the
attention of the City Council and perhaps through the experience that we've just
gone through, someone else will benefit in the future. After presenting this to
the Planning Commission, I guess I voiced the same sentiments of Mr. Conrad who
said, obviously we've got to be concerned about a developer that breaks his word
in this community. That's where I'm with it today. I just want to thank you
for the opportunity to bring it to your attention. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much.
Councilman Johnson: Let me make another comment on this Mr. Mayor. At the time
we had a lot of discussion on having a woodlands protection ordinance similiar
to our wetlands alteration ordinance to where we would have the right to
establish a setback of 140 foot. In reality we did not have that right and we
still do not have that right. That process was going to go on. Of course with
Jo Ann going out and Barb going out, that is one of the many projects that
Planning has that has floundered a bit so as of yet we don't have a woodlands
protection ordinance. With such an ordinance, we could have put something in
there that when the building permit came in, it would be a line on the plat that
actually showed that they could not build within there. It would become an '
unbuildable area and we would not have had the problem we had here. So I'm
still pushing for a woodlands protection ordinance that we have some remaining
stands of the original great forest that used to be around here before Paul
Bunyan came in and chopped it all up and put in farm fields. I think we need to
protect some of those with at the same time looking at the rights of the people
who want to develop that land. It's some of the prime development land for
housing and we have to create a woodlands protection ordinance that doesn't
allow the clear cutting of the lots but allows homes to be environmentally set
into the trees. There's a lot of ideas on those to increase the minimum lot
size within a woodlands protection area to make it a larger lot so we, if you
look at 15,000 square foot lot, if it's deep, you end up with homes right at the
10 foot setback. You get a big tree inbetween there, the trees have to be taken
out because their drip line goes into the foundation line and they won't survive
anyway. So increase si.deyard setbacks. Things like this that hopefully we'll
look into and get sometime during 1989. Get a woodlands protection ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment if I might. As we'll be discussing a
little bit later this evening, the plans for the Planning Commission, note that
tree cover mapping is being done by the DNR this year. Hopefully they're
staying on schedule with that. I would like to see the City direct a letter to
this developer, Mr. Krueger and his partner and tell them that we feel they
acted in bad faith and that they have lost the trust of the City. Granted, we
couldn't require what they offered but they did offer it and we did accept it
and it was actually part of our approval. To know that they turned around and
quickly changed that is, I think truly bad faith. I think we should note and
record that. Mr. Eggert, Triple Crown actually is one of the worse offenders in
the city and so you might be interested to know that your property was wooded in
Ell
this same way.
44 1
I
4 '
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: The entire Triple Crown.
II I
Councilman Boyt: But that it was difficult to develop so they clear cut the
whole thing in a matter of a week or so. But at least they never claimed they
' wouldn't do it. Since this is on our agenda, if we could take action and I
would move that we send a letter to this developer and tell them that we feel
they acted in bad faith. I think that's all we can do but we should do that.
' Councilman Johnson: I'll second that if there is a motion.
Mayor Chmi.el: Roger, is a motion needed?
' Roger Knutson: If you want to. Otherwise, you can just by consensus do it.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to direct staff to write a
letter to R & R Land Venture stating that the City Council feels they acted in
bad faith. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I
ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF CAROL WATSON FROM THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move we don't accept her resignation.
II 1
Mayor Chmiel: She's already turned it in.
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't mean we have to accept it. I've talked to her
and she was pressured to resign. I don't think that there is any need for her.
11 The reasoning was to stay on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals which is a
very minimal assignment in comparison and I think we need her years of
experience on both boards. I think at this time in our city's and she's willing
' to stay on but there was some behind the scenes pressures applied to request her
to not stay on. As far as from what I understand, there's some kind of
unwritten policy of only being on one board. I don't see that there is such a
policy and she was resigning, from what I understand, because she wanted to be
on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. I think that she would do an adequate,
a very good job on both boards. That she's had years of experience on Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals and understands the planning
aspects plus her years on the Council makes her a good candidate on the Park and
Rec Board too. She's active there. That's why I say. . .
' Mayor Chmiel: Let me address that issue right now Jay. I'm the one that did
have discussion with Carol. My position is that we have an individual serve on
a respective commission. She was not pressured to remove herself from the Park
and Rec. I gave her a choice and asked her which one she would like to be on.
I felt that she should not be on two respective commissions so I want that
clarified right now. Don' t jump to conclusions.
Councilman Johnson: That's basically what I said and she chose the Board of
' Adjustments and Appeals.
Mayor Chmi.el: It's the way you said it. I'd like clarification on it.
' 45
Po 61
. 11
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: I'm sorry if I did not say that right. You're saying that
you've created a policy for this City by yourself. .. '
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not indicating that I created a policy for the City. It was
my opinion that we do not have one person serve on two respective commissions.
That we should have other people serving on those commissions.
Councilman Johnson: Okay.
Councilman Workman: I'll make a motion that we accept the resignation of Carol '
Watson from the Park and Recreation Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: And I will second that. ,
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to accept the resignation of 1
Carol Watson from the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor except
Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Councilman Johnson: I think we ought to take up your, if we're going to make
such statements to members, we ought to make that a Council policy and let all 5
of us vote on it versus one member of the Council having such a power.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good.
REVIEW WEST 78TH STREET/LAREDO DRIVE STOP SIGN REQUEST.
Gary Warren: If I could Mr. Mayor, I'd like to call on Howard Preston from BRW
to maybe give an overview of the findings of the study that he conducted for us.
Howard Preston: Good evening. Given the time, I will just give you in fact a '
very brief overview and then if you have questions, I will do my best to try to
answer those. Basically what we did is that we looked at the operation of that
intersection and measured it, 3 objective kinds of performance criteria. We '
looked at traffic volumes on both the West 78th Street, which is the major
street, and Laredo Drive, what I'll call the minor street approach. We also
looked at the average vehicle delay for vehicles on the minor street which is a
measure of how good is the traffic control at the intersection working. How
efficient is it and we also looked at traffic accidents which is another, really
a measure of how well that intersection is working. So the traffic volumes were
counted and measured against criteria that's established that's an indicator of
the need for additional intersection control. The idea is if the volumes are
very high at the intersection and high above a threshold number. The number is
500 vehicles an hour total through the intersection with 200 vehicles an hour on
Laredo Drive, the minor street. So we counted the traffic volumes and measured
it against those objective criteria, the threshold numbers that are in the
manual on uniform traffic control devices which is a manual that's been adopted
by the Comni.ssi.on of Transportation for the use on all traffic studies in the
State of Minnesota. The answer is, the volumes through that intersection did
not exceed those theshold numbers so that's the first indicator that the
additional i.nt:rsecti.on control or going from the through stop condition to
Ell
something greater, first indicator that that's not necessary. The second
46 '
I
' City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
indicator was average vehicle delay. The average delay for vehicles on Laredo
IIDrive approaching West 78th Street during the peak hour in the afternoon, so
that's the maximum amount of time you would expect that vehicles would be
delayed. It's an average of 13 seconds per vehicle. Admittedly, that's an
' average which means that 50% of the vehicles were greater and 50% were less than
that but nonetheless that's the measure that's used. The threshold number
that's in the manual on uniform traffic control devices is 30 seconds so if the
average vehicle delay is 30 seconds or greater, that's also an indicator that
I additional intersection control is needed. We measured 13 seconds of delay.
Considerably less than what that threshold number is. The final measure was
accidents. The number in the manual on uniform traffic control devices is 5
correctable accidents of a type that would be susceptible to correction by the
installation of an all way stop sign or all way stop condition during a 12 month
period. And the kinds of accidents for example that would be considered
susceptible to correction, right angle accidents where a vehicle on Laredo would
have pulled out in front of a thru vehicle on West 78th Street or any right or
left turning accidents. Those were the type that would be counted. Again, the
threshold number is 5 in a 12 month period. We checked accidents I believe from
' January of 1984 through July of 1988, which was the most recent date available
and the intersection averaged less than 2 accidents per year. I believe there
was 8 accidents total in that 3 plus year period and only 2 of those were
' correctable in a 3 plus year period. So when we looked at those measures of how
the intersection is working, they all indicated that the traffic control that's
there is working adequately. It's working efficiently. The volumes are not
excessively high for that kind of traffic control. The delay is not excessively
I high and the number of accidents is well below the threshold values that would
indicate a problem. So there would be one final test that we would make that
it would be a combination of things that if you looked in the field at the
intersection and if the sight distance was restricted or if there were other
kinds of compounding factors where volumes were almost high enough to meet the
criteria, that the delays were almost high enough to meet the criteria, and that
' there were a fairly high number of accidents in conjunction with limited sight
distance, that also might meet the criteria for the installation of an all way
stop. That condition wasn't present either. So the recommendation was, the
series of recommendations I made in my report that the intersection control
that's there now is operating efficiently and it would be recommended that that
be retained for the present time. Going through the accident numbers, it did
show that 1988 was considerably higher as far as the number of accidents than
any of the previous years although not high enough to meet the criteria of 5
correctable in a 12 month period. The combination of a slightly increased
numnber of accidents recently combined with the possibility of volumes on West
78th Street going up as your downtown redevelopment continues to happen, I've
indicated or recommended that city staff monitor the intersection annually and
really look at this intersection on an annual kind of a basis to recount the
traffic volumes and look at the accident data to see what's happening so that
when the intersection is approaching or just over the threshold criteria for
either volumes delay or accidents, that you're able to react to that in a timely
fashion. The third item is that Gary had asked me to consider the possibility
of traffic signals instead of the all way stop signs. Reason being that when
you're downtown, when West 78th Street was reconstructed, the conduits for the
wires to wire the signals were in fact installed and that forethought, he was
wondering if it would pay off. The fact of the matter is, the intersection also
doesn't meet the warrants for the installation of a traffic signal meaning that
there really isn't any problem that you'd be solving by installing a traffic
' 47
I
-V A
t`i:ty Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
signal and the cost of a traffic signal is somewhere in the range of $60,000.00
to $80,000.00 so it would be a very expensive solution for a problem that you
don't have at this presen time so that also is not recommended at this time. So
that's the series of recommendations that I've listed that's in your staff
report.
Councilman Johnson: I think you blew it. I hate to say that but if you go back
and look at some of the directions on the study, I didn't see much on Market
Blvd. and the effect that we expect on Market Blvd. opening up. What's the
effect is going to be backlashed onto this looking at the near term development.
If you look at it, we had two of the type of preventable accidents, the stop
signs would prevent in the first 7 months of 1988. That's prior to the
vegetation being planted that restricts the vision to the west. I'd like to
find out how many we've had in the last 5 months of 1988.
Howard Preston: I think the point is, I don't think the situation is such that I
you have to react with the installation of a stop sign now and the point was
that as conditions change, to just keep those kinds of things in mind. If
you're talking about vegetation on the north side of West 78th Street, I drove
through that, or are you talking about the south side?
Councilman Johnson: No, in the center of West 78th looking to the west. You
have vegetation that has been planted in the summer of '88, after this, that now
restricts the vision a little more than it was before. A low car going through
there with some of the bushes that were planted are almost totally obscured at
times. Looking the other way, there's a tree now in the way and that's probably
the cause of those two accidents because that tree was planted earlier. Some
things that we're looking at. The effect of Market Blvd., whether we need to
signalize Market Blvd. as it gets opened up. That's a big question. That's
something that I thought was going to be part of this study was looking at the
overall downtown. Not just that intersection. If you look back to the Council
notes that directed this study originally, I believe we discussed looking at the
entire downtown and what the whole effect would be. Maybe not. But looking at
what happened in 1984 and looking at all the changes happened to that
intersection in 1988, it really doesn't matter what happened in the 5 years
previous. 1
Howard Preston: If I may comment on that Councilman Johnson. The idea is that,
accidents really are rare occurances and they can go up and down at a particular
intersection and vary a lot in a very short period of time. It's a rule of
thumb that I use and it's recommended by most traffic engineering texts, that 21
year's worth of accident data doesn't really give you a reliable picture of what
the situation is and it would not be the responsible thing to do to make a
judgment or recommendations based on only a single year's worth of data. So
admittedly the conditions have changed. There's no question of that and that's
partly what led to the recommendation that City staff continue to monitor the
intersection. It will be shortly when the last 4 or 5 months of data for 1988
is available. Your staff went through the State and I also checked with the
State and that's all the data that was in their Public Safety's computer so it
will be very shortly that the last 4 or 5 months of data will be available. I
agree that if things change based on what happened the last 4 or 5 months, it
would be appropriate it take a look again at this situation.
48 I
I
1 ,}a0
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: I think that one of the big points I tried to make a few
IImonths ago I guess when we were talking about this before was that when Market
Blvd. opens, this whole intersection changes again because that becomes a new
route. A new traffic. When the shopping center opens up on the other side of
Market Blvd, when the hotel comes in, this whole thing changes. I think we
really have to look at Market Blvd. intersection with West 78th and whether that
needs to be signalized right up front. I don't want to wait until we've had 5
accidents or maybe 2 people killed until we start putting in some traffic
control here.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what's Howard saying basically is that we have to keep
running checks on those intersections to see what total counts there are that
may dictate that. I take to his last point that he makes on item 4, he says the
City would be held liable for accidents that occur at an unwarranted stop sign.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think that warrants a stop sign personally. Okay?
Mayor Chmiel: That may be. I've also driven that particular street and I've
tried on both of them, on Kerber as well as Laredo, mine is normally between
6:00-7:00 in the morning and one morning I had 11 seconds of just sitting there
counting them.
' Councilman Johnson: I drive that every day and his numbers are accurate. I
don't think we warrant a stop sign there right now but it's more important to me
Market Blvd. not really this.
Ias
Councilman Workman: But then we've of Kerber,rber, Market, Laredo. We've got 3 in
a row and you can't put 3 stop signs in.
Councilman Johnson: No. I think we're going to end up, gut feeling is a traffic
light at Market. With a delay that will be caused at the light at Market will
give you the chance to get across at Laredo because it's such a short
intersection. When that light's red, you no longer have that stream of traffic
coming from the west. So you have your chance to get across. The delay may
' still be there because you may have to wait a minute for the light to turn red
but right now, I don't think in the last year I've been up to 30 seconds yet on
that intersection. I drive it every day. I drive it twice a day, every day.
Councilman Boyt: If I might add a comment here. I didn't think the engineering
study was needed a year ago. It hasn't surprised me a bit in what you've come
up with. My understanding of what the Council wanted though was a study of West
' 78th Street and traffic patterns on that and where, I guess I'm agreeing
with Jay, and where do we put a stop sign if we put one. So maybe we're a
little bit short and a year from not we come back and do that. The other
comments, I think for the new Council members to make a judgment about this,
they needed to have, and I think the City received a letter from at least one
citizen in regards to this intersection, they needed to have the recommendation
from the Public Safety Commission which was made to put a stop sign here. They
I needed to have the Council Minutes from our initial discussion which they didn't
have which went into depth on this. Then I agree with you. Statistically,
everything you've said makes a lot of good sense but I also remember that a year
ago the kids from the elementary school wrote us letters and said we need some
~-- way to get across West 78th Street. We can' t do it. They still can't do it.
That granted this past year could have been a blip for any number of reasons for
' 49
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
when you look at 5 years and 62% of the accidents are in one year, you've got to
at least say, isn't that interesting. I don't consider a stop sign, I know
there could be some disagreement about this but I don't consider it a life long
event when we put a stop sign in. And putting one in would certainly have
ripple effects that I'm not sure I could live with but not having one has ripple
effents on kids. It has ripple effects on the 5 people who had accidents, who
may or may not have had them with the stop sign. I can't predict that. I have
no idea but we have a road going through the center of our downtown and there is
one stop sign on the road and I think because of that, that road is being chosen
as a short cut and it has more traffic on it than it would have if it had some
sort of restriction on traffic flow. People might argue that it's a heck of a
restriction to try to get through the TH 101/78th Street maze. I don't disagree
with that but I just think we're a long way from having this road ready and I'm
not prepared to sit and wait a year to get it ready. So I would make a motion
that we put a stop sign in. I can't justify it with anything other than you
can't come up with anything better and we've got a problem.
Councilman Johnson: I think the one criteria that you mentioned that's very
important and I didn't see mentioned in here which is another part of it, is the
pedestrian side of it. The trail crossing. I thought that the warrants for
traffic were decreased by pedestrian traffic. As I remember reading the manual
when we were working, another issue last year is your 500 trips per day or
whatever it was, is decreased if you also have, you can also include how many
pedestrians are walking by. In January there are not as many. But there are
kids that do need to get across there and that's the one that gets me the most
in this intersection and West 78th as a whole is how do pedestrians cross that ='
place? It gets a little tough. It used to be a lot easier to cross to get over
there and as we develop, we're going to need more pedestrian crossings as we put
more retail on the other side. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, can I make a recommendation?
Councilman Boyt: Oh sure. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Because of all the additional information, I'm sure that Public
Safety has not had an opportunity to review this. '
Councilman Boyt: They recommended it. They haven' t reviewed the engineering
report. I
Mayor Chmiel: That's right and that's what I think they should have an
opportunity to do before we move ahead with that.
Councilman Boyt: So I would move that we refer this to the Public Safety
Commission for further study.
Councilman Workman: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to refer the engineering '
study on West 78th Street/Laredo Drive Stop Sign Request to the Public Safety
Comnission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
50 '
I
IICity Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
II1989 PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
' Steve Hanson: The Planning Commission at it's last meeting, essentially what we
did is we put together a to do list of items that staff had identified and
Planning Commission had identified. Some of these also were items that City
Council members had identified at least in the time that I've been here. What
we intended to do at Planning Commission is try to set some priorities on these.
We didn't really spend a whole lot of time on the list in all honesty other than
adding a few things to it and at that meeting we didn't set any priorities.
What the Planning Commission had asked is that I bring the list of items to the
Council and ask Council if they have any insights on what things we ought to put
at the top of the list to try to accomplish in the coming year. I would venture
to say if we were to try all of these, we'd probably take a good... I think
part of that speaks to what kind of detail you'd like on some of these. I think
some of these have been established as a priority by virtue of being on going at
the present time. Those specific items would conclude the Comprehensive Plan
' update and that update is being done does not include the areas outside the MUSA
line. It doesn't include looking down the road farther at that. Personally I
think that's something the City ought to be doing regardless of whether we serve
it in the immediate future or not. We need to have a handle on what those areas
' need to be. So the update on the Comp Plan is in progress and the. . .obvious
priority. We're getting the schedule together to complete that this year.
Tentatively we're looking at a completion date to be able to bring it to hearing
I Y before the Planning Commission in May. That's assuming that we can get
II 1 appropriate meetings set up with the Planning Commission during that period of
time. From the standpoint of getting the work complete, we feel that that's a
doable situation. The second group of items fall under what I classified as
zoning code amendments. Again, here we have a couple that are in process. I at
least have been viewing those as a priority and the first of those being
contractor's yards. At the Wednesday Planning Commission meeting I'm going to
ask them to authorize to go ahead with public hearing and the recommendation at
this point in time is to eliminate contractor's yards in the A-2 district. The
updated zoning map, I don't think we really talked about. It's not a big item
' but there have been several rezonings that have been approved since that was
updated and we need to get a zoning map. The next item that I have on here is
really what I would consider a priority is the convenience store moratorium.
Basically I'm under a deadline on that moratorium which is 6 months. We have
some preliminary information for the Planning Commission this Wednesday and
following that up in the next month or so with some additional input. Then as
far as items that are on going, the other ones under the zoning code I feel are
' ones that have been talked about but I think some work has been done around them
and I'm just not up to speed on all of those so consequently I put those on my
priority list. Then I have a catch all category of other. The wetlands mapping
' and tree cover mapping. We're trying to get those accomplished this year.
