1k. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
' REGULAR MEETING
JULY 10, 1989
jr-
' Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meetin
with the Pledge to the Flag. g was opened
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel,, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Ols
Sietsema and Jim Chaffee en, Lori
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Co
uncr-loran Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda as amended by Councilwoman Dimler to add a Council
' Presentation regarding the SuperAmer_i_ca site on TH 7 and TH 41. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
' RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the recycling prize
drawing. g P
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimier
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuantltonthe City Mananger'so
recommendations:
a. Preliminary Plat to Replat Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Park One Third Addition
' into One Lot (Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition) , located on West 77th
Street, Fortier and Associates.
c. Conditional Use Permit for location of a temporary office, shop and yard,
8301 Audubon Road, Edgework Builders.
d. Final Plat Approval, Great Plains Golf Estates, Don Halla.
g. Authorize Advertising for Bids for Sidewalks in Saddlebrook
Subdivision, Project 87-15A.
h. Resolution #89-79: Approve Resolution in Support of Appointing Ed Kranz to
the Regional Transit Board.
' k. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 21, 1989
' Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 27, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1(K) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATED JUNE 26, 1989.
Councilman Johnson moved, Counci.
the City Council meeting dated Junen26 r 1989 ascamendedoonPpagee the change of
page 30 to change the
statement asking for a roll call of the vote made by Roger Knutson to Councilman
Boyt. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' 1
Iii y Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
John Havlik: My name is John Havlik. I live at 513 Chan View. Just for
location sake, it's the white house right across from the Post Office and behind
the new Town Square. The reason why I'm up here is I've been talking with Jo
Ann from the Village and also Jim Winkles fram the development
pm project and I
have a problem with the screening behind my house and the Town Square. Way back
before they started building the building, when Barb Dacy was here yet, they had
meetings with Jim Winkles who was the developer of the
Pe property and the
residents behind. They showed proposed site plans and I do have a copy of that
here which I can show you but it's also in file. In that proposed site plan
they showed in the rear of the building a 4 foot retaining wall and then on top
of that they had low shubery on the commercial site on the side and then a 4
foot fence and then large evergreen trees facing the residential property behind
that. This was proposed, went over by the residents and it looked okay. We
were definitely concerned because we're the house on the end and all the traffic
from the gas station that they have was going to be there and that looked real
good. Inbetween time, from the time they actually I guess built the building,
that first building was 20 feet further closer to main street. They moved the
building back 20 feet but that wasn't going to change the screening in behind.
After it's all done now, there is not a 4 foot berm with the trees. They're
actually is from the middle of the building going to the east, which would be on
another property line, going east to my place, there is a natural break in the
ground so they put a retaining wall there and then shurbs down. But starting on
my property going west, the ground leveled off and they did nothing there. It's
just level with my property. They put in 4 evergreen trees, which recently have '
died and I complained about this last fall to Jim Winkles and had them out to
I!
the site and showed him. Number one, cars parked to get gas and it lights up
the whole backyard which is a real nuisance. Number two, you get an awful lot
of smell from there. You get raw gas, both from when they're pumping gas and
when a tanker comes in there to unload because the tanker fill pipes are right
behind on the property on the alley behind there, and also you get a very
pungent sulfer smell from cars, from the traffic going in and out there. So I
asked them to put a fence behind there and put the earth berm like they
originally showed in the site plan. In talking with him, they said they weren't
going to do that. That the City okayed what they had there and he has proposed
to replace the trees and put in 2 extra ones and maybe put a little fence on the
western edge there so when the cars come in the lights don't shine but in my
mind that is not what was proposed. It is not what it ended up. I feel that my
property has been damaged from that, both from the smell of the gas, from the
lights, from the noise and everything there and I really am asking the City just
where the City stands on this because like I say, the proposed site which you
can see here which I can show you, clearly shows what it should be like and it
does not end up that way.
Councilman Boyt: I remember that when we approved that development. Remember
that Jay?
Mayor Chmi.el: This is facing to the west.
John Havlik: Actually this is the north which would be the back of my house and
this is the south which would be the commercial building here. There's a copy
of that in the file also. So number one, I guess I would like to know why it
2 1
11
ri
'. p City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
was approved without
PP it pertaining to what the site plan was shown because it
was never reviewed with me that anything was ever changed. Number two, I think
there is really, you can really boil it down to four issues that I have. Number
one is the air pollution that has been caused since the commercial property has
been brought in there. Number two, you do read some articles where they have
' said there is some carcinogens in gas fumes so you could have potentially a
health hazard if the backyard is filled up with these fumes and sulfer smells
all the time. Number three, I have a noise pollution which you hear lots of
' noise driving in and out of there. Number four, I have a light pollution which
I feel are all detrimental to my property. So I would like to, well I guess
here you may want to see this. These are just some of the pictures that I took
out of the backyard showing to the property there and you can see where it's
really absolutely wide open and that's when the evergreen trees they put in were
alive. That was taken last fall. There's just no screening there at all
besides my wood pile.
' Mayor Chmiel: What's the grade difference there John? Are you lower than that?
John Havlik: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you up a little higher?
' John Havlik: Just a little bit. It comes from the back and it does come up
maybe a couple feet from where the property line is and from the house but it's
basically level from there.
Councilman Boyt: Jo Ann, how much does the HRA have to do with this? The site
plan and Mr. Havlik's ability to get redress here?
' Don Ashworth: The HRA is aware of the development but as far as any type of
conditions that would typically occur at a Planning Commission level were left
there. So in other words, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority made no
requirements regarding screening or fencing.
Councilman Boyt: So those are the City's requirements?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: We pretty much, by just sort of standard, require that light
' not spill off onto surrounding properties. It seems to me like what's happening
is certainly, I know it's not what Jay and I intended when we voted on this
thing because the heavy screening was in there. So what's the next step?
' Don Ashworth: I would suggest that the developer be given an opportunity to
make a written response to the City Council so we get his perspective. Also, a
' staff report on the item so that when some of these changes occurred, we have a
better idea of what they were and why they occurred. I'm not familiar with this
issue. I'm familiar with the dead bushes. I've seen those but the changes in
the plan and were we aware of those.
Councilman Boyt: We were. In terms of we were aware of the setback from the
building because that was a parking issue and we had to create additional
parking spaces so the building got moved back but I don't ever remember anything
about the screening being changed.
' 3
■
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989 ,'
Don Ashworth: I don't either but I think we should.. .
Jo Ann Olsen: We're researching all this stuff as to when those got changed.
Mayor Chmiel: Can we proceed in that manner and review? 1
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: What should be in compliance should, be.. . '
Councilman Johnson: Is there room for a berm between your property and their
property? '
John Havlik: That's part of the problem. I did meet with Dave from the Village
here and we did look at that. In the plan here, they do show 9 feet from the
property line to the edge of the curb. They do show 9 feet here which there is.
We measured it off and there is 9 feet here but in order to do that he did make
some consideration that usually when you have an earth berm, for every foot high
you need 3 feet out. He said if you look at that, actually you would need 12
feet to do what they have proposed on the plan so he said we'd really run into a
problem there and I said, well that's what should have been analyzed before. If
they just made a plan like this, they should have known that and that should '
have been taken into consideration.
Councilman Johnson: At this point they could put 3 foot?
John Havlik: Yes. They could do something, '
g, yes. I feel what, I talked to Jim
Winkles and in fact I'm meeting with him tomorrow night on the site to look at
it and go over it again and he's proposing to put in 2 more evergreen trees.
There were 4 there, he's going to put in 6 but I told him that is not what I
want. I want a definite fence there to block the light off and to get rid of
the smell. I feel that if a fence is there, if the gas fumes do come, it will
give it some type of a barrier to start rolling or something and go somewhere
else instead of just drift right into the back yard. He is very adamant against
putting a fence in there. He just said there's no way that they want to put a
fence there. Then I came back with the issue that the site plan showed that it
should be in there and he just said, well, he says that's not the way it ended
up so I said I don't accept that at all. I guess I can't and I've been working
with him in good faith since last fall. During the winter and we were going to
get it done right away this spring, the very first thing and we met with his
landscaper people and here now it's almost the middle of July and nothing has
been done so I guess I feel I'm at an impass there and I need a little bit of
help to get it moving along. ,
Councilman Johnson: If you can smell his operation as far as, not as far as the
cars coming in but the refueling of vehicles, then he's probably in violation of
the Pollution Control Agency's odor ordinances.
John Havlik: Definitely. That's the next thing that I'm really serious about
1.!!
is the smell. There has to be something.
Councilman Boyt: And the danger if you can smell it.
4
■
4�
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Johnson: That's t s pr_-obably primarily since their vent tubes are in the
back of the building facing your house. When they fill that's where -the vapors
' from the fill come out.
Councilman Boyt: Let's bring this back.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think the direction I'd like to see right now is probably to
let staff review what's there. If it's needed that they're not in compliance
' with what was proposed, then I think yes, staff should then invite the developer
back to the Council and invite John back at that same time and we can discuss
it. One other thing too John with the fence. The fence would have to be a
fairly decent height only because of the fact that whether they have their
' headlights on bright or dim, that carries up anyway.
John Havlik: I guess I should add one thing. At the time we were talking about
' a fence, when we had the original site proposal before they built a building, at
that time Jim was against putting a fence up at that time but Barb Dacy at that
time said that it was a city ordinance that said there had to be a 6 foot fence
dividing commercial and residential properties so she said there was no issue
about the fence at all. Even if we didn't want it, it would have to go in and
then it wasn't in so I guess that needs some analyzation there.
' PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 4141 KINGS ROAD, LOWELL CARLSON.
' Public Present:
Name
' Mr_-. and Mrs. Lowell Carlson
Doris Brickley
Jo Ann Olsen: This item has been before the Council several times and it has
' been an issue for several years. The applicant, his contractor's yard was in
use prior to the zoning ordinance and then in 1985 he did receive a conditional
use permit for the contractor's yard. Several of the conditions of approval for
the conditional use permit have not been met and staff has been working with the
' applicant to get those conditions resolved. Most of the time it will be tabled
by the Planning Commission or moved up to the Council and then it will be tabled
until staff can work with the applicant to get those issues resolved and nothing
ever happens. So we are finally, we're bringing it once again in front of the
Council again with the two options to either revoke the conditional use permit
or to allow the applicant one final extension. It's a hard recommendation
' because we always like to work with the applicant and give them another chance
because there's usually reasons why they can't meet the requirements but this
time we're pushing more for the Council to revoke the permit and then to follow
up with the City Attorney to at least have the applicant reduce the contractor's
yard to what it was originally prior to the ordinance and continue to work with
them. Hopefully to clean up the site. So we've allowed those two options for
the City Council. Again, we are recommending that the conditional use permit be
revoked and the applicant is here.
5
■
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989 II
Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, as I read this, going back in 1973 is really when this
all transpired and started and from there it went to 1984, 1985. Quite a few
different things in 1985 as well as in 1986. Finally in January of 1988,
February of 1988, April of 1988 and so on. I guess as I see this, it appears as
though that some of these discussions were with Mt. Carlson. I was out there
Sunday and had same discussion with him as well and did drive it and look and
see what was there. I can understand some of his concerns. What we're saying
basically, you applied for this conditional use. What he was applying for a
conditional use was a pole barn, is that correct?
Jo Ann Olsen: The conditional use was going to make him a conforming use.
Before he got that, he was a non-conforming use. Ck andfather_ed use. Part of
the conditions of the conditional use permit was that he did have to store the
items on site and that led to him proposing for that large pole barn. The size
of it made it go back in front of the Planning Commission because that was
considered actually an expansion of the conditional use that was approved, which
got in to the whole cycle again. A pole barn would have been meeting the intent
of the conditional use as far as storing some of the items inside.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to call upon Mr. Carlson, or whoever will represent
Mr. Carlson, to inform as to some of the things that you talked to me about
yesterday and we'll proceed from there. And then if there is anyone else in the
audience that would like to address this, we'll also have those people address
that at that time.
•
Lowell Carlson: Well I guess it starts out with 1973 probably. Of all the
years, maybe my neighbors and whoever is around or friends of there probably
don't understand the circumstances of, I guess I'm in the construction business.
There's no doubt about that from whatever is around but they have no idea how
many times probably I laid under a truck at 20 below zero or out in the rain to
keep the thing going and whatever but I've managed and whatever. But anyway
we'll go on to something else. I guess I'm kind of asking that when I picked up
this building, this metal building that I'm asking for to be put up and inside
storage so you paint a vehicle or you put on new tires, it isn't weather checked
and beat to whatever. Pretty soon it looks like a piece of trash sitting out in
the sun for years and it's 20 some years, you know it keeps changing.. . But I
guess I would like just once in my life to have something inside of a building
and sheltered and covered or whatever. I guess maybe my neighbors would feel a
lot better about the whole situation also and I wouldn't blame them. But I'm in
kind of a fix. I mean I've been to this Council meeting several times and I've
tried to get this thing done and whatever and some other thing has come up. It's
either too little, too big, not far enough back, not far enough ahead and a berm
in front of it after I get a new building up and they wanted me to cover it up.
I said I'll give you a colored building. What ever color you like but want a
berm to put in front of it so it covers up the building now so I can't get in
the building if I did put it up so. But a lot of deals has come up over the
whole thing and I'd just like to have it done and build it and like I said, it
isn't no junk building. I had Barbara and it was somebody else, I can't
remember, went over there before I put the building down to put it up at my
place and at that time it was okayed. Everything was okayed but right now it's '
starting to lay there and rust and whatever have you and I kind of hate to see
that. The steel building ain't the cheapest thing and the amount of time and
materials and hours I've got in just tearing it down and it is a nice building
but it still, at the same place. And they say well there's stuff laying around.
Ell
6
11
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Well what can ou do with it? The building's there.Y g er_e. All your perlings,
everything is there. You can't mow around it. I work at it the best probably
you know. I've probably been a little lax this year trying to mow around it and
weeds but otherwise I figured I've kept it down pretty decent around there and
so on and so forth. I guess I haven't got much place to go. I mean I'm kind of
asking you people that I'd like to have a building once in my life. When it
comes winter time it's all in and I ain't snowed on and everything is you know.
I guess that's about all I've got to say about it. There's other buildings that
' are right around me that nobody says anything about. I mean it isn't an area
where there ain't no other big buildings. Big sheds or anything else. When the
leaves are off, I can see three to the north and I can always see the one down
to the northeast and it don't bother me. I mean I'm not, I was a farm kid I
' guess. I grew up on the farm and maybe things don't bother me like it does
other people but I'd also really like to have a building that I could put it in
and go on down the line. That's all I know is excavating and I guess I'm too
' old to try and change my life right now to change into something else. But
thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Carlson, you want the building. The City wants you to
get the building so you can get the junk off the outside and into your building
since you want to save all that stuff.
Lowell Carlson: Easy with the junk. No, I was just kidding you. I said easy
with the junk. I make my living with it.
Councilman Johnson: Anyway, I guess we've asked you to bring in a site plan to
show how the building is going to meet the ordinances and how it's going to sit
on the building and we're not seeing it.
' Lowell Carlson: Okay, somewhere along here I have brought a site plan in. I
have brought the plans of the building in. I have brought a site plan in
showing the buildings that will not be on this property no longer once the
'
building is put up. We have spent, and then we had copies for the whole thing I
think in 1988 or whenever they referred to that and someplace along the line
there should be a full copy. And I hear you. We didn't bring it in this time
' but someplace here there's copies should be copies for every one of you council
people to look at and right now I thought, well to make more copies and if you
have any idea what it's costed me to get the plans, have them drawn and hey I
try to do my best to satisfy whatever you demand and need is.
Councilman Johnson: As I remember the last time, the site plan had some
problems with it. All we needed, and we were fairly specific what they were.
' Lowell Carlson: Okay, but didn't that site plan show every building that would
be discarded and where the building sat and there would be no other existing
buildings at that particular point besides?
Jo Ann Olsen: It showed some of the things that we wanted but it was really
lacking in a lot of the other items that were necessary. That's where we tabled
action until you could provide that site plan and Barbara wrote you a letter
specifically listing what was necessary for that site plan and we never received
it. Then I did the same and that's what we're saying. We never see that
revised site plan and we need to see that before we can take action.
7
■ �r::s
Council Meeting - July 10, 1989 '
Lowell Carlson: ...the site plan or what you want on it because the building we
drew three times and shortened it and lengthened it and whatever. Not
lengthened it but shortened the roof because it was off too high, too low and
I'll be glad to do whatever you would like if I can sit down with somebody that
can give me whatever they want for a site plan.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's in that letter. It's all listed right out.
Lowell Carlson: Just so I don't draw up 3 or 4 of them and none of them are no
good but I'll give you whatever you want. As far as the site plan, whatever I I
can for you. But I'm sorry about this one that I didn't get that this time if
that's what you made you looking at was the total site of that thing.
Mayor Chmiel: The particular building that you're proposing putting up was 140
by 80?
Lowell Carlson: Yes. And that's a metal building. It's no longer a pole
building.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what I see here is some of the concerns of some of the
neighbors with the maintenance and upkeep of your particular facility and you
and I also discussed that yesterday. The building as you're saying would
contain exactly what? How many trucks would it hold as opposed to the total
trucks that you have out there?
Lowell Carlson: There will be cats that are now home that were not there.
There are two cats and a tracthoe. The tracthoe isn't home but that building
would take care of what I have as far as machinery and whatever of trucks and
that so you can get in and out. It isn't just the space that you have to park
them in. It's the idea of getting them out without moving it all around and
moving this one other there and moving that one other there. Some of the guys
go by the hourly rate and you know, by the time they get it out of the shed, I'm
just saying, that's why I'd like to have it so it is, you can get it out easier
or back it out so it isn't just jammed in there.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Carlson, in the 2 or 3 times I remember you coming in
here, you sure appear to be a sincere guy.
Lowell Carlson: Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: A nice person. An easy guy to talk to. If I was one of your '
neighbors, I'd be going crazy. They've been at this for 5 years and longer to
get you to clean it up. The City Council was very specific, while I was sitting
on this body a year ago and clean it up and come back to us. We're a year
later, have you cleaned any of it up?
Lowell Carlson: Yes I have but you clean it up but y ou take this piece and it over there. Then maybe next year if they want it cleaned, you take this
put
piece and put it over here. There's planking, there's 2 x 6's, 2 x 12's, stuff
that's going to go in this building. Word of honor. Co you want it way down
back in the back 40? To get it cleaned up, if it's laying there, weeds grow up [11
between it or whatever. It isn't the easiest thing to clean up something when
you ain't got no place to go with it.
Ell
8
I, ' City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
IICouncilman Boyt: '
yt: We ve had complaints right along. We've got letters in the
I pack here in the last couple of months from people who have said, when is the
City going to do something about this? A year ago, and I'm led to believe by
the staff report that you wouldn't be here tonight if we hadn't brought this up
to the City Council as a whole. Mr. Carlson I think we need action and if we
I need to give Mr. Carlson some time, if that seems reasonable, I would be open to
giving him 30 days and then I think we'd deny it. If he hasn't got that cleaned
up in 30 days, I think we should, I would make a motion that Mr. Carlson's
Iconditional use permit be denied effective August 10, 1989.
Mrs. Carlson: Sir, could I ask a question? I'm Mrs. Carlson.
I Councilman Boyt: So far there's no second to that motion yet so it may be dead.
That would be my intent.
IMrs. Carlson: Okay, where would you like us to take it?
Councilman Boyt: Well I think you've got old cars out there filled up with, if
I I remember a year ago correctly, with plumbing parts and other parts of your
business.
Mrs. Carlson: Exactly which is going to go into the building when we get the
I building put and get the racks in there so we can put them in there. My house
doesn't hold that stuff. I'm sorry.
III Councilman Boyt: I understand that and I wouldn't let it in my house either.
Another thing I would suggest to you is at least from my perspective, given the
__ neighbors that overlook you, a 27 foot high building is out of line and that's
what you're proposing. A building that's 80 x 120 feet is just completely out
I of touch with what's happening in your neighborhood so I don't think your
solution is going to work myself and as it was initially proposed, it was only
10 feet off your lot line. That's not going to work either even though that may
I be in the City Code, that's way too close to your neighbors so I'm sharing with
you my concerns but as far as where you're going to put it, I think you can do a
lot to clean that place up, just like we said a year ago. Show us that that's
I your intent and respond to the Planning Commission and to the City Council's
concerns about the building and come back. We're looking at a year later and
we're in exactly the same spot. So that's my concern.
IMrs. Carlson: Okay, we have been talking and stuff with than now and we've had
the plans here and everything. I mean Barb had a full set of the plans okay and
now they wanted more drawn up when Jo Ann called me but I don't know what more
Iyou want drawn up. What other plans you want.
Lowell Carlson: And on the lot line too, the lot line was set 25 feet away from
II the property, inside 30 feet from the edge of the road. That was at one time. . .
established as the location. That's where that building actually ended up. I
don't know if you want it 25 feet from the property line, 35 foot setback. My
IIproperty runs way out to the road but that's...
Mrs. Carlson: We would like the building so we can get rid of all this stuff
i
there too. That's what we want. That's what we've been after for a long time.
Lowell Carlson: Since 1973.. .
1 9
ii
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Well it seems like your intentions to move ahead with this are
pretty straight forward. I would think 30 days would be plenty of time.
Mrs. Carlson: So what do you want us to do in 30 days time now?
Councilman Boyt: I want you to get it all cleaned up.
Mrs. Carlson: And what do you mean by that? You want everything out of there?
What do you mean cleaned up? '
Councilman Workman: Jo Ann, wasn't there a problem with the original site plan?
I'm trying to find that and I can't.
Jo Ann Olsen: We need a revised site plan and that's what we've been, the site
plan that...
Mrs. Carlson: ...we've done that.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's in the letter that Barb sent you last year and then I quoted '
the same thing myself to you and you did say you received it. We need the areas
of existing storage. Complete inventory of the items that are currently stored
outside. A proposal for which of these items will be located within the
building. Shifting of the proposed building to the west away from the easterly
lot line. Submission of an elevation plan of the proposed building and
identification of where the property slopes to the south.
Councilman Johnson: Is this what Barb had? '
Jo Ann Olsen: Right and then I also sent it.
Councilman Boyt: What's this area zoned Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: RSF. '
Councilman Boyt: Residential single family. Residential single family means
that we can be looking at 15,000 square foot lots here.
Mrs. Carlson: We were grandfathered in there when this was a township.
Councilman Boyt: I understand that but you also understand that non-conforming
uses are not expanded and your's has expanded substantially over the years.
Lowell Carlson: Let's say. ..expansion. What difference would it be between, '
you take a business. A business will expand. Hopefully it will because
otherwise you've got...that won't expand. If it stays on an even keel. This
year you make a thousand and next year you make a thousand and last year you
make a thousand. It stays on an even keel. That's what they call not
expansion. What are you telling me?
Councilman Boyt: I'm telling you added equipment is expansion. In a non- [!!
conforming use where the City is saying that we understand you're there and you
get to stay there but you need to understand that the zoning change and if
you're going to expand, you need to move. That's a non-conforming use approach.
10
,!JL�
I City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
' Lowell Carlson: Right but see now, this...another- new law comes in and says now
you can. The roof can be so high off the ground or the building, the next year
' they change it again. -
Mrs. Carlson: Everytime everything keeps changing.
Lowell Carlson: That's what happened with the township. You started with the
township and everything kept squeezing us and whatever and new laws come in and
new laws and this one fell through. There is no ever lasting end to this. I'm
' getting older. I've got less fight in me...but somewhere in my life I'd like to
accomplish whatever...I'm sure you would like to accomplish without somebody
trying to own you right down and just putting the squeeze. Everybody else can
' build a horse barn and have horses or do anything they want probably without no
sweat... You mentioned one little piece of machinery, bang, nothing.
Councilman Boyt: Well Mt. Carlson, it's not true that they can put those things
in without a permit.
Mts. Carlson: We're not saying that. We're not saying that.
Councilman Boyt: You're in a residential single family area.
' Lowell Carlson: So are they.
Mrs. Carlson: So are they with all their horses and all that.
Lowell Carlson: I look down there and see a 60 x 150 building sitting right
there. It don't bother me none.
Mrs. Carlson: It started out for horses and now it stores boats.
Lowell Carlson: Chanhassen lets it go. They let him build it. They let that
guy build 3 of them. When the leaves are off the trees, there's 3 over there.
I'm not a complainer, I mean. ..it's their business what they do but if they're
unhappy with what I do, yes. Then I will.. . If the come up here year after
year or month after month or whatever it takes, then you kind of get the same
' thing and nothing ever gets...
Councilman Johnson: I think we feel the same way. We're in the same place we
' were in April of last year. We need what you were asked for April 15th of last
year. The letter to you and your attorney.
Lowell Carlson: He couldn't make it tonight.
Councilman Johnson: Then May 31st, we asked for the same list of 6 things. The
City's growing out around you. Progress.
' Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Carlson, could you bring yourself up to, Bill had mentioned
within the 30 day period by straightening the site, your basic site up. I'd
like to get further clarification so you understand just exactly what Jo Ann has
said. I'd like to see Jo Ann work very closely with you so that you understand
exactly where the City is coming from. I think if you can come up with that
compliance and we're still where we are right now, I'm not sure whether that
particular pole barn that you're requesting can be constructed within that
11
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
specific area because of the zoning aspects. Now, the other thing that we're
talking about is, also that berming doing g
ng or ng something of that effect to —
alleviate some of, as some of the other people put it, the unsightliness of it
and to you it's your business and I understand that. So what I'd like to really
see done is that we work with you and if you think you can complete this within
a 30 day period, I'd like to see that done and have that for reconsideration and
come back to the Council.
Councilman Johnson: Don, are you basically saying you want items 1 through 6 on
the May 31st letter?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: You want those items completed in 30 days?
Mrs. Carlson: Could I ask a question? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Mrs. Carlson: What did you mean about, what did you say about the building? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to clarify the building to be constructed within
that particular area? ,
Jo Ann Olsen: Currently the accessory structure ordinance is going through a
revision. Hopefully that will be on the next Council agenda which would limit
the size of your building to 1,000 square feet. It would also limit the 1
location of that building. Currently the restrictions, I'd have to go back and
look at the size of your lot and the location. You might be permitted a larger
building than that. I don't know that it would permit as large as you're
proposing.
Mayor_ Chmiel: As opposed to your 12,000 is what she's really saying. '
Jo Ann Olsen: And because this has been postponed, there has been this other
item going on, not directly related to your item but it just has been and it's
close to being approved and most likely will be in place by the time you do come
back through. I can discuss that with you and we can work with that. I know
there are some other neighbors who have been raising their hands also but if I
may just interject, if you're talking 30 days, what would have to happen is that
they would have to provide that revised site plan and that would go back in
front of the Planning Commission. Today was the deadline for the next agenda so
they obviously can't do that and in 2 weeks is the next deadline so it would
probably be best just to set that date.
Mayor_ Chmiel: So you're saying 45 days?
Jo Ann Olsen: Before it would get to you. That would give them 2 weeks to
provide me with that revised site plan which is enough time I feel. If they do
not provide it in that time, then we would bring it back to the Council. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question too Mr. Carlson. Could you in good
faith to show the neighbors and the City that you're willing to start cleaning
tli
12 '
11
' 4
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
' up, is there anything there that is not necessary that you might sort out and do
away with?
' Lowell Carlson: Yes there is. I'm not saying that. There's stuff that can be
picked up or whatever. It's some stuff that I would do that no problem.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I think it would be a good idea to start doing that
and then the neighbors could see that you are operating in good faith and so
could the City so if we could put that in there that that would be done within
' that same time frame to sort out and start getting rid of some of the things
that you no longer need.
Lowell Carlson: Okay. I mean we run sometimes 12 to 14 hours a day but we'll
do something about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this specific item?
