CC Minutes 1994 11 28CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman
Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, Sharmin A1-Jaff, John Rask,
and Steve Kirchman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the agenda as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution #94-121: Reinitiate Feasibility Study for Powers Boulevard (CR 17) Improvement Project 93-29
(Carver County Cooperative Project)
c. Designate West 78th Street (from Powers Boulevard to Kerber Boulevard) as an Urban District Roadway
with a Speed Limitation of 30 mph, Project 92-3.
d. Resolution #94-122: Accept Utility Improvements in Shenandoah Ridge, Project 93-3.
e. Resolution #94-123: Accept Utility Improvements in The Meadows at Long Acres, Project 94-7.
g. Approve One Year Extension for Wetland Alteration Approval, Mark and Kathy Sanda, 1685 Steller Court.
h. Approval of Bills.
j. Resolution #94-124: Resolution Authorizing Advanced Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF)
Application Submittal, Holasek Property.
k. Amendment to City Code Relating to the Control and Prevention of Dutch Elm Disease and Other Arboreal
Diseases within the City, Final Reading; and Approval of a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
1. Resolution #94-125: Accept Public Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 9th
Addition, Project 93-5.
All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
F. APPROVE GAMBLING PERMIT REOUEST, CHANHASSEN LION'S CLUB.
Councilwoman Dockcndorf: I wanted to pull (f), which is a gambling permit request for Chanhassen Lion's just
so I can vote against it. So if someone else would like to move it, that would be fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I will .move that particular item. Is there a second?
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #94-126: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Gambling Permit
Request for the Chanhassen Lion's Club. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Doekendorf who opposed,
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
L APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: I believe I ~vas present at the City Council Minutes dated November 9th.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that correction being made, can we have an approval of item (i).
Councilwoman Dockendoff moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Minutes:
City Council Minutes dated November 9, 1994 as amended.
City Council Minutes dated November 14, 1994.
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 25, 1994.
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated November 10, 1994.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
REOUEST TO RECONSIDER PRELIMINARY SITE GRADING, SHAMROCK RIDGE DEVELOPMENT,
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND THE LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION.
Mayor Chmiel: I've already called for item number 2 and we're ready to move. I know that I said it may be
about 7:45 but it seems like things are moving a little quicker than I expected. Kate, is there anything that
you'd like to say prior to that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you. This item was brought back for the staff based on a reconsideration that was
directed to us at your November 14th City Council meeting. Specifically you requested that the applicants, Ed
and Mary Ryan review the grading plan because you were concerned about the amount of grading that was
proposed with the subdivision. We met, the staff met with Bill Engelhardt, Chuck Plowe, the applicant's
engineer and their attorney on Wednesday, November 16th to review some of the issues that we felt were the
Council's directive to the staff and to the applicant. We' gave them some options that we felt may reduce the
grading and asked Bill Engelhardt to review those options. The applicant did provide some alternatives to the
plat, which you have copies of the three sheets that were requested and Bill Engelhardt did review those when
he met with their engineer, Chuck Plowe on November 21st. You have a copy of Mr. Engelhardt's letter to me
as he reviewed the plat and it kind of concurs with what we said all along. Based on the density that was given
to this site, as far as the design parameters, there wasn't a lot of flexibility. If you take from one, try to preserve
a knoll in one area, you actually push and cut into another knoll and it sununarizes in this, in the fourth
paragraph of Bill's letter where he says everyone knows this site is difficult not only because of the elevations
but also because of the balancing of the dirt on the site. As you reduce cuts in one area, additional cuts are also
required in other areas and that's kind of what we felt all along. To take it and save in one area, you're going to
do excessive cutting or filling in another area. Based on that we asked, in the meeting that we did have back on
the Wednesday, November 16th, we also asked the applicant if they felt this was the best design. That they
2
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
needed to do a better job of explaining that to the Council. Unfortunately, that wasn't given to you in the
packet but the applicant did mail you a letter explaining those reasons. The Mayor was also, had agreed to meet
with the applicant and that meeting was held on November 23rd. Dave Hempel, myself, Ed Ryan and Chuck
Plowe met again to review the alternatives. The three sheets that you have and also to see if there was another
way to minimize the grading on the site, which is the big issue. We felt that there was one alternative that
could be considered. We did find out, as they have done further research in the plat, that there is some poor
soils adjacent to the wetland and we felt like, because of the poor soils there, that maybe additional lots could
be eliminated and that would also reduce maybe some cutting and filling. And so we gave that suggestion to
the applicant and asked them to give that some consideration and that's basically where we left the meeting so
the plat is at a stand. We feel, and it's concurred by Bill Engelhardt that trying to do alternative designs really,
when we have different designs with the cuts and fills would pretty much be equal. So we turned it over after
our meeting, just asked the applicants to give consideration to maybe dropping a couple lots. That would be
one may to really to minimize, really only the way to minimize some of the excess cutting and filling. That's
all I had.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Would the applicant, Mr. Plowe.
Chuck Plowe: Your Honor, members of the Council, my name is Chuck Plowe. I'm project engineer for Ed
and Mar), Ryan. This is the original plan that was presented... I won't go through the issues of moving Lake
Lucy Road as I think Kate covered it pretty well...reiterate that but if there's any questions or any details you
want to see clearer on that... Let me go right to what we are looking at as far as making some adjustments to
look at reducing some grading. The highlighted lines, this is just a...copy of the preliminary plat that was
approved with the change shoxvn that we're proposing in this area here. We end up with now 15 lots rather than
17 on Block 1. We're proposing to change Mary Way to a private drive which in itself will reduce some of the
grading. We'll remove the cul-de-sac street and removing Lot 7 and making Lots 5 and 6 larger, which is a
fairly significant change in the grading as well. Removing Lot 3 and making Lots... Essentially what does
happen with that, the edge of the grading limits are changed by this amount. And up within this area that I'm
not showing, the fills are reduced quite a bit so I'm just showing you the edge of the fill slope that's being
pulled back. But in addition to that, we're reducing the fills up in this area and in this area. Also we have
raised the grades behind Lots, well I guess now they're Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9. They were 8, 9, 10 and 11, and
reduce the cut in this area by probably...As Kate had mentioned, there are some soils within this area down here
that are marginal. We fully intended to maintain those lots as you do the slope corrections on those lots but
looking at it further, we recognize there could be significant grading to two of those lots so that's what we chose
to do. I have other dra~vings that will show the amounts of fill in this area prior to the change and the amounts
of fill after. I do have the red line cut/fills. If you'd like to see those, I could show those to you. We would
like to make this change contingent on this being the extent ~f the changes that we make on the plan. So if you
would like to see any other cut/fill drawings, I do have them with me.
Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe if you'd do that please.
Chuck Plowe: I have to bring them up closer because they're kind of hard to see from a distance. This is the
original plan. This is the land as it's proposed to be changed. The biggest, you can see that this fill has been
pulled in considerably. Here's the reference line. This line down here. The same line. We're not showing the
pond down there but if you look at this line here, you can see the closeness of the fill. This fill actually comes
down in here and got cut off a little bit. But the 14 fill line is quite a bit smaller and you can see the...is quite
large. Over here again we were up to the 14 foot fill and 12 foot fill...so we have to pull those back away from
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
this line... And we had some cuts back in this area. I guess they were up to the 16 feet and now they're at 12
feet. Back in this back yard. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: You said from 16 feet to 12 feet?
Chuck Plowe: 16 feet to 12 feet. So we've'reduced some of the cuts and reduced some of the fills... We've
also looked at moving Lake Lucy Road further to the south and essentially what happens when I did that is that
I pushed the fill slope that we have here further, increased the fill and also pushed them further towards the
wetland. And also what happens to us is that the house pads are pushed into the marsh so trying to move Lake
Lucy Road further south caused a real problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I wouldn't want that road on those soils either. Okay. Are there any questions?
