1o. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 24, 1989
IMayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
rSTAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd
Gerhardt, Jim
Chaffee and Roger Knutson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions to Council Presentations:
Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss Teton Lane; Councilwoman Dimler wanted to
discuss the SuperAmerica at TH 7 and TH 41, Mr. Havlik's concerns from the
visitor presentation last meeting and downtown beautification; Councilman
' Workman wanted to discuss the Lake Lucy Road parking permit issue; Mayor Chmiel
wanted to discuss the DNR and Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss Eurasian Water
Milfoil. Don Ashworth wanted the discuss condemnation proceedings for the
' Bongaard property under Adminstration Presentations. All voted in favor of the
agenda as amended and the motion carried.
IICONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda its pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Resolution #89-80: Accept Roadway Improvements in Riley Lake Meadows,
Richard Vogel.
b. Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition, George Nelson and Associates: Final Plat
Approval.
' c. Approval of Proposed Eagle Scout Project at Chanhassen Pond Park.
f. Resolution #89-81: Certification of Delinquent Utility Account.
h. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval to replat CHADDA Addition into 4 lots,
Northwest corner of Great Plains Blvd. and West 78th Street, Colonial
Square.
i. Ordinance amending Chapter 15 of the City Code relating to Official Map of
TH 101, Final Reading.
rj. Approval of Bills.
11[ All voted in favor and the motion carried.
qf
1
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 'r
B. LAKE RILEY WOODS 2ND ADDITION, GEORGE NELSON AND ASSOCIATES (2)AND SPECIFICATIONS. ) APPROVE _
Councilwoman Dimler: This is just a real short item. I brought up this concern
before and that is about this school bus situation on that road. Some of the
residents have a real concern about the children having to go out to 14 to catch
the bus and I know the future phase there, eventually that road is going to go
through but Gary, do you know is that land right-of-way or is that years down
the line?
Gary Warren: The connection of Foxboro on the east end is a part of the
County's current project that's under construction right now so that should be
completed this year. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but there's a cul-de-sac shown there.
Gary Warren: Right. There was a temporary cul-de-sac that was required by the
Council until such time as the County road project realignment was completed or
we had a time deadline in there but the County road plans and specifications do
include the completion of that connection to CR 17 on the east end. '
Councilwoman Dimler: So you think that will kind of happen concurrently or will
there be a large time lapse? '
Gary Warren: It should be done this construction season.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then the school bus will just go in and out? '
Gary Warren: I don't schedule the school buses but I would presume.. .
Councilwoman Dimler: But that would be the logical thing?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Councilman Workman: Gary, is that going to be another Teton Lane? Are we going
to be able to open that?
Gary Warren: It will be built to City standards and full section. It will be
open when their construction is done.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve plans and
specifications for Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition as presented. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
G. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR FILLING IN A PORTION OF A CLASS A WETLAND, '
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT.
Councilman Boyt: I talked to Jo Ann about this earlier today. I had some '
concerns and I guess the easiest way to focus the concerns is, since I drive
down TH 101 a couple times almost every day, I've spent a lot of time looking at
that marsh as it's been filled in by houses. A previous Council did that,
approved that quite some time ago is my understanding but what I'm concerned
2 1
11 ' City Council Mooting - July 24, 1989
about is that when we allow wetland alteration '
I perm�.ts, it's really because one,
no other choice. Two, I think we have a past record of trying to improve
I wetlands when we alter them rather than just alter them. This one doesn't, I
gather, lend itself to improving but I'm concerned that all of this is a fairly
small portion. What's to stop someone else from building their house on a Class
' A wetland and wanting to fill in so they have a back yard? It's the principle
that concerns me. This is a wetland alteration permit to fill in about 400
feet, not in length or anything but 400 square feet of a Class A wetland and I
don't think it should be approved as my understanding of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we have any discussion?
' Councilman Johnson: Didn't we go through this once before?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I think we did.
Councilman Boyt: We went through a variance request and we gave the variance
because the people certainly needed to be able to build their house there.
Building your house on the edge of a wetland and then having the City give you
' the opportunity to fill in that wetland for a back yard I think are two
different issues.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Is there any additional room on that property? If they wanted to
fill a portion, is that a full portion of the back yard you're saying?
' Councilman Boyt: Well they're asking for a fairly small.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes, put that up would you Jo Ann.
' Jo Ann Olsen: This is the edge of the wetland and this is what they're
proposing to fill. This small portion. The wetland is 6 acres attached to Lake
St. Joe. The question that they're recommending, they're proposing to fill has
already had some filling and is poor quality so they did not feel it was really
' detrimental or harmful to the wetland what they were proposing to fill. The
applicant has worked, in going through the variance, you can see that they've
tried to meet all the setbacks and keep it as far away from the wetland as
' possible. They designed a narrower house so they would not impact it as much.
The Planning Commission also brought out the concern was it really necessary?
What were we getting in return for allowing the wetland alteration permit and
' I guess it's really, the answer is we're just being reasonable I guess. They
worked closely with us to try to not alter it. We worked with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the DNR and the Corps and they did not feel that this was
harmful. It's such a very, very small portion of the wetland. I guess the
concern is what will we do for the next wetland...and differentiate between the
two. I feel confident that we can.
' Mayor Chmiel: Differentiating, as you just say Jo Ann, if another individual
came in and had a total of 6 acres as well, they wanted to fill in just a
portion. They accommodated their house to the particular site, what would be
your position on that?
Jo Ann Olsen: That would be almost the same case as this one. When we rAview
these, we use the standards of the ordinance and then we also look to see what
the existing conditions are and what we actually have on the site with the
3
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
proposal. This was not felt that this would be...to the wetland. I guess I
don't have a concrete explanation. I guess if they don't necessarily have to [11
have it, if you have the house, it could be denied and they could still have a
house there.
Councilman Workman: Jo Ann, you mentioned that that edge of the wetland was '
not, what? High quality?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's more like kind of a drainage area that has been in the past
been, there were some concrete pieces back in there. They were going to be
taking that out. Cleaning it up. Filling it and preserving the edge there.
When we visited the site with the Fish and Wildlife and we looked at that area,
he said yes you could definitely fill in and make the curve because right now it
kind of came out and that's where...
Councilwoman Dimler: Is it your feeling that filling it in would improve it? '
Jo Ann Olsen: I can't say that it's going to improve it. I don't feel it will
be detrimental though. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to say that I agree with Bill on the
Colonial Grove one. Every time I drive by there I just get angry that that was
allowed and I know that we both met on Easter Sunday with some neighbors there
that are getting all the runoff problems so I don't want to set a precedent by
filling in wetlands and allowing that to happen ever again. I think we've wised
up and we should. .. ,
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that whether it's 6 1/2 acres or a half an
acre makes no difference. That when people buy land next to a wetland, that's
what they're buying. There are restraints on that. To say that, if Jo Ann or
the DNR or anyone of those groups would say this isn't a wetland. What they're
filling in isn't a wetland, then I wouldn't have any problem with this at all.
But when they define it as a wetland and when they define it as a Class A
wetland which happens to be the highest class we have, then when we start
issuing alteration permits, I think we have to be very careful. Roger can
correct me but I don't think the Court's very sympathetic to saying well, you
know we want this one but we don't want that one. Roger?
Roger Knutson: I think you stormed it up. You have to treat similarly situated
people similarly and the hard part is making those differentiations. You have
to have good reasons for what you're doing but if you have them and you can
articulate than and distinguish one situation from another, you're okay but if
you can't articulate that distinction, someone else will try to lump them
together for you. Saying if you gave one you have to give the other.
Councilman Johnson: I think we need to approve the permit because without the
permit, they can't build a house either because it's also a variance of 75 foot
setback I believe.
Jo Ann Olsen: They got that.
Councilman Boyt: They had that.
4
' City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Jo Ann Olsen: Technically they do
y y need a wetland alteration permit for the
alteration within 200 feet of a Class A wetland.
Councilman Johnson: Which building a house is alteration so they have to have to build the house? Y ve
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. And I didn't separate the two.
Councilman Johnson: So there's two issues within this. Is to build the house,
one and to fill, two. I'd be for saying that approve it for building the house
and within the fill area, we'll approve it for removing concrete and cleaning up
the area of the wetland but not necessarily filling that area. In other words,
' if there's piles of concrete and stuff back there, I have no problem with them
going into the wetland and making those types of alterations for the wetland as
an improvement but not elimination of the wetland.
Mayor Chmiel: Not filling it' in?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I don't think you need a permit to go out and remove
concrete from a wetland.
Councilman Boyt: Well I have no trouble with the alteration so they can build
their house. That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? If the applicant is here, are Daryl and
' Debra Kirt here?
Councilman Johnson: I don't see them.
Councilman Workman: How much of the wetland we're coming back? You say about 6
feet they're going to fill Jo Ann?
' Jo Ann Olsen: 6 feet? This area right there.
Councilman Boyt: The area in red is basically what they're filling.
' Councilman Workman: And they basically just want that for a larger yard?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's just so they can flatten it out behind the yard and it
' doesn't go straight into the wetland. What they're doing is pushing back the
edge of the wetland so they're not right on top of it. What would happen is the
filling right now, their house will be right above the edge of the wetland here.
' We're just giving them some more area. They're not going to be, they're going
to be revegetating it with natural wild flowers and things like that. It's not
going to manicured lawn up to there.
Councilman Workman: Jo Ann, where does the DNR and Fish and Wildlife Service
get off on this where we're not?
Councilman Boyt: We have a more stringent code than they do.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Fish and Wildlife doesn't have any jurisdiction. We just use
them as our sounding board.
1 5
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Councilman Workman: What about DNR?
Jo Ann Olsen: DNR, they only protect very large wetlands. The Corps, you can [11
get a nationwide filling permit for less than 1 acre. Again, if it's a
protected wetland by them.
Councilman Workman: Roger, are we going to be denying these people any kind of '
useage?
Roger_ Knutson: If you give them the house. I mean if you didn't give them the
house then I think yes, definitely. I've not seen the site but if they have a
reasonable place to put a house, I guess you're not involved in taking issues.
Councilman Workman: When this first came up I asked the question, Jo Ann if you
remember, if somebody owns a swamp can they fill in to build on it if it's a lot
because I was looking for a little bit of justification. When it comes to
wetlands, I think I'm not afraid to be a hard liner on it and if the rest of the
Council feels that protecting the Class A wetland is better than giving somebody
an extended yard, I'd be for it.
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann are they having, I noticed the entire area is going
to be filled. The upland area and the wetland area. There's almost nothing on
here not being filled. Is that all just from the excavation of the house or do
you know if they plan on bringing fill in?
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know that answer. I don't know if it's going to be a
basement. It's pretty wet there. Wet soils.
Mayor Chmiel: It's probably on grade.
Councilman Boyt: Are we ready for a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Any other. discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I've just got one mote question. How far above the
ordinary high water mark does the basement have to be?
Gary Warren: The first floor needs to be 2 feet above.
Councilman Johnson: 2 feet? So if they do a basement, it has to be 947 and the
base of the house is 951. That's pretty short.
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't believe that they are going to have a basement.
Gary Warren: First floor has to be 2 feet above.
Mayor Chmiel: And they would be within it. Any- other discussion? Hearing I
none, is there a motion?
Councilman Boyt: I would move denial of the specific part of the wetland
alteration permit that was, I would move denial of the wetland alteration permit
so that it would prevent the filling the Class A wetland and allow the building
of the house. ,
6
IF , City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
' Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
ICouncilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded denial of Wetland Alteration
Permit #89-6 so that it would prevent the filling the Class A wetland and allow
the building of the house. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
K. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Councilwoman Dimler: The Council Minutes on page 60.
' Councilman Boyt: We've only got 58.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well it was towards the end of the meeting.
' Councilman Boyt: 60, I got 60.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. At the bottom of the page there, I made a comment.
' I said, do you have Minutes of that meeting. I don't remember being there. I'd
just like the record to show and it refers back to Don Ashworth's comment 6
lines up where he says, if I recall Tan and Ursula were comfortable with what
Karen was preparing. I'd just like to state that I wasn't there and I'd like
' the record to show that. That was on June 5th and I was at my son's 8th grade
graduation from St. Hubert's School. I don't want anybody to read this in
future days and think that I was confused as to where I was.
' Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If none, would you like to make a motion?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of
the City Council meeting dated July 10, 1989 as amended by Councilwoman Dimler
and the Planning Commission Minutes dated July 5, 1989. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
' Councilman Boyt: We might want to discuss a practice that we followed on the
last Council that might be helpful in these matters. Previous Council, if we
didn't have anything to change in anyone else's comments, if they were just
ours, we just gave those to the typist and they were taken care of. In other
words, if they were your comments. Prior to that the Council used to send 20
minutes going over the...
' Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know. This didn't take very long.
Councilman Boyt: Any way you want to do it.
Councilwoman Dimler : Yes, because last time there was a typo too and Tom caught
it.
IL RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING. Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the
recycling pra ze'xahich
was at $200.00.
7
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 ,
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were none.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUIRING PERMITS FOR RAFTS, FINAL READING.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question on that. This is the second and final? '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would move to table this until a public hearing can be
published and held. The reason for that is, I noticed that there were 2 people
that Don contacted, Mr. Mike Wegler and what was the other one Don?
Don Ashworth: Rocky Brynes. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I spoke with Mr. Wegler is out of town until tomorrow. I
tried to talk to him too and I did speak with the gentleman out in the audience
and he said that he wanted to address this. I don't think we've had enough,
I know there has been public input at Planning Commission meetings and Park and
Rec meetings but I don't know if we've addressed this particular raft and I
don't think that Council is aware that this raft is new and has been rebuilt and
it was rebuilt with City funds. There's some question as to ownership of it now
that it's been built with City funds. Does the City own it? Furthermore, will
the City then have to apply for it's own permit? Is there going to be a cost
for the permit? All those questions are yet unanswered and so because of that I
would like to have this tabled until we can answer those questions and listen to
some citizen's concerns at a public hearing.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest that the City Council has spent well
over a year on this issue. It's been discussed in front of the Council. It's
been discussed in front of the Park and Rec Commission at least twice. I'm not
familiar with the Planning Commission's discussions on it. All we're saying in
this is simply that people who own a raft have to put it out in front of their
own property and it has to be licensed. I think that's a pretty straight
forward issue. I would like to see us make progress on this rather than
carrying it over. There has been a great deal of public input on this.
Councilwoman Dimler: So then you're saying already that the raft at Carver
Beach is illegal because it is off of public property.
Councilman Boyt: When we discussed this issue at length a year ago, and Rocky '
and several other people were in there talking about the raft, the Council at
that time I thought made it very clear that we wanted that raft to be built by
the City to put back out there and we wanted the Park and Rec people to post
city park rules for the operation of that area. I'm glad to hear the raft was
built with City funds. The raft is much better than the raft that was out there
last year. We're not proposing to remove that raft. The City should own that
raft. It's out fran a piece of City property.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but since the ownership of that raft is not clear I
would propose that we table this because otherwise what we're doing is
essentially telling them that the ordinance would preclude them from having•:.the
raft in years to come.
8
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Well, we're saying to them that unless the City owned that
' raft, it couldn't be out there next year. That's right.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we've got to establish ownership of that raft.
' Councilman Boyt: But we have until next spring to do that. It's simply a
matter of the raft is there now. It can stay there and next spring that raft
has to be in compliance with this ordinance. I think that's very reasonable.
' Councilwoman Dimler: But it leaves it real precarious if we don't decide who
owns that raft right now. We can just refuse ownership of it in the spring and
' they're out of a raft. Do you understand?
Councilman Johnson: This does not say the owner has to apply for the permit.
It says no person shall operate or maintain any water obstacle. That does not
' say the owner so the City, which is a legal entity, could still apply for the
permit even though it doesn't own the raft.
' Councilwoman Dimler: That's muddying the waters so.
Don Ashworth: The intent was primarily to get into writing who it was that was
' applying. Do they have insurance. I don't think there's any intent to stop
having a raft in the Carver Beach area. The extent that we work with that
neighborhood to insure that we fully document who's raft and who's insuring and
who's making the application. I guess I would agree with Councilman Boyt. It
can be tabled as well.
Councilman Johnson: Does somebody now claim ownership of that raft other than
' the City?
Mayor Chmiel: Before we pursue this, is there anyone from the audience that
would like to address that aspect for the ordinance?
' Rocky Brynes: I'm Rocky. Maybe I've got the answers to some of our questions.
qu ons.
After we came before the Council before, we went before the Parks Board to talk
to people. We agreed that if the City wanted to own the raft, that's fine.
They said well we've got some money, we'll use that money to rebuild the raft.
If you donate the raft to the City. ..will be your raft if you want but what we
' want in return is some assurance that it will be there all the time. It's been
there for 20 years now. Another 20 years and if it's not, we have the right to
put our own back out there. That's all we're asking. Nobody has been able to
give us that assurance. They say well, if it's the City's we'll take care of
it. As you all know, the City Council people change. They come and they go.
The next Council may not be thinking the same way you are. We've seen this
before and this is all we're looking for is some reassurance. We thought we had
' that. I don't know, this ordinance, the first time I've seen this one. You've
been working on this for I don't know, for a year now. We also went through
about 15 different ordinances within that year and they've changed and they've
' changed and it's pretty hard to keep up with. We thought we had them down to
where we had them grandfathered to get that raft and we're willing to give the
City the raft or we'll keep it and insure it ourselves. I'll keep the rat and
I'll put it in my name and put it on my homeowner's policy. I'm not against
that if the City doesn't want the responsibility. I can't take just as much
responsibility as anybody else to the raft. There's other rafts out there.
1 9
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 '
That's the way I feel about it and that's the way I think most of my neighbors
feel too. We want the raft there. We want some assurance because it seems like
things like this have happened before and a year down the road, 2 years down the
road, all of a sudden things disappear. Oh no, you can't have it now. We've
got an ordinance against that. You can't have a raft out there and then
everything's gone on and we're sitting there with nothing again and somebody
else has won and we've lost. So that's what we're up against. As far as, I
don't know what the concerns are, why we needed this ordinance. I guess I've
got some questions there. It's our raft. It's the only one in the City that
has this problem and if we give it to you, there is no problem anymore so I
don't know why we need to use the ordinance. If we don't have the ordinance,
then we have the right to came back and put the raft in if the City doesn't. If
some day in the future you decide not to, we can and ours is the only raft that
the ordinance pertains to.
Councilman Johnson: No. There's other rafts.
Rocky Brynes: There are other rafts? Right now, the way the ordinance stands
right now, people are putting them off of somebody elses shoreline?
Councilman Johnson: No. Not putting them off of somebody elses. Other people '
put them off their own shoreline.
Rocky Brynes: But that's legal as far as the ordinance goes. '
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like Don to sort of address those questions and concerns that
you have. '
Don Ashworth: Roger, the ordinance was not drafted to single out Carver Beach.
In fact just the opposite. I think we could have worked with yourself and the
ownership and what not but as the ordinance stands, we have no control over
anyone putting a raft out into the lake. All this ordinance allows the City to
do is to insure that we know what rafts are out there and we've established a
process to look at each one so we don't create a problem. Again, I don't think
there's any intent to try to take the raft away from the Carver Beach area.
That was not the intent of this ordinance.
Rocky Brynes:- It seemed like it to us.
Mayor Chmiel: The discussions that I remember too that they had had prior to
even being on the Council. I sat in on those specific meetings and I remember
exactly what you were addresing. Your major concerns basically are you want a
raft whether it's there by the City or by the property owners or by an
individual. I guess I don't have any problems with that at all. '
Rocky Brynes: Then how can we go about getting some assurance that this
harmony between the neighborhood and the Council.. .
Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I'm suggesting that we table this until the
City takes ownership of that raft somehow.
Mayor Chmiel: By the City taking ownership. '
J,
Councilwoman Dimler: Then we can proceed with the ordinance.
10 '
IrCity Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Councilman Boyt: If I might. There have been quite a few changes since we
I first started talking about this. Initially there was discussion about whether
or not the City was going to even keep that piece of property. Remember_ that
discussion?
' Rocky Brynes: Well but...
Councilman Boyt: But it all relates to this. The neighborhood came in and they
said look, this is our beach. We want the beach. At that point the Council
said alright but the City owns it and the City needs to maintain it and take
responsibility for it. You don't put the maintenance of public property onto
' the local homeowners around there, although we'd certainly like them to take
care of it. That's the City's responsibility. So we cleared up that issue.
Then we addressed in regard to Carver Beach the safety of the dock and concern
' of the Council being to have that dock be as safe as any dock can be. We're not
at that point. We have, the City feels that that is a beach. We're not going
to pull, no City Council is going to pull a dock out of an area where we've got
a public beach and the community wants the dock there. Your community, as
' you've said, has wanted that dock there for 20 years. We can't bind this
Council. Even if we pass an ordinance, that doesn't stop them from pulling it
in and changing it but we are saying, the over riding purpose of this particular
' ordinance is safety in the waters of Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to reiterate my comments from last time
II IL that there have been no serious accidents ever recorded. I checked with Carver
County today. The gentleman that does the patrolling has had no problems
whatsoever with any rafts within the County and that includes Chanhassen. So
safety yes, it is a concern but there have been no serious accidents that have
' been related to rafts. Again, I have a concern about amending an ordinance for
one particular situation that seems to be a problem. I think we should work the
situation out as I'm recommending now by taking ownership of the raft. Also, we
have not established if there will be a fee and if there is a fee, what that fee
will be because now we are encumbering all other raft owners with a yearly
process. It's more red tape. The Council is putting itself in a position of
having to make a decision when all these permits are applied for. It's a lot
' more public_process than I think if there have been no accidents and I'm not
saying I'm not concerned about safety but the record proves itself, I'm not sure
that we need to encumber ourselves and the public with another ordinance
amendment. So let's talk about the fee. Is there a proposed fee Don?
Don Ashworth: Staff does not have a specific number. There is a fee that's
' associated with the slalom courses and I would anticipate in having this
basically be the same.
' Councilwoman Dimlex: Okay, and what would that be?
Don Ashworth: I can't. It's been a year since we had an application.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I heard $25.00. Does that sound right?
Don Ashworth: I was going to say $25.00.
11
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 '
Councilwoman Dimler: I also, when I spoke with Carver County does issue permits
for the DNR and they do not have a fee so I would recommend that we follow their
guidelines as well to be uniform throughout the County.
Councilman Boyt: I think we have to look at covering the expense of this and we
can't expect people who don't live on the lake to pick up the expense of the
inspection when typically these docks, outside of the City clearly isn't going
to charge itself a fee for inspecting it's own dock. It's own raft.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it should.
Councilman Boyt: But the other people, those rafts are generally out there for
their sole use and the City shouldn't be subsidizing the inspection of those.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then I guess I wonder how Carver County can do it.
Councilman Johnson: Do they inspect?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes they do. They inspect.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe that's why they have tax increases every couple of '
years.
Councilwoman Dimler: They haven't. '
Councilman Boyt: They did last year.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have discussion going. We have a motion on the floor '
right now to table for a public hearing.
Councilman Boyt: There isn't a motion to table.
Mayor Chmiel: She did make a motion.
Councilman Boyt: It wasn't seconded.
Mayor Chmiel: Well let me finish it Bill. There has not been a second at this
particular time.
Mike Schroeder: Can I say something?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly.
Mike Schroeder: Mike Schroeder. I live at 6600 Lotus Trail. I guess a couple
of things I'd like to point out I guess maybe in support of tabling this thing.
We have had these discussions over a year but the ordinance as I've just read it
this evening reads nothing like anything we've discussed previously over the
past year and I'm not sure how I got off the mailing list because I've been to
every meeting just about that I can think of and for some reason Mr_. Ashworth I
wasn't privy to your correspondence on that so I was totally unaware of what the
content of this was going to be and I don't think there's many others that have
been at these meetings also are aware of what's happening and what the ordip,ance
is going to read now. I guess I was quite surprised at all of a sudden the
issues, the other issues that were discussed at these previous meetings are all
12 '
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
of a sudden swept under the table and no longer up for discussion. Apparently
I the way I read the letter that you sent, it's been determined that there really
Iare no issues there anymore and this is the only remaining one.