Doris Brickley: My name is Doris Brickley and I own several pieces of property
on Kings Road. I'm not a resident out there but I don't think the fault is
' entirely Mr. Carlson's. This is about the fifth meeting that I've attended and
maybe the Council members keep changing but you go over the same thing over and
over and if it keeps being tabled enough, he'll get through the winter and then
we'll start again next spring. That's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
11 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to propose a motion along the lines of my earlier
' motion. I would propose that the City revoke Mr_. Carlson's conditional use
permit if he has not provided an acceptable proposal by September 1, 1989. I
think that what that accomplishes, if there's a second to it, is it puts an end
' to it. It's either approved or it's revoked and we've got a deadline. A
deadline for the Council. A deadline for Mr. Carlson and a deadline that his
neighbors can count on.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that for discussion. In the year since the
last time we discussed this, there was a lot of opportunity for them to complete
his site plan. There was a letter telling him what he had to do to his site
plan. He didn't do that. During that time we're changing the ordinance again
because of large accessory buildings going onto residential single family areas
such as this but more directly closer into town and so the Planning Commission's
held public hearings and pretty well been decided that the larger accessory
structure on a resi.dental single family lot will be 1,000 square feet. If that
gets passed next week, his pole barn for getting rid of his vehicles now becomes
1,000 square feet maximum size in a week or 2 weeks from now rather than 12,000.
He's not going to put much in 1,000 square feet to speak of. Will he need a
variance then? Then we've got to talk hardship. Hardship is he never got
around to it. If we pass this motion, is this saying that we're going to allow
a 12,000 square foot building after we change the ordinance in 2 weeks? He's
' 13
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
had ample opportunity to come in. It's no secret that this ordinance It's been published in the we're a ate -r al hg
spot now, a lot more with the for_thcomi grordinancekchange ndlthattareaeis hard
lir
growing. That area is prime for development next. It's within the MUSA line.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to suggest a comparison case. The Taco Shop at the
other end of town. A different zone but a non-conforming use. They came in and
they wanted to expand. They wanted to do what Mr. Carlson said every reasonable
business tries to do and we denied it. We're also putting TH 101 through the
property but there were two issues really. One of them was the expansion of a
non-conforming use. If this wasn't zoned residential single family, there might
be a lot easier way to resolve this but the City has zoned this so that it's
possible to have a 15,000 square foot lot up there. Now imagine a 15,000 square '
foot lot next to a 10,000 square feet building.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, I'd like an opinion from you. Mr. Carlson moved onto this
site. He moved in there if I'm not mistaken it was 1965, is that correct?
Lowell Carlson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: And moving in in 1965 he had acquired a total of 6 acres. And
anyway, how does grandfathering affect that?
Roger Knutson: As you know what grandfathering basically says is, if you have
an existing use, you can't change the ordinances and thereby force that person
to go out of business. He has the right to stay in business. Otherwise you'd
be taking his business or you'd be taking his property if you didn't let him
continue. So under the Constitution he has the right to stay in business
basically, sometimes it's a little bit tricky but at the same size and same
intensity level as he existed at the time you made him non-conforming. But you
have no grandfather rights and I have not seen the property. You have no
grandfather rights to create a nuisance. You have no grandfather rights to have
junk laying all over the place, if that's what it is so if you were to revoke
the permit, we could look at it from two aspects. One, is he illegally expanded
then that non-conforming use. We could make him go back to where he was at the
point where the ordinance was or is he creating a nuisance out there by junk or
whatever and if he is, we can either go in and ask for an injunction to get rid
of that or we can prosecute him criminally.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Okay. Any further discussion? I
Councilwoman Di.mler: I guess I'd like to ask Roger too. I see a letter here on
September 18, 1985 at which time it was stated that unless this contact is made
within the next few days and unless you properly complete the review process,
the City will commence legal proceedings against you. Was there anything ever
done at that time?
Roger Knutson: No. I guess Jo Ann says the staff has been, the Planning
Commission and Council has been working with Mr. Carlson to try to get voluntary
compliance and apparently there was some movement, I don't remember the timing,
L!!
but apparently there was some movement shortly after this and so we decided to
keep working with him.
14 '
I
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, do you know what the setback r_-equir_ements of the
R-1A district was?
Jo Ann Olsen: I believe it was 50 frontyard, 10 on the side. I think it was 10
on one side, it had like alternates on the side. 10 and 50 on one side or 10
and 5.
■ Mayor_ Chmiel: It was less restrictive than what it is now?
' Jo Ann Olsen: Oh yes.
Councilman Johnson: Never mind. One of the conditions of the permit is all
' unlicensed vehicles had to be removed by December 1, 1985.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Carlson and I had discussions on that also. Some of his
trucks he doesn't use but when it does become a time for use, he does then
' license them as he needs them rather than paying all those dollars at that
specific time.
' Councilman Boyt: I think the City has an ordinance that forbids unlicensed
vehicles to be stored on property.
Mayor Chmiel: It does.
■ Councilman Workman: I guess Mr. Mayor, my comments. When I came in from
reading this packet and I didn't get a chance to meet personally with Lowell or
his wife, I guess the deck was stacked against him when I came in. The packet
this evening certainly isn't leaning in their favor as far as promises made.
Bill and Lowell made the same kind of pact last year that Ursula and him
basically just made as far as a good faith move and here we are again. I do
like the idea of always giving another chance and that looks like where we're
headed and to see where we all fit because there's some confusion so I think
we're ready for a vote.
■ Councilwoman Dimler: Can we clarify the point that Jay brought up though about
an acceptable proposal if the accessory structure thing is changed? What do we
do then?
Councilman Johnson: He's going to bring in a site plan September 1st under a
new ordinance yet, where are we?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd hate to have him come in for a variance and that won't
be approved because he can't prove the hardship.
' Councilman Johnson: Because they had ample opportunity since 1985 to build that
structure.
Roger Knutson: I don't know if this is what you want. Of course it would be
possible to write your new ordinance or pass it in such a form that it would
I! exempt pending matters such as this if that's what you wanted to do.
Councilwoman Dimler: Any other alternatives?
' 15
■ _ _
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Roger Knutson: I think the variance route has been discussed but it's pretty
hard to get. I think if you want him to have a 12,000 square foot building, I'm
not suggesting you do but if you do.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, but I mean somewhat more than 1,000 for his needs.
Roger Knutson: And you can write the ordinance that's coming to
you like. You could say n9 you in any form
y pending applications or pending matters, they can go up
to.
'
Councilwoman Dimler: Or exempted.
Roger Knutson: Or exempted or they can go up to 9, 8, 5, whatever you think is
appropriate.
Councilwoman Dimler: What is the status of that ordinance right now Jo Ann, do
you know?
Jo Ann Olsen: It will be on the next agenda. ,
Councilman Boyt: Has it been changed since the last time?
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we reword it? '
Jo Ann Olsen: The setback part, that's what Jay had brought up. That's what
we've been adding. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Could we add that wording in there now that Roger
suggested? i
Jo Ann Olsen: You can always go more restrictive. Do we have to hold another
public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: Are you talking exempting of pending matters?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Roger Knutson: I think you could do it Jo Ann because your hearing notice isn't
so specific. Just adding a section on how you're going to relate this new
ordinance to pending matters.
Councilwoman Dimler: So that can still be added? That's not a problem. Okay.
Would you look into doing that then?
Roger Knutson: If you'd like, sure.
Councilman Johnson: This new ordinance gives us opportunities as far as when we
start talking this site plan to say okay if RSF has 1,000 and we're going to
give you something way over 1,000, that thing better be way away from existing
neighbors. I'd like to see this building not up against King Road. Not up
against the neighbor's property at the minimum setback but when we're getting
something this big, we need to move that thing back behind the houses and back
down the side of the hill where this is not a big eyesore. As I remember, the
property slopes downwards to the back. We can build it there. It causes them
16 '
11
' City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
to have a driveway instead of just having 10 foot of driveway but it does not
fit in RSF. That's why we're having a 1,000 square foot structure. . We need to
somehow, if we're going to allow this to come into here, to move it from the
proposed site. It gets real complicated here.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I think it's unfair to ask him to clean it up and then not
give him a building that's reasonably sized to be able to clean that up.
Councilman Boyt: About unfairness. I think we've been unfair to the neighbors.
This is a non-conforming use. have to be very careful when we let somebody
put up a 12,000 square foot building in a non-conforming use. This land is
going to be developed. It's residential single family. 15,000 square feet.
' Mayor Chmiel: Let me interject something here Bill. I was out there I viewed
it. There are 3 existing barns on the Filly Farm. There's also another one on
David Headla's that's probably the same size which is in eye view from where
you're at right now. Those are the other things that have to be taken into
consideration too.
' Councilman Johnson: They came in under the old ordinance also and they were put
up when they were legal to be put up. They're not non-conforming, or are they
non-conforming now that they've...
Jo Ann Olsen: They will be.
Councilman Johnson: They will be non-conforming in 2 weeks.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Haven't we already stated that Jo Ann would work real
closely with the applicant? Are you planning to work real closely to help them
' understand what the ordinance says?
Jo Ann Olsen: I'll try.
' Councilman Johnson: Does this Council feel that we should move it to a
different location if they build it?
' Mayor Chmiel: I hate to be in a position to tell someone where to put their
particular building on their property. I don't think we ever want to get in
that position.
' Councilman Johnson: This will be a variance over our ordinance, I think that
there's some necessity to doing that. Especially if I'm the next door neighbor.
' Councilwoman Di.mler: Could we trust staff then to come up with a reasonable
size for the building that Council could approve? I don't know. I haven't seen
the site.
' Councilman Boyt: As I recall this from a year ago, you were talking about
putting 25 vehicles in the building and your assorted equi.pnent and inventory.
What we have, I think Council is a situation that's at lagerheads with itself.
We've got to make a decision about is Mr_. Carlson going to be able to run an
expanded business in his location or not. I don't think it's appropriate
IF-- myself. Maybe we should come to grips with that issue and just deny the permit
because I don't know what he's going to do with what we don't let him put in the
' 17
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
building. If we restrict it to a 5,000 square foot building, does that I
g mean
that 7,000 square foot worth of vehicles and equipment is going to sit_outside?
This is just a dilemma that doesn't lend itself to solution. Part of it I think iji
I agree with the women who said the City is partially at fault here. We've let
this drag out forever.
Mayor Chmiel: That's part of the problem, you're right. When I went out there
I took a quick inventory. They do have 10 large trucks, 4 pick-up vans, 1
backhoe, 4 flatbeds, 1 tow truck, 3 trailers and a couple other items that are
on the property. So as I count these up, there's approximately 23 items right
now and then Mr. Carlson I think indicated there are a couple items that are
already on the job site so there's a total of 25 vehicles. I'm not sure what
the intent was when that was first put in. That information I didn't find.
Jo Ann Olsen: There has been an expansion of business and that was when this
all got going again in 1987 was when bring it back to the Planning Commission
was to approve the expansion. Approve another conditional use permit for the
expansion of the business. If you do provide that extension, what they would be
doing is providing the site plan as required. They would be going back in front
of the Planning Commission again for approval of a new conditional use permit
essentially so you would be approving of the expansion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have another question for Roger. I read somewhere and I
wrote it down and I don't know where I read it, I can't find it but I read
somewhere that if we deny the conditional use permit tonight, that he can still
operate as a non-conforming use and then could be prosecuted if he does not
clean up using our nuisance ordinance. Is that correct?
Roger Knutson: You're quoting from my letter in the packet. Yes. I wrote that
letter several years ago. '
Councilwoman Dimler: That's true? He can still operate so we're not taking his
business away if we vote to not give him the condition use permit? ,
Roger Knutson: He already has the permit. The item tonight is revoking the
existing permit. If you revoke the existing permit, he still has his
grandfather rights as an existing use that predated the ordinance but he has to
go back to the size of the use that existed when the ordinance was passed.
Councilwoman Dimler: How do you document that? '
Roger Knutson: With difficulty.
Councilman Johnson: The only inventory we have is in 1985. The ordinance was '
like 1972 so reasonably we could go back to the 1985 level of activity which is
about 5 trucks.
Roger Knutson: What you would do if you revoke this, he couldn't for example
put up that building. That 12,000 square foot building.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could he put up any building?
1-1.
Roger Knutson: Commercial building, no.
91
18 '
■
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
jr- Councilman Johnson: Would he have to go back to the same number of vehicles he
owned in 1985?
I Mayor Chmiel: And how many there?
y were e.
' Jo Ann Olsen: Well we do have a list that the applicant provided when he first
applied for the conditional use permit. I would just assume we would use that
list which is, like Jay said, 5 vehicles. Very small. It's right before the
' pictures in the report, or right after the pictures.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask another question Roger. If we were to approve this,
' can we put a restriction that it only is with that existing owner for the period
of time that he remains operational as that business?
Roger Knutson: No. Conditional uses run with the property.
Councilman Johnson: What about non-conforming use?
' Roger Knutson: It runs with the property.
Councilman Boyt: If Mr. Carlson leaves that property, the way it's zoned, it
' will be residential within the year so I don't think we have to be too
concerned. Well that might not be true if it has a 12,000 square foot building
on it but without that kind of structure, the property's too valuable.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? If not, we do have a motion on the
floor.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, are our options then, to kind of reiterate, our
option is to basically give him a basic extension to come in with a site plan
and get it cleaned up and if it doesn't, it's done?
' Councilwoman Dimler: By September 1st.
Councilman Johnson: Site plan in for Planning Commission.
' Jo Ann Olsen: You would not see it then until at the end of September.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Right. It would go the Planning Commission with the ordinance
change unfortunately.
Councilman Workman: But the ordinance is our accessory structure ordinance is
probably going to be changing in the meantime and we're going to have another
dilemma.
' Councilman Johnson: A lot of history to say it's grandfathered.
Councilwoman Di.mler: That's why I asked for the ordinance to state they're
exempting any pending, yes. That would take care of that.
Jo Ann Olsen: Again, I'd have to look at the area of the property but they
might be permitted then under the old ordinance to have a large building. It
would be hard for me to say no, you can only have 2,000 if they would really be
permitted to have 10,000.
' 19
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I'm going to withdraw my motion. I think we're just delaying
the inevitable here and that if we revoke this conditional use permit he can
still operate his business and he merely has to do it within the City ordinances
that are provided. The building issue we can deal with when we look at the
accessory building ordinance next session. So if you guys want the motion of
putting this off until September, someone else will need to make it.
Councilman Johnson: I'll withdraw my second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion on the floor then?
Councilman Boyt: I would move that we deny the conditional use permit for a
contractor's yard at 4141 Kings Road.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
Roger Knutson: You're revoking.
Councilman Boyt: Revoking. 1
Councilman Workman: So that leaves him what options?
Councilwoman Dimler: He can still operate as a non-conforming use and has to go '
back to the level of activity of 1985.
Councilman Boyt: He can come in and reapply for a conditional use permit if he I
wants to but at this point we're saying enough is enough. It's time to draw a
close to this conditional use permit.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess as I really look at it, from what Tom even had mentioned,
everyone else has had their day to review this in the past number of years.
Talking about giving someone back that second chance, I guess I'd sort of lean
towards that only because of the fact that if he can't comply with it, then
depending upon what he can't have as a building to house the numbers of
vehicles, whether it be 5 or whatever, that's something that I think staff
should work with the Carlson's and come up with a conclusion. If it can't be
complied with, then we will have to go to revoking of the conditional use
permit.
Councilman Workman: So you're for the original motion perhaps? ,
Mayor Chmiel: More so I think.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I think what we've done though is we've put staff
in an impossible dilemma. We haven't told them what size building we'll
approve. We've sent Mr. Carlson the message clean up but we don't promise you
anything at the end of that rainbow. I think it's much cleaner. ..
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I think that part can be resolved between staff and Mr.
Carlson prior to that time. '
Councilman Boyt: Can or can't?
20 ,
11
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Could be. They may decide not to do what they are proposing to
Iljr- do and it would revoke back to the 1985 issue.
Councilman Boyt: But how is staff going to know what size building we'll
approve? Mr. Carlson could always reapply for a conditional use permit, a new
one.
Mayor Chmiel: At least I'm interjecting my thoughts. We now have a motion on
' the floor to deny and revoke. Is there any further discussion on that?
Councilwoman Dimler: I hate to see that but I agree with giving second chances.
I wonder if we haven't given second, thirds, fourths and fifths here.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe not from us though.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I wish I had some guarantee that this time something would
happen. I know that's not possible. I just wanted to add that in there that
I do believe that there has been plenty of time and cooperation on the part of
the City to get something done.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny and revoke the
' conditional use permit for a contractor's yard at 4141 Kings Road for Lowell
Carlson. All voted in favor except Mayor Chmiel who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Lowell Carlson: Basically where am I or where are you going from here on that
Y Y g 9
particular deal?
Mayor Chmiel: That I think would be something that you probably have to work
that out with staff to come up with a conclusion as to what can be on site and
what can't be on site.
Lowell Carlson: So what you're not saying is you're revoking the permit?
' Mayor Chmiel: No, you can still remain in business as you had been at the 1985
level as to what was contained on site at that specific time and the balance of
the site then has to be cleaned.
' Lowell Carlson: Okay. I didn't just quite hear it all.
Mayor Chmiel: And if you have a specific question, don't hesitate to call Jo
Ann. In fact I'd suggest Jo Ann that you have some additional discussions
with Mr. Carlson.
PUBLIC HEARING:
OFFICIAL MAPPING OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 FROM ROSEMOUNT ENTRANCE TO PROPOSED TRUNK
HIGHWAY 212.
A. PUBLIC HEARING.
B. ADOPTION.
' 21
■ . .
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Gary ,
Y Wa r_r en: Mr. Mayor, this is an item that is familiar to the Council as well
as to the residents since we've had several meetings. Most recently last
Thursday night we had another public information meeting here to deal with the
corridor. As you recall, the Council has approved the alternate selection for
the rerouting of TH 101 and staff has subsequently provided that to MnDot so
they could incorporate that into the TH 212 official mapping which we should be
receiving the revised map shortly on that. Fred Hoisington is here this
evening. Fred has been the focal point from the City standpoint on putting
together the land use and the corridor alignments and is available to field any
questions or make any presentation you'd like further. The action as you stated
is to officially adopt the map. The alternative has been selected and now this
is to officially adopt the map for the corridor which ranges from 200 to 250
feet in width and is shown on the maps. As a part of that adoption, we're
looking to have, it's necessary to have legal descriptions prepared of this
corridor so we can record it against the County records. So with that brief
introduction, I'll turn it back to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Fred, would you just like to go through that just for the people
who possibly have not been here previously and an update on a brief basis
please?
Fred Hoisington: Yes your honor. There really are several segments to the
study that we've been charged with doing, one of which is the alignment of TH
101. Another is the land use and what you see here or what punches out on this
map of course is the land use that's proposed and we're not asking you to make
any decisions at this point on land use because it's going to be fed into the
comprehensive planning process rather than have that dealt with independently of
that process. Essentially what we're suggesting is that there be 200 feet of
right-of-way from the south Rosemount entrance. This is where Rosemount is
presently construction. This is existing Great Plains Blvd. and Market Blvd. is
going to be under construction within a very short period of time just south of
TH 5 and just immediately to the east of where Rosemount is under construction.
What we're suggesting is that from that point south to 86th Street where it will
tie into the future TH 101, that there be 200 foot of right-of-way mapped with a
small bubble of 250 foot of right-of-way for sloped purposes that falls about
halfway between the area or the parameters within which we're working. Now the
purpose of official mapping is only to protect the right-of-way in the event
that there might be someone who would wish to build within that right-of-way.
So it kind of puts some responsibilities on the City not only to map it but in
the event someone makes a request for a building there, the City could be faced
with having to acquire that right-of-way and then you will be given, should that
occur, a period of 6 months within which to make the decision either to buy or
to issue a building permit. Actually the board's onl y appeals,
ppeals, according to
law, is to issue that building permit. Very strange process but that's the way
it works. So really all you're doing is setting it aside and requests then
should honor. that. The alignment should be shown in the respective development
plans that would come along with the corridor and we have talked with all the
key land owners there and all of them have some concerns about the width. Have
some concerns about the remnant that occurs between the present TH 101 and the
new TH 101 and I would guess most of the cannents Gary we received in the course L-.1
of the public information meetings relate to that because we are talking about
the single family housing as a land use concept for that area. But that's it.
Simply to set that land aside so it can be protected and not be encumbered by
buildings in the future so we can be assured that TH 101 is going to be there 10
22 '
11
II r,i..)
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
IIyears down the road when it's ready to be built in conjunction with TH 212.
IMayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilman Johnson: Where it's 250 foot wide, is that over in the woods?
IIGary Warren: Near the creek area.
Fred Hoisington: It's just to the north of, the creek runs comes through here
I and it just happens that there's a fill slope there that spreads out a long ways
and we want to embrace all of that fill slope within the right-of-way. It
requires Jay 250 feet to do that.
IICouncilman Johnson: Is that a treed area?
. Fred Hoisington: That particular area does have some trees, yes. It is
I slightly above though the area where we're showing open space which is very
heavily wooded but yes there are trees there.
IMayor Chmiel: Which area specifically is heavily wooded?
Councilman Johnson: The green. OS.
I Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address
this?
I Marge Shorba: I'm Marge Shorba. My husband George and I own two lots directly
past the creek on TH 101. What we are concerned with is the length of the
;l_ right-of-way and had talked to Fred at one of the open meetings regarding a dirt
II barrier past our property as if that would be put up or would not. He stressed
that it would in our area but since last Thursday, my husband is a designer. He
has drawn up the length of the lot and the length of the right-of-way that is
there and no way is there room for a barrier that would do any good because
I there's not enough right-of-way to do it. I talked to Fred again tonight and he
does say that is a tight area in there and so there is some concern as to
whether there was room or not. So I just wanted to let you know that we are
I opposed to it without a barrier and was wondering if there were any suggestions
or what would happen with it.
I Fred Hoisington: What happens, their property which does not of course have a
house on it right now, is positioned right here and it is probably the most
difficult piece because if we push the alignment further to the east, we push it
into the wetland and further we push it into this hill that we're also trying to
I preserve as part of the open space which is very heavily wooded. It's kind of
an island out there that we'd like to see preserved rather than destroyed. What
we will do is ask the official, official mapping, when the legal descriptions
I are prepared, is how can we give them some additional room to try to get some
berming in there but there are some trade-offs. It's a very difficult and very
tight area and there are some environmental things that also need to be
considered. Now what George, and George is not only a designer but he works for
MnDot so he knows about these kinds of things, the map he was looking at, 150
feet of right-of-way with 75 flit on a side, we're proposing 200 now so we can
more of a berm in that George was able to see that point with the right-of-way
that is proposed to be taken. But we will look at that as those legal
II 23
■
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
descriptions are being worked out and see if we can't do somethin .
Unfortunately if we try to g
Y y push too much, we may end up with some super
elevation here which we're not real fond of for maintaining the right curvature
but nonetheless we'll take a look and see if there's something we can do.
Al Klingelhutz: I guess it's right to map out a highway and I was glad Fred
said that. It didn't pertain to the zoning tonight because I do have some
concerns and I know Mr. Bart has quite a little concern on some of the zoning
that's being proposed and I'm sure there will be hearings in the future on that.
I guess my biggest concern and I did talk to Fred about this at the last
meeting, is you've got a 200 foot right-of-way from the end of Market Street
where Lake Drive East comes to down to TH 212 and then you've only got 150 foot
right-of-way from Lake Drive East up to TH 5 which is going to have the most
traffic.
Councilman Johnson: Same width of roadway though isn't it? '
Fred Hoisington: Same width.
Gary Warren: The topography is a little more forgiving on the north side. '
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If not, I'll make a motion that we close the public
hearing. '
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I
Councilman Johnson: The only thing I want to say is, the map they show have the
zoning and the side streets are totally examples of what might possibly occur
and has nothing to do with our decision here tonight. We're only talking where
TH 101 is going to be. I can't emphasize that point enough. People will come
back and say, gee you zoned this. No we didn't zone anything tonight. All we
did was say where the right-of-way is going to be.
Councilman Workman: I'm trying to get maybe a clarification on Al's concern. Is
that a concern of ours or is that something that could be avoided Fred? I'm
assuming that Al's eluding to the fact that maybe more right-of-way has been
taken on the south side?
Fred Hoisington: It is. The area on the north side of Lake Drive up to TH 5
does have some additional land that's being used temporarily in slope easements
so it is effectively the right-of-way is wider than 150 feet there but once the
project is done, the slope easement or the part they'll be working in will be
relinquished back to the owners of the property which means that the resulting
right-of-way will be slightly lesser in width than this down here. Now the
problem down here is the road is going like this. What that requires or the
cuts and fills that require more right-of-way than the area up here to where
it's relatively flatter though it's not flat anyplace there. So a legitimate
concern, what we've indicated is that the possibility exists when it's ready to
be acquired. The full right-of-way is ready to be acquired at some time in the
future and that could be 10 years down the road. Maybe when the actual design
is done, the width could be less than 200 feet and maybe we could work the slope
easements and things like that as we get on the north side. At least for the
24 '
, City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
time being we want that 200 foot corridor because it needs to embrace those cul
and fill slopes so a legitimate concern and it's not, the road will be the same
width. Same median, everything so the capacity of the roadway is not effected
at all by the width of the right-of-way. We just need more to build the road
there.
Councilman Johnson: We're not saying we're going to buy 200 feet in the future.
We're saying that we want to map 200 feet so we have the option to buy that in
' the future.
Councilman Workman: Well I'm going to move approval of the official mapping.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
t Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adopt the Official
Mapping of Trunk Highway 101 from the Rosemount Entrance to Proposed Trunk
Highway 212. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER EXTENDED WORK HOURS FOR ROSEMOUNT SITE CONSTRUCTION.
' Gary Warren: June 12th the City Council tabled Opus' request to work extended
work hours and wanted the neighbors surrounding the Lake Susan area that could
be impacted by the extended work hours to be notified of the request so that
Council could hear their objections, if any, to the extended work hours. As
noted in the attachments to the staff report, handbills were delivered to the
properties on Great Plains Blvd, West Lake Court, Lake Susan Hills Drive and
' Chan Hills Drive North and the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ, notified
them of the request. Basically Rosemount, Opus who is constructing for
Rosemount has requested the extended work hours for a 10 day period basically to
' work a limited amount of equipment during the second shift to make up for lost
time during the experience because of the wet construction period this spring.
I guess again we believe that it's a legitimate request. Rosemount and Opus
have indicated that if complaints are received from the activity, it's hard to
exactly say what equipment will be working those hours but if complaints are
received, they would agree to stop their actions if permitted to proceed at this
point in time. I don't know if anybody from Opus is here this evening. Ted
' Jirik is here this evening with Opus if you have any questions.
Mayor_- Chmiel: I just have a couple questions. As I was reading your letter and
the letter that was sent out by Opus, in there it indicates that they were going
to do it from July llth to July 30th and in your cover letter indicates that
there's going to be a 10 day period that they would be working on that. Which
is correct? 10 or 19 days?
Gary Warren: 10 working days is what I had been told originally.
Mayor Chmiel: So the letter that was sent from Opus, the second paragraph,
second line.
Gary Warren: It was my understanding with talking with Steve Grasso of Opus
that they're basically looking for a 2 week period to make up for lost time.
' 25
11
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Maybe Mr. Jirik can
Y qualify exactly. What is the period of time that you're
exactly, how many days do you need?
Ted Jirik: We're really looking for 10 working days. If we ask for 2 weeks and
it rains for 2 weeks it doesn't do us any good so we're really looking for 10
working days and hopefully we can accomplish that in a couple weeks time.
Certainly if there's a lot of complaints received because of noise or whatever,
we'll have to address them or quit or satisfy them one way or another.
Mayor Chmiel: Have we had any response from any of these people who had the
hand flyers delivered to them?
Gary Warren: I've not had any calls? '
Councilman Boyt: I have a question Mr. Mayor. Al, did you get one of these
flyers? '
Al Klingelhutz: Yes, I got one of these flyers but there are quite a few people
right here from the area and I don't know if they want to speak on it. Probably
it affects me as much or more than most of the people on the lake. I know Lake
Susan West, those people that live close to the shore will be closer to it.
Councilman Boyt: I'd really like to hear from some folks that are concerned
about this.