Obviously there's not a lot of staff time involved but it's also. . .bei.ng done.
It takes a little coaching on our part to get that accomplished and we'd like to
ILdo that this year if we can. What I would see as a priority and my
understanding hasn't been on your list per se is one that I've added and that's
the first one under other, the updating for development procedures. What I'd
like to do there is get that into a format where we've got a developer's packet
'<__, that we can hand out that's got some little tighter guidelines on what has to be
done when and where.. .process where we can make it as complete as you can to
' 51
■
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
1
really allow the Planning Co iii.ssion to do their thing if you will and their
recommendations that come to Council...more of putting it on the Consent Agenda
if you wanted to for the most part where there wouldn' t be really any conditions
lir
as far as having to revise their application. Obviously the applications are...
That's kind of a rundown from my perspective.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anybody have a comment?
Councilman Johnson: I have a couple. Gary left so one I was going to kind of '
go after, we updating the zoning map, I think there was some effort at getting
some CAD, computer aided drafting and getting some mapping. I think there's
also a group out at DNR that wants to work with us on a mapping procedure in '
which there's basically a mainframe or mini-computer that would have an overall
map of the city of Chanhassen on it and we'd have a work station here. All the
wetlands would be put on there. All the forested areas. We could add all the
pipes. All the streets and all this other stuff in there and be a program to
just pull it up. I'm not sure where we are. I know DNR was working with staff
someplace on that. That would make, once that information is in, this would
make updating and a lot of the staff's work a lot easier. It was kind of
interesting to see some of the systems that are out there commercially available
at the League of Cities conferences the last two years. It was really
interesting to watch them between the two years and how much they improved on
the mapping capabilities, computerized mapping. I was just wondering, but
Gary's left. He's the only one probably that knows anything about that.
Steve Hanson: I'm not familiar with that. I am familiar with some of the CAD '
mapping that he can do and really other than having the equipment to do it, the
time to get it up and running is the biggest item. Getting all the data
entered. Once you've got the system up and going. ,
Councilman Johnson: That's where, in any computerization, modernization, the up
front. I'm doing the same thing in my department right now. The up front of
training the people and getting the equipment and everything seems terrible but
I think it's something we need to look into.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to know what the costs are. '
Councilman Johnson: Yes. Would the DNR system that the people at DNR were
talking to me about, the costs are not that high because the computer's already
there. Sign ordinance, we've been talking about the sign ordinance for quite a
while. Variances. This is one where, Bill, how many variances did we have last
year, requests for signs? Probably one a month it seemed. It was just amazing.
Maybe not that much. Probably every other month somebody was coming in for a
sign variance. When you have that many variances on one regulation, you know
there's a problem. I think we need to get a group together, a committee again,
whatever. Businesses. Citizens. And sign industry. We have people living in
this city who own sign companies that have expressed a desire to participate
with us on what is the industry. We get the businesses telling us all the time,
hey this is the industry standard you know. There I think we need to get a
committee working to take some of the burden of staff, a citizens committee to
work on reviewing our sign ordinance. I know Pat Swenson may be interested in
that because she was behind the original sign ordinance I believe.
EllCouncilman Boyt: It's not very old.
52 '
■
59
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
II
' Councilman Johnson: No, it's not. As a matter of fact, it came in just before
Bill and I came on Council. In relation to wetland violation, I think we had
also talked about, I don't think we ever got to a point of what about the people
' who come in for an application after the fact and I was really referring to
this, not only wetlands but building permits. Anything that requires an
application. The folks who go ahead and do it and then come in when they get
' caught and ask for the application and how do we handle those people. I think
that's one of the tasks that isn't on here. Steve and I have talked about
updating development procedures and I think that is another thing that takes
away. To get it developed is going to take away from staff time now but it's
' going to save them so much more staff time and Council time and Planning
Commission time in the future to have a completeness check list. I have to use
the terminology they use with hazardous waste permits because that's what I'm
' most familiar with but when you send in your thing, the first thing staff does,
and it may take an ordinance amendment to allow it and maybe even State law may
not even allow what I'm proposing on this, is that when an application comes in,
we've got so many days to act on the application. The first action I see is
' staff look at it. Is your application complete? If it's not complete, it's
shipped back to you and that's the action. The action's been taken. The
application goes back and we don't get these incomplete applications that I've
' been seeing for the last 2 years. If that's enough action for the State to be
satisfied with the state laws, I think that's the first action our ordinance
should say. That it doesn't even start getting considered until the application
Iisa
complete. Without a complete application, I don't see how a time clock can
even start. Oh you do have computerized land use files. Now that you're back,
we had a long discussion about you. Have you talked with DNR about a mapping
program that they're working on developing for a mainframe or mini-computer that
' would have the capabilities of mapping down to like the 1 foot contour level of
the entire town? Have all the wetlands? It's related to the wetlands thing and
then you could also put in your streets and sewers and power lines and
' everything on that?
Gary Warren: On a database that they're putting it on?
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, on a database. Have you ever heard of that one.
Gary Warren: We're going to flying the City, it will be on the next agenda for
' accepting a proposal for the aerial photography and one of our intents is to
have the aerial photography done on a database so when we do get up to that
phase that we haven't lost that information. I don't know about the DNR.
' Councilman Johnson: It's a good idea. That's about all I've got on that one.
Councilman Boyt: Your priorities are fine with me. I would suggest that you
' also add 3 in your first list to that. I agree with Jay that 9 is important. I
would suggestion 10, the tree ordinance review fits in with some of the other
things we've talked about. 12 in your list has already been fully done by the
Public Safety Commission and I don't think the Planning Commission needs to
'{ delve into that unless they really want to. Maybe afterwards I can make some
comments about 13 and 14. I think those are important. I agree with you whole
heartedly on number 1. On your other list. 5, I agree with that. It should be
coordinated with Park and Rec but certainly it's a Planning Commission issue.
Jo Ann has done all the work on 7 and we've got several months of history of
53
I
6 1
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
trying to work this out. I'd like to see that come back to the Council very
soon. Number 8, Eurasian Water Milfoil, we have no choice but to have something
ready before the ice goes out and so I don' t know that, the Planning Commission
has a unique opportunity there. I think that's kind of a whole coordinated city
effort to get on top of that one. So what I would suggest, since basically I
think all these are good things and you think they're all good things, is I
would propose that the Planning Comauissi.on only spend half of it's meeting
reviewing proposals and they spend the other half of their meeting working on
this and the way they do that is they flat out refuse to review something that
hasn't been fully approved by staff. If you deny it, then the person can
certainly bring it through but if they don't have the criteria in terms of
paperwork accomplished, I don't think it should go to Planning Commission and it
sure as heck should not come to us. If we would get out of the business of
helping design their developments, we'd cut our time in half. That's all I've
got '
Councilman Workman: I have no further comments on the goals. I'll probably
just review them with Steve when I get a chance. You can buy me lunch.
Mayor Chmi.el: Now that you know what the first priorities are and what the low
priorities are, just pursue them. I don't think we need a motion.
COUNCIL/STAFF WORK SESSION, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: Don and I have met a number of items. Unfortunately, this is not I
one of them. We are going to have a special meeting, hopefully this next week,
to pick back up on the Park Commission/City Council meeting that we were unable
to have this evening. Would this next Monday work for everyone for that special '
meeting?
Councilman Boyt: I don't feel a big need to be there but I won't be out of
town.
Don Ashworth: Park Commission and City Council? We had originally set that
meeting for 6:30 this evening to meet with the Park Commission. I'm hoping that
we could reschedule that this next Monday. I think most of the Park Commission
members will be there.
Councilman Workman: I'm going to have a problem on Monday.
Councilman Johnson: And we don't know about Ursula.
Mayor Chmi.el: I think she'll be back.
Councilman Johnson: And we can't speak for her next Monday.
Don Ashworth: Would Tuesday or Wednesday or be better or should I be looking to
some future date?
/ II
Councilman Boyt: I'm out until Friday.
Councilman Johnson: Wednesday is bad.
54 '
■
II . 61
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
1 I
Mayor Chmiel: Friday is Good Friday so that's out.
Don Ashworth: I was kind of hoping, if we did the thing like this next Monday,
then I was going to have this 12(b) put onto that agenda as well.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think we could still do that if you could come up with a date.
Don Ashworth: I'm hearing people say that Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of
next week are all bad.
Councilman Workman: Tuesday's good for me but Wednesday and Thursday are out.
Councilman Johnson: I really don't know. I'm trying to arrange a meeting in
Illinois sometime next week. I just don't know what day.
' Councilman Boyt: Why don't we hold it at 6:30 on the 27th and then let's try
not to get any variances in the interim.
' Don Ashworth: Keep variances out? Then 12(b) is also proposed to be discussed
either at that work session or as a part of the regular agenda.
Councilman Boyt: Can't we do 12(b) now?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, what's the big thing about doing 12(b)?
IIDon Ashworth: I've gone through and had more details associated with the
proposed session kind of worked out so that I've got something more in front of
you and I guess that's why I wanted to work with the Mayor before picking out
' dates. But if you would like to pick out dates, that's fine as well.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know that I can pick out a date but I would like to
' comment on this if I might Mr. Mayor. I think it would be a good idea to order
the tapes. They're all there. They're like $50.00 or something like that.
Let's get than. We can probably determine 90% of what this person is going to
' say by what's already on the tapes. The other thing I would suggest is when we
consider this, having gone through two of these work sessions in the past,
they've been fairly successful but what I'd like to see us do is consider
holding the next one at the Elementary School. Arrange to have all the
'
Commissions, maybe all the staff. If we're going to have a speaker like this
come in, let's get as many people there as we can get there. Let's hold it
right in our community. It's cheaper. It takes less time to get there and then
' if we want to get together and do some team building activities, we can arrange
those. I think a speaker like this, let's get as much return as we can on it.
Don Ashworth: So we can move ahead then on the ordering of the tapes.
DISCUSSION OF CDBG YEAR XV ALLOCATION, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
ISteve Hanson: We are up for again an allocation of the Block Grant funds. The
deadline we're operating under is we have to have the list to Hennepin County by
the end of March. Consequently we're scheduling a public hearing on this on the
' — 27th. Just to make you aware, we're eligible for $33,488.00 in this coming
year. The mi.nimun budgeted amount for any activity is $7,500.00. What I was
' 55
I
v
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
hoping tonight was to get some input from Council on items that you may wish us
to look at and see if we can get them qualified under the program first of all
and then have those brought back to the public hearing portion at your next
meeting.
Councilman Johnson: This is probably a question you weren't expecting, I I
probably should have called you with it earlier today. Where are we at on last
year's that we spent? In particular, the Senior Citizen's study to see what our
needs of our senior citizens are? Is there any activity going on there? Is
there more money required or whatever?
Steve Hanson: No. I haven't started it.. . I need to be yet put together a
proposal to send out to get the senior study done.
Councilman Johnson: There's been a lot of misinterpretation as to what that
was. The South Shore people think that we're trying to develop a center here
but since you weren't here for that, I'll briefly describe what I think it was
all about and basically it was to poll and study our senior citizens here in
Chanhassen and find out what their needs are and how to best respond to those
needs. It is not a survey to see if we need a senior center to compete with the
South Shore. That is not the objective of it. The objective of it is to find
out what the heck their needs are out there.
Councilman Boyt: What about the possibility of the library expansion? Can we
get funds involved in that? It's something to look at. You don't have to
answer these things. I think traditionally we've put some money into rehab.
I'd like to see us continue to do that. We have lots of opportunity in some
parts of our town. I'd like to see us investigate the possibility of having a
park in a neighborhood program. I think that if we could get someone, like Todd
or someone else come in and organize park programs and go out. We're kind of a
unique community in that we have a whole series of neighborhoods. Why not reach
out to those folks and like on a Monday the park person will be in your
neighborhood and have a bunch of things going on for kids. I think it'd be
great. Then the other thing I think we should look at is, do we have any
handicap accessibility problems in the City and how can we address those? The
senior center of course is going to be in and ask for a good portion of the
money and I'm sure we'll give them some.
Mayor Chmiel: Well deserved too.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. They serve a lot of Chanhassen residents.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve scheduling the
public hearing for the CDBG Year XV Allocation for March 27, 1989. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
1990 CENSUS, PLANNING DIRECTOR. '
Steve Hanson: I've included an info packet from the Department of Commerce on
the 1990 census that will be beginning, they're actually starting up their
promotional packets and so forth and I wanted to bring this back before Council. '
I don't know how involved you want to get in the multiple aspects of the census
56
I
e3
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
that we're proposing. I think a lot of this is geared to some of the larger
I ` cities as far as having full blown committees and so on but I think the intent
is get the word out to the public so they do respond to the census packet. It's
in the City's best interest to get the best count that you can. A lot of the
funding and so forth comes back to this as well. Met Council's going to be
using the numbers. We're going to be using the numbers so it's important. It's
easy for people to dismiss it. I think it's especially important with the
growth that Chanhassen has been going through, that we get the best information
' we can. That's what this handbook is trying to set forth the means for doing
that.
' Councilman Workman: Would this be a time perhaps for the City to evaluate
whether or not we'd want to go to a precinct or ward districts for our own city
elections?
Steve Hanson: After you get the data back probably.
Councilman Workman: Once we get results of the census you mean? That's like a
' 5 year.. .Isn't that a long time after 1990?
Steve Hanson: It filters back. Some of the details we won't get until probably
1993 but we'll get some of the preliminary numbers and that back prior to that.
The response on some of that will start filtering back as fast as 1991 but being
able to access the names and all the rest of that takes several years. Then you
into some of the economic information.
Iget
i Councilman Johnson: One of the main importance I see of the census is
our
continual fight with Met Council over population predictions. They made certain
population predictions on which they've based how much sewer we're going to get.
What our priority for roads are and all kinds of things. keep saying we're
way ahead of their predictions and they keep saying we're not. They count less
people in town than we do. This is really going to be important that we get a
good, accurate count and get everybody counted. It's really important that we
get everybody counted and get those numbers back. The bigger the numbers they
get back to Met Council, the better off we are to show them the folly of their
previous predictions if it is folly. The numbers that staff give us, I figure
what the difference is right now, I think we think we're around 9,000 in their
predictions, we're above 9,000 now. What's their prediction that we're supposed
' to be at right now? Something in the 8,500 or 8,600?
Councilman Boyt: I would move that we appoint a Complete Count Committee.
' Councilman Johnson: Second.
Mayor Chmi.el: And suggest that the committee be organized at this point in
' time. That the committee should be active through 1989 and through June of
1990.
IL Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we have at least one member of the City
Council on that committee. That we advertise at some point this spring for
people interested.
Mayor Chmi.el: Yes, I think we should advertise it. Requesting people to serve
on it. You know what might not be a bad idea for this would be involving lv g the
57
0
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
I
senior community. They have the time. Give them a project to grab onto and run
with. Maybe they'd just like to do it.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe get the Rotary, the Lions. Get them all a part of it.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to appoint a Complete '
PP Count
C p
Committee that would be active through 1989 and through June of 1990. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
1989 LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONFERENCE, CITY MANAGER. '
Don Ashworth: The City previously has attended the Legislative Conference.
We've had differences as to our ability to attend the daytime sessions. I guess
I was trying to use this evening to poll Council members as to whether or not
you would be able, if you'd like me to register you for the daytime activities
or not. Secondarily, I think one of the best things that we have done is to be
able to en masse attend the reception. It's an opportunity to meet council
members from the entire metro area. Almost all the legislators are there.
Following that we have typically met with our legislators in combination with
the cities within their districts. In other words, council representatives from
Shakopee, Savage, Prior Lake previously joined us following that reception. I
think that again, the largest number of people going over have typically been
that late afternoon so I think we've usually left here around 5:00 and it
usually is relatively late by the time we get back. May I just poll council
II
members at this point in time or should I just send out a questionaire and have
each one fill it in?
Mayor Chmiel: I think that would probably be adviseable.
Don Ashworth: Sending out a questionaire and having cards and something to each
one of you.
Councilman Boyt: I can tell you that I'm out of town so you don't need to send
one to me. 1
Don Ashworth: I have talked with Bob Schmitz and he would be, he's looking
forward to meeting with the Council if we can put something together. '
Mayor Chmiel: Just recently I was invited down to Prior Lake, their association
of other cities met with Becky Kelso and Senator Schmitz. It was sort of just a
hash session. Some of the concerns that people have. I wished that I would
have known that the discussion was going to take place and there were concerns,
I could have voiced those concerns from our city. But on the other hand, we
have been meeting quite regularly with Representative Kelso and Senator Schmitz
with some of the other things that we've been dealing with. So I think they
basically would know what our wants are.
Don Ashworth: It does give them an opportunity to meet other council members. 1
I'll send something out to City Council. One last item, it's not really a part
of this but since we're not going to have a meeting a week from today, if I may,
the only reason for bringing this up is I need direction because the agenda item
is coming up very quickly. We had, staff was previously authorized to get an
58 1
I
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
appraisal for the Eckankar property. This would be th
the option for purchasing
part of that property for a community center, school and even the final option
I was one for the purchasing of the total site. We received a copy of the
appraisal, at least for the total site. I did receive a letter from Mr. Andrus
and he has proposed a contract of $2,400.00 to $2,800.00 and this would be
' appraisal fees to determine whether or not there would be any detrimental
effects to residential property as a part of the Eckankar proposal. That point
was raised at the Planning Commission level and it was presented by a number of
' citizens. I'm not saying that we are endorsing any position but I guess my
question to the Council is whether or not we should proceed with that appraisal.
Let's put it this way, if I do not contact Mr. Andrus within I would say the
next week, I am sure that I would not have information available for the Council
for consideration on April 10th. I did have extra copies of his letter. I'm
sorry it's short...
' Councilman Johnson: Four of us were at the Planning Commission meeting and that
was one of the biggest buttons that the citizens were pushing.
Mayor Chmiel: And I think by that request, I feel we and I'm not one for
spending the buck but the residents within the community itself were really
leaning towards this issue and requesting us to pursue this. I think in the
best interest of those residents as well as the City, I think we should pursue
this proposal to have him come up with a consideration of any evidence to
support that respective conclusion.
j Councilman Boyt: I'd like to react. I was there at the Planning Commission
II meeting with some of the rest of you and I agree with what Jay has said. I
think the reality though is that there is enough court case history to indicate
that, assume that Mr. Andrus came back and in his professional opinion said,
' this will have a dramatic impact on property values. It wouldn't make a
difference. The Court would tell you that that would not make a difference and
I don't see spending $2,800.00 of the City's money when we know the answer. I
' guess I'd refer you to Roger. I suspect he'll back that up. That Andrus can
come in with this professional judgment, not he might come back and say it's not
going to have any impact, which is what their appraisal has said but I'm saying
that Andrus could come up with a completely different answer and unfortunately I
' don't think legally it would make a difference. If we have a leg to stand on,
I'd support spending the $2,800.00 but if we don't, I don't think it's an
appropriate use of our money.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, do you want to comment?
' Roger Knutson: Your ordinance does provide. . .condi.ti.onal use depreciate
surrounding property values. That is a basis for turning down a conditional
use. . ..under the circumstances of this case, that would be legitimate
reason, I guess I would have to examine what your appraiser would say and the
' basis of how he got there. If the conclusion was reached because people, I
better not say anything more.
' Councilman Boyt: Well Roger, has there been any case history of where anybody
has claimed that the church has damaged their property value?
Roger Knutson: Sure.
59
x�J
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Have they ever won?
Roger Knutson: Ever is a big time. None that I'm aware of.