Michael.
Councilman Mason: No. No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, do you have any questions?
Councilman Senn: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess when we had discussed this the first time my understanding was that the
extent of the cut and fill was directly related to Lake Lucy. Not necessarily?
Kate Aanenson: It's one of the factors but really the only way to accomplish preservation of this, we looked at
other alignments of Lake Lucy and we directed them to do another alignment where we would come in and
swing along that first knoll. But what happens is, you take the 'knoll that's further north so you compromise one
area to save another and that's what we've always felt in looking at this. The best way would be to come off
the top.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You've just got to balance it off, right?
Kate Aanenson: Right. Because you're saving that knoll but then you're digging deeper into another.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And is that just to keep the same among of soil on the piece of property?
Kate Aanenson: Well there's a lot of issues. A lot of it's the density that was given for the lot. The lot size.
Just the design constraints of the wetland. And Lake Lucy meeting, it's all summarized really in his letter that
he mailed to you. A lot of the issues.
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Could we achieve the same kind of mitigation to cutting and filling if we
did the same lot reductions to the north or to the east of where we're doing it here? Or would be a significant?
I can't tell whether it's significant or not.
Kate Aanenson: Preservation?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. It's not extensive to me. And would the same thing be accomplished if we
reduced lot size?
Kate Aanenson: Could you accomplish more preservation?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right.
Kate Aanenson: That's the only way you could do it but at what would that point be, I don't know. That
question came up the first time. Would it be losing 4 lots.'? Would it be losing, I'm not sure because you have
to get access. You have to get a public street. And would there be...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My point is, when I came away from the last meeting I thought reducing lot size
would not accomplish anything. I thought it was all tied to the road alignment and that's why I was not happy
but satisfied with what we had done. Because nothing.
Kate Aanenson: Well you can't have front facing lots. There's a lot of factors. When it's a collector street, you
can't have front facing lots. That complicates it. There's a lot of other issues so yeah, if this would have been
given a rural 2 1/2 acre density, could you preserve more of the slopes? Certainly.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But not given it's current history?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that's the framework we were working under so but that doesn't mean they
certainly couldn't have proposed something different.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we're, just to reiterate, when you're talking about balancing out the cuts and
fills, it's in order to keep all the current material on the property as opposed to having the trucks and all.
Kate Aanenson: Well yes and no. I mean some of it has to do with the fact that you have to have certain street
grades. You're trying to provide a design that meets our storm water criteria. Provides ponding and direct it on
the street into the storm sewer system. Some of it has tO do 'with the constraints as far as street grades. House
pads, driveways, all those issues.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Mike.
Councilman Mason: How much has the grading changed because of this? Excavation and fill.
Kate Aanenson: From what he just showed tonight?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
5
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Kate Aanenson: I haven't seen it specifically~ Charles and I haven't seen it. He just presented it tonight. Now
in looking at it, we directed them that we felt that would be when we met with them on Wednesday, we
directed them because we felt that would be a good faith effort to show because we felt that would be an area
that you could preserve. There was a lot of fill. That was an area of significant fill adjacent to the wetland.
Whether you can constitute that as significant, that's up to you to decide. It seems like they're making an effort
to try to preserve some more of the topography. There's no way you can develop that without some cutting and
filling based on that density so I think what we believed the objective was given to staff was try to reduce that.
And I guess that's what he was showing you is that he's trying to reduce that.
Councilman Mason: Good, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: Don can I just, throughout this whole issue we seemed to be struggling with intent
statements and as I met with Roger, he gave a rather clear explanation to me of intent statements and intent
statements are quite romantic and they try to capture the rainbow. And they want to preserve and we use words
like topography and density, hills, knolls, bluffs, but then we go from the intent statement down to reality which
is the body of the ordinance that has the specifics so the intent statement only sets up an intent but then the
actual, oh now I'm losing my, I'm not going to call on you to restate this.
Roger Knutson: You're doing a much better job than I did.
Councilman Wing: So I guess my only suggestion of the Council in '5 is that if this continues to be a problem,
that you may want to look realistically at the intent statement of this ordinance and then get into the specifics or
the body of the ordinance and maybe you want to discuss topography and density and hills, knolls and bluffs
and do we in fact want to save the topography of this land. And if we do, then we're going to have more in the
body of the ordinance that specifies what you can cut and what you can't. How much slope you can take and
maybe get in to better definitions here so the developer-owner has a better idea of where we're going but then
the Council and Planning Commission has more specifics and numbers to work with because I think they've had
the developers-owners rights here and our desire to enforce an intent statement without the body to really do it
and hence the confusion. Planning Commission wanting to do what's best and difficult issues so, from the
philosophical side, the bigger picture, I think there's some questions that need to be answered to avoid this in
the future.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess that the meeting that we had last Wednesday was to try to meet some of
Council's directions and providing a bit of a change Within the Shamrock Ridge development. I know originally
from xvhat had come in, there were 5 lots that were dropped. Now there's an additional 2 lots, is that correct
Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: That we have come down from with that. By making the other lots a little larger, by
eliminating Lot 7 and splitting those between Lots 5 and 6, does a certain amount of that. Also for the fact that
there's also a 16 foot to 12 foot cut difference still not probably meeting all expectations of everyone who are in
and adjacent to this proposed development. But it looks like from sitting there and having our discussions and
it looked like we were at sort of a stalemate and I do appreciate the fact that you've come in with something a
little bit more than what we finalized last Wednesday. And I think we're getting to a point that I think Mike
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
brought out, was to consider some modifications to the plat and minimize the grading. Moving that road a little
more so from existing location would put that into soils that would be not acceptable for roadway as well. And
I don't want the city to pick that up and absorb those additional costs either. I can understand and also
understanding the mere fact that for a couple of those lots, it also affects them because of those soils. I guess
one of the things that was brought up was the fact that depending upon total amount of soils that are taken out
of there, which would be up in the 20 some tons of cubic yards of dirt that would have to be removed, as
opposed to putting back the soils that would be acceptable and also then putting foundations in for those
particular homes would become rather costly because it takes 1/3 more additional soils to put into what you've
taken out to have a certain amount of correction. But there again you don't know how far that goes down and
by putting footings into that respective lots for foot pads or whatever they're going to build, would eliminate
some of those problems and some of the concerns I had is some of the problems that we had within the city a
few years ago where a few homes started sinking and it was because of poor soils. And finally after sitting
down with the contractor, he did buy the home back and took care of those soils and rebuilt another new home
on that particular lot and I keep looking at that one specifically and it appears as though there's no given
problems with it and I'm not going to say where it was because then we'd get people all excited who live there
but from all I see, those corrections have taken place. But it boils right back to where we're at right now. I
think Council's decision making was to see if somehow that plat could have some minimized additional grading
and I think that's what you brought up at the time Michael. Is there any other discussion? Okay.
Councilman Senn: What do we need to do? I mean do we need to reaffirm our previous decision with the
grading modifications? o
Mayor Chmiel: That is part of it that we're going to have to do to accept what you either have seen before you
now this evening as well. And if you feel comfortable enough with what has been discussed and the
determination as to which way we go. Yes.
Jerome Carlson: I realize this is not a public hearing but I would ask the Council to...before you vote.
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Would you like to step forward?
Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin. One of the interesting threads that I've noticed has been the
notion that because someone applies for x number of lots, that anything you do that reduces that number, I've
heard the words time and again, we are taking away. There are no lots there today except one. This is clearly a
piece of property that should not be intensely developed. There should not be a dense development on this
property. The intent of the ordinance is clear, and I think there's no question in anyone's mind that the intent is
stated quite clearly to preserve steep slopes. I find it iust very, very interesting if you think about how often
you've heard and maybe thought yourself, gee they applied for this many. Now we're taking the lots away.