Don Ashworth: The wordage was that in consultation with the City Attorney's
' office, it was our recommendation that the existing ordinance, the one that's
been in effect for many years, provides adequate controls in each of the other
areas that were under discussion from a year ago. Mooring, storage of boats,
etc. all are covered under existing ordinance. The only section was that there
' is nothing under City ordinance that in any way, I shouldn't say in any way
regulates rafts. There is general wordage regarding regulation of rafts but the
City Council does not see those currently. You could have every property owner
' putting out a raft all the way around the lake and it was staff's belief that
that was a weakness of the ordinance.
Mike Schroeder: Like I say, none of that was communicated to anybody that
' I knew of anyway that was at those meetings until apparently some letter that
just came out here. So we were totally unaware of any of those determinations
and have no opportunity to comment at all on any of that so.
' Councilman Workman: I'd second Ursula's motion to table.
' Mayor Chmiel: After hearing discussion to just what Mike indicated, that this
was not previously discussed and their understanding of what this would he, I
think I would probably have tendencies to go on that.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the
ordinance amendment requiring permits for rafts so that a public hearing can be
held. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: Might I ask? If we're going to do this, if there's some way
we can separate the issue of Carver Beach and their raft from this ordinance
which really has a whole different point. If we could clear up the Carver Beach
situation, then I think we could carry on a discussion about the merits of the
' ordinance aside from that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we need to clear up ownership of that raft.
SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE/STORAGE BUILDING, 7410
CHANHASSEN ROAD, FRED OELSCHLAGER.
' Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to address that one Willard as to what was the
determination by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals?
Willard Johnson: We had a long discussion and we determined that we denied the
variance because he wanted a 7.4 variance to the 10 foot setback and we felt
' that there was no hardship whatsoever. We couldn't prove a hardship and we felt
that he could work with the City staff to fit the garage into a different
perspective or add onto existing or whatever. We felt there was no hardship
whatsoever. We feel he can work with City staff to maybe come up with a better
tsolution or if he wishes to come before the Board at a different time with
' 13
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
something else but at the present time there's no hardship.
Mayor Chmiel: My understanding is that Fred also agreed and was not going to
argue that point and said that there's no sense in he staying. That he agreed
with the position.
Willard Johnson: That's true. I told him he had the chance to go before the
Council to appeal it for you and he said he didn't wish to further the
situation. '
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. I supposed we should probably have a
motion on this.
Councilman Boyt: We don't need one.
Mayor Chmiel: To support staff's position.
Councilman Boyt: We can but we don't need one.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we should have one. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then I move that the City Council go on record as
supporting the position of the staff and also the position of the Board of
Adjustments on the sideyard setback variance request to construct a garage/
storage building at 7410 Chanhassen Road by Fred Oelschlager.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? '
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded that the City Council go
on record as supporting the position of the staff and also the position of the
Board of Adjustments on the sideyard setback variance request to construct a
garage/ storage building at 7410 Chanhassen Road by Fred Oelschlager. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO FRONTIER TRAIL
FROM HIGHLAND DRIVE TO KIOWA CIRCLE AND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to address that Gary?
Councilman Boyt: You can make this brief if you'd like. We've read the report.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. '
Gary Warren: I'll be brief. I take stage direction well. It I'm sure is a
testimony to the quality of the text that you were provided by Mr. Engelhardt
who sits behind me and the clarity of the staff report. The feasibility study '
basically addresses the reconstruction measures that are necessary on Frontier
Trail from Highland to basically Kiowa Circle. It is apparent that from the
document as you noted that there are some areas of significant reconstruction
that are necessary which isn't a surprise to any of us that are familiar with
14
IICity Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
IIit There are some areas that will be looked at or need to be looked at in more
detail as a part of the design phase as far as sanitary sewer rehabilitation and
methods that will be used there and likewise the installation of storm sewer and
I just how extensive the storm sewer system is necessary. Nonetheless, the other
aspect of the project which is also unique here to the City is how to pay for
the improvements. We've done some research here with other communities and
11 taken a look at the type of improvement project that we're proposing and
basically applying current city policy on storm sewer system, 50% of any storm
sewer improvements would typically be assessed. Any roadway improvements from
II what we could see, areas that haven't been, that the road is deficient from the
City standards such as there's no concrete curb and gutter, typically we would
expect that those might be assessed so roughly there's a 43%-57% split. 43%
I being assessed out of that so we're dealing with a new City policy here in the
reconstruction mode. Some additional benefits that I see that we want to make
sure we take this opportunity to address are the removal of infiltration inflow
from our sanitary sewer system which we continue to budget for each year and
I have a commitment to the NLVCC for removal and I think this will provide an
excellent opportunity for that since a lot of the sewers we saw had mineral
deposits and evidence of leakage and likewise we want to connect up any
I foundation drains and sump pumps that the properties along the way in all
likelihood have. So what we're asking Council to do at this point is to accept
the feasibility study so that we can take it to hearing. My thought is to open
it up to have a neighborhood meeting, more informal basis where we would
Iactually make a presentation of the report. To do that, receive input from the
local people who would be impacted by the project and then to schedule a public
hearing for September 11th which we would like the Council to also call at this
time so we can get the notice prepared and such. Tentative date, and I talked
!! with Councilwoman Dimler earlier, that date isn't going to work from my schedule
I see now but kind of looking at maybe August 22nd. It's a Tuesday to try to
Ihave a neighborhood meeting on this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I won't be here.
II Mayor Chmiel: Is there just going to be one meeting you're planning on having
or are you going to sort of break this down?
I Gary War_r_en: We would have one overall neighborhood meeting as we would call it
prior to the formal public hearing on the 11th. Then if the project proceeds
further than we would also do what we did with the Lake Lucy Road watermain
I project and that is, when the construction plans have been prepared to about a
90% level, then we would also reinvite the public back in and the property
owners that would be impacted to specifically look at the constructions plans as
it relates to their property and we'll have the specifics so that we can deal
I with it at that time so that's kind of our thinking is there would be at least 3
opportunities for input here before we actually get into the construction phase
and probably 4 because we would have a notice going out at the time of
IIconstruction to appraise them of the schedule.
Mayor Qhmi.el: I noticed in going through Bill's feasibility study on some of
the assessment rolls that you broke down towards the back end of the book, 43%,
111 50% on that storm sewer assessed as opposed to 43% of street construction. One
question that I had. In correcting some of the storm sewer, and I think y iu
L sort of eluded to it previously, is at this time some of that storm sewer being
II
II 15
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
diverted to the sanitary at any given time or it's costing the City more dollars
presently?
Gary Warren: The thinking as far as infiltration and inflow is that anytime '
you've got storm drainage or ground water that stays in an area that is not able
to be carried out of a area in a rapid fashion, it's eventually going to find
it's way into a sewer system either through sump pumps, foundation drains or
just percolating through the cracks in the pipe. From the years that I spent in
televising sewers and dealing with sewer rehab, I would very confidently
anticipate that there would be some infiltration inflow reduction as a result of
an efficient storm sewer system that gets the storm water out of the area.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any other discussions? 1
Councilman Boyt: I would move approval of this so at least we have a motion on
the floor.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to have a public hearing for what
date now?
Councilman Boyt: September 11th. '
Gary Warren: We'd like I guess two actions from the Council. One would be to
accept the feasibility study just as a formality and then secondly to call the
public hearing for. September 11th.
Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, on the acceptance, that doesn't mean it won't be
changed with public input later on?
Gary Warren: It's just your receiving the document. You're not approving it or
anything. 1
Councilman Boyt: I think we're on the a roll here to move to accept the
feasibility study and call the public hearing for September 11th for the road
improvements and utility improvements to Frontier Trail to end at Kiowa Circle.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution #89-82: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to accept
the feasibility study for utility and roadway improvements to Frontier Trail
from Highland Drive to Kiowa Circle and to call a public hearing for September
11, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then could I just ask a question about August 22nd you
said was a better date for you for the informal meeting?
Gary Warren: Bill and I were just checking our schedule before the meeting.,
Councilwoman Dimler: What day of the week is that?
16 1
' City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Gary Warren: It's a Tuesday.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I have gotten some extra copies of this from Gary
and I intend to distribute it to certain neighbors that could read through it
before that particular date so they're well informed when they come to the
' meeting. Mr. Loebl, you are one of the people that I thought might want to read
through it. So do you need a motion on that informal meeting?
Gary Warren: Not necessarily, no.
Councilwoman Dimler: You'll just notify the neighbors?
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Johnson: Is this an opportunity to look at inflow? Inflow being
' primarily I believe sump pumps connected to sanitary sewers. Any way to, as far
as part of the assessment provide a reward to people who take their sump pumps
off the sanitary sewer and connect up to the storm sewer or whatever for their
sump pump.
Councilman Boyt: Actually they're going to get a bill. They've been rewarded
for quite a long time.
Gar_y Warren: Our intent, maybe I didn't clearly put it in the staff report, is
that basically we would require I think everybody or we would want to require
I that everybody along Frontier Trail where we have storm sewer to physically
connect their foundation drains or sump pump into the storm sewer system so
we're done with it once and for all. It's an excellent opportunity to do that.
' Councilman Johnson: That requires everybody to dig up their front yard.
Gary Warren: It depends on how they're connected right now. The other thing
' that we will want to address is typically in sewer rehabilitation projects, one
of the weakest links in a sanitary sewer system and it has every bit as much
length as a municipal public system, is the homeowner service line. They are
usually the most poorly inspected part of the construction and done by, I don't
want to pass...words on our contractors but they aren't like the municipal
contractors that we typically deal with in our mainline construction so there's
an area there also that we will want to, as we have the main line exposed and
are doing reconstruction, to take a close look and if we find a sanitary sewer
service line that is flowing clear water and there is no water useage in the
building, we want to deal with the property owner to see if there shouldn't be
some repairs done on that service line.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That public meeting for August 22nd, 7:30?
Gary Warren: Typically we try to do them a little earlier but we're flexible.
Mayor Chmiel: Well you have Park and Rec at that particular evening at 7:30
I here so you're either going to have to make some arrangements to shift if you're
going to get total numbers of people in here.
I t Gary Warren: We'll have to see. Maybe we can use the other conference roan
too.
17
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Councilman Johnson: There's 50 some homes in this area.
Gary Warren: Park and Rec might have to use it.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know, the neighbors I've talked to and maybe Ursula
you've got a similar reaction, I haven't talked to anybody yet who didn't want
the project.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but they'd like to have some input into it. I
Gary Warren: I think if it's alright with the Council, what we'll do is get
back to the schedules and check out all the conflicts before we resolve that
final meeting date and if you have any preferences or want to make me aware of
any of your conflicts, I'll be happy to factor that in.
APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 OFFICIAL MAPPING; LAYOUT S.P.
1017-7.
Gary Warren: This is the map and we can lay it out here if we need to.
Basically what we have is a revised final layout from MnDot concerning the
TH 212 official mapping. This is a layout and in MnDot's.. .it is just that. 11 It's not the official map but the official map will be prepared from this
approved layout once we get our input back to MnDot. I understand basically
that Eden Prairie and Chaska I believe have approved layouts and possibily even
the official mapping so we're right in the mode with that. This layout is based 1
on the northern Lake Riley alignment which is the anticipated approved alignment
from the environmental impact statement which will be done this year. If for
some reason there's a surprise in the environmental impact statement and the
alignment is not accepted, which would be a surprise to everybody I guess, then
Council would be requested to approve another layout. What this will do is
allow MnDot then to have the official map prepared which we will then have a
public hearing on and invite the public before we go through the actual adoption
of the ordinance for the official maps. As you can see, I tried to pull
together as much from the staff report and meetings and history on this. It's
gone through quite a number of those and a lot of it predates myself. ,
Mayor Chmiel: It starts back on 1987 and goes on through. The official map,
where's that going to be posted in City Hall in the event people would like to
come in and look at it?
Gary Warren: The official map, one copy of this map is up in engineering right
now and the official map, when we get that, will be the same scale and we would
put that up in the same place. It covers one whole wall, the length of the
building.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that accessible for people to come in and look at it?
Gary Warren: Yes. People come back on a regular basis for as build and stuff
so they can easily come back to look at that map.
dr
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Discussion? Hearing no discussion.
18 1
' City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Councilman Boyt: We discussed this in depth,, I think it must have been about 2
years ago. A year and a half ago with the room filled with people so we've kind
I . of been over this. This is another one of those issues where we've gone over
it. I would move approval of preliminary plans for Trunk Highway 212.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll second it.
' Resolution #89-83: Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the
preliminary plans for Trunk Highway 212 official mapping; Layout S.P. 1017-7.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CITY CODE SECTION 20-237, REVOCATION AND
INSPECTION REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
Jo Ann Olsen: Real briefly, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposed amendment which essentially states that the City Council can require
annual review. The Planning Commission, their only comment was that they felt
' that it shouldn't be shall. They felt that it should be a requirement that they
have an annual. Their only comments again were whether or not we had the staff
to do that.
Councilman Johnson: I've got a couple comments on it. I've been talking about
this for 2 years now. One thing I've always said is that there should also,
there's two things. One is, some of them don't need, it says annually or more
frequently in here. There are some that probably need to be done every 2 or 3
years and not annually so I'd like the flexibility to go from 3 years or less
versus annually. Some of the conditional use permits we put out there. ..
Mayor Chmiel: Conditional uses are forever right?
' Councilman Johnson: Yes. They're forever. Some of them you don't really need
to look at every year. A house or something. There's just not that much to go
wrong with some of the conditions we put out. There's others which have a great
' potential for envirnomental harm or whatever if the conditions aren't complied
with and I think they need the annual inspection. However, I think there should
be a fee associated with that they're asking for special permission to do
something special and when there's a potential for great harm and you have to be
inspected annually, that cost should be born by the person who's getting special
permission to do something different. Not by all the citizens in the City of
Chanhassen.
' Mayor_ Chmiel: I guess in a way I agree with that but maybe it should be in our
permit fee in the first place rather than having to go back and double billing.
I think that presents some problem. Roger, can you...
Roger Knutson: Maybe Don would be the best one to deal with that but I can see
it would be a less administrative problem collecting it up front than trying to
get it after the fact. Say, I don't know what your number would be, like $20.00
or $50.00 or whatever it is, if they don't pay, then you're faced with noy, what
are we going to do about it. Are we going to take them to conciliation court.
Are we going to try to revoke the permit.
' 19
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Councilman Johnson: It's a condition of the permit.
Roger Knutson: You can try to revoke the permit for a $20.00 fee if you wanted '
to but it's a hassle. There's a bit of a hassle involved.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Jo Ann, what are our basic fees presently? '
Jo Ann Olsen: $150.00.
Mayor Chmiel: $150.00 for the conditional use. 1
Councilman Johnson: Does that come close to covering your time?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's hard to judge.
Mayor Chmiel: Some permits require a lot of follow through. Some do not.
Councilman Boyt: We just saw one two weeks ago.
Councilman Johnson: I was going to say, how much of your time have you spent on
Lowell Carlson on his conditional use permit over the years.
Jo Ann Olsen: Not as much as we should have. I
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we put in here that inspections be
conducted annually because it's easier to keep track of and that the people
doing the inspections I suspect are going to do them differently depending upon I
the sensitivity of the area and the particular type of conditional use permit
granted so I'd like to see point 2 amended to read, inspections will be
conducted at least annually to determine compliance with the terms of the
conditional use permit. I think the discussion about fees is a really good ont
but may be one that would be worth discussing all by itself.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that $150.00 is a substantial fee for a conditional use '
permit in itself. I was thinking that some cities I know they run anywhere from
$75.00 up to $250.00 but I think $150.00 is a substantial amount for a
conditional use permit. '
Councilman Johnson: Some conditional use permits don't hardly require any
inspection. '
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Some don' t and some do depending upon what the
projects are.
Councilman Johnson: Which ones do?
Councilman Boyt: Well I can think of one. '
Councilman Johnson: Contractor's yards. There's one down south where they're
pouring oil out on their roads as a way to get rid of their lube oil. The
County environmentalist didn't like that too much. One that wouldn't is your
convenience store with gas pumps. There's usually not many conditions involved
there. Informally they're probably inspected every day. There's other
contractor's yards where all the trees have been removed. The berms have been
20 '
' City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
' removed.
' Councilman Boyt: I would think that the issue of collecting a fee annually is
one that experience will tell us which way to go. Let's start doing the
inspections. If these turn out to be quite a drain on staff time, then maybe
' we'll need to look at a fee but we have a great many conditional uses out there
that need inspecting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes and I sometimes think too that one will compensate maybe for
the other and it works itself out.
Councilman Johnson: We probably have what, several hundred conditional use
' permits issued at this time?
Jo Ann Olsen: I wouldn't say several hundred. I'd say up to maybe a hundred.
' I haven't counted but not several hundred.
Councilman Boyt: Wasn't there a statement in the Planning Commission about the
number?
Jo Ann Olsen: I haven't verified that at all. I was saying 50 to 100.
Councilman Boyt: You said, I would say 50 to 100. Well can we try to pass the
amendment first and see how that goes?
' Mayor Chmiel: Do I have a motion on the floor?
Councilman Boyt: I would move to amend point 2 such that it would read,
inspections will be conducted at least annually to determine compliance with the
terms of a conditional use permit.
Councilman Johnson: Could we add in there unless waived by the Council or
' something like that? We have limited staff and limited funds to do these
things, as I said. Some of them really don't require much inspection at all but
just the time to go out there and do it, we blow $20.00 a piece for somebody to
go out and write the report and have a report written up every time. If we're
going to do_ the inspections, I assume we're going to have to have a report to
prove we did the inspections. I think annually personally for some of them is
far too often. Requiring annually on every one can become a real drag on the
' system.
Councilman Workman: Are you saying leave it?
Councilwoman Dimler: How about putting in there PRN?
Councilman Johnson: What?
Councilwoman Dimler: PRN means whenever necessary.
I Councilman Boyt: What I'm afraid of when we do that is that we keep exactly
what we've got right now Jay which you've been talking about for a couple,of
years that they're not being done. I would much rather see us run with tliem
' done and then back off if need be.
' 21
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 ,
Councilman Johnson: Okay. We can wait and see what the experience of staff is.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with the proposed change. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: I'll second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to Amend the City Code Section 20-237, Revocation and
Inspection Regarding Conditional Use Permits with an amendment to Point 2
stating that inspections will be conducted at least annually to determine
compliance with the terms of a conditional use permit. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: I would move for acceptance of the first reading as amended of
Ordinance Section 1, Subsection 20-237 of the Chanhassen City Code.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it. '
Councilman Johnson: Should we have, between the first and second reading, have
a notification of those people holding a conditional use permit that such an
ordinance is coming about on their conditional use permit? It will be
retroactive to all past conditional use permits.
Mayor Chmiel: Good point. [11
Jo Ann Olsen: Is that notify all conditional use permit holders?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. 45.
Mayor Chmiel: 50 to 100 Jo Ann. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: That will force you to get a list I think.
Jo Ann Olsen: We've got the list I just haven't counted them. '
Mayor Chmiel: I'd even like to see that list when you get it.
Jo Ann Olsen: You just want them to be notified that there will be a second
reading?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That there will be a first and second reading of a zoning '
ordinance amendment.
Councilman Johnson: First reading's been approved and second reading will be on '
such and such a day.
Jo Ann Olsen: You don't want that on the Consent Agenda? '
Mayor Chmiel: Oh no. No.
22 ,
IICity Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
IICouncilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I could make a quick comment and general one
on a little bit of what we're doing in regards to fees and things that we're
' charging here tonight. I get a little bit nervous and I understand City's got
to operate with money. In a certain way we do increase taxes here by making,
creating fees for rafts and every little thing we do. It starts to get me a
I little bit nervous I guess. I don't want to make it too expensive to come and
live and do business in the City and we're creating new fees at 3 at a pop at
every meeting. Not that I don't understand that the people who are using the
system have to pay for the system because Don Ashworth is expensive. So I'm
1 going to pin down why I feel uncomfortable about it but it's an inherent defect
perhaps.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with Tom and that's why I recommended that we have
no fee if we do adopt the raft ordinance. That there be no fee. Perhaps no fee
for this as well.
1 Councilman Johnson: Well if you do that, we also change there's no fee for
slalom courses, diving or any of that.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know. It's already written the other way for
those.
1 Councilman Boyt: We kind of have, there may be a bit of a philosophical
difference here. It will be interesting to see how this develops but my sense
is that people should pay to use Lake Ann. One, because we have upkeep costs
there and it's a unique facility and I think user fees are actually a way to
lower taxes for the rest of us because when we don't charge user fees, then that
means we all pay.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I agree with that to a certain point Bill but I think that all
residents within the community are paying taxes to offset some of those costs
too. Now I think if it's people from outside the City, then I feel there should
I be charges on that as well because they're utilizing something that the
taxpayers are paying for so it's hard to distinguish what do we do? Do we issue
these kinds of permits directly to the city residents and say you're lobbing
onto that park...and charge those that aren't city residents to go into that
Ipark to use the park facilities?
Councilman Boyt: Every year we get to discuss the Lake Ann Park fee so I'm sure
1 it will come back up again.
Councilman Workman: I was just thinking out loud I guess maybe.
1 Mayor Chmiel: No, that's good. I agree. We can't price outselves out of the
business and start looking like we're trying to make money just to make money. I
fully agree. We had that with the first and second reading to notify the
1 present conditional use holders.
Councilman Boyt: We've already had the first reading right?
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Was that a motion Jay that you were making?
1
1 23
.
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 ,
Councilman Johnson: Somebody already made it.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we moved and seconded on that motion yet. '
Jo Ann Olsen: WHich one? The mailing?
Mayor Chmiel: For the first reading with the second reading come up. '
Councilman Boyt: Yes we did.
Jo Ann Olsen: I thought you did. The second reading will be on the next
agenda.
Councilman Workman: Did we just approve the amendment? '
Mayor Chmiel: We did move on the amended portion of it and then we went to...
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'm asking if Jay's suggestion needs to be a motion
and voted on? Okay, thank you. I do agree with that, that we should do that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first reading
of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend City Code Section 20-237 as amended.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1990 LEVY AND BUDGET, ADOPTION.
Mayor Chmiel: I might say that I love reading stories and the rest of it all
sounds like a story too.
Councilman Johnson: I didn't know which one was funnier. The first half or the
second half.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the second half was getting to me. Don, would you like '
to address that?
Don Ashworth:. The City's are faced with a very unique problem this year in that
we're left with some legislation from 1988. Some legislation from 1989 and a
lot of discussion regarding things that may yet occur. We must adopt, at least
according to some experts, a budget amount as well as a levy prior to August
1st. Unfortunately, nothing happens with the amount that we levy. It's not
used to calculate any taxes. No citizen is notified of what that amount is. It
is not used as we move through the budgetary process and you can lower from that
amount. You can not increase over it. I've referred to it in my report as an
imaginary levy and that's really what it is. It doesn't exist. Yet again under
portions of the 1988 legislation we're required to take and make this levy.
Staff has no idea as to what our levy limits will be. We have no idea of what
our State Aids will be but again, we were forced to present a budget to you for
your consideration. I've used the more restrictive elements out of both the
1988 and 1989 to come up with a proposed levy amount for 1990 of $2,803,955.00
[E:111
and a total revenue and expenditure of $4,974,069.00. Again, you will not see
those figures again as we move through the budgetary process. I can assure''you
that the actual levy that you will consider will be less than the amount shown
in here.
24 '
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: I think as you indicated in here, these are guesstimates. Not
estimates but guesstimates.
I Councilman Johnson: Do you need an imaginary motion?
' Mayor Chmiel: That's what I just thinking. I think we almost need three. Any
discussion?
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor I would move that perhaps Council create a
resolution to our Representative Kelso and perhaps Senator Schmitz in regards to
the percarious situation in which we sit. I was at a League of Minnesota Cities
Conference and they said if you don't start that budget process by April, you
' should be starting on budget process by April and we're a long way from that and
we're getting further and further away and it being no fault of staff. But
perhaps we could draw something up to express our concerns that we get on with
' things so we can move ahead.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion on that? I think it'd probably be
very apropos to do that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could we have staff...
' Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Workman: Or a letter.