Mayor Chmiel: Anybody who'd like to address this? Are you basically in
agreement with with the proposals are indicating that Opus plans, because of
some of the problems they have had they're running behind 2 weeks, 10 working
days in time schedule. What they're asking is that they work from 5:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m. from July 11th through July 30th. '
Councilman Boyt: Actually Mr. Mayor they're asking to work all the hours except
from 2:00 to 5:00 in the morning.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me, that's what you said. I apologize.
Mayor Chmiel: And weather permits. Their concerns too is that they hopefully
are not going to be making noise enough to bother the residents but we had some
concerns, the Council had concerns about it and that's why we sort of tabled it
the last time but if no one here has any objections to that proposal, my
suggestion is that if you do hear noise, you get back to the City and inform
them as to what the noise is and maybe it can be addressed. Maybe we'll shut
them down. Maybe they can do something about it to alleviate the given
problems. Any other discussion from anyone?
Councilman Boyt: I would propose a motion that's slightly different than that.
That given no objections from the neighbors, we approve Rosemount site
construction request for extended work hours. However, if there is a complaint,
we withdraw that approval.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move we close the public hearing first.
26
I
' City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Mayor_- Chmiel: This isn't a public hearing.
Councilman Workman: I'll second that.
' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the extended work
hours for the Rosemount Site Construction but if there are any complaints from
the neighbors, the approval is withdrawn. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
' SUNNY SLOPE BEACHLOT, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.
Mayor. Chmiel: I would like to just address this even before we get into too
much discussion right off hand. I understand that there's going to be a pre-
trial on this on July 14th. Is that right Roger?
Roger_ Knutson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: And very possibly that this could go to the courts and be tried
further and finaled within possibly 60 days. Maybe 90 at the very most.
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: So therefore I would almost think that, at least my position is
that we put it back to the court system and that determination come back from
there. Is there any other discussion from Council?
Councilman Johnson: I would move we table.
Councilman Boyt: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Or we deny the reconsideration.
Mayor_ Chmiel: I would think we should table until the case be tried with the
pre-trial taking place on July 14th of this week.
' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table action on the
request for reconsideration for Sunny Slope Beachlot until after the pre-trial
scheduled for July 14, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
' Mayor Chmiel: If there's anyone here to address that specific issue, it should
be back within probably a 60 day period or 90 at the very most.
CONFIRM SIDEWALK LOCATION FOR LAKES SUSAN N HILLS WEST 1ST ADDITION, PHASES I AND
II; CONSIDER CITY WIDE SIDEWALK POLICY.
Gary Warren: This is Lake Susan Hills West from the earlier PUD documents. The
issue at hand is to confirm the location of the sidewalk in the subdivision. I
think I can work off of this drawing for the best part. A portion on the east
side is platted as Phase I of Lake Susan Hills West and the element on the west
27
■
' City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989 1
side is Phase II. As a part of that, as shown on this map, the dotted line is
the trail that is supposed to be constructed as a portion or as a part of the
project. We've had difficulty in all honesty, not only with this subdivision
but with others here in trying to get our city policies I guess up to speed to
deal with these trail issues because they've kind of come here in a flurry. As
a result, the sidewalk has turned out to be one of the last things that's being
installed in these subdivisions or trail, whichever you want to call it. As a
result we run into conflicts with existing utilities that have been constructed
in the right-of-way areas. Hydrants. Street lights. Gate valves. A number of
its that are all trying to fit into the boulevard area and at this point in
time in our urban section, we get a 50 foot right-of-way versus a 60 foot in the
rural areas. It's a lot when you try to pack in a 5 foot wide sidewalk or
larger into these boulevard areas. We're just running into some real problems
with trying to get the sidewalk in especially since it has turned out to this
point in time to be the last facility that's going in. Staff took a detailed
look at the subdivision to see what kind of obstructions were we really dealing
with and earlier on in the stage of construction we were looking at trying to
put it in the area of least resistence as far as the utility locations were
concerned. These are the actual plats and subsequently to that, to actually put
in the trail. I'm sorry, as a part of that we went out and said well, let's
physically identify the obstructions and where best could we get the trail in
here. We were able to measure all the hydrants and other obstructions in the
field and we've come up with the fact that we are able to have the sidewalk
constructed as originally planned in the original documents on the north side of
the road in both cases. The sidewalk on the east side of Lake Susan right above
CR 17 basically would have to abut the right-of-way line and on the west side it
would be basically 1 foot off of the right-of-way line. This section maybe
would be a better representation here. This being the property line, this being
the curb line, here's a typical showing a hydrant and other utlities that happen
to go in here. We like to normally have some separation from the property
so there's no dispute that our sidewalk is not on private property.p AsrI aide
p As I said
on the east side, in order to clear obstructions that exist. ..but we are
basically able to get the sidewalk in on the north side as originally planned as
in those earlier PUD documents. This makes sense also because as it relates to
the open space area, eventual park space in the subdivision here, the walk is on
the north side and there are access trails that would come off of that walkway.
I know there's been a lot of confusion about this. There's driveways that are
constructed along about 8 of these lots here.
Bob Kopp: 14. There's 14 driveways on the west side.
Gary Warren: There are 8 that are actually paved at this point though right?
At least my count from a week ago and things change rapidly in these
subdivisions.
Bob Kopp: Now there's 14 now...
Gary Warren: So they're continuing to pave driveways as you can understand.
Nonetheless, I guess the sidewalk can go in without necessarily having to tear
up those driveways. Saddlebrook is another case in point where we just approved
it this evening as you recall, the sidewalk that will be going through there and
there are existing driveways that we will be manipulating around. So the
recommendation from staff's standpoint is to stay consistent with the original
PUD plan. Put the sidewalk on the north side of the alignment but then also we
28 1
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
wanted to take this opportunity I to
Y guess get
the Council's direction. We
really are handicapped in not having this sidewalk policy firmly established and
also having to deal with the right-of-way section that just does not allow all
these utilities to go in one area very conveniently. The goal, at least the
direction from my standpoint has been any sidewalks here and in the future
should be included as a part of the construction plans and be built at the time
the utilities are built. Now there is a consequence there in that the builders
have to take precautions to protect that sidewalk to get to their lots. I
believe that those precautions can be taken. The other consequence is to come
in the back side like we have here and face the problems where property owners
say they didn't know that a sidewalk was planned for this area and the
difficulty of getting the other utilities to be aware that there is a sidewalk
' planned here so I believe that we can deal with the builders a little bit more
effectively on hindsight than having us be the last person in line to get our
utility in. Bob Kopp is here from Lake Susan Hills West. I don't know if Bob
' wants to speak on the matter or not. Basically that's our findings. If you
have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Councilman Workman: Gary, is this the sidewalk where we had the problem where
it moved to the south side?
Gary Warren: That was looked at. Ini_ti.ally it was going to be a 6 foot
sidewalk and this is...
Councilman Workman: The gentleman came in under Visitor Presentation?
Gary Warren: Right, this is in response to that.
Councilman Workman: So now it's back to where it was originally?
Gary Warren: Right it's back to the north side where it was planned originall y
and we've agreed, I should have pointed that out, that the standard that I see
really shaping up in residential areas, the sidewalk splits every 5 feet. 5
foot concrete in residential areas. We go to 6 or 8 foot bituminous when we're
in rural trails connecting to parkways, things like that where you're not in
' somebody's front yard. But here, by shrinking down to a 5 foot width, we can
get by the majority, if not all of the obstructions out there and stay on the
side that was originally planned.
Don Patton: My name is Don Patton. I did the original PUD on it and I believe
if you look at our original PUD contract with the City it did call for 5 foot
wide sidewalks. I guess I would have appreciated being notified that this was
11 under discussion as a part of moving or changing locations or going from a 5 to
a 6 foot since we have a contract that says it's going to be 5 and we have a
contract that says this is where it's going to be located.
Mayor Chmiel: It is a 5 foot wide width.
Don Patton: I know but I heard someone said it was going to be 6 feet and we
agreed 2 years ago that it was going to be 5 feet and I think that I have the
courtesy that at least that's under consideration, if it is going to be changed.
Gary Warren: We've notified the developer of the activity all along.
29
I
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Don Patton: I think you have to contact us as the PUD...too.
Gary Warren: There was a letter that went to you in care of Argus. There's
been some confusion between the PUD owner and the developer. The development
contract is with Argus which is Mr. Kopp.
Don Patton: The PUD is for Lake Susan Hills West.
Bob Kopp: My name is Bob Kopp and I work for Augus Development. I'm the
project consultant on the project and from what Gary said, we don't disagree at
all. As long as we don't have to tear up the driveways, that's fine with us.
Put it in the way you want to do it. The only thing I do kind of wonder too
when you get to where you go to continue this, I think what you're saying is,
when you get on a new project you're going to have a continuous sidewalk going
through the driveways. The drive's would be on each side of it right? Are you
going to have cement from the end of the sidewalks down to the curb then? Are
you going to have cement aprons or are you going to blacktop on both sides, or
ain't you got that far yet?
Gary Warren: That's part of our policy... I think that it would really, from '
my perspective, it would be great to have concrete aprons but I think that
expense has got to be looked at as far as the developments are concerned. You
get into individual property owner preference, would you want to have a concrete
apron and then have bituminous driveway so you're forcing a resident to build
almost a concrete driveway where maybe he would have wanted bituminous so off
the top of my head I'd say I want to stay away from even the driveway aprons and
allow that up to the discretion of the individual residents but it's something
I!!
we need to address as a part of our policy.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, are you saying that where there is no house now we're
going to build a solid concrete right on across there and then when they come in
they can put asphalt up to it and asphalt on the other side?
Gary Warren: Or concrete on both sides of it, whatever. The other benefit of ■
that is that you get a trail system in right away and it's completly contiguous.
Councilman Johnson: Would they have the option of removing the sidewalk at that '
point and putting asphalt all the way up a continuous driveway as long as it met
the grade?
Gary Warren: Would you want to do that?
Councilman Boyt: No. I
Gary Warren: I think if you've got a concrete piece anyplace if you're a
resident, you'd probably like to keep the concrete. I wouldn't look forward to
having to pull out anything and letting them redo it. I think that's just
taking steps backwards.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who wants to discuss the issue?
L11-1.1
Councilman Workman: I guess Mr. Mayor, I did see that we were going to maybe
consider city wide sidewalk policy. I don't know that we have enough time.
That's an issue that I know we've discussed with the Park and Rec Commission
30 '
■
' City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
' before and it's quite touchy. In one situation where we might like a sidewalk,
maybe we wouldn't and it's kind of a development by development thing, at least
IF that's the idea that I've gotten from the mayor.
Councilman Johnson: I think what Gary wants considered is not whether we're
going to have one or not have one but whether we put it in at the beginning or
' later on. Is that the consideration you're talking about?
Gary Warren: What I thought would be helpful, if Council had any input for
staff at this time concerning the policy. At least what I would like to go away
with is that we will look further into preparing a policy for a future agenda
here and we would entertain any comments and suggestions between here and that
' point from the Council on any issues that you've got that you want us to address
as a part of that. We tried to off the top of our head put in the staff report
some items that we've had to deal with. Obviously there's some cost items such
as who maintains them and who plows them and we have a variety of different
classes of sidewalks, the way I look at it, in the City here. Downtown
commercial areas, we typically plow. When you get into residential areas, do
you or don't you? There's some things there that need some good hard thought.
Mayor Chmiel: Basically what you're saying is not so much where they'd be
located or if they're to be located but what policy should they be forthwith?
Gary Warren: It's when they go in. What size? What type? Who maintains? On
and on.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to make a motion that deals with the City
Engineer and Manager's comments on this issue which was the difficulty of the
narrow right-of-way. As you'll note in our packet, it talked about the historic
right-of-way width was 66 feet. I think given the need to put. ..and
increasingly the desire to put those in underground such as phone systems and
electrical wiring and so on, that I would move that we extend the right-of-way
to 66 feet.
Councilman Johnson: Is that a zoning ordinance change?
' Councilman Boyt: No.
Councilman Johnson: A platting ordinance change? Subdivision ordinance.
' Mayor Chmiel: Subdivision change, yes.
Councilman Boyt: Not on your development.
Don Patton: That wasn't the point I was going to make. Most of the utilities
in addition to the right-of-way that you've got, you normally have a 10 foot
easement inside the property so that gives you a 70 foot right-of-way and
telephone and electric goes in the 10 foot easement. They don't go in the
public right-of-way anyway.
I! Gary Warren: Telephone, electric and cable are all right behind the curb.
Your darn right they are.
Don Patton: That's another option that you can put them in the boulevard.
31
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
11
Gary Warren: Historically they're in the right-of-way and that's where
I believe they belong. The easement around the property, the 5 foot easement if
lir
you will, that we take as a border, I guess we don't typically rely on that
preservation or for any installation of any utilities. Utility companies prefer
to work in the right-of-ways.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, if they designed ned it
sidewalk in the design when they put in utilities rand tt eynknewcwhere the
sidewalk was going to be, and you put the fire hydrants on the other side of the
street or whatever, doesn't that seem, it seems poor planning to not, in the
construction plans have the sidewalk on the construction plans and then
everybody else designs around it. Then we design a sidewalk into a project.
That'd be like designing a car then later on trying to figure out what kind of
windows we're going to put in it or something. Where we're going to put the
doors.
Gary Warren: One of the problems is, you've got the '
utilities who, they're not a party to our construction plans. other
their own submitting for basically they've n going at
initiative to get our constrructionuplans,cthat's nnot salways the acase.
Councilman Johnson: We can require them to get our construction plans.
Gary Warren: We certainly can but I think, when our street section expands as
it does in areas, Lake Susan Hills Drive is an example where we're going to a
wider width or Saddlebrook Curve up here, to address the transportation issues,
50 foot right-of-way just pinches us tremendously. Also just to adminstrati.vely
we've got a 60 foot right-of-way is a standard in the rural section. I think
there is a value in having some consistencies especially as the MUSA lines do '
someday move, roadways that are platted now in the rural areas are going to have
60 foot right-of-ways. Maybe come back in to reconstruct with curb and gutter
and put in sidewalk. That's going to help us in that regard but when we're in
the urban area, we're kind of shorting ourselves.
Councilman Johnson: This seems like, we're reacting real quickly here. We
never advertised that we're looking to change the standard design of the city.
We're kind of beyond the scope of what was advertised for our decision making
here. Consider city wide sidewalk policy and we're talking about expanding the
street by 16 feet, the street right-of-way. I think we need to public notice
and get into this process in a step wise manner. Planning Commission consider
it and bring it back to us versus us just saying, sounds good, let's do it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't think that motion had a second.
Councilman Johnson: Not yet. Dies for a poor lack of a second.
Mayor. Chmiel: No second? I think that's a good idea Jay.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move approval of the sidewalk locations in Lake I
Susan Hills West, Phase I and II. Refer street width issues to the Planning
Commission and request staff to look at writing up a city wide sidewalk policy
through Planning Commission that addresses the issue that staff is concerned
with. Hold the proper public hearings and everything on that also.
32 '
■
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
ir- Councilman Boyt: I think if you're going to talk about sidewalks and trails,
you better include the Park and Rec people.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. Park and Rec and Planning.
' Councilman Boyt: It could be both but it certainly needs to be.
Councilman Johnson: Some of the issues such as maintenance and that kind of
stuff, I'm not sure who looks at that. The issue of future sidewalks should be
on all of our development plans. That has to be considered or we go ahead and
do that tonight.
' Mayor Chmiel: If I could just interject something. Sidewalks that are going
in, I guess one of the questions I have is, are these sidewalks really needed?
My understanding was that you were only going to put those kinds of sidewalks
and trails basically on primary streets or on secondary streets. This is not a
primary street I guess is really what I'm saying. It is a secondary street and
have we had the residents' thoughts on those sidewalks as well?
' Councilman Johnson: It's hard to do before you build the subdivision.
' Mayor_ Chmiel: Some of then are already inquiring, possibly the lots when it's
being considered or even thinking.
Councilman Johnson: Well these were considered well before there was even a
developer.
Councilman Boyt: This is actually the way it should be done so people can
' position themselves in the development where they'd like to be. Coming into a
Near Mountain and saying now we want to put sidewalks in is foolhearty.
1 Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes, I agree.
Councilman Boyt: This is the time to do it is before people buy that lot and
that's exactly what we did in this case.
Councilman Johnson: And the purpose of these sidewalks were basically to get
you from the main street, through the neighborhood, to the park areas or back to
the main street in some cases. This particular subdivision has several park
areas throughout it that the kids and whatever will be going to.
Mayor Chmiel: Prior to making a motion, I have someone who would like to
address this.
Wendy Pickerick: My name is Pickarick. I live at 1361 Lake Susan Hills Drive.
I have 3 children and my husband and I bought this land on this street when we
were the fifth person to buy and when we bought they said there was no sidewalks
proposed at all so we thought, fine. We will pick either side of road then and
we would have picked the side of the road with the sidewalk. We would have
definitely picked it because we have 3 children and I am doing daycare. Okay,
then fine. So we move in. Then we hear it's on the other side of the road and
we were a bit upset that there was going to be one on the other side of the
toad. Then we're waiting for our driveway to be put in and everybody on the
' 33
■
Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
other side of the road is getting their driveway and they skip our driveway and
keep going on the other side of the road and we say, why aren't we getting a
driveway? And they said, well because you're getting a sidewalk. We said,
great. We're excited. We're going to get a sidewalk. Fine. We'll wait for our
driveway. That was 6 weeks ago at least I think and so now we're getting it on
the other side of the street. We're sitting there thinking, what's the deal.
Anyway, I'm really upset as you can hear my voice shaking. So now it's approved
for the north side or what?
Councilman Johnson: It's back to where it was originally planned where you were
told there wasn't one planned. Somebody goofed. We have another set of
neighbors that came in here 2 weeks, 4 weeks ago who bought their house because
of the sidewalk and where it was and then it moved on them to the other side of
the street and he came in and said, hey this sidewalk has, I think it's frost
heave. I'm not sure.
Wendy Pickerick: My husband is very mad. He's not here right now because he's 1
home with our 3 children. We bought all the sprinkling supplies to put in
underground sprinklers. Then they said we're getting a sidewalk so we've waited
to put in our underground sprinkler stuff. We've waited on our driveway. We
just think that we've gotten a very unfair deal here and I don't know what you
can do. If you can put them on both sides of the road but no, people would
probably get mad about that.
Councilman Johnson: Yes there are people on the other side of the road who
bought there because there wasn't a sidewalk there and then the sidewalk got
moved to their side of the road and they were upset 2 weeks or 4 weeks ago.
Wendy Pickerick: I'd just like to ask. Why was it moved back and forth to
begin with? I just was wondering. What's the deal? Is it because of the
escrow money with all of the driveways or what?
Gary Warren: Wendy and I have talked here I think a couple weeks ago about the
whole scenario and it's been as frustrating to me I think as to the rest of the
staff here who have dealt with it and it really relates to the fact that I think
the sidewalks to this point in time have existed through the development process
and the PUD process as sort of an after thought or secondary thought and they
haven't been included in the construction plans and sited that well. The
policy, whether it's a 6 foot or a 5 foot, we've bounced around and whether it's
concrete versus bituminous. It's been a real difficult growing process for
establishing a policy here in the city and I know that initially when we were
looking to try to apply the original standard which was a 6 foot sidewalk to
that area, the north side was not possible to get it in without having to move
hydrants and street lights and a lot of those other problems so we started to
look at the south side and I can only guess that as a part of that thinking that
was going on, that we obviously had Mr. Kopp and the developer up in the air
also as to what side it was going to go on so that's why things got put on hold.
What can we say. I guess we apologize for the inconvenience. Nobody likes it.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Can I just interject something? I got a note here saying that
there's a blue Skylark, license number DVM 165 has it's lights on in the parking
L!!lot.
34 ,
1 • City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
' Wendy Pickerick: It's my car. As you saw, I brought my two young children here
and I was tired of having than here because they were being quiet. They were
being very good but then I brought them home and I ran back in here—and I
practically missed the first part of the thing and somebody did tell me my
lights were on but I said too bad, I got to come in here.
' Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I could interject just a little bit. I think
we want to approve the sidewalk location if in fact we need to do that again.
Before the meeting tonight the City Council met with Park and Rec and I think it
was a cordial and perhaps productive meeting. I think what we need to do is
again get together because there are these bigger issues. I hear in the
community where do you want a community center. It's not do you want one, it's
' where do you want it. I think A needs to come before B. Do you want a
community center then let's decide where we want one. Do we want or not want a
sidewalk policy. I think that's something again that we could discuss with Park
and Rec or Planning Commission and I guess we can move on on this thing.
' Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor.
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, let me just restate it then. I move we approve the
original location of the sidewalk as approved with the PUD and the 5 foot width
which I do remember being approved as PUD.
' Councilman Boyt: There's no need to vote on any of this. In fact it'd take a
four-fifths vote to change it so I think this is more an informational thing
than anything else.
Mayor Chmiel: I think some action should be taken on it just to.
' Councilman Boyt: What action is there to take?
Don Patton: It's in the PUD. It's already there.
' Councilman Johnson: There's been useless votes taken before. Just because it
has no effect on anything, we're just saying we finally agree and we want to put
a stake in this thing before it jumps across the street again.
' Councilman Workman: I'll second Jay.
' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the original
location of the sidewalk as approved with the Lake Susan Hills West PUD and the
5 foot width. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilwoman Dimler: Now what do we do about the policy? Meet with Pazk and
Rec again? Have staff look at it?
Mayor Chmiel: I think staff should look at it and come up with something and
get back to Council.
11
I
' 35
I
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
LAKE LUCY BOAT ACCESS, CONSIDER OPTIONS.
Mayor Chmiel: One day this past week we sat down and had a lot of discussions
regarding the Lake Lucy boat access. Maybe we'll just let Lori address that
real quickly.
Lori Sietsema: Following City Council direction, a meeting was held last
Thursday with the different officials representing the different agencies that
have to do with the chain of lakes clean-up project, specifically we had people
from the DNR there, PCA, City Council, State Representatives and a Senator. The
discussion included the criteria that was necessary to achieve an adequate or
approved access given the DNR and EPA and PCA standards. Basically the access
has to be an equal access for everyone. There are specific hours of operation
and there are specific number of car-trailer spaces needed being 1 per 20 acres.
Given that criteria, three different alternatives were considered. A lift over
access between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy where a person would launch a boat at Lake
Ann, go across the lake and have a mechanical lift that would lift over to Lake
Lucy. The DNR was pretty adamant that they did not consider that an equal
access and they were also concerned with the dredging and the water levels that
would have to change or may have to change. The second alternative that was
discussed was the outlot that's in the Lake Lucy Highlands development. The
landowner who owns that property has come up with an asking price of $15,600.00
per acre. They would like to keep 2 of the dry acres, which there is only about '
2 dry acres, and sell the remaining to the City for that price. Although they
did say that they would consider the entire piece. On a follow-up conversation
with them, they indicated that they've gotten a number of different appraisals
ranging from $13,000 to $15,600 per acre so they may be willing to negotiate
I!!
down to $13,000.00. There was also concern with that option with the
disturbance of the wetlands that would be necessary and the amount of dredging
of 250 to 500 feet out to get into an adequate depth to the open water. Given
the amount of money that it would cost to acquire, if we had to pay the price
that the owners are asking, a LAWCON grant would be needed and if condemnation
is required, we would have to find out from LAWCON whether or not we can expend
any money before final approval is given. I've not been able to contact the
correct people that can give us that information. The third option that was
discussed was the Greenwood Shores Park. The DNR is pushing for this site.
They feel that it's the quickest, easiest, cheapest way to go. If we chose that '
site, they were considering to approve a scaled down version that would require
only 4 car-trailer spaces. Staff has major concerns with this site given the
conflicts, not knowing what the conflicts that may arise between the existing
uses and the access and would recommend that we get a plan to see how the whole
thing would fit together before proceeding with that option. Given the
questions that still have to be answered before one of these sites can be
selected, it's staff's recommendation to table this item to the 24th and to
contact the Watershed District to let them know of our activity on the project
and that we do need an extension of their deadline of July 15th.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I have a letter which I just received today from the
Watershed District Attorney Mr. Haik in reference to a letter that I had written
to Mr. Conrad Fiskness, manager of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek. Maybe it
L-11
will just take me a couple of minutes here to go through it. It's not very
long. It's addressed to Mr. Mark Tomzcak, Division of Water Quality, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency regarding Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District chain of lakes basic water management project. As required by the
36 '
■
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
ISubstate Agreement Section 4(a) of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
17- District's project plan to the agency for review and approval by the agency.
Consistent with the EPA Cooperative Agreement number and at that time the agency
was formed that one of the public access sites, Lake Lucy, had not been supplied
by the City of Chanhassen. The agency was also informed that local citizens
were objecting to the work plan and were requesting changes. The manager's of
the district encourage and welcome that public review but believe such input
should be addressed to and evaluated by the agency. They previously requested
that the agency retain budgeted funds to continue the project despite the fact
' the public access to all lakes within the Lake Riley chain of lakes system had
not been met as of March 31, 1989. Public access to Lake Lucy has been the
source of Chanhassen discussion and has not been resolved. I enclose a copy of
' the letter dated June 21, 1989 from the City of Chanhassen dealing with the
public access issue. The Council also requests public meeting to discuss the
work plan to insure a full open discussion of all issues and to guarantee an
objective evaluation, public informational meetings on the work plan should be
' conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Agency in consultation
with the United States Environmental Protection Agency propose a project and is
charged with making determination as to the adequacy of the work plan. Given
the fact that public access issues will not be resolved by the City of
Chanhassen for several months and assuming that funding remains available, the
district requests that the procedure for agency review and approval of the
' project, work plan include holding a series of public meetings with area
residents to secure their input as to the adequacy of the work plan. Watershed
District assumes that review and approval by the agency includes the authority
to modify or direct changes in the project work plan. Watershed District is not
in the position to represent the public access condition can be complied with
' until the later part of the year of 1989. The City of Chanhassen is seeking a
grant from the State and assuming that the grant request is approved later this
' fall or early winter, the access may not be required until 1990. The manager's
would appreciate a written response as to whether funding for the project
remains and if so, the future course of action the agency intends to follow,
provide the meetings and hearings on the plan. Please inform the undersigned of
any additional submittals or requests that are required of the district.
Reserve the project funding while the public access and work plan review and
approval process proceeds. Ray Haik, Attorney for the Riley-Purgatory Watershed
' District. So at least we know where we're at.
Councilman Boyt: May I ask a question Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: It would appear in listening to that that funding is still a
definite possibility. Is that your understanding?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would certainly pass on congratulations to you and the
citizens who have been involved in seeing that happen.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll give a copy of the letter for the next packet too. I
guess that's where we're at. I don't think there's any further discussion that
has to be on it right now. Let's proceed with what we have going in looking at
the LA1CON grants.
' 37
_ ..
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Lori Sietsema: Staff will then continue to get answers to those questions and
come back to you then on the 24th.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this?
Mark Sanda: My name is Mark Sanda and I live at 1685 Stellar Court. I'm actin g
as the secretary for the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. We wanted to just
put on record on a letter of our official policy on this whole issue so I'll
just read you this brief letter. It's addressed to you Council members and we
wish to state that the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association supports the goal of
improving the water quality of the Riley chain of lakes. However, we cannot
support a work plan that is both experimental and does not contain planned
benefits for the headwaters of the chain, Lake Lucy. We require that an
exchange for our support for public access to Lake Lucy, the Watershed District
create a work plan that incorporates proven methods to provide significant
improvement to the quality of Lake Lucy. So we are basically saying that we
really wish to give some input into the work plan to insure that we are going to
be gaining something for giving up access or giving public access to the lake. 1
Any of you that have read the work plan are probably aware that there is
minimal, if any, benefit to Lake Lucy as far as it goes and we just wanted to
state what our policy was on this so thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address it? If not, staff will
1
pursue the items as discussed and hopefully come up with some conclusions. When
can we have some specific dates on that Lori? '
Lori Sietsema: I'll put this back on the 24th agenda.