Away from what? You didn't create the land. You're merely trying to be the stewards of it. There are no lots
there now except one. That land should not have density that is proposed because it destroys much of what the
intent is to preserve. I don't understand or follow the need to provide, based upon the original application, X
number of lots against the total. And if someone comes back and reduces the number of lots by 5 or 2 or 7 on
40 to 50 lots, on a property that clearly should not be developed in that manner based upon the intent of our
own ordinance. I would request that the city look at the intent and compare it to what is actually going to
occur. I don't believe legally or any other way this city is compelled to provide a given number of lots on any
particular piece of property if it violates the intent as clearly stated by the ordinance. That is how you preserve
and that is how you diminish some of the grading. Cut down on the density. The land is full of steep slopes.
You've all seen it. That I think staff has said tonight, I've heard density, density, density. The current density is
7
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
the problem. I believe everybody understands that is the problem. And because the applicant came with a
proposal for 47 or 52 lots or whatever it was, I don't feel you should have an obligation or feet an obligation to
come close to that number or if it's reduced by 7 or 8 or 9, then it's okay if it doesn't fit the terrain and the
topography of the land. I do appreciate Mr. Mayor your allowing me this opportunity. Sincerely. I realize
you didn't have to do that. Thank you.
Sam Mancino: I also appreciate the opportunity to address the Council. Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Boulevard.
I don't believe that there's a lot of new information that's been provided on this property other than to say that
throughout the process the owner/developer has presented in essence a singular plan with a series of small
incremental changes because it, in their opinion, wasn't in their best interest to show a good faith alternative that
took the land into account. I would submit that the same document in the comprehensive plan that suggests
future zoning as residential single family, at that density also provides you the language of intent statements and
you have ordinances that contradict, I think this is a clear place where you have a conflict. It wasn't anticipated
in the comprehensive plan and I don't believe this property should be zoned to that density or should be
negotiated in a way that violates the terrain the way it does. I think to encourage a process that has a developer
basically showing you a singular plan and bringing in last minute small incremental changes without proper time
to review, shouldn't be accepted. You should be stewards...thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay. Any other questions Council may have.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have a comment. I think Sam you hit the nail on the head. The land is
improperly zoned, and I feel more than I did the last time we looked at it, that my hands are tied and I 'know
that sounds very powerless and we are the final authority, and it does feel powerless. However, that is the way
the land was zoned and the Ryan's are alloxved to benefit from that zoning I guess is where I'm sitting. It's
going to be just as tough as it was the first time around.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else? If seeing no other discussion, I would call a question reaffirming.
Councilman Senn: The question is reaffirming with the changes?
Mayor Chmiel: Correct. Reaffirming as to what with the proposed changes to be made to be implemented into
the platting for the development and preserving some of those, or minimize the grading in the areas that they
have brought forward this evening.
Councilman Senn: You need a motion to that I take it?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: So moved.
Councilman Mason: I will second that.
Mayor Chmiel: A motion and a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to reaffirm the previous motion for Shamrock Ridge
Development noting the grading changes presented by the applicant showing the removal of 2 lots. All voted in
favor, except Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Wing who opposed, and the motion carded with a vote of 3 to 2.
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to oppose this also if I can make a statement. I personally find
myself respecting the applicants and they've been very respectful to me but I do feel that the night I voted I was
felt under extreme pressure at last minute changes and I hated to turn my back on the Planning Commission. I
think that's why maybe tonight just wishing to make this statement. They were very decisive in their statements
that this was the worst they had seen in 12 years and that it was tampering with the land kind of hit home. And
I agree, Colleen hit it on the head. I think our hands are tied and I think it's a zoning issue and perhaps the
Council will or will not address it in the future. But I do, just for the record, the comments made by Jerome
Carlson represents where I stand on the use of land and the lot size and the way to do this is to change the
density and that would be through zoning so, with his comments already on the record I'll just say ditto to that
and thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Next item.
Jerome Carlson: Mr. Mayor, what was the vote? That wasn't clear.
Mayor Chmiel: It was 3 to 2.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF 1.87 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. 6:t30 MURRY HILL
ROAD. HOBENS WILD WOOD FARMS 1ST ADDITION, HOBEN CORPORATION.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: This item first appeared before the Planning Commission on October 19th, 1994. The
proposal showed 1.87 acres that was going to be subdivided into 4 parcels and was going to be served by a
private street. The majority of the neighbors that appeared at the meeting seemed very concerned with the
density of 4 homes on that parcel. The applicant took the plan back and revised them. Basically took the 1.87
acres, divided it into 3 parcels. Eliminated the private street. The average lot size is 27,211 square feet. The
density is 1.6 units per acre. It exceeds all of the requirements of the ordinance. Access to this site will be
provided via Murray Hill Road and Sommergate. There is an existing single family home and detached garage
that are proposed to be removed and new homes will be built. It's truly a very simple, straight forward
subdivision and we are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. There is one minor
correction on page 10. Condition number 14. On the third line. Driveway access to Lot 3 rather than Lot 1.
With that we're recommending approval, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is there anything in addition to that that the developer would like to
present to what Sharmin has already indicated?
Jim Hoben: Not really...did bring this larger...This is Murray Hill Road...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So what's happened here basically is another lot has been dropped from this particular
development?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Exactly.
Mayor Chmiel: And some of the concerns I think that the neighbors had the last time with all the cars coming
off onto that same road, and now with the changes that are shown, we have two of those proposed lots exiting
onto Murray Hill with the other exiting on what street was that?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Sommergate.
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there anyone here this evening who was here at the last meeting wishing to say
anything? Seeing none, is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: I have a question real quick. Condition 1. No offense but why are we getting that specific?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's just a standard.
Councilman Senn: In the second place, those aren't being the best methods to use.
Kate Aanenson: That's in all of them.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, maybe I'm just finally picking a bone with it but I mean to say that those two
practices are better than all the other practices out there, I guess we're requiring it in here?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: It's a standard condition we've always required. Charles, do you have any comments
regarding?
Kate Aanenson: It's from the Best Management Practices that the City adopted. So unless there's another
alternative that's acceptable under the Best Management Practice, that would be acceptable. Otherwise... same
thing.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so they're not self limiting to these two?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, unless there was something else that would be an equal practice that's acceptable.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions of staff?. Anyone have any other questions? Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: As an addendum to condition number 2, I assume we're saving all the cottonwoods
and the black walnuts and all that other stuf~
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. One thing, the two cottonwoods located right here, the applicant has shown the house
pad over them but revised the plan later on and I believe it's shown on this plan to where both trees will be
saved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And do we have a penalty in here if they die within a couple years?
Sharmin AloJaff: We'll keep an eye on them.
Councilman Senn: I don't have a question. I have a comment I'd like to... I think this one is really different
than the one we reviewed previously with Shamrock. I guess I don't agree with all the statements that were
made. I think most of the cause there was the road but in looking at this and then looking back at the number,
I'm not going to say a number, all of the residential subdivisions that have come through here in recent history.
It seems like every single one of them, one of the major points of accomplishing the same thing, which is
reducing the number of lots. If that is in fact, you know I don't understand why we should sit up here and
haggle with that every time it comes to the City Council. I guess what I'd like to do is challenge ourselves as a
Council or whatever that maybe we should re-open the discussion of the ordinance as it relates to densities and
lot sizes. When we did that last time.
10
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is increase from where we're at now or?