Mayor Chmiel: At be on record indicating those concerns.
Councilman Johnson: Are you also going to include approval of a resolution for
' this levy and budget?
Councilman Workman: I would move that.
Councilman Johnson: Then I'll second.
Councilman Workman: Are you seconding my resolution?
Councilman Johnson: Both.
Mayor Chmiel: Both.
Councilman Workman: I don't mean that to say, that's not a kick in the pants.
' That's a resolution. I'm just expressing our concerns.
Councilman Johnson: They passed it and the governor vetoed or we wouldn't be in
this dilemma without the veto.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
' Councilman Workman: Well if we want to send it to the governor also.
Councilman Johnson: Or send it to him and copy the legislators. :•
' Councilman Boyt: That's a better idea.
25
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Councilman Workman: I'll go with that.
Resolution #89-84: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a
resolution to the Governor with copies to the legislators regarding the concerns
of the 1990 levy and budget and also approving the adoption of the 1990 levy and
budget as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Jay, Teton Lane. '
Councilman Johnson: I was hoping staff could have some kind of update as to
where we are on getting Teton Lane resolved and Public Safety about whether
they're actively pursuing construction traffic and letter all the air out of the
tires or whatever out there to prevent construction traffic from going through
there.
Don Ashworth: Appraisals have been received. The City Attorney is in the
process of notifying Centex of what those appraised amounts are. They are to
confirm their willingness to pay up to those amounts. If they do not respond,
Roger is to contact me so it can placed on the agenda. The first agenda in
August.
Councilman Johnson: I heard that some of the appraisals were fairly ludicrous?
It's your point of view.
Don Ashworth: Right. I think at this point, giving that information to Centex '
and potentially they may wish to obtain those easements themself rather than
looking to the City and recognizing the appraisals that we have received. Under
State Statute, if it does go to the appraisal process, meaning where the Council
authorizes the acquisition, the City must pay the amount of that appraisal. In
other words, you don't offer something less.
Councilman Boyt: With that guaranteed, I bet they don't settle for less either.
Mayor Chmiel: You can always start low and go up but if you start high, then
you can't go up.
Don Ashworth: Actually, when we carry out an appraisal, we provide that
information to the owner and that is the amount that we will pay him. Public
Safety, I'm not sure.
Jim Chaffee: We did not get any complaints in the recent past.. . '
Councilman Johnson: Is our traffic counter working? Did we stick that out
there? They're saying 200 cars per day.
Gary Warren: Yes, we had it up probably a month ago or so now. We had 150 .E
vehicles.
Mayor Chmiel: 150 vehicles per day?
26 '
' City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Gary Warren: The day we monitored.
II + Jim Chaffee: ...home occupation. That's Franco's catering business.
' Councilman Johnson: He caters out of his house?
Jim Chaffee: ...That's what causing the high traffic counts.
' Gary Warren: He's not the only person there. I know that the carpentry shop
and the Carlson buildings gets deliveries and there's various...
' Mayor Chmiel: But in one given day, he can only cater so many given areas.
Jim Chaffee: Employees and what not. Like I say, the complaint just came in
' today and we're in the process of investigating it now.
Councilman Johnson: As I understand home occupation, you're restricted in your
number of employees and no retail out of the home. Customers shouldn't come to
' your place of business.
Gary Warren: Scott had sent a letter that I saw anyway because Franco said no,
' he isn't. He stores that truck there because of his catering business and he's
acquired a new building in Excelsior is it now but I know there's been the
allegation over the years by various people that they thought he was doing
business out of there but the Department of Health regulates that.
I ? Councilman Johnson: Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that's still. ..
' Mayor_ Chmiel: It's being addressed. Ursula? SuperAmerica and John Havelik and
downtown beautification.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, which one should I start with?
Mayor Chmiel: Start with SuperAmerica.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, this has come up at least, I know I brought it up
the last 2 meetings as well. The residents' concerns have not at all been taken
into consideration. It has to do with the non-compliance of the Roger Zahn
' development. It isn't so much the SuperAmerica site itself that is upsetting
the residents. It's the rest of the site and the fact that the shopping center
which was supposed to go in first, there is no evidence of a building yet. So
' I read through the Minutes again as it was back in 1988 I believe and I clearly
see that the residents' concerns have not at all been addressed. So at this
time, in order to get something done before the letter of credit expires, I
believe that's in December, Don is that correct?
' Don Ashworth: Correct.
t Councilwoman Dimler: We would propose that we would have a neighborhood meeting
to address their concerns and to see what it is that they now most want to.see
done. It can be the berming so they don't have to look at that. They also have
' some concerns about the SuperAmerica lighting but I think we can address that at
the same time. In order to make this short and not to tell you all the
' 27
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 '
problems, I'm sure most of us are aware of them, I would suggest that we set a
meeting date for August 9, 1989 at 7:30 at the City Hall. The neighbors are to
be notified by a letter that is to be sent out from city staff and I looked
through the list Don that you gave me and I had everyone of them except there's
a Barbara Pike there that I would like to have it sent to and I do not know her
address.
Don Ashworth: That list is from a year ago so if you're aware of anyone who has
moved in in the last year, we should add them.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Then also I would like to have this particular
meeting of August 9th published in our paper so that those that are on vacation
and don't receive the letter, perhaps they have a chance to see it in the paper.
At least let's try to get as much coverage out as we can so we can put this
issue to rest once and for all.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment on that a little bit. I know Ursula was ,
out there. I was out and walked the site. Not having the shopping center there
does create a lighting problem from the gas station. One that I suspect will be
temporary but I think the neighborhood should be reminded that the City has a '
tremendous amount of security that that situation will not be as it is today in
that development contract and the guarantee, the financial guarantee so for
Roger Zahn to not complete that center would, in my estimation, probably
bankrupt him. I agree with your desire to have a meeting. I think that's
excellent but I think that the neighborhood needs-to know that the guarantees
are in place and Roger Zahn knows that they will be exercised by the City if he
doesn't meet his commitment.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not sure that they feel safe with those guarantees and
I guess we'd like to give them some assurance. One of the things, his permit
expires in November of this year. At that point I'd like to see that maybe we'd
discuss not extending that permit so that he would then, then he would
definitely get something done before November I think if we put that stipulation
into place.
Councilman Johnson: It discusses a permit before November. Does the letter of
credit, what does that cover? In the development contract. '
Gary Warren: It covers the HSZ site.
Councilman Johnson: I mean does it cover bezming and trees?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: It covers everything?
Mayor Chmi.el: Yes. '
Councilman Boyt: And that's why, that's a tremendous amount of money that the
City has the ability to call on. '
Councilman Johnson: Do we have to utilize it before December? !�
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
28 '
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
I Gary Warren: There's a renewal clause in it. The safest position, Roger can
I back me up on it, if it looks like it's going to lapse and we have some
outstanding issues, we go down and we draw the letter of credit or_ give him the
opportunity to renew it before we draw it.
Mayor Chmiel: The letter of credit presently right now is at $272,000.00.
Councilman Johnson: Do we know of any plans for the shopping center? Any
dates? Have we seen blueprints or anything like that?
Councilman Boyt: Roger says that he has his anchor tenant and will be wanting
' to go to the bank pretty quick. He has to guarantee 50% occupancy before the
bank will let him build. He's close.
' Councilman Johnson: He was close 3 months ago too when I talked to him.
Gary Warren: He told me 2 weeks ago when we visited with him on site that he
had authorized Kraus Anderson to start construction. That he had things
' straightened away. Now he went through Watershed District for approval
supposedly at the last meeting on July 20th and staff has got the submittal from
his new hydraulics engineer on the pond issue out there which we're currently
reviewing. This week we should have a notice to him on our final position on it
so he can commence with those improvements because that's what Kraus Anderson
wanted to start with and as we would want him to start with also.
' Councilman Boyt: If you haven't seen it, you should go look at the holding
pond.
' Mayor Chmiel: I've seen it more than once.
Councilman Boyt: It's an engineering disaster.
' Councilman Johnson: It's not complete yet though.
' Councilman Boyt: No but it looks our version of the Grand Canyon.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's one of the big violations is that was supposed to
be completed before SuperAmerica opened.
' Councilman Johnson: The holding pond?
' Mayor Chmiel: That was a part of the. ..
Councilman Johnson: The holding pond.. .to SuperAmerica.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Absolutely and yet SuperAmerica opened today and the
holding pond is a disaster.
' Mayor_ Chmiel: Even SuperAmerica is not very happy with what's existing. Okay,
Ursula. John Havelik.
,e
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just wanted to follow up there on the visitor's
presentation to see what has been done. It was suggested that the developer
29
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
submit a letter to the Council as to how he was going to address Mr. Havelik's
g lik's
concerns. Have you received a letter Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: No we haven't. What we've done is we've reviewed the file and
then we reviewed the site. We have determined that it did appear that they
should have put in, in addition to the retaining wall, additional landscaping or
a fence. Again, we've gone out to the site to determine what areas do need
additional landscaping and fencing and I have a letter drafted to the developer
but I have not, what I was going to do was to meet with him. See what he would
agree to do. If that's not what we feel is acceptable, we'd bring it back in
front of the Council but I wanted to clarify whether or not we did have the
power to require that. Sometimes plans are changed along the way and I wanted
to guarantee that that hadn't, what they had wasn't actually approved by the
Council and it does not look like that was the case. It looks like that
happened between staff where they said, okay that looks good enough and do it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. One of my questions was, I thought that we had an t
ordinance that required a 6 foot fence to be set between commercial and
residential.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's not necessarily a fence. It has to be some sort of screen.
Opaque barrier.
Councilwoman Dimler: The ordinance does not state it has to be a fence then?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. 1
Mayor Chmiel: But it is being addressed?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. We know what we want done. We just have to contact the
developer.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can you keep Council apprised as to what's happening on
that?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. We'll bring it back to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula downtown.
Councilwoman Dimler: The third item I had was the downtown beautification. I
know several times in the past we've asked about what's being done to replace
the dead trees and I still don't know what the status of that is. Don, can you
address that? '
Don Ashworth: Mayor. Chmiel left a message for me Friday and the easiest way was
just to put it in writing and I have yet to give that to the Mayor_. But that's
basically where the item stands in a nutshell. We're still in negotiations with
the contractor. He feels as though he should be given more of a credit for some
of the trees that are partially alive. I don't know how that can occur.
Mayor Chmiel: No way.
[E:111
Don Ashworth: The City is directing that a certain of the trees be put in a
different location so where we have looked at it and felt that maybe there's too
30 '
IICity Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
IImany trees in a particular area, we're saying� , y g we want that tree replaced but
we'll tell you where it's going to be. Not in that same location. As long as
I he's bringing it in, it seemed reasonable that we could require that, if it's in
the same general area, without cost. Again, we're not having the best
cooperation with him. We're holding $38,000.00 so it's not a matter that we're
I not going to get the work done. The meeting on Wednesday is going to talk about
getting the dead material out of there because I think it's just kind of
flaunting it when people go down main street, see the dead material. The island
I areas have never been properly polyed and mulched. We're trying to put a
priority on doing that work. Replating should not occur until September-October
now and I think those are all objectives that Gary is going to try to achieve on
Wednesday.
IMayor Chmiel: I don't know if all the replantings are going to be necessary
either. I think we have to look at that from a safety aspect as well.
IGary Warren: BRW has also done their own evaluation, sort of a QC look again
here to come up with some recommendations on that. I directed Chuck Eller this
morning, our park superintendent who's adopted the downtown here, to pull all
II the thistles and get all the weeds out of there now. We've documented enough
photographically what the problem is out there. So I said, clean up the area as
best you can so that should start also which will help a little bit.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: Is Noble Nursery responsible for maintenance?
Gary Warren: Nobel Nursery has a 1 year warranty period for a majority of the
stuff.
II Councilwoman Dimler: But they wouldn't be doing this particular maintenance?
Gary Warren: It's not maintenance per se. They have to, the replacement of
dead stock and such is a part of their responsibility and then after that it's
I ours.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just wanted to credit some of the neighbors that
I called me that were concerned about this and they said, you know we call it the
downtown beautification project. We did the whole thing to make downtown
Chanhassen more beautiful and it is just a disaster. So what she proposed to do
and I really give her credit for it, was that she said I would be willing to go
I down there and get a bunch of other interested citizens plus citizen groups such
as the Rotary or the Legion Auxiliary or the Lion's or whatever and we could
just have a day where everyone would clean up but what she would require there
II would be that we block off the street so no one would get injured. So that was
her. suggestion and I just thought it was really, really nice to show that much
concern for the downtown area. So if we have trouble getting to it, would you
Ilet me know and we will schedule such a day.
Gary Warren: I think at this point in time, as you say, it's very commendable
to have that offer. At this point in time, while we're in this negotiation with
IL the contractor, we obviously want to keep very tight control on what the City
has done.
•
Councilwoman Dimler: Right, I agree with you.
II
1 31
.
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Gary Warren: And once that is cleared up, we expect to be able to stay on top
of it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just as long as it gets done. 1
Gary Warren: We're all interested in that. '
Councilman Boyt: A couple more points on that?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Bill. '
Councilman Boyt: In the parking lot behind Pauly's there, it's been one,
there's that trash container that I haven't seen that locked in a couple months
and the doors are open, it's not doing it job when the doors are open. The
other one is, that's a good example and I think also probably around, whatever
this convenience store is over here is another one. When we anticipate that
cars will drive in in a forward manner to the parking stall, then they don't run
over the trees but when they back in, they do. Maybe when we replant, we should
consider that.
Don Ashworth: I passed that along to BRW. I noticed the same thing, especially 11
in the Pauly lot.
Councilman Boyt: And the other somewhat related item to all this is that I've
had two separate landscapers tell me that they don't think those trees are the
right species of trees to put where we put them. That they wouldn't have done
that had it been them. I don't know more specifics beyond that. I remember the
landscaper for the City coming in here and assuring us that those were exactly
the kinds of trees that needed to be in that situation.
Gary Warren: I remember the same conversation. I would just point out also
that Chuck Eller spends 40 hours a week basically on the downtown. Cutting
grass roughly takes him about 3 days out of the week just to do that. He has
commented to me that the other majority of his time is spent in cleaning up
trash so if Council would look to some type of community group involvement down
the road here, trash pick-up in some of these more active areas, the Pauly's lot
and such certainly would be encouraged.
Mayor Chmiel:, Good. Tom? Lake Lucy parking issue.
Councilman Workman: I'm going to hurry this along because City Engineer Warren
has stated that he'd be buying wine coolers at Pauly's if we got out of here
before 10:30. Roger was throwing in on the beer nuts. Lake Lucy Road, if that
doesn't bring the hair on your neck up, nothing will. Lake Lucy Road, parking
permit. I ran into a key player in the issue a short while back and I asked him
how's it going and they said they were not sure because they hadn't heard a
whole lot. I discussed it with Jim this morning and he gave me the minutes from
the meeting and everything else. It appears as though the parking permits, the
physical parking permits which we approved, are not going to be utilized.
Perhaps Jim wants to comment. Basically I think where we're at more, staff has
gone is that they are going to require each time somebody wants to park on.fLake
Lucy Road, to call into the City and the City will document it on their
computer. That basically was where it was at before with the County. We had I
32 1
1 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Ithat ability with the County. We were looking for a physical permit that they
could place in a car and that isn't exactly where we went. The Minutes
' basically state a physical. I know in the motion it was basically approved that
we would have the permit but then staff would look at how that might work out.
We kind of left it open there and I think it was taken a little further and I
11 guess I'd like to see us issue the parking permits of which Council approved
back in April so that we can work out the differences from there. We don't
know, we decided we really wanted to monitor the situation but we really haven't
given them permits for us to monitor.
' Councilman Boyt: Make that a motion and I'll second it.
IICouncilman Workman: I will so move.
Councilman Boyt: I second.
IIMayor Chmiel: It has been moved and seconded.
1 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded that staff issue the parking
permits for Lake Lucy Road as approved in April, 1989. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
II
Councilman Boyt: I agree with you. It was my understanding all along that that
was the intent. To make a very easy system to use so I'm glad you brought it
I up.
II Councilman Workman: If I can bring up one quick point. I drive by Moon Valley
quite often. Since Larry Brown's been gone, we haven't, I think Larry was kind
of on that. There's dirt flying down there. Are we still mining down there?
II Gary Warren: I asked, Dick Vogel was here this evening and I asked him before
the meeting if, because obviously Dick has been bird dogging that real closely
living down there and he said he hadn't seen any trucking activity. I will be
II getting in our, we put that on a high priority for our aerial photography
contour map to get that section in here so we could at least have a good record
of where we stand with it. Dick said no, that there hadn't been any activity
because that was a standing discussion with him was as soon as they take a move,
II to give me a call.
Jo Ann Olsen: On TH 212 though? Is that where you see it? That's okay.
1 That's there. The problem area was near Pioneer Trail on the north side.
Councilman Boyt: They have the right to do gravel but not clay.
I Mayor. Chmiel: Okay, that's addressed. We'll move onto Bill with Eurasian Water
Milfoil funding.
IL Councilman Boyt: It's I guess appropriate in some sad ways to bring this up
since the paper reported that it has been discovered in Lake Minnewashta.,, I
would like to find out what's happened. Does anybody know?
IIJim Chaffee: The DNR is going to be out tomorrow surveying Lake Minnewashta.
II33
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Are we planning to eradicate what was found?
Jim Chaffee: We don't know where it was found. It was picked up on the beach
portion of the lake...so the DNR is coming out tomorrow to survey it.
Councilman Boyt: Terrific. Well I was gone when the Council considered this as 1
a budget item but I guess about a month ago I proposed that this go on the
agenda as a budget item. I think that we need to budget, if I read this
correctly. I don't know if Don was suggesting that we could budget $10,000.00.
I was thinking to budget $5,000.00. I know staff proposed to kind of take this
as it comes but I think we need to set a certain amount of money and basically
say that they have our approval to spend that amount and if it appears to go
more, to came back to us. I'd like to see us make a financial commitment to
this thing.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see the commitment. I'd also like to cut a
deal with the Watershed District, DNR, whatever and say hey, we'll share in this
cost. Let's all get together. It's all of our responsibilities. The Watershed
District, the DNR and the city's responsibility for these waters. I don't want 1
to delay anything but before it happens I'd like to see if we can work some kind
of agreement with the various groups.
Councilman Boyt: I think the key part of your statement there Jay is you don't 1
want to delay anything and I don't think $5,000.00 represents that significant a
portion of our budget. It is significant but it's, we're sort of putting a
little money behind our commitment here. We certainly should follow up with DNR I
and others.
Councilman Johnson: See if they'll put up $5,000.00 too. '
Councilman Boyt: I doubt it but it's worth a try.
Councilman Johnson: Embarrass them. 1
Councilman Boyt: I would move that the City remove from it's current budget
$5,000.00 earmarked for the treatment of Eurasian Water Milfoil. If that money
not be expended, that it be returned to the general fund.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Rather than return it to the general fund, could it be
next's year. ,
Mayor Chmiel: It'd be kept within there.
Don Ashworth: Actually I'd like to have it out of the adminstrative trust. '
Mayor Chmiel: Fine.
Councilman Johnson: Can we create a milfoil fund then? ( I
Councilman Boyt: Next budget maybe but I'm saying for this year just pull it
out and then put it back if we don't need it. I
34
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
I
Resolution #89-85: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to remove
I from the current budget $5,000.00 earmarked for the treatment of Eurasian Water
Milfoil. If that money is not expended, that it be returned to the general
fund. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Just for your information, I am going to be meeting with Joe
Alexander, Commissioner of the DNR on Wednesday morning for breakfast, to
discuss the possibility of that boat lift from Lake Ann into Lake Lucy. I will
get back and let you know what the outcome of that is.
' Councilman Boyt: That's over in St. Paul you're meeting with him?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I'll be meeting him in Edina. The reason why it took a
' little time is he's been away for the past two weeks at two different seminars.
He just got back in town last Friday so I was able to talk to him this morning
and set it up for Wednesday.
Councilman Boyt: One of the things that I know Lori called me about this lift.
There isn't, to my knowledge, there isn't a company that manufactures boat lifts
of this sort full time. They exist but I suspect they're built one at a time.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we could probably ask Rub Goldberg to see if he can come
up with something. Okay.
ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
' A. SPRINKLING REGULATIONS, CONSIDER TOTAL BAN, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR.
Jim Chaffee: I'll try to be brief on this issue and attempt to water down the
' staff report a little bit here. We are not recommending a total ban. We are
just asking the Council consider strictly enforcing the odd/even system that was
implemented several weeks ago and allow us not to issue any more permits to
' anybody. That's it in a nutshell.
Mayor Chmiel: This one item that you have here Jim, where you were saying that
to implement a system limiting sprinkling between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 6:00
' a.m. and that's out also?
Jim Chaffee: That was Jerry Boucher's recommendation. We felt that it wasn't
' necessary at this point in time if we just strictly enforced the odd/even system
and keep it going as it has in the past. What brought this about was the
request from the Cimarron Homeowners for approximately 150 sprinkling permits.
' We know it's going to create a burden for the Cimarron Homeowners but we think
it's going to be encumbent, maybe not. Tom says they have beautiful lawns.
Councilman Workman: The problem is the young may who's doing the watering
doesn't know what the odd side of the street is.
Jim Chaffee: We think it can be worked out though.
Mayor Chmiel: Strictly just odd/oven?
' 35
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 11
Jim Chaffee: Strictly just odd/even and we'll just eliminate issuing permits
for the time being.
Councilman Workman: I guess on behalf of the Cimarron Homeowners Association,
they and we do not want special treatment and anything can be worked out, so. 1
Councilman Johnson: Isn't the home number system, it is easier huh?
Councilman Workman: Odd and even. '
Councilman Johnson: The inside's one way and the outside's the other way? When
you go around to the other side, wouldn't it be opposite then at some point?
Councilman Workman: I don't know. It's not that big of a problem.
Gary Warren: They can figure it out.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make a couple of comments Don. The Public Safety
Commission spent one, they unanimously recommended that additional permits not
be issued and that the odd/even system be strictly enforced. They spent over 2
hours listening to the State Hydrologist talk about this area and our water
supply. They, and you'll notice maybe in some of the materials that Eden
Prairie never left the odd/even system. They felt, when we heard the State
Hydrologist, the Public Safety Commission felt pretty strongly that this should
be a permanent stance. Following the lead of I believe it's Excelsior, we may
want to also put this, not just on the city water supply but also on people 1
using private wells. That we're really talking about water conservation here in
general.
Mayor Chmiel: Presently though this is intended for the city useage, for city
water for the odd/even.
Councilman Boyt: It might be, well I would like to see it on a future agenda
so we can bring in the people that you'd like to hear from, the specialists.
Mayor Chmiel:. That's the point.
Councilman Boyt: The fellow was very convincing from the State.
Councilman Johnson: I think metro wide we need to talk about this type of thing
and the City of Chanhassen's effect on the aqua fir in this area is minimal
compared, when you start looking at a Southdale Shopping Center or whichever
shopping center it is that draws over, what is i.t, 2-3 million gallons a day to
run their air conditioning system. More than the whole city in one little
shopping center.
Mayor Chmiel: How many residents in town approximately would we have that ate
on wells?
Gary Warren: Well you've got everybody in the rural area basically outside the
MUSA plus within the urban service area. There's maybe 5% maybe that are All
on wells. Some have kept their private wells and are also on city.
36 '
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes. I have my own as well as City.
Y y
II Gary Warren: See the private wells are typically tapping, it's not to say that
they shouldn't conserve but they're tapping from the shallower aqua fir. Our
wells pump from 400 to 600 feet deep in the Jordan Hinkley which is the common
' aqua fir of the majority of the systems plus we are sort of at the head waters
or upradiant in the aqua fir system which is to our advantage. Eden Prairire,
we hit it before Eden Priairie who gets it before Edina and so on.
Mayor Chmiel: The wells that you're talking about includes people who now no
longer, I should say no longer pump any water because their wells have gone dry
or the point's bad or something has happened so there's non-utilization of a lot
of those too so it would be a minute amount in comparison.
Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, in a previous resolution the last sentence is that
' permits will be issued for a person with new seed or sod...