Councilman Johnson: One of the examples that were in the other consultants
report was a church group down by Lake Harriet that was a group that believed in
communal living. You give all your money to the church and the whole bit and
they moved in next door and there was a few years back, there was a big uproar
about it and they studied the housing values there, and they're just
skyrocketing. The people that moved in, they got the right to move in and has
not had an effect. Of course, that's Lake Harriet.
Councilman Workman: I lived there at the time and a slaughtered sheep. I tell
you what, it wasn't funny. They found a slaughtered sheep with all the blood
out of it down in the Rose Garden. Not that that has anything to do with an
appraisal but this issue is one that I would like to not leave any stone
unturned in the likelihood that perhaps we could turn something up. If I'm
within 400 feet of another slaughtered sheep in this town, I'm not going to be
happy.
Councilman Boyt: But you wouldn't be within 400 feet in this particular
situation. Certainly we want to rest the concerns and fears of the people that
live in Chanhassen about this organization but I think we have to get all the
cards out on the table and just face facts. If in fact, I would rather give
Roger $100.00 to spend an hour researching the case history on this to say there's a glimmer of hope that if we found it we could go with it. Maybe that [II
would be a good prior investment before we spend the $2,800.00 on something that
I just don't have a lot of hope that it would give us something we could use.
Mayor Chmi.el: I guess our citizens are the people who are really asking s to
help them. I g
p guess I'm in the position of not denying them that help is the way
that I feel. Yet, we're still.. .
Councilman Boyt: But you have to be careful.
Mayor Chmi.el: Yes, but we still have to explore things that we feel is best for
the City. I'm not saying it's either bar or good but we want to explore all the
possible things that we can. Make sure the right determination is going to be
made on this.
Councilman Boyt: Well Don, what if we do this investigation and Mr. Andrus
comes back and says that he feels there is going to be a big difference? We
could be simply adding gasoline to a fire that if we in fact find out that
there's substantial history in the courts that say this argument will not win,
we've just dug ourselves deeper into a hole. I don't know the right answer here
but I'd sure like to know from more than just a cursorary review if this has any
legal hope of carrying it through.
Councilman Johnson: What do you think that would cost to review Roger? '
Roger Knutson: I'm pretty familiar with the case right now. It would take me a
day.
Councilman Boyt: $800.00?
60 '
I
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
aa
Roger Knutson: I would suppose it would take me less than a day. Things
IIusually take longer than you anticipate. That's why I say a day.
Don Ashworth: And that would include asking Mr. Andrus what techniques he would
' be using to insure that you felt comfortable that what he brought back had some
validity?
tRoger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: If Roger comes back and says that case history tells us
that no matter what he says, it doesn't really matter, the one thing I don't see
' as exactly what he's going to do, he's going to interview people. I think
how he's going to do it, I would have liked to have seen a better plan put
together. I think we need something. I suggested this to Don to look at this.
' I was a little surprised at the amount, the cost but the more I've studied on
Eckankar and the organization, the more I feel that he's going to come back and
there's no way he's going to say anything but say there's not going to be any
' change. I have faith in that. I can't see that it will be a problem here. I'm
for doing it but I want Roger to take a look first too as to case history.
Councilman Workman: Can we approve this after we've talked to Roger sometime
during the week?
Don Ashworth: I'm assuming that, what I'm hearing you say is, it's approved
subject to Roger looking at it so that's really the guidance that I hear you
I making.
Councilman Boyt: What does that mean? Roger looking at it.
Councilman Johnson: If Roger comes back and Roger says there's not a chance in
the world, it doesn't matter what Don Andrus says, okay what is the action at
' that point?
Don Ashworth: Then we won' t hire Don Andrus. Or if he comes back saying, I've
' looked at the proposed techniques that are proposed to be followed, those simply
would be thrown out by a court of law and you've wasted your $2,800.00, then we
similarly wouldn't do it.
' Councilman Boyt: I can live with that.
Mayor Chmiel: That sounds good to me.
' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to direct the City Attorney
to research the proposed techniques to be used by the appraiser and the case
history of the conditional use permit as it relates to Eckankar. If the City
' Attorney says there's legal ground to stand on, the City Manager is authorized
to spend up to $2,800.00 for an appraisal to be conducted by Don Andrus on the
Eckankar site. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
ISubmitted by Don Ashworth, City Manager Prepared by Nann Ophei.m
' 61
•
•
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION I.
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 1, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad
and Jim Wi.ldermuth
Brian Batzli arrived during the Eckankar public hearing and did not vote
on the first two issues .
' MEMBERS ABSENT: David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Dave Grannis , City
Attorney
' PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 22 . 8 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 1. 9 AND 20. 9 ACRES ON PROPERTY
ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE (GROSS PROPERTY)
CHES MAR FARMS REALTY.
Hanson : This particular item, the applicant had talked to me prior to the
meeting and I believe would like to address the Commission rather than
going through the staff report . Actually I believe they would like to
table the item.
Tim Keane : My name is Tim Keane with Larkin , Hoffman , Daly and Lindgren ,
7900 Xerxes, Bloomington. I 'm here on behalf of Ches Mar Realty. We
appeared here previously in the matter of Ches Mar Farm subdivision. We
have a couple of outstanding issues between buyer and seller. Hopefully
' we will have them resolved to everyone ' s satisfaction and would
respectfully request that this matter be continued to your next meeting .
Conrad : Steve, in that case we don ' t need to open up the public hearing
do we? Any questions of the applicant?
Dave Grannis : I think if the public hearing is scheduled for tonight and
' has been published notice of the hearing, I think you should open the
hearing and then continue the hearing until your next meeting. That would
be my recommendation.
Conrad : Okay, we will open the public hearing . Are there any other
comments?
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to continue the ublic hearing g on the
Subdivision of Ches Mar Farms Realty until the next meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was tabled until the
next regular Planning Commission meeting.
I
■
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING: II
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH ON PROPERTY ZONED
I
R-4, MIXED LOW DENSITY AND LOCATED 1/4 MILE NORTH OF HWY 5 AND WEST OF
POWERS BOULEVARD, ECKANKAR CHURCH, PETER BECK.
Public Present I
Name Address
Mitch & Janet Weaver Bloomington, MN 1
Dave & Leneda Rahe 1021 Carver Beach Road
Gail Kurtz Chanhassen
Fred Koppelman Eden Prairie
II
Tim Bollig Chanhassen
Barbara Coldagelli Chanhassen
Kathleen Wendland Chanhassen II Jeanne Burke Chanhassen
Paula Whittiar Chanhassen
Carol Nelson Chanhassen II Greg & Sheryl Thornberg Bloomington
David Pedersen Chanhassen Villager
Matt & Laurie Hoffman Chanhassen
Signe Karschnik Chanhassen
II
Jim Pasek Hopkins
Marion Ziegler Chanhassen
Susan Johnsrud Chanhassen II Bob Cunningham Chanhassen
John Horsayer Chanhassen
Madeline Hickey Chanhassen
Glenn & Bonnie Hageman Chanhassen
II
Dan & Marilyn Mahady Minnetonka
Roger Downing Chanhassen
Lee Valle Chanhassen
II
Rev. Dan Peterson Chanhassen
Tim & Carol Vadnais Victoria
Todd Casey Victoria
Bobbie Krespard Chanhassen
II
Ross Kamed Chanhassen
Dave & Diane Quackenbush Chanhassen
Carol Barrett Chanhassen
I
Dawn Opitz Chanhassen
Julia Pims Chanhassen
Carol Watson 7131 Utica Lane
II
Ken Groen 7329 Frontier Trail
Alan R. Johnson 1044 Pontiac Lane
Bill Boyt 7204 Kiowa Circle II Hans Skalle 8071 Santa Vera Drive
Gordon J. Nagel 514 Del Rio Drive
Jim Eastling 7285 Pontiac Circle
Jean Way 7126 Utica Lane
I
Robert & Marjorie Anderson 7090 Tecumseh Lane
Kenneth Horns 111 Third Avenue So . , Minneapolis
Alan Leirness 608 2nd Ave. So. , Minneapolis
II
I
1 i
1 Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 3
I
Name Address
Jeff & Julia Farmakes 7100 Utica Lane
Aleta Lownsbury 8000 Dakota Avenue
Janice Duini.nck 8000 Dakota Avenue
I Mavis Eller 7000 Shawnee
Dawne Erhart 775 West 96th Street
Bill & Kathy Engebretson 7120 Utica Lane
I Pat Albrecht 6951 Tecumseh Lane
Jim & Judy Landkammer 6901 Utica Lane
Janet Lash 6850 Utica Lane
I Barbara Klick 7116 Utica Lane
Greg Blaufuss 7116 Utica lane
Dan Lutenegger 111 Third Ave So . , Minneapolis
Charles Rickart 111 Third Ave So . , Minneapolis
I John Shardlow DSV Inc. , 300 1st Ave No. , Minneapolis
Jim Larkin 6671 Minnewashta Parkway
Peter Sussman 300 1st Ave No . , Minneapolis
I Barry Warner 111 Third Ave So. , Minneapolis
Ronald Krank KKE Architects , 300 1st Ave So . , Mpls .
Tom Barrett 7051 Redman Lane
Tim Keane 7900 Xerxes Ave So . , Bloomington
Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the
public hearing to order .
I Rober Hoffman : Mr . Chairman and members of the Planning Commission ,
Robert Hoffman, 1500 Northwestern Financial Center. I 'm an attorney with
the firm of Larkin , Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren and we represent the
applicant, Eckankar in it ' s application for a conditional use permit as a
I church . We do have a substantial amount of material to present to you and
we will present to you the drawings and sight lines and a number of other
matters to assist you in making your decision. Two lawyers in our firm
I have been working with me on this matter and I 'd like to introduce them.
Mr . Peter Beck who is over here and Mr . Jim Larkin who is sitting over in
this area. Very briefly, our firm has had the opportunity to spend a
I considerable amount of time on land use matters in this metropolitan area
over the last 25 years primarily representing people who want to develop
land . Through that experience we' ve become reasonably familiar with the
requirements of the cities in the metropolitan area as to either zoning or
I conditional uses and advise our clients to comply with those conditions as
set up by the various communities . We' ve had experience that range from
residential to stadiums in downtowns to megamalls to restaurants and to
I industrial buildings and to churches. Most members of our firm have
experience in the City of Chanhassen. Two or three developments that we
worked on, the CPT development, the McDonalds restaurant, Fox Chase and
some others . I indicate that to you so that you have a background as to
I how we approach the land use matter . It is also combined with some
experience from the public sector . For example, I had the opportunity to
spend 14 years on the Bloomington City Council and 7 years on the
Metropolitan Council and had the opportunity to chair the Physical
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 1, 1989 - Page 4
11
Development Committee which produced the development framework under which
all the comprehensive plans in all the cities are governed. That may be
good or bad , depending on how you look at it. Working on this project
with us have been a number of consultants and professionals who I 'd like
to also introduce at this time. First is Mr . Ron Krank who is an
architect and is a co-founder of the firm of Korsunsky, Krank and Erickson
and has been practicing architecture for the last 26 years . Has been
involved in over 1, 000 buildings throughout the country. Also has
experience in Chanhassen and his firm has worked on the Press , Instant
Webb, Redman Products and several others. They' ve also had extensive work
on churches . They' ve been in charge of the 10 year plan for Mount Olivet
Church and he was the lay leader of the Temple of Israel ' s 4 million
dollar addition recently. Assisting him has been Mr . Peter Sussman who is
also here. Mr. Dan Lutenegger who is a principle with the firm of Barton-
Aschman has had 14 years experience in environmental analysis and related
matters and has been involved in the voluntary EAW that we have submitted
to the City. Mr . Charles Rickart who is back there is also with the firm
of Barton-Aschman and has a Bachelors degree in Transportation as a
transportation engineer and prepared the traffic analysis that has been
submitted to the City. Mr. Barry Warner is also with the firm of Barton-
Aschman . Has a Bachelor degree in landscaping. Is a Landscape Architect.
Has 12 years with that background and has produced the landscape plan for
the church . Mr . Ken Horns is also with the firm of Barton-Aschman and has
a civil engineering degree from the University of Minnesota and has been
practicing civil engineering for 8 years and assisted us in the erosion
control , sanitary sewer systems and utilities part of the plan. Mr . Ken
Horns is also with the firm of Barton-Aschman and has also been assisting
us in the development process . The consultants that I ' ve just reviewed
with you helped us prepare the voluntary Environmental Assessment
Worksheet which was submitted to the City and addresses all of the
environmental matters that would be involved in a development of this
type. In addition to those professionals , we have submitted to the City
the opinions of two other professionals who I 'd like to introduce at this
time. One is Mr. John Shardlow. Mr. Shardlow has a business degree in
landscape architectur . He specializes in urban design. He ' s a principle
in the firm of Dalgren, Shardlow and Urban. Has been a planning
consultant in many cities in this particular area including several
surrounding cities and has also had the opportunity to work in the city of
Chanhassen. He has rendered an opinion which we have filed with the city
of record as to the use of this property and it' s impact under your
ordinances from the viewpoint of a professional planner . Land planner .
Finally Mr. Alan Leirness who is the Vice President of Robert Bobli.n and
Associates and is a professional appraiser and has appraised real estate
in the city of Chanhassen for over the last 8 years . He has submitted to
the city his observations as a professional planner as to the lack of a
detrimental impact of this particular development on surrounding
properties . What we will present to you this evening is a summary of the
material that we presented in our application which is a part of the
record of the city. The statements of the professionals I ' ve introduced
have been submitted to the city and are also a part of that particular
record . We will review with you the background of Eckankar in acquiring
this piece of property. We will review with you the physical plans for
the church and you' ve already heard the staff ' s report which is part of
11
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 5
I
the record and we will not comment on that . All of the professionals then
I will be available for questions that you wish to raise. The following
have been submitted to the City and we want to note them as part of this
record for your consideration and I believe you should have had the
opportunity to have received copies of these but in the event you haven' t,
I I wanted to just identify them. The first is our letter to the City of
January 29 , 1989 which accompanied the conditional use application.
Second is our application itself. The conditional use permit. Third is
I the certification of Peter Skelskey to Ministerial Credti.als on file in
Hennepin County to perform marriages. Fourth is the requirements for a
conditional use in the city and our compliance with each one of your
I standards and criteria. Next is a copy of the title for the Eckankar
property showing the church holding the title to the property as owner .
Next is a voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared to assist
you in evaluating public utilities , drainage, transportation and
I environmental matters and other items related to that. Next we've
submitted you a complete set of plans on an 8 1/2 x 11 format which is
required by your ordinance. We ' ve also submitted a photocopy of 2 or 3
II pages from a publication used in universities entitled Religious and
Spirtual Groups in Modern America which is the 2nd Edition of that
publication. Originally published in 1973 and republished in 1988 . The
material we' ve furnished you with is from the 1988 publication. We' ve
I also submitted you information that Eckankar is a tax exempt religious
organization under Section 501 (C) (3) of the Federal Internal Revenue Code.
We ' ve also submitted to you evidence that Eckankar is a church under
I Section 170BIAi of the Federal Internal Revenue Code and under Section
1. 511-2A3ii of the Income Tax Regulations . We also submitted to you
evidence that Eckankar Priests are authorized under the laws of the State
I of Minnesote to solemnize marriages . Eckankar has over 290 centers
throughout the world. It currently has members in 92 countries
internationally. It has had a local center in the Twin Cities since 1973
and was first located in St. Paul and now in the last 14 years has been
I located in the city of Minneapolis . In 1985 Eckankar purchased the
subject property which is at the intersection of TH 5 and CR 17 for the
purpose of relocating it ' s international headquarters from Menlo Park,
I California and establishing an adminstrative campus in the city of
Chanhassen. That proposal was made pursuant to the then designated plans
by the city for that piece of property as what ' s known as a business
campus . That designation had been placed on that piece of property at the
I suggestion of a prior owner or contract purchaser . That concept plan
which was submitted in 1985 included an adminstrative office building ,
design, graphic, audio visual and publishing facilities and that concept
I plan was approved by the Planning Commission of this City and the City
Council in 1985. Eckankar subsequently withdrew that request for that use
on that particular property and located it ' s international headquarters in
I the city of New Hope, Minnesota where it has had it' s headquarters since
that time. Chanhassen rezoned the Eckankar property from planned
residential development to RSF, R-4 and R-12. However, your comprehensive
plan still carries the designation of campus business land use for that
I particular piece of property although it' s our understanding that it ' s
been the intent of the City to change that comprehensive plan use to
residential also to be consistent with your zoning. Churches are
1 conditional uses under your ordinance in a residential zone. Churches are
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 6
also allowed in campus business category of your ordinances . In the event
there' s a conflict between the ordinances of zoning and your comprehensive 111 plan , Minnesota Statutes provides that zoning controls . The church itself
will be a building concentrated to religious worship. People will join
together in public worship under the direction of a person authorized by
the laws of the State of Minnesota to solemnize marriages. The church
will have a 800 seat sanctuary, a caretakers residence, classroom
facilities and other areas detailed on the plans as submitted. All as
permitted by your zoning ordinance. Office space will be provided only
for the adminstrative staff to serve the everyday needs of the church.
The international headquarters will stay in New Hope , Minnesota . The
first visuals that we'd like to show you will be the general location of
the church on the property and thereafter some sight lines and viewsheds
from various surrounding areas of the property. The church design itself
and some characteristics of the church building. The parcel is 174 acre
parcel . The church would be located virtually in the center of the
parcel . The gross square footage of the building is 48 ,000 square feet .
It' s a single level building with a walkout lower level . This is the site
which we indicated is 174 acres . The top is the north and to my left is
the west. That' s Lake Ann. The bottom of the visual is the south and
then to the right is the east . That ' s CR 17 shown in that direction.
TH 5, Peter if you' ll show them TH 5 and then the entrance to the park .
The church you' ll see is virtually in the center of the facility and to
the bottom of the church is the parking area. As I indicated , the site is
174 acres . The building will cover 7/10ths of 1 acre or approximately
4/l0ths of the site. The amount of impervious coverage will be 5. 7 acres
or approximtely 3. 3% of the site . The parking area, which you see below
the church proper is 2. 3 acres or approximately 1. 3% of the site. There
will be approximately 20 church employees during the day. The sanctuary
will seat approximately 800 persons in the sanctuary part of the church .
The number of parking spaces are 276 which comply with the ordinance of
Chanhassen and including handicapped parking spaces , that will be
approximately 290. Under the definition of height in your zoning
ordinance, the church has a zoning ordinance height of 36 feet. The
actual height of the front of the building is appoximately 50 feet and at
the walkout level it' s approximately 65 feet but your zoning ordinance
uses a formula for measuring height based on setback and configuration and
according to your zoning ordinance, the height is 36 feet for the purpose
of your zoning ordinance. Setbacks from the property and Peter if you ' ll
point these out, from the east is approximately 3 blocks. 3 city blocks .
From the west , from the lake is approximately 3 1/2 city blocks over to
the park area. To the north it ' s approximately 6 1/2 city blocks and to
the south it' s also approximately 6 1/2 city blocks . Access to the
property would be off of CR 17 at that location as indicated by Mr. Beck.
We have some additional studies now which we will review with you. The
first is an overall graphic to show you certain sight lines into the
property from surrounding neighborhood areas. Peter if you' ll point out
the location of the church and we are going to take you through several
sight lines starting in the lower left hand corner of the visual which is
approximately the entrance to the park. The next area that we' ll show you
will be at TH 5 and CR 17 and then we' ll move up to approximately the
entrance to the church facility which you see up there at number 4. At
the top you' ll see number 5, from the northern area of the neighborhood . '
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 7
I
We will show you both what we call cross sections that cut across showing
I you the height according to scale of both natural conditions and the
church and any existing buildings that may be off of the church property.