REVIEW GREENWOOD SHORES PARKING ISSUE. '
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, if I can just staff off here.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Go ahead Jay.
Councilman Johnson: There seems to be a question as to why it was referred to '
the public safety director rather than the City Engineer 2 years ago or a year
ago. At that point we thought traffic signs was under the jurisdiction of
public safety. It was later on in the year that we learned that traffic signs
were under the jurisdiction of the City Engineer, otherwise it would have been
referred to the City Engineer and not the public safety director at that time.
That's my recollection of why we went to the public safety dirctor. It was
during a later issue that we, what was it, oh I think it was the Near Mountain
when it all got straighten out as to who's on first with traffic signs. We
worked real hard. Went through a lot of grief a year ago, as you're well aware,
of trying to improve public access to Greenwood Shores City Park by trying to
put 3 parking spots and a handicap parking spot in there. It came up to a
compromise of removing the unnecessary no parking signs and not putting any
parking at the city park. Instead of having to walk 3 or 4 blocks, it'd just be
the distance to the nearest area that's no longer zoned no parking. That's the '
way it was. I voted against it at that time because I thought there should be
parking at all public parks so everybody in the city of Chanhassen has equal
til
access to public parks. That's my position. That's what I thought the motion
was about last time.
38 '
I
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Each of the specific areas I think are a little different than
some of the areas too and I think that's a lot of consideration that was taken
into view by the previous council which approved all the parking signs in and
adjacent to where they're located now within Greenwood Shores. There's a lot of
factors that were considered for that. Basically because the streets are really
narrow within that particular area. It was done because of safety reasons. It
' was done because of a problem with the existing residents within that area of
which I live in and being woke up at all given hours, in the middle of the
night. Cars parking. Doors slamming. Beer bottles clinking the streets.
' Picking garbage up all your lawns. A lot of given problems that have been
alleviated because of the elimination of not allowing the parking on the street.
The existing Lake Ann portion where cars are parked to go to the beach is
basically almost the same distance that people have to walk from where the
' parking areas are allowed within the Greenwood Shores area. We've had given
problems even with cars parking there. I had an initial break-in of my own
home, trying to gain entry through our deck door and because of the inabilities
' of people to be there, it alleviates a lot of given problems. The park in
itself is not just a park for Greenwood Shores because that's not the case. All
the people within the city can utilize that park and they do. People from
' Chaparral are there on a constant basis. You can go down there and count
anywhere from 30 to 40 kids that are located there. Safety aspect for the kids
is they are within that area. They are very unaware because I can sit from my
deck and tell you every move that's done down there with kids. They just don't
look with parking and those kids come across there and spewing inbetween those
cars. There can be problems. I'm not about to see those problems take place so
basically what I'm really boiling down to is saying that my suggestion is that
we leave it as it is and we do have some residents from Greenwood Shores here
who will address that issue if we would like them to. Is there any other
t _ discussion?
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to hear from the residents.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say as far as the party issue which was, from
my review of the issue, one of the main issues of putting that parking up there.
That occurred when we didn't have 24 hours sheriff patrol. We had a lot less
sheriff patrol. We didn't have a public safety department as we do. We didn't
' have park patrols and in the last couple years, I don't know of any reports,
police reports in that area.
Mayor Chmiel: I can tell you a couple right now. In fact three of them. Beer
parties. Arrests were made.
Councilman Johnson: Arrests were made?
■ Mayor. Chmiel: You bet.
' Councilman Johnson: Well good. It shows the enforcement is working. It shows
the no parking signs haven't done anything.
Mayor. Chmiel: No, no. It has done it. They're at least no slamming them all
the way up and down. The kids are getting a little more maneuverable as far as
parking. They're not parking in Greenwood Shores. They're parking outside of
I Greenwood Shores and they're walking in. There has been several different
recent beer parties that they have been called on. There has also been cars
' 39
11
City Council Meetin g - July 10, 1989
that have been parking in the no parking zones and tickets have been issued.
There's a lot of things, I think that by involving and making more of a" traveled
area through that whole area where it's really used is just absolutely
ridiculous. I feel that very strongly as I know what has taken place. You don't
live there. You don't know what it i.s. What you're taking a position of it
should be. It should be parking all over. There is parking. The accessibility
is there but they have to walk just the same distance as they do from Lake Ann
Park.
Maddie Hickey: I'm Maddie Hickey and we live at 6990 Utica Lane. I agree with
you Mayor Chmiel from where you are and also these people where they are. The
Klicks, on the curve there. It's very, very dangerous for the children to be
whipping around. However, where we live there's no parking signs and I feel bad
for the people, actually just even in Greenwood Shores that have children up
further on the hill and have to park so far away. We would like the no parking
signs removed from our yard because we let people park there anyway. They come
up and ask us and we just say, go on the other side because if there is a lake
there, and it is public, people need to have access but I don't agree with
around the curve either because it's very dangerous but down further. Even the
two houses up from us that evidentally like the no parking signs, but I don't
think it's fair to have to walk a mile either with a troop of little kids.
Whether it be Chaparral or Greenwood Shores.
Mayor Chmiel: With the age that we have right now Maddie, with peop le who feel
that they have to have their exercises... A lot of the mothers that do come
with their children pulling their wagons or pushing the carriages, I've even
stopped and talked to them and said, do you find this much of a problem of what
you're really doing and they say no. We enjoy the walk. We're getting out for
that specific reason.
Maddie Hickey: Well that could be too but I think people should have access to
it but I'm not for the beer parties at night. I'm talking about families
walking down to use the beach for picnics and swimming.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Jeff Farmakes: My name is Jeff Farmakes. I live at 7100 Utica Lane. I guess
I'm a little confused. I thought the discussion here today was going to be in
regards to the parking signs, not the issue of parking either in Greenwood
Shores or somehow changing the park. We've been up here several times
discussing that and I think one of the pertinent things that you have to be
remembered is that you spent several hours here today discussing planning issues
with new developments. Street signs. Sidewalks. Public safety concerns and
you have to remember that when that was designed and that park was put in, that
was part of rural Carver_ County and it didn't have the benefit of Public Safety
Commissioners. It didn't have the benefit of Councilmen and the design is
what the design is. It's been there for 30 years and when you're saying that
all applications are the same is to make the assumption that all parks were
developed the same and it just simple is not the case. I hope and I agree with
you, I think that there is a discrepancy between actual use and philosophy and I ,
think that that's where the problems arise over and over again. There were 30
to 40 people down there both days, Saturday and Sunday and I guess, I don't see
anything different than what happens at Lake Ann. They come in. They drop off
at the drop off point. They drop off their coolers and their kids and so on
40 '
■
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
which if you walk both Lake Ann or Lake Lucy, Lake Lucy is
y actually shorter down
to the beach. They turn around and they park their car up the block_and it's
not a mile. It's a block away. It's not 4 blocks away. It's 2 houses. It's
not 4 blocks and I think the issue here is again, one of facts and philosophy.
I hope that it's resolved sometime because we've been coming up here year after
' year after year. I will say this, that living there is much more liveable. The
park is in better shape. Anybody that goes to the park I think can testify that
the park is in better physical condition now, in the last 2 years since it's
been open by the way they were able to park down in the park. A lot less broken
glass and if you bring kids there, those are concerns. I hope that it remains
as it is. Thanks.
' Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin, 6095 Stellar Court. I've been listening, I can
really empathize with the people in Greenwood Shores. We frequent that beach
and that area on dropping ourselves off and my wife finds a place to park and
walks down. I understand the safety considerations are of utmost importance and
I would also like to note that I think that in the future that considerations
for parks and where they're placed should, and safety considerations have to be
considered in the design stages and planned in the beginning. That future parks
have these things in mind. As development progresses, you get increase in
population. It puts pressure on the natural resources and they're eventually
going to come. I would like to note that I'd like to get, on the other side of
the lake if it ever comes to having an access, a public space utilized on the
west side of the lake with the same kind of safety considerations about beer
parties and curfews at night for controlling those types of things and safety
i considerations are given there as well. It is also on a curve. It's a high
speed curve and we'd just like equal consideration. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Any further discussion?
' Councilman Boyt: You know there is. I'd like to put something up on the screen
here. A visual. Before I get to that, Mrs. Hickey, I'm sure pleased that you
' made your statement. We have found something we agree on. I want to refer you
back to the November 13, 1986 memo from Jim Castleberry because he talked about
an issue that I think is still relevant today and Mr. Farmakes, we are just
talking about the no parking signs. As much as I might like to have parking in
the park itself, I think that issue is dead for now. What I did Sunday is I
went over and I walked through the neighborhood right here. Didn't cover a
great many houses in there, about 20 and I asked them a couple of questions. I
' asked them, do you know that that's a public park. Well, maybe like a lot of
other issues or information the City tries to get to people, about half the
people said no, they didn't know that was a city park. They didn't even know it
' was a park. Then I asked them, and I suspect that I'm probably not very good at
being neutral on this issue but I asked them, attempting to be neutral, given
that these areas are no parking and though this is just 3 houses, it turns out
that with 2 1/2 acre lots, this is 500 feet. That did they think that this was
appropriate? Out of the 20, I had 4 that said they thought that was just fine.
That they actually enjoyed walking in. I had another. 4 that said, they didn't
know anything about the park and they didn't want to comment. I had 12 that
said that it seemed to be completely out of sync with a public park. A public
park with no parking within 500 feet. Now if we look back for a motivating
1 cause here, we've heard from the neighbors and they've talked about safety and I
don't think anybody is proposing to take the no parking signs out of this turn.
I can see it. The City Engineer has pointed out that this is an area that
' 41
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
probably requires them but when we get up in here, why would they put no parking
signs up here? Well, Jim Castleberry said in his memo, to prohibit people from
:-
parking in that area during the summer months when large numbers of people want
to access the park and lake area. This past weekend you talk about a lot of
people being in that park. I think all our parks had a great deal of pressure,
particular parks that were on water. This is a park in which the City up until
now has assisted the neighbors in keeping people away from the park. Maybe some
people are willing to walk that distance, 4 out of the 20 said they enjoyed
that. My point is it's just not compatible with the public nature of that park.
If you take this stretch through here, safety isn't a concern for why those
parking signs are up there. Those parking signs are up there I believe for the
same reason that Jim Castleberry mentioned. We want to keep
p people out. The
City staff used an example. Holly Lane. There's a lift station on Christmas
Lake there. There's no parking within 800 feet. The purpose, to keep people
out of that part of Christmas Lake. I can see that. That's not a public park.
This is a public park and we need to make it as accessible as possible, if for
no other reason, it's just another example of where we've got a park that
handicap people can't use. Let's see, the road width. We've heard about narrow
roads in this area. The road width here is 23 to 24 feet. If you go over to
Carver Beach where we have parking, you find the road width, there's no parking
on the road there as it would happen. The road width is 16 feet. 2 car widths
wide. It's certainly understandable why there wouldn't be parking on the road.
I went to the person who lives directly across from the Carver Beach Park where
we put parking the same night we first considered putting parking in Greenwood
Shores. We held this one off because of public concern about it. We passed
that one so I went to him and asked how's it going. He said, you know I think ,
there really should be parking in public parks. I don't think there should be
any parking on the road. I don't disagree with him, especially with a 16 foot
road. I'm probably not going to carry the day but I still think it's a real
tragedy when we've got a park and it's not safety reasons. that's keeping those
no parking signs up. Most of them. It's the desire to keep people away from
that park. I just don't think that's the right thing to do.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't fully agree with you Bill.
Tom Hickey: Mr. Mayor, can I just make a comment? ,
Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes.
Tom Hickey: I'm Tom Hickey. I live at 6990 Utica Lane. I agree with you.
I guess if I didn't live right on the lake and could walk down there, I think it
would be an irritant for me to have to walk that distance where the no parking
zones are but the park itself was originally owned by the people in Greenwood
Shores. We deeded that property to the City only for the purpose of police
protection because prior to when the association, they were having a lot of
problems with people drinking down there and so forth and we had no control so
we thought if were to deed it to the City, then they could have some sort of
control over that property area. So it was never really designed as a park for
the City. It was land that was given to the City and the City kind of developed
it. So I guess my feeling is that, the fact that it was never designed as a ,
park. The parking is not adequate even if you were to open up the parking area
Ell
down there because you could probably only get 4 or 5 cars. Secondly, that
street is not wide enough. I mean I drive down there everyday and if you were
to park a car on the street, then only one car could pass at a time so I think
42 '
11
L Q ri
'
• City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
what you're creating is a real public safety problem there with the roadway so
I think to try to change the parking from what it is right now would be a real
mistake. But the mistake originally was that it wasn't designed as a park. It
' was land that was given to the City and then the City tried to make best use of
it. So I would recommend that it remains as it is. Thank you.
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to respond. You have parking on all the streets
except within 500 feet of the park. All the streets in your development
including the other relatively sharp turns in the development. We're talking
about a 21 foot wide road over by Carver Beach that has no no parking signs on
it. Free to park on it. I grant you that if a car is parked on this, as in any
other residential street in Chanhassen, cars going by it are going to have to
' take caution. There's really no reason to go through this in great detail. I
don't particular want to be beat up about it but.. .
' Tom Hickey: I think it's alright to park in there if you design a wide enough
street but if you do park in the street, one car, then it becomes single lane
and then you've got a real problem there. I agree with the mayor with all these
' kids running back and for_th...and when there isn't a lot of activity, when I
come down there, that is a very dangerous curve coming around there. You almost
have to come to a complete stop.
Councilman Boyt: We're not talking about the curve and I think if you ask the
City Engineer, from a strict safety standpoint, that road could support parking.
He'd tell you that it could. I don't mean to put words in his mouth but that's
' my understanding.
� Coun ilwoman Dimler: I a que stion o f you Bill. I'm reading here the
' background information and I see that in July of 1988, Mayor Hamilton moved and
Councilman Geving seconded a motion that included in it that they review the no
parking signs, the public safety director was to do this, and to determine if
any of them could be removed and if they could, that they should be removed. I
' see that you and Councilman Johnson voted against it at that time. Does that
mean now you're doing a reversal?
' Councilman Boyt: No it doesn't. It means consider the alternative. The Park
and Rec Commission and the park architect that reviewed it recommended that 4
parking spaces, one of which was handicap, go in that park. This was an
alternative to that. I didn't think this was a good alternative but given now
the alternative is leave the parking signs in or take them out, I think some of
them should come out. Both of those are my desire to get parking as close to
that park as is reasonable.
Councilwoman Dimler: Also I noticed that you're using neighborhood park and
public park interchangeably and to me there is a difference.
' Councilman Boyt: Well who owns the property?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think when we're talking. ..
I} Mayor Chmiel: The City doesn't have a deed on it.
Councilman Boyt: Oh yes we do.
' 43
■
Fz.:;t0
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: We're talking neighborhood P ark.
Mayor Chmiel: No way.
Councilman Boyt: Are you saying the City doesn't own that property Mayor
Chmiel?
Mayor Chmiel: I'm saying that the City ,
y doesn not have a deed on that property.
Councilman Boyt: Talk to me about ownership.
Mayor Chmiel: Don?
Don Ashworth: The question had came up as to the deed, I said that I have not
seen it. There was a question a couple of years ago as to the ownership and we
were going to research the issue at that point in time. I guess I never really
heard a response. i don't know if Roger was brought in at that point in time. ■
Lori, can you recall that discussion?
Lori Sietsema: I remember the discussion. I don't remember the outcome. I'd
have to research the file to see. It seems to me that the ownership was
recorded at that time but I'd have to check my files.
Mayor Chmiel: There was a letter indicating as such. In that letter it also
indicated that it be always as a walk-in park. I think that you'd find that in
the file.
Councilman Johnson: Even with these signs down, it's still a walk ,
There's no parking at that park. What you're saying has nothinglto�dopwith the
issue tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm just saying what was in that particular letter is all I'm
saying. '
Councilman Johnson: As I said last July, I don't think parking is appropriate
on the hill coming down leading to the park because it's too dangerous or along
that curve but on the street above it where it's got those good sight lines and
on the bottom street further on down, it doesn't seem natural. It doesn't seem
like that is where and that's what we've asked the public safety director,
probably should have asked the City Engineer at that time, to review and remove
the signs. If it had gotten done last year but that wasn't...
Councilwoman Dimler: If you would have voted for it last year.
Councilman Johnson: No, what I voted for last year was '
the park itself and leave the no parking signs up. That's what PIr voted sffoor. in
This is a poor second but it's the only second we've got.
Councilman Workman: A long second. I like Jeff's comments on philosophy and
that's what a lot of this is and Bill has a very strong philosophy on what he
L!!
thinks. Ursula's point about a public park versus a neighborhood park, we have
a very aggresive Park and Rec Commission who's actively trying to set into each
neighborhood parks which I don't think any of the Council members disagree with
but when it comes, which is fine. We want to make sure that people can walk to
44 1
■
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
a park. Not everybody can have a beach. Where my philosophy�- y p takes a left at
that situation is do we then have to make it so that everybody can go to every
' park and interchange and match. In this situation maybe it's not appropriate.
Bill interviewed some of my neighbors. If my neighbors or I wanted to get in my
car and drive to Greenwood Shores, we'd also have the option of exactly 2 miles
' away we have Excelsior Bay, 1 mile fram large Lake Ann Park. We have the hidden
Carver regional park not too far away. There are many options and I certainly
don't mean to deny any citizen a right to enjoy an amenity but this seems to
' bode something different, of a different situation. Again, we have sidewalks,
we have community centers and we need to add neighborhood parks and their
definition perhaps. I believe in allowing, if a neighborhood park is going to
go in, we've had some of these occur, let the neighborhoods decide what they
I want in their park because quite frankly they're going to be the ones to use it.
So there's the rub for the people who live right next door to it and they aren't
happy with perhaps what's going on at their park and people from South
' Minneapolis are driving in to their park or whoever. My neighbors. So I can
understand the irritation. I would like to know more about the intricacies of a
park without a deed and who owns it and what was the intentions and look at it
from that way. Again, it's a philosophy question and I would be in favor of
leaving things as they sit.
Councilman Johnson: Are you saying that you think that it's right that the
' neighbors around a park decide that we want no parking signs around this park?
Are we going to start doing that to other neighborhood parks, that are
classified as neighborhood parks?
If Mayor Chmiel: No, I think they were put in before that Jay. That determination
on how to alleviate the given problems that were existing in that area.
Councilman Boyt: This is the only park in Chanhassen that doesn't have parking.
Councilman Johnson: You're talking on the street?
' Councilman Workman: If we're going to use that logic, then the trails come off
Lake Lucy Road. It's the only road that has those kinds of trails. We can go
' up and down the line with that kind of logic. It's like a variance situation. I
like to look at each variance and this is a different situation. I wouldn't
want to make every park identical but if, I know there's a problem with late
night noise down there. If you've got all that parking over at Lake Ann Park, I
' don't think we're depriving anybody of anything.
Mayor_ Chmiel: That's right. If it was the only access to the lake, then I'd
probably wouldn't argue the point.
Councilman Johnson: Then I'll move to reaffirm that we requested public safety
director, which should have been city engineer, to review the situation to
' remove parking signs not needed for traffic safety. Giving staff what they've
asked for is a definition of what was meant by the last motion.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to reaffirm the Council's
position to request that the City Engineer review the situation to remove no
parking signs not needed for traffic safety at the Greenwood Shores Park.
Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt voted in favor; Councilman Workman,
I 45
11
G;a:�r ,
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chmiel voted in opposition to the motion and the
motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Workman: I'll make a motion that we leave the situation and perhaps
we can look at it again next July. I made the suggestion that we review this
kind of situations with Park and Rec as a part of another get together meeting.
The definition of a neighborhood park is maybe is eluding me in how we want to
best handle that and let the neighbors decide what's best for their park. So I
would make the motion to leave Greenwood Shores on street parking issue as it
is.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson: What is as it is? As it is is that the signs will be
ranoved?
Councilman Workman: No.
Councilman Johnson: That's what it is. You have to rescind this motion. You
have to put signs up. This is as is. Staff has direction to take signs down
that are not required. That's as is.
Councilwoman Dimler: As is, as they physically are. '
Councilman Workman: Then let me restate my motion, if Ursula will withdraw.
Councilwoman Dimler: I withdrew.
Councilman Workman: I will make the motion to leave the parking signs in
Greenwood Shores, near the Greenwood Shores Park period.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to leave the no parking
signs in place in Greenwood Shores near the Greenwood Shores Park. All voted in
favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Johnson: Procedure allows, I'll note reason for my opposition and
that is that it's another, all publically owned parks should have equal public
access. We came close to assuring that a year ago and now we took one step
backwards.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment that I think we all agree that
neighborhood parks are valuable and they should be responsive to the needs of
the neighbors around them. I agree with that. I just think they should be
accessible. Call it philosophical difference if you will.
Councilwoman Dimler: And I'd like to have staff look into the deed situation.
46 '
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Don Ashworth: Gary just gave me a copy of the County Records. They do show the
City as the owner of that parcel which would lead me to believe that we can get
111 a copy then of the deed from the County.
Councilman Boyt: So we own it?
Don Ashworth: They do have us as the recorded owner.
Councilman Johnson: Plus if we've done all the maintenance and everything for a
' number of years, isn't there some kind of a...
Mayor Chmiel: 7 years.
Roger Knutson: 6 years on streets I think if what you're talking about.
' Councilman Johnson: The park.
Roger Knutson: The park is like regular land, it would be 15 years for adverse
possession. But if you have a deed.
BEACHLOT ORDINANCE, CONSIDER REQUIRING PERMITS FOR RAFTS.
Don Ashworth: This arises as a result of sending back a number of issues to
the Park and Recreation Coinunission in having those looked at as a part of year
111 end activities. The City Attorney and myself met on several occasions trying to
go through the various issues that had been presented by both commission members
as well as residents. We really came down to a position that existing
ordinance, although there are certain areas that it would be nice to modify them
' from a clarity standpoint, really we have the enforcement ability under existing
ordinance. Again, there are some glitches. For example, if you are riparian
owner and have the right to moor your boat in front of your property,
' hypothetically you could give up that priviledge and moor that boat in front of
someone elses property. It's just never happened in 20 years although it would
be nice to clear that type of language up, I do not think that it's worth the
1 problems that we faced and the misunderstanding that had occurred in some of the
public hearings as to what it was the City was attempting to do. The only
Section of the ordinance that we felt would definitely need to be or should be
strongly considered for change is the section dealing with rafts. Right now
' there is no permit process that is required for the installation of a raft. You
have to meet the section of the Code dealing with the specific design criteria
but there is no requirement that the application, whether it be public or
' private, come before the City Council. That the City Council looks at the
location. The placement in the lake. How many other rafts exist in that lake,
etc.. We feel that this is a mistake in the existing ordinance. That that type
of issue should be clarified. We're recommending placing on first reading an
' ordinance which would, I can't remember: the wordage here, this office would
recommend that the City Council place on first reading an ordinance amendment
that would delete the words "or swimming raft". That deals with the Section of
the ordinance that doesn't look like Karen put a copy of that ordinance in.
Councilman Boyt: 6-4, it's in there.
I-
I47
11
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Don Ashworth: By doing that, it makes anyone who is lookin g for '
r a raft, it
requires than to cane back again in front of the City Council. The best
parallel staff can use is in that same section it is required that people do
come in if they are considering putting in a ski slalom course and something
like that can be a very, it's an issue that's of concern to the residents simple
to have the right to put in a slalom course without ever bringing that back to
the City Council I think would be a real mistake. We had an application on
Lotus. The Council determined that was not a good place for a slalom course.
We had another request on Lake Minnewashta. The Council determined that that
was a reasonable location and again staff sees that as a parallel in that rafts
should be similarly treated.
Councilman Boyt: I'd make a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just a minute. Can we ask some questions? Don, does that
mean that existing rafts are grandfathered in or do they need to come in and
yearly apply for a permit?
Don Ashworth: They would need to come in for a permit on a yearly basis, right
Roger?
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: But they would have to conform with the requirements is what
we're saying as to what the raft should be?
Don Ashworth: That's correct. It's one that has to be flexible.
Mayor Chmiel: If there's one that's existing and it's not in compliance with
out requirements, it cannot be located.
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: Even now it can't. It's not supposed to be there but we
have no permit procedure so we have no way of knowing it there's without going
out and counting it so by having a permit procedure, it would actually be in
violation of 2 things if the raft is out there without a permit and not properly
constructed.
Don Ashworth: By going through the permit, we can insure that somebody has
thought about insurance for the raft. Someone is responsible for that.
Mayor Chmiel: Is it because of litigation reasons? '
Don Ashworth: That's another factor. At issue is really the Carver Beach raft
but in looking at that ordinance, we basically have no control over anyone
putting a raft on any lake. Hypothetically you could build a raft and put it
out in Lake Minnewashta or wherever you might want to take and put one and you
may want to put it right in the middle of the lake, the most dangerous spot
there is. I
Councilwoman Dimler: There's no restriction where a raft can go?
48 '
11
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Don Ashworth: Right now the ordinance explicitedly excludes rafts. I think
that there is one, there's some sections though that must be at least in 7 feet
of water and it must, there's others.
Roger Knutson: There's some criteria about nameplates and heights above the
water and stuff like that.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're already controlling them to some extent?
Don Ashworth: You're controlling than regarding the technical construction.
We're not controlling them in regards to who owns it. So in other words,
' hypothetically it could be out there as we have one raft right now, that no one
really is claiming ownership of it or at least ownership kind of skips around.
Some days it's one person. If someone were hurt on that raft, it becomes a real
question as to who would be responsible. Since the City knows that that raft
exists, I think we have some liability in there in that we're not doing anything
to make sure that it's reasonably safe or insured.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying then that if you issue a permit you're
taking on the liability then?
' Don Ashworth: No, but you would take it, and as a part of that, if this was a
private application, insure that that party did have insurance that would cover
that type of liability.
' Mayor_ Chmiel: Is that so specified in the ordinance?
Don Ashworth: That is one of the things you can look to, yes. It gives the
' Council a great deal of flexibility in what you can look at.
Councilwoman Dimler: Have there been any serious accidents that's prompting
this?
Don Ashworth: Not that I'm aware of. Again, I think there are some qu estions
as to whether or not the raft at Carver Beach should be public or private but
' I don't see where that's a germain issue. The main issue is to force someone
into going through a permit process and to show that that is a safe raft and
that someone in fact is responsible for it. Whether it's public or private.
' Through the passage of this ordinance, staff would anticipate meeting with the
owners of Carver Beach and requiring that a permit be applied for. At this
point in time, we would push for public because that is the belief that we
believe that the City Council had wanted the thing as of a year ago but if they
are adamant and they can show insurance and they can show this and that, we may
very well bring back the application as a private one.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you can't arbitrarily deny if they meet all the
requirements?
' Don Ashworth: In a case such as this, I don't know if the riparian issue is
going to come about with this raft or not. In other words, they do not have
ownership on the lake. They might be making the application to have a raft on a
lake where they are not a riparian owner. Rather than getting into second
I guessing those type of things, I think the basic issue is there is no procedure
in place to require anyone to get a permit or to apply for a permit.
' 49
La
-" ty Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Johnson: So theoretically I can apply for a permit to put a raft in
outside of your house if you lived on a lake and I could put it as long-as I was
within 100 feet of the shore? I could put my raft in your lake?
Councilman Boyt: I think we can take care of that. There's a very simple
adjustment to our existing ordinance. Two adjustments actually, that would
bring this in our control. One of them is as staff has indicated to strike
swimming raft from Section 6-4 of our ordinances and I would so move.
Councilman Johnson: Also it needs to come out of the definition of water
obstacles where it's excluded as a water obstacle in Section 6.1 direction above
there.
Councilman Boyt: That's a
It's on y good point. So also in 6-1, strike swimming raft.
page 329.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Don, does this need a public hearing?
Don Ashworth: It requires two hearings. We would propose prior to the second
reading on this that we would, at least in this case notify the Carver Beach
area because as I see it, they're the only ones that are really affected.
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't take two hearings, it takes two readings. Two
readings. This is the first reading. '
Don Ashworth: It would be published twice.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but it does need a public hearing?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: No?