Mayor Chmiel: That was previously was it not though?
Jim Chaffee: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: People with seeding or new sod can?
Jim Chaffee: But if we're going to eliminate the permit system, a new motion
would have to be made.
IIIL Councilman Boyt: I thought we just made a new motion didn't we? Haven't we
made that?
' Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Boyt: I guess it was recommended.
' Councilman Johnson: How many of these permits are issued right now?
Jim Chaffee: Last report I had from Scott he said somewhere in the neighborhood
of like 230 had previously been issued.
Councilman Johnson: Had previously? Like last year?
' Jim Chaffee: Since May 1st of this year.
Councilman Johnson: New seed or sod. Cimarron homeowners are sodding their
whole area?
Jim Chaffee: It comprises of about 150 of that are not necessarily new seed or
sod although a large portion of it was.
Councilman Johnson: Only new seed or sod?
' Gary Warren: They seeded again. p.
Councilman Boyt: When we had our experts come in, they were pretty clear in
I telling us that that everyday watering was not a good idea for new seed and sod.
' 37
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
This thing becomes much easier ._
rug e �.er to enforce if we. .. -
Mayor Chmiel: That depends upon what temperatures you have. How hot it is. 1
How much absorbtion is going. Whether or not you have to go back to
re-watering. If it's hot, the soil has tendencies to dry out real quick, so
does your sod. '
Gary Warren: If it's windy.
Councilman Workman: Maybe something with violators have to pick weeds downtown.
In the headlines.
Councilman Boyt: Eden Prairie has a fine system that goes first offense, '
$25.00. Second offense, I think it's $50.00 and then $100.00. We haven't
proposed, I don't know that we have a fine system but I would like to see us and
if need be, we can get the guy from the Arboretum to come in here but all the
information given to the Public Safety Department was that we did not need
everyday sprinkling for anybody. That odd/even promoted better root growth.
That it was a healthier lawn. If we can get the guys in here to do this and
maybe we should but right now we have a problem and I think we need to make it
easy to enforce and go on eliminating the permit system and go onto a strict
odd/even makes it much easier to enforce.
Councilman Johnson: I think that one of the big problems is nobody realized
there was an odd/even system. Last year it was big advertisement. It was on
the news every night who had a ban and who had this and who had that and we got
a lot of rain in the spring and everything and everybody sat back. I don't
really think, if you walked down the street and asked people, I should say 2
weeks ago before the articles in the paper when it asked do we have a sprinkling
ban and most of the people would say no. I don't think we advertised a
sprinkling ban. Last year we sent a card to every home.
Resident: I just received a flyer with my water bill. ,
Councilman Boyt: Terrific.
Councilman Johnson: That's the first step is public awareness and we had pretty
good participation last year. There were some constant violators but right now
it's a misdemeanor or what?
Don Ashworth: I don't know by what means we can tell the court what they should
set for that. Can we Roger?
Roger. Knutson: As a misdemeanor, it's maximum punishable fine of $700.00 and 90
days. People don't go to jail for watering their lawn.
Mayor Chmiel: I hope everybody hears this on cable. ,
Councilman Johnson: But it's up to the judge.
Roger Knutson: You could suggest to the prosecutor or the City could suggest
$100.00 is appropriate.
38 '
' City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Councilman Johnson: How do dog fines? Dog fines and stuff like that usually
work like that where there's the first time your dog is caught it's so much and
the second time it's more. My mom's old beagle really used to cost her a lot.
Jim Chaffee: Roger, aren't there civil fines versus criminal?
Roger Knutson: You could make it a petty misdemeanor which is not a crime.
' Jim Chaffee: I noticed in the article in the packet in the back, the City of
Minnetonka had a $50.00 first violation fine. The second violation is $75.00.
The third violation is $100.00.
Roger Knutson: Sure. That's a petty misdemeanor which is not a crime.
Councilman Johnson: Do they protest the fine?
Roger Knutson: You still collect it the same way through the Court system.
Citation method.
Jim Chaffee: It won't show up on your record.
Roger Knutson: No. It's not a crime. It's a parking ticket if you want.
' Councilman Johnson: We'd have to change our ordinance to call it a petty
misdemeanor.
Roger Knutson: If you want.
Councilman Johnson: If we wanted to set the fine ourselves?
' Councilman Boyt: I'd make two suggestions here. One, I'd make a motion or will
here in a second that we approve this or we support staff in going to a more
' complete ban. Secondly I'd like to see it put on the agenda say this winter,
the issue of sprinkling in Chanhassen. Have us get the experts that we need to
hear from in here and at that point raise the issue of shall we make it a petty
' misdemeanor. Shall we make it permanent. Shall we include wells and come to a
reasonable conclusion about how to approach this.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to do more of a phased approach. We've got the
notification of the people to start the enforcement. Leave the permitting as it
is for the people who have new sod and stuff. I hate to see it go. There's a
lot of people who even and odd is great but work shedules and stuff like that,
' you might not be able to hit your day.
Councilman Boyt: The way the permit, the way Scott Harr initially interpretted
' the ordinance that you all passed earlier is to say that you can't turn anybody
down for a permit request. I think if people have an emergency that they can
confirm, maybe so but generally this becomes very hard to enforce. The
inspectors don't carry around a list of who's got permits and who doesn't.
IE Councilman Johnson: But you can tell new sod. You can tell a seeded yard.
II Councilman Boyt: It's not going to die.
' 39
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 '
Mayor Chmiel: If people really want to maintain those lawns, they'll make a way
of taking care of it on those odd/even days.
Councilman Boyt: I would move that we approve a strict enforcement of an
odd/even system without issuing additional permits except for emergency
situations.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve a strict
enforcement of the odd/even system for the water sprinkling ban without issuring
additional permits except in emergency situations. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE, NOVEMBER 25-29. '
Don Ashworth: I solely put this item on the agenda to alert the City Council of
the background associated with this issue. That it is coming up. I will have
Karen contact each of you individually to see what your preference may be. I
did not know if you wished to discuss it in a general form in advance. In other
words, I think everyone should attend or this may not be the year to go or I
don't know basically where the Council stands on that area. But again, if we
are to, if staff is to be prepared for this should you want to go, we literally
need to start now. We need to start making reservations.
Councilman Johnson: Don't get those stupid airline reservations like you did
[.
last year. We had to barter and trade tickets with everybody. A lawyer went as
my wife. I told him he had to wear a wig to use my wife's ticket. '
Councilman Boyt: You know when you think about ethics, that's probably. I
would suggest that in Council procedures, that we add a statement under our sort
of rules of operation that says and maybe Roger could word this but the basic
intent of this would be that council members who not be serving the following
year would not attend a national conference.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any problem with that. Any other discussion? ,
Councilman Johnson: The other discussion is, I would encourage everybody to go
to this. I've gone to it the last 2 years. It has been an intensive
educational. You're running from one session to the next session. It's not a
boon dog whatsoever. You can never get to as many, there's always 2 or 3
sessions that you want to go to of Park and Rec or zoning or whatever. It's a
great conference. Well put on. We had Willard Scott as the dinner speaker one
time. Without the wig. I encourage everybody to go to this. I plan on going
down.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is it always around Thanksgiving? '
Councilman Johnson: It's a rotten time but it has to be sometime.
40 '
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
' Councilman Workman: Is it before Thanksgiving?
ICouncilwoman Dimler: The day before.
Councilman Johnson: No, I think it's the week after Thanksgiving. This is good
for me. I plan on being in Alabama for Thanksgiving with my parents so this is
just 200 miles down the road for me.
Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. Members who will not serve on the City
' Council or just will not serve.
Councilman Johnson: We're talking lame ducks. The issue came up with people
' who have resigned and will not be taking office in January.
Don Ashworth: For example, Clark Horn stayed on the Housing and Redevelopment.
' Councilman Boyt: No he shouldn't be. In my opinion I want people who lose
elections, by our rules not allowed to attend these things.
Councilman Johnson: Now if the Housing and Redevelopment Authority wishes to
send somebody to this conference, they may. It comes out of their budget.
Mayor Chmiel: Now would the new council people be able to go?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I would like to see newly elected council people
being able to go to this because it is quite good educational stuff for them.
Councilman Workman: You're talking about before the take office?
' Councilman Johnson: Before they take office. There's only going to be 5.
Councilman Boyt: So we need to vote on this I guess.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a motion stating the basic
intent of members attending the National League of Cities Conference would be
' that council members who will not be serving the following year would not attend
the national conference. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
At this point in the meeting, the City Manager asked the City Attorney's's o inion
P
regarding closing the public portion of the meeting to discuss the Bongard
' Condemnation issue. The public was asked to leave the roan and on the following
pages, to be released separately to the public at a time specified by the City
Manager, is a transcript of the remainder of the meeting.
1 -
' 41
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
BONGARD CONDEMNATION, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: I would really start the item with a question to the City
Attorney. In condemnation proceedings as we're considering with the Bongard
property for the realignment of TH 101, can the City Council close this meeting
to discuss that condemnation?
Roger Knutson: Since we're starting a lawsuit, that's what the purpose of the
discussion is all about, yes you can.
Don Ashworth: Staff would recommend that we close this portion of the meeting.
I would ask, if supported by Council, that Nann shut off the recorder. We will
leave the smaller recorder operating. This is for anyone in the audience,
newspaper, and I would anticipate that we would be in a position to make the
tape available hopefully within the next 2 weeks/next month. But again, to
insure that we prudently take care of the city dollars it would be again my
recommendation that we close the meeting.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to close the public portion of
the meeting to discuss the Bongard condemnation. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. '
Don Ashworth: We have received a proposal from Krass and McRow to hopefully
settle, or at least start settlement for the Abby Bongard property. The concern
of staff is that you have an elderly lady who's lived here all of her life and
she is trying to buy a home. It's going to cost her $170,000.00 to purchase
that home. In the meantime enter a realtor and a developer who have entered '
into a purchase agreement with her. The amounts that they're seeking are
significantly higher than the appraisal. What I've asked Roger to do is to meet
with Mr. Krass to see if we could present an offer where we would put down
$50,000.00 and give us a one year period of time to insure that the State
legislation has changed. Roger, did you want to discuss any of the options?
Generally what we would be doing is giving Roger the authority to negotiate
something for us. We're going to call the Council back together are we not?
Roger Knutson: A group of them, sure. It should come back as an agenda item.
I'm not going to spend your money. ,
Don Ashworth: We tried to get a hold of Mt. Krass today. We had four different
optional scenarios all of which would try to help Abby out while still allowing
the appraisal process to continue on it's normal course. Give her some amount
of money. Let her get into the new home and agree to disagree as to the value.
Let the Court take care of that and when the Court would finally make a
determination, then we decide do we want to exercise our option or not. '
Roger Knutson: And we might not be that far apart on values. She has a
purchase agreement and this is bei ng taped to
so I'll be careful what I say.
fThere's some question about it in my own mind of it's validity but anyway that
purchase agreement is for $330,000.00 and our appraisal is not that far away
L. from that. It's not there but it's close. So we might even be able to come to
terms. I don't know Don. It's possible that we can come to terms on what the
dollar value is. But do you want me to go over the options?
42
r4
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Don Ashworth: No, I don't think so. Especially if we're going to have to bring
I the City Council back together again to potentially look at something. The
primary reason for putting the item on the agenda was to present the scenarios.
In talking with Roger this evening we were not able to get feedback from Krass.
' I guess at this point we're simply alerting the City Council and trying to make
sure that you are aware that we're trying to do everything within our power to
treat Abby fairly and yet not to let the City be taken through that acquisition.
Roger Knutson: It's a little bit tricky in the fact that there's an outstanding
purchase agreement on the property. Normally I'm concerned about who I'm giving
the check to and things like that so there's some details that have to be worked
out. We're trying to get her into a new home without jeopardizing the City.
Councilman Boyt: Like when we do TH 212, the State has a fund so we can protect
that piece of property. Is there any type of comparable situation here?
Councilman Workman: Which piece of property?
' Councilman Boyt: Well this is in line with the TH 101 alignment. I just
wondered if there's any comparable state fund that will allow us to protect the
property? What I see happening, what scares me is that the City is going to, as
' I hear this, is going to commit some funds being out on an awfully thin branch.
When the tax legislation is redrafted, our ability to extend that tax increment
district is not granted, then we've just given that money away.
' Don Ashworth: Not necessarily. You currently have in the bank $230,000.00 and
that can be earmarked for this acquisition. If we do not use those dollars as a
part of this acquisition and at the end of 1989 those dollars would be sent back
' to Hennepin County. At that point in time they would reduce it by 40% for
fiscal disparities. They would then distribute the remaining 60% to Hennepin
County, Eden Prairie Schools and the City of Chanhassen. We would get about 20%
' of the 60% which comes down to about $25,000.00 is my recollection so I don't
know that we're really out that much Bill.
Councilman Boyt: And you don't think there's a fund, the State wouldn't have
any way of participating in this?
Don Ashworth: ,I can't answer that question. My fear is the timing associated
' with it. The whole official mapping process and everything else. We're talking
about Abby Bongard's property. Could that be shown in the official mapping
process and thereby go back to Metro Council to receive dollars for that
tacquisition.
Gary Warren: Through the RALF funds? They're pretty limited from what we've
been told for TH 212. If it was officially mapped, it could qualify.
Councilman Johnson: These funds are almost imaginary in that there is quite a
few cities that have not been approved to go after these funds. We're going to
' be going after them for their highway work up north. We don't have a whole lot
of, it's going to be interesting. The legislation passes some laws allowing
[:7
some other people eligible for these funds.
I -
I43
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989 '
Councilman Boyt: Even if the $230,000.00 is there Don, I think there's
probably, I'd be surprised if there weren't other uses for it in the tax
increment district. I'm concerned that things are so tenuous on what the State
Legislature is going to do.
Mayor Chmiel: We have to be concerned about the property owner too Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Well, but that comes back to the City's money too.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. '
Don Ashworth: There are potential uses especially associated with the
intersection of 184th Street and TH 5. Right now all of the negotiations are on
the basis of no cost to the City but I can't guarantee you that they'll stay at
that level.
Councilman Boyt: So what are we approving? If we give Roger permission to
negotiate for us and he comes back or if he makes an offer and they accept it,
then we're bound to that right?
Roger Knutson: No, no. I wouldn't do that. Anything I do, I'll negotiate but
it comes back to you for approval. I'm not going to bind you to anything.
Bring it back in writing.
Councilman Boyt: What's the down side if we don't do this?
Roger Knutson: If they happen to sue you based on an inverse condemnation ,
theory, I think that is not a very good theory. I'm not concerned about that.
I'm concerned about Mrs. Bongard but I'm not concerned about a lawsuit.
Councilman Johnson: She wouldn't be suing. It'd be the developers.
Don Ashworth: Unfortunately they're tagged together and I don't really
understand how Mr. Kress can represent both Bongard and Diem simultaneously.
Mayor Chmiel: But he is.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't there another option here? Can't the City in some way
or another help Mrs. Bongard move into the house that she wants without
committing $50,000.00 to the process?
Mayor_ Chmiel: No.
Councilman Johnson: It's a $166,000.00 house. '
Mayor Chmiel: Mrs. Bongard basically does not have dollars per se.
Councilman Boyt: Right. It's all in her property.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Correct. She's on welfare. She has a problem. I shouldn't say
welfare. She's on Social Security. So with that I think we should just proceed
with what you're going to do and come up with a conclusion. Is there a mgtion
for adjournment?
44
-- --•-�-:lira-•-.-�_..._t__ -•-�lltii`ii�
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
1 Councilman Boyt: Well, don't we have to make a motion in
that regard?
' Mayor Chmiel: He's not going to create any action per. se. Just come back with
information.
' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m..
1
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
•
It
1
1
1
1
r
1
1 45
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR UNEDITED
Chairman Conrad called the
meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, St ve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst . City Planner and Mark Koegler ,
Planning Consultant
PUBLIC HEARING:
' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY
ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHANHASSEN
LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD ADDITION, ARGUS
' DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present :
' Ray Grant
Don Patton
If: Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the
public hearing to order .
' Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
' Headla : Jo Ann, what are the remarks by Elizabeth Rockwell , the comments?
Olsen: Those were comments from when we first reviewed the site when the
' concept plan was going through. These comments were just her general
comments over all the wetlands on there.
' Headla : Are they still appropriate? I 'm not sure I can read all her
writing but on that second line there under comments , it says by removing
or plugging drain.
' Olsen : Right. See there are the 3 basins that are going to be altered .
We ' ve already done 2 with the first and second addition of those wetlands .
They' ve already gone through 2 other wetland alteration permits so these
' comments are kind of all of them. The 3 wetlands that were going to be
able to be altered .
Headla : So it isn ' t quite appropt i.ate to here?
Olsen: Not with this specific wetland .
Headla : The only other thing I had and I don ' t oppose what they' re trying
to do, is that we put it at 927, 930, if you go out there and walk around ,
Planning Commission Meeting
II
t
July 19 , 1989 - Page 2
II
how do you know where you are? I addressed this last time and I 'm looking
at this and I 'm thinking well , should we ask for like a 6 inch mound or
something put around so it' s defined where the wetland begins . And I 'm
not sure it' s appropriate and it's more of a question.
Olsen : The way we do it is, that contour will be reflected by a drainage II
easement so that will be on all the surveys and that will be recorded on
the final plat . So whenever any survey comes in for the house at the
II
start or any decks or additions in the future, we' ll see that easement.
We' ll know that that is the wetland, the edge of the wetland and the 75
foot setback will be taken from that. The people who live out there,
that' s why we also have that additional condition that it will be recorded "
against the property to try to make them aware that it is a wetland and it
is protected . Other than having a fence out there or flashing light
saying this is a wetland, it' s protected, don' t touch, we really keep
II
trying to add additional ways to make the public aware.
Headla: That really doesn't address my point. You can put it on paper. II
I 'm asking that we put it on land .
Olsen : Right . I just don' t know how you would without , I don' t see that I
you really want a structure around a wetland. You want to keep it.
Headla : That ' s why I 'm saying like a 6 inch mound or a drop in 6 inches
( or something because somebody can go out and mow and mow that not meaning
to be harmful at all . Good intentions but they do it for 5-10 years and
somebody notices it and the you come in and say, well it used to be a
wetland but now it ' s such a low grade B wetland, let them do it. I really I
think we should address how do you define it when you' re walking out on
that land .
Conrad : Do you want a monument of some sort? Are monuments used anymore? II
Olsen: I don' t know if they are. I think just those little steel , but
again people don ' t always see those. I
Conrad: You don' t see them but.
Headla : I think there should be something but I 'm ready to recommend I
something.
Conrad : That' s a good comment . I
Headla : Let me just pass it on but I 'd like to leave it for a time and we
may not even solve it tonight but as we go along , maybe an answer will
II
evolve.
Conrad : I think recording the wetland on the individual parcels is a step
but the issue is still there Dave. You ' re right. I 'm not for creating
another barrier because that sort of defeats the purpose of what we' re
trying to do. Yet on the other hand, you know full well that 5 years from
now that people will be down mucking mucking in the wetland and when it ' s
dry, they' ll be mowing it. They' ll be an area that they shouldn' t be.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 3
' Headla : And they aren' t doing it intention to be harmful .
tConrad: Probably not. No, not intentionally.
Ray Grant : I 'm Ray Grant. A suggestion, I think one of the things that
we have to do is establish some taller vegetation around the edge of the
' pond . Maybe a suggestion would be that that will probably grow up fairly
quickly, especially if it's a wet year when there' s water in the pond and
when the City drives by or somebody from the City drives on Audubon Road
' and they glance over and they see one of the neighbors has mowed down this
cattails or whatever , they' re going onto the easement. Maybe they can
just send a letter out and explain to the guy why he really can' t do that.
I think that will , these cattails or whatever type of vegetation you've
' got established around the edge, I think that would sort of define where
the wetland is . We added , this is designed to have water in it at I think
the 923.5 I believe is the normal water elevation so theoretically the end
' of the wetland is 923 . 5 but in this situation we' re using 927 . That' s the
highest the water can get to from a 100 year storm. If the water goes
higher than that , it flows out a way lower in an emergency overflow into
the catch basin and also out beyond the emergency outlet. That might be a
way, and everyday I go for a walk and where I walk there ' s a pond that' s
similar to this. It' s in Burnsville but it' s got this cattails and
they' re 5-6 feet high all the way around the pond . That ' s just grown up.
I 'd say the pond' s been there 7-8 years , 10 years maybe. I 've discussed
the mounds out in the middle and I envision that that ' s what this is like .
I think that' s what they have in mind when they talk about the cattails .
' That defines the wetland just perfectly. That one has a fluctuation also .
I think in a heavy storm it' s gone up 3-4 feet and that' s just about what
happened .
Conrad : Thanks for your comments . Anything else?
Wildermuth: Do you represent Argus?
' Ray Grant : Yes I do .
Wildermuth : Are you going to be developing the area or going to be
selling lots?
Ray Grant : Argus will build . I think they build all the houses uptown
' and they' ll be building the houses also. Joe Miller Homes builds the
house. Argus Development , Joe Miller owns Argus Development and Joe
Miller owns Joe Miller Homes .
Wildermuth : I see . So that will provide some measure I guess of control .
The pond appears to be a very nice, very attractive addition to the
development there . The one question I have is , what is to the north of
that? Is that vacant land?
Emmings : Is that Dave Stockdale?
Olsen : Well it will be Lake Drive just to the north . Then Dave Stockdale
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 4
and the IOP district. Vacant IOP.
Wildermuth : How close will the wetland be to Lake Drive?
Olsen: It' s not right against it. I don't know exactly how far it' s
going to be . It just comes around to the north.
Ray Grant: I could point out to you where the wetland is today and that' s "
this line right there so we' re actually moving the wetland a little bit
away from there. I 'd say maybe 20-30 feet. About 20 feet.
Wildermuth : Will the wetland be 75 feet from the road?
Olsen: No it won' t .
Ray Grant: Right now we' re moving it further away than what it is right
now.
Wildermuth : We don ' t have any restrictions on that? ,
Olsen: Not to streets .
Wildermuth : It seems like that ought to be something that needs to be
addressed.
Conrad : Distance the road is?
Wildermuth : Yes . In the future . Other than that it looks good . I 'd
like to live next to it.
Conrad : How far is the road away from the wetland Jo Ann? ,
Olsen: Lake Drive?
Conrad : Yes . '
Olsen : The actual right-of-way has not been established . It would be
similar to what we' re doing on the east side where we have to work with II the land so I can ' t tell you exactly. It will be within 75 feet . It ' s
just north of it.
Ellson : I like it . I think it will be better than it is now. I also
shared Dave' s concern because I don' t think anyone will be checking those
sorts of things and if other_ cities use plantings might be a solution ,
then maybe we should add that plantings over x length of height or
something as far as surrounding it because that might just be the solution
but I like it.
Emmings : It seems like a very appropriate thing to do to me and the only
thing I would do is say that the deed restriction, condition 3•, that the
language ought to include the fact that it ' s a 75 foot setback from
elevation 927. Just so that' s real clear what it' s setback from. Other
than that , I think it ' s fine.
, Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 5
Erhart : I don ' t have any problems with this . It seems like a logical
thing to do and perhaps an improvement over existing .
' Conrad : Okay, thanks . The reason we went from 930 Jo Ann to 927 was
what?
Olsen : The 930, we have the plans that you have in your packet . It looks
like the top portion of the new pond but actually once we got the
calculations for the high water , that' s where the water will , at the 100
' year flood, that' s the highest it will ever be. There' s an outlet and it
will never get above that so we always use the ordinary high water mark
for that edge and that' s how we lowered it.
t Conrad : Of the 3 issues , if there are 3, that have been brought up, are
documenting where the wetland really is for residents and I don' t think we
have a solution for that . Is there a solution? Is that something we need
' to look at?
Olsen : Like I said, each time we add another condition trying to make it
a little bit tighter so it's more fair .
Wildermuth : In this case I think we' ve got some comfort because the
owner developer is also going to be the builder . Rather than selling off
IF: individual lots .
Olsen : It never gets passed on it seems .
' Emmings: If there' s a deed restriction though, that is something that an
owner will become aware of when they buy the lot . If they read it or if
they pay attention, if they remember it , it' s a whole bunch of things that
' could get out of the way there but at least there ' s something .