Councilman Senn: Well, you know Don I went back to the Minutes of the meeting when we did that and there
was a lot of discussion about what the minimum lot size and I remember being uncomfortable with it when we
ended up voting on it and then I sense there were other people who were uncomfortable with it too but it
became one of those deals that's kind of like, well you know you've got to do something that's reasonable, blah,
blah, blah. And it seems to me it's a lot more clear cut just to do it and put it in ordinance form than to spend
hours every time one of these comes in and whittling process of whittling down lots, which is effectively what
we're doing. All we're doing is creating work by ourselves by establishing an artificially low ordinance and then
turn around and trying to achieve a higher standard. So why not just take the higher standard and put it in the
ordinance if that's what we really want to achieve. If not, let's quit paying it lip service and let's quit spending
hours whittling away at lots. I'd love somebody to name one lately that we haven't done that to. Whether it's
Shamrock, whether it's this, whether it's many others that have come, I really would like to see us look at that
and I think it's unfair to people to have this, I'm going to say somewhat undefined double standard.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: I found the applicant to be a very cooperative and they seemed to be very concerned about
the area and the neighborhood and he appears to be a very quality builder and I guess I would call him a good
corporate citizen. I would like to move approval of Hoben Wild Woods Farm 1st Addition with all of them,
with the addition to item number 14 as noted by Sharmin.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the Preliminary and F'mal Plat for Subdivision
#94-15 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plans dated
October 24, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood
fiber blanket within txvo weeks of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
The applicant shall work with the city in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. This plan
shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will not
be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement
shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6"
caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the
location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
3. Building Department condition that the applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be
removed before their removal.
Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail
construction.
5. The existing garage shall be removed no later than December 31, 1994. Financial guarantees shall be
posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition.
11
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
6. The applicant shall dedicate the folloxving conservation easements for the protection of trees:
a. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
b. A conservation easement over the northern 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 2, Block 1.
7. The two black walnut trees in the center of Lot 3, Block 1 shall be preserved. A tree protection fence at
the canopy dripline for these trees shall be installed prior to any construction on Lot 3, Block 1. The tree
protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lot 3, Block 1.
8. The 50 inch dbh eastern cottonwood located in the northwest comer of Lot 1, Block 1 shall be saved. A
tree protection fence shall be installed at the dripline of the tree. An exception to this placement shall be to
the north of the tree where the tree protection fencing may be placed at the edge of the driveway easement.
The tree protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 1.
9. The applicant shall provide the city with a $500.00 escrow prior to the city signing the final plat for review
and recording of the final plat documents.
10. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies for demolition of
the existing buildings and disconnection of the utility lines for Lots 1 and 2.
11. No berming, landscaping or retaining walls will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage
easements without approval by the city, and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement.
12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
13. Lot 3 will be charged a hook-up charge in the amount of $2,425.00 at the time of building permit issuance.
14. Driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to the existing driveway locations on Murray Hill. The
driveways may be expanded to a maximum width of 20 feet at the street. Driveway access to Lot 3 shall
be from Sommergate. The use of retaining walls shall be employed to minimize grading.
15. The applicant shall pay the city a SWMP water quality and quantity fee in the amount of $3,879.00 in lieu
of on-site ponding facilities. These fees are payable prior to the city signing the final plat.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.7 ACRES INTO 48 SINGLE FAMILY TWIN HOMES~ SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR 24 STRUCTURES~ AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, LOCATED WEST OF
POWERS BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE, POWER PLACE, JASPER
DEVELOPMENT.
Sharmin Al-Jarl: I will give a brief background on this planned unit development before I give the staff report.
In 1987 the city approved a concept planned unit development approval for Lake Susan Hills. The PUD
permitted up to 411 single family units. Created 3 outlots for medium density units and one outlot for high
density units. All the single family units have been approved by the City Council. Thc total number of
12
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property was noted not to exceed 221 or a density greater
than 9.3 units per acre. To date only 24 units have been approved leaving a total number of dwelling units of
mixed medium density, residential property of 197. Jasper Homes was the developer of the 24 units that was
previously approved. There are two ordinances regulating this subdivision. The first one is the PUD that was
approved in 1987 and the second one is the R-8 zoning district which permits 8 units per acre. The Outlot B,
which is the outlot that we are looking at ~urrently, is permitted to have 31% hard surface coverage and a
density not to exceed 9.3 units. The R-8 zoning district permits up to 35% hard surface coverage and up to 8
units per acre. The applicant is proposing 48 units, townhome housing project on Outlot B. The outlot was
designated as a medium density site. The townhomes are proposed to be owner occupied and be located on 48
zero lot line parcels. The gross density is 5 units per acre. Access will be provided via a private street. The
current site plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing spans of
trees on the site must be preserved. As mentioned earlier, there are two regulations influencing this subdivision.
The first one is the PUD that was approved in '87 and the second one is the R-8 zoning. If we look under the
R-8 zoning, the maximum coverage is 35%. And if we look under the ordinance, the PUD ordinance, the
maximum coverage is 30% yet it allows a density of 9.3 units per acre. It is very difficult for the applicant to
put in 9.3 units per acre and maintain the required hard surface coverage. The applicant is providing a 5 units
per acre but is requesting a variance for the hard surface coverage. Staff is recommending approval of this
variance. This application was revised since it first appeared before the Planning Commission. One of the main
issues was retaining walls, some of the retaining walls were as high as 12 and 13 feet. The applicant has
terraced, those retaining walls and as a condition of approval we are also recommending that fencing be provided
to separate the fencing, retaining wall, and landscaping to buffer the single Family, the residential units and the
medium density. Access to the site was also an issue originally. The site was proposed to be served via two
access points onto Powers Boulevard. The plan has been revised to allow one access point off of Powers
Boulevard. There is mature stands of trees along the southern portion of this site. The private drive will be
wrapping around those trees to minimize impact on them. As part of the Planning Commission's
recommendations,...two mature oak trees.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Mayor Chmiel: Is the developer here? Would you like to make a presentation? Please state your name and
address and who you're representing.
Jim Jasper: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jim Jasper. I'm with Jasper
Development, the owners of the project. What we put before you is a model of the project that is being
proposed with the exception of the slight adjustment of the unit that Sharmin referred to and had to...save the
oak trees. As you can see on the side closest to me is Powers Blvd. There's the one single entrance into the
project about in the middle and then the road goes to the cul-de-sac that goes...to serve all the units. The
retaining walls are all terraced so I think the maximum height of any wall is I believe 5 feet and at the tops of
the highest walls we're proposing to fence those for security reasons. For safety reasons and then landscape
behind those to soften the... The units themselves, there are two types of plans. Those on the uphill side are
slab on grade and then the one story units. The ones on the downhill side closest to Powers Blvd are one story
walkout units. Most of them with a walkout basement...Powers Blvd. The intent is to berm and landscape to
the extent possible along Powers Blvd, to the south side... The materials being used are maintenance free
materials and the architect of the project can describe those to you if you'd like in more detail. I think as far as
the hard surface coverage requirements is concerned, Sharmin mentioned that we are exceeding in our request
what the PUD agreement requires. However, I think we're equally what the R-8 zoning allows which is 35%.
As you may have noted...requested density is significantly lower than would be allowed for this site but as we
13
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
discovered in planning the project, really the only way you could achieve a higher density would be to stack
units and put them in clusters of 8 or something like that and that was not the market that we felt we wanted to
try to meet, nor did we think it was appropriate for the site. So this will have a very low profile look to it.
Probably be somewhat unobtrusive to the single family residents who are perched on top of the hill up above it.
I think it will be a very attractive development. Do you have any specific questions...?
Mayor Chmiel: Were there any questions by Council?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'm having a hard time seeing where the, is each ridge here, is that a wall?
Jim Jasper: Each, no.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I didn't think so.
Jim Jasper: Each of those represents a 2 foot, roughly a 2 foot change in the grade as you go up the hill.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So where would the retaining walls be?
Jim Jasper: The retaining walls you can see here where there's an abrupt change in the grade. That's where a
retaining wall would occur.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you've got more than a 2 foot drop there?