Mayor Chmiel: Is this a first reading or is this just an informational? ,
Don Ashworth: This would be proposed as a first reading. If the Council would
just as soon have tonight's as a discussion with the idea the first reading
would occur on the 24th and second reading on August 1st. t
Mayor Chmiel: I took this just as an informational because consider requiring
as it indicates here, permits for rafts.
Jim Chaffee: I should point out here that at present our City Ordinance is not
in conformance with the County Ordinance. The County Ordinance does require
permits for rafts. That's according to the water patrol and they have asked
that we do conform with their ordinance and water permits.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we should. I don't see that as a real biggee. Any '
problem.
50 '
11
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Don Ashworth: The item was published. The Council could put it on first
reading or you could table action to the 24th.
' Councilman Boyt: I would
Y encourage us to act on this in terms of a first
reading. Otherwise, we just put it on two more agendas instead of one more
' agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd be inclined to agree with that.
Councilman Boyt: I would propose another change. I guess we haven't voted on
this one. I think we need to vote on this as a first reading don't we?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: So if there a second to that motion?
Councilman Johnson: I second that.
' Councilman Workman: TO 6-4?
Councilman Boyt: 6-1 and 6-4.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: Yes I seconded that. The last part, the last paragraph of
' 6-1 is definition of water obstacle. It says does not include any dock or
swimming raft or water craft. We want to eliminate or swimming raft so it says
water obstacle does not include any dock or water craft. So in effect we're
defining a swimming raft as a water obstacle.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the first reading
of amending the Beachlot Ordinance to strike "swimming raft" from Section 6-1
and 6-4. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Councilman Boyt: I would propose a second motion. Section 628 which is on Page
333, I'd like to add or I would move that we add item (c) under 628.
' Mayor Chmiel: What page is that Bill?
Councilman Boyt: That's 333.
' Councilman Johnson: Or 6-45 on the top.
' Councilman Boyt: Yes, 6-45 on the top, 333 on the bottom. It talks about
swimming rafts again there and we need something that would indicate that rafts
must be located. That's where we've got within 100 feet of the high water mark
is there. The height of the raft off the water and the size of the raft. We
need to add, I believe, an item that says that rafts need to be located directly
in front of property owned by the permit holder.
Councilman Johnson: That can be just a continuation of item (a) right after 100
feet.
' 51
"City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Either way.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, can that be done?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
Councilman Workman: What does in front of mean?
Councilman Boyt: Well, directly in front of would mean perpendicular to the
shoreline I suppose, if that's reasonable.
Mayor Chmiel: And adjacent to property lines.
Councilman Boyt: Sure, that's good. The reason I am proposing this, and I I
don't know that this has happened but I live in fear that somebody comes in and
says I want to put my dock 50 feet out from Lori's lake lot. We have under our
ordinance no way of preventing that.
Councilman Johnson: Or 50 foot out from our boat access. Right at the end of
the boat access. They can put it there. '
Councilman Boyt: So what we're saying here, and this also implies, and it's the
first reading of this so we may get some public discussion to help modify it but
it implies that the dock in Carver Beach would be publically owned, which
I personally think is a smart move. I think the dock should be there but we
should own it. We should maintain it. But anyway, this protects lake
homeowners.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend Section 6-45 to
include a phrase that would include wording to the effect that rafts need to be
located directly in front of property owned by the permit holder. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW SOUTHERN PARKLAND STUDY.
Lori Si.etsema: Park and Recreation Commission at a recent meeting reviewed a
land study for the parkland in the southern part of Chanhassen that was prepared
by Mark Koegler. Mark is here to go over the plan if you'd like him to.
Mark Koegler: I'll be fairly brief and then entertain questions that u '
have. In August of 1988 the Park and Recreation Commission came up withamsett
of objectives that the City was looking for in a southern park site. It's those
objectives that we really have used to review and to judge each of the candidate
properties, the four sites that are identified on that map that's on the
overhead now. Site A, south of Lyman is about 40 acres in size. The Site B is
the Bandi.mere piece which depending on which survey you use is between 33 and 35
acres. Site C is about two-thirds of what's known as the Sever Peterson
property. It's 80 acres in size. The owner has indicated that the 40 acre
piece that kind of doglegs back to the east if you will is one that he would Ell
52 '
I
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
1 probably not wish to sell. And Site D is a 109 acre parcel currently owned I
1 believe by Bluff Creek Investment. The study sought to look at the criteria
' that were established and to see how those fit and additionally then to apply
any other rationale that seemed to be appropriate. The overall intent of
establishing the southern park was obviously to serve southern Chanhassen.
Depending upon how you define that, obviously it has some impact on the location
Iof the park. At the present time, depending on who you ask, I suppose southern
Chanhassen is south of TH 5, maybe it's south of Lyman. Undoubtedly, I think in
a lot of opinions in the future when TH 212 is built, that will be a substantial
1 physical barrier across the City and south of Chanhassen will probably be south
of TH 212 so that was a criteria that we looked at fairly heavily in coming up
with a recommendation of a site that was to be one that was labeled as
II preferred. The other factor that came into play was that it was the desire to
have a park that was centrally located and I think that makes sense from a lot
of points of view. That exhibit indicates the City of Chaska, in fact at their
City Council this evening approved the development of Pioneer Park which is a 25
II acre piece of property. It will be an active play field type park for Chaska.
It will be heavily used for baseball, softball and Babe Ruth type baseball.
I think it's justified to look at that site in relation to southern Chanhassen
II so there's not too much of an overlap of services by having two facilities that
are similar in nature being compressed right next to one another and that's what
Site D would tend to do. As a result of those kinds of factors that were looked
II at, Site B which is the Bandimere piece, is the one that is recommended for
acquisition for the southern park. The study does recognize that the Bandimere
piece probably does not meet the objective of supplying natural area. I think
there are other good ways, potentially to do that. You'll note on the exhibit
IJ that TH 212 has a very serious impact on Parcel D. When you couple that with
the topography of Parcel D that literally is almost cliff like in some areas,
there are going to be substantial portions of that property in the future that
l are going to be undevelopable, many of which may end up being odd sized because
of placement of frontage roads and so forth to serve TH 212 construction. It
was the opinion of the study and the Park and Recreation Commission that the
City will probably have opportunities to pick up natural areas down in that area
Iin the future should that be desired and that can exist as a separate component.
Site B can be expanded to the north, as I think you're aware. Potentially in
the future there's another 80 acres or so of land of cultivated property to the
I north which could be identified on the Comprehensive Plan and could be acquired
for additional expansion should it be needed. So the recommendation of the
study is to proceed with the acquisition of Parcel B. The key to Parcel B is
II the William's Pipeline which bisects the property approximately at that
location. I would certainly like to be able to stand here tonight and tell you
that we know exactly how that will impact the property but that's not the case.
We have made several inquiries of William's and they're relunctant to give too
I much specific information until a formal plan is submitted to their engineering
department and ultimately is reviewed by their engineering offices in Tulsa.
What they will do and is presently being coordinated with the boundary survey
II that the seller is providing, they will come out and stake the alignment and
give us depth information at that time. We don't even know for sure how deep
the pipe is. We've had some preliminary discussions as to how much fill can be
placed on that. We have a reasonable degree of confidence right now that the
11 site can be developed but that really cannot be finally determined until some
indication comes from the Pipeline company. So the next step certainly would be
i if the Council agrees with the Park Commission that this is the property, to
lirproceed as hastily as possible to derive the pipeline issue and to proceed with
II 53
■
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
the acquisition and development of the park. So with that Mr. Mayor, I'd
entertain any questions that you or the Council might have.
Mayor Chmiel: As you said, the additional compaction or the regrading that we
would do, is going to be the determining factor of whether or not it would
provide any additional stress on the existing pipeline.
Mark Koegler: The key in the pipeline, at least from William's perspective,
� pe pective, is
an issue of public safety. They don't want the pipe down 30 feet for example
simply because of the time it takes to excavate it. It really has nothing to do
necessarily with the excavation limits. They've indicated to us preliminarily
that they'll allow maybe 4 to 6 feet of cover over the pipe. We think that's
probably workable across that site by establishing various facilities at
different elevations which adds interest to the property anyway. But again, we
don't know that definitively until at least we know how deep the pipe is right
now relative to the ground line. It maybe a foot down, it may be 4 feet down.
That doesn't present a problem. We've done some real thumbnail type layouts and
the ball diamonds, soccer fields, things of that nature, can be accommodated
over the pipeline without any problem. I have been involved in projects in the
past in the metro area where parking lots have gone over the easement also. Not
over the pipeline itself but over portions of the easement. It's a restriction.
Gary Warren: Mark and I haven't had a chance to talk but on TH 101, you know
we've been piecemealing where we can trying to recognize that, and we'll see it
in our Eastern Carver County Transportation Study that we've got going right now
with Howard Needles that TH 101 is going to continue to surface as an important
arterial that's probably going to have to be improved as we can as we go along I
here. The Halla plat for example, we've tried to reserve an easement there so
we can take a kink out of that area. I would see the same possibility here with
TH 101 if at such time in the future, and this could be a ways down the road, we
wanted to make a more gradual curve because that is a very difficult kink in TH
101, is that going to have a significant impact on that site to the point that
we would be losing a lot of facilities?
Mark Koegler: Gary's lead in was perfect. We haven't had a chance to talk
about this yet. Depending on the geometry of that curve, it could have a
substantial impact. Just in looking at it in a graphic sense, it doesn't appear
as though that cut would affect it that significantly because we've got steep
slopes in that area anyway and that's where the tree cover now exists on the
site so you'd be losing most of the tree cover probably by cutting the road in a
little further to the east. The active facilities and the parking are not '
located immediately adjacent to that site so I think the site certainly would
still be developable with the same level of facilities we're talking about now.
There's be a little less open space around everything.
Councilman Boyt: I think your chances of taking that curve out are nil. If the
City buys it and makes it a park, you aren't going to get state approval to take
part of it, as I understand that.
Lori Sietsema: Only if you use LAWCON money.
Councilman Boyt: Oh, okay. So maybe but I doubt the City is going to give you
'
g 9 I y
approval to plow through the City park. The second thing is, if the City
rildoesn't buy it, it's going to buy residentially and the City is certainly not
54
11
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
pre ared to buy that piece of property so I think that curve is something we're
going to have to live with. That's just my opinion. .
I' Councilman Johnson: A lot of dirt to move to move that curve. It just happens
to be the biggest cut there. When you're talking moving that curve, you're
' really, you're talking moving it over, what 40-50 feet?
Gary Warren: The line of sight is the toughest part about the curve because of
that bluff and that's a short knob compared to the dirt that we moved on
Rosemount's site or any of these others. When it comes right down to it, it
could be done.
Mark Koegler: That is something though that we would have to look at as a part
of the impact of the William's Pipeline to make sure we're not left with a piece
that's really undersized.
Councilman Boyt: So the next step is, if we approve this, you work with
William's Pipeline to see how that works out?
Mark Koegler: That, to be candid with you, is already occurring because we have
a seller who's doing a boundary survey and we've been trying to pound to the
seller that we need to know when you're doing your boundary so we can have
' William's Brothers out there. They can stake it and your surveyor can pick it
up at the same time because that's the economical way for the City to approach
it and I think the applicant and the developer in this case is willing to do
that. It's just a matter of coordinating that. William's only needs a couple
days lead time in order to stake and determine depth.
Councilman Johnson: I'll move approval of the recommendation that we continue
acquisition of Bandimere Park and we designate Site D in our Comprehensive Plan
as future parkland.
Councilwoman Dimler: Excuse me, for clarification, did you say Site B?
Councilman Johnson: D. B is the Bandimere site.
Councilman Boyt: Jay, I think given the meeting we had with Park and Rec
earlier this evening, we asked than to look at sites to put on the Comprehensive
Plan and we should leave that open so they can tell us which site should be.
Why request than now to say D has got to be one of them?
Councilman Johnson: I thought they kind of agreed with that earlier during that
' meeting.
Lori Sietsema: They did make the motion at their meeting to include Parcel D as
' potential parkland in the future. I would suggest that we take that to
Planning... I think that typically when you make an amendment to the Lane Use
Plan, they should review it so we don't step on anybody's toes.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to modify my motion that we as the Council
recommend to the Planning Commission that they do what the Park and Rec
Commission as requested as far as the Comprehensive Plan side of this. The
Bandimere is outside of their jurisdiction. We're saying we're going to go with
Bandimere and modify, instead of saying put it on, tell the Planning Commission
' 55
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
to consider putting it on the Comprehensive Plan which is like '
zke the boss telling
you consider coming in here at 8:00 in the morning and working.
Councilman Workman: I guess one last thing since we're on discussion a little
bit. It's nice of you to lay it out Mark with the comparison of alternatives
and Bandimere really does kind of come up short in a lot of areas doesn't it? '
Is this really where we want to spend the load here? Is this pretty much, and
it looks to me to be a favorable park, this is pretty much it for right now?
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission felt that it was and they '
realize the deficiencies, where the deficiencies are in more acreage and for the
natural area and that's why they've addressed Site D as potential because that's
not an immediate need as is the active which is going to be immediate. '
Councilman Workman: I'm just thinking more along the lines of more acreage at
this time and I know you guys have discussed going north if possible. '
Lori Sietsema: Right. That's also a consideration.
Mayor Chmiel: I think one of the considered factors too is that this is what we '
can basically afford right now.
Councilwoman Dimler: Lori, you're not thinking about the beachlot prospect? '
Lori Sietsema: What beachlot?
Councilman Workman: Well that was my concern and I will amend my second to fit
with Jay's amended motion.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded that the Park and
Recreation Commission proceed with the acquisition of the Bandimere property and
to recommend to the Planning Commission that the City amend the Land Use Plan to
identify Site D as potential future park/open space. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
DESIGNATION OF CITY ATTORNEY.
Mayor Chmiel: Last Friday we did an interview of several attorneys and Tom, do 1
you want to address some of this?
Councilman Workman: Sure. Wasn't it Saturday? I
Mayor. Chmiel: Saturday.
Councilman Workman: Saturday in the wee hours of the morning we dragged some of '
these expensive attorneys into the coccoon here in City Hall and it was a nice
opportunity. I think it was a real refreshing idea I think, whosever idea it
was. Maybe Mr_-. Mayor's idea to kind of take a look, step back and take a look
at our attorney situation not so much based on the qualifications of our
attorney maybe but rather fees and fee structure, etc. and I think we did
accomplish that. As I've mentioned in the past, I've been very happy with Roger
Ell
and I think most of the Council has that same opinion. What I do have on my
56 1
■
' City Council Meeting - July 10, 2171
' mind is possibly if, and we did discuss this on Saturday morning, if perhaps we,
two very little points I guess. One, I'm concerned about a lot of the little
Iljr- fees that do add up. On a rather selflish note, I'm concerned about-maybe my
financial attachment to the attorney and I would perhaps see, if it's at all
possible, to perhaps make it a little easier for City Council members and the
' mayor to perhaps contact our City Attorney without incurring debt or perhaps
fees. I know I do not call Roger very often although I do feel I do have a
little bit of a thrift mind and so Roger's got the clock going over there and
then trying to talk too fast and we don't get anything accomplished. I'm a
' little concerned about where, and we should again look at this in more detail,
where someone who's developing property perhaps in the City, can basically give
our City Attorney a call and basically I think we are charged for that. I'm
' seeing specific names pop up quite often in the billing and I guess it's
something that I want to look at if in fact maybe that can be billed back to the
person who has the problem. I haven't called in 6 months on the Council our
City Attorney as some people have in one day. I don't know what a lot of the
' discussion is. Maybe they're setting up tee times. Again, I'd emphasize that
I have been fairly pleased with Roger Knutson and I would to approve Roger
Knutson and his law firm, Grannis, Grannis, Farrell and Knutson for another
' year.
Mayor Chmiel: I will second that.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess the two concerns that Tom mentioned had also been
my concern. I personally hesitate to call Roger whenever I have a question
because of the charges that will be incurred. I believe I've called you once,
I maybe twice but I often have a question and I think, oh boy, I could talk to
Roger. about this and then I hesitate to call because I feel that maybe all of us
have the same question and if we all called you it would be charged to each one
' each call. So I would also ask that the Council members have access without
being charged. Also then the second point that the developers would not be able
to have their calls be charged to the City. I think that's only prudent. I
know there might be some instances when it's relevant to city business as well
' but I think to use the judgment there whether the developer is calling you on
his own behalf and charging the city or if it's really questions about how it
relates to the city.
Roger Knutson: Could I just comment briefly?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Roger Knutson: The first point, that's fine and I would guess, I'm not sure
about this but I would guess on all of you, I haven't gotten 6 or 7 phone calls
this year. Maybe not that many. I haven't counted them and that's no burden to
me. As far as the other part, I think the City tried to do that at one time,
charging back consultant fees and I think we had an adminstrative problem but
some cities do it and I have absolutely no problem not talking to them. Frankly
there are some people who call me and I don' t need to talk to them. I don't
know why they call sometimes after I hang up on them. They want reassurance or
a pat on the back.
Don Ashworth: I did talk to Roger. today on this issue and at least some of the
names that we had discussed on Saturday that are continuously violating the
issue as far as private individuals talking to Roger. Roger has assured me that
' 57
c� V
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
those names will not appear nor will work be done in the future in their behalf.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then I guess I'd like to make another comment too
and that's relating to our meeting on Saturday. I was very impressed with the
high caliber of all the applicants and I particularly found interesting the
prospect of the possibility of an in-house attorney. However, after thinking
about it all weekend, I decided that that idea needs further development and is
not applicable to us at this time but I think it's something that we may want to
look at in the future.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's pretty much my sentiments there too because some
of the things that we also discussed on Saturday, not Friday but Saturday, and I
guess I feel I'll call a question unless there's additional discussion. '
Councilman Boyt: If I might. I think that whether we're charged or not, the
practice that I've followed in the last 2 1/2 years is to call Don Ashworth and
relay my question to Roger and then if necessary Roger calls me but I can't ever
remember calling Roger.
Councilwoman Dimler: Sometimes you get into a discussion and more questions '
come up and then Don may not know the intent as Roger questions and it's better
if we talk personally.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to designate the law firm of
Grannis, Grannis, Farrell and Knutson as the City Attorney. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
REVIEW DEPARTMENTAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. I
Don Ashworth: This item was placed onto the agenda and I'm not sure if it was
last meeting or the meeting before someone asked that the item be on...if I'm
wrong but I assume that it was kind of a question of where do we stand with the
position classification plan and the goal setting process. What I've tried to
do in this memorandum is to identify a time frame under which we can finish that
process. During the work session we had on this item, there had been concern as
to some of the comparables that were used and the decision was made with Karen
Olsen here that we would arrange a time whereby the Council members who were
concerned in that area could meet over a labor relations associates and ask
their questions. Go through the whole volumes of detail that Karen Olsen used
in developing, not only the comparables but the descriptions themself and then
again how those descriptions relate back to comparable. I also used this as a
time to suggest some special meetings because we will be looking to the
interview process associated with the financial advisor, city auditor and city
planner. What I've tried to do is just pick off Mondays in setting those dates.
Finally, in regards to the original question which was the goals and objectives
I've rei.ncluded the goals and objectives that we previously looked at but did
not have the chance to discuss at our last work session. I can either put those
on again as a part of another work session or I can ask that the Council go
L-1-1
through those and where they have concerns, we used a similar process to this
with Lori regarding, I can't remember what the issue was but everyone prioritize
what they saw.
58 ,
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Boyt: That was Jo Ann.
1111-
Don Ashworth: Jo Ann, and it dealt with, I can't remember the issue. We could
use the similar type of fashion with this. If you wanted to make notes in
regards to each of the different goals and objectives from each of the different
' departments. Turn those over to me. Coordinate than back with the Mayor. Have
them a part of a future session. Whatever you would like.
' Councilman Boyt: If I might, since I proposed part of this, all of it's a good
idea but only a small part of it was my motion 2 weeks ago. My thought in what
I'd like to see happen, I'm perfectly comfortable with going through these and
' either discussion or prioritizing and giving it to you and discussing later but
my objective was that the City itself needs goals along the lines of what Jay
suggested 6-7 months ago and I'd like to see us get that done. I don't know how
we can go through and do a decent job of analyzing the goals of the employees of
the city when we don't have goals for the city.
Councilman Johnson: That was actually the goals of the City Council. What is
'
it that this body of 5 people would like to achieve during the 2 years for the
future of the city. Quite general, broad brush. I think I probably still have
those. I've got a couple of examples.
' Don Ashworth: Did I include yours?
Councilman Boyt: You have notes on the speaker but I'm not sure if Jay's.. .
Don Ashworth: Gary Warren's is shorter and it's because I know there was one
completed right around the first of the year but in getting ready for that work
' session and I think it was 11:00 at night when I called you and we tried to
recreate it because I could find it for inclusion in the packet. I think it's
reasonably close, correct?
' Mayor Chmiel: I think what we should do probably is just review. I glanced at
these. I didn't go fully through them because I felt that this was going to be
discussed probably a little more than what it is.
' Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that along with all the other work sessions
that we seem to be scheduling, that sometime in September we have a work session
on goals for the City Council which I would think would certainly parallel with
goals for the city. In the meantime, maybe we can go through these and put some
priority weights and use them as starters for our own goals.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think that would probably be not too bad of an idea.
Councilman Boyt: Have you got any particular time?
' Councilman Workman: This is just for goals? To what degree are we talking
about here? Meeting at City Hall?
11 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Where we're going. What our direction is. I think what I
really did on this and I added something here, probably for us even though we
may be in office for 2 years or 3 years or 4 years or whatever, but I think to
I— establish some kind of a plan, a 10 year plan for the Council as well. To
establish something to look forward to, something that we should really give
59
■
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989 •
same consideration about.
Don Ashworth: Would you like staff to prepare a potential work document in that
area just so you've got some ideas?
Mayor Chmiel: That would be fine. I think there are some here but I think I'd
like to see some more because the more you see, the better off you are. Then
eventually take that and consolidate it and come up with a plan.
Don Ashworth: In some of the. previous years what we've done is, Council ,
literally would ask that the mayor work with the manager in preparing a drafted
document, that type of thing and then that way, as we're doing it, there's a
little more feedback in what we present back to the Council then has staff and
council.
Councilman Boyt: You've also got Jay's document of 6 or 7 months ago.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then you're open to new input from other council members?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. You bet.
Don Ashworth: This would just be a draft.
Councilman Boyt: If this has been done before, where is it? It hasn't been '
done in the last 2 years.
Don Ashworth: I'm not aware that the Council has previously established goals. '
Councilman Johnson: I think Don's talking in generalities of something like
this in the past, he and mayor had put it together.
Don Ashworth: I'm talking about other types of issues.
Councilman Johnson: You've also got here specific dates recommended for pay '
classification and compensation. I'm out of town all three of those dates.
Councilman Boyt: The only date I'm in town is the 27th of July as far as '
meeting with Karen and I'd really like to do that.
Don Ashworth: If I recall, Tom and Ursula were comfortable with what Karen was
preparing but as I saw it, at least from that work session, it was Bill who was
the primary one concerned in that area. The mayor was not present so I'm not
sure if you would like to attend there or not.
Councilman Boyt: Unbelieveable is a close word to describe.
Councilman Workman: We met on a Saturday morning right? ,
Don Ashworth: Wasn't this an evening?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, this was an evening. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have Minutes of that meeting? I don't remember
being there?
60 '
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Don Ashworth: You were on vacation. -
I Mayor Chmiel: That's right,g , I was gone for 2 weeks.
Don Ashworth: I think it was an off Monday meeting.
Councilman Workman: So let me pick up where we left off. Now what kind of
meetings have we got laid out? We're looking at September for goals?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. To finally sit down to determine what goals we should have
' and what kind of a plan we should implement for the City. Whether the next
Council or whoever comes in, they can look at it, discard it but at least give
proper direction as to where we're going.
' Don Ashworth: Probably our first budget session is going to be a shorter one
because basically we simply do not have any information from the State at all.
We don't know if we have, if we're frozen at how much we can expend. 3%. We
' don't know if it's households. There's so many questions, I don't know how
cities are going to certify their budgets for 1990. It's a real question.
Councilman Boyt: I think what we can do though is we can determine some
priorities. We've got, everybody wants more. More staff. More resources so we
can wrestle with that issue.
Don Ashworth: But I'm saying that may fit in with the goal process so we might
be able to handle that in terms of our off Mondays in August in doing goal
setting as well as budget.
' Councilman Johnson: Maybe we should start the goal setting in August and then
do budget after the goal setting. That kind of makes some sense to me. If
we've charted the general course, part of doing that is funding that course.
Mayor Chmiel: Budgeting always come up first before you do anything else
Y 9
anyway. You don't budget for it, you can't do what you're talking about. I
' think September is probably a better time.
Don Ashworth: Than August?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Well no, the budgeting I think is August. That's always
August. Just about all budgets, at least it is mine.
' Councilman Johnson: City Planner, July 29th. I'm still out of town. I get
back the 30th.
' Councilman Boyt: We're going to hold a meeting on the 31st too.
Don Ashworth: Why did I put the 31st?
Councilman Johnson: The 31st is an off Monday.
Don Ashworth: And the 29th is a Saturday, yes. And the reason there is you're
r going to have people coming in from out of town and that's the best time to do
it. Saturday morning.
61
u a.
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989 • '
Councilman Johnson: If I'm the only one not there, then that's the way it will
have to be. I don't want to hold up the City Planner at all.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right.
Councilman Johnson: But I'm at a class in Pasadena or Altoona or something, ,
California that day and there's no way I can get out of it.
Councilman Boyt: Can we accept all three of those dates along with the 26th of
July to review with Karen?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move along.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION:
TH 5 PROGRESS REPORT, CITY ENGINEER.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe it'd be a good idea to just sort of update a little bit the
meeting that we held today with Commissioner Levine.
Gary Warren: Yes, Mr. Mayor, that was sort of the reason I wanted to have it on
the agenda here. I took rapid notes and I know you and Tom were at the meeting
so please feel free to correct me or fill in. This small scale is also in your
packet but it was handed out today by Bill Crawford, District 5 Engineer and it
deals specifically with TH 5. The purpose of the meeting with Commissioner
111
Levine today obviously was to see where things stand on the funding for the
project and the progress of construction. As everybody knows, we're under
construction right now in Phase 2 of the TH 5 expansion plan. With the US Open
July 10, 1991, the Commissions are being questioned as far as just how far
will TH 5 be and I think everybody is in agreement that the letting dates for
the element 3 of the project here is June of 1990 and March for...and that gets
out to CR 17. That is reasonably consistent with the latest but it has. .. The
fourth segment that takes TH 5 from CR 17 out to TH 41, which was indicated to
us was District 5's top priority construction project that they submitted to the
central office of MnDot for consideration, they're right now coming up with the
1994-95 construction programming. It does not look like it's going to be
funded. Everybody is surprised at that and it's come up at the last minute but
Commissioner Levine he said that it hasn't been finalized yet. It will probably
be finalized this month but he said it's certainly going in that direction,
meaning not funded in this 2 year program. So that's a surprise and a
disappointment for us obviously and the coalition. He pointed to, in his
opinion he made some comments about the lack of support from the area
legislators as far as funding. As part of the motor vehicle excise tax and
transportation bill funding issues and you could kind of read between the lines
as you will that that may or may not be the reason why our element 4 didn' t get
included in this programming but there was definitely some discussion about that
from his office perspective. Just to run through my notes real quickly, they
agreed to assing Mike Speilman as project manager. He's been interfacing here
in the last 2 weeks with us on our technical advisory committee that meets every
2 weeks to keep pace with the design. The design of element 3 here is about 60%
complete and the title work is in MnDot's hands and they will be talking with
the DataSezv people on the partials that are up for taking here very shortly but
62 '
I
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
that is the critical time line on the project is the property acquisitions.
Bill Crawford and the tone of the meeting as far as the emphasize for.