Conrad: Another issue is the setback from the road which is not
necessarily this developer ' s problem.
Wildermuth: I think it' s something we should look at in the future.
Don Patton : Could I say something? Don Patton. One of the things that
the, whenever title goes over, you normally do a title search. This is
going to be your registered advance easement . That would show up in the
title which is certainly highlighted to the new buyer as it' s closed so I
guess I 'm enough of a conservative but I think we need less restrictions
and I think that' s a certainly an option for the buyer to see where there
is an easement as a matter of record .
Conrad: I think we, well I don' t disagree with you Don. At least
I personally don ' t like a lot of restrictions yet if you have an asset , I
could take you through Chanhassen, I ' ll show you where what we' re talking
about is being abused right now. So on the one hand I don' t Like
restrictions and arbitrary laws and things that can' t be followed up yet
' on the other hand , people aren ' t diligent . People aren ' t reading all of
the deed restrictions . They simply don' t do that and I 'm not sure I want
1
Planning Commission Meeting . II
July 19 , 1989 - Page 6
II
to throw it on government ' s lap to do it but we' re talking about , is there "
an easy way when a knowledgeable group who is developing a property can,
you' re the best source we have to help protect. You' re putting in the
development and this is the time that we can put something in that might II
last for a while and I 'm not sure we know what that is so , you' re project
is in front of us. We' re talking kind of in general .
Emmings : Ladd if I could interrupt just on his comment. An owner will
II
find out that there' s an easement there and that there' s a wetland out
there and it goes to 927 but that isn ' t going to mean anything to a
landowner. He' s not going to know where 927 is on his lot and that' s what I
we' re talking about . Unless he gets it surveyed and gets a stake in the
ground and that's what I think Dave is saying is that there ought to be
some visual cue for that landowner or anybody else just where that 927
contour is and that' s what we' re really talking about.
I
Conrad : I don ' t have any other comments . Jo Ann, in the staff report ,
the applicable regulations, you referenced Class A wetlands. We' re 11 talking about a B here .
Olsen: Class B wetlands , right.
II
Conrad : So that ' s simply. . .
Olsen : Yes , we brought that out from another regulation that just got in II
there. It' s a B.
Conrad : Any other discussion? Is there a motion?
111
Emmings: I ' ll make a motion to recommend approval of Wetland Alteration
Permit #89-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 10, 1989 with the 4
conditions of staff and altering condition number 2. Changing 930 to 927. II
Condition 3 , changing the last line so that it reads , 75 foot setback and
then inserting, from elevation 927. Just those two changes .
Wildermuth : I ' ll second it. II
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as shown on the site plan
dated July 10, 1989 with the following conditions :
1. The applicant shall submit revised plans providing for an uneven, 11
rolling bottom contour for variable water depth of at least one foot
and showing that the basin will have a fringe of shrubs on the upland II
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the
wetland .
2. That the new edges of the wetland at the 927 contour will be protected I
( by a drainage and utility easement which will be shown on .every lot
survey and that the applicant understands that a 75 foot setback
exists from the 927 contour for decks and accessory structures .
I
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 7
' 3. A deed restriction will be recorded against each lot abutting the
wetland stating that the lot contains a protected wetland with a 75
' foot setback from elevation 927 .
4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit .
' All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR
' CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS.
Mark Koegler presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the
public hearing to order.
' Ellson moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Conrad : Tim, we' ll start at your end . Anything?
IF Erhart: No. Not on this one. We discussed this thoroughly the last
time.
' Emmings : The only thing I thought about when I read this and it may be
real simple. If you have a place selling gasoline, and they have more
than 400 feet , square feet of foot area for retailing non-automotive
' goods, what is it?
Koegler : Can you repeat that?
Emmings : If you have a place that' s selling gasoline or motor fuels but
it happens' to have 405 feet of floor area for retailing of non-automotive
goods , what is it? Does that help?
' Conrad: It can't be.
Ellson : That ' s your definition of convenience store .
' Wildermuth: Convenience store with gas pumps .
Koegler : You' re saying it would kick it above the threshhold of the motor
fuel service station in terms of the retail square footage. That would
kick it into the convenience store.
' Emmings : Now it' s a convenience store?
Ellson: Right.
Koegler : Convenience store picks up where that one leaves off with over
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 9
that but to prepare it throws it into a different category in my mind .
Does it matter? And I couldn' t take it any further than that but prepared II
bothered me.
Koegler : That definition is a carry over from some of the discussions
that you had with Steve when he was here. I don't know what transpired at "'
that time. I don' t know if there was supposed to be a distinction between
heated and prepared. I think the intent of the ordinance from at least my II
perspective is clearly that it' s supposed to be pre-packaged products that
maybe you zap in the microwave for 30 seconds and you go out the door .
It' s not supposed to be a food preparation area because that gets you into
health requirements and everything else that these would not begin to
meet. You have the venting requirements and everything else under
building code that you have with kitchens. I don' t think there' s any
damage if it' s troublesome to strike the word and/or prepared . ,
Conrad: Is Tom Thumb a convenience store?
Ellson: Yes . '
Conrad : Which we have down on TH 101 and they have a little deli in
there. I don' t know what they do to get the food to their little deli but II
it' s. . .
Koegler : They' re doing more and more of that . '
Conrad: There' s a lot of business there. I guess you know, it didn' t
seem in sync but I 'm not anti that word . I just bring it up and if II anybody is bothered by it, we could strike it but on the other hand, just
thinking about Tom Thumb. They have a little deli in it and it' s not bad .
I think it is a convenience to their surrounding neighbors and doesn' t
bother me.
Ellson : What is your biggest concern? That someone will have a prepared
thing and come and call it convenience store? I guess what' s the worst
that could happen?
Conrad : No, it just took a convenience store another step further into a
restaurant category which means more traffic which means some other things
but I think when I think about the alternatives of striking it , and maybe
some assets that it brings to the neighborhood, I prefer to keep it in
there. '
Ellson : He didn' t mean something that has to be warmed to eat and
prepared could be either. Like you said , maybe a put your own sundae or
something would be prepared but it wouldn' t be heated so I think it should
be in there.
Emmings : I supposed being under 400 square feet is going to provide some
limitations too where they' re going to want to be displaying s,o much
merchandise in a fairly small space that they' re not going to want to
devote much to preparation. I don' t know. ,
Planning Commission Meeting
9
July 19 , 1989 - Page 10
Conrad : I think the only thing I see Steve is , because of convenience
store and where we put them. . .
Ellson : He said anything over 400 feet .
Conrad: Yes , it would be over 400 feet. I 'm not sure I see a down side.
' In a business neighborhood , traffic is what we' re worried about and as
long as we can't sit down, I guess I 'm not totally bothered after going
through the logic myself. Anyone want to make a motion? I don' t think
' we' re talking about any wording changes to what is there.
Emmings : I 've got a question .
Ellson: We don' t have any guidelines . . .
Olsen : We ' re looking for it too .
' Emmings : What, the definition?
' Olsen : Yes .
Emmings : Of convenience store with gas pumps , yes . It ' s not in there.
1rOlsen: Well we don' t even have convenience store but I know that we 've. . .
Emmings : No , it ' s not in this draft of the ordinance unless it ' s been
added since.
Olsen : That ' s why I 'm thinking it must have been an amendment .
' Emmings: I feel like I remember seeing it but it' s not in the Code.
Olsen : Whenever we have anything in there , we always define it . Maybe it
' never was defined. I know that it was .
Emmings : What are you looking from us on this? Do we have to make a
motion recommending approval?
Olsen : This is a public hearing . This is the real thing .
' Emmings: Do we need to close the public hearing?
Conrad : It has been closed . We just need a motion .
Emmings: I ' ll move that we recommend to the City Council that they
approve the ordinance as presented to us by staff and I 'd also ask that
' staff check between now and the time it' s presented to City Council to
make sure that we have a definition for convenience store with gas pumps
that corresponds to the other definitions we' ve been presented'with
tonight so that they all coordinate together .
Wildermuth: Second .
Planning Commission Meeting ,
July 19 , 1989 - Page 11
3'
Koegler : My only comment would be that convenience store with gas II pumps, I think the assumption has been that that' s self explanatory. That
the only differential between the two is the existence of pump islands.
If we need to clarify that by adding another one that essentially says the
same thing except this one has pump islands, we can do that but I think
the assumption, the way the ordinance is drafted right now is that
convenience store and convenience store with gas pumps are the same thing
as far as the building goes. The only differential is the sale of
petroleum outside.
Emmings : Maybe you just want to add a sentence under convenience store
that would say that if they sell motor fuels too, then it will be
designated as a convenience store with gas pumps or something like that.
I think it should be defined in there someplace.
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 adding provisions
concerning convenience stores and motor fuel stations as presented by
staff and directing staff to look into the definition of convenience store
with gas pumps between now and the time it reaches City Council . All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE: '
A. SECTION 20-3 REGARDING DEFINITION OF DENSITY.
B. SECTION 20-409 REGARDING WETLAND SETBACKS (200 ' ) FOR COMMERCIAL DOG
KENNELS AND STABLES.
C. SECTION 20-441 REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF THE WETLAND SECTION.
D. SECTION 20-1021 REGARDING SWIMMING POOL FENCES.
Conrad : Jo Ann , there aren ' t many people in attendance. Do you have a
staff report that you want to go through? '
Olsen : No , we can just go through each one . . .
Conrad: Anything different than the last time that we talked about it?
Yes , maybe we should go through it . I think for procedural purposes ,
we' ll open up the public hearing for any comments to the amendments
proposed to our zoning ordinance for Section 20-3, 20-409, 20-441 and
20-1021. Are there any comments? If not, is there a motion to close the
public hearing?
Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad : Let' s go through them one by one . Any comments on 20'3 ,
definition of density? Any comments? How about 20-409? Wetland setbacks
i
' Planning Commission Meeting
'July 19 , 1989 - Page 12
I
for commercial dog kennels and stables .
Emmings : I have a question. When we say that you' re going to set back a
kennel or a stable 200 feet, what are we setting back? The building?
Olsen: Yes. The stable would be what would be set back. The pasture,
no . As far as like a dog kennel , when those come in I also include where
the concrete is and the patio. That gets into the definition of structure
which we' re still . . .
Headla : What did you say Jo Ann?
' Olsen : I take setbacks from like the concrete area around a kennel
because that' s permanent and I consider that a structure also so it
wouldn ' t just be the dog house . I would consider that part of the kennel .
That we' re working on the definition of structure which would help define.
Emmings : Our definitions of kennel under our definition sections of the
code don' t, relates to the property more than it does to a building but
when you use kennel with stable, that makes me think of something that ' s
built to house the dogs with runways and all of that . What is the
' objective of setting back a kennel or a stable from a wetland?
Olsen: The reason I did this was that we already have that control when
they have to go through a conditional use permit. They have to be set
back 200 feet from the wetland but if it' s in an area where you don' t need
the conditional use permit, we don' t have that setback from a wetland so
they could be right up against it. Under the wetland ordinance, they
' could be 75 feet but when we reserached the conditional use permit for it,
we felt in working with the Fish and Wildlife and also with Roger
Machmei.er and Jim Anderson, that they should be set back. The stables
' themselves where a high percentage of they, that they should be set back
farther .
Emmings : Why?
' Olsen: Why? The concentration of the manure .
Emmings : Well , I wondered if that was the reason because I supposed if
you had a small pasture and a lot of horses , if you' re worried about
nutrient overloading into the wetland, you may have the same problem with
the pasture that you have with the stable. In fact , the stable is
probably cleaned out and put on a pile where in a pasture it' s not going
to be so I don ' t know, it depends on what the objective is here . If
you' re worry about nutrient overload, I don't know that this will do it.
' Maybe it will . If the pasture is big enough, it ' s not probably going to
be a problem. If it' s small , it might be. I don ' t know that this does
what we want it to do or not .
' Conrad : Dave, what do you think?
Headla : I think we' re trying to solve a problem that isn ' t a problem and
trying to fix something that isn' t broken. I don ' t agree with the
Planning Commission Meeting ,
July 19 , 1989 - Page 13
1
ordinance, the way it is right now. I can cite a particular situation
where I did a horse inspection. You brought up a very good point. Where II
is the pasture? Normally very few places that I inspect that don' t have a
pasture around the barn. The barn invariably stays very neat and that' s
the thing we' re trying to control . Your corral is where the horse will
stay mostly during the winter and you have a manure accumulation but the
people are picking that up in the spring or early summer , during the
summer. They can take that, haul that out in the pasture and leave it and
they can be with the ordinance or conditional use permit . What we' re •
trying to do, and the results that you' re going to accomplish, I think it
might be negative. I 'd like to see this thing thrown out on the
conditional use permit and take another look at it. If you' re really
trying to control nutrients , I think you have to control it probably by
densing and keeping a pasture and that clean. Not just say a stable. And
dog kennels, and I 'm kind of out of a dog era now but the dog kennels that
I 've known and I know now, they' re spic and span. You go outside and boy
they' re clean . What are we trying to control? I think we' re trying to
control something we think is a problem but where has there ever been a
defined problem? I don' t know. '
Conrad : Are you just saying where the stable' s located is really not the
problem? ,
Headla : That ' s right .
Conrad: It' s the pasture. '
Headla : And the fella that applied here this last year . He jumped
through hoops trying to get his barn at the right spot and he called me
over and wanted me to look at it and we said okay let ' s put it here
because the drainage is away. That kind of decides where the building and
that made a lot more sense than that actual distance from the wetland .
Conrad: Do you see a simple solution to this? I think Jo Ann is trying
to solve some problems, not making it a big deal but maybe the simple
solution for stables, it seems like dog kennels are easy to take care of
this way but stable is probably a different thing . Should we delete
stable from this one and work on it or is there a solution? Is it worth
while? '
Headla : Yes . I think it' s worth while and the reason I say that , when I
drive around and I hate to see it limited to just residential single
family or anything . When I drive around and I see a horse pastures that
go out into wetlands. I 'm having a hard time with that. I can' t say
anything . That ' s not in an ordinance. I 'm not sure if cattle or horses ,
animals or such domestic animals should be grazing in wetlands. Maybe II there' s something , if enough people agree with that thought , maybe there ' s
something there we could use to control the situation. I see animals ,
domestic animals grazing on wetlands, they' re just degrading it
conjunctively.
Wildermuth : But boy, is there going to be a human cry about something
like that. '
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 14
' Conrad : Yes . This is sort of a low impact way of doing something and
probably not much but do you think there would be a great deal of outcry
Dave from the animal owners?
' Headla : Yes . I think so . They've had their animals out there for a long
time. I 'm sure they look at it as their land. They bought it for that
purpose. They've been using it for that purpose . I think there would be
some very strong opposition.
Erhart : You' re referring to what? Cattle?
' Headla: Cattle. Domestic animals grazing on wetlands .
Erhart : I didn ' t know there was anybody left in Chanhassen that raised
' cattle is there?
Olsen : They'd all be grandfathered in . I don' t think anybody is moving
' in.
Conrad : The Kerber ' s used to have cattle out on Lotus Lake up until last
' year .
Erhart : Did they really?
IF= Conrad : Oh yes . It was kind of neat to go by the cattle swimming in the
water .
Erhart : I think I agree with Dave that they shouldn ' t be in wetlands. I
was trying to think of anybody in the south part of Chanhassen that has
cattle. There' s one over on 17 that raises cattle over there .
Conrad : Well should we , Jo Ann what do you think? What ' s your feeling?
I think the point' s valid that Dave' s , real valid, that he' s raising .
' Olsen : Right .
Wildermuth : But it' s two separate issues I think.
' Olsen: We could look into controlling that . The ones that it would
really impact would be grandfathered in so it wouldn' t be changing
anything . The structures we could, I 'd have more control on but if that' s
' not what people the problems , then that ' s okay. Maybe it isn ' t necessary
and if that' s the case, then we should take it out of the conditional use
permit. The whole initiation of this was just to make the ordinance
' consistent .
Conrad : Dave, tell us what your preference would be on this . Should we
' strike the stables at this point in time and do you want to do any work on
this project just to help Jo Ann or do you feel that , we can leave it in
and there may be little impact. As Jo Ann said, she' s trying to make it
consistent with Fish and Wildlife , consistent with what?
Planning Commission Meeting ,
July 19 , 1989 - Page 15
Olsen : No . Right now our ordinance for stables and kennels, when they' re II
a conditition use permit, under the specific conditions of that
conditional use required to be 200 feet from the setback.
Conrad: So Jo Ann really is trying to make things consistent. It's
almost more housecleaning .
Headla : On the other hand, throw it out of the conditional use permit. I II
think those were the words that were restricted that were not appropriate.
Emmings : What did you just say. I didn' t follow. '
Headla: Remove that from the conditional use permit.
Conrad : Dave would like to change the conditional use guidelines . '
Rather than syncing this up with the conditional use guidelines, he' s
saying hey those are wrong .
Emmings : Well , I don' t think we know what we' re doing here. I don' t
think there's any real , I don' t feel any consensus up here for , maybe we
should look at the whole thing again. Maybe we aren ' t doing the right
thing in the conditional use either .
Conrad : Probably a valid, so the question is , we could modify the zoning
ordinance in terms of dog kennels and throw out stables and re-evaluate 11
stables in context of pasture, corral or whatever .
Emmings: What the compelling reason to have a dog kennel 200 feet from
the wetland?
Erhart : To me that just eliminates a whole lot of people from having a
dog kennel on their property. If you have a 25, 000 square foot lot, 200
feet deep, 125 foot frontage that backs up against a lake, that guy can ' t
have a dog kennel .
Wildermuth : Why don' t we let the wetland ordinance control it so you
can' t be closer than 75 feet?
Olsen : That ' s where a structure, it already is controlled by that way.
Emmings: I think maybe that' s enough. Maybe we should table this one and
think about it some more . 11
Conrad: I think so .
Emmings : We looked at it before and didn' t bring all this stuff up. Our II
comments were based on public comments that we heard.
Conrad : And Dave is as public as we can get. '
Olsen: So you' re tabling of this is what? I guess I 'm not clear on what
you want . Do you want to review just taking out of the conditional use?
Planning Commission Meeting
'July 19, 1989 - Page 16
' Conrad : I think we need you to review what the purpose of this is ,
especially for the stables. Also in terms of pasture land .
' Erhart : And dog kennels.
Emmings: Give us a rationale.
' Conrad : And I guess dog kennels too .
Emmings: Both need a conditional use permit now.
tErhart : Right. I think what Jo Ann is trying to do is good . We' re
trying to make our ordinance consistent but let' s re-evaluate these things
' as it relates , what it ought to be.
Conrad: I would hope Dave could help you a little bit.
' Headla : I 'd be glad to work with Jo Ann on that .
Conrad: And maybe what he' s suggesting is the conditional use permit may
' need some modification as well . --
Olsen : I ' ll check with our experts and see what they say that stables
should be that far away.
Emmings : I think what Dave said about density. Density would seem, near
a population of horses for a certain size of land and also regulating how
' they dispose of their manure from the stable. Are they putting it out on
the pasture? What are they doing with it? Or from a corral? Those
things may be more important to regulate than where the building is .
Erhart: I agree. Even the density of dogs lies because when you get a
commercial kennel , then I can easily see where the 200 foot makes a lot of
sense but 1 guy and 1 dog, being so restrictive is unreasonable I think.
Conrad : It says commercial dog kennel .
' Erhart: It also says private though too .
Conrad : Interesting .
' Emmings : I wonder , would the Fish and Wildlife people or DNR have any
regulations or information about the effect on wetlands with these kinds
of activities?
Olsen : I can look into that .
Emmings : They might be a good resource.
Conrad : Section 20-441. Any comments on the penalty?
Planning Commission Meeting '
July 19 , 1989 - Page 17
1
Erhart : I think the penalty is fine but I think the real issue here again
is this information about what' s a wetland and if we could provide some
way of educating people, both existing Chanhassen citizens and people
moving into the area buying houses, really what is designated wetland
because I don' t think people have,any foggy idea of where the wetlands
begin, even in a brand new subdivision like this. The first guy that
moves in there won' t have any idea where it is and just off hand I can
think of 2 ways that we could improve the communications in that area. One
would be to , a map that' s important , to put it up in the lobby of the city II
hall here someplace so when people walk in, you know how you always have
to wait to get an appointment with staff . They' re always late and things,
and they would browse around and look at these maps. Just kidding of
course but the map and they could see what was designated land . If it was II
on their property, they would know. The second thing is , if we have all
these pamphlets that we have up here and maybe print up a pamphlet. What
are designated wetlands in the City so there' s a higher probability that a 11
land owner here in the city and lot owner would know if there ' s an
official wetland and then also include in there the penalties. What' s the
laws and what ' s the penalty. Right now I don ' t think there' s any
convenient way. There is no way that anybody would know that there' s a
wetland on their property.
Emmings : We could go around and paint them all red . ,
Erhart: Paint them all red. Just some ideas .
Conrad : You' re right . Nobody knows .
Erhart: Nobody knows. And then there's always the ones that, there's II always the people that do do it. They sort of know but the fact that it' s
not blatantly spelled out for them, they go ahead and do it because they
can always say, well how was I supposed to know.
Olsen: Even the ones that you point it out to them, they' ll still argue.
They' ll say that' s not a wetland . It doesn ' t have. . .
Erhart: But if it's on a map.
Emmings : They' ll say it ' s not wet . It wasn ' t wet last year . '
Olsen: There' s never been a duck in that wetland .
Erhart : If it' s on an official map someplace, you can ' t use the argument I
well it's not wet because it's on the map.
Olsen : We explain then it ' s just soils and vegetation. '
Conrad : Any other comments on this one?
Erhart: Also point out , the map does exists doesn ' t it? '
Olsen: Well we' re updating it though. We' re trying to update it .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 18
IL,
Conrad : Section 20-1021, the swimming pool fences . Any comments on that?
t Jo Ann, it says that you got some comments from people in the City. Is
that right or did I misread that?
Olsen : No , we' ve had no comments . This came about because we had people
with the wording that if it was inaccessible from adjacent property, what
they felt was inaccessible and what we felt was inaccessible , we didn' t
agree on. Plus the building code would still require them to have a fence
for safety, for people falling out from the pool over the cliff so we took
it out just to make things consistent again. Just make it clearer that
you have to have a fence no matter what .
' Wildermuth: Sounds like a good idea.
Emmings : Is 4 feet enough? Is 4 feet what you want? I think that I 'm
aware that there are 6 foot requirements in other cities. I 'm wondering
if , a pool is a very attractive thing and I think it' s smart to fence it
but I don' t know if 4 feet' s enough and when it talks about perimeter
' fences being 4 feet in height , I was going to check our code on fencing .
Can fences be 4 feet on perimeters in all places on a perimeter of a
yard?
' Olsen : As far as like on the front or corner?
Emmings: Yes .
Olsen : Yes , we have no restrictions on that. You just can ' t block
visibility. That' s why we have site plans like on a permit .
Emmings: Yes , like on a perimeter or something?
' Olsen: Yes. That ' s a good point .
Emmings : And I supposed , it says it ' s located on property which is
completely enclosed by perimeter fence and is what you have in mind there
' that at least the yard in which the pool is , that' s what will be enclosed?
Olsen: Yes .
Emmings : Okay. I just don' t know about 4 feet .
' Conrad: I would think that 4 feet is going to keep your infants and
toddlers out . Anybody that wants , it is an attractive nuisance no matter
what and because it' s so attractive you' re going to scale, somebody that' s
capable can scale a 6 foot as well as a 4 . My thought there was making
' sure that infants, toddlers and little younger children can' t easily get
in .
' Emmings : And I 'm quibbling now but if that ' s the goal , do you want to
designate the kind of fence? Should it be chainlink? If you have a
picket fence with the pickets this far apart , it' s not going t0 serve that
`� purpose.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 19
Olsen : That ' s true . Everybody just assumes that they always put chain
link.
Conrad : It probably should be Jo Ann .
Olsen: I 'm just trying to think if there' s other types of fencing than
chain link that they use but I can check that .
Conrad: Yes, we need your guidance on that but I think the chain link is
really the way you want to fly.