Along with those cross sections , we also have used what ' s called a
computer aided device in which we simulate with the architects the views
I from those same locations and those will be shown. After that, we will
take you onto the site and show you graphics related to what are shown as
item 6 , 7 and 8 which bring you up closer to the building and then we will
I show you some renderings of the building itself. The top is a view, cross
cut from the northern part of the property. Unfortunately the screen
isn ' t wide enough but on my left you' ll see a home which is difficult to
see on this visual but it' s to size, looking through, as I said ,
I
approximately 3 1/2 blocks to the church . The trees that you see are
trees that remain on the site. Are on the site and are to scale. The
next visual takes you as a cross cut from the property to the east and
I shows a 2 story home and again shows approximately a couple blocks
distance and the church as it relates to that particular house. The next
visual is, that middle one is from the east again. From the driveway and
I takes you in , it looks across the site from the driveway into the site .
The last visual is one that comes from the lake side through the trees
that remain and shows you the church in relationship to the trees and the
lake. The topography that you see is the existing topography as it will
I remain after the church is constructed . This is the entrance to the park
and this is, as I say, a computer generated model to scale that shows how
the church will be viewed from the park entrance. Peter is pointing to
I the church. The next slide is from TH 5 and CR 17. As you come over the
railroad bridge, that' s CR 17 going in and the church , we' ve highlighted
in the background as you can see.
IPeter Beck : This one would be at the intersection. The next one should
be from the bridge.
I Robert Hoffman: Alright . This is from the entrance into the facility.
The entrance sign and behind the trees you' ll see the church. This is
from the north part of the property looking towards the church and those
I are existing trees and the church is in the background. This is a site
plan of the church itself with the entrance coming off of CR 17 into the
property. The parking facility and the church facility. We have some
cross sections that relate to views on the property itself. These again
I
are the same cross sections we had before. The first is a cross section
showing you coming in the entrance driveway and it shows a car entering
into the driveway of the church. The next is through the berms on the
Iparking lot . The parking lot, Peter if you ' ll point out where the parking
lot is and you ' ll see the berming that surrounds the parking lot. The
next is a cross section in the parking lot itself and illustrates the
I berming and landscaping. The particular light standard you see was the
light standard with the original application which I belive was like 22
feet. Staff has recommended that be lowered to 17 feet and we have since
modified it and lowered it to 17 feet . The last one is another cross
I section through the parking lot showing the berming that will surround the
parking lot itself. Then very quickly we will show these CAD produced
graphics from those virtually same locations . This one again is half way
' up the driveway going to the church facility. The next one is halfway
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 8
onto the property looking at the church through the parking lot . The
third one is again half way on the property looking up from TH 5 so we' ve
about 3 blocks into the property at that particular location. If you will
back up to the site plan. The church has been sited to take advantage of
all existing grades so the minimal amount of earth movement will be
required and the least amount of disturbance. The church wants to sit in
a natural area and the original concept of the church several months ago
was further to the north . In that particular locations , we would have
been removing some mature trees and the church decided therefore to move
it further to the south so as to not to disturb any of the existing trees
on the site. None of the existing trees will be disturbed by this
particular development . Traffic circulation is by the way of a two way
drive entrance with a drop off door at the entrance of the church and as
I indicated , including handicap parking , 290 parking spaces . This is in
accordance with your ordinance. Is in excess of what we expect will be
utilized but it does comply with your ordinance. There are service drives
to the north and east sides of the building. One is , there' s an internal
trash container and the other is to the caretakers garage. Lighting has
been designed to comply with the City Code and extensive landscaping has
been provided . We have described that landscaping in the EAW and if you
have any questions in regards to it, our landscape architect is available .
Next, Tim if you' ll go to the rendering of the church itself. This is the
architectural design of the church. We have the material board , Ron if
you will please . The colors are going to be a neutral colors of Kasota
stone, which is smooth Kasota stone. It' s a rough Kasota stone and some
architectural masonary as you see on the particular development plan and
drawing. The roof as recommended by staff will be matte and it will be of
that beige type of color . Accent will be by the dark color that Mr . Krank
is pointing to. As to the interior part of the church, which incidentally
is not part of the conditional use requirement but we will run through it
very briefly for you anyway. If you' ll flip to that church. This is the
main floor of the church . I 've got too many years on me to be able to
read that but the sanctuary and then the chapel and foyer which have
provisions for robing for bride and groom for marriages and a coat storage
area. Around the sanctuary are some religious classrooms and a religious
reading room. To my left are some of the offices of the religious staff
and the administrative staff. As I indicated, the church will not house
any publishing facilities . Those will remain in New Hope . There will not
be a theological seminary on site. There will not be a daycare center nor
any of the other prohibited uses under your zoning code . The lower
walkout level , this is the lower walkout level which has a fellowship hall
and kitchen. There is an employee lounge. There is a children activity
area . Caretaker ' s apartment and a caretaker ' s garage and miscellaneous
storage and mechanical areas. The only living quarters on the premises
are the caretaker ' s quarters . I think that ' s the end of the slides . Your
staff has already reviewed with you it ' s report and has reviewed with you
as to how the application complies with the ordinances of the City of
Chanhassen. We have submitted to you either yesterday or this evening our
letter in response to the staff ' s recommendations for 15 conditions . That
letter is part of the record. We have already prepared and revised the
plans to be consistent with those 15 recommendations and I 'm going to
briefly review those with you. The first was to add trees to the center
landscape islands with the parking lot . We are adding and will add , and
IPlanning Commission Meeting
IMarch 1, 1989 - Page 9
the plans reflect that additional landscaping which will comply with the
I recommendation. Condition 2 was the curb, the parking lot edge where head
in parking stalls are shown. Our response is we will comply with that
recommendation and Barton-Aschman has revised the plans to show the
requested curbs . Condition 3 was that the entrance sign not be
I illuminated. We never intended to illuminate it but that does not show on
our plans so now we' ve specifically noted it on the plans that the
entrance sign will not be illuminated. A fourth condition was to reduce
I the lighting poles to 18 feet in height and we have now reduced the
lighting poles to 18 feet in height. To meet safety standards, we've had
to add 2 additional poles in order to get the necessary flood for those
lights and our lighting plan has now been revised to provide for those
I additional lighting poles and to reduce the height . Condition 5 is the
roof material have a matte finish and not a glare. The roof material will
be non-reflective. It will have a matte finish and it will have a
I non-glare finish. Number 6, the exterior of the building not be bathed in
light, was the phrase, and we have talked with staff on that particular
matter and staff confirmed that they did not want the building bathed in
Ilight . The building will not be bathed in light . There will be some
building illumination around the entrances for safety purposes and there
will be some very low level illumination around again, primarily for
safety purposes , around the church itself so it ' s very typical of many
I buildings you' ll see in the city of Chanhassen as far as low illuminated
light around a building of this nature and complies with the standards set
forth in Article 6 , Section 17 of your zoning ordinance . Condition 7 is
I that the proposed island at the entry should not extend into CR 17 .
Barton-Aschman has revised the plan so the island does not extend into CR
17. Condition 8 , it was that the plan be presented showing the proposed
I road grade and cross sections and identify why a large radius was needed
at the entrance and reduce the radius to less than 50 feet. The plans
have been revised . The radius is reduced to 50 feet and detailed road
plans and cross sections will be submitted to both the City and the County
I with the construction permit applications . Condition 9 is that the turn
lanes be required on the entrance and should also include a turn lane
design details. Our response is turn lanes are being provided and the
I plans will specify the dimensions of those turn lanes and those specific
details will be submitted both to the City and to the County. Condition
number 10 is the applicant be required to submit construction plans and
specifications for the installation of watermai.n and sanitary sewer lines
I to be approved by the City Engineer . The utility plans now incorporate
the City Engineer ' s recommendations that the sewer line be sized to 8
inches and again, detailed construction plans and specifications be
I submitted both to the City and the County at the time of the construction
application permit. Condition 11, runoff calculation be submitted to
conform with the pre-development runoff criteria of the Watershed District
I and City are being complied with. The runoff calculations now confirm
with the criteria requirements of the Watershed and the City will be
complied with. Condition 12, a drainage easement be dedicated to the City
in accordance with the attached legal description and sketch to
I accommodate storm water runoff. The Eckankar will provide a drainage
easement sufficient to accommodate all the drainage from it ' s property. If
a larger drainage easement is necessary to accommodate off site drainage,
that will be provided pursuant to typical compensation for a property
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 10
owner carrying off site drainage. Condition 13 , necessary permits from
the County and Watershed District be obtained and complied with prior to
construction and we will obtain those prior to construction. Condition
14, a roadway cross section be submitted for review along with a skimmer
detailed plan . The skimmer detailed plan has been added to the plans and
it meets the City requirements for construction permit including a cross '
section of the roadway. Finally, condition 15, applicant use Type III
erosion control . The plans have been revised to specify Type III erosion
control . In addition to the 15 conditions that were highlighted by your
Planning Director , the Fire Inspector recommended 6 additional
requirements and we are telling you on the record that we have submitted
information which we comply with all those 6 requirements as requested by
your Fire Inspector . If there are any further recommendations that
address the conditional use made by you as a Planning Commission and the
City Council , we will incorporate those in the design plans before the
Council reviews the development. Members of the Commission, that is our
presentation . As I indicated at the beginning of my comments , we have
asked the City to incorporate into your record for your review and the
City Council review, all the written material that we' ve submitted to the
City. We will be submitting all of the graphics to the City in a form
that can be kept in your records and we have submitted all of the
statements of our consultants that address all of the matters that are
necessary for acting upon a conditional use permit . I know that you have
a number of people here that want to comment on the application, and we ' re
available for questions . Do you have any questions at this time?
Conrad: I think later we will . Just to review what I said in the '
beginning , one of the things that we do here as Planning Commissioners is
we help design the guidelines that we use for Chanhassen to grow and those
turn into ordinances and other types of vehicles like that . At this
point, we' re going through, we' re measuring an application to those
guidelines . Those legal guidelines . If you were paying attention , our
City Staff went through the 12 points that we legally have to review when
an application comes in. Those are how we measure whether an application
meets or fails our guidelines. So tonight, the Planning Commission will
be looking at those 12 points and seeing how the application measures up.
I know you don' t remember all 12 and that' s our job to look at what the
staff has recommended but as you recall , staff did recommend that the
applicant met all 12 of our guidelines that we legally can enforce in this
or any particular conditional use process . So as I open up the public
hearing, I just want you to remember that we' re going to be taking your
input and balancing it or , not balancing it but measuring it against those
particular guidelines that will influence our recommendation tonight .
With that aside , I think we will open it up for public comment . Again ,
what I 'd like you to do, I ' ll call on you. I would like you to take the
podium. State your name and address and we will listen to your comments .
Leneda Rahe: Good evening City Planning Commission and service of
Chanhassen . I 'd like to present a petition to you. My name is Leneda
Rahe. I live at 1021 Carver Beach Road and I ' ve been a resident of
Chanhassen for approximately 2 years . I 'd like to , at this time also ,
before I present the petition, present some concerns and some information .
I believe that a lot of the people here at this meeting do not know a lot
11
I
IPlanning Commission Meeting
IMarch 1, 1989 - Page 11
of what has happened prior to this meeting and I would like to just give a
I brief summary. Eckankar purchased the property in 1985. They came in
with a proposal for their international headquarters and at that time the
property was zoned for residential and they did not meet the zoning
requirements . They then settled their headquarters in New Hope. They had
I moved here from Menlo Park, California. In that timeframe, between then
and now, they have obtained the tax exempt status they did not have before
which has qualified them for this title of a church. Now they have come
I back with a proposal which is allowed in the zoning regulations . The 174
acres adjacent to Lake Ann Park has been considered by the community to be
a very valuable plot of land for our needs since we are a growing
community and we would like to ask questions about that because most of us
I
had thought that it had been a possible site for a community center . Many
of the people here had no idea that Eckankar owned the property or who or
what Eckankar was. I feel that they have a right to know who Eckankar is
I and I would also like at this time for the requirements to be reread .
Just number 1 if possible. Could you reread number 1 for me?
I Conrad : Will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City.
Leneda Rahe : That is one that I , as a member of this community, would
I like to contest and I feel that many of us here would like to contest that
our comfort and the safety and our health might be affected by the
settling of Eckankar. Many of you when you came to the door tonight were
I offered an information pamphlet . There are quotes there about Eckankar
themselves which clearly call them a cult. They deny they are a cult. A
cult means group or sect deviating from society' s norms or values
Iaccording to the World Book Encyclopedia, Copyright 1988 . Also, occult
means secretive and they are that . They' re founder , Paul Twitchell who is
now deceased, has clearly called them this in the quotations that you see
from their very own writings. After Paul Twitchell , their founder , died
I in 1971 or 1974, their new Eck Master, which is Darwin Gross , married Paul
Twitchell ' s wife Gale and then he became the Eck Master . An Eck Master is
someone who, as you also see , they completely surrender to him and he is
I the only path to total freedom. The reason that I mention this is because
they also have relayed information to us which I feel is dishonest in
saying that they do not have any mind control involved in their
organization. That, I feel , would be a health hazard to us. First of
I all , dealing with the fact at hand , I feel that we need more information
from them regarding many issues. We have a lot of people here who would
like to speak so I won ' t tie up the podium any longer but on behalf of the
I residents of Chanhassen, each of you will be receiving a petition. One of
the , also I feel one of the reasons for having a church in a community is
to meet a need which already exists . As we had made available to us
I through the Chanhassen Villager a quote by Peter Skelsky, a priest of
Eckankar , he noted that he would be here to serve the Chanhassen are and
the metropolitan area. As I ' ve been talking to the people of the
community, I have yet to meet an Eckankar member who is here that needs to
I be serviced and we would like to contest that also because we feel that ,
and we know that it is not going to meet a need which already exists in
our community. Especially since they' re a tax exempt organization and all
Iof us know that we are the third highest of a 150 some suburbs in the Twin
Planning Commission Meeting U
March 1, 1989 - Page 12
Cities as far as tax . We are the highest taxed, the third highest taxed
and we will be paying for other property taxes for 175 acres for a
facility which does not meet any need of our community. That is exactly
what the petition states .
Bill Engelbretson: My name is Bill Engelbretson . I live at 7120 Utica 1
Lane and we' re an adjacent property owner on the north side of the
Eckankar property so we' ll see the view of the pyramid as shown from the
north. I guess my real concern is that, as shown my this meeting tonight,
people are going to think there are unusual things going on out there and
our property abuts on it and when I come to sell my property, people
aren ' t going to want to live there. Directly adjacent to it. I disagree
with the staff. I think it' s going to have a real adverse affect upon my
property value .
Fred Koppelman: My name is Fred Koppelman . I live at 18890 Deerfield
Trail in Eden Prairie. I don' t live in Chanhassen. I 'm a friendly
neighbor and I 'm here because I am very concerned about the affects of
Eckankar church moving here. I guess I feel if the Communist Party USA
were to come here to locate , I 'd be bothered about that . If the Ku Klux
Klan would come, I 'd be bothered about that too. If the American Nazi.
Party, I ' d be bothered about that too . I think it' s the effects that it
would have. They physical plant, looks beautiful and I 'm sure that ' s no
problem at all for any of us . But as a neighbor , I live just across the
line and I would urge you to think very carefully about this .
Janet Weaver : My name is Janet Weaver . We just placed an offer on a home
last night that was accepted in Chanhassen and we were not aware of what
was happening . We learned about this today. I have a question regarding
the church growth of Eckankar . I understand that their membership is
currently 400 and they are building a sanctuary that should house about
800 and that indicates to me that they do anticipate church growth. What
will they do when they reach capacity? Do they plan to expand at that
point? They certainly have the acreage to do this . What are their
purposes if they meet their capacity?
Conrad: Mr. Hoffman, do you want to respond to that? '
Robert Hoffman : Mr . Weaver is correct . There is approximately 400
members of the Eckankar church. However , that doesn' t include their
families so it' s being designed initially to accommodate the 400 members
and some particular growth. As I indicated, there are 290 some centers
around the world . There' s already a center in the city of Minneapolis and
the current plans are for no expansion of this particular facility at this
particular time.
Gordy Nagel : My name is Gordy Nagel . I did not come with a planned
speech so if I stumble a little, you have to bear with me. I would like
you to read the, of the 12 requirements, requirements 1, 2, 6 and 11.
Could someone read them out loud please?
Conrad : I can . One is , will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the I
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 13
I
neighborhood or the City. Two , will be consistent with the objectives of
I the City Comprehensive Plan and this Chapter. Six , will not create
excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Eleven, will not
depreciate surrounding property values .
IGordy Nagel : I contest all four of those .
I Madeline Hickey: Mr . Chairman and Commission. My name is Madeline
Hickey. I live at 6990 Utica Lane and I am also adjacent to the property
to the north . My big opposition is number 1. My second is it will hurt
I my property value. Number three, Lake Ann, we' re so worried about our
children . We' re so worried about the expansion and I think our City
should buy that land back. It' s perfect. Right next to the park and we' re
going to need more space. There was a meeting last night of women
I baseball players that can' t play baseball here anymore because we don' t
have the room at Lake Ann . I don' t think we need another church ,
particularly Eckankar .
IJim Eastling : My name is Jim Eastling . I live at 7285 Pontiac Circle,
just west of the property. I 'm just concerned for our city and the
reputation of our city with this church . Right now it' s known as the home
I of the Dinner Theaters and I think that' s fine. I don ' t want it to be
known as the home of Eckankar .
I Janis Duininck: My name Janis Duininck and I would just like to say that
I ' ve been very proud of Chanhassen. I ' ve look forward to raising my
children here . If Eckankar comes in , I will remove my family from this
I community because I can not see, if they have a church here that they
won' t be moving here also and I will not have my children going to school
with people that believe what they believe .
ITim Vadnais : My name is Tim Vadnais and I live at 8110 81st Street in
Victoria , just down the road. I 'm a father of 4 months and I recently
moved to the area . I viewed this area as a very family setting . A very
I good place to raise a family so I feel that ' s endangered with this
particular proposal . I 'd like to have you repeat the first, I know it ' s
been repeated before, we ' re not all familiar with city ordinances. If you
could repeat the stipulation and slowly, one word at a time . I 'd like to
Idiscuss maybe some of those intangible words .
Conrad : Do you have it yourself? If you want to review the words, go
Iahead.
Tim Vadnais : I ' d just like to take a look at some of those intangibles .
I Comfort . What measure has been done to insure that our comfort is not
impinged upon . I 'd like to also discuss the study, the devaluement study
and if I could address the person who worked on that study.
I Conrad : Mr . Hoffman , who rendered the opinion of valuation? Is that
person here?
IRobert Hoffman : Yes . That ' s Mr . Al Learness .
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 1, 1989 - Page 14
1
Tim Vadnais : Sir , could you tell us what went into that study and maybe a 1
little background?
Alan Learness : My name is Alan Learness . I 'm a real estate appraiser
with the real estate appraisal and consulting firm of Robert Boblett 1
Associates based in Minneapolis . I live in the city of Minneapolis and
I 've been a real estate appraiser here in the Twin Cities for about 12 or
13 years. 1
Conrad : I think the gentleman' s interested in how you came. . .