IBasically
the US Open, I think MnDot is basically orienting themselves that it's going to
be a traffic management issue. They're conceeding this will not be 4 lanes
onto TH 41 obviously in time for the Open so there's got to be a traffic
' management plan that moves people and not vehicles. He's talking about busing.
He's talking about car pooling. Van pooling and all sorts of creative ways of
getting the people there and not so much the vehicles so that is going to be the
' challenge the US Open Transportation Advisory Committee of which Jim Chaffee and
I are members. We've met once and there will be an upcoming meeting August 24th
where a report that was just prepared by Barton-Aschmann will be reviewed to see
what their proposing as far as how they're going to get the vehicles in and out.
' It also will address park and ride type issues. I think there will be a lot of
proposals that will address that type of a scenario or dedicated bus lane but
basically the highway is not going to be there, 4 lanes out to TH 41 no matter
' what happens between now and the US Open so there has to be some alternate
transportation theories looked at as a part of this report. MnDot has a new
person on staff who is in charge of transportation advisory issues. Dick Steer
' and he is responsible, he's part of their new traffic management division and
will be interfacing on this issue and he's also involved with the planning for
the Olympic Festival so MnDot is realizing that there's some function needs here
that construction can't address that really this advisory committee is going to
' be sort of an important role... Roger Gustafson made a brief presentation on it
but I also shared, and I think we need to keep in mind here is the importance,
the US Open is very important and the visibility that goes along with this and
' if something goes wrong, it gets broadcast worldwide and we can't afford to have
those kind of problems. But the US Open is going to be done. It's a one week
event and it's going to be done and then we're going to be still sitting here
'
wanting to see TH 5 completed up to TH 41 and we're still going to have our
issues that even if TH 5 is completed in all 4 lanes and the TH 169 by-pass and
the extension of other major improvements that are planned for this from Carver
County are done, we still are going to have a very significant transportation
' problem on TH 5 until TH 212 is built. We can't lose sight of the fact that TH
212 needs to ride along with the same enthusiasm that TH 5 has for this US Open.
MnDot has programmed the first element of TH 212 from Eden Prairie up to CR 4.
' It doesn't show on this map but this first segment, they've committed 9 million
dollars in, I think it was the '94-'95 program for that out of the 33 million
dollars that's needed so there's a real funding shortfall that needs to be
addressed and the Southwest Coalition which I think has been very strong and
very effective to this point and a real good working relationship between MnDot
and the Coalition, needs to really be geared up to continue on it's way to
pursue the TH 212 corridor. I guess as a part of that, Tom was introduced to
' Commissioner Levine today as, the title I didn't get exactly right Tom.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Coordinator.
' Gary Warren: Coordinator, liason for the coalition basically.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, congratulations Tam.
Councilman Workman: I'm retaining my business nonetheless and z
they're '
y in
complete agreement with that.
' 63
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Gary Warren: So I think that's a positive '
po point to keep the ball rolling but I
really thing that we need to work with our legislators out here to ses that that
emphasize keeps carrying through so we get the last leg of TH 5 completed and
that we get the funding in place for TH 212. It was quite a turn out. They
were standing in the aisles so to speak with Commissioner Levine and his
conference roan and the mayors from our neighboring communites also. So fill in
the blanks Tom or Don, if I've missed something.
Councilman Workman: If I could. Thanks for bringing up the fact that I'm, it's
basically I'm a coordinator for the coalition. They are a privately held and
incorporated group and my first question was would I have a conflict of interest
or anything else like that and I wanted to bring out at the Council at this
point. I did discuss it with Roger to find out if there would be a problem.
Roger thought it was a heck of an opportunity. I'm going to enjoy working with
this group of people. I find the issue of TH 5 and the TH 212 project to be
certainly topics that we are pretty much in agreement on as far as they are
caning through. TH 212 was talked about before I was born and I am old so I did
research the idea of whether or not this would be a conflict of interest and to
grease the skids a little bit. If there is a problem in voting on any of this,
I will choose to abstain and hopefully we'll know if and when that comes. I
know that the Southwest Transportation Coalition is possibly looking for funding
from city governments. That again might be some sort of a problem and we'll
look further into that when I call Roger about my will tomorrow. So with that,
if you have any questions or concerns about it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's great. As I said, congratulations. '
Councilman Johnson: To date the coalition has worked real well with the cities
and the City of Chanhassen has supported the coalition financially and with
staff time and with council members going to the various meetings and whatever.
It is going to be a very good opportunity for you in that position to hear some
interesting politics.
Councilman Workman: More than here?
Councilman Johnson: Different level.
Mayor Chmiel: I was just going to mention too the fact that Gary Peterson, the
Mayor from Eden Prairie gave a presentation as well as Bob Roepke from Chaska
and I also did too and what we stressed the points of being is that we're
getting new industries in our communities. The growth is here. We're getting
more people. We're going to add more problems to the highways so consequently
that was stressed also to the Commissioner_. He appreciated those inputs that we
had given as well. But he may not have gotten everything that we wanted but I
think he knows exactly where we're coming from and I too feel that the Southwest
Corridor Transportation Coalition is really a good working group and very active
and very aggresive which is even better. So with that we'll go to 13(b) .
VERBATIM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. I
Jim Chaffee: Councilman Boyt asked that this be presented to the Council. I
have stated in my memo that I believe that I have the funding to continue
providing verbatim Minutes and that's about it.
64 ,
•
I
t , • City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
E j
c i .of, r _ F `' -� „kJr-f-_ _ •EMa or Cttiiel•f r I t h%nk_ they're well worth. while. _
I 'i i :JY'IP ei:'. C;, ''-F1 i ir^-' ( ' 1'1 _i r- f`
Councilman Workman:' Ake there any dissenters on the. Public. Safety still •or... ;..
where are we at? . ,
'- I : ” F
is F,f �;t{ � c; f; � '; :Gc,'F:I'i
Jim Chaffee: We haven'td .scussed it in a while. It was about split right down
the middle with one, 3 to 3 with one non-committal, vote andsince_ then-we really r«rc�;
haven't discussed it. I guess the feeling that I was getting was that let's do
it anyway.
Councilman Johnson: What's interesting is we were having at this Southwest ;
' Metro discussion of the various city, the three city councils and who does
verbatim minutes and I forget.wwbethert;it.was Eden;Prairie or rChaska ut`one_of t:nc:c3
than don't do verbatim minutes and-were just totally aghast`tht anybody would
' do verbatim minutes;of a council meeting._„He says well .you don,'ft.-"really want ,;1„3
everything that "you said written down. I said, well the_.othe r. two of" us were
aghast that they were willing to depend- Upon somebody else's interpretation of
what went on without being able to go right back to the horse's mouth.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we had one more particular item, council presentation.
Ursual, regarding SuperAmerica.
Councilman Boyt: I think we probably need to vote on 13(b) .
Mayor Chmiel: Do we really?
' Councilman Boyt: Well we're spending money, we should vote
g Y► on it.
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, but it's within budget.
Councilman Boyt: We're still spending money.
Councilman Workman: My position's been, let the Public Safety decide and I
don't know that the money is that out of whack but I know there's some
dissention there as far as wanting it and if you want to create that burden for
some of those members.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Council action is required then.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the funding for the
'
verbatim Minutes of the Public Safety Commission. All voted in favor except
Councilwoman Dimler who oppsoed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
' Councilman Johnson: I'd like to comment that even though I voted yes, I think
it's really up to them. It's a staff function. If it's within their budget,
Council has no business sticking their nose in it.
' COUNCIL PRESENTATION:
IFCouncilwoman Dimler: I'm going to just real briefly, I talked to Gary and after
-
6:00 today, that's why I was late to the other meeting, but I wanted to bring up
65
•
•
City Council Meeting July 10, 1989
again that we are getting, I am getting calls and I know city hall is getting
calls again about the abuse on that property so I just wanted to say, I- set up a
meeting, or wanted to set up a meeting to go out there with Lori and invite
anyone else that's available to cane along.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to go along too. I've had a few calls.
Councilman Boyt: What's happening?
Councilwoman Dimler: People are dumping there.
Councilman Johnson: Dumping? '
Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, you explain what's happening.
Gary Warren: Bituminous is appearing on the site in various quantities. I I
believe it's from TH 5 project that's going on. Dave Hemphill has been out to
take a look at it and he's talked with a few of the neighbors and we're just
tracking it down now to see where it's coming from because we were out there
last week on the site with Roger Zahn of HSZ and going through all this erosion
stuff and all that and nothing was going on but all of a sudden it appeared.
Councilman Johnson: Was that on the MnDot property just recently? '
Gary Warren: Today. Just today.
Councilman Johnson: MnDot's got some property out there don't they?
Gary Warren: I haven't been out to see exactly where it is but from what I've
been told, MnDot doesn't have that much property. But it's something that we're
looking into right now. I told Ursula because my schedule this week is really
bad but Dave Hemphill from my staff, certainly if we can't work out a time where
I can be there, certainly can get out there with you. It might be the most
expeditious route.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40
p.m.. '
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager '
Prepared by Nann Opheim
66
t
� 0
wouri mar
I
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 5, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and
David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson and Jim Wi.ldermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR FILLING IN A PORTION OF A CLASS A WETLAND ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad call the public
hearing to order .
Daryl Kirt : . . .we' ve been looking at this for close to a year trying to
find a location. . . The wetland, the lake is actually quite a ways back.
It ' s a small body of water , maybe a pond size or something . We feel that
this is the most logical site which will have. . . for a backyard. . .
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to close the ublic hearing . All voted g oted xn
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Headla : I watched that particular part over the last 20-25 years just
gradually fill in. That whole corner at one time was pretty low. I 'm very
interested in not to see that go much further but if those people build a
house there, what are their obligations to maintain that wetland?
Olsen : Again , they' re under the regulations . They would have to go
through another wetland alteration permit if they wanted to fill anymore
which they would have a difficult time getting . They have setbacks that
they have to maintain. They received the variance for the single family
residence because without that it would not be a buildable lot .
Headla: What about in the summer time if they would want to put a
boardwalk over that wetland? Is that a problem?
Olsen: They couldn ' t do it without a wetland alteration permit.
Headla : How about in the wintertime running snowmobiles through there out
to Little Joe?
Olsen : There ' s nothing to prevent that .
Headla: Whatever happens here, maintaining the wetland or we call
_ attention to it so it ' s registered with the deed . Do you have that in
place?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 4
Erhart : How big is that lot above the ordinary high h water mark?
Olsen: It' s almost 6 1/2 acres all together .
Erhart: The whole lot?
Olsen : Right , the whole lot and then the area above the ordinary high
water mark is just that small corner . It' s just a corner. The wetland
goes all the way.
Erhart : Is it 15, 000 square feet? ;I
Olsen: I don' t know. There' s not that much below it .
Erhart : How far is it from the lot corner edge to where the edge of the 1
fill would be?
Olsen : They' re meeting all the front yard setbacks . Their property line I
is shown in the darker . The corner has the lift station so that. . .
Erhart : It looks like about 10, 000 square feet . Even though it' s 6 acres I
the buildable area is pretty small .
Olsen : There ' s no question about that . ,1
Erhart: So we' re trying to make it bigger and, well . I guess what I 'd
like to see done here and I really don' t have any problem with them
building a house and the commissioners who live in the area don' t appear tcJ
have any problem but in light I guess of our acceptance of just recently
the concept of no net loss of wetland and as a suggestion of something nice
is to mitigate what you ' re doing by actually, when you have the equipment 1
in there, to actually build a pond. If you have the equipment in there,
it' s fairly easy to do .
Olsen: There' s open water already there.
Erhart : Yes, and generally that ' s the kind of thing that we ' ve been asking
for in return to fill is to improve a wetland and taking a cattail area or
Class B area , a nice improvement is simply opening up a small little pond
and it' s surprising the amount of wildlife you' ll get in even a pond of 50
feet square. In looking right out the back of your house, a nice amenity
to boot so I guess I 'm okay with this but I 'd sure like to see that done .
I think it would be a nice amenity and I think also keep us in conformity
in what we' re trying to put in place in the City here. That' s my only
comment.
Conrad : When we grant a variance or wetland alteration permit Jo Ann , is
that line registered on the plat or how do we document where that wetland
alteration can be?
Olsen : We' ve got it on file and then we record it .
Conrad: It' s recorded on the plat?
I
, Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 5
C
Olsen : Right . And we have a description that we use from that lot. An
elevation.
Conrad : So in the future there ' s a way to go in and make sure that it' s
not bigger than what we originally granted?
' Olsen : Right and we always had the official copy that we can go back to.
Conrad: So it' s on staff documents. Where else is it?
' Olsen : The wetland alteration permit , what was permitted and any
conditions is always recorded with the property so is the variance. What
we depend on to find out if they did fill more in the years ahead is the
official copy of the survey.
Conrad : I agree with Tim on this one . Class A, it seems like we' re
1 treating this differently than every other one that we've talked about
recently and I think staff has done a good job of reviewing other wetlands
and making sure that as we tamper with them, we improve. Here' s a case
' where because the wetland seems so big and the parcel so small , we have
sort of ignored that policy. I think we' re all trying to relate to Mr . and
Mrs . Kirt in wanting to build there and we appreciate what they want to do.
Yet on the other hand, what we' re doing is filling in a Class A wetland .
In light of what we ' ve been doing, I just haven ' t been sold that they can
build there without filling in. I 'm just looking for, the only reason I
have is what Tim volunteered is to improve it with a pond but I really, as
much as I want to figure out how to make this happen, it' s a Class A
wetland and the only thing that I ' ve heard is that there ' s been a dumping
ground there before but still then that means there' s a way to improve it
' if it ' s been a dumping ground of other stuff so I guess I 'm just plain not
sold. Yet I 'm real receptive to wanting to be sold on this because I 'm not
sure that there ' s going to be a real harmful impact yet how do I look at
this Jo Ann in light of all the stuff that you've been processing in front
of us .
Olsen : When we go out on the sites , the first thing Paul and I look at is
' well can it be improved. This is , what they' re doing is just a real small
area . They' re kind of filling in an area that kind of comes in and they' re
just cutting that. Filling that little part off. The better wetland is
just starts here and it' s the lower kind of an even existing kind of a pond
area. Then it gets a little bit higher and then you have the wetland
that ' s adjacent right to Lake St . Joe. Anyway, one of the things we always
look at is well if they fill in a portion, how can we improve the rest but
this is one that you just don ' t. . .
Conrad : So it ' s a loss . Basically what you ' re saying is there ' s no way to
' improve it. It's a definite loss .
Olsen : It' s a very minor loss but yes , there ' s really no reason to improve
any of the rest farther out.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 6
Conrad : And how does that fly in the face of our ordinance? The ordinancil
says philosophy is no loss. I think we' re easily persuaded in a B wetland
but here we' re talking an A. I 'm just looking for a way to rationalize.
Be consistent. Mrs. Kirt, do you have something to say? '
Mrs. Kirt : I 'm not disagreeing at all with what you' re saying . The only
thing I want to sat at this point is what you ' re asking for is something
that we' ve already considered doing but I think what you' re asking for is II
going to take a little more extensive work because you' re going to have to
start 600 or 700 feet down and start excavating this area out . You can' t
just go in there because this water only comes seasonally with rain becausll
there' s a drainage ditch underneath the road from the field across the
street from us. So in the spring when it thaws or like this summer when
we' ve had quite a bit of rain , there is this water that comes over here an
it sits and then it stagnates until finally it dries up. What you have,
like I say, it starts 700 feet down so you have to bring it, excavate all
of that 700 feet down. All the way down to where you' re going to build a
house before it would improve the land because it just isn' t all there. . . II
and I wouldn' t see how it would really improve the property. It would be
nice to do that at a point . . .to do the extensive work and do it correctly.
If you can' t do it right, I don' t see any point to doing it at this time. II
If you go into the area and you look at the area that Jo Ann has been
trying to explain, there' s no cattails basically. There's cattails out
along the , the only place there' s cattails is going up and down Minnewasht
Parkway beyond where we' re going to build . There' s cattails there and the
area we' re talking about filling is . . .just grass and when it dries up
there, the only thing that grows there is grass.
Erhart : Is that correct that there is no cattails up to where you' re
proposing the edge of the fill right now?
Mrs. Kirt : The cattails are all where it says Minnewashta Parkway. 1
Emmings: Where on the map?
Erhart : Can you also show on there the area that you see that ' s going to
be filled.
Emmings : Where ' s the edge of what ' s already filled in?
Olsen: This is the edge of the wetland is this dark line. That' s the
existing edge of the wetland .
Emmings : So that' s what ' s being filled in is from there out to the next
line? '
Olsen : It comes in, you can' t see the contour but it kind of comes up in
here and this is where it has started . . . It' s kind of on a hill and then
right here is where it gets into the nicer wetland .
Conrad: Is it really an A wetland Jo Ann?
11 Olsen : This?
, Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 7
C
Conrad : No , the one that we' re filling?
' Olsen: It's all continuous. If it was all by itself, it would definitely
be a B. This is an edge of an A but I would still consider it a wetland .
It' s all one. That' s what I always look for is if it doesn' t need to be
' done or improvements but this one is just . . .
Conrad: Dave, did you have a point?
' Headla : I started to think about the line you were pursuing and the land ,
the 32 acres to the north I think is part of it. That' s going to be
developed shortly. There' s going to be a lot of homes in there and where
' Mrs. Kitt talked about that drainage in the road, that' s going to be a
major drainage for that area. It really is just a natural drainage and
maybe someone, either the Village or we should, I certainly agree with you.
I think maybe there should be some type of pond there or something holding
' it and it doesn' t have to be right next to their house or anything. Even
if it' s a little further back in but that could be a tremendous catch basin
for all that runoff of all the different ponds. You' re draining I would
guess , my land drains in there and part of the other so I would guess
you' re draining a good 30 acres .
Conrad : Jo Ann, so how do we justify this? It ' s flying contrary to our
ordinance. You' re saying staff agrees with it. I don' t think anybody is
hostile against what they' re doing but on the other. hand , I don' t know how
to justify. How do we justify it? Under what pretense? The fact that
' there is no degregation? The fact that the runoff is not going to be any
less harmful? Any more harmful? Right now the staff report doesn ' t give
us any reason to justify this other than it' s minor compared to the 6 acres
' yet it' s still a net impact .
Olsen : That ' s not why because I compared it to the 6 acres . It' s more
that this is an existing lot of record . They could have come in and said
we want to put in a house twice as big and filled it in . The reason that
they' re not right on top of the wetland and filling it in, you' re taking
the position then that they don' t need it . We' ve worked with them to have
as minimal amount of fill but still give them a lot that gives them some
use other than just the house pad .
Conrad : You' re saying it ' s a reasonable expectation on their part to be
able to fill in because it is a lot of record?
Olsen : I 'm not saying that they would have had the right to fill it in but
' we have, I can' t say that there ' s no net loss . There is a net loss .
Conrad : Forget about the 20 feet that ' s filling i.n . Is there going to be
a net impact? What is the impact of filling that in? How much water
drains over their property and into the wetland?
Olsen: I can' t tell you how much but it definitely does drain over their
property into the wetland .
■
Planning g Com iss '
m ion Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 8 '
Conrad : I would assume not much is draining over their property right?
Olsen: Not in that area.
Conrad : Which way is the water flowing, just out of curiousity? I
Daryl Kirt: South.
Headla : The road in front will catch most of that. Very little water
comes right off their property.
Olsen : I can go out there. Paul is gone for a month in Alaska but we can
go back out. He's working on the oil spill . I hesitate to make certain
improvements to it until I can guarantee that those are definitely
improvements.
Conrad : I 'm just looking for some way to rationalize this Jo Ann. It' s
not Paul Burke going out and saying something. I don' t need him. He' s
been out there a couple times I assume already right?
Daryl Kirt: The DNR was out there and did a report, maybe if you want to I
read that .
Emmings : What' s the bottom line of what they say?
0-
Daryl Kirt: They say they wouldn' t have any objections to even two
lots . . .they just don' t want the lakeshore damaged .
Emmings: We' re meaner than they are. I tell you, this won' t be a very
popular opinion for the people I 'm talking to up here tonight but I ' ll tell
you how I 'd rationalize this one. It just plain seems reasonable number
one and number two, it ' s too damn small to worry about. That ' s the way I
feel about it. If I 'm going to have, we either say to them it seems to me,
build your house there and I 'm sorry your backyard isn' t neat as it comes
up to the wetland. They seem to be kind of filling in a hole and making a
nice smooth edge along there . We either say go ahead and build your house
there and you' re going to have to live with that raw edge or let them fill
it in and round it off and I think that that' s a perfectly reasonable thinil
to do. I don 't need any more justification than that. Obviously there' s
net loss to the wetland which I think is essentially insignificant because
it's so small . That' s the way I looked at it. '
Conrad : Dave brought out some point and that point was erosion , the
permanent erosion control . After the bales or we string whatever , when we
do the landfill , Jo Ann do you feel that on the long term basis there is nil
need? You basically said there was no need for permanent erosion control
because you don ' t feel there is erosion going across that land . Any water .
Olsen: Once it' s all stabilized, no I don' t. Again, I don' t know if theril
is anything permanent . I know that we have more trouble with erosion
control breaking down and going into the wetland and not being properly
P Y 11 maintained so I would not be in favor of. . .
, Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 9
If-)
Conrad : Would you ever put fertilizing restrictions on a house this close?
Olsen: Sure you can.
' Conrad : But you haven' t volunteered that?
Olsen: It's just that who' s to say if they do it or not.
Emmings moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
' approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-6 as shown on the site plan
stamped "June 23, 1989" subject to the following conditions :
' 1. Type III erosion control shall be installed as shown on the site plan.
2. The applicant shall receive a permit from DNR and the Corps of
Engineers .
All voted in favor except Conrad who was silent and the motion carried
unanimously.
Conrad : My only comment is , you can hear we' re sensitive to what you want
to do. We' re also real sensitive to the wetlands and I think you' re doing
a good job out there from what we can tell . We'd really appreciate it if
you'd keep that sensitivity. Whether it be through your own personal
vigilance or whatever on that site . It seems like you are and that' s why
' I 'm kind of comfortable. We spent far longer on this one than I thought we
would but it' s also a case of where we have so many of these coming in that
we treat them like they' re going to have an influence on the next couple
' and the next couple and Chanhassen is just filled with wetlands that we ' re
trying to preserve as you can tell . They' re a really important resource so
sorry for keeping you here a little bit long but I think it' s an important
issue.
' Mrs . Kirt : . . . I 'm going to try to keep it natural around there.
' Conrad: Now see if you would have said that before I probably would have
voted . That ' s important .
Mrs. Kirt: We like it natural .
Headla : Normally loons stop in that lake coming and going north. This is
the first year since I 've lived out there I 've seen loons, I just heard it
the night of the 3rd and early the morning of the 4th. It' s the first year
that they' ve been nesting there.
Conrad : They' re nesting?
Headla : I 'm hearing them through the year now. Are you the ones who put
in the dock in Minnewashta?
irDaryl Kirt : No .
•
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 10 '
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT CHADDA ADDITION INTO 4 LOTS , ZONED CBD AND
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BLVD. AND WEST 78TH STREET,
COLONIAL SQUARE. '
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order.
Brad Johnson : We' re just here to see if there are any problems with it.
It 's part of the downtown plan. '
Batzli moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Erhart : I don' t have any comments .
Emmings: I don't have any comments .
Batzli : I don' t have any comments as long as Dave asks my question. '
Headla: I 'm disappointed to see them do this after all the discussion
we' ve had about that infamous sidewalk and now it ' s all for naught.
c
Olsen: The sidewalk is still there.
Headla : Isn ' t it in the outlot or where is that infamous sidewalk? Do I I
have the right spot here?
Conrad : You' re close but I don' t think it negates . . .
Headla: Oh, it' s over there. Okay, then I don' t have anything.
Conrad : No comments . '
Erhart : I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision #87-28 as shown on the plat dated June 23, 1989 subject to the '
four conditions listed in the staff report.
Headla: Second .
Batzli : Were we going to renumber the other lots?
Emmings: Right. That was my same question. '
Batzli : I think that should be part of condition 1, isn ' t that right Jo
Ann? ,
Olsen : Yes .
Batzli : Did you have some wording Steve? I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 11
' Emmings : No , but I agree with you. That ' s the one thing - I don' t see here
that should be here. It should be specific as to what we' re doing .
' Batzli : So remaining Lots 2, 3 and 4 shall be renumbered 1, 2 and 3
respectively.
Erhart : Okay, I ' ll amend my motion.
' Conrad: Dave, will you amend your second?
' Headla : Yes .
' Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #87-28 as shown on the plat dated June 23, 1989
subject to the following conditions :
' 1. A change in lot numbering including the redesignation of Lot 1 as
Outlot A and renumbering the remaining Lots 2, 3 and 4 to 1, 2 and 3
respectively.
2. The provision of additional easements as per Exhibits 1 and 2. All
easements to be verified by BRW before filing of the plat .
IL3. Acquisition of requisite cross easements over Lot 1 and Outlot A.
4. Vacation of sanitary sewer easement .
' All voted in favor and the motion carried .
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, SECTION 20-237
' REVOCATION AND INSPECTION REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order .
Emmings : I have a procedural question here I think. Under the open
' discussion packet, this same thing appears . My impression was that under
the open discussion stuff, we ' re just going to take a look at these.
Olsen : This one was published .
Emmings : Okay, so then we won' t be considering this one again?
' Olsen: No. What happens is we've been sending things back and forth to
Roger . I 've been working with him and he just combined everything at once.
This had already been separated out.
Erhart : I assume the sequence here is if someone complains , then they have
wording that Scott Harr can go out and check, which they could do anyway.
I
Planning Commission on Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 12
Olsen : Right . This really is just for the public to hear .
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Batzli : I have a couple problems with this. One is , it appears that
you' re going to give notice in advance of a City Council review. Does tha
mean that an inspection is part of that review?
Olsen : Well we usually call . It' s practiced now. We always call and let,
them know that we' re going to be coming out.
Erhart : That ' s not what this says . This says the City Council will reviel
it. It doesn' t say that you' re going to notify them that you' re going to
go out and look at the property.
Olsen : This says review of the permit itself. What we' re doing with
Lowell Carlson next Monday.
Batzli : It doesn' t appear to me that there' s proper antecedent basis if I
you will for what you' re talking about. When I read this I had no idea
what it meant and I kind of feel like I 'm kind of familiar with that Code I
Section. Maybe other people felt comfortable with it.
Conrad : So you' re concerned that there ' s not cause for calling an
inspection? ,
Batzli : I don ' t know what the City Council ' s review of the permit is? Has
the City Council ever reviewed a permit?
Olsen : A conditional use permit?
Batzli : Yes . ,
Olsen : Yes.
Emmings : I think I can remember some.
Conrad : What we do , when an applicant comes in typically for expanded use!'
Olsen: The one I remember now is Lowell Carlson.
Emmings : Of course he never had a permit . '
Olsen: No, he does have a permit. He' s had one since 1985 but he' s never
met any of the conditions so we' re bringing that up for consideration of II
revoking his permit next Monday.
Erhart : Brian , to make it consistent with the first run on sentence where
it goes on to say sufficient cause for the termination of the conditional
use permit by the City Council following a public hearing . We could change
, Planning Commission Meeting
ltJuly 5, 1989 - Page 13
C
' the last sentence to say the property owner shall be notified in advance of
the City Council ' s review of the permit following a public hearing .
' Batzli : Do they need a public hearing to review it the second time around?
Olsen: To review the conditional use permit?
Batzli : Yes .
Olsen : For the possible revoking of it , yes it is a public hearing .
' Emmings: I think that gives them their due process .
' Erhart : What you' re saying is the language just isn ' t clear .
Emmings: I 'm not sure what' s bothering you. Can you explain it again?
' Batzli : Yes . I guess this sentence , this dangling sentence. The property
owner shall be notified in advance of the City Council ' s review of the
permit. As I recall , we don' t talk about the City Council reviewing the
permit before we say that in this section.
Olsen : But in the section right before it , I don ' t know if it says for the
termination of a conditional use permit by the City Council following a
public hearing .