Ellson : I ' ve seen people do the slat board right next to each other so
you can ' t even see in.
Erhart : Why don' t you define it in terms of someone who can ' t get through II
it somehow as opposed to chain. Just try to find some words that says
can ' t be penetratable by children .
Conrad: Any other comments on this?
Headla : I 'd like to ask a question that Steve was pursuing and that he
forgot to ask but he was going to ask. What' s the intent of this?
Ellson : She talked about that .
Olsen: The intent of?
Headla : Of this ordinance.
Olsen : We' re deleting certain words from the existing ordinance that were
difficult to define.
Headla : But are we trying to keep out neighborhood children?
Olsen: Right. It' s for the protection, yes . '
Headla : Okay, but if I had a swimming pool in my backyard and I got
perimeter fencing all over the place. I 've got probably 3 fences on
different spots , but somebody could come in my front gate or come in the
back and if I had a party, that swimming pool wouldn' t have to be
protected by this ordinance. Are we really trying to protect the swimming
pool? If we are, then we should put limits on how far away that fence
should be away from the swimming pool .
Emmings : My thinking would be there Dave that if you have guests , you' re
aware of it and if you don' t have your swimming pool fenced , you' ll be
watching it. I think this is more to prevent the situation where somebody
wanders onto the property or is attracted to the pool from off the
( property where you' re not aware of it .
`-- Headla : See that ' s what I was questioning . What is the real intent? Is
it from people who reside outside the property? Are they protecting the
pool from them?
'Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 20
Emmings: I think so.
Headla : If that ' s the intent , then I think the wording is appropriate.
Emmings: You let the people have that choice. You can either fence your
pool to protect everybody who might be on the property or you can fence
' your whole yard if you want to have a more open feeling around your pool
and I think that ' s an appropriate thing .
' Headla: But I 've seen patio fences in the immediate area of the pool .
Ellson : I know people who have a big patio area and their yard and
everything too so they've got all the lounge chairs . I 've seen it both
ways but I think more the other way.
Conrad : Any other comments?
' Erhart : What if the closest property is 1, 000 feet away?
' Conrad: That ' s okay.
Ellson : But you don ' t want that split rail kind of fence . There' s that
one part about what the intent is .
Conrad : A toddler can go 1, 000 feet.
' Emmings: Okay, maybe I ' ve got an idea. We can just add language to the
swimming pool fence section that says the fence shall be chainlink or
something else approved by the City which will prevent children from
' entering the area of the pool . Maybe people want to design something that
doesn' t look as cold as chainlink and if they do, fine but let' s say
you' re going to use chainlink unless you come up with something else that
we approve. I think that'd be a good way to do it.
Conrad : Barbed wire , does that work?
Headla: That works . That will keep a kid away. I use a lot of . . .
fencing and it looks good and you can put wood up on it on top of it .
Aesthetically I like it better than chainlink. I 'm trying to think, do I
' want to support the wording of chainlink. Appropriate fencing but by
who 's definition.
Wildermuth : We want it to limit access . That ' s what we should put .
' Fencing that effectively limits access .
Emmings : I think by saying chainlink though, you get the idea across real
' clear. Put the burden on them to come up with something else that works .
Conrad : Is chainlink a brand name?
' Emmings : No. How' s that for a simple answer. I have no idea .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 21 '
Erhart : Are you looking for a motion? '
Conrad: I 'm looking for a motion on all of them.
Ellson : What about the one we wanted to leave out?
Erhart: I move that we recommend to the City Council the ordinance
changes as outlined by staff for Section 20-3, regarding definition of
density with the changes they recommend. Section 20-409, we' ll not
include that one I guess . Section 20-441, as recommended by staff . And
Section 20-1021 as recommended by staff with the addition of definition of
a chainlink fence unless otherwise approved by the City. With the
addition of those words in that recommendation.
Conrad : Is there a second?
Emmings: Your motion includes chainlink?
Wildermuth : I don' t think we should use the word chainlink. I think we
should say fencing that effectively limits accessibility.
Emmings : Well let' s second it. I ' ll second it for purposes of '
discussion.
Erhart : Okay, then I ' ve just left item 2 off in my motion. I
Conrad: Jim' s comment is not too specified. Chainlink, in your motion
Tim, did you specify chainlink? I
Erhart : I specified chainlink unless otherwise approved by the City.
That' s the words I used.
Conrad : Then let ' s get consensus on that wording . Steve, you' re
comfortable with that. Annette?
Ellson: I like it.
Conrad : Jim, you' re not. Dave, where are you? '
Headla: I think Steve made the point that it should say chainlink is
getting the point across . With that , I guess I 'd support that .
Conrad: I think I 'd go along with that too. I think your comment is
valid Jim.
Ellson : We' re still giving him other options . Just because you might get II
the interpretation that to me this is not accessible.
Emmings : I like the idea of shoving the people all the way over here and II
then have them show you why you should let them out .
Conrad : Jo Ann , I trust you can specify what we' re trying to get at?
Typically insurance really dictates what goes around a pool . I don' t
' Planning Commission Meeting
' July 19 , 1989 - Page 22
-
C
' know, I struggle with why we' re doing this because typically you don ' t
have a pool unless you've got insurance and insurance tells you exactly
what they want around that pool .
' Emmings: I didn' t think about that.
Conrad : I always wonder why we mucky mucking around with this particular
one when private industry is typically taking care of it.
Erhart: When people come in, aren ' t they responding to an insurance
' requirement? What do they tell you?
Olsen : There are quite a few pools out there without fences .
Conrad: They don' t need to carry the insurance so this will take care of,
you could go out and dig your own pool and put it in and basically I don' t
think you'd have to have. . .
' Erhart : You' re right . My insurance company wouldn ' t even know. They
don' t even ask that question.
1 Emmings : Do you know what any of those insurance standards are? What
they do require? That would be a real interesting thing to know.
Conrad : Barbed wire to the height of 15 feet. I really don ' t know.
Ellson: I think it has to be a locked fence. I think I knew somebody
' that was looking into that and they had to have a lock. It ' s not just
that they have to have a fence but it has to be locked.
' Emmings : No kidding .
Olsen : Yes , that ' s in here. That it has to be latched .
' Emmings: Latched on the inside, yes . But actually a lock.
Ellson : Someway that yes , not just any old person could figure out how to
do your latch and turn it and lift it up.
Conrad : Having a latch doesn ' t mean it' s locked .
Ellson: Really. It could be just a lift up kind of thing. I recall it
being pretty tough.
' Erhart : If we didn' t have this and some neighbor kid fell in the pool and
drown, the City would be in a position of receiving quite a bit of
criticism for not having such an ordinance .
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
g g
approval of Section 20-3 , definition of density as recommended by staff ;
' Section 20-441, enforcement of the wetland section as recommended by
staff ; and Section 20-1021, swimming pool fences amended to include the
I
.
Planning Commission Meetin g
July 19, 1989 - Page 23
I
C
addition of the definition of a chainlink fence unless otherwise approved I
by the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad : Everything passes Jo Ann except the one that we need you to do a I
little bit more work on and bring it back to us and see how we think.
NEW BUSINESS :
Erhart : I 've got some new business . Can I introduce an idea here or do I
you want to wait until the end?
Conrad : Sure . Go ahead .
I
Erhart : Just a quick one. Is there any interest on, a couple meetings
ago we heard a horror story about the utilities company, and I don' t
believe it was NSP, I believe think it was Minnesota Valley Electric came I
in and clearcut a 50 foot wide path under a power line. I started
thinking about that because I have a Minnesota Valley Electric powerline
quite a few hundred feet through my property and I 've been trying to II reforest this area . As I 've been planting trees every year and I started
realizing this year for the first time, since they came out and did the
same thing on my property, now since they did it on my property every 10
years , it hadn' t grown up to mature trees and what had grown, a lot had
II
been box elders so I was a little bit upset about it but didn' t say
anything and yeah, go ahead and I was too busy to leave the office and
find out what they really wanted to do but once I really started looking I
at where I 'm planting these trees so I don' t get them under the power line
and I don ' t think it' s wide enough to give them 50 feet so I probably have
some of the trees that I 've planted are closer in than that but then I
I
heard this horror story about this property out here where they came
through and did that. I 'm just wondering if that' s something , it so goes
against the effort we made in preserving trees and so forth . Obviously
you have to maintain power line clearances and so forth but I wonder if
I
there isn ' t some happy median that we ought to be looking at or is it
something that we just don't want to deal with.
Emmings : I went out and looked at that . I was out at Camp Tanadoona and I
saw where they came through there and it' s just ridiculous. It ' s just
incredible overkill for the purpose that they're trying to reach as far as II
I can tell. I don' t see why they should be able to do that.
Wildermuth : Is that the width of their easement , 55 feet?
Emmings : I 'm sure it must be and I think they should be able to take
reasonable measures to make sure that in storms, that trees don' t fall ont
he lines but it looks like ground zero at Nakisaki .
I
Conrad : It' s just devastating . Its just such an overkill .
Erhart: One of the things we could do is we could get NSP' s policy for
I
this and find out if Minnesota Valley' s approach to this kind of thing is
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 24
' substantially different than NSP. Don, do you know what NSP' s policy is
regarding going in and clearing for lines?
' Don Chmiel : Yes . Normal procedure is that if you have, depending upon
what the right-of-way is , and a line is put through that right-of-way.
Say you have 60 feet of right-of-way, the power line takes up 30 feet of
it, they have the right to clear up to the outer edges of that
right-of-way but they can ' t go beyond any of that right-of-way.
Erhart: But the question, what I was wondering, do they really do that
' though or do they try to take into consideration, do they try to minimize
the cutting? I guess that' s what I 'm. . .
' Don Chmiel : Yes . In normal procedures as we go through, we avoid wooded
areas as much as we possibly can. In some instances you can' t but in
proper kinds of routings that you look at, when a company goes out to see
where a line would go, those can be moved one way or the other . It' s
' always a routing process basically.
Erhart: But in this case it was an existing line.
' Wildermuth : It probably also depends on the voltage a transmission line
carries out.
1r Don Chmiel : That' s correct and I think what they put in there was a
distribution line if I 'm not mistaken. It was not a transmission line .
Is that right?
Erhart: I assumed this was a line that was serving those houses there .
' Don Chmiel : Then that's a primary line rather than a transmission line.
Emmings : Yes . That' s what it looks like.
Don Chmiel : How wide of a cut was it? I was going to look at it?
Emmings : You should . It' s at least 50 feet. Everything is gone.
Don Chmiel : How many conductors are on that line? How many wires? 1 or
3?
' Emmings : I don ' t know.
Don Chmiel : You don' t need that much clearance .
Conrad: Jo Ann, what would you see as being the right way to pursue this?
' Olsen : I can look into what sort of, is there an easement? They might
have total right to do anything. I can check and see if we can limit that
r or make them contact us before they do that or I ' ll see how fat we can go.
What kind of control they've got.
Conrad : Is that the right first step?
Planning Commission Meeting
1
July 19 , 1989 - Page 25
Erhart : The first thing is to see if there ' s any interest on the '
Commission level to spend any time on this thing and if we could just get
the guy to contact us and we give him the pitch about trees and then
obviously find out about what our level of authority is.
Emmings : At Tanadoona they told us , they told me that after they did this •
they lost power out there because something did knock their line down.
Ellson : So in other words it was for no good because if they hadn' t moved
it and then 3 weeks after that. '
Emmings : That almost sounds like it was made up but that is what I was
told.
Ellson: I heard that too.
Conrad : Is this a case where we can contact the power company and they
may have a public relations person that could come in and talk to us?
Olsen : Sure. I ' ll see if that necessary. They might just be able to
send us their information.
Conrad : I 'm a little bit sensitive to how you spend your time. We could
1r give you a whole bunch of stuff and maybe a starting point would be to see I
if they have a public information officer or somebody who will not know
the answers but might be able to address us . You could tell him or her
what our comments and concerns are and maybe they could be prepared to
address those issues .
Emmings : And if they would come to a meeting too , it might be good to I
have somebody from that, a spokesperson from that neighborhood here also.
Conrad : Tim Foster . Maybe he' s not in the neighborhood yet .
Emmings: Somebody.
Conrad : Most of it went through his land . I don ' t know how much went
through the property owner ' s land.
Ellson: Well we have Minutes from the people who were commenting on it.
Those types of people.
Olsen : We' ve got their names .
Conrad : Okay. Any other new business? Any other old business?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission dated July 5, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the
motion carried .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 26
' OPEN DISCUSSION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION, MARK KOEGLER.
Koegler : Pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan and a couple of items that
we'd like to briefly discuss this evening . The first is a schedule that
was handed out to you on the table. At the meeting that we discussed the
Gorra case , we spun that off a discussion and threw together some land use
' information that was necessary for the comp plan and to thoroughly address
that application as well . At that time that we stated contingent upon
some things falling in line that we thought a land draft would be
available in about 90 days . I guess I 'm pleased to be able to tell you
that things seem to be falling in line and we proposed a schedule that
you' ve got in front of you and are asking you basically for approval of
' that tonight. The reason we' re kind of asking for approval, you notice it
shows an August 30th meetin and that is a special meeting that we would
like to 'see with the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of
addressing comprehensive plan issues . That happens to be the fifth
Wednesday in the month of August so we pick up potentially another night,
if we can tie up your time, that we think we could get quite a bit
accomplished if that was the sole item on the agenda. We would ask
' consideration of that and then be ready on the 16th , coming back with
material on the socio-economic section and going into land use shortly
thereafter .
Conrad : Comments . Specifically August 30th , which is what Mark is
asking. Anybody have a problem with having a special meeting?
Headla : I ' ll be in Alaska.
Conrad : You may have a problem with this meeting . Anybody concerned with
the schedule that they see in front of you?
Ellson : These things are going to be on the schedule in addition to our
ongoing things right except for on the 30th, that will strictly be a
comprehensive plan.
Erhart : We have a meeting on August 6th?
Emmings: 2nd .
' Ellson : Are we going to be making room for this purposely like maybe
putting off some of the other things or is this always going to be at the
tail end? Do you know what I 'm saying? Like sometimes when it ' s 2: 00 or
whatever and we' re saying well we' ve got this comprehensive plan thing. I
mean I 'd like it to be as important as item 1 all the time.
Olsen: It' s been real hard to push off, when you have that application
deadline and they get it in on time, it' s been really hard to say well
it' s already full .
Erhart : I ' ll agree to it if I can get a double per diem.
Conrad: Hey, Tim you can get triple. We' ll give you all of ours. Okay.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
9 g
July 19, 1989 - Page 27
C
Erhart : On the agenda , Mark, where are we discussuing , in this series of II
meetings , are we discussing land use of the rural area or is that outside?
Koegler : No , we' re discussing everything pertaining to land use. All
issues. Spinning off of that, we assume that's a go, also at the time the
Gorra request came up for the addition to the MUSA line , that request was
subsequently joined shortly thereafter by the American Legion, if you II recall , who wanted to add about 5 or 6 acres additionally. Prior to that
time in conversation with Steve Hanson, there was a decision that was made
that the comprehensive plan should take a more thorough look at the MUSA II
line expansion issue than perhaps it had been to date. Parallel to that,
I was recently contacted by a couple of groups who have interests in ,
particularly the corridor along TH 5 and certainly have some vision of
what they desire to see happen there most of which requires sanitary sewer II
service. In order to kind of apprise you of the status of things and
basically let ' s get everything out in the open so to speak to begin with .
In meeting with Jo Ann and meeting with these individuals , it was felt II that it would be beneficial tonight to allow them to provide just a brief
commentary to you just to kind of orient you to what their interests are.
Some of the properties they represent and kind of basically introduce you II
to some of the faces that I 'm sure we' ll be monitoring fairly closely the
activities that go on as we continue in conformance with this schedule.
John Shardlow I think is here tonight and two other gentlemen, Bob
Morehouse and Paul Napier . Both of these groups have been invited to give
you a brief orientation as to who they are. Who they represent and what
some of their thoughts are. We would suggest that again this is part of
setting the stage for what we' re going to launch into come the month of II August and would encourage the Commission to listen to that and take that
into account. So with that , Mr . Chairman I 'd suggest however they want to
start, with either John or Bob or Paul .
John Shardlow: Good evening . My name is John Shardlow and I 'm one of the
principles with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. We are planning consultants
with offices in Minneapolis and we serve as planning consultants to a
number of cities in the metropolitan area and also represent private
developers before communities representing them and requesting development
approval . I 'm here specifically tonight on behalf of the property owners
that are shown in the rose color on the exhibit that ' s in front of you and '
I 'm going to make my comments very, very brief. We did talk to Mark and
appreciate the time that he took in meeting with us , to talk about the
fact and recognition of the fact that the City is taking a closer look at II
the comprehensive plan . We would like to play an active role in the
process to try to assist you in looking at the advantages of looking at a
comprehensive planning strategy that would change the MUSA line and
provide sanitary sewer service along the TH 5 corridor . Just very
briefly, I think there are a number of advantages that are presented by
that area. First of all , from a land use standpoint, the vast majority of
the land owners out there are looking at an industrial office park type of ,
a land use that is not in competition with downtown Chanhassen. It' s also
a logical progression of the development pattern that' s already existed in
Chaska with the Arbor Park and the Jonathon West Industrial Park and a
logical extension over time of the industrial development that ' s already
11
' Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 28
C
' occurred in Chanhassen along that corridor . It is for the most part
removed from existing neighborhoods and the City of Chanhassen which
avoids questions of capatibility of use and so forth . It also presents
' the opportunity over time to accomplish and capture a very significant tax
base. I did some calculations , just very rough and very preliminary but
also very conservative. You' ve got approximately 900 acres shown in that
rose color in front of you and obviously it has to be a staged development
' pattern and done in an orderly fashion and there' s a whole lot of
discussion that needs to take place , but with very conservative estimates
as to percentage of lot coverage, building value and so forth, I see about
315 million dollars worth of assessed valuation out there which breaks
down to about 15 million dollars in annual taxes . It' s the type of land
use that we find from our experience doesn ' t require a lot of municipal
' services and is a very good rateable in the sense that it doesn' t require
a lot of services and yet contributes greatly to the tax base . We also
have an opportunity since all of these people are willing to work together
with us as their representatives , to work in a meaningful way with you to
try to plan that area as a cohesive unit and not be bound necessarily by
lot lines and topography and so forth, other constraints . We' ve got the
opportunity to look at a large scale planned unit development. Look at
' perhaps more stringent controls on building materials and landscaping and
lighting and signage and the other things that communities look at in
terms of community aesthetics. We realize that this is at least a 2, if
not a 3 step process if you look at it in the broad base. Obviously the
IF: first goal that we have is to convince the City of Chanhassen that it
makes sense to change your current comprehensive planning strategy and
look at trying to sewer this area . Then there ' s the whole interest of the
' Metropolitan Council and issues related to the extension of the MUSA line.
We have a burden of proof in this process of convincing you that the
advantages outweigh the disadvantages and then once that has been
accomplished , to work together with you to try and carry the ball to the
Metropolitan Council and assist in providing the type of information that
obviously will be required in order to accomplish those policy changes .
When you look at moving the MUSA line, I think some things that argue in
' favor of this type of change are certainly the amount of dollars that have
already been planned to be spent on TH 5. That' s consistent with the
Metropolitan Council ' s strategy of trying to be prudent about where
' Metropolitan investment is in getting the most bang for our buck if you
will . So I think there are some arguments and some good logical arguments
that could be advanced as part of that process . I should also be candid
t and straight forward in saying that one of the interested parties is Mills
Fleet Farm. You may have heard that around the community that there is an
interest on the part of Mills Fleet Farm in locating in the northwest
quandrant, excuse me northeast quadrant of TH 5 and TH 41. They have been
' involved as a part of this group and we also realize the sensitivity in
the City of Chanhassen for competition with the downtown area. We feel
quite clearly after the review that we' ve done , that Mills Fleet Farm is
not the type of a commercial use that would be a threat to the downtown
type of commercial development . Again , that ' s our burden of proof and
it' s for information to be brought to meetings outside of this meeting .
�._ We really think given the type of market and the scale of market that a
Mills Fleet Farm has , that they become a destination, and actually bring
people to the community and would be a net benefit but again I 'm not going
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 29
C
to preach that to you tonight . I 'm just going to tell you that we
recognize that as our burden of proof . There probably would be in the
long range scenario the desire for some very limited service oriented
commercial as part of that overall,, development but the vast majority of
the development that we would talking about would be in the indudstrial
park and office park type of land use. That' s really it. I guess we' re
coming here hoping that this is a timely point in your process to ask for
the opportunity to participate in some meaningful way as you deliberate
these important decisions for the future.
Bob Morehouse: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, I 'm
Bob Morehouse and I 'm a local real estate broker that' s been active in the '
area for the last 34 years. We' re representing primarily 2 of the
landowners on parcels that have recently been sold on the south side of II TH 5. The Mary Welter Farm comprised of 137 acres and the property known
as the Butler property on the west side of CR 117. About all I can say
after Mr . Shardlow' s excellent statement is amen because this is basically
the main thrust of our effort is to petition for the extension of the II MUSA line in an orderly fashion and the enhancement of Chanhassen I think
is going to be a natural outcome of a reasonable extension of the
MUSA line due to the broadening of the tax base that' s inherent in the
development we hope to bring in. We' ve been approached by a number of
outstanding corporate users that are sincerely interested in the area and
one of the ingredients that we find lacking is enough industrial or
business park land to offer these people the kind of corporate sites
they' re actually looking for . I guess that ' s about all we have to say at
this meeting except that we sure appreciate any questions that the
Commission would have regarding any of the sales efforts or any of the
contacts that have been made to us and through us and we just look forward
to working in unisom with the commission and with the City of Chanhassen
for the fullest and best use of everybody involved. Thank you.
Emmings : Could I ask just one question?
Conrad: Sure. '
Emmings: Are the people that have approached you, are they looking for
sites for, you say it was corporate headquarters . Is it manufacturing
type of facilities or is it office building type?
Bob Morehouse: Well I think they are composed of both of these things . II I think most of the things that the people that have contacted us would be
putting installations that would be virtually under roof with practically
no outside storage of any kind . They'd be the kind of style buildings
that I think would be a credit to Chanhassen and this is one area that
we ' re vitally interested in. We' re very anxious to see that corridor
which is going to be a showcase for Chanhassen and if we all pull together
and get together and make the serious effort to see that that corridor of
TH 5 as it' s four laned out to TH 41, does become the kind of showcase
that I envision Chanhassen will be forever proud of it and that ' s the
\- thing that we have to do in working together to see that this does
transpire and it can be done . It' s just a matter of the will and the
effort and the union between all the entity groups that are working
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 30
gir
' towards that end . I know we can accomplish big things if we just put our
mind to it. We can have the kinds of industrial campus like arrangements
that the City will be proud of.
' Wildermuth : Does the change to the MUSA line that you' re proposing
involve any residential construction?
' Bob Morehouse : I think that that ' s incorporated within the rose colored
area that was on Mr . Shardlow' s map. I think that the Michael Gorra
property would be largely a residential effort and the way I understand
' Mike' s thrust would be upper bracket type housing is what Mr. Gorra
envisions on most of his property. I think that the TH 5 frontage would
perhaps have to come under some form of PUD standard that would be maybe
' other than residential but I think his main thrust is for the nice
residential on the whole Lake Ann area there. There are possibilities in
the PUD effort on some of these other parcels to incorporate some form of
residential , maybe multi-family would be something that should be looked
' at.
Wildermuth: I should tell you where I 'm coming from. I categorically I
guess coming in tonight, I 'm opposed to any effort to extend the MUSA line
beyond the Met Council ' s recommendation in the year 2000 except for IOP,
industrial office park reasons .
IL Bob Morehouse : Well this is of course our main , this is where Paul Napier
and myself put most of our efforts. I don' t know how many of you are
aware of it but we ' ve been working very diligently for the last 4 years
' almost exclusively in the Chanhassen-Chaska area. I have a long tenure of
activity in the real estate business in the City of Eden Prairie and was
largely responsible for some of the early on industrial activity there. I
' sold the former Charlyn site years ago to Buck Charleston and I also sold
the MTS site down there and the Water Products site and some of those
other locations . This is the end of the business that we love and
recognize that we've got to have residential too but we' re primarily
interested in the IOP effort . Thank you.