Tim Vadnais: I 'm interested in the work and background. Can you tell us
a little bit about the study. We' re all concerned about our property
values here. We'd like to know what facts were set forth to substantiate
the statement that there would be no devaluement to our property. 1
Alan Learness: Yes , I will summarize what I did as part of my study to
come to the conclusion that I could find no evidence that the proposal
before the City tonight would negatively affect property values adjacent
or nearby. First thing I did was reviewed a book which Mr . Hoffman eluded
to to describe what the Eckankar program was . I was unfamiliar with it .
A number of other things I did were to review the site plans that you saw
as well as some others for general appeal or physical characteristics. I
looked at the present Eckankar location at 3001 Louisiana in New Hope and
analyzed if I could determine any effects on adjacent properties value by
that location at that site . I looked at the location in Minneapolis, I
think it' s 2526 25th Street East in Minneapolis . It ' s a church assembly
reading room. It ' s adjacent to some residential property. Adjacent to
some industrial property and I analyzed any effects that were discernable
from that location and any apparent affects on adjacent properties . I
looked at several other churches in Chanhassen to see if I could see any
negatives effects that were specific to churches in Chanhassen . I
111
analyzed the Supreme Court decision on a church related use at 4551 East
Lake Harriet Parkway. Again , a church use , communal church use in a
residential location to see if there were any discernable negative affects
on property value for that church and basically concluded that I was, I
also drove the general areas of neighborhoods close by to the proposed
church location to see what type of use was there and analyze how that
might be affected by the proposed use and ended up concluding that I could
not discern that there was any negative affect on the properties adjacent
or nearby by the proposal . It seemed to meet prudent man tests that
market definition implies and I concluded that I was unable to discern any
differences .
Tim Vadnais : Did you do any market assessment as far as incoming
potential homebuyers? Would they be deferred from buying in Chanhassen if
there was a church there? And my question is , I 'm unfamiliar with the
facility in New Hope. Is that located in an industrial area or a
residential area? 1
Alan Learness : Specifically the 3001 Louisiana facility is located on the
west side of Louisiana Avenue in an industrial park area. Immediately 1
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 15
I
across Louisiana Avenue to the east are a series of single family
I residential homes so it' s in an industrial area but adjacent to a
residential area of single family homes . Regarding your market
assessment, I did not study specifically what percent of people might or
might not be against or in favor of. The City of Chanhassen appears to be
I growing and growing rapidly. We recently completed a study in our office
addressing some issues that affect residential property values in a
different area of the metro area and we looked at , or I applied those same
I kinds of principles to what issues affect value from a typical buyer ' s
perspective. I can' t tell you that one buyer or two buyers would or
wouldn ' t be affected . I can tell you that I don ' t believe that there ' s an
impact of degree that ' s going to be measureable on the affected properties
I adjacent or nearby to this proposed church. It ' s just not that much of a
market affect that they can be determined at this time.
I Tim Vadnais : As you can all see from the first restriction, there ' s a lot
of intangibles there and I believe in this situation here, I believe that
those intangibles that obviously everything is to Code but there are some
I real deep intangibles I feel should be weighed heavily and more heavily
than building specs . I feel there' s a lot of questions that the planning
council itself should ask about the potential builder . It' s obvious
everything that I ' ve seen in the paper and what was quoted by that
I gentleman there, that there' s been only one reference that' s been
consulted as to who is Eckankar and what are they all about . There ' s a
number of questions. Why did they leave Menlo Park, California? Why was
I there a need to move their headquarters? There are a lot of questions I
believe that the council should take it upon their responsibility to find
answers for . I believe that you ' ve been appointed by the Council , a
Council elected by it' s members to represent the best interest of this
I
area and I ask that you consider that interest .
Matt Hoffman: My name is Matt Hoffman. My wife and I just purchased a
I house and moved in this weekend at 931 Saddlebrook Trail . I guess when we
first looked at buying a house in Chanhassen, we didn' t know anything
about Eckankar , that it existed even . Now half way through our building
I process we have found out about Eckankar . What it means . What it stands
for . I guess I 'm concerned , being directly in view of where the church is
going to be, out my sliding glass window. How many people does Eckankar
have that live in Chanhassen? Does anybody have a figure?
IRobert Hoffman: Mr. Hoffman, I don' t have that number , I 'm sorry.
IMatt Hoffman : Does anybody?
Public: Zero .
1 Matt Hoffman : Is that really serving the needs of this community?
Bob Cunningham: Councilmembers , my name is Bob Cunningham. I live at
I 6840 Chaparral Lane . We moved to Chanhassen about 2 1/2 years ago from
the east side of St. Paul . On the east side of St. Paul , I have 3 boys. I
could not let them leave the block without somebody going with them.
IThat' s the type of neighborhood I was in. I moved to Chanhassen. I have
Il
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 1, 1989 - Page 16
2 playgrounds within 6 blocks . I have Lake Ann where the kids can go
swimming, playing, etc. and I do not want to have to put a chain around
their necks again . If these statements are true , I think somebody better
do some investigating.
Barb Klick : My name is Barb Klick. I live at 7116 Utica Lane and my
property is adjacent to the proposed land here. First I would like to
compliment the gentlemen . I think that your presentation and the building
is beautiful and I guess I tried to come here tonight with an open mind to
learn some more about Eckankar and I guess I 'm very disappointed and it
just kind of increases my suspicions that none of the spiritual leaders
were here tonight. They obviously must have known there had been some
questions and some concerns in the community and it just makes my fears a
little more deep rooted and deep seeded and I guess I 'm disappointed at
how professionally staffed they are with these gentlemen and really are
lacking in the other area. Thank you. '
Jay Howard : My name is Jay Howard . I 'm a Christian researcher in the
area of cults and the occult . I have spoken extensively in the State of
Minnesota and around the country and I was asked to come here this evening
to look at the proceedings and from what I see, this is not really a
question of whether the land is appropriate or the buildings are
appropriate, this is a question of whether the teachings and the beliefs
of the Eckankar movement are really consistent with the Judeo Christian
beliefs and ethics of your community. Just briefly I thought it would be
important to let the Council know briefly what Eckankar is all about but I
don' t know how much has come out in the papers but I just wanted to take a
couple of quick quotes from some of the writings of Paul Twitchell , the
971st living Eck Master . The founder of Eckankar from what I can see in
my research . I began researching Eckankar in 1986 because of a request
that I had from the Eden Prairie/Chanhassen community. According to the
writings of Eckankar , Eckankar is 6 million years old . The teachings are
6 million years old and it' s the fountainhead of all truth and
philosophies . Therefore , all philosophies and religions are subordinate
to the teachings of Eckankar or they' ve actually sprung out of Eckankar .
Paul Twitchell has said this himself in his own writings , "Eckankar is the
only way to reach the world of the Sugmad ." The Sugmad, according to the
writings of Eckankar , Paul Twitchell , is a being that is their idea of
God. It is both good and evil . The lower half of the Sugmad is called
Calnuronion. Calnuronion is a capricious entity that will , it ' s pretty
much the creater of evil the universe and this is what Paul Twitchell has
stated about Judeo-Christian beliefs or the teachings of the Judeo-
Christian beliefs concerning Calnuronion. Furthermore, the Cal is the
Jehovah of the Jewish faith and the father of the Christian teachings.
Therefore, what they' re saying is that the Calnuronion entity, the lower
part of the Sugmad is actually the teachings that Christianity and Judism
sprang forth out of the beliefs or the concepts of this evil force.
They' ve also said that , concerning this thing called the Ancient Signs of
Soul Travel which is at the heart of Eckankar. I don ' t know how much
people have been told about this but they believe that by having out of
body experiences , they will reach the supreme God, the Sugmad that much
quicker . They have stated , or Paul Twitchell has stated this in his
writings when he says , "soul travel is the secret path to the Sugmad , the '
■
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1 , 1989 - Page 17
I
supreme being we know as God . " Also , it should be noted that soul travel
I is just another name for what is called, in the world of the occult, if
you were to look at a dictionary on the occult, the phrase is astral
projection or astral travel so that' s why when a couple people have
mentioned that Eckankar has been delving into the area of the occult which
I is not in keeping with the Judeo-Christian teachings of this community,
that is what they mean because this teaching of the soul travel is really
an occultic belief and it is contrary to all the writings and teachings
I of, not only Christianity but the Jewish faith. And that' s just a real
brief overview of what some of the key teachings of the group Eckankar
are . Thank you.
IConrad : Before you leave, what ' s your address?
Jay Howard : I 'm sorry, it' s 8304 Zane, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota .
IConrad : You ' ve done some research . You ' ve obviously looked in textbooks .
Have you done research as to where Eckankar has been and their impact on
I surrounding neighborhoods and what they try to do to neighborhing
communities?
Jay Howard : Yes . I ' ve been following this for the last 3 years and I
I have to be honest with you. Menlo Park, California was contacted. The
police department was contacted and they were told that, and this is a
paraphrase, the police officer was quoted as saying, if you have to have a
I group, occult in your backyard , Eckankar would be the one because they
have been known to be very benign. They have not had a history of child
stealing and satanic rituals . The kinds of things that the community is
I concerned with but yet the overall emphasize of their teachings comes
right out of Eastern mysticism and the occult . I 'm not here to say that
they have a pattern or history of hurting communities in that sense of
child stealing and some of these things but they have been known to, their
Iteachings are obviously contrary to the teachings of this community.
Leneda Rahe: I 'd like to ask a question again. My name is Leneda Rahe.
I As far as the assessment of the property values , can that be re-evaluated
by this gentleman that we met earlier? When can we expect that
re-evaluation?
I Conrad : I think that ' s a decision the City could make. Whether wanted
that particular gentleman or somebody else to do it to ease your concerns .
That ' s a possibility.
ILeneda Rahe : So by the end of this meeting this evening , could we at
least be given a yes for sure this will be done and be allowed to know who
Iwill be doing it and what exactly they' ll be looking at?
Conrad: That' s certainly an option and I think in our motion, somebody
may want to do that .
ILeneda Rahe: Okay, thank you .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 18
Carol Vadnais : My name is Carol Vadnais and I live at 8110 81st Street in
Victoria. I first became familiar with Eckankar apprxoi.mately 3, well 4
or 5 years ago when a friend of mine was asking me to pray about her
brother who is involved in Eckankar and he was really becoming distant
from their family and it was becoming a real problem within their family.
From the article that I read that was in the Sailor, the Chanhassen
Sailor , it had mentioned that there are really no threats to family life
and no disruptions are usually caused by people that come into this group.
It was a very, very deep concern and I talked to her just last night and
she said that this brother is still involved in it and there are still
deep family hurts because of it and the family is very distant from him so
from someone who knows of it first hand in a family, it can cause very
deep family problems .
Dave Rahe : Hello . My name is Dave Rahe . I live at 1021 Carver Beach
Road. I think we are all intelligent people here. We can look at common
sense and also the writings of Eckankar , their leader Paul Twitchell . He ' s
indicated and said that they are a cult. They are a cult religion.
People do not view cults in a very positive fashion. If you look at
common sense, it will indicate that our property value will suffer . Our
children, our community will suffer . The concerns of these people that
have spoken and that are here tonight speak loud and clear that there is a
legitimate concern. What we' ve seen from Eckankar , they've obviously paid
a good deal of money to initiate what they have. Purchased the land .
Hired some people to construct the initial phases of building the church.
They've spent a good deal of money. They obviously have a good deal of
money. Also the fact that their religious leaders have not decided to
come to this meeting to be asked questions that are pertinent to the
issues that , we feel we have concerns as citizens of Chanhassen that they
would be able to answer . Common sense tells us that there are some issues
here that need to be looked at very carefully and myself as a concerned
Chanhassen citizen think that these are very grave concerns . As a father
of 4 children, I am very concerned that the effect that they will have on
our community. They may not go door to door , but their teachings may very
well affect all of us and someday I may be standing here looking across at
some Eckankar members sitting on the City Council and it will gravely
change our community from what it is now as a Christian community that is
concerned about families and I don' t want to see it happen. I just beg
you to please look at this very considerately. Thank you .
Susan Albee : Mr . Chairman and members of the Commission . Susan Albee .
6871 Nez Perce Drive. I am not here to basically look at the religious
beliefs of anyone in the community. My concern is the piece of property
at hand and how to utilize it best. I 'm looking at, of course, a very
valuable piece of property. One that I don ' t want to see taken off the
tax rolls. I think that the land use could certainly be more appropriate
and from what I see , the City would have a need or different needs for the
property. I can see a possibility of putting a moratorium on churches in
a residential district until such a time that this is resolved and I think
the zoning ordinance should be looked at again and see if it can not be
amended to a more appropriate use for the community. Thank you.
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 19
I
Kathy Wendland : My name is Kathy Wendland and as a resident of Chanhassen
I I ' ve learned a great deal this evening. I didn' t realize that the 12
criteria that were read and have partly been discussed , were taken into
account and in a way it' s comforting but I have a question for you. How,
as a committee , do you evaluate the qualities that are mentioned ,
I especially number 1 that we' ve heard read several times? That' s my
question for you.
I Conrad : There are no numeric guidelines . We have to assess it
individually and as will the City Council have to do that.
Kathy Wendland : So there are no say polls or canvasing of the community
Itaken?
Conrad : No , there ' s not such a thing as a vote or a survey unless
I somebody feels that it' s essential that that happen. But on new
applications in Chanhassen on development , that would be highly unique. In
fact it never has been done.
IKathy Wendland : Yet some of them are so specific they automatically fit
into certain criteria . I noticed , as the gentleman brought up, these are
kind of subjective. Obviously they' re important . They' re placed number 1
I and they' re subjective but none of the community seems to have input on
this . It is subjective on your part and the part of the Council as well .
Is that basically what you' re telling us?
IConrad : I think on these terms , yes , it' s hard to put absolute values on
some of these. You' re right.
IKathy Wendland : It isn' t hard necessarily. What I 'm suggesting is
perhaps as a Planning Commission you need more community input, especially
concerning the number 1.
IMitch Weaver : Mr . Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Mitch
Weaver . As my wife spoke earlier, we' re considering moving into this
I community and after what I ' ve heard tonight , it really concerns me and for
the safety of my family. There was a handout that was given out tonight
and I would like to read a phrase of this handout . It says , once any ECK
member, and this comes from Twitchell ' s writings of Satsang Discourses ,
I
once any ECKist becomes a member of the Second Institution and beyond , he
can not ever resign from ECK. If such persons ever attempt to resign or
want to leave ECK for any purpose , they shall find it not easy to do .
I They will run into terrible problems . Now I would like you to very
carefully consider whether this kind of commitment in a church is
beneficial or detrimental to this community. Thank you .
IEmmings : You said you were interested in moving into the community and
now you' re not sure and that you ' re afraid for your family. I ' ve heard a
lot of comments like that and I just wonder , what specific fear you would
I have that would prevent you from moving into our community if this church
were here .
I
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 1, 1989 - Page 20
Mitch Weaver : I think the fear is that this church is an occult and it is
a cult and like the gentleman spoke earlier , this is a deviation from the
norm of our society. The members of this community who have children
going to schools here, I don' t feel want their children associating with
people who are an occult and being influenced by people in a cult. I did
make a proposal on a house last night and it concerns me deeply in light
of the new information that we' ve received tonight .
Emmings: So you think your children would be at risk in terms of their
contacts with members of this organization, is that it?
Mitch Weaver: Yes I do.
Janet Weaver : I 'm Janet Weaver . Regarding what Jay had spoken earlier
about, the expert on cults and occult. For the record, it should be known
that astral projection, the out of body experience does not limit the
person experiencing this to material and physical realms but they can
proceed beyond your homes . They can go into your homes . They can go into
other people' s property and this does definitely concern me and item
number 1 that it would be a violation of my comfort and my safety if
someone were astral projecting into my property.
Ross Cameron : Frankly I 'm surprised that I have to get up here and say
this. I have heard a lot of concerns tonight, I haven' t heard the concern
of freedom of speech one. I haven' t heard the concern of freedom of
religion. '
Public : Name and address?
Ross Cameron : 413 Santa Fe Trail . I ' ve been here all my life in the '
area. Ross Cameron. 413 Santa Fe Trail and I haven' t heard anybody say
anything about being concerned about having people ' s beliefs tromped on
etc. and I was wondering if anybody would like to feel if there' s any sort
of, what should I say, can anybody reflect on that a bit and hear that .
Leneda Rahe: My name is Leneda Rahe and I have lots of reflections on the
freedom on religion in this country. I deem it as a very positive part of
our existence here in America and it' s one of the reasons that makes us an
opportunist country and it ' s a beautiful freedom. However , I think that
religion needs to be redefined in this country and this is not an issue
for the city planning commission but he asked for my reflections . If you
redefine religion in terms of a criminal injustice, I can give you two
very specific examples of where the religious freedom in this country was
used to harm individuals. The Guyana tragedy started with Jim Jones and
it began subtley by just the one person , Jim Jones who was the god of this
head just like the Eckankar religion. They have a god and it ' s a mind
controlling . We' re looking at a dishonest thing where people can be
harmed okay. I don' t need to say how many died in Guyana . Secondly,
there's another example in the Bhagwan Rajneesh in Antelope, Oregon in
1985 which began with the purchase of property. This was not what our
forefathers of this country intended for the religious freedom of people
to mean that they could harm whomever they wanted in their congregation by
saying that they had a certain stipulation by which all the religious '
■
II Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 21
I
members of that group had to do. That to me is not religion.
IGloria Cox: Hello. I 'm Gloria Cox. I live at 6990 Shawnee Lane in
Chanhassen . My husband and I and family have resided here in Chanhassen
for 11 1/2 years . One of the hardest things to see is the family farm
1 leaving the City of Chanhassen . The big industrial areas coming out here.
People are moving out here from the cities . Chanhassen was built on
farmland and there' s a lot of history. The only thing is with the farmers
I leaving, I 'm sure they would be very disappointed not to see families and
children going on here in Chanhassen and use that property the best way to
have it fit and that is for a community center or for all the people in
I Chanhassen and the surrounding communities to enjoy it. From Waconia all
the way around.
Carol Watson : My name is Carol Watson and I live at 7131 Utica Lane. I 'm
I adjacent to the property. My big concern at this point is , it was a brief
few years ago that they were here. They were going to pay taxes . They
were going to have a publishing house. They were going to have some
II offices and that was what was going to be on that property. At that point
in time, they told us , I believe we were at the Dinner Theater for the
meetings , they told us they didn' t have churches . That people met in
small groups and centers and stuff and that they didn' t have anything they
I called a church and they certainly didn ' t have anything called a
sanctuary. In these brief few years , they now have a church that needs to
house 800 people and needs a caretaker on site . It has 290 some parking
II spaces and if that can happen in the brief years since they owned this
property, I 'm concerned about what can occur in the next few years .
Dan Mahady: Good evening. My name is Dan Mahady and I live at 1020 Butte
directly across the street from the entrance to the Eckankar proposed
church. I just moved in in October and this is my first home. I ' ve been
very excited about moving in the community and so on. I had no idea about
I who owned that land over there until I saw it in the Villager paper here a
few weeks ago. It was my impression that it was probably going to be for
residential area and as everybody here is concerned for their families and
I so on, which I was very happy to be proud of. When I first found this
out , needless to say I was quite shocked and I 'd just like to go on record
as saying that I am definitely opposed to the church being located on that
I property as I think the majority here have spoken here tonight .
Rosie Peitz: My name is Rosie Peitz and I ' ve lived here, I 'm a mother of
6 children . We' ve lived in Chanhassen 25 years . We love this city. It' s
1 our home and I just feel that each of you on the commission really should
examine your consciences . This is a moral issue. We do not want Eckankar
to come in Chanhassen. We do not need it. We do not want it and I can' t
I understand why they would even want to be here knowing we don ' t want them
and we never will want them. I have a deep concern for my family and all
my friends in the city of Chanhassen .
