11b. Volk Annexation 1 lib
CITY OF
________
1 „,
,.
1 t , -
x
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
` (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager ~ } ic,
I DATE: September 9, 1988
ISUBJ: Volk Annexation
II The following newspaper article accurately portrays what occurred
at the meeting between Chanhassen Chaska City officials . Staff' s
recommendation has been correctly stated.
II
�. . _ ;
Carver C. b cAv.+ _.1
y �� e.rgtd. :Sept. 8, ta88
Adjoining propertyowners seek
I annexation to , City of Chaska, r,_ .
I By LaVonne Barac . ; staff made it clear they consider the ment, was •inconsistent with the
Annexation on two fronts was on - rental housing on the property an city's and county's comprehensive f,
the city's agenda last week. It eyesore. It is their hope that in- development standards, and the
continued to look at the possibility of -dividual homeowners would make installation of a 201 sewage .!
I acquiring a p a r c e 1 from the property more attractive. In collection and treatment facility to
Chanhassen, while a Chaska fact, the improved appearance of serve the area was done to solve
Township property owner also . the property could be one stipulation existing problems not to open the
sought annexation. in any annexation agreement. area to development. (The 201
I Chaska is being asked to annex a According to statements made at . sewage collection and treatment
small piece of land,about 4.2 acres, the council meeting, for health and program was a means of con-
at the western city limits.Part of the aging reasons it is desirable for the structing facilities to serve more:.
parcel,another 2.5 acres,already is ' property owner to make the land . than one home,but a limited number
I within the city boundaries. Last ' salable as other than a rental in- ' of structures in a neighborhood.)
week,' the landowner received vestment property. This time, the proposal is less
cautious support from city staff in It is the second time the lan- ambitious and the request only is for
his efforts. • downer, Oldrich Lunak, has ap- seven lots, two of which would
I If language acceptable to both city ' proached the city about annexation. remain unbuildable until the area is
and landowner can be worked out, ' Over two years ago he was turned served by both sanitary sewer and
the city appears likely to give its down.At that time,he wanted to plat water. Five of the proposed seven
approval. While the parcel, at the, his land into 16 residential lots. The lots already have homes on them.
I foot of the cliff along County Road city objected at that time on three Approval to annex the land and
10, is not a natural spot for further , points. It said the proposal subdivide it into lots would allow the
development, council members and represented "leap frog" develop- ANNEXATION to page 6
I
1
Annexation from page
owner to sell individual homes to " build on the two vacant lots.-
would-be homeowners. Lunak is City representatives and the
unable to plat the land within " _engineer representing the Lunak
Chaska Twp.because of the county's interests proved a bit testy when it
l-in-40 limitation (one building came to agreeing with each other's
site/40 acres)on development in the judgments. The engineer indicated
rural area. , ° :`:his reluctance to the openendedness
Last week, the city staff had of some of the stipulations,.while the
recommended nine stipulations to staff did not appear to necessarily
accompany any annexation ap- agree with some of his conclusions.
proval. They ranged from That prompted council members to
agreement from the township to the tell staff and the Lunak interests to
annexation, to specifications on the return with a more specific proposal
existing bridge, to the inability to for council consideration.
1
1
I
r