Jim Jasper: Yeah. This wall for instance, I don't have the plan in front of me but this is a double drop
retaining wall. It's terraced so there's probably a 6 foot area, flat area between the two terraces. What we're
proposing to do then is right along the top edge of this wall to fence that so the children inadvertently coming
down the hill, whether it be running or sledding or whatever, won't fall over the edge of the hill.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that ridge up there is not looped barbed wire, is what it looks like. Is that
shrubs?
Jim Jasper: It's intended to be greenery...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is the trees here, is that the landscape plan as well or is that different?
Jim Jasper: It's only an indication of it. I think landscape plans were submitted with the project.
But this doesn't reflect the specific landscape plan?
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Jim Jasper: Not absolutely.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Jim Jasper: That's correct.
Except for the cluster of trees that are there?
And as you can see along Powers Blvd here, there's some indication of berms in
here. These will be landscaped and shrubbed. Again to break the views so we don't have just an open field of
all... The architecture, one of the things that concerned the Planning Commission was the appearance of this
project as people drove by it on Powers Blvd so what the architect has done he has introduced some
14
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
architectural elements into these units to give them some variation. Rather than having them in a straight line
configuration like they had originally, he's meandered them somewhat. That gives us deeper back yards in some
places and less in others so that it gives a little more interest and breaks the monotony.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what is the list price for these units?
Jim Jasper: Phil, price?
Phil Jungbluth: $110,000.00 and up.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Which means realistically $120-$125,000.00 for most of them.
Jim Jasper: I 'know if Prairie Creek is any indication, we started that project thinking that our base price would
be between $130 and $140, which it was, and most of those units over there have sold at $180 to $190,000.00.
That may be a little bit different market being that people, those are mostly empty nester buyers and so it's kind
of their last gasp to buy a home and so maybe they tend to load those things up a little bit more. But I think
what Phil is talking about is truly a base price so people will be inclined to add things like porches and air
conditioning and...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone wanting to address this at this time? Okay,
if not. Mark. Do you have any comments?
Councilman Senn: No, not at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess one comment. I'd like to see 35 removed. If we're going to pass that
ordinance, I think we ought to pass the ordinance rather than we should start sticking them here, there and
somewhere. It's hard to call it a requirement.
Councilwoman Dockendorfi I agree.
Councilman Senn: I thought that was a real oddity.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it's going to be...
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think we're going to accomplish the same thing anyway but I'd hate to have to go
back at some future date and figure out who we did and who we didn't.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
15
City Council Meeting -November 28, 1994
Councilman Mason: No comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I have a concern, now that Richard has explained to me what cyclone fences
are, that visually just sounds atrocious. What are we going to be doing to screen that? I mean I understand...
Kate Aanenson: Well the issue with the neighbors, what would be aesthetic so you could see through it. So
what's going to happen is the fence will be on the townhouse side and the landscaping will be on the neighbors
side and that's what they requested. The neighbors. The adjacent neighbors.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But still, you're going to be able to see it from Powers, aren't you? I mean is
there anyway to accomplish.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure how much of it you'll see.
Mayor Chmiel: Before we get to 1 foot of barb on top, what's it going to look like?
Phil Jungbluth: The fence that we're talking about is a vinyl covered kind so I'm sure you've seen them.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Like the green?
Phil Jungbluth: Like it's green or black vinyl covered chainlink fence...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the neighbors are amenable to that? I mean it was more of a safety concern.
Phil Jungbluth: I thought they were.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. To me that strikes me as atrocious but.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not from me, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: Nothing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only thing on the maintenance and upkeep of those fences, who's going to have that
responsibility?
Jim Jasper: Homeowners association...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: One more comment please.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
t6
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think the developer misunderstood the answer I was looking for on the pricing.
Yet one more time weYe putting in townhomes that are not achieving anywhere near what's moderate income
housing in Chanhassen. You know one of the concerns raised by the neighbors is what is the city getting out of
this and not a lot to be honest. It's a different type of housing and it will serve a certain market and I have no
doubt it will be successful and it will look fine. It's just yet again we see a development that's not achieving
something that we're looking to achieve. Having said that, I will move approval with the deletion of condition
35.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded for the preliminary plat to subdivide the 9.7 acres into 48 single
family homes, twinhome site plan review for 24 structures and a wetland alteration permit located west of
Powers Blvd. Now this would also entail an approval, and before we move that particular motion, we still have
the wetlands. Wetland Alteration Permit as well on that so I'm just bring that to your attention at this time.
The motion's been made and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: A quick comment on the housing issue. If I'm not mistaken, isn't there going to be some
presentation in January to the HRA about options for affordable housing in this city?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep, right.
Councilman Mason: Which yeah it's, the city needs to do something and HRA needs to do something about
that, not the developers at this point. I mean it's just not in their purview I don't think, whether I like that or
not. I think that's the option. So come to the HRA meeting in January.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there any discussion on the wetlands? As I look through this, I see that we're allowing
3 wetlands to be filled for the proposed development and even though there was some discussions previously in
the staff report, that these were probably not wetlands at one time, is that what you're basically saying7 Are we
going to have enough area for the drainage going to the pending?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes we will.
Mayor Chmiel: And that will suffice all those, specific needs for that?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. They are truly substandard in quality and with the mitigation that will be taking
place, it will improve it's quality substantially. ' "
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Okay, I guess that was the only other question I really had. Oh. One other
thing too on the proposal for the street lighting that I had seen in here and what you have. If we were to
approve it, which is on page 14. It says the applicant should submit a street lighting plan for the staff review
and approval. I want to see that say will. I'd like that a little stronger than should. And I'm looking at item 4
and 9, the lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private streets. There again shall is permissive. I
think we should put something really a little stronger. And that I'll let you toy that in there. Okay, any other
discussion on wetlands.
17
City Council Meeting ~ November 28, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve PUD #87-3, Wetland Alteration
Pemalt #94-5, and Site Plan Review #94-7 as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1994, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the private streets. Appropriate "No Parking"
restrictions/signs shall be placed on the private street.
2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 35%.
The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their
attached narrative. Introduce some variation among buildings facing Powers Boulevard through the shape
of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or color. Introduce new elements to
break up the large roof span.
4. The applicant will submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval.
5. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street.
6. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication.
7. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units.
Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during construction. Protected trees
lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2 canopy basis in accordance with a plan approved by
staff.
9. A lighting plan will be submitted for the interior private streets.
10. A revised landscaping plan which provide additional landscaping and berming along Powers Boulevard (CR
17), and the westerly portion of the site.
I 1. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final
plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review.
12. Fire Marshal conditions:
An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants
shall be relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations.
b. Submit new street names for review and approval.
c. A twenty foot wide fire land must be maintained on the new proposed north/south street. "No Parking
Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on both sides of the street with 75 foot spacing.
18
City Council Meeting -November 28, 1994
13.
'14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new
developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review
and City Council approval. The street shall be constructed in accordance to the City's private driveway
ordinance for multi family zoning (Ordinance #209). Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines
will be performed by the city's Building Department. Streets and utilities, except the ponding areas, storm
sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The city
will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per
sign.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. 'The applicant shall provide detailed
pre-developed and post developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water
level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between
each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the
State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented
prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver
County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps
of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the
units.
The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and
ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas.
No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements
without approval by the City. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement.
19
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
24. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of
3 feet above the 100 year high water level.
25. The proposed storm water ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water
level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond(s) shall be sized in
accordance to the city's Surface Water Management Plan.
26. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of
land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use
zoning.
27. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be
evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements.
28. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
29. Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss/resolve the specifics on pond
design and access to the site.
30. No decks or an)' portion of the dwellings may encroach into the city's drainage and utility easements.
31. The curves in the private street lying south of the access shall be "softened" to accommodate public safety
vehicle turning movements.