IIJan Lash: My name is Jan Lash. I live at 6850 Utica Lane. I briefly
made notes of the zoning ordinances when Mr . Hanson was reading them and I
guess I would go along with other people in questioning 1, 4 , 6 and 11. I
IIyou figure that out , that ' s 4 out of the 12 ordinances that people have
ll
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 1, 1989 - Page 22
grave doubts about . I think that should be a significant thought in your
mind and I guess I would agree that if this property is taken off of the
tax rolls, which I think it probably already has been , I would rather see
it benefit our community and I don' t feel this church would benefit our
community because it has no members . The numbers that were read tonight
of having 290 centers in 92 different countries , it' s probably not fair on
my part to average this out but that would be roughly 3 centers per
country and we already have one in Minneapolis. I guess I don ' t
understand why they need another one here. I guess if they can leave
their body, I don' t know why they have to have their church out here to
start with . They could have it anywhere they want .
Pat Albrecht: My name is Pat Albrecht. I live on 6951 Tecumseh Lane. It
seems to me things are kind of backwards in that the zoning ordinance
seemed to be ruling what the community does rather than the community
making the rules for what they want . I don' t think, as she said , I don ' t
think anyone does want Eckankar . It seems that they backed out last time
because they weren ' t wanted and they' re still not wanted .
Jean Burke: My name is Jean Burke and I live at 225 West 77th Street. It
seems that there is some confusion in your minds as to how we' re concerned
about our children but as I 'm driving to beautiful Lake Ann and my
children ask what the pyramid in the sky is , I am going to have to build
an invisible wall to protect them from what I feel is harmful to them
spiritually. This is a moral issue in that my spiritual growth is
affected. My emotional growth is harmed. This emotionally upsets me.
Physically, I 'm fine . Emotionally, I 'm shattered to think that my
community would welcome something that is going to be a barrier for my
children . I will have to tell them on the way to Lake Ann that this is a
piece of property that we don't play on. We don' t go near. If we' re
invited , we say no . It is evil . It is wrong . This is not a facility I
want in my community, especially adjacent to a property that I think is
the highlight of this area . The pyramid is not invisible. It is a sign
of an organization that is supporting beliefs different from my
Judeo-Christian background . I moved here 5 years ago and was thrilled to
see the cross on the main street of the old Catholic church in Chanhassen
and this is still my background and I am still proud of the cross and not
proud of the pyramid.
Dawn Opitz: My name is Dawn Opitz. I live at 870 Nez Perce Court in '
Chanhassen. I guess I 'd also just want to reiterate, I heard this
gentleman say several times about the fact that this priest can marry
people and for anybody that doesn' t know this , it is very easy to be able
to receive the requirements to marry a person . That' s nothing noble. I
think that so far that' s the only service that I ' ve heard offered to us.
I just want to say, just so we remember when we leave this room tonight ,
to not forget what, you know, not the heat of the moment but just not
forget, don ' t be deceived by what these people are trying to do . They
aren' t here to serve us . They have no interest in us whatsoever. They' re
only selfish . They have nothing to offer us . They' re not here offering
us anything right now either. I just want to say, just remember tonight
and if they do, if they do get in here , continue to remember what they
stand for . I guess just be a greater influence yourself on Chanhassen . I
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 23
I
I Mark Johnson : My name is Mark Johnson. I come by myself. Unrepresented
by any group or anything else. I live at 504 West 76th Street and the
father of 4 young children . I think there ' s been a lot of concern
expressed by young families here this evening. I don ' t believe that this
I group meets the requirements of the ordinance , and I think ordinance
number 1 specifically. With the concern of the young parents, I would
like the Planning Commission to consider that with this amount of
I discontent from young families , we will move. That will have a profound
impact on the public school system in this district . Then maybe the
church would like to move into the space that ' s left in the open schools .
IBobby Kiessard : My name is Bobby Kiessard . I live at 7604 South Shore
Drive. I have small children. I 'm able to keep them under my wing right
now. My concern i.s , if these people get in , when my children are
I teenagers and teenagers have enough problems , enough to deal with but if
my kids have to deal with that malarky when they' re teenagers , I 'm moving
out as well . It scares me .
IDave Rahe : My name is Dave Rahe , 1021 Carver Beach Road . I guess I just
had a question that came to mind in regard to the 20 office spaces that
are supposedly going to establish this church . They have a membership of
Iabout 400 and probably 100 people possibly maybe attending . I guess I
would like a little bit more of a definition as to why a church of that
size needs 20 offices. My fear is that after they' re in, perhaps a year ,
I perhaps 2 years , they may start suddenly moving in their printing presses .
Their other manufacturing goods and I guess if this were to come to pass ,
that they do move in, are we going to monitor them because as a Chanhassen
I citizen and knowing the background that I know about them, I certainly
don' t trust them per se for face value . It seems a lot that they need 20
offices .
I Conrad : A couple comments . Steve, if they did expand , they would have to
come back for a conditional use?
IHanson : That ' s correct .
Emmings : Or if they changed the nature of the use .
IConrad: Or if they changed the nature of the use they'd have to come back
in so technically they couldn' t expand unless they came back through the
process . Mr. Hoffman, there were 20 offices that the gentleman said were
I in the building . What are they to be used for or could you clarify that
for us?
I Robert Hoffman : Mr . Chairman , I said there would be 20 office workers ,
not 20 offices. I 'm not too sure of the number of offices . i think
there ' s 4 or 5 offices . Those will be both full time and part time.
I Conrad: So I understand that you have no definition as to what these
offices will or may be doing?
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 1, 1989 - Page 24
Robert Hoffman : I think if you' re familiar with most churches , they have
a staff. The staff varies in size and they' ll be administering the church
facilities and the church services that they have in the church .
Dave Rahe: We presently attend a church that has approximately 2, 300
members staffed by approximately less than 10 people. I don' t know how
big a staff your church has but it' s a pretty big question in my mind why
a church of that size would need 20 offices or rather 20 employees as
officers in that size of church . It' s a big question mark and I don' t
think that' s addressed appropriately here, or hasn ' t been answered anyway.
Thank you.
Rosie Peitz: I talked before and I know I forgot to give you my address . ,
It' s 7607 Kiowa and I 'm not with any group or anything either . I just
came on my own and I just happened to think of some thing . Somebody
mentioned teenagers before and I remember when they were here before at
the Dinner Theater 3 years ago. Someone had asked them if they go
soliciting door to door and they said no, they don' t. What they do is
they go to the schools and reach the different schools and colleges and so
on. I also have teenagers . I have children ages 27 down to 10 and that
really bothers me. I just want to say, couldn' t we, this is a big load
for the Planning Commission to have, to make the decision whether to have
the whole city of Chanhassen , what shall I say, anyway. I can ' t think '
right now but anyway, couldn' t this be brought to a vote through the City?
I feel all the people in Chanhassen need to have a vote on this since it
is a big moral issue and does relate to all of us and our children. I
guess I would like to see that brought to a vote .
Conrad: Maybe we can ask our City Attorney for comment on a vote issue.
Rosie Peitz: It ' s not just a few here. It ' s the whole city that will be
involved.
Dave Grannis : Mr . Chairman and members of the audience. A vote on an
issue like this is not legally appropriate. There' s no provision in the
law that would allow the City Council to hold a special election to
consider an issue like this, either for or against. The City Council and
the Planning Commission hold a public hearing . That ' s where we are right
now. The purpose of that hearing is to let people air their views and
state their position. Beyond that , the Council could , if they want , or
the Planning Commission do some additional surveys informally. Mailings
or whatever . That ' s kind of an optional thing with the Planning
Commission and the Council .
Rosie Peitz : I think the rest of the people of Chanhassen should know
exactly what' s going on. I think they have a right to know and a right to
vote on i.t .
Leneda Rahe : I 'd like to ask a question of the Attorney. I know of a
specific case with Art Owens and his being sued because of mental anguish
that he supposedly caused to many people . Who would be prepared to meet
the lawsuits against the City or whomever when the mental anguish starts
to begin in this City? Who would be liable for that?
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 25
I
I Dave Grannis : If the City is sued because of an action that they take
regarding to a matter relating to their zoning or something similar to
that. . .
I Leneda Rahe : Going against stipulation number 1, the requirements is our
comfort and our health .
I Dave Grannis : The City has insurance to cover that okay. Their insurance
company would defend on behalf of the City. It becomes just like any
other civil lawsuit and somebody would have to prove that the City did
something in an improper or illegal manner .
IAlan Peterson: My name is Alan Peterson. I live at 6697 Countryside
Drive in Eden Prairie. We are a property owner , or plan to be building in
I Chanhassen . I think you' ve already put us through mental anguish since
we've kept him up an hour and a half past his bedtime and I 've been
sitting back there just kind of fuming and fuming and fuming and watched
II some of the members of the Planning Commission watching attentively and
others seem to be sort of bored . The reason I 'm here is my wife was in
the back saying are they listening to you or are they listening to us? My
hope is that you are listening to the people and that you are listening to
I the young families and you listen to Mark Johnson who said there are young
families who are considering building or moving in and we will move. I
will sell my lot and I will move to a community that has moral standards
I to keep things like this out of the area and I hope that you listen to us
as members of the community and not listen to a battery of lawyers .
I Craig Thornberg : My name is Craig Thornberg and I live at 10765 Bush Lake
Road Circle in Bloomington. I just have one thing to mention to the board
here is that under the First Amendment we have the freedom of speech .
That means legally we have a great amount of power in our opinion. The
I public opinion being expressed has legal ground and I would ask you to
consider public opinion as a very strong legal ground which would have,
what would I say, would have much to do with what you would make your
Idecisions on and I 'm hoping that you ' re considering that. Thank you .
Resident from Audience : . . .not a legal issue and when the proposal was
first presented, the recommendation was to accept it. Last summer as
I I recall , the Senate was undergoing some hearings on a man named Robert . . .
His qualifications were impecable. Nobody found fault with that but he
was denied a place on the Supreme Court over a moral issue . I really ask
I you to consider your consciences and the opinions that you' ve heard
tonight . We' ve tried the best we can to express our feelings . . .
IIEmmings moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
I Erhart: Is there anybody here representing the Eckankar group who is a
member of Eckankar? That ' s a little amazing to me. It really perks my
interest in this and I haven' t heard anything about this group before
IItoday. What I 'm trying to assess in my mind is the rights of the property
II
Planning Commission Meeting ,
March 1, 1989 - Page 26
owner versus all the standards that we' ve listed several times this
evening and trying to judge whether the property owner here in their
proposal , how it relates to the standards that we' re to judge this
proposal and to use that in making recommendations to the City Council . I
have a number of questions in my mind relating to a number of these
standards, and I have quite a list of questions here, that I personally
don ' t think can be answered by anybody but a member of this church who' s
an acting leader in the church. Without that person being here, I don' t
even know that it' s worth proceeding with any conclusions . I look around
and it' s obvious this group has a lot of experience in fighting residents
because I 've never quite seen an entourage like this. I don' t even think
I saw it with Bush' s trip to China. Secondly, since my experience has
been on here , we' ve had a couple churches come in with proposals for
church buildings and if I was the architect I would wonder if I was
getting paid so I really, just from the overall affect , that the
consultants have portrayed here tonight and I know what it says intent is
but the reaction that I have to it is that we' re getting a snow job. Let
me go on, let me deal with some questions that I have on the specific site
plan itself and then I ' ll go back and see if we can make any headway.
Steve, you had a number of agencies that you requested information from
that you had no response . Normally we do get response from the Soil
Conservation and Watershed District. Do we have that now or don' t we have
that? I
Hanson: No . We did not get a response from either of those .
Erhart: Normally do we have that when we review?
Hanson : Normally if they have comments they respond , yes .
Erhart: Otherwise, if they don' t have and they don' t respond? So you
don ' t expect any comments from them? And you' re satisfied with that?
Hanson: That' s what we normally do with an application.
Erhart : Gary Warren' s recommendation on the location of the 8
inch, I understood from the applicant that he' s agreed the 8 inch trunk.
Has the location been satisfied?
Hanson: I believe the specific location, I don ' t know that the exact
location has been tied down which normally we would do that with final
construction plans .
Erhart : Do you feel that that should be one of the items in our list of '
conditions? There' s a number of things here that are not listed in our
conditions that have been recommendations by Gary Warren and I 'm just
wondering if we should be including them.
Hanson : All of his should have been included .
Erhart: It doesn' t say 8 inch. Also, on page 4 of Gary' s recommendations
there ' s the concrete barrier curbing included on the entrance roadway. I
don' t see that in there and it hasn' t been answered I don' t believe. I 'm
■
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 27
I
not too sure, is he recommending concrete barrier all the way in from CR
I17 into the site?
Hanson : Yes , according to that memo he is .
I Erhart: Then I suggest we add that to the conditions. Also, number 8,
the applicant address the nutrient loading impacts to Riley Lake. Has
that been answered? Is there a reason why 7, 8 and 9 aren ' t listed?
IHanson: I suspect what happened is when this was typed up, those were
left off because they' re all on that separate page. The intent was that
Iall of the conditions of engineering would have been added to that memo.
Erhart: As such then, the applicant hasn' t responded to those four items.
IHanson : I believe they did not .
Erhart : Do we normally ask for easements when people apply for
Iconditional use permits or is that normally associated with subdivisions?
Hanson : Normally with a subdivision.
I Erhart: So in this case you don ' t feel that it ' s appropriate to look at
trail easements or street easements? There ' s no money given?
IHanson: The process that we do that through is with the subdivision.
Erhart : Alright , so anyway I think there ' s a few more things there that
I probably need to be answered. One of the things that I 'd like to see
during this , the building and site plan , that we add a requirement that no
outdoor speaker systems be allowed. I think we' ve already had trouble in
our city. If Jim was here, I think he could tell us about last summer we
U had one of our local businesses decided to go outdoors with their
activities and from listening to this business , it doesn ' t sound like
that' s out of the question so I 'd like to see that as a condition. Did we
Imove the handicapped parking area as requested by the Public Safety?
Hanson: I don' t know. The plans that I have not had those moved .
IErhart : Are we going to request that?
Hanson: I think you can add that if you 'd like. We looked at it as where
I there are handicapped spaces shown and where the other parking is , the
distance that' s achieved either way, it ' s kind of a draw.
I Erhart : Okay, I ' ll leave that one to you . If you feel that it ' s a moot
issue and then I don' t care one way or the other either . We did add the
fire hydrant? I 'm looking at, on the fourth page in your comments from
I the building inspector and the fire inspector , they were asking for an
additional fire hydrant . Has that been added?
Hanson: I believe in their presentation they agreed to do the conditions
1 of the Fire Inspector .
I
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 1, 1989 - Page 28
Erhart : Okay, and also include the fire alarm system?
Hanson: Yes .
Erhart : Maybe you can tell me, can you describe the New Hope facility to
me?
Robert Hoffman: The New Hope facility would compare to an office/tech
center that you might have in one of your office parks. It' s a single
story combination office/warehouse type of building .
Erhart: What goes on in there?
Robert Hoffman : The publication, production , the audio visual production ,
their computer systems for their worldwide members, their mailing
services , their offices , international offices . If you went inside of it ,
which you' re invited to do, it looks like an office.
Erhart : How many people are employed there?
Robert Hoffman: Do you remember Peter? About 40? About 40 to 50.
Erhart : They own the facility?
Robert Hoffman: Yes .
Erhart : It' s in an industrial park?
Robert Hoffman: It ' s in an industrial park across the street from ,
residential . Immediately facing the residential .
Erhart : Is it unique , like a church or is it . . .
Robert Hoffman: You mean the building?
Erhart : Yes . Or does it fit in with the asethetics and the setting of
other industrial park buildings?
Robert Hoffman: Yes , it would be similar , I have to describe it as an
office/tech type of building.
Erhart : So if Eckankar decided to move out of that building , it would be
fairly easy to sell to another industrial or office user in the park?
Robert Hoffman: I would assume so if there' s a market there. It ' s not an
unusual office/tech building.
Erhart : So it would be a likely place to go if you were looking for a
temporary international headquarters? '
Robert Hoffman : That ' s your conclusion I guess .
r
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 29
1
Erhart : I guess I 'm concerned about the services provided to the
I organization. I guess one of the questions that I wanted to ask some of
the members was the history of the organization and also I wanted to ask,
has anybody Steve, on the staff, done some research as to what experiences
other cities have had with Eckankar facilities?
IHanson: No. We treat them as any other church that comes in.
I Robert Hoffman : If I may respond to that . Your Public Safety Department
in 1985, according to a memo of the City made, as they called it, an
investigation of Eckankar ' s activities in Menlo Park, California which was
then their headquarters and that' s a memorandum of a couple pages which
I I 'm sure you have in your record . The conclusion of that investigation by
your Public Safety Department was as follows, governmental agencies and
private firms in the vicinity of Eckankar ' s existing facility highly
I recommend Eckankar as a supportive member of the community and they had
been there for about 12 years . I believe there is a quote, I think by the
City Manager of New Hope in the Sailor , which I just read today, that
I basically said they've been there for 3 years and we don' t even know
they' re there. There' re a good neighbor . Now we have a series of letters
from different cities where Eckankar has had seminars that are highly
complimentary but I don' t know if you' re interested in those or not .
IHartford , Conneticut and Idaho and a number of others .
Erhart: There is a facility in St. Paul as well?
IRobert Hoffman : Yes . It was in St . Paul . Now it' s in Minneapolis . It' s
been here since 1973 and you' re welcome to talk to anyone in the
neighborhood .
IErhart : And that ' s in addition to the facilities in New Hope?
IRobert Hoffman: Yes , that' s correct .
Erhart : What goes on in the facilities in Minneapolis?
IRobert Hoffman: It' s their spiritual center again. They hold meetings
and readings and study groups .
Erhart: And where is that located?
Robert Hoffman : The address is , I guess I don' t have that . Do you have
Ithat? Oh, it is 2526 25th Street S .E . , Minneapolis .
Erhart : Is that a residential neighborhood?
Robert Hoffman: I 'm going to say yes .
Erhart : That ' s by the University of Minnesota isn ' t it?
IRobert Hoffman: Yes. Prior to that they were at 8807 S.E. 4th Street .
They were there from 1975 to 1986 and they' ve been in this present
1 location since 1986.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 30
1
Erhart : Where do people go if you wanted to become a student of Eckankar
and I assume they have some kind of school , where do you go?
Robert Hoffman: It' s a study group.
Erhart : These are the kinds of questions that I just can ' t get answered .
I guess what I 'd like to see is someone from Eckankar. I 'm trying to
understand . The question in my mind is, what is the long term intent of
this facility here?
Robert Hoffman: Of the church?
Erhart: Of the church, yes .
Robert Hoffman: To use it as a church .
Erhart: Yes, I understand that but in my short experience on the Planning
Commission, I 've seen people come in with proposals and they get approvals
and as soon as they get the approval and then they come in a little bit
later when they get the first block laid and then geez whiz, now I have a
little better idea and now we want to do something different and I think
one of the things we owe to the Council is to pass onto them some research
as to long term intent and what are the possibilities. A proposal from a
structure standpoint looks real neat today but I assume that in the
structural there' s some, you' ve taken into consideration abilities to add
onto this building .
Robert Hoffman: Not as it' s designed .
Erhart: Is there anyway to add onto the building?
Robert Hoffman: Mr . Krank is here. I believe the answer is no . I '
supposed you can add onto any building but architecturally it' s not
designed to be added onto . Is that correct Mr . Krank?
Ron Krank: Anything is possible but the design has not been programmed to
add onto .