Emmings : And the section is called , part of the title of the section is
' revocation and the first section deals with the fact that failure to comply
with the condition can be sufficient cause for termination or actually that
should be revocation. Where that says termination, if that said revocation
' that would help it make sense I think.
Olsen: Maybe the last sentence in Section 2 isn' t even necessary or we
' could maybe add , maybe that actually belongs up in Section 1.
Emmings: Well does the Council ' s review take place concurrently with the
public hearing? Do those two things happen at the same time so the fact
' that there' s a public hearing, that' s notice to the owner but this is just
to be sure there' s a separate notice that goes to the owner in addition to
be sure that he knows that something is taking place on his permit I
' assume.
Erhart : No . Jo Ann I think hit it on the nose . That last sentence
belongs in the first paragraph. It belongs at the end of the first
paragraph because you' re dealing with the subject of revocation and in the
second one you' re dealing with the subject of inspections .
Batzli : Yes. I like that a lot better . That makes more sense then .
Erhart : And change the word termination to revocation I think.
Batzli : Currently in the code it' s termination.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 14 '
Emmings : Well you could change the title if you wanted to . One word oughll
to get changed. It doesn' t matter which one.
Olsen : Okay I ' ll go through that because I know revocation is another
section in itself. I ' ll make it consistent.
Batzli : My other question, my first one was such a big hit, why again are
you removing, or any other violation of this chapter? Was that Roger ' s ,
idea?
Olsen : We' re just cleaning things up. One of his reasons was that the II conditional use permit, you have those specific conditions and then your
general conditions of a conditional use but if you' re going to revoke it or
do anything as far as misdemeanors or penalties against it, that it should"
be specifically that they' re in violation of those specific conditions of
the conditional use permit and not for the Council to say, well their
lights were on one night or something . It was just to make it more
specific. '
Batzli : I see two things happening then if you do that. One is you' re
going to get a lot of additions that Steve likes to put in that says they
have to comply with every other thing that they put in front of us like th,
site plan, the this, the that, the this, the that. You're going to end up
fr listing a bunch of other things in there. Or alternatively you' re going t
end up with a catch all thing in the wetland alteration permit that says ,
they have to comply with every other section because otherwise you' re going
to have people for instance on let' s say a wetland alteration permit and a
conditional use tied together where they violate the wetland alteration
permit. You want to cancel their conditional use permit but now you can' t
because that' s not the thing that they' ve violated . So either the staff
has to be very, very careful to include as conditions to tie it all
together or we have to review it. You' re taking away a large club.
Olsen: It wasn' t, we weren' t really strongly, we could go either way. II That was just his feeling that we should focus on this specific condition
and the general review. Focus on the conditional use. He was looking at
it in the other way where it could be too general .
Emmings: I agree with that.
Batzli : It could be too general but then just as a caution to us and you,
if we do conditional uses requiring compliance with a lot of other things,
we should include those conditions .
Emmings : My guess what Roger is thinking is , you' re taking away a real '
substantial property right and they're going to fight you tooth and nail
and you' re going to have a hard time withstanding a vague and indefinite
Constitutional type challenge. ,
Batzli : You' re cited for a nuisance because you leave your lights on all
night and a neighbor complains.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 15
Emmings : Yes and I think he wants to get away from that and you' re right,
we' re going to have to be real careful on the conditions to be sure that
we ' ve got all the bases covered when we write them.
Batzli : But that' s putting a heavy burden on us .
Conrad : Yes, which is appropriate .
' Emmings : And that ' s fine because you want it to be a significant breach
before you ever invoke something .
Conrad : You also want to force the conditions , us to make a decision what
the conditions are. If you don' t, then there' s no reason to have it. Then
it' s a catch all but it' s not enforceable.
Emmings: Although some of the conditions we do put on are pretty trivial
too . Lights is a good example. You ought to shut them off at 8 : 00. Well
' what if they' re on until 8 : 10? Now they can' t be there anymore? You hope
people use good sense on stuff like that but you worry, especially about a
highly charged political issue like Eckankar . This is coming out in
' response to Eckankar is creating the thing that is ripe for abuse . There' s
so many people that don' t want Eckankar here and made it so obvious and our
City Council had 3 people on it who didn' t vote yes for it . At least not
out loud. This bothers me because it comes out as a response to that. It' s
like let ' s design something so we can, this certainly could be interpretted
that way. As a way to maintain a measure of control to get rid of them
later and I 'm sorry to see it for that reason but I don' t think this says
' anything that we couldn' t do already really. I think we could have put in
as a condition that unless they live up to all the conditions we' ll revoke
their permit. We can put that as a condition in each one and accomplish
' the same purpose .
Batzli : Well what was the last conditions , speaking of that? Didn' t they
put in some condition that it was going to be inspected annually on the
Eckankar one and that' s because this ordinance amendment hadn ' t been passed
yet for review?
Olsen : Right. A lot of times with a conditional use that condition is
always put on. Not always but most the time.
' Emmings : It ' s so punitive though. Okay, we have to pass your permit but
we' re going to be watching you. That' s what it sounds like.
Olsen : That ' s what people wanted to hear .
' Batzli : In the past there have been abuses of conditional use permit where
this probably would have been , put a little bit more teeth into . . .
Conrad: My only other comment on this is the City Council may order annual
or more frequent. That' s sort of wishy washy and I guess I ' ve always felt
that it's important on conditional uses that they be reviewed every year
for compliance . I think we set , I don' t believe that staff has the time to
really, or it is a priority right now, let' s put it that way. I don' t
•
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 16
believe it is a priority for staff to
p y go out and review conditional uses . I
I think it should be.
Batzli : How many conditional uses does the City currently have
approximately?
Olsen: Lots . I can ' t tell you exactly.
Conrad: There definitely is a staffing impact on what I just said. To
annual review. We' re not talking about something that doesn' t cost money.
Batzli : Like is lots 100? 200? 500? 1
Olsen : I would say 50 to 100.
Conrad : So talk about each one being half a day to review a year .
Batzli : It' s going to take somebody a month to review them all . ,
Conrad : Yes . So the word may is real , my preference would be to put teeth
in conditional uses so there' s an annual review. I 'm not going to make
that an issue of mine right now but I 'd like to send that signal through Al
the City Council that I think that' s significant. That they should have an
annual review and that if they can justify the cost , it should just that. MI
terminology could still read or more frequent based on this specific
need or cause but I 'm not going to change the language or I don' t propose
that we change it from what I see here. I just want to raise that flag to
the City Council so they can review that. Anything else? ,
Erhart: I agree with you 100%. You could set up a process where people
would have to pay for an annual review. They have to get licensed every II
year .
Conrad : It' s a significant priviledge on their part .
Emmings: You' re talking about licensing again now. It' s more like
licensing than it is like a conditional use permit and I think that ' s a
real interesting idea. I 've been interested in it. I think it' s a good II
idea .
Erhart : Licensing?
Emmings : Sure. When you sell cigarettes you have to come into the City
every year and get a license. You pay a fee and if there' s been trouble
with you selling cigarettes to minors in the past year they slap your hand ,
and say you better shape up or we may not pass this next year . The same
thing with the liquor license . Why not with conditional use permits?
Headla: You brought that up before and I think you had a good point. '
Emmings : I think the trouble is just it would overwhelm the staff .
Conrad: It' s more paperwork, yes .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 17
Emmings : But I don ' t know that.
' Erhart: Except I 'm not sure staff has to do that . We' ve just added an
enforcement person to the city, Scott Harr . Since that position wasn' t
filled 2 years ago, it might be that maybe he would have time plus the
additional income coming in from the licensing might off set his expense.
Usually when you create a new position, there' s a period of time there
where you kind of create your work.
' Emmings : Arguing the other side of the issue, I think the problem is, I 'm
not going to build my business here if you can' t give me some assurance
that I 'm not going to be allowed to continue it ' s reasonable operation.
' Usually when it's a conditional use permit, a lot of times there' s real
substantial building going on or people are spending a lot of money to
locate something here and they come in, they bought an option on the
property but they' re not going to go any further unless they' re sure
they' re going to be able to operate and a licensing would result in so much
uncertainity, they'd go someplace else with their use .
' Batzli : You said it earlier in regard to the vagueness and the indefinite
issue is people probably have a substantial property right or interest as
part of the conditional use.
Emmings : That' s the problem with that idea .
Batzli : But then again , a liquor store probably has a very significant
interest in something like that too .
Olsen : The problem with conditional uses is that even like with Lowell
' Carlson, even if they revoke it Monday night, so what? It doesn' t stay
there. Still , he ' s just a non-conforming use . Maybe if it is licensed ,
it seems like I asked Roger about that. Did I give you an answer on that?
I remember asking him about licensing conditional use permits . I think
it' s something you can do.
Emmings : We talked about doing that in a situation where we wanted to have
' an interim or a temporary conditional use and then the legislature made it
possible to have it so I assume we just forgot about going that other
route.
' Conrad : On the item in front of us, does anybody want to give any
different direction on this other than what we see and trust that City
Council will read the Minutes and review the tape .
' Emmings: Do we need a motion?
' Conrad : We do need a motion, yes . Is there a motion?
Emmings: I ' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend
it
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #89-1 to Section 20-237 of the City
Code as written in the attached ordinance with the following changes .
First of all that in paragraph 1, the word termination be changed to
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 18
revocation. Secondly, that the second sentence in paragraph 2 be moved up
to the end of the first paragraph. That' s it. '
Erhart : Second .
Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #89-1 to Section 20-237 of the Cityll
Code as written in the attached ordinance with the following changes : In
paragraph 1, the word "termination" be changed to "revocation" . Secondly,
that the second sentence in paragraph 2 be moved up to the end of the firs"
paragraph. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli : I would like to pass a resolution on to City Council to strongly II
urge the Council to explore the possibility that all conditional use
permits be inspected annually.
Conrad : I think that would be a good resolution to pass forward .
Batzli : Well I 'd make a resolution like that. I
Conrad : Do we need a second on that resolution?
Erhart: Are we going to discuss it? '
Conrad : Yes .
Erhart : I guess before we do that , I 'd like to see us look at the various!'
conditional use permits and look at each one and see what kind of abuse
we' ve seen or abuse is possible before we just pass up a resolution like
that. We may, without really thinking about it, we may be suggesting, if
we' re suggesting a licensing or an annual review, maybe we' re suggesting
something that' s not needed .
Batzli : The resolution is to explore doing that. Not that we immediately
implement it .
Erhart: But why don' t we explore it?
Batzli : It certainly isn ' t on our list of things to do that they gave for "
us to do.
Erhart: That doesn ' t mean we can' t do it.
Batzli : You' re going to have a staff person look at 50 to 100 conditional "
use permits and tell us what they all say.
Erhart: No. I was thinking in terms of the various conditional uses that "
exist , what are those that would really be a benefit to the City to have
them reviewed annually.
, Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 19
Batzli : But see I think that would involve having them look at every
conditional use. You' re going to take a lot of a certain staff person' s
time .
Erhart : Well what are you asking for?
Batzli : I 'm asking for the City Council to kind of put it on our list of
things to do so we can get somebody to look at it . I don' t want to ask Jo
Ann to go off and do something that the City Council isn' t going to want us
to look at.
' Emmings : You' re basically asking them if they think it ' s worthwhile for us
to take a look at it?
1 Batzli : Yes .
Conrad : You' re right . I think that' s really wise but I didn' t hear . I
' think Brian is ask the City Council to say this is a priority for us to
take a look at . That' s how I understood your resolution.
Batzli : That was the intent .
Emmings : Right now do we primarily depend on complaints?
IOlsen: An annual review would be great. I think it' s needed .
Emmings : Are our files arranged or our permits arranged in such a way that
' you can just go up to your office and say, I can identify every conditional
use that ' s been approved in the City right here? In something?
' Olsen: Yes . We've got a listing, a notebook .
Emmings : A list in a notebook of all conditional use permits .
' Olsen : Yes , and then they' re all in the file cabinet together . You can
just look through them.
' Batzli : We' re in the 60 ' s .
Olsen : We' re trying to get them on computer too and what I was trying to
' do was to have it so I could sit down every day and punch in and see what
would be up for an annual review. What the conditions were and we just
haven' t got it on computer but we' re getting it. We' ve got an assistant,
an intern working .
Conrad : So Brian, what' s your resolution again?
Emmings : Maybe this is too formal . Maybe we could just ask them if they
want us to look at it .
g Batzli : That was the intent was whether we should explore whether an
annual review is needed on conditional use permits . Should be implemented .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 20
Erhart : Are we in open discussion yet or do
p y you want to wait? '
Conrad: Well that was what we want to pass forward. I don' t know that we
need to vote on that?
Erhart : No, I 'm in general agreement . I think an annual review of these
things I think would be good so I 'm in agreement with Brian that it' s wort
exploring with the City Council to see if they look favorably on it and we
could study it further .
Conrad : With that comment Brian and Tim, do we need anything else Jo Ann?"
Olsen: No, I ' ll just put it in the update.
Erhart : In that light , I ' ll bring up another subject before we get into th
next thing because I was going to wait to the end, if I could say somethin
Mr . Chairman?
Conrad: Go ahead.
Erhart : I 'm really disturbed at the lack of progress. On a page and a
half, almost two pages of issues , this Planning Commission has attempted til
work on in the last year and a half and have spent considerable time and
effort, personal time and effort without compensation to try to push
forward and doing a good job as Planning Commission members . That we have
our failed to make progress due to the fact that ou city does not maintain th
staff positions that are available. I really don' t know how they expect
that we' re going to make any progress without getting these positions II filled and I just want to emphasize to the City the frustration that I 'm
beginning to have being on the Planning Commission. Coming to these
meetings and not making progress on this list of things . I can only II attribute it to the fact that we 've had months and months of not having a
planning director . I guess I 'd like to hear the rest of your comments
but I 'd like to see us move forward on this because it' s getting very
frustrating to not work on this list . There ' s a lot of important issues I
here such as the blending ordinance. I can list 7 others on here that I
think need attention and these have been on here for more than a year with
no progress. I guess I 'd like to encourage the city adminstrator to get 1
these positions filled , which are budgeted and to allow us to go forward
here.
Conrad : I think we all have to support that comment . Jo Ann , what is the '
status of interviewing?
Olsen : I don' t know that we ' re interviewing . I know the deadline for the '
applications was a week or two ago but I don ' t know that anything ' s
happened yet.
Emmings : How many applications were received? 1
Olsen: I saw that we got quite a few but just not real good applications.
I don' t know. I haven' t talked with the City Mananger . '
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 21
Batzli : I hope whoever we hire doesn ' t read that part of the transcript .
Emmings : If nothing else, maybe, I don' t know. They' re not paying, that
staff position right now it ' s funded but nobody' s getting the salary. Why
couldn' t they give it to someone like Mark and have him come back.
Olsen : We' re using him as much as we can .
' Emmings: Yes but why couldn' t he take one of these at each meeting and get
some action on it and kick it along? If it' s going to be a long time,
because I agree wholeheartedly with Tim. If we' re not going to see any
progress on this stuff , I don' t know if they'd authorize any expenditure so
they could put together a little position paper with a suggested course of
action and we could act on one every time we meet until we' re done.
Olsen: Actually Mark is finishing up all the Comprehensive Plan so A, 1, 2
and 3 is going to be done . I ' ve also given Mark the blending ordinance .
He's working on convenience store moratorium. The rezoning of BF district
to A-2, he' s got that also .
Emmings : When will we see those back? Soon?
Olsen : I 'm also keeping him pretty busy with some of the planning reports
when we get heavier agendas. Convenience store moratorium, that' s almost
IL done.
Batzli : What I 'd like to see though as part of any kind of really
' corporate practice, I 'd like to see a target date for when we' re going to
discuss some of these and if you give them to Mark, indicate that they' re
in Mark' s lap and get a tentative date for when we' re going to see them
because I 'd rather see some progress than just ongoing, although ongoing is
better than nothing. It doesn' t say to me which ones we' re really
concentrating on and when we' re going to see them.
' Headla: All we' re really asking the Council gets an interim city planner
until they get one assigned .
' Emmings: Someone to fill the function maybe.
Conrad : What issues are we real concerned with here? We ' ve been working
on the Comprehensive Plan for 2 years and I think that' s a major issue. I
think that' s kind of embarrassing . How can you be working on a plan for 2
years? By the time you get it done, it' s time for_ a new plan. I think if
people were paying attention , they'd say what are we doing? How can you be
' working on that for a couple years? But as I go through the rest of these ,
I don ' t see anything , they' re all important . We put them there . City
Council has reacted to some of them and Jo Ann is going to summarize their
comments but I don ' t see anything that is just really urgent that I would
assign Mark Koegler that he' s not already working on. So I guess Tim, your
comments are real valid. I think it ' s really tough working with a one
person planning department but the fact is there' s nobody else right now
and I think the message is going to go up and they' re going to say well , we
are working on it. To make it more urgent, I would say are there things
1
■
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 22 '
that are really critical that have to be reacted to within the next 2
months?
Erhart: I ' ve always felt the blending ordinance was pretty important to d
something and I think it was reflected in the Council 's opinion of what we
ought to be working on with our priorities . That was one that they listed .
We've been talking about that one I think since the last election which wa
what , a year and a half ago. A year ago. Also I think this number 15, th
standards for parking and garages. I realize that' s fairly recent but in
my mind I 'd like to see that put to the forefront.
Batzli : Ladd, what you' re saying is Mark has currently got some of these 1
in his lap already and you' re saying those, you think are the important
ones . You don' t know which other ones you would give him?
Conrad : I don' t see , given a typical lead time, I don' t see anything that
Y g
I 'd elevate from a normal priority of Mark working on or staff working on.
I have a hard time saying yes, let' s go out and hire somebody to do one of !'
these. Personally. I think the Comprehensive Plan is just really
important to wrap that up and get it done with. I can' t wait for 2 months
or whatever to wrap that up because we've been working on it for 2 years
but Mark is working on it and I heard him give us some dates so I 'm kind o
comfortable that that one's progressing and how it impacts the MUSA line. I
think that' s really significant . Those are real important . Beyond that,
in my mind, I 'm not sure that I would elevate any here to say let' s hire
somebody, and I don' t care if it' s Mark or somebody else .
Erhart: I 'm not suggesting that. I guess what bothers me is we come in II
here and we' re going to leave here at 9 : 00 and not have worked on one of
these issues. That's what kind of bothering me.
Conrad : It' s a real good point in that Jo Ann will work on the developers '
who come in which takes precedent on everything on this list. Absolutely
guaranteed so that' s the real valid concern that I have in that the things
that we want, the planning stuff that we want to work on, that we can
really add value to , we don' t get to because the developers take priority. II
But the staff has an obligation to, in a timely manner, address the issues .
Sometimes we also tell her to come back in 2 weeks because we table
something or whatever so we set her calendar a little also but I think whail
you just said , to put some dates , or Brian , to put dates on here when they
have to be back, that may help prioritize and allow Jo Ann to say, no we
can' t get it on next week' s agenda because we are reviewing some other
things. But what I don' t want to do is fill our meeting up until 12: 00
midnight. I 'm not going to do that. It' s lousy management to come in her
and work until 12: 00.
Emmings : But Brian' s point is well taken . Under status it shouldn' t say
ongoing. It should say, if for example, I said maybe Koegler could be
working on these and then I find out he' s working on 3 or 4 of them. I knell
he was working on the Comprehensive Plan of course but I didn' t know he was
working on the blending ordinance. I did know about the convenience store
moratorium but forgot but let's change that. Let's make that status columzl
more meaningful . The other thing is the Comprehensive Plan , really 1, 2
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 23
and 3 are really all kind of comprehensive plan issues in a way. We ' re
going to be discussing all of those and then number 7, under B will kind of
follow from what happens on the Comprehensive Plan so really there ' s 4
' things being worked on on one there I think. And there' s some things when
I look down here now I 'm not even sure why they' re, like the noise
ordinance. I 'm not sure why that' s down on our list. I can' t remember. It
' says over here , public safety proposed an ordinance. That does make some
sense that it would come from there rather than here maybe. I don' t know
what it' s all about but I don' t know, does that belong in ours?
' Batzli : I think it was raised when we were talking about the lumber yard
and things like that . I think it got on our list when we were talking
about the conditional use permits, hours of operation things and it got on
' our agenda and public safety. We were the ones that did something with it.
Conrad: Anyway, if we started putting down dates Jo Ann.
Olsen : I can say that . . .
Conrad : And I don' t think you need to do that right now.
Olsen: I can' t put dates on a lot of them. Blending ordinance, I could
put that Mark Koegler is working on it but I wouldn' t be able to give you a
date.
ILConrad : We need to know if it' s, other than the word ongoing , we need to
know if it' s in progress and then I think there has to be under status, the
' words are not assigned , consultant , staff to review or something that says
what ' s going on but then I also think there should be a column out there
that says date when we would expect to see it.
' Batzli : And if you have to say to be determined, I suppose you have to say
it but I 'd like to see a target date on some of these . At least for a
draft. It doesn' t have to be the final thing but a draft or kick around
some ideas or a status report on some of these would be nice.
Erhart: But this is a great improvement over having nothing. I agree with
all that . You would really make me feel good if you took item 1,
contractor 's yards off now.
' Olsen : It ' s got the status . It' s been approved . It' s finished .
Erhart: Yes, once it' s approved, you can take it off .
' Olsen : Then you wouldn' t feel we ' re making progress .
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 21, 1989 as amended on page
46 by Steve Emmings to change the word "liberal" to "literal" . All voted
in favor and the motion carried .
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 24
II
OPEN DISCUSSION.
II
Conrad : This is open discussion right now. Just as the staff was asking
for our comments on a variety of items before they' re announced for the
public to come in and talk to us about these amendments . Dave, I ' ll start "
down at your end. On all the different amendments, anything? You had one
thing in particular .
Headla : Let me go to Section 3. 20-441. Violation shall be a misdemeanoJI
punishable by 90 days in jail and a $700. 00 fine. I 'd like to see that
and/or . I just don' t think we' re going to get anybody to go to jail and II
pay the fine.
Emmings : All misdemeanors , that' s what defines a misdemeanor . All mis II demeanors are punishable by a maximum of 90 days in jail and a maximum of
$700. 00 fine. They' re just stating the law here.
Erhart: Should we say maximum? I
Emmings : No , that' s what the law is .
Headla : When they put it into practice, does it have to be both or can it '
be an almost either?
Emmings: A person that violates something like this for the first time
will get treated like all others. They' re essentially never get jail time.
It just doesn' t happen but that ' s what defines a misdemeanor in all
criminal law so I think they' re just stating what the law is .
II
Headla : Fine. I didn' t know that . Then the other one is , in Section 5 we
talk about swimming pools. If they approve this in November , I don' t thin
we can expect people to put fences in in 3 months so I 'd like to see withi
100 days of such date or as negotiated with the City.
Emmings : Within 180 days or as negotiated with the City. If somebody has '
a special reason they need more than 6 months .
Erhart : Do you think there' s anybody in the City that ' s got a swimming II pool without a fence today?
Olsen : There are some out in Hesse Farm I know there are.
II
Batzli : I don' t understand that. Of such date. What date are they
referring to? Such date refers to February 19, 1987 .
Conrad: No. As soon as notified . II
Batzli : Wasn' t this done retroactively so that' s why the such date is in I
there in the first place? Or is it of the date of enactment of this
ordinance?
I I'`" Emmings : That' s what I assume it meant but it isn' t clear .
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 25
ifHeadla : Shall comply with this chapter within 180 days of such date.
Batzli : So are we talking the effective date of the ordinance there?
' Emmings : Yes .
' Batzli : Then that should be clarified and I don' t know if it should be
negotiable with the City.
Conrad : Well you can' t build in the winter time. Dave' s point is you
can' t put the fence up in the winter time so that' s why he wants to make
sure that it' s a reasonable expectation. So anything that' s gone up before
1987, they have to comply with the ordinance but the date of compliance may
' not be the 180 days because you may not be able to put that up in January
or February.
Batzli : Is the only thing we ' re adding to this section 5 is the second
' sentence? Are we adding anything to this one?
Olsen : We' re taking out where if you were on a cliff or whatever , you
' wouldn' t have to put a fence where it was inaccessible. I don' t remember
the exact wordage but we were finding that even then people were saying ,
well you can' t reach my pool from that area and you still need a fence.
IFBatzli : My question is, the people who this sentence covers have already
had to deal with this .
t Olsen : Right . We' re just removing the option that if pools are
inaccessible from adjacent properties, that they do not have to have the
swimming pool fenced but we' re finding . . .
' Batzli : But have you applied this ordinance to everybody who' s pool was
installed prior to February 19 , 1987? So do we even need the later part of
this sentence in there anymore? Do we need that part in there? Are there
any pools that haven ' t complied with that?
Olsen: Not since this ordinance, no .
' Conrad : But before? Pools put in before.
' Olsen: There still may be some out there .
Conrad : But before . Pools put in before have not had to have a fence.
Batzli : Yes , she just said this is already in the ordinance. They' re not
changing that .
Emmings : This is one of those deals where it would have been nice if they
would have underlined what was being added to show us the old one and lined
out what was being deleted so we know what ' s going on. I assumed this was
it new language. I didn' t look at the ordinance section.
Conrad : I did too . So what ' s new?
■
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 26
C
Olsen : I 'm taking out the section that says that if you' re inaccessible , II
you do not have to have a fence.
Batzli : I looked at all of these as if they were new. ,
Olsen: No.
Erhart : How are you inaccessible? By another fence?
Olsen: Again, we' ll use Hesse Farms where there' s a cliff on some
portions . I just think, when we were going through it, we were saying. . . II
Erhart: You' re still accessible by the side yards though. '
Olsen : Right . Exactly and the people were saying . . .
Headla: I don' t even know why you need that last sentence. '
Conrad : We don ' t need the last sentence?
Emmings : Because the such date applies to the February 19, 1987 and we' re,
already. . .
Batzli : We' re way past that so my question is , do we still need that?
A.
Olsen: We probably still need something in there that all inground pools
installed prior still need to but I ' ll check on it . in
Emmings: You can say shall comply with this chapter . No, because it
already says all swimming pools. '
Batzli : It should now read , shall have already complied by November 1987 .
Olsen: Okay, I ' ll work on that. ,
Batzli : Why don ' t you at least check on that one. What ' s the difference
between net density and gross density? Is that what you ' re adding?
Olsen : Right . Right now we' ve got the definitions but there ' s nothing in
there that says which one we use.
Batzli : So we' ve already got the net and gross density defined?
Olsen: Defined. I
Batzli : Where ' s that defined?
Olsen: Under definitions .
Batzli : Is it under density?
Olsen: I think so. Yes .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 27
if- Batzli : Okay, that' s the one place I didn' t look. So we want it to read
net density because that' s tougher?
' Olsen : That' s what we' ve always been enforcing and the developers will say
well where is it? Where does it say that? It doesn' t say gross . It
' doesn ' t say net so it' s always been , staff is kind of at a tightrope.
Conrad: It' s got to be net.
' Erhart : It would have been much easier to just use the term net density
everything.
' Conrad : This terminology has just got to be in there.
Batzli : So that way if you had a site covered by a big wetland , you can ' t
count the wetland for purposes of density?
Conrad : Right . You' ve got to take it out like you take streets out.
' Batzli : I like that.
Erhart : Are we discussing the first group here right now Ladd or are we
IL going through the whole thing?
Conrad : Anything .
Erhart : You want to just jump into this whole thing?
Conrad: Yes .
Erhart : Okay, page 2, first paragraph . You ' re trying to define structure
and then under definition you use structure which is, I don ' t think that' s
' correct.
Olsen : Which means any of the following .
Erhart: I ' ll talking about portable structure. It seems to me that needs
different words . If you' re trying to define the word structure , you can ' t
define it by using that word again in the definition. Correct or
incorrect?
Conrad : That makes sense .
' Erhart : So is it a portable building or something to that effect Jo Ann?
It' s like opening up a dictionary and looking for the word book and saying
well a book is a book. Everybody knows what a book is . I guess that ' s
just, do you understand what I 'm saying?
Conrad : That ' s good . You' re right on.