32. The plat should be redesigned to remove those lot lines which encroach upon the 25 foot building setback
line.
33.
The applicant shall evaluate the potential for impacts to adjacent building foundations during the
grading process.
34. Retaining walls shall be engineered to incorporate subsurface drainage and surface water runoff.
35.
The applicant shall provide a safety fence or other landscaping provisions to help prevent children from
falling over the retaining walls. These safety provisions or fencing shall be discussed and approved by
city staff considering the discussion held at the 'Planning Commission meeting.
36.
The applicant shall relocate Unit 20 to save the 24 and 30 inch oak trees. 2 of the 4 oak trees shall be
saved in the vicinity of Unit 21, at a minimum, by relocating the placement of the unit. If it is not
possible to save at least 2 of the 4 oak trees in that vicinity, the unit shall be omitted from the
development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
20
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS DECISION TO DENY A 1.5 FOOT
VARIANCE TO THE 25 FOOT REOUIREMENT, 8283 ESSEX ROAD, JASPER DEVELOPMENT.
John Rask: At the November 14, 1994 meeting the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denied Jasper
Development's appeal for a 1 1/2 foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement for the construction of a
three season porch. The 25 foot setback requirement was established by the PUD agreement for Lake Susan
Hills. The Board denied the variance and based their decision on the following Findings. One, the Board has
set a precedent of asking people to remove structures which do not comply with setback requirements. Two, the
City Building official made a very strong effort to correct the possible encroachment before the structure was
erected. And three, the applicant did not submit the requested information to the Building Official when asked
for and proceeded with construction of the three season porch. Just to give you a little background on how all
this came about. The City Building officials received a complaint from a resident in a near by subdivision that
this three season porch may be encroaching into the setback requirement. The City Building officials requested
information verifying the location of the property line to determine the correct setback. However this
information was not provided until after the porch was built. At that time it was discovered that the porch did
encroach into this 25 foot setback and the applicant now is requesting a variance, an after the fact variance to
correct this violation. To give you an idea of the surrounding land use, the adjoining property to the north is
Lake Susan Hill Park. This area of the park is low and wide and will probably remain as open space. To the
west would be Powers Boulevard and to the east would be the Prairie Creek townhomes. At this time I'd be
happy to answer any questions you may have. Steve Kirchman from Public Safety is also here this evening to
answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you John. I'm just wondering whether Willard had any, Willard Johnson who is
Chair of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Do you have anything you'd like to say at this time Willard?
Willard Johnson: Yeah, I have a couple things. I feel one of the reasons we denied it too, if we're going to
bend to all the city contractors that says whoops, we made a mistake. We've got a number of contractors in the
city who do... I think this is the first time that we've had a contractor say whoops, I made a mistake...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here.'/
Jim Jasper: Jim Jasper again Mr. Chairman, Jasper Development and Jay Jasper of Jasper Development. I think
that somehow there has been a misunderstanding of what the chain of events was that really caused this
problem. To explain a little bit, this porch or sun room that we're speaking of is part of a three unit complex
that was, as one unit was located naturally by the surveyor, all three were located and allegedly they were
located according to the site plan and development plan. And all three units were located within their individual
lots. Now when we do a townhouse lot we allow the lot to be deeper front to back than the size of the unit...
an encroachment of say a bay window or something like that where... An error was made by the surveyor when
we staked these units. The foundation of the unit was to go in but I need to point out that the sunroom on this
unit did not have a foundation under it. It's supported on three posts. And at the time that the neighbor
apparently made a decision that there might be an encroachment there which resulted in him filing a complain
or a question to the city about this, that unit was already framed up. That's the only way he could have known
that there was an encroachment or the possibility of an encroachment because there was no foundation on which
to base that judgment. Where the miscommunieation perhaps comes in is Mr. Kirchman, or the building
department made us aware that there was a question raised about whether or not there was an encroachment and
asked us to have the surveyor verify the setback from the back comer. At that time our understanding was that
once it was discovered that there was a 15 3/8 inch encroachment, which is what this actually is, on one comer
21
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
of the building incidentally. It's not the whole back of the porch. It's one comer of the building that's
encroaching about 15 3/8 inches. When it was discovered that that was the problem, our understanding and it
may have been a misunderstanding, was that we would need to apply for a variance but that since the structure
was already up, xve would not be required to remove the structure. And we may have misunderstood the intent
of that but we certainly would have not have gone ahead and completed and finished the interior of it had we
known that we faced the real risk of having to demolition that porch or at least really all or part of it because of
the...so we proceeded under apparently a misunderstanding as to what we was expected of us. A later criticism
was made of us was that the delay in applying for the variance and I will acknowledge that looking back on it
now, it does seems like an inordinate amount of time passed from the time this problem was first discovered to
when we actually applied for the variance. Again we...a misunderstanding that while we needed to do this, it
was not an urgent matter to get it accomplished. It didn't mean that we weren't going to apply for the variance.
It didn't mean that we wouldn't... What this all gets down to is we have a little over a 15 inch encroachment on
a porch. If you go over there and drive by the site, there's nothing that would suggest to you that there's any
encroachment at all~ First of all we're not encroaching on anybody's property. We're encroaching about 15
inches on a 25 foot setback. That setback is abutting a city park and the city park that it abuts is undeveloped
park. My understanding is that there are no plans to develop that portion of the park because it's set aside as a
wetland there. And I realize that it's a dangerous precedent to grant variances. I understand that. But at the
same time, we as the builder don't build perfect buildings. We occasionally make mistakes and had we known
that the expectation was ultimately going to be that we remove that, we certainly wouldn't have been foolish
enough to proceed with completing that structure. If you think we're brazen enough to think that we had the
gall to come in here and expect you to approve a variance because we had the building all done, that was not
the case at all. We clearly misunderstood what was expected of us. We could easily have slid that unit forxvard
15 inches and stayed within it's lot had we known that...that it was encroaching on...setback. We apparently
didn't know that and so...That's really all I have to say.
Jay Jasper: The other thing is, at the time that this was discovered. Mr. Kirchman had tried to get ahold of me
and I was, I lacked getting back to him but once we did.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you please state your name.
Jay Jasper: Oh, I'm Jay Jasper of Jasper Development, sorry. We played the proverbial phone tag for I would
say about a week so there was a large delay and the majority of that was my fault in the beginning but at the
time that was up, there was no electrical brought in. No insulating. No stucco to remodel that comer or to fix
that porch at that time would have been very easy for us. The unit wasn't sold. And so if we had known that
would have been any issue within our communications with public safety, we would have taken that up at that
time. We sold the unit. We lost the buyer because of that. -That happens but we need to direct it by it so that
we can sell the unit and move forward. It's very hard for us to think of any practical way to take care of that
issue without virtually tearing the whole porch out and that's that issue. Because of my lack of communicating.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions at this time?
Councilman Mason: I was under the impression when I was going through this, how much of this porch is
encroached on the easement?
Jay Jasper: Can I draw you a little picture? It's a triangular comer. It's like, the setback runs like through
here. This is 25 feet and this is the 15 3/8 inches. We did have a footing inspection. They do, the building
department does a footing inspection and at that time they checked out and so we, you know before construction
22
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
we didn't have any reason to believe that that had hired a surveyor, getting the permit approved and having a
footing inspection, that there would have been an encroachment. There are checks and balances and we point a
finger at our surveyor and probably ourselves but that's why we hire those people to do that and that's why it
goes through the permitting process. It happened. If it backed up to the neighbor's, you know directly to the
neighbor's yard or something, you know I could see that they're gaining a lot more resistance to this but it backs
up really to Powers Boulevard. The comer kind of faces Powers Boulevard and the wet'lands and the park.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question for Steve. Trying to following the chain of events and who's...
I'd like to know exactly what the date was that the work stop order was given and I understand that to be.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Steve could answer that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm reading July 8th in the Minutes but that seems to be in question.