Erhart : Okay. I guess without understanding the pattern and the '
objectives of the church specifically, it' s hard for me to determine what
the intent is of this 174 acres . I guess that ' s the issue and these are
some of the more benign questions that I have relating to what is
Eckankar .
Robert Hoffman: I ' ll answer your last one . First of all , the church has
no intention of expanding the church facilities as such and have not been
designed for expansion. Secondly, if there would be any additions to the
property, I think your City Planner and your City Attorney would advise
you that it would have to be in accordance with your ordinances . So
presumably the balance of the property could be developed for single
family housing under your ordinances without a conditional use and without
a rezoning . If any other use was proposed that was inconsistent with your
I
I
1 Planning h 1ission Page Meeting
I Marc , 1989 Comm -
ordinance , you'd have to change your ordinance. I will tell you that
I Eckankar will only develop the property in accordance with your
ordinances . Whatever they are today or next year or 20 years from now or
40 years from now.
I Erhart : I think from the responses or the comments by Carol Watson, and
again I don' t expect you to answer questions on where and what the
objectives of this church is . In fact , I discount your answers
I substantially but I just might want to point out that Carol Watson
indicated her experience on the Council in 1985 and what the goals were
then is not in line with what the goals that you stated for the church.
Again , it concerns me a little bit what' s happening to this property and I
I
guess I 'd like to have, what I 'm getting to when I get down to the end
half an hour from now I suppose , I 'd like to have the opportunity to have
some church members in this room at a future Planning Commission meeting
I where we could get some more information on the background of the
organization.
I Robert Hoffman : If you'd want to better define background , if you' re
talking about the philosophy of religion, which we don' t think is a proper
subject by the way for this discussion. If that ' s your idea of
background, then they will not be here.
IErhart : The question I have is . . .
I Robert Hoffman : By the way, I 'm a Catholic and have been as a birth
Catholic. I ' ve got enough gray hair so I remember some of the comments
being made , also being made against Catholics not too many years ago .
IErhart: But I think the citizens of this community is owed an answer from
an official representative of the church as to if, have they ever
recruited members door to door?
IRobert Hoffman : The answer is no . I can tell you that.
I Erhart: I don' t think that you ' re an official representative of this
organization and I ' ve got a whole series of those questions relating to
the issue of safety and health. I 'm all for land owners rights but I also
believe that the citizens here deserve some answers from the leadership of
I
this church and not paid consultants . And it isn ' t worth getting into an
argument about , that ' s just my opinion and getting into it further will
probably just waste a lot of time.
IRobert Hoffman : If you wish to ask questions that relate to the
conditional use that the church members can answer , we' ll be pleased to
Ihave them answer them.
Erhart : The conditional use , I can spell out . It ' s been read three times
here tonight that one of the things we have to evaluate is, is it
I detrimental to the health , safety and comfort? You have someone ' s opinion
that says it' s not. Well , I ' ll get into that but let ' s take one thing at
a time. In the first place, I guess I 'd like to know what it takes to get
tto be verified as a church.
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 1, 1989 - Page 32
Robert Hoffman : Your ordinances spell it out very clearly.
Erhart: I think our ordinances refer to sanctioned as a church in the
State of Minnesota . It also says that they come, you guys handed out so
much paper here it will take me half an hour just to find the sheet I want
to find here. Steve, help me. Here it is . It says a church means a
building or edifice consecrated to religious worship where people join
together in some form of public worship under the direction of a person
who is authorized under the laws of Minnesota. I 'm not convinced that
this organization worships . Again, I don' t want to get into religion but
the ordinance says it worships and I guess I 'd like to understand how the
State of Minnesota goes through the process of determining if this is a
church. I have some questions about that and without having a member
representative here, I don' t think it' s worth getting into the kind of
questions. Plus, I guess I 'd like to hear what the process was for that
to determine if this is a church. So I 'm not convinced that it' s a
church. It certainly hasn' t come in here like any church that I ' ve ever
seen. Most of the money of the churches that I ' ve been involved with seem
to go to other things than building and consultants. No offense taken .
No offense meant . That ' s my number one question. I 'm not sure it ' s a
church. I 'm not saying I can' t be convinced that it' s a church. I think
with some further research . Secondly, I guess I came in here reading the
material and I wasn' t, either I missed it or it wasn' t provided, I did not
see the material from the research of 1985 in my packet . Maybe I missed
that on the memo part thing but I was not convinced that the health and
safety and comfort issue was worthwhile. I didn ' t think there was an
issue there but after listening to the public here, even I who is a
property owner here , probably respects property rights as much as anybody
in Chanhassen, has not been swayed in my mind, I 'm not convinced that
there isn ' t a concern to health, safety and comfort. I can empathize with
people living in the neighborhood with on a daily basis thinking about the
facilities there and what the objective of the facility is . We ' re over , I
think keeping in mind that our school is right across the street from this
facility is a second issue . So I think I 'm a little weak on that one but
I 'm not convinced without some more research that there ' s not an issue of
health and safety here. Going back to number 1, I guess my conclucion and
recommendation is that I guess I 'd like to see the City contact the
Attorney General ' s office because I think it' s a little bit out of our
experience and to see whether there is any history or get a determination
of what their opinion is regarding Eckankar being a church. I don' t know
when that determination was made or on what basis it was made. In
reviewing this again, I guess I 'd like to have that comment, or their
response to that Steve if anybody else thinks that ' s appropriate . Third ,
my bigger concern is that I think this organization with the proposed
facilities , one , not paying taxes and secondly, is that it has the
potential of requiring excess city services which is one of the standards
we weigh this proposal and I think it sounds from a couple of examples
given by representatives of the group, that in other locations it hasn' t
required excess services , I guess I 'd like to see our own investigation to
determine if excess city services had to be provided due to things, I can
imagine potential for disturbances due to students . If the real intent is
that students use this is a training facility or if parents get upset
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 33
I
because members of their family start attending or whatever . I guess I 'm
I not so much against what you' re saying but I guess I 'd like to hear it,
I 'd like to get some independent study of what other communities have
experienced in this matter because here' s a facility that' s not going to
pay any taxes and we certainly should be providing excess services .
I Fourth, if the thing is as quiet as they say they are, I suppose there' s
the potential that property values will not devaluate. On the other hand ,
when I come into this meeting and I see television cameras from 3 studios ,
I I question whether this group, with the purposes that it has , can be quiet
and I believe that negative attention will mean negative property
evaluations . I think the potential exists with the media to turn,
seriously a comment was used here tonight that was one that I came to this
I
afternoon. If there was a lot of negative publicity, we could be
converted from the City of the Dinner Theater to the City of Eckankar and
I know we used the word cults , since they seem to claim it as part of
I their creed and if that happens, there' s no question that property values
will devaluate . A number of people have stated that here tonight and the
question, I guess the thing that really sets in my mind is Mr. Leirness ,
I to draw your conclusions by going and looking at the property without
doing a study of what people had to say in the surrounding property, and
it ' s in an industrial site , not a residential . It ' s in a major city as
opposed to a city with the population of 8, 000. I think there' s a lot of
I factors there that were overlooked . My recommendation is that we get our
own appraiser and have them come in with a professional appraisal paid by
the City of Chanhassen and see what his assessment would be on this
I matter . Lastly, number 5, I tend to view, given what I ' ve seen here and
not what was said but what I ' ve seen is that the business , or the
applicant, if not actually a business, operates more like a business than
I a church. I believe, since I operate a business , businesses need to grow.
Staff more people. Bring in more customers and so forth and I think if we
go into this with Eckankar , I think we ought to have open eyes at least to
know whether it' s a business, a church, if it ' s a pseudo-business church .
I A clear understanding of what it is we' re dealing with here because I
think if it was a church serving this area , I don ' t know why it picked
here so I still think it' s a business but I ' ll be open and try to get more
I information on this. I heard some things discussed here, I guess what I 'd
like to see , this is the second time the City and staff and other
commission members and citizens have come up on here on this idea, I 'd
like to see the City consider buying this property. I think we need space
I for future schools . We' re talking about putting a community center in the
middle of our playground . That tells me we need some space here that
people can use. We had a meeting Monday night where it was stated we
I don ' t have enough park space . We have to throw out some softball players
that have been here for years and lastly, I think out of 174 acres , my
concern is that as an entity, they can continue sitting on the whole space
I or using it for classified religious reasons which means there wouldn' t be
any taxes paid on it at all . My feeling is , even if we had to pay 5
million dollars , somehow we are creative enough with our downtown to get
this stuff to pay back. If you look at this property and buy it at some
I kind of money that would be in line with the valuation or the proponents
valuation and try to come up with a way that the tax money would pay it
back and I think we ought to take the time to look at that. So my
Irecommendation is , I guess what I 'm precluding is that my recommendation
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 1, 1989 - Page 34
is, I 'd like to see this thing tabled until we can get some
representatives of the church in here or members and to look at some other
options . To get an appraiser to look at the valuation situation and get
some more of these questions answered in my mind.
Emmings : I 'm going to start at the bottom and then work my way to the top
here. As a bottom line, I think that this proposal should be approved.
Now, I ' ll go back and obviously I 'm not going to set off the applause
meter . It' s fairly easy to see what you have to say to do it but in that
regard , I 'd like to say that the one gentleman who got up and spoke about
Constitutional rights and First Amendment rights and rights of association
and freedom of religion had a lot of guts because he knew the crowd and
we've got to respect him for that. I also respect the concerns of the
other people that were raised here. I have no doubt in my mind that
everybody' s expressing genuine concerns. Genuine fears of something that
is real poorly known. I think it is disappointing that they won ' t come
and talk to us about their religion since it's of interest to so many
people that live here but I don' t think they have any requirement to do
that. If they don' t want to, that' s their choice. I noticed in the
morning paper , someone made the comment that this proposal is going to
tear our community apart and I think that rather overstates the case.
Maybe it' s just going to tear the Planning Commission apart since I have
to sit next to Tim but, anyway, in a way the Planning Commission operates ,
we don' t really make any decisions so if the people go with me, you can
feel comfortable about that. We make recommendations to the City Council
and they lots of times look at us like we' re crazy and go the opposite
direction and that ' s the way the system is supposed to work and that' s
fine. But someone did get up and make a comment that I 'd like to address
as kind of a side issue first of all . They said it seems like the zoning
ordinance is ruling the community rather than the community ruling the
ordinance , or setting the rules and I don' t think you' ve got that right .
Ladd ' s been here longer than anybody, he' s older than any of us , and I ' ve
been here second longest and we' ve been through the Comprehensive Plan a
couple of times and very frankly, the zoning ordinance implements the
Comprehensive Plan and then we apply the zoning ordinance. Right now
we' re in a position where we have to apply that zoning ordinance to the
specific proposal that ' s in front of us and if we do that in a very honest
way, there's no way we can do anything but approve this. Not a lot of
people have said this is a moral issue but the fact is that what we' re
charged to do, it's strictly an application of the Zoning Ordinance to the
application in front of us . Now you may not like that and you' re shaking
your head no out there but that is what we' re charged to do and that' s
what I think we have to do. Now, when we establish a comprehensive plan ,
we hold public hearings all the way through to decide where the future,
what is the future of this city and I can tell you that I ' ve sat here
through many meetings where there was not one person from the public in
those chairs out there to give us feedback as to where the public wants to
see the city go. All of those meetings are advertised in the paper and
you all have an opportunity to be here and if you have any complaints
about the comprehensive plan or the zoning ordinance in terms of not being
responsive to where the people of the city think the city should be going
in you have no one to blame but yourselves . We really want people to come
and give us feedback but the feedback of the nature that you ' re giving us
■
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 35
I
now is too late because there are things in place that have to be
I implemented. I didn ' t make comments when you spoke and I appreciate the
chance to heard . Now it' s my turn. As to specifics, I really disagree
with Tim that it should be tabled. I think it should be moved up to the
City Council . I think that we should take, I know that the view that I 'm
I taking of what our job is is a narrow view but I think it should be moved
up to the City Council because they' re the people who are responsive to
the public directly because you directly elect those people and all of the
I things that you' ve said will be presented to them verbatim. There will be
a verbatim transcript of this and they' ll have all of that in front of
them. I too, Mr. Hoffman eluded to the fact, I grew up in a town that was
I a small town that was half Catholic and half Protestant and there was two
of everything and everybody knew who everybody else was and I thought it
stunk. I really hated it. I hope that we don' t evaluate families when
they move in to our city as to what their beliefs are before we let them
I buy a house . I hope we don' t evaluate churches as to what their beliefs
are before we let them build a church. I don' t think we want to build a
wall around Chanhassen . I think we' re stronger than that. I hope we' re
I not that weak. There are two sides to this thing. One is , what do we do
with the application in front of us . The other side is all the emotional
stuff. All the religious stuff. All the moral stuff. At this level , I
would advocate that we deal strictly with the job that we' ve been charged
I to do by the City Council and let them deal with the rest of it. For that
reason, I think it' s a rather simple and straight forward thing . I don' t
think there' s that much, substantially everything we heard tonight is
I irrelevant to that view. As far as the tax thing goes , we' re worried
about this thing. I think it would be a wonderful addition to the Lake
Ann Park and I wish that would happen . Again , we have to address the
I proposal in front of us . If the City wants to buy it, they'd better start
negotiating . Contact the City Council members . Contact the Mayor and
tell them that you think that ' s what they should do and see if they' ll
start negotiating with these people if they' re interested in selling it.
I That' s the only way that can be accomplished. As far as the tax goes, I
would imagine that the building of the church has nothing to do with this .
It ' s already owned by a tax exempt organization and therefore is off the
Itax rolls anyway. Is that right?
Hanson: Yes .
I Emmings : So the fact that of the building of the church isn ' t going to
change that. That already exists . We' ve got a whole bunch of things like
height of the building and other things where right now their set backs
I are just enormous and I take it that if they ever wanted to sell any part
off , whether it was part of it to the City for a park or sell the whole
thing . Well no, once the church is built , if they wanted to build other
I facilities on there or if they wanted to subdivide it for any purpose , all
of those setback requirements would then be taken into account in that
subdivision . Is that right?
1 Hanson: Yes .
I
■
1
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 1, 1989 - Page 36
1
Emmings : Those are essentially all my comments . The only other thing I 'd
like to mention is, this one fellow that researches religions got up and
said that this is an issue of a group wanting to come in who' s values
conflict with the Judeo-Christian values of this community and I want to
say, since other people have expressed themselves I feel obligated to
express myself on that. I don' t know much about Eckankar. I don' t think
any of us do. Maybe that' s intentional . Maybe it' s not. I don' t know
but I 'm not going to come to the conclusion that they conflict with my
values until I know more about them. I 'm not afraid of them. I don' t
care if my son goes to school with their kids . I have a young son here. I
would not move out of the community if they moved in. People have said
that they' re evil . That they' re wrong. We've heard Ku Klux Klan. We've
heard Nazis . There is just no foundation in fact for any of those
comments. It's just absurb to me so, I ' ve had my say and I didn' t get any
applause .
Ellson: I don' t think that there' s anyway that I can deny this 1
application because we only want Judeo-Christians in Chanhassen. I think
the more you want us to treat it special , to treat it morally, the more I
feel we have to treat it more equally as we treat all our other
applications . We could vote our heart and your heart and say no . It
could go to Council . They could vote it all based on this moral issue and
this organization has every right to contest the City Council approval , or
denial I should say. They can sue us . They can bring us into Court and
say they didn' t use the letter of the law to deny us from building here .
They used something outside that . They used something that America ' s not
even founded on. You' re not allowed to deny based on moral issues. It ' s
the law. We can not use that basis to say no , get out of town. What
I want however is more proof to be able to deny it . I want more than
opinion that you think it ' s going to devalue your property values.
They' ve come with as much proof as you can see to prove all the points
that it will not harm any of our conditions . What I 'm asking you to do,
either prior to City Council or in the interim, is to do some homework.
You all care. There' s no doubt about that but what I 'm asking for you,
it' s not the place of the City to try and build a case anti an applicant.
Again, they could sue us and say that we' re anti , we' re not treating them
fairly but I 'm asking you to do some homework. If you think it' s going to
depreciate property values, they' ve got a guy and a report and a study
that says it does nothing , go out and find proof that it does . I 'm asking
you to, for example, talk to some of these Minneapolis neighbors. Find
some facts on houses that were sold prior to them coming in town. After
them coming in town. See if you can prove that indeed the property value
did go down . There is some concrete legal proof to deny. Talk to
solicitations from neighbors . If they' re in 260 cities , then they' ve got
260 plus neighbors . You might be able to find people who said yes , it ' s
hurt our public health. Yes, it ' s hurt our comfort. I 'm asking you to
get some more proof than to ask us to deny it based on a moral issue. I
don' t have to tell the different ways that you can go about doing this
but I 'm basically saying , we can' t have the City going and bringing out
and putting together a case against an applicant. It goes against 1
everything that ' s suppose to be fair play. They come to us . We ' re
supposed to look at it like we look at everything else. We don' t ask CPT,
isn ' t 200 employees a little bit much. We were questioning that number of
■
I
II Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 37
I
employees . We don' t do that sort of thing on any other applicants . We
I can' t start questioning them and denying them because we think 20 is a
little too many office workers but I 'm saying , you know what the
conditions are. We' ve read them. Do some homework and bring some
concrete proof to the table and it' s real easy for the City Council to
I deny based on the fact that they can not meet these conditions. Like
Steve said, our basis is to look at the legalities . Are they meeting
them? Are they not? We can' t deny it based on moral issues. I 'd also
I suggest you look into this issue of church. They've already been
classified as church according to our definition but maybe we could
insinuate from the standpoint of some of their other facilities, this is a
really big property. It' s got a lot of land. Do some of their other 260
locations have the Bible Camps that we don ' t allow? The drug treatment
centers that we don' t allow. Day care centers . We could insinuate that
that possibly would be in a long range plan here , therefore it wouldn ' t go
I by our definition. There' s a lot more that we can do than just sit up
here and be worried about our children . We have to fight fire with fire.
They' re sitting here with proof that they meet everything and I want
I people to come forth with proof that they' re not going to do it and not
just opinion. I 'm asking you for a called action and I 'm saying I agree
with you. . . .or the Nazi party leaders but legally I can ' t do anything to
prevent that because this world or this Constitution or what have you is
I telling us we can ' t use that for a basis of denying something so I 'm
turning it back to you people. Prior to it getting to City Council , do a
lot more homework. You ' ve got somebody here , Jay I think it is , who has
I been studying this. He probably has some people' s name and knows all
these locations and you ' ve got some of it done already. They' ve got proof
that the neighbors say it' s fine. I want to see proof that the neighbors
say it isn ' t fine . That ' s what I 'm asking on the other side of the coin .
IAs of now, I think I 'd have to approve it . I can' t look at the conditions
and say they don' t meet them. I have to look at the conditions and say
yes , you do meet them but I 'm not the final approval . It ' s City Council .
I I 'm making an opinion. A lot of things change between then and now. A
lot of things happen quite a number of times on issues by the time it gets
there so I 'm asking you, just to be a little more prepared . I know that
I you' re concerned enough citizens . I don' t think that anyone wouldn' t want
to do everything in their power and I 'm telling you there is something
else you can do in your power to help the decision sway your way.
I Wildermuth: It ' s interesting to see so many people out on this emotional
issue tonight . I think we can count on a higher level of participation in
Chanhassen government as a result of it . One of the things that ' s very
I vexing about looking at an application like this and looking at our
ordinance is that one can' t construct a set of ordinances to keep one
church out and allow another church i.n . We' ve got a set of ordinances.