Erhart: A dog kennel . Are you referring to a dog kennel like you buy a
chainlink kind of a dog kennel with a concrete slab? What about portable
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 28
dog kennels? Again , this includes , I guess what I 'm getting at, this
includes a lot of things that I wouldn' t consider a structure such as
portable dog kennels.
Batzli : We could say portable dog kennel structures if that would help I
you.
Erhart : And we don' t have to get into a big discussion here but . '
Olsen: The reason for this is because we' ve been having a lot of trouble
with my interpretting the zoning ordinance where we have specific setbacks
for those types of structures. The Building Code does not consider them t�
be structures . We have not been regulating dog kennels with the cement.
Erhart: Yes. To me that' s a structure. If you've got a concrete slab, II
then it' s a structure.
Olsen: That' s where we define it. ,
Batzli : Well you could say, instead of portable structure, do your big
long list and then say where any of the foregoing are permanent or portabli
because people can always come up with the argument regarding portability.
Well I can bring in my forklift and hoist it so it' s not a structure. In
fact I 've heard people use that brick barbeque' s. It' s portable so it ' s
not a structure so I don' t need any setbacks. Good argument by the way.
Get a forklift and it' s portable .
Erhart : I don' t really want to get into every word on this tonight but I 'l
just pointing out where I see some problems. The last one is a hard
surface parking area versus a driveway and I define that .
Conrad: Good point. I don't understand that. '
Olsen : Hard surface parking area , we usually see those coming through sit
plans, etc. but with driveways and sidewalks. Driveways , somebody can jus
put those in. They do not have to get a building permit.
Erhart: I can understand that. There' s really no difference between a
hard surface parking area and a driveway and in fact as compared to a dog
kennel , a driveway is a major structure that it would seem to me that you
would include driveways in this definition of a structure as opposed to
excluding it.
Olsen : I agree but it' s just what the building code requires them to come
in for permits and what so we' re having some conflicts . I
Conrad : Too bad you brought these up because they really are, I 'm with
you. Stockpile doesn' t, I don't know what that is.
Olsen : I think that already was in there.
Batzli : Yes, a lot of these were in there. A lot of these are in there.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 29
Conrad : A stockpile is a structure. How can a stockpile be a structure?
Batzli : If you have a 2,000 feet of pipe stacked up, you've got a big
' structure.
Conrad : A structure seems to me to be manufactured .
' Olsen: Just the ones you want to have the setback applied to. That's
essentially what this is .
Emmings : I was shocked here a while ago to find for example that somebody
putting in a road could put it, that' s come up twice now, could put it
right up to the lot line. Not setback requirement . Now that ' s not a
' driveway. Those are going to be public streets and there' s no setback for
that and that' s not a structure. No setback requirements and I think
that' s outrageous . There was that one and then there was the one that was
up on Lake Lucy Road where we talked about the same thing. I remember that
because that ' s where I learned that you can go right up to the lot line.
Batzli : But I must not have learned it that time because I just learned it
' last time.
Olsen : I can look into that and see if roads.
IL Erhart: The natural way to look at it is the driveway should maintain the
setback just like everything else .
1 Emmings: Unless they want to share.
Olsen : It' s just I have no way of knowing when they come in . That ' s why
' I 'm having difficulty with patios was that they don' t have to get a
building permit for that . If it' s at ground .
Batzli : You mean if I pour a cement slab underneath my deck, I don' t have
' to do that?
Olsen : You don ' t have to get a building permit . And that ' s why I 've been
trying to do this is because people can put patios right up to wetlands .
Emmings : You can put wall to wall indoor/outdoor carpeting in your
' backyard and never have to mow. Go right up to the lot line. Concrete.
Batzli : Let' s include public roadway on this list .
Emmings: Public or private.
Batzli : Yes .
' Emmings : I know this is a very elusive definition because I once, when I
was first an attorney I got involved in a lawsuit that involved the
question of whether something a guy erected was a structure or not. We
went around with that for several years and no one ever really came up with
a good answer . It' s just very, very difficult.
■
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 30
II
Batzli : The difficult thing about a roadway I 'm sure is if you' re going tII
put it on the lot line. Then at that point do you just needing a
variance? Where both sides are contributing to the road? That' s going toll
be the big problem.
Emmings : If it' s to be a mutual driveway which often happens but you coul
say that. It's sort of like fences. You can put a fence on the lot line
if both neighbors agree . Otherwise you ' ve got to set it back.
Batzli : But this is the definition section. Should we be getting into II that in the definitions or do we need a separate ordinance to cover that?
Olsen: You'd have to get it in the definition but I think it's something,
it will have to be applied to farther into the ordinance too. Do you stil�
want it to be just at a 10 foot sideyard setback? Front yard?
Emmings : It ' s got to go on the list of things to do. I
Conrad: What is 20-1? What is Section 21? Definition of structure?
Olsen : Definitions. The first section? I
Conrad: So have we changed anything in this?
II
Olsen : Yes , we've added dog kennels, hard surface parking , fence. Then
the Building Department want some of it taken out. I can go back, I didn' t
have time to do the xing out and then underlining . I can do that. I
Headla: That would help.
Emmings : I think this structure thing needs a lot of work because I ' ll 11
tell you, I think what you need is a general definition that would say,
which would include but not be limited to the following because otherwise
somebody's going to come up with something. They' re going to call it
something else. I 'm going to build a flumdible and it ' s concrete and glas
but it' s not, well it does say a building. But somebody' s going to come u
with something that' s not going to be one of these things and you' re going
to have your hands tied so I think you need a general definition with thes
specific examples .
Olsen : That number 2 though which hasn ' t changed , that' s general . II
Emmings : Maybe you want to combine those and just say. . .
Olsen : Which can include. II
Emmings: Yes . I
Olsen : Okay.
IIBatzli : Includes but is not limited to the following .
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 31
Emmings : So put number 2 first and then list those things as examples .
And you know I think to me the idea of a structure is that it' s somehow
tied to the ground . It' s something that if I move away from here, it' s not
' something that's going to go with me. It' s like the definition of a
fixture which is equally difficult but you just kind of use a common sense
test as to whether or not it's something, is it on a slab or is it on
' footings? Footings is probably a pretty good test isn ' t it?
Batzli : Not for something like a stockpile.
Emmings : What is a stockpile? Like firewood? Is that a stockpile?
Batzli : I think firewood might be considered a stockpile if you get a lot
' of it. A bunch of dock sections piled up . Pipe that you' re going to use.
It 's something that you don' t want sitting right next to your property line
if you' re the next door neighbor .
' Conrad : Any other comments on this? On just this particular , structure.
Tim, did you have other?
' Erhart : Yes . Page RO6/21/89 . Next section, second page. On the bottom
where it says Section 20-232, General Issuance Standards . Item 4 where it
says the date of the event that will terminate the use can be identified
I with certainity. I 'm concerned that that implies that the date is
identified when the permit is issued. Therefore, I suggest we change that
to say the time of the event that will terminate the use can be identified
with certainity or something .
Batzli : I think that ' s a typo. I think it should read , date or event.
' Erhart: That would solve it. You understand my problem with that?
Batzli : I think the case that came down said it had to be, there had to be
a date or an event which could be.
Erhart : Okay, then that would solve that. Is that okay Jo Ann? Number 5,
the use will not impose additional cost on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future . Well how do you know
when you' re issuing this temporary permit that a year later the public will
want to come in and buy this property? It seems to me that this condition,
this standard here, maybe I don' t understand it but it seems not to make a
lot of sense . How do you know, how can you ever know that a year later?
' Emmings : I assumed that that was there for something like if the City had
in it' s plans that eventually a road would be going through there or
something like that and you knew that this person wanted to put it to was
going to make it more difficult or more expensive to acquire it or clear it
later on, that' s what I thought it was about.
Erhart : That example' s clear but take the example that you issue a
temporary permit for something and then all of a sudden, then the City 6
months later says , gee well we want to put a road in there . Now, this
really provides a basis not to reimburse them for the expense of whatever
I
Planning Commission Meeting
•
July 5., 1989 - Page 32
improvement he did and to me it' s a fairness thing . '
Emmings: I don' t think you could ever do that. I think that' s going to be
judged at the time you issue the permit. '
Olsen: I was just going to say that some of these and I don't have Roger' s
first letter but some of these were specifically a part of the case that
was passed down. I think that this one was one of those.
Erhart : Okay, that' s kind of a legal thing anyway and if you attorneys
feel comfortable with it.
Batzli : Yes , it' s right out of the law. Permission of the use will not
impose additional cost on the public if it is necessary for the public to II
take the property in the future. So it' s right out of the Statute.
Erhart: So then going along, on page 2. I 'm wondering, in the first
place, churches . Why are churches an interim use? '
Olsen: We've had that with Westside Baptist where they couldn' t build
their church and they've been in the industrial office park right now. A
lot of times they don' t have the money to build their church right away an
�
they need an interim place.
Erhart : Okay, let me narrow the question. Why would a church be an
interim use in the A-2 district when in the past it' s always been a
straight permitted use?
Olsen : This is temporary. This is for a church to use somebody' s
farmhouse before they can go through and do the proposal .
Erhart : I guess my interpretation of this is that we were going to
replace, for example in A-2, churches aren' t listed at all are they?
I thought they were .
Olsen : They' re probably under the conditional use.
Erhart: I thought we changed that ordinance to include churches in the A-II
district?
Olsen : Right , it might not be in the . . . '
Erhart: So if it' s a permitted use or a conditional use, are we suggesting
we ' re going to remove it from that and then put it in a new category?
Olsen: No.
Erhart: So this is in addition to that? '
Olsen: Right. This is allowing them to be a temporary use .
Erhart : So we would decide at the time that the permit came in whether it,
can be a permitted, which would be the ordinance, a conditional or a
I
1
P anning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 33
temporary?
Olsen : Right . If they have some reasons that they need to do something
temporary. What we had before was real general . We just allowed an
interim use. It was a temporary conditional use and what Roger has done is
tried to name specific ones and I don ' t know if we really want to do that.
That's why I wanted to get comments back from the Planning Commission or
did we just want to leave it open because we ' ll list these but then we' ll
get another one.
' Erhart : I see. This gets into a broad discussion of whether you want to
list them at all . That's what you' re looking for direction.
Olsen : All or none .
Erhart : You' re looking for direction from us then. I guess I was a little
bit confused by this. What I was leading to here was if you' re going to
' list them, then you ought to list what the event would be maybe. For
example, mobile home. Right now you' re looking at the ordinance, temporary
and mobile home. How do you define, how did we in the past , even without
these, how did we define what temporary was on that mobile home in the A-1
and A-2 district?
Olsen : It would have to meet all the requirements of a single family
IL residence that' s permanent. It has to have the foundation .
Erhart : Here we say temporary and mobile home. In the existing ordinance
' Jo Ann.
Olsen : It could be mobile home. We allow those at like for the real
' estate homes. Their offices .
Erhart : That ' s another item here.
' Olsen : And we also allow temporary trailers . If someone is building their
house but they need to live on the site until the house is built. Are you
looking in the A-2 district?
' Erhart : For example the A-2, your temporary real estate office. That ' s
listed as a separate thing.
! Emmings : As a permitted use.
Erhart : As a permitted use . I 'm assuming in the A-2 district that under
existing ordinance, that if you have a 2 1/2 acre lot, you can put a mobile
home there because of the way it' s written . Is there anyplace in the
ordinance that says that temporary is until you build a permanent house?
Olsen : No .
Erhart : So really if somebody wanted to push the issue , they could come in
here and set up a mobile home on one of these 2 1/2 acre lots. Do you read
it that way?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 34
Olsen : They have to go through the conditional use permit .
Erhart: Oh, it does say temporary. Well, anyway the solution is, of
course with our new thing and I 'm just saying, I guess what I 'm leading toll
is if we're going to list these, then we ought to say okay, a mobile home
is an interim use for the purpose of building a temporary living space
until the permanent home is built up to a period of 18 months or something
like that. I guess that' s where I 'm coming from.
Olsen: Specific conditions? ,
Erhart : Yes , actually suggest the condition in this . I don' t know if we
want to take this far. You' re suggesting that one possibility is not to
list anything?
Olsen : Right. That ' s the way it was before and really it works the best
because you never know what' s going to happen and it' s always nice and '
everyone gives a good reason for that and sometimes you wish that you did
have that you could do that.
Conrad : Yes but the planning , the general . It' s a real good point. To I
kind of define a general context under which interim might be granted.
Olsen : These would still be there. We just wouldn' t specify which ones II
would be. . .
Batzli : Can you phrase it so that you' re specifying but not limiting II yourself to that? Does that help you at all? Then the one that you are
specifying , setting it in the context of conditions under which you'd allow
it? Put that much time and work into it. In advance. Be proactive.
Conrad : It ' s hard to read how this fits with the other ordinances because
this is if we want to grant a temporary use. That we do have the control
of not granting it period but I don ' t know under what conditions we would
grant and would not grant. That' s what Tim is saying. Let' s define those
conditions which is a lot of work when you get real specific because you' ve
got to try to, it' s nice to be general to give us some leeway because we II
can ' t, as Jo Ann said , we can ' t be that smart to figure out all the
conditions yet if you don' t lay it out, then we have no guidelines
whatsoever .
Erhart : Any amount of time or what the event is?
Batzli : It would be under the conditional use permit test standards. Whal
you'd base it on.
Olsen : We would have the general standards here. '
Erhart: An example of the church in the industrial park, there is no
conditional use .
Olsen: We gave it to them.
■
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 35
C
IErhart : But is church listed in the industrial area at all?
' Olsen: It is .
Erhart : Maybe you' re right then .
' Olsen : If you do it this way, these are the uses that you would feel
comfortable with having interim. All others you wouldn' t allow at all .
' Erhart : I 'm not comfortable with the list either . What we've got yet.
Olsen: But I agree, if we have a specific list you should have specific
conditions. . .all the time with conditional uses and it ' s very helpful to
have that. So I think the decision tonight is whether or not you want to
keep it real general or do you want to go specific .
' Batzli : I personally think on a temporary use it should be general . You
don' t know what ' s going to come in.
IErhart : If it starts being a problem we can get more specific with it.
Conrad: So it' s totally at our whim?
Batzli : Yes . Are we in accordance with 232 guidelines for general
standards for conditional use permits .
' Erhart : Do we at least want to list the uses that we would consider as
interim uses, like Jo Ann' s got down now?
IBatzli : You mean like the following are examples?
Erhart: Interim uses. Churches. Mineral extraction. Mobile homes .
' Olsen : That might make it harder though too . I odn' t know. I can talk to
Roger_ but if you had churches down but you didn' t agree that this was what
you wanted to give interim use to. . . I don ' t know if that would make it more
' difficult.
Emmings : What would make somebody want a temporary one? A temporary
conditional use permit rather than just a conditional use permit? One
reason would be because in the area you' re in , you can' t get a conditional
use permit.
Batzli : It' s not a permitted or a conditional use .
Emmings : Another reason would be we want to be in this area but we' re
going to be using , like a church , where we ' re using a different building .
We could have a church in this area but we' re going to be using another
building because in 5 years we know we' re going to have a church out here
Ir so we say okay you can do this for 5 years . It' s limited by the person
themselves . Mineral extraction is different . A guy who ' s got a gravel pit
probably knows how many years of production are there and it' s sort of self
i
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 36 '
limiting anyway. Once he takes all the gravel , it' s done. There' s a who"
bunch of different reasons. I think you want to keep it real general ,
because the person is going to come in asking for the temporary. We' re not
going to decide whether it' s going to be a temporary permit . '
Batzli : Staff might .
Emmings : Whatever . When he sees the staff but if he ' s looking to put in
permanent conditional use. If he's just asking straight for a conditional
use permit, he has to meet the Code. So it ' s only when he' s going to come
in and ask for , Jo Ann' s going to say to them well maybe you could get a
temporary. He' s going to suggest it or they' re going to ask for it or it'
going to be something that's self limiting so I don't think we have to try
and anticipate who' s going to be asking for these. They're going to come I
and ask for them. We've had them in the past. There was a woman who
wanted to have a book store in her house until she found another place and
it wasn't permitted in that area. Remember? That' s an example. The II church in the IOP is another example. They just wanted to do that on a
temporary basis. I think the cases will be clear when they come and I
think they' re absolutely impossible to anticipate .
Conrad: But let' s take that bookstore. It conforms to the zoning
regulations which is one of the standards. That one would not fit .
Olsen: They wouldn' t be, I think it was more of the setbacks if they were!'
going to build a temporary road or something . . .they would be meeting the
zoning. This is the other one like setbacks .
Conrad : Do we need to be clearer on that?
Olsen: Yes but I can check .
Batzli : Well that' s part of the law. The governing body may grant
permission for an interim use of property if the use conforms to the zonin
regulations , whatever that means .
Erhart: Here ' s the problem without listing it is as an interim use . I
want to build a hotel on my property and I come in here and I come in with"
just a wonderful proposal to build a 37 floor hotel and bring billions of
dollars into the City of Chanhassen. The Planning Commission can look at
that and say it' s not in our Code but we can make it an interim use . Now
that' s really far out but it really, without listing those things that
could be allowed as interim uses , it really opens up to Planning Commission
almost allowing anything .
Emmings : But if you list them and somebody wants one where it ' s prefectly'
reasonable Tim, then can you deny them?
Erhart: Yes , because here' s the problem I have. We just spent a lot of I
effort eliminating contractor 's yards and I think we all agreed that was a
good zoning change. I think Jo Ann would like to have us eliminate minera
extraction, which I agree 100%. As soon as we don't list them, somebody
can walk in here and say well gee I want a contractor ' s yard and I 'm only
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 37
1(7 going to have it for 10 years so I 'd like to have an interim use for a
contractor 's yard. All the work we' ve done is just been thrown out the
door . It might come in and look like a reasonable proposal so we give him
' an interim use for a contractor 's yard and we' ve got to sit here and go
through that discussion with that guy and argue in front of him and his
family. He' ll bring in all the kids and show why we shouldn' t give him an
interim use for a contractor ' s yard .
' Olsen : Where ' s that ' s applying right now like Dave Stockdale ' s case where
it would be a temporary conditional use so he wouldn' t have to put in the
' concrete curb and gutter and make certain improvements where it ' s going to
be. . .
Emmings : But he' s in the IOP. Tim is concerned with somebody coming in
the A-2 but there they wouldn' t conform to the zoning regulations then.
Erhart : If you don ' t have any regulations on this interim use , what zoning
' ordinances are you referring to?
Olsen : I ' ll have to check into that. Is there a number 3 in there too?
' Erhart: Right now today, there is nothing .
Olsen : Number 3, the use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning
district. Is that in there too?
Conrad : Yes .
' Batzli : It reads , the governing body may grant permission for an interim
use of property if: then the first phrase is if the use conforms to the
' zoning regulations . I don' t know what that means in the Statute .
Olsen: Number 3 where it makes it sound like when we do have to be
specific .
' Batzli : Yes it does . Number 3 , upon change which renders the use
non-conforming, that one?
Olsen : Number 3 on ours where it says , the use is allowed as an interim
use in the zoning district.
11 Batzli : No .
Erhart : Why don' t we just start out with a real short list that we ' re
' comfortable with.
Conrad : A list of what?
Erhart: Interim uses in every zone.
r Conrad : By zone?
L
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 38
Erhart : Yes . Just start out with a real short list and then as we get
experienced with it, you' ll have to say okay, that' s a good idea.
Batzli : But the problem is people are going to come in and ask for it and,
it won' t be on the list so they can't possibly get it.
Emmings : Then they' ll have to do a zoning amendment .
Erhart: At least we start conservatively. I 'm afraid we' re just going to
open this thing up.
Olsen: We really only have a few.
Emmings : But Tim is right . Here' s the thing . You' ve got a rat in the II maze and you' re opening another door . You've giving him another thing to
run down. The contractor ' s yards, his notion about contractor ' s yards, the
guy coming in in the A-2 and saying I just want to do this for 10 years is
really likely to happen . He knows he can' t get one there as a permitted o
conditional use so why not try for an interim conditional use. At least h
knows he can operate for 10 years .
Batzli : Did you just subtly shift your position from what you just said 5'
minute ago?
Emmings : Probably. I think it' s a real concern. '
Batzli : You've gone from general to specific now right?
Emmings: No .
Batzli : You' ve changed your mind .
Emmings : No . I think it should be kept general . I guess I 'm still along
that line but I guess there' s something more to defining when you' re going
to use this or what kind of things it' s going to be used for without namin
I 'm trying to get at it in a more general sense of why do we want t
an interim use at all . I can' t put my finger on it but I think maybe
there should be a sentence in there that states that this may not be used II
to circumvent general zoning policies by, I don' t know.
Batzli : A policy statement of what this should be used for in the positivi
sense.
Conrad : What we' re missing in this whole document is an intent section an
that' s really clear that we' re missing that. All of this would be resolve
if we showed the intent of what we' re trying to do here. That would
discuss impact on neighbors. Impact on this so sometimes we might allow
something that we might normally do provided that we see that there would
not be a major , significant impact on this and that. That we' re not tryin
to . I think we need that statement or statements .
Emmings: Then you can keep it general . Then you don' t have to be
specific . Plus you' ve got this down here, conforms to the zoning
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 39
1(7 regulations so I think when the guy comes in the A-2 and says he wants one
for a contractor 's yard, you say hey we banned them in everything but the
IOP, you can ' t do it.
' Erhart : But if he makes a good presentation, he ' s got the kids up here and
you've got 4 guys or girls to say in the report it's positive because the
guy' s nice and he ' s worked with staff . You' re going to end up with a
' contractor ' s yard because you had the hole to do it. Then as soon as you
get one , then you can ' t deny the next guy. It becomes difficult. I 'm just
more comfortable that we list them but we start with a short list.
' Batzli : Or you could just start with a list of things that absolutely
aren't allowed. Contractor 's yard , mineral extraction.
Erhart : See I think you start out with, in the first place you already
have one. That's mobile homes that' s listed as a temporary use but it' s
not very well defined because you used the word temporary. Now we can move
' that one out of the conditional use and move it into this interim use. The
second thing is this mineral extraction. I think you've got , have we seen
your proposal to eliminate mineral extraction or is that coming or what?
Olsen : It ' s ongoing .
Erhart : Well maybe we can' t quite all get an agreement to say we should
eliminate mineral extraction but maybe what we can get an agreement is that
we move it into the interim use category. I think it gives us one more
tool to work with in trying to come to a ground where we have a consensus .
' I think that category give us that . That ' s two arguments why I think it
ought to be listed. One is to prevent us getting into this emotional
discussion in a group here in front of the public on just deciding based on
' how nice the guy is. Whether we provide an interim use. The second thing,
it allows us to move some things out of the conditional use area where we
can' t get a consensus to eliminate it completely but at least we can put
more control on it.
Olsen : I ' ll work on an intent section and check out some of these that we
have questions on and see how we deny them.
' Batzli : Could you also check on exactly what that means about conforming
to the zoning regulations? Check with Roger_ .
' Olsen: Yes .
Batzli : Because obviously it' s not going to get us very far if all that ' s
' allowed are things that would be permitted uses in that zoning area. Then
this whole thing is . . .
Conrad: Yes, then it's a waste.
Erhart : Which one are you looking at?
1r Olsen: 2.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 40
Erhart: Conforms to the zoning . Well , I interpret that to mean that it
conforms to the zoning regulations as defined for that particular use. To I
me that ' s what that item 2 says . So for an example, contractor 's yards is
still listed in the IOP and it's got all these conditions in it so if you II
give it a temporary use in the A-2, it has to conform to those things
listed in the IOP. That's what item 2 says.
Conrad : No , I couldn ' t accept that . '
Emmings : Well it' s ambiguous . It could mean that or it could mean that it
conforms to the regulations . . .
Conrad : You'd have to apply the zoning requirements of that zone to it.
Not of another zone. You couldn' t extract it from another . It would have
to meet. It ' s a use not contemplated for that district but we' ll grant it'
temporarily provided it meets the other standards in that district of the
zone . II Batzli : Well there must be some legislative history for what that means .
I think Roger probably has a handle on it .
Erhart : At the same time look at item 3 too . It says what does it mean II
the use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district.
Conrad: I guess I don ' t want to see uses defined . The different types
because it' s almost like, I don' t know. I have a real problem with
defining some of these things. It ' s like advertising for them and although
you' re trying to put a constraint on, I 'm more interested in the- intent . I
Batzli : Yes , I 'd rather see 5 different intent statements , one for each
district and avoid doing a laundry list of things that we permit and
wouldn't permit necessarily.
Conrad : So if we can be real good in the intent, I think we can get rid o.
these. My only other comments, do you have more comments Tim?
Erhart : Let ' s see . Just do me a favor , leave contractor ' s yards out of
any list. That' s it. '
Batzli : In Section 20-381. Number 1. Do we want to say the date or event
stated in the permit?
Olsen : Sure.
Conrad : Under that same one , 20-381 it says it will terminate upon a II violation. Point number 2. It sounds like there' s not a process . It is
automatically terminated without a review. Is there a review process?
That' s the other thing that I didn' t see here was a re-application process "
or a due process for termination and I assume we can' t just say you
violated it. It' s gone.
Batzli : Well it' s the difference between it being void and voidable. Doe
it happen automatically upon violation?
Plwnning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 41
Conrad : I don ' t think we can do that. Saying you violated it, your permit
is gone. I wouldn' t feel good about the process. Would you? You've got a
' major contractor ' s yard sitting there and you' re just going to zap it? I
think there' s got to be a process. Okay, anything else?
Emmings : There ' s 20-381 . When Brian first said that , I looked over on the
' other page. There' s a 20-381 on each page. Do you have them all right?
Is there something misnumbered there?
Olsen: You lost me.
Emmings: Go to the page where they' re talking about 20-381, termination.
Then the other page there' s a 20-382, application. And I 'm for keeping it
general also .
Conrad : Okay, anything else tonight?
Emmings : You suggested something , somebody did about specifically saying
in there that, and it might go right in the intent section that an example
' of an interim use which would not be allowed is a contractor ' s yard in
anything other than the IOP. You might use that as a specific example to
satisfy Tim and to gives folks an idea of what we' re doing .
Erhart: It ' s not just contractor 's yards . Maybe you want to put a gas
station down on Pioneer Road and TH 101 and all the neighbors came up here
and said yes , we'd really like a gas station there.
Emmings : No , it doesn' t conform to the zoning though. I think that ' s what
that number 3 is getting to. Number 2 is going to get us around that.
' Olsen : I ' ll get clarification on that .
' Batzli : My only question was , why did everything get deleted from the
agenda tonight?
Olsen: Kurt Laughinghouse , they couldn' t make up their mind whether or not
' they wanted to do it. Now I don' t think that they' re going to. Vinland,
because they did not get us revised plans in time. For them to come back
onto the agenda after being tabled, they would have needed the plans that
' day essentially. Anyway so Vinland didn' t get it in until last week. Oak
View Heights , the Park and Rec Commission required 4 acres of parkland so
we' re back to square one with that . They' re going back to the Park
Commission to see what they can work out.
Emmings : It all comes down to the same thing . It ' s just too much .
' Batzli : And that' s in part, correct me if I 'm wrong on the density on that
one, did they still count that wetlands on that particular one? Would the
net versus gross density have an effect on that particular application?
Olsen : Yes . Argue Development , the plan were just incomplete . So the
19th we were shooting for to have, it was going to be empty for the Comp
I
Planning Commission Meeting ,
July 5, 1989 - Page 42
Plan but now it' s booked again .
Conrad : Well don' t keep us too late because we only had 3 items tonight
and it' s already 10: 00. But sometimes we do get to thinking and we
actually do pay attention to issues .
Batzli : It' s nicer to consider these types of things at 9: 30 rather than
11: 30.
Olsen : That ' s why I threw it on. I' ll get the City Council update to you.
Conrad: Mail it out will you?
Olsen: They did approve Stockdale though, I ' ll tell you that one. The
variance. They did give him the variance to curb and gutter . That was
really the only thing .
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor II
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 45 p.m. .
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Asst. City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
I
•1