Steve Kirchman: Okay, yeah. The stop work order was issued on July 8th and Jasper's response at that time
was pretty immediate. They called me and promised to me that they would get the lot re-surveyed with stakes
put up so it could be definitely determined whether or not there was an encroachment, which is why I lifted it 3
days later on the 1 lth.
Jay Jasper: We did have a surveyor...in fact I got someone to go out there that Saturday. That was on a Friday
I think...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And at that point the surveyor made a mistake?
Jay Jasper: No, he put in the lot comers so that, I guess...engineering wanted to go out and check the
measurement first so they staked that back comer.
Steve Kirchman: The engineering department and I went out previous to the 8th and put some stakes there
ourselves but we're not surveyor's and by our determination there was about a 2 foot encroachment. I should
tell you that every...that building so we could definitely determine whether there was an encroachment or not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks.
Councilman Wing: What was exactly up at that time? On the 8th.
Steve Kirchman: It was framed up. The roof was on. The exterior was sheeted.
Councilman Wing: And the total here is 15 and 3/4.
Mayor Chmiel: 15 inches plus. Give some, take some. The question that I had, upon submittal to the city for
those proposed sun porches or whatever they're called. I think they're really 4 season porches right now. Was
that shown for construction on the plans at that time?
Steve Kirchman: The 3 season or 4 season porches were definitely shown on the plans. The survey showed the
portion of the building to the rear as being a deck and that apparently created some confusion with the plan
23
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
reviewer and he didn't pick up on it in looking from one to the other that it was indeed an enclosed structure
and had he picked up on that at his plan review, then they would not have been issued.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Any other questions for Jasper Development? I guess not, thank you. The
question is now, I'd like some comments. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I served on Willard's team for quite a while and I was fairly rigid on these variances
up until one on Kerber Boulevard came through. A real delightful couple wanted to put on a three season
porch. They needed 10 feet and I voted against it and the Council approved it and that's one of the nicest
additions I've ever seen in the city and it made the structure look better and frankly it's the, at any rate, I like
what got passed and it changed my mind on variances a little bit. I think that we have our rules and we have
our setbacks and we have our ordinances and I think we want to comply with them and I think we want to take
them seriously but it doesn't mean that someone doesn't have the right to come in and say you know, I really
would like to do this and I think it would fit in and it doesn't affect anybody and it does do this. I think it's
okay to be a little flexible. I don't think we set dangerous precedence. I think there are the people that come in
and they want a little favor, it's best for them. It doesn't affect anybody else. I don't think we change our rules
and ordinances in the process, and in this case I think oops do happen and I think oops are okay. The one we
did over on Minnewashta Parkway last year, the year before, somebody had a whole foundation in and all of a
sudden a neighbor who hasn't been in his back yard for 30 years said my word, I've got 6 inches on my
property. You 'know everything went biserk over there. 15 inches, and what's involved here and with all due
respect to engineering and code enforcement's important to me. I think what we enforce today, fire code and
building codes, prevent the problems in the future and I don't deny that at all but for 15 inches here with a
structure that's up, I just have no trouble with this at all. I think it's a reasonable request and I think it's a minor
request and a reasonable request. I have no problem with this so I would support the variance request.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't have a problem with the structure per se. I have a problem with the
proceedings, how it happened. I mean the fact that it's up and it doesn't affect anything and it's not hurting
anyone, at least that I can see, again is not the point. The point is a stop work order was issued and it seems to
be it was disregarded. Are you disagreeing Steve?
Steve Kirchman: I don't know. He immediately responded to the stop work order and he did make some
promises and from our point of view, it doesn't seem like he followed through on those promises. I couldn't say
what his difficulties were. If it's lack of communication. If they dropped the ball on their end. I really couldn't
say. I can't say. He did respond immediately to the stop work order but that's usually the case so.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, that kind of gets their attention right. So I'm not in the mood to hand slap
but it is disconcerting. But I mean we're talking about taking down a whole structure and that just doesn't make
sense to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well I voted against that 10 foot porch Richard. I remember that very clearly and I drive
by it every day and it does look very nice. I will grant that. There are a couple, as of last night I was planning
on voting against this and I quite honestly don't know how I'm going to vote. Believe it or not, I really don't.
It does seem a pretty minuscule problem. However I do share Willard's concern about people coming in and
24
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
saying geez, I didn't knoxv. 12 inches seems a little insignificant. A bigger problem, and this isn't even part of
this but I want to make it part of it, at least if nothing else to be in the Minutes, is how this turned into a porch
when it was supposed to be a deck. And I see a nodding in the back and yeah, that is a concern. I see, quite
honestly I see that as a much greater concern than I'm going to give everyone the benefit of the doubt here and
say that I do believe that that 12 1/2 inches or whatever was...I don't have any trouble with that at all. But I
think, I guess I see that the city needs to do, I don't know what. Some tightening up or whatever. And again, if
this is an oops on the city's part from it going into a deck to a 3 season porch, well okay. But I think it
behooves us all to be as careful as we possibly can on stuff like this and Steve, I don't know. I mean obviously
this isn't your purview here because I would guess you don't do a whole lot of plat reviews. And I don't know.
I mean I'm not going to slap any, that's not my intent here at all but I wonder if some of this could have not
happened had we been able to catch it in the first place. But we didn't and it's before us. I have consistently
voted against variances so I'm having a real, yeah I don't know how I'm going to vote so that's all I'm going to
say.
Councilman Senn: My, aren't we rigid.
Councilman Mason: Not very often. Not very often.
Councilman Senn: I on the other hand view ordinances as being guidelines, not hard and fast rules. You know
if somebody would come in and ask for a 15 inch variance up front, I don't think I'd have too big of a problem
with it. I don't generally disagree too much with Willard and Carol but I didn't happen to be there that night so
Don was the stick-3' I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you were lucky.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it sounds like it. Boy, I share Colleen's concerns over the process and Mike's over the
deck versus the porch. I share the concerns over the precedent that it sets on the basis that it's kind of like after
the fact and the structure's there and does that open the door, I don't know. Maybe that's for Roger to answer. I
don't know if he even wants to try. 1 don't 'know what kind of precedence it sets one way or the other. Does it
set one?
Roger Knutson: Only in the very limited sense. Precedence is used two ways. I think you're mostly concemed
with just treating similarly situated people similarly on the basis of fairness, which is fine. Which is
commendable. But as far as a legal concern that if you approve one, and someone else comes in a year later or
6 months later, do you have to approve it because your hands are tied then, the answer is no.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I guess hearing that, yOU know if there was a real legal concern on precedent I
guess I would view a potential option as being maybe 15 inches of our land. Sell it to them and make them pay
all the costs along that side to pick it up and that might solve the whole problem. But if there is really no legal
reason for doing that, I hate to give up 15 inches of our land but, and I'm not being facetious either. I guess
what I would like to see, to send a message, is I guess I wouldn't have a problem approving the variance but I
don't know whether this is possible or not but I'd also like to see some form of f'mancial penalty involved so
you send a clear message that says basically don't do it again.
Mayor Chmiel: That was one of the suggestions that I had made that particularly evening as well.
25
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I would have far less problems with it on that basis. If we could do that. Now
again, I don't know whether we have the purview to do that or not do it.
Roger Knutson: Double permit fees would not be out of whack I don't think. I don't know what that number
is.
Steve Kirchman: Could we double fee them after the fact like that?
Councilman Senn: As a condition of the variance.
Steve Kirchman: I mean the building code's pretty specific about why you can double fee people. I don't know
that that's applicable in this situation.
Roger Knutson:
Steve Kirchman:
on this.
Not directly obviously. What kind of money are we talking about?
The)' could probably answer that better than me. I don't really know what the permit fee was
Jay Jasper: I think the permit fee part, not the SAC and WAC and all those fees, usually the penalty is based
on like.