Koegler : My only other comment Mr. Chairman in closing this item, would
' be that as John referenced the question on the timeliness of this and I
think certainly I would hope everybody recognizes it is very timely.
There is a parallel as to what transpired in this city back in about 1978
when Ed Dunn came forward with the PUD that was largely residential at
that time with the industrial component . It was , John would probably
remember , he was involved , 2, 000+ acres so we have a parallel in that time
I think the chief advantage of that proposal coming forward at the time it
' did was it led a concrete example of everything we were discussing and
hopefully we' ll have that benefit once again . I think if it ' s in the
City' s best interest and it' s determined to be in the City' s best
'
interest , to expand the IOP sewered area , we' re going to need some
supporting documentation that perhaps some of these people can perhaps
provide in terms of market forces and so forth that ultimately. . .
Metropolitan Council so I don' t know, none of us can sit here tonight and
say that all of our interests will be exactly in parallel with one another
but I think we' re all definitely headed generally in the same direction
Planning Commission Meeting
. 1
July 19, 1989 - Page 31 1
and certainly welcome some of the input that they will provide. '
Bob Morehouse: Mr. Chairman, can I just interject at this point. We are
prepared to dig in with the engineering and all the data that we have II already compiled and data that will be forth coming as we progress along
this effort so we will be most happy to accommodate the Commission and the
City of Chanhassen with anything that we have.
Conrad : That ' s good . I 'm sure we' ll use your input. I think it' s
helpful as we try to decide how we' re developing Chan. I think you
obviously have a vested interest but I think from the sounds of your
presentation tonight, you sound quite competent and if we decide to extend II
the MUSA line , it' s nice to have some advocates out there that can provide
us with information to go to the Met Council with. I think almost every
word you bring up brings questions to mind . How do you develop and it
gets a little bit mind boggling and how much planning can we do and we' re
concerned about taxes and we' re concerned about residential and we' re
concerned about environment and how they all mesh and we' re also concerned
about TH 5 and we' re not really wild about bringing too many more people
on TH 5 until the highway is upgraded so a lot of situations that we have
to mesh together and it' s an imperfect system we' ve got but I think, I 'm II
impressed by the comments you made tonight and it' s good to have you out
here and looking at it .
Bob Morehouse : One further remark that I 'd like to make is , I just
thought of this and it' s vitally important on something that you just said II
about bringing the people, the traffic on TH 5. Bear in mind that when we
sold the McGlynn site, Paul and myself, that' s been almost 2 years ago and II
they still are not completed and the lead time necessary to get these
installations , these large corporate users in place is sometimes anywhere
from 2 to 3 years and some of the companies that have approached us and
are interested in the area are thinking in terms of not moving in for 2
years or more so I just want to leave that thought in the Commission ' s
mind that time is of the essence because we need that lead time. . .
Conrad : Mark, what else?
Koegler : That' s all Mr . Chairman on that topic . We will proceed then in II
accordance with the schedule that I outlined earlier .
Conrad : It may be a good time to bring up and I probably should have done II
it under old business. It relates to Don' s comments back on the City
revenue and land use . Did everybody read this , Don' s comments?
Erhart: I read it again just before I came. I thought it was excellent . II
Conrad : It' s kind of fun to go through the data .
Erhart: Yes , that data was the good part. It' s surprising .
Conrad : In summary Don says , hey we can ' t apply any formula to what we' ve
got going here and how the balance, revenue and expense and I believe that
Planning Commission Meeting
111 July 19 , 1989 - Page 32
c
' but on the other hand it' s certainly interesting to see what costs money
and what brings in money. It' s a strategy you know and it' s that kind of
stuff that helps us decide what we want . When there is a cost of putting
' in multiple unit dwellings and I think it' s intriguing to see what that is
and it' s not that you want to rule them out but you ' ve got to know that
there' s a price tag attached and if there' s a price tag attached to that,
you have to make sure that there is compensating balance. The bottom line
' after reading this, I don' t know that Don expects us to, I guess Jo
Ann I 'm not looking and I 'm going to open it up to other members here. I 'm
still intrigued by what he said. I 'm not looking for a formula from him
' and I 'm not looking for , to hire some PhD' s to come up with the Chanhassen
formula but I guess I 'm looking for some of this kind of input as we go
into the planning process where somebody comes in and rezones 2, 000 acres
' to IOP, it' s kind of fun to see what that could mean financially. I
guess I 'm interested in what people think would be the next step on what
Don said in back. Are there any comments? Tim, based on what Don said,
do you have any need to know information besides this?
' Erhart: I think, in the first place I was really surprised at the data.
Not at the direction but to the extent of the numbers . Considering how
' much and then more recently I started looking at buildings in the
industrial area here and what we pay, what currently pay for taxes . I
never really looked at it until just recently and I was absolutely shocked
at how much commercial and industrial businesses pay for taxes .
Wildermuth: And how little they require in the way of services
comparatively.
Erhart : Yes , well basically. Not only that , I was more taken back just
recently when a friend of ours was looking at buying a house down here on
' Riley Lake Woods until he found out what the taxes were on that house . I
just couldn' t believe it. I figured they had to make a mistake but it' s a
2 1/2 acre house and it' s a big house and the value is $350, 000. 00 which I
don't understand who can pay those kinds of monies for houses but besides
' all that , the taxes were $10, 000. 00 a year which exceeds my monthly house
payments . But anyway, I mean $10,000. 00 a year taxes for a house is just,
I don ' t know. I guess anyway, without trying to make a case , what it ' s
' telling me is that I know we have high taxes just in our average house
here in the City it ranges from $3, 000. 00 to $4 , 000. 00 a household . We ' re
right at the top level in the metropolitan area. I also know that there' s
people who want to come into this city with additional offices and
industrial and that we' re getting to the point where there isn' t much land
left to give us a whole lot of flexibility in trying to attract those
people when in fact we have I think Todd Gerhardt here, one of his major
' job responsibilities is to try to attract industry into the city so on one
hand we' re trying to attract industry and then on the other hand we don' t
have a lot of space . You take that and combine it with the tax problem
and everything and then add this data on top of it, it clearly indicates
to me that we ought to immediately go in the direction of trying to get
some, try to increase our commercial and industrial tax base it) this city
over the next 5 years if possible . Certainly not to restrict it which I
Ir think we ' re approaching. I think that' s what we' re approaching at this
point so I thought the data was very good in combining with zeal world
I
Planning Commission Meeting
•
July 19 , 1989 - Page 33
C
experience here , it' s clear to me what we ought to be doing .
Conrad: Anybody else with comments in where to go and what to do?
Wildermuth : I 'd like to see an analysis like this done for Chanhassen but II
I 'm not so sure that it really is required once you have an analysis for
an area like Lakeville. I think the example is there.
Emmings: It confirms what we've kind of been told and have suspected all II
along so I think we' re thinking right and that ' s it' s value to me. He
said this is too simplistic but I 'm real happy to have it and I think it' s II
right.
Wildermuth: I think the data was a lot more revealing and constructive
than the cover letter. After I read the cover letter I thought, oh wow. II
Conrad : We' re not going to find out anything .
Wildermuth: We' re not going to find out anything .
Conrad : The only thing that I saw, and is it worth while? Is it worth
while, do we have questions that we'd like to, as we get into planning and II
zoning and passing things up to City Council , are there still further
financial things that we could ask Don if we had him to a meeting? I
guess I 'm looking for anymore input that we need as we try to glop zones
together on the next map. I have one question. As residential grows by a
thousand , the next thousand , are there any hidden expenses?
Ellson: New fire truck?
Conrad : What are those things.
Wildermuth : When do we get into a full time police department? When do
we get into a full time fire department rather than volunteers?
Conrad : Yes , and what that tells me is how we zone things or how much
more, and maybe we' re getting too fine in some of the thinking but what' s
hidden out there that goes in these big increments . It ' s not the next 3
houses that push you over but another thousand houses . Are we expecting ,
is there a big increase in taxes due for some magic reason? Those are the
things that I 'm kind of intrigued in.
Erhart: There' s got to be a balance to this thing. Obviously from this
data , the perfect city would be one great big industrial park.
Ellson: And my house.
Erhart : And a few administrators around to collect the taxes and
obviously cities don' t do that so there must be some other end of the
spectrum that says you don' t have, there must be something that planners
can tell us why and how much land we should look to industrial or how much
industrial tax base do we want for the ideal city because we ' re only
looking at the tax standpoint. There' s got to be another . . .
• Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 34
' Wildermuth: I think we just saw an example of what we should be looking
at and that is the TH 5 corridor. On both sides for what, I don't know, a
' quarter of a mile probably ought to be IOP because you sure don' t want , I
certainly wouldn' t want to see any other kind of zoning, or any IOP type
of zoning down around where your property is Tim.
' Emmings: I think that' s a perfect corner for it. In fact, I intend to
make a motion to that effect .
' Conrad : I guess what I 'd still like to propose Jo Ann is that we get Don
to one of our meetings , the early part of the meeting so we can just, and
Mark might be there too . We may be asking good questions Mark, just by
chance, we may ask something that might dictate where we go zoning wise,
especially on that TH 5 corridor because of the MUSA line and obviously
the commercial use of that but I think the first step, this is interesting
stuff and I think maybe if we took a half an hour with Don, that might
' give us some.
Olsen : He ' s always offered to come. He' s here tonight he said if you
' want to have him come down.
Conrad : Let' s not do it tonight but let' s do it before , let ' s sync it in
with the schedule of updating the Comprehensive Plan.
Olsen : You might get him in on the special meeting and that would give us
time.
' Erhart : Are we going to get into some discussion tonight or this is it?
Olsen: On the blending ordinance?
Erhart : No , I mean on this planning thing .
' Koegler: No. That wasn' t our intent.
Erhart : I have questions about John Shardlow' s map there relating to what
' you said Jim now. The year 2000 MUSA line does not go below TH 5 isn ' t
that correct?
' Koegler : Until you get to the McGlynn site .
Erhart: I 'm talking about that area that' s excluded currently.
Koegler : Correct .
Erhart : Now these fellows are coming in here .
' Emmings: It doesn' t even go down to TH 5.
ir Erhart : Right , it doesn' t even go.
Emmings: Some of it.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 35
Erhart: So you' re saying that this Chanhassen line that we' ve always
been, that I 've been looking at for 4 years is basically, we' re taking a
complete fresh look at this . Obviously because what these guys are II proposing is even beyond that and so is it in your mind conceiveable that
we would enclose a little area north of TH 5 that wouldn' t be in the MUSA
line or are you suggesting that we' re going to go to Met Council with a
MUSA line extension that basically goes down to TH 5 plus this industrial II
area or what's your thinking Mark?
Koegler : It ' s premature for me to sit here and tell you that at least II from a staff point of view in putting this together that we could support
a wholesale expansion of the MUSA line just as it was shown tonight . That
may or may not be true. The other statement though that you made Tim that
I would pick up on was kind of what I think you were eluding to is kind of
a donut hole. We end up with an area that was not in the MUSA line north
of TH 5 and possibly have some in the south of TH 5 and my initial
reaction to that is is that probably wouldn' t happen. What you might have II
is a MUSA line that encompasses both of those areas but within the
framework of the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan, which is related very
closely to the land use element , we' re required to show in 5 year
increments how sewer service is going to be extended into new trunk sewer
service areas and to phase it in that way. The MUSA line will be ultimate
framework of 2000 or 2010 or whatever date we' re looking at and then have
these 5 year blocks , if you will , that have some more progressive kind of II
approaches as to how those areas are serviced. A large degree of it is
going to be simply due to where utilities exist right now and which way is
the most prudent way to expand those. As a result of the property that' s II
south of the McGlynn site being added to the MUSA line, it appears as
though that with some sewer improvements done in that area , it may service
some of the area west of the McGlynn with with a lift station down in that
area. Again , those kind of things we' ll look at in detail and be able to
come back and say that if you've made the fundamental decision first of
all that we need more IOP, these are the areas that make sense initially
to look at that.
Erhart : Yes , along TH 5.
Headla : I ' ve got a question for you Mark. This whole area here . If we I
make a decision not to support their request, what's your best guess when
that would be sewered?
Koegler : The standard response to that is what I ' ll give you for now
pending any further investigation but the sewer plan that the City adopted
when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted , showed most of the area needing
to be serviced by the Lake Riley Interceptor that eventually would be
constructed up along Bluff Creek, the Bluff Creek Interceptor excuse me,
and come on up through, kind of the southern up to the northwest portion II
of the community. You should be aware , I think there are some viable
options for servicing some of that property and that is , in a 'joint powers
agreement potentially with the City of Chaska where the landowners to see
if there was interest in Chaska and Chanhassen to have Chaska annex part
of Chanhassen. You' re talking about possibilities over the next 20 years ,
' Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 36
lt,
those ate possibilities . The industrial park that was referenced along
TH 41, I presume just a cursory review, you could extend some of the
utilities northward into Chanhassen and serve some of the Chanhassen
' property that way.
Headla : But if we don ' t do anything , when do you think there 'd be sewer?
' Koegler : I don' t really have a date. We have always talked after 2010
and who knows , maybe it' s 2050.
' Headla : Then the other question is , if we would decide to support this
and it got approved, when do you think that sewer lines would go through
there? What ' s the lead time for all this to happen?
Koegler : Again, that would be largely at the control of the City of
Chanhassen through the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan that you would
identify the areas that based on market conditions , based on finance,
based on ability to construct new utility lines , certain increments would
be brought in over say the 1990-1995 period. 1995-2000. 2000-2205 and so
forth. So I think that largely would be back at the City' s control if and
' when you get the overall approval to include that in the MUSA line.
Headla : So it could happen by 1995 or 1996?
Koegler : Portions of it could, yes .
Erhart : Why is that little loop on the top TH 5 you say a Bluff Creek
' Interceptor , why not the area also to the west of it out to Lake
Minnewashta?
Koegler : That falls in that same category, if we' re talking about the
same thing . The Mills Fleet Farm site is an example.
Erhart : Yes , I know. The line that Dave showed there .
' Headla: We' re talking this area right in here now?
' Erhart : Yes . Now what ' s to the west of that though?
Koegler : The Zimmerman piece and all of that?
' Erhart : Yes . How do you see that served?
Koegler: The plan as it sits right now shows that being served again by
this future interceptor sewer .
Erhart : So it ' s only the land to the north and to the east of that that
twill be using the Lake Ann Interceptor?
Koegler : Well , the caveat that I always throw out here that Irthink you
do have to keep in mind is that all of those decisions for the last 10
years have been based on the 10 foot contours that the City has had
available. At the present time , most of the City has been flown and
Planning Commission Meeting
II
July 19 , 1989 - Page 37
II
C
contours are being developed at 2 foot intervals for a great deal of the I
community. That may shed some new light on what is actually serviceable
through gravity sewer to different areas potentially going out to this new
interceptor . So it has been based on gravity flow and gravity flow up to ,
and including now it says that has to go into a new interceptor .
Erhart: I guess it would seem inconceiveable to me that we would somehow
put industrial/commercial on, I don ' t see how we can restrict industrial/ I
commercial along TH 5 until the year 2050.
Koegler : You' re going to receive a great deal of pressure . You are now. II
Erhart: Yes .
Emmings : We forsaw, you' ve drawn a plan already that showed , we've looked II
at plans that you've drawn that show that kind of development along there
already. It isn' t like it' s a surprise.
Conrad: The surprise is the people wanting it . II
Emmings : I 'm also surprised that they all got together and are coming in II
here.
Headla : There ' s one little spot that they didn' t get . This area right in
here. If you get the rest , why wasn' t that included? It would be the •
property going strictly east from the Tanadoona Road.
Erhart : They didn' t have the property right adjacent to , what is that CR II
117?
Conrad : That ' s going to be a green area .
Erhart: It seems to be driven, again having that loop again when it now I
appears it doesn ' t make sense seems to be driven by this gravity flow
thing and how important is that or is that just something we' ve hung on
II
hat on a few years ago? Why not have, I mean right now we have what , 30
lift stations in the city of Chanhassen? Why not plan for lift stations?
If it makes more sense to develop land along current arterials and logical
places from a transportation standpoint to have industrial property, why
weigh so heavily on lift stations when it ' s something we' ve already
accepted it as part of our sewer system?
IKoegler : There are probably two reasons for that . The major one has been
a policy side at the Metropolitan Council level . It goes back to that
they would recognize that just as you got into some arguments over the
III
years with properties adjacent to the existing MUSA line, the intent
originally was if it can be served by gravity sewer , it should be included
in the line because that didn' t require the construction of new trunk I
facilities which was one of their concerns . That has historically been a
( major policy issue. The minor thing is exactly the point that you
referenced that ideally you would develop the property without lift
stations because there are 30 or whatever the number is currently in the
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 38
city and those are a constant maintenance problem so if you can, you avoid
those.
' Conrad : Okay. Let' s talk blending .
Koegler : Interesting topic. Blending was a topic that I first became
familiar with a while ago. I think Tim gave me a copy of his ordinance
draft. We had agreed to try to get something together on that and then
Steve was retained and I think the intention was that Steve was going to
follow up on that and now given what ' s transpired it' s fallen back in my
camp, which is fine. I sat down to look at this and had intended to put
together a draft and the way I started with that was to play with
sketching up a couple of things in some areas and I picked some sites
adjacent to other properties where I knew they were larger lots and would
be developing and I quickly realized that there still are a lot of general
kinds of thinking that I needed to get back from you. Some of the
parameters that you' re looking at. Some of the exact things that you wish
to accomplish by this ordinance. Focusing on the two drafts that have
been put together , both of which certainly are workable, they vary in a
number of areas. They vary with regard to the lot size that each of them
recognize. Tim' s approach takes a distance of 200 feet where Bill ' s
approach, if I interpret it correctly, he' s only concerned with lots that
are adjacent to new development . As I looked at this , the one issue that
I began to ponder was eventually will you get into having to blend with
blended lots . What I mean by that is , right now if you ' ve got a property
that' s adjacent to a 30, 000 square foot lot and you require a 29, 000
square foot lot or whatever , the guy with the 30, 000 can come back and
potentially split that legally under your ordinance into two 15 ' s and then
where are we? So I think some general thinking on where this is going to
apply needs to be offered. The A-2 zone for example with 2 1/2 acre lot
sizes , is blending going to be required there? We need to address I think
the intent which I think is pretty clear but obviously that has to be part
of the statement of the ordinance that ultimately we go with . Then
another topic that as I looked at it I don' t think probably was addressed ,
' was the whole issue of abutting lot lines . Just to talk about lot size to
a certain degree doesn' t necessarily give the buffering that I think
you' re trying to achieve. If you look at lots , I ' ll take Greenwood Shores
' as an example but don' t use that necessarily as a strict example, those
lots are maybe 200-250 feet long in some areas . Do you want to allow
developments that potentially can align 3 maybe single family homes
backing up to that 1 lot? Does that accomplish what you want to do even
though those lots might be 23, 000 square feet or whatever the number may
be? Seemingly, if you' re going to look at this issue , there should be
some relationship regarding to unit placements and lot lines so the guy
doesn ' t have, if you' re trying to protect the large property that ' s there
now, should he be looking at 3 homes or should he be looking at 1 home
with maybe a different shaped lot that more closely matches the size of
' the lot that the current house is on. So those are just some of the very
general issues that I guess I was pondering as I was going through this
and prior to trying to wade into this and put a draft together' so the
material would welcome any comments that you have, thoughts that you have
Iron some of these items.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 39 i
Ellson : It can ' t be done . I
Koegler : I should add to that, that I have probably got on file in our
office somewhere in the neighborhood of I 'm guessing 40 to 50 zoning
ordinances for Twin City communities and other metro area communities that
we work in. I did not find in a review of those ordinances, anybody that
does this outside of having language in a PUD ordinance that sets the
framework for trying to match conditions around the periphery sites and so II
forth. That' s not to say it doesn ' t exist somewhere. We' ll look a little
further . I have not yet found another community that has the blending
ordinance that we could say here it is guys . Cross off blending city and II
insert Chanhassen and we've got it so we' re kind of inventing the wheel
here for the first time.
Ellson : And it sounds like it' s awful hard to do . 1
Conrad : Yes. Your questions in this area real relevant and I can' t
imagine we' re going to get concurrence on any of the stuff . We typically II
can figure it out here. I just don't know how it' s going to go through
City Council and to what degree of depth we want to get in. I 'm going to
start it off just by talking about what I perceive to be the purpose Mark
and I guess I ' ll just start it off so that everybody can have something to '
base their own comments on but my perception has always been a need to
protect the older neighborhoods. As we see certain size lots , which are
typically smaller coming in, I always felt it was unfortunate that we took II
away their community and imposed a brand new one on them. Yet we always
had an ordinance that said 15, 000 square foot and you can do it so my
general feeling is to somehow temper the ability of a new neighborhood to II
sit on an old neighborhood or house so that we don' t take away that
community, that neighborhood that the previous resident was there . That
that previous resident had. The only other thought that I had, so I 'm not
looking at new stuff on new stuff , I think the A-2 district becomes a real
intriguing deal and I could figure that one out. That one just sort of is
mind boggling to me and primarily I kept thinking, there ' s so many
variables I want to stay away from it. That was where I came from there
but I also want a simple ordinance . I don' t think I want an ordinance
that just is so difficult and restrictive that we need a staff to
interpret what it' s saying . That was my philosophic reason for wanting a II
blending ordinance. I guess I ' ll open it up for comments . Tim, you' re
obviously concerned with this but anybody else who 'd like to react to what
I said and then maybe we can take some of Mark's points and go through II them and see if we philosophically have any kind of a basis to direct him.
Wildermuth: Tim, I agree with you. I think we ought to be looking at
abutting lots . With your initial proposal , I think we ought to be looking I
at abutting lots and I think we ought to be looking at something like
abutting lots being within 75% of the adjacent existing lot. I don ' t
think we can get into lot lines and abutting lot lines. I think it' s just II
such a nightmare.
Erhart : Yes, let me respond real quick, if I can interrupt . I tried to
define a process to gradually, if you have large lots , how to gradually
get the lots , require them to be larger than adjacent and gradually as you
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 40
lt,
go away they can get down to our 15, 000 foot and I used this , this is a
typical engineer 's way of doing this kind. It's a mathematical way to do
it. I 'm not saying at all it' s the best way to do it and for a
' non-engineer , these kinds of things I 've learned through 20 years of being
in sales , are very difficult for non-engineers to perceive what you' re
trying to do here but I 've tried it in a number of examples and it does
work if you go through it. It ' s a process but the parameters are totally
' open to discussion. It' s essentially the process of what you describe.
It can be 75%. You can change 75% each level . Only by changing the
constance, that 300 there will dictate what the blend rate is. If you
' want a faster blend rate , you change that number to 150 or 250. If you
want a slower blend rate, which I don' t care what it is , you increase the
size of that number and it will come out . The other thing is that I 've
already, by fact of limiting the, you set a max limit of 25, 000 square
feet as the number that you use for one of these lots when you calculate
this thing. By doing that, you limit the size of the new. If you limit
this requirement so it isn' t so restrictive and again that 25, 000 square
' feet is arbitrary.
Wildermuth : Right but I would say that probably ought to be 30,000 square
feet. . .
Erhart: The effect of that constant would be, if you had a whole bunch of
lots 2 1/2 acres as opposed to a whole bunch of lots that were 25, 000
square feet, the effect of this would be none because you even include the
100, 000 square foot lot, you calculate it as 25, 000. So it takes into
consideration that at some point you just can ' t, you don' t want to blend
1 at some point. The constant , if you' re going to use this process, we have
to talk about what these constants are . I 'm not advocating this process .
I think it ' s one that I would naturally introduce being an engineer but I
' believe it will work but I 'm not sure it' s the best kind of thing you want
to put in our zoning ordinance but I only offer it as, I think it' s a
workable one . I hope we will come up with one that was more easier to
understand by the people using this ordinance. I ' ll make it clear, I 'm
not advocating it .