I We' ve got some zoning provisions . The property owner of record in this
case meets the intended use . Meets the zoning requirement . They have
scrupulously met the conditions for the building codes or ordinances as
they are presently codified . I have a concern about 20 employees in a
I church of 400 people on one hand. On the other hand, I guess it' s
probably none of my business . I don ' t think we have a basis on which to
deny this application. Denial would have to be based on moral judgments
Iand I don ' t think a governmental body can be in the business of making
■
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 1, 1989 - Page 38
moral judgments . They have to deal in facts . The facts are that a
conditional use permits appear to be satisfied. Our permit standards
appear to be satisfied . I will recommend approval . I guess there' s one
final editorial comment that I 'd like to make and that is, it' s very
troubling to see such high emotion toward a relatively unpopular church
group. The country was founded on freedom on speech and freedom of
religion. Pursue the religious beliefs that we have or that we may have.
I think the thrust of the emotion here tonight being to deny that. I
guess that ' s dismaying . That' s all I have.
Conrad: I have a few comments. A while back we did try to encourage a
different use for this property when we rezoned it from campus business to
some residential areas thinking that that would serve the needs of the
community and put maybe that area on the tax roll but as you see , even
with that, this is a use that if they meet the letter of the law, they can
receive. I have some questions of our attorney specifically. In the
conditional use permits, the different points . Number 1, we talk about
the word comfort and I don ' t know, I think the residents get concerned
with the general term. I sympathize with them but what does comfort mean?
Dave Grannis : It' s a very difficult question to answer . Comfort means a
lot of different things to a lot of different people but comfort might
relate to noise . You might have a comfort level with a certain noise or a
discomfort level . It might relate to odor . It might relate to different
kinds of activities . Traffic might affect comfort. I think you have to
look at the use of a particular piece of property to determine whether
it ' s comfort or discomfort . I hope that answers your question .
Conrad: I don' t know that you' re going to give me, obviously these folks
are not comfortable with what ' s going on. Obviously when you look to a
condition that they' re trying to meet, their opinion would be they' re not
comfortable and therefore Eckankar would not satisfy condition 1. In
terms of health, safety and welfare, what are we looking at in health,
safety and welfare?
Dave Grannis : I think health , again you can go back to environmental
kinds of health or you can go back to traffic kinds of things . That' s
health and safety. General welfare, the well being of the public may be
endangered by the particular use that they may put this property to .
Well , if they were manufacturing explosives , that might be a general
welfare, health, safety kind of an issue. You just have to kind of look
at the words, apply the facts and make your determination.
Conrad : Another condition, will not be disturbing to the existing
neighborhoods . What does disturbing mean?
Dave Grannis: Again, that ' s I guess one of those words that means
different things to different people. In a legal sense , I think if it
interferes with the enjoyment of one' s property, maybe it would be
disturbing to the individual or to the property owner . In this particular
case, I would think that you have to . . . if you wanted to go in that
direction, the activities of Eckankar may be disturbing to the surrounding
area. ,
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 39
I
I Conrad : So if Eckankar had a philosophy of outreach or door to door
solicitation, that might be disturbing?
Dave Granni.s : No . I think you' re getting , now you' re getting into the
I religious , moral kind of an issue and this is really a land use issue .
That kind of activity is controlled or can be controlled by other city
ordinances. Soliciting for example and I 'm sure that you've probably
Idealt with that from time to time in your community.
Conrad: Future expansion. They basically would have the right to, I
guess the issue of a non-taxpaying resident in Chanhassen bothers me a
I
little bit. I probably think we should be looking at property sizes for a
non-taxpaying entity. There are no limits right now so Eckankar certainly
has the ability to take up all the acres but I think in the future we may
I want to take a real serious look at how much property we want to take off
the tax roll .
IWildermuth: Something like maximum size for a tax exempt?
Emmings: Can you do it?
IConrad : I think we could .
Dave Grannis : My only comment is , I think maybe what you ' re suggesting is
I questionable. Whether or not it ' s legal but it' s certainly another issue
and maybe something that you would want to consider looking into .
I Conrad: In terms of Eckankar ' s impact on surrounding value, somebody
could present a case where there would be a negative impact value wise
which we would have to, if houses to the north depreciate based on some
expert ' s opinion , that might constitute an economic problem to the
Icommunity.
Wildermuth : But reason to withdraw the conditional use permit?
IEmmings: You can remember the case with all the airplanes in Minneapolis?
They just lost . All those homeowners .
I Conrad : Do we have the ability to restrict through ordinance an expansion
of a use? And I think a lot of the folks here, they' re not comfortable
with it coming in period but there ' s also another few comments saying ,
I gee, it's changed over 3 years from the time they were here before. Other
than the fact that they have to come back in and see us if they want to
expand, are there alternatives to restrict expansion that might be legal
to pursue?
Dave Granni.s : I think your alternative , first of all they would have to
come back and I think everybody acknowledges that, if they wanted to
I expand . Between now and that time, if your zoning ordinances change in
such a way, expansion may not be allowed. There' s nothing to prevent you
from doing those types of things but this conditional use, as long as they
meet the terms and conditions of a permit should it be granted, and they
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 1, 1989 - Page 40
operate within that , it' s perfectly legal to do.
Conrad: So it' s part of a permit? One, there' s no way to restrict future
expansion other than through a reapplication process? And future, in
terms of zoning, there might be but. . .
Erhart : It' s real simple. I 'm suggesting we just remove church from
allowed use. . .which is legal .
Ellson : After the fact?
Erhart: No. We can . . .
Wildermuth : It has to meet the definition of the church though in the
Code.
Erhart : Remove churches as an allowed use in a R-4 district as a '
conditional use. That would solve it.
Conrad : I think just to reinforce what Annette said , legally they have '
the right to do what they' re doing because they do meet our ordinances. I
think, maybe there are cases where the City' s hands are tied and you think
the City should go out and help. I think in some cases we can and City
Council , you can talk to the City Council and see what they feel might be
a course for you. But on the other hand, I think there are some points
that may be debateable and they are points that you have to follow up on ,
if they are debateable. I think the property value is one. I think our
city staff does not feel it ' s going to be a negative impact. If you do, I
think that' s something that you might pursue. I don' t know that the City
can go out and do that . You may want to talk to your councilmen to find
out. They might consider that. That might be one recourse. I think
that ' s something I 'd be concerned with. I too would like to know more.
I can treat this very clearly because I think they meet the letter of the
law. I agree with the folks here that you like to see who ' s moving into
the neighborhood and you get real nervous when you don' t know who they
are. Obviously they have different beliefs and they' re not like mine or
yours but it just makes you real nervous and then you think about your
kids and I think I know those concerns . It would be , and I don ' t know if
we can ever deal with them rationally, to tell you the truth. I 'm not
sure that that' s possible. It would be nice to know. I think there have
been some statements made. It would have been nice, in a different
setting than this to go through some of their beliefs . Obviously, the
people are not here for a reason and they didn ' t want to get into that
obviously. They feel quite comfort that legally they can get this
approved and I think they' re right. But the point is, you like to have
people moving into the community who you like and know and want to be
around and they' re not here tonight so that gives me a little bit of a
hollow feeling . We have developers coming into town and we say meet with
the residents and just talk to them. It ' s still not . . . for sure but at
least you can get some sense for what they' re doing and I 'd prefer to hear
some real absolute comments and some real evidence versus some emotional
comments because it ' s tough to react to emotional stuff because it doesn ' t
stand up anyplace. Real research does and I think it ' s persuasive to the
1 ,
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 41
I
City Council . I don' t know enough about Eckankar right now. Nothing ' s
I been provided. Three years ago I saw a lot of information and they
appeared to be very fine community citizens . That ' s what I saw 3 years
ago and I haven' t been persuaded one way or another tonight that they' re
not. I heard you . I heard the comments and I know you' re nervous and I 'm
I a little bit nervous too. I just don' t know what my kids are going to be
around but I didn' t hear something that I could hang on to . I would like
to know more about them. I don' t think that ' s an obligation on their
I part. I wished they would have preferred to do that. I wish they would
have been here or set up some forum for us to understand better. My
opinion is narrow in terms of what we can do at the Planning Commission
and it is to take a look at the 12 conditions and see how they apply. I
I
have some questions about some of them as I expressed but right now I
haven't heard anything so I ' ve got a choice to make either to table this
and have some of those things brought back or to pass it along to City
I Council in hopes that maybe the community or the residents who are real
interested in the issue , would do a little bit of work and maybe talk to
the City Council on this subject . I think we can do some things in the
I future that might regulate some of these things and maybe even regulate a
little bit about what Eckankar does . That ' s why I wanted to bring some of
those up. I 've made notes and we will take on some of those tasks to see
what we can do. As I said, we did try to switch it from a big property
I into residential because I think that ' s what the neighborhood wanted and I
think it' s what the community needs . We do have a big problem now in
Chanhassen if this goes through, is we don' t have enough residential space
I in higher density. We did program that for higher density because it' s
closer to downtown and closer to some main highways . I think what this
does, it takes it out of that residential use. I think Chanhassen and Don
I and the City Council have some, and we have to figure out where more land
is coming from because there is pressure to develop and I don' t think
everybody is going to move out because of Eckankar . I think there' s just
tremendous pressure to grow. Therefore, I can relate to the comments. I
I don' t think that I ' ve been persuaded right now to vote negatively. I
think I 'm concerned with several issues . I would hope that those issues
could be followed up by the residents . I think the biggest issue I have
I is property value. I do have a concern with some of the words in the
ordinance and I just really have, or in our conditions that we have to
satisfy. I 'm nervous about, I think the operation there could impact the
community. I think it could be negative to the community. Don ' t believe
I
it is but I don' t know. I just don' t know and I think because it ' s taking
a lot of our potentially taxable land away, I think we have to really know
and we may never be satisfied from a religious standpoint. We don ' t need
I converts . We don ' t have to say we believe in the religion but we have to
believe that they' re not going to negatively impact us . To me what ' s
negative is different from other people . And I don' t know if there' s any
I legal justification for what I 'm just saying but it' s something that
I just think when the City takes 174 acres , or whatever the number is , out
of use, we' ve got to be pretty convinced that it' s a good neighbor coming
in . So I have those comments but I 'm not sure that I can vote against it
I right now and I think my preference is to send it along to City Council .
Hopefully they read our comments . We' ve got the Mayor is here and other
councilmen are here and I think they' ll consider this. I think there' s
Ionly so much we can do on this issue and I think we can do some things in
Planning Commission Meeting ,
March 1, 1989 - Page 42
the future but it may not be satisfactory to you right now. So with those
comments, I would accept a motion.
Erhart : Can I make another comment?
Conrad: Sure. '
Erhart : It disturbs me a little bit . We' ve had over 560 names on a
petition come in here. We've had approximately 200 people come in and
take their evening on this issue . The people here I assume mostly are
citizens of Chanhassen. We've had myself, Steve and yourself indicate
that you' re uncomfortable with the information you have. You'd like more.
Annette has stated that the people here that came tonight owe us more
information . There ' s a sense that the City is incapable of responding to
the money that was spent for this presentation. I just think that' s
wrong . I think we owe our citizens more than that. I don ' t think we are
incapable. We spent last year, if I look at the City budget, $400, 000. 00
on consultants and I think we are capable of taking some time and hiring
our own consultants so that we get into a fair ballgame and we get this
information in front of us so either us or the City Council , and I don ' t
disagree that we should send it on but I think we ought to give a message
to the City Council and the staff that we think the City, given the
concern we have, and these are our citizens today. Eckankar is not .
They' re a landowner but they' re not citizens of Chanhassen . I think we
owe it to them to do our own independent study on this thing .
Conrad : What would you study? '
Erhart : I 'd study the appraisal situation. I 'd study their history on
other sites around the country and find out what kind of a neighbor they
are.
Conrad : In terms of? ,
Erhart : Excess services required . I already stated property values . As
I stated before, I think we ought to take the time to check with the
Attorney General ' s office to review what this is and to try to get a feel
of what is this? Is it a pseudo-church? Pseudo-business? Where is the
line drawn here? Where is there a line on this? We' ve seen it, anybody
who reads the newspapers has seen it' s becoming a hazy line what' s a
church and what 's a business these days with television. I won ' t say
anything further . I really think as a message to the Council is that we
ought to spend some time. I think it' s owed to these people on what ,
there ' s 174 acres and a lot of money involved here, if nothing to do with
the moral issues .
Conrad : If we hired a consultant to evaluate conditions 1, 4 , 6 and 11.
Is that within our . . . , an independent consultant reviewing?
Dave Grannis : Yes , it certainly is . I 'm not sure that this body has the
authority to hire an appraiser .
Conrad : We don ' t but we could make those recommendations .
I
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 43
I
Dave Grannis : You could make a recommendation to the Council to hire a
I real estate person. Do what other even additional investigation you deem
appropriate and the Council would have to decide what they want to do.
Conrad: I think that ' s not a bad idea. I think the question is , do we
I want to, again , we' ve got to forward it on so they can appropiate money or
not. Any other comments?
I Wildermuth: I don ' t know what that ' s going to solve though Ladd . Our
hired gun against their hired gun.
Conrad : That ' s alright .
IEllson : It' s the proof that we need . I was wondering , if we' re putting
together a case anti them, doesn' t that look a little shakey in the
I Court? We contacted 260 and we found one . I don ' t know if it ever got
sued or whatever that we would look like we have any ground to stand on.
It looks like the City was trying to keep people out so you hired people
to give you a report.
Dave Grannis : Not necessarily.
I Ellson : I mean I would love to be able to do that. I was just wondering
what it would look like. I 'm the one who said I want more proof. If we
can legally do it and a Judge would sit there and say that ' s fine . It was
I unbiased and I 'm all for it. My first instinct is you ' re hiring someone
to do a study and you' re hoping that it will show you what you want.
I Conrad: I think Jim, they may not find out anything but I think it ' s kind
of city tax dollars and I think the residents , there have been enough that
said, although a lot of them aren ' t from Chanhassen, I wish they were
helping pay for some of this but I think there ' s enough residents that
I said we' re concerned that they'd probably say spend some of our money to
do a little bit of research on this and persuade us that we' re not going
to have our property values aren' t going to go down . I think that ' s real
I valid. I think that' s real valid to use city money that way yet I don' t
make that decision . Is there a motion?
Emmings: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
I Conditional Use Permit #89-1 for Eckankar Church subject to plans and
descriptive packet stamped "Received January 23 , 1989" with the conditions
set forth in the staff report with the additional conditions identified by
I Tim from page 4, that' s number 7 , 8, 9 and 10 of Gary Warren' s report.
With the additional condition, again brought up by Tim that there would be
no outdoor speaker system connected with the construction. Then I don' t
I recall , I wrote down nutrient , assessment of the nutrient impact on Lake
Riley. Was that ever performed?
Erhart : That ' s one of Gary' s .
IEmmings : Okay, that ' s one of Gary' s so forget that one . That ' s my
motion.
I
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 1, 1989 - Page 44
1
Ellson : I ' ll second it.
Emmings : If I can discuss my own motion right off the bat . I agree that
the City Council should look at the issue of impact on property since it
was raised by as many people as it was that live right near by. To take a
look at that issue so they' re comfortable. That is a troublesome thing. I
didn ' t put it in my motion. I think it should go maybe as a separate
recommendation because I think maybe the scope of what Tim wants
investigated and the scope of what I 'd want looked into might be different
and maybe we could all express our own ideas about what the scope of any
further investigation might be and just pass that off as comments to the
City Council . That was my note on that.
Conrad : What do you think Tim?
Erhart: I think I already made my comments of what I think I 'd like to
have investigated. Perhaps the other members would like to expand on it.
Conrad : But in terms of the motion, by the procedure of voting on this
separately and then making a recommendation separately from the motion?
Erhart : Sure.
Conrad : Any other discussion?
Ellson: I think we already covered the property values . I don' t think we
should go through a lot of them. The other one that I suggested earlier
was the definition of church . Maybe this is the only one of the 259 out
there that doesn' t have a Bible Camp associated with it. By looking at
the land they' re buying , maybe they are thinking that down the road so I
think we should also be looking at how the other locations apply to our
definition of church. Long range. Short range. Things like that too as
well as the property value and comfort level and the other ones we've
already discussed .
Erhart : Ladd , in response to your question, what I would like to see the
sequence is to have, table the motion and have the study done. The other
way' s fine too . I ' ll just vote against it .
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #89-1 for Eckankar Church subject to
the plans and descriptive packet stamped "Received January 23 , 1989" with
the following conditions :
1. Add trees to the center landscape islands with parking lot.
2. Curb the parking lot edge where head in stalls are shown, and the
landscape islands at the end of the service drive.
3. Entrance sign is not to be illuminated .
4 . Lighting poles reduced to 15 ' - 18 ' in height .
■
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 45
I
I5. Roof material to have matte finish and not glare .
6. Exterior of building must not be illuminated .
I 7. The nose of the proposed island cannot extend into the right-of-way
of CSAH 17. The right-of-way line is 50 feet from the roadway
centerline . The County would prefer that the entrance design be
Isimilar to the design of the entrance on the east side of CSAH 17.
8 . A plan must be presented showing the proposed road grade and cross
section. The plan should identify the need for the large radius on
I the proposed entrance . It is the preference of the County to have
the radius less than 50 feet.
I 9. Turn lanes will be required on the entrance . The entrance
application should include the turn lane design details .
I 10. The applicant be required to submit construction plans and
specifications for the installation of the watermai.n and sanitary
sewer lines for approval by the City Engineer .
I 11. Runoff calculations be submitted to confirm that the pre-development
runoff rate criteria of the Watershed District and the City are being
complied with.
I12 . A drainage easement be dedicated to the City in accordance with the
attached legal description and sketch to accommodate storm water
runoff.
I13 . Necessary permits from the County and Watershed District are obtained
and complied with prior to construction.
I14 . A roadway cross-section shall be submitted for review along with the
skimmer detail plan as discussed in the EAW for the parking lot area .
I15. The applicant shall use Type III erosion control throughout the site .
16. Concrete barrier curbing be included on the entrance roadway and
Iparking perimeters .
17 . The applicant address the nutrient loading impacts to Riley Lake .
I18 . The applicant address the concerns of the County Engineer as
presented in the February 15, 1989 correspondence .
111 19 . The applicant cooperate with the City in the future siting of a
frontage road paralleling TH 5.
I20. There shall be no outside speaker system on the site .
All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a
Ivote of 4 to 1.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 1989 - Page 46
Erhart : For the record , I would like to see it tabled until we had
further information.
Conrad : And then maybe I ' ll start the process in terms of what , we also
recommend, we' ve got to make a motion so I can' t do it.
Emmings : Do we have to make a motion or can we just do it as . . .
Conrad: I ' ll preface it. We make a recommendation to the City Council .
Because we' re taking such a large parcel of land from Chanhassen and
putting it in a non-tax generating mode, that we feel it' s important to be
comfortable with several issues in regard to the Eckankar application.
That we'd like to have the City Council consider hiring an independent
consultant to review Eckankar ' s impact on property values , the additional
services that they may need, the status that Eckankar has as a church and
it ' s application to conditions 1, 4 , 6 and 11, our requirements for
conditional use permit. Anything else?
Emmings : I concur with that recommendation.
Conrad: Any contrary opinions? This item will go to City Council April
10th. Thank you for coming in. It ' s fun to see the chambers filled
occasionally even if it' s not always a pleasant thing we' re talking about
but I 'd invite you to stay on the issue and talk to your councilmen and
watch it as it goes through the City Council . Thank you for attending. '
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 15, 1989 as presented .
All voted in favor except Erhart who abstained and the motion carried .
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11: 30 p.m. .
Submitted by Steve Hanson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I