Headla : Let me make a couple comments . I tested your formula at both end
' of the extremes and it seemed to make sense. The formula. I look back,
what are we trying to accomplish and what did lead to it. Didn ' t one of
the things that really perci.pitated was up in this Murray Hill area? Real
nice homes here and then this other development came in . We' re trying to
use square feet as a common denominator. I don' t think that' s a good yard
stick. We jump at it because it' s easily measureable. Up in Murray Hill ,
they put in some nice homes but you' ve got some large properties with some
' nice homes. I can think of a couple properties there that they' re going
to be developed . Those people , you could split that into 15, 000 square
foot lots and have the beautiful homes and be a real asset to that same
neighborhood . If we put in the blending restriction , they wouldn' t be
able to do that so we' re really holding back some areas with the yardstick
we' re trying to measure and do we really want to do that? •
Erhart: Your point of this question was whether we want to have a
blending ordinance at all?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
r
July 19, 1989 - Page 41
Headla: Yes . I
Erhart : We' re responding to, I con remember two examples of this since
I 've been on here where we came in with a new 15,000 square foot
subdivision and then I think in one case it was a PUD so some of them were
less than that and the neighbors came in and complained that gee whiz we
all have 22, 000 square foot lots and this is devaluating our property.
I thought that' s what we were responding to.
Headla : I think we all reacted positively that we should come up with II some type of blending thing. That was the surface cut at it. We looked
at the advantages , not the disadvantages . I was trying to look at
different places in the community and then when we started talking about
maybe one place is going to be adjoining 2 or 3 pieces of other property,
how do we, we' re seeming to be very interested in control rather than what
are we really trying to accomplish .
Erhart : What does that do to a neighborhood that' s got predominance of
30, 000 square foot lots and one of them, through his own good planning ,
decides to split his in half so you've got two 15, 000 square foot lots in II
the midst of 20,000-30, 000 square foot lots . Is that good or bad?
Headla : Neither . What if that guy puts up a half a million dollar home
and has a well groomed yard? I
Conrad : He probably won ' t do that. That ' s not realistic. The neighbors
wouldn' t like that. The neighbors bought the neighborhood. They bought II
the 30, 000 square foot lots .
Headla: I don' t know. I think they'd like that.
Wildermuth : With the blending ordinance , he couldn' t do that .
Headla: That' s right. ,
Wildermuth : He couldn' t split his 30, 000 square foot lot .
Headla: And I think we ought to leave that open.
Conrad : So you don' t want a blending ordinance?
Headla: Not the way these are structured. I think a thought went into
them and I looked and I looked at it and I thought they were starting to
make sense and then I went back to how they were doing it and I went back
to Murray Hill and I thought dog gone it, those people have the right to
develop it and it' s just going to be beautiful homes in there, do we
really want to limit that? I did a lot of back peddling. 1
Emmings : The people who live on Murray Hill sure wanted to. Who live
there now.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 42
Conrad : But the fact is , in the few years that I 've been here , there' s no
' new development. Realistically, every development that comes in is
smaller than the neighborhood previous development . I just don' t know of
' many cases , well there are a couple but there are not many. They' re
always smaller and they' re always , the neighbors are always sitting out
here saying why are you letting these people do that? Don' t you have any
standards? And we said, our standard is , that ' s right , there goes the
'
neighborhood and our standard is our zone and it' s 15, 000 square feet.
That ' s it. They said , there' s got to be more than that . Dave, that ' s
just group after group that says that so the logic of this one is, well
' we ' re not going to , obviously the economics are different these days but
typically as you bring in new PUD' s or new developments, what we can do is
we can buffer that old development with at least 1 ring or 1 house of a
' transition type of zoning or a blending which is what we' re talking about
here . We' re talking about a 1 house blend or a 200 feet blend , whatever
it might be. I don't know, maybe it' s a 100 foot blend, to somehow get it
away from that old neighborhood until you put in 15,000 square foot lots .
' I think that' s what we' re reacting to. And you bring up some points and
they' re valid so the task here is , is there anything that ' s simple that
allows the old neighborhoods to be protected. . .
Emmings : I like much better the way you just said it then the way you did
when you started out. When you started out you talked about in terms of
protecting the old neighborhood and I don ' t think we ought to think about
it in terms of protecting anybody. I think we ought to think of it in
terms of doing what we do all the time and that is providing transitions
from one thing to another. If you think about it that way, because I also
' think that what you just said about , I think of this coming up most often
in terms of larger developments where you' re doing a bunch of acres. Up
here where they did it around that pond when Boyt and Johnson got active
in city politics here. A lot of those issues involved blending there as I
recall too . I think if you have the outer perimeter of any development
like that so that those lots maybe with a cap of an acre for the lot
you' re blending to , the lot next to it shouldn' t be smaller than 60% of
' it ' s size or something like that. I don' t understand Tim' s formula .
I need a math guide but if we could work out something like this , I think
it would be good to have something like this in the ordinance because the
people who are going to be looking at it are engineers and if there' s
something that will express our intent clearly, then I think it would be a
good thing to have it in there that way with maybe some intent statements .
' I think this is very complicated and unless we can simplify it, I think
it ' s hopeless . I think what we need to do is come up with some simple
ideas maybe as a starting point and have some examples worked up so we can
see what it would wind up looking like but other than that , I think it ' s a
' good idea to have it.
Headla : You started out talking about Ladd , his last statement was good
with that small transition area. To key off of that transition area I
think is kind of nice.
Emmings : Typically what you wind up with is you' ve got lots backing onto
ir lots. You 've got existing lots and then you' ve got a new row of lots
backing up to them and then you' ve got a street. That' s what you usually
Planning Commission Meeting
1
July 19, 1989 - Page 43
see . So what we' re really talking about is that row of lots that ' s
between that street and the lots are backing up to, existing lots are
backing up to . It would seem to me that if no lot in there could be
smaller than 60% of the lots it' s backing up to, you' re never going to
wind up with more than two lots on the boundary or it' s going to be
unusual to wind up with more than 2 lots on that existing lot.
Headla : What if it' s across the street? I
Ellson: That' s kind of a natural transition.
Emmings : Yes , maybe you don' t need it or maybe you do it for the first
row. I don't know. For the first row of houses , maybe you do it again.
Wildermuth: So many feet . 200 feet. Whatever the number is . '
Emmings: I 'm scared of using feet because I think that could get weird
couldn' t it? '
Conrad : My thought was real simplistic on this and maybe it ' s too simple
but Steve, and I think Tim had some concepts in there. I don' t understand
the formula either and I didn' t try to so that ' s my problem Tim. It was a
formula and I just didn' t try.
Headla : You guys are hopeless you know. I thought it was a tremendous
idea.
Conrad : So then I went to Boyt ' s and I got confused totally so I went
back to yours Tim and I tried to understand the formula.
Emmings : I went to college as a math major and quickly changed to
English.
Conrad : But my thought was not to be matching things but with looking for
transition more than a match and I think getting specific with lot lines I
and stuff like that , I thought that might be too many situations that we
couldn' t predict. Tim brought up some maximums and so did Steve. I think
there ' s a maximum lot size in this transition area . If you' ve got a 5 111 acre lot so maximum blend lot might be an acre. It might be 44, 000 feet
or whatever the number might be. I don' t know. And maybe there ' s a
reason to have a minimum size and I just took 50%, and I don' t know, but II I took 50% of the 15, 000 square foot and said well maybe our minimum blend
is 22, 500. So those are the sizes of the lots that we' re talking about
that are the transition lots . So inbetween an acres or 44 , 000 or whatever
the number is and 22,000 and then the only other thing I wanted to know is II
when do we have to do, apply or what formula do we apply? Maybe it' s a
60% factor. Maybe it' s, I don' t know what the percent number is but it' s
something we know that most lots that go in are going to be 15 , 000 square 1
feet so we want to take it from what we think is a big lot and have some
kind of a transition lot that gets this down to 15 ,000. Visually or
whatever. That 's where I 'm at. Something real simple.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 44
111 Headla : Would we have said . . .when more than 4 lots are going to be built
on?
Ellson : You' re saying when it affects a development, not just another new
house?
Headla : Yes . If I have an acre of land and I come in with a 15, 000 foot
in just one spot, that' s a different situation.
Emmings : No . I can give you an example though where that might not work.
' Remember that development over by you.
Headla : Dave Johnson was to coming in here?
' Emmings: No, there was a little hill there. Help me.
Olsen : Stratford Ridge.
' Emmings : No . Further down Minnewashta there ' s Maple Ridge.
' Headla: Right across from Little Joe.
Olsen : They kept changing it but it was with the one with the 5 lots .
IL Emmings : Yes . There' s that long street that goes back, I think it' s
called Maple Ridge and they' re still building on it . Right over next to
that there was a little hill and they wanted to just pack that with houses
' of 15, 000 square feet and we all thought that was the wrong thing to do in
that area. I don' t remember how many there were. There were only 4 or 5
houses in there though but that' s an example of where I think a blending
' ordinance should apply.
Olsen : That ' s when the blending ordinance got started . That ' s when it
was first mentioned .
Emmings : Yes that was a place it was mentioned but I don ' t know if it was
the first time.
' Headla : That ' s a good example of why there should be one .
Emmings: Yes , because there you ' ve got all neighborhoods . Either you've
got big open spaces , or you' ve got neighborhoods going in where the lots
were all bigger than that and it just didn' t seem to fit.
Ellson : It went in didn' t it?
Emmings : It was approved but . . .
Olsen : We couldn ' t deny it .
(
Earnings : Nothing ' s been built. And maybe they can' t sell their lots
Ibecause . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
g
July 19 , 1989 - Page 45
Ellson: That was across the street too wasn' t it?
Olsen: There was a lot of financial in there too. They had to put in a
cul-de-sac .
Emmings: But when you say maybe it should be a minimum of 4 lots, I don' t
know but if you don' t put any minimum on it, then you run into the guy
who , and I almost wonder if you have to worry about this being a taking in !'
some ways because you've got people who've sold off their land but
retained a couple of lots to sell later and now all of a sudden they' re
not going to be able to develop at all. Do we have to worry about that? I
Koegler : That case you just referenced is a very interesting one because
I looked at that when I was talking to Jo Ann. I asked, where did this '
first start and she said that was one of the subdivisions. I looked at
that one and I don't know when those lots were platted or under what
circumstances but they' re highly unorthodox lots . If you look at them,
they' re neck lots that go back that you probably would never approve a
plat today of that configuration so yes , they have large land area but
they' re not exactly normal lots .
Emmings : No , that was a weird development . '
Koegler : So that clouded it for me a little bit that clearly you should
blend with those lots . I 'm not saying those are undesirable but they' re I
not normal lots so to speak. You don't have normal frontages with those
lots . You don ' t have anything else. You have a small exposure to the
street and you have a very large frontage that is being exposed to future II
development and if future development comes , then everybody screams about
what' s happening .
Headla : Really it wasn' t blending , we just didn ' t like the whole set-up. II
Emmings: If blending had applied, they never would have been able to come
in with that goofy configuration. •
Olsen : Are you also then talking about definitions of old and new?
Emmings: I don' t think we have to worry about that. If it' s just based I
on size, who cares how old it is?
Ellson: It will probably fall in. '
Olsen : But if you limit the size of a lot going up against an existing
property, then what if that property, the existing one wanted to subdivide II
in the future but they wouldn' t be able to be because they they would have
to blend against the other one. You'd be. . .
Ellson : Penalizing them. '
( Olsen: Both yes .
Planning Commission Meeting
9
' July 19 , 1989 - Page 46
Emmings : No . Everybody' s got to play with the same dice , that ' s all but
I wonder about that in terms of if we have to worry about if Roger should
be consulted as to whether or not we' re going to create something here
' where people are going to come back and say, you took something very
valuable from me here. This was my retirement . I was going to divide
this piece off and sell this later. I kept 30, 000 feet just for this .
' Olsen : It 'd be like just any other ordinance amendment . We all of a
sudden went to the ordinance amendment and made our minimum lot size
30, 000 square feet .
' Emmings : I hope that' s the right answer .
Wildermuth: Why don' t we just increase the minimum lot size to about
18 , 000 to 20, 000 square feet , wipe out the PUD and solve this whole thing .
Conrad: I told you the story about increasing, having a zone with bigger
lot sizes Jim and it didn' t sell .
Wildermuth: Is that right? Who didn' t it sell with?
' Erhart : Let me point out one more thing in developing . I think my ideas
on this, or were you just having a private conversation?
ILConrad : No, this is a real subject that applied but go ahead .
Erhart: I didn' t mean to interrupt. Regarding the idea of blending . I
' still think it' s for the transitional thing. I think it ' s something that
we ought to have, try to develop. I also think that we can get a
neighborhood of a bunch of 25, 000-30, 000 square lots and if one guy
divides his lot, I don' t think that' s good. We should try to prevent
that . On the other hand , if developing this , my feeling is in any
blending situation, and the reason I picked 25, 000 in that one constant is
that it would be unconchable to require anybody to make a lot bigger than
' 21,000 square feet in any event whether he' s got 5 acre lots there or 1
acre lots or whatever . To me there' s a certain size that for the City to
come in and say you've got to have 1 acre lots there or you've got to have
' a half acre lot because it' s , well because 22, 000 is a half acre lot.
There's just some lot there that just is unconchable to waste land. So in
my mind in developing this formual , I kind of felt that 21, 000 is about
' the maximum you'd ever want to require. That ' s why I picked the 25, 000 so
that leaves a formula . That' s my input. . . I don' t think you have to
develop lots bigger than 21, 000-22, 000 because to me above that , that ' s,
unless somebody wants to buy that lot, then you let the market drive that
but from a city planning standpoint , we should never force people to build
or develop lots bigger than that. SO the whole range of this thing to me
is pretty narrow. You' re really only serving those guys , the existing
lots that are in this 25, 000-30, 000 square foot range and anybody above
that , we can ' t force people to put out 1 acre lots just because if someone
has a 1 1/2 acre lot next to him. That generally was my thinking on the
rate there.
Ir
Planning Commission Meeting
. 1
July 19, 1989 - Page 47
CConrad : I like our logic ,y g , I 'm just not sure whether those numbers are
the ones that I 'd support. I buy what they' re thinking .
Koegler : Coming to some consensus though on just that kind of point is
what obviously we need to eventually do and so if anybody has any
preliminary thoughts on 25, 000 or 21, 000 or whatever , it would help to
hear that.
Ellson : You had a number based on what?
Conrad: I narrowed it down to 22,000 to an acre. That was the range of II the transition . I haven' t gone through and exercised it. Tried to apply
it in different zones. Tim way saying he couldn' t imagine having a lot
bigger than 25, 000 and I 'm just saying , maybe I can' t imagine forcing
somebody larger than 45,000. I didn' t have a good reason for that but my II
range is in there someplace and I don ' t know what makes sense. I think
there' s a point where we' re sort of playing a game here that doesn' t
count. If we don' t make the transition significant , if you go from a
15, 000 transition up to 19, 000, I ' ll guarantee you nobody can tell the
difference. Those people are still going to be angry that we ' re allowing
a 19, 000 square foot deal coming in next to them so it' s got to be a
significant one yet we can ' t penalize . I 'm also worried on the other side "
of really penalizing somebody and making sure this works for everybody. I
don ' t know that it counts to add a transition of an additional 3, 000
square foot to a lot size because most of the ones that I 've heard that I II
remember so well , they' re typically sitting on something that ' s probably
pretty close to an acre in size and typically somebody' s coming in with a
17 , 000-18 , 000 square foot subdivision next to them. Those are the ones
that I remember .
Erhart : Really? See the ones that I remember people were sitting on
25, 000 square foot lots .
Conrad : The Greenwood Shores probably average that I would guess . The
examples, North Lotus Lake. Those were all 1 acre.
Erhart : But the one on Murray Hill , those were 25,000-30, 000 square foot
weren' t they?
Conrad : Some of them were up to an acre as I recall .
Erhart: I think what you' re looking for generally is a consensus of what II
we' re trying to get to . If I could put something on the board and you
guys plug in some numbers , I think I could give you what you want.
Koegler : That ' s what I was going to suggest is my next move is to bring 1
back some examples to the Commission to review playing out different
scenarios . Taking some of the existing conditions around the City that
you ' re likely to encounter.
Conrad : That 'd be a good exercise .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 48
Koegler : There was another point though that was raised that' s valid and
' that is, what' s the threshold for when you apply the blending ordinance?
If there ' s one 1 acre lot in the middle of the development or if there ' s
' two 2 arce lots in the middle of the development, does that cross the
threshold . Does it have to be a lot that' s part of a subdivision of 4 or
more lots contiguous lots? Is there some threshold there that needs to be
considered?
' Emmings : Are we talking about the lots that abut up against that lot. So
you might have a big development and there' s one 1 acre piece up here but
it would only be the lot, to me it would only be the lots that touch that
one.
Koegler : Okay, so if you have a big development that completely encircles
a 1 acre lot that has a little old couple on it or something that want to
live there forever and ever . Are you going to require those to blend even
though realistically when those people pass on or retire or whatever ,
' someone ' s likely to come in and resubdivide that property?
Emmings: If you' re going to be petty Mark, I 'm leaving. How do I know?
' Koegler : If they get a sign off from that landowner saying I don' t want
to be blended , then is that okay?
IL Erhart : You know, this is a lousy way of doing things, the averaging
takes care of that problem.
Emmings : I don ' t know.
Headla : What did you say Tim?
' Erhart : Again , using this formula method which again I ' ll repeat it ' s
hard to conceptualize but the fact that you average surrounding lots takes
care of that problem. One 1 acre lot by itself, in the first place you
' only use it as 25,000 square feet so that' s the maximum that it' s going to
affect.
Koegler : Is that your impression?
Erhart : That' s right . That ' s my impression. The other way that that
' dilutes that is of course the averaging is one lot by itself given that
within 200 feet you' re probably going to calculate in anywhere from 6 to 8
lots, will dilute that.
' Headla : Let me give you another scenario then .
Ellson: Yes, why don't you do some of these formulas with examples .
' Headla : The Stratford Ridge, there were some nice size properties on the
west side. On the north side Dave Johnson is coming in with properties
ir that are around 15, 000-16,000. Now the person that ' s to the south of Dave
Johnson and to the west of Stratford Ridge, their property' s , when they
sell that, it' s going to abut the small ones and Stratford Ridge. Now do
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 49
you go by the smaller ones you abut or the larger? I 'm not looking for an
answer , it' s another consideration. '
Conrad : There' s one thing that bothers me and I 'm not looking to protect '
one house. I 'm trying to keep the integrity of a neighborhood, or make a
transition from one neighborhood to another so there' s less focus on, and
Mark you ask some questions that I just can ' t come up with answers but the
logic is , we' re talking neighborhood and not houses . •
Ellson: . . .x number or more.
Koegler : That does put it back to you then to define what' s a ,
neighborhood. What' s the minimum for it being a neighborhood that you
then consider it to be blended?
Wildermuth: 5 parcels within a couple hundred feet?
Koegler : Whatever . If you have 5 contiguous parcels sharing a common
street or whatever it is. I don' t know what it is but maybe we could sort II
through some of that by again looking through some examples and seeing how
some of these scenarios fit. That will probably raise 10 other questions II
that you haven' t even thought of tonight .
Emmings: You' re going to know it when you see it.
Conrad : The problem is , we may never see it .
Koegler : It's not a black and white issue. '
Headla : There ' s got to be a reason why you haven ' t been able to find an
ordinance.
Conrad : Okay, that' s enough to look at it . Is there anything else you
wanted to talk to us about?
Olsen : The only other thing is I have the church ordinance at the end .
That again was as a result of Eckankar .
Conrad : And you don' t need a reaction? '
Olsen: No. I guess I ' ll be bringing it in front of you.
Headla : The first time. . . I 'm afraid that may not get whole hearted
agreement on but to me one of the strongest objectives I had and still
have to the Eckankar property, if that church was supported maybe by 10% II
or 15% of the people in Chanhassen, I wouldn' t have looked at it entirely
different.
Wildermuth : That ' s not in the Constitution Dave . '
Headla: I don' t know if this is level or not but it seemed like if we' re
going to take something off the tax tolls of Chanhassen, it should be for
the benefit of the people in Chanhassen. Therefore, I think a certain
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 50
If7 percent of that membership should be a resident of Chanhassen . Jo Ann,
you' re smiling .
' Ellson : That ' s like saying people who work there should live here.
Headla : No.
Erhart : If they pay taxes .
Headla : No comparison . Can we do anything like that?
Emmings : Absolutely not.
Headla : Why?
' Emmings : Because people have a right to buy property wherever they want
to and you can' t abridge that right. People have a right to build their
' church of any kind anywhere they want to and go there and you can ' t
abridge that right and boy, if you want to get into a lawsuit real quick,
you do something like that . Although I have my own thing to promote you
know that' s also unconstitutional . I don' t agree with what you just said
because I don ' t think you should limit a church like that but I feel very
strongly that churches shouldn' t be allowed for example to own commercial
property and collect rents from those and receive city services for those
and not pay taxes on that income and not pay property taxes when they' re
operating just like a business . That is an outrage to me but again,
that' s not something I think you can touch with a 10 foot pole. I 'd be
' willing to swing at it but you'd get nowhere I think. I think that' s a
door that can' t . . .
' Olsen : The only other thing was that memo from Don.
Conrad: Yes, and that' s just for our information?
' Olsen : I told him that the Planning Commission is very anxious . What' s
to know what' s happening , as we all do so he gave you that memo. I just
had a chance to just briefly look at it so it doesn ' t give some dates .
' I don' t know that they've picked the candidates yet. I don' t know but
again , he ' s upstairs and he said that if you guys wanted to talk to him
about that, that he'd be welcome to come on down. I don' t know if you
' need to .
Conrad : I only want to know if that little agenda is not being met .
We' re 8 months away versus a month away.
' Headla : Tell me a little bit about that Lowell Carlson effort . What ' s
going to really happen?
' Olsen : What' s happened is that we are going to start pursuing him to
remove all unlicensed vehicles , junk. We' ve got a list from 1-985 to
prove, a list from him, saying what was there for his business . We' re
going to use that list and try to get everything else removed. He' s a
non-conforming use now. He ' s grandfathered in but he cannot be a
Planning Commission Meeting
I
July 19, 1989 - Page 51
contractor ' s yard . His business is essentially really limited and we' re
going to pursue it. Legally it will takes years. II
Headla : What ' s going to have to happen? Is he going to have to back down "
and cooperate and then get something resolved?
Olsen : He can still apply for a building permit to store some of the
structures inside, the machinery but he can no longer be, contractor ' s
yards are not permitted so he can ' t follow that route again. He' ll always
just be a non-conforming use and he can' t expand. He has expanded so what
we' re going to do is try to go back to what his original size was . I
think that he' s thinking of moving out of Chanhassen now but I don't know. "
Headla : I thought maybe they could settle it fast and both sides come to
a good agreement.
Wildermuth : Where is this?
Olsen : King ' s Road . Off of Lake Minnewashta . He did the same thing .
They both got up there and said boy we really want to get that building
and we' ve been trying to do it. The Council almost gave them another
extension.
Conrad : Anything else?
Emmings : I was just curious about the 25 acres on the church site . I
have no idea what that means. They could have 100 acre parcel and carve
out a 25 acre lot , they still own the other 75 acres . I don' t know what
it means to have a 25 acre lot size.
Olsen : There are certain things that we could do legally. There are
certain things. We couldn' t go, as you were saying, there' s
Constitutional rights so what this is doing is saying that they would have
to subdivide it and have that 25 acre lot for their church and they could I
own the other 100 acres but they'd have a harder time proving that that
should be taxed.
Emmings : No . Anything that a tax exempt organization owns is exempt from II
taxes period as far as I know.
Olsen : No because like with Eckankar , Carver County is reviewing that and
they may have to pay taxes. They may not have to pay taxes on the portion
that' s being used for the church but the remaining parcel might be taxed .
So it' s not set in stone.
Emmings : To my knowledge it is but that ' s real interesting if they can ' t.
Erhart: Keep us informed of that.
•� 1
Planning Commission Meeting
' July 19, 1989 - Page 52
1-
IF Emmings moved , Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 20 p.m. .
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Asst. City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
IF
1
i
1-