Steve Kirchman: Just the permit fee.
Jay Jasper: I think it's like $400.00. $300.-$400.00. I don't 'know.
Steve Kirchman: What was the value of the building?
Jay Jasper: $100,000.00 I think is what we put down.
Steve Kirchman: What he said is generally in the right area.
Roger Knutson: I'm sure you'd find that acceptable wouldn't you?
Jay Jasper: Yeah. I mean yeah.
Roger Knutson: Since the applicant finds that very acceptable, I don't see any problem with it.
Councilman Senn: I love the way you did that Roger.
Jay Jasper: We would like to make one statement. I think that it takes, we haven't built in Chanhassen for a
very long time. Every community is different. Steve's different than the guys in Prior Lake and the guys in
Chaska and the guys in Waconia and it takes time for them to understand us and for us to understand them.
When we talked to the State Building Department, Chanhassen has one of the probably highest regarded
building departments as far as enforcement of the code and understanding of the code. You go to other
communities and they're all over the place and so it takes time to adjust to each building department and I think
communication is part of that. We've tried to do a better job of that and obviously this is a lesson we would
like to avoid. We're not very happy with our surveyor. You know he's gotten us into...and he will be dealt
26
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
with on this as a contractor but I really believe that we didn't try to get by with anything...so we need to get this
solved without tearing the thing off...
Councilman Wing: I'll make a motion approving the required variance.
Mayor Chmiel: Before you go to that. We do have an individual here who did speak at the Board and
Adjustment and Appeals and I'd like him to. just come forward. Please state your name and your address.
Andrew Olson: Andrew Olson, 8290 West Lake Court. I'm not adjoining that property currently but close to it
and when they first applied for their permits to go in that area and I knew it was zoned for medium density and
that was fine with me...and they said then we'll do all the grading. We'll seed everything down so you won't
have it blowing...seeded down, a big pile of dirt there with a lot of weeds on it and they said it looked like
Waconia. What the3' had done similar and I took pictures of the Waconia townhomes, the backs of them which
have no 4 season porches, and a lot of the neighbors didn't like how plain they looked. They said we'll dress
them up and the3' showed us a back elevation showing a deck. They gave us what they handed out, had made
up showing the landscaping and like I show you this whole process but here in this landscaping plan it shows
40 feet from the line to the house proper to about 30 feet to the deck. Again there's nothing showing and as far
as this building coming out there on posts. This 4 season porch. Part of the solid building. They said they'd
take care of all the roads in there. We have 3 roads in and out sometimes. They shovel it down and they track
mud in and out beyond what they had planned on. You know we just didn't get what we were promised.
There's a lot of litter blowing around. I pick up stuff in my back yard. The parkland had stuff blowing. The
slexv across the street to the south had stuff blown into it. And some of it was...but I didn't see anybody...clean
anything up. But I want to 'know the exact date. Now when I complained about this thing, I thought it was
about 3 feet over the line...want a surveyor. But they were just a footing at that time. And the footings and the
basement wall was poured but there was no framing up there. That house was not built out there at that time.
My first complaint, it wasn't framed out and awaiting finishing. It was still in the raw and there were no posts
in line. Just concrete and that could have been shorten at that time.
Councilman Mason: We've got the landscaping stuff here.
Andrew Olson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry.
Mark Harlander: Hi. I'm Mark Harlander and I live at 8320 West Lake Court which is adjacent to the
development and I guess I agree with your comments, I don't really have a problem with 15 inches and I think
the townhouses came out. They look good. The people that have moved in there are good quality people to
have in the city but we moved from Nebraska about a year, a little over a year ago and we bought a house
based on plans that Andy hadn't maybe seen and I went out there. I had my real estate agent get the plans for
the townhomes. I didn't really have a problem with them if they were going to be a higher level townhomes. I
went to where the lot line was. I walked off 40 feet. I took a look back at the house. We have a fairly deep
back yard but then 40 feet, I figured living quarters 40 feet from there and then they started building and it
seemed like it was getting closer and closer and closer. All of a sudden, not a 4 season porch or 3 season
porch, I have a framed in living unit. It's not any indication that it's a porch 25 feet from my lot line and when
I bought the house I was thinking 40 feet with a deck they might be on 15% of the time. So to me that's what
really irritated me and the neighbors adjacent to me is that everyone in the neighborhood had gone to these
meetings. As they were built and going through this deal. The plan that they showed you tonight for their new
27
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
development, you should take a good look at it because I don't think it's going to look anything like what they
showed you tonight. There isn't one tree in one spot that I have on that plan that I got from my real estate
agent. There's some trees back there but there's barely any room to put a pine tree inbetween 25 feet to the
house and the lot where there was 40 to 35 feet and patches of trees, 3 or 4 clumps. Now they can only put the
single trees along the lot line because of the way it came forward. Again 15 inches, I don't really care about
that. I just, in the planning for the city, to me you have to, you know if you're going to show somebody and
you're going to have the neighborhood come to the meetings and make our comments and make adjustments,
then they should stick to them. Somehow it became a 4 season porch/living quarters versus a deck and
everyone in the neighborhood never saw those 4 season porches on any plans. Any approval. Any meeting and
then all of a sudden they were there and at the meeting, you know I was at the... Someone from the city
admitted that that got by them. They wouldn't have probably approved the plan if that was a 4 season porch.
And if that would have been a deck, this variance wouldn't be a problem because the deck, you can be a couple
feet either side of the 25 foot line but it's not a deck. It's a permanent unit. That's why it's an issue. That's my
only comment and I paid xvhat I think is a lot of money for a house that now I've got someone 25 foot from my
back yard. I can xvatch his TV from my living room so.
Councilman Senn: I'm just curious. As neighbors, what would you see as a solution at this point?
Mark Harlander: Well to me the guy next to us moved. He retired and moved and when he was selling his
house, it's definitely an issue how close those townhomes were. You know he'd have several buyers through
and he said yeah, they don't like those townhomes. They're too close. They don't like them. If they're going to
spend $180,000.00 on a house, or more, and they've got these townhomes. Well they can go other places and
spend that amount of money and not have townhomes that close. Again, I think they look nice. Whatever. It's
just that it seems like the people that live there were somewhat slighted in what was put up, even though I don't
not like them. It's just, I don't 'know what I can do. When I go to sell my house, it's going to be an issue,
unless I wait for those trees to grow real tall and plant a whole bunch more behind me so, you know it blocks it
but, and I'll probably do that in the spring. Start planting trees. But I don't know what the solution other than
that. To me it feels like the neighborhood association and all the people...were slighted by a plan that was
misrepresented from what was there. That's the way it goes but I think the units look great. Now that they're
done. It's just that they're a lot closer than what I anticipated when I purchased the house. And I also bid on a
house here on Lotus Lake and it didn't work out so I bid on two houses in Chanhassen...first one that met the
price and now I'm thinking well maybe I should have just waited and gotten one on Lotus Lake because of all
the things that have transpired since then because that was fully developed behind there. They couldn't do
anything different to that so that's it. Thanks.
Councilman Selm: I'm just curious, we've heard a number oi° different concerns relating to other development
issues. Has staff performed an evaluation of how this project has or hasn't met the conditions of the
development contract, or whether it's a PUD?
Kate Aanenson: This PUD was represented to the neighborhood and there were certain conditions. The person
is no longer with the staff that reviewed that project. I think you're right. I think maybe we could have looked
at it closer as far as what was represented as far as decks or porches. That person signed off on ali the original
permits and that's usually what we do. Whoever worked on the project usually is the one to sign off all the
permits to make sure there's a continuity of issues that were raised and conditions of the PUD agreement. That
person did issue the first building permits so I'm assuming that they were consistent with the plan. There is
landscaping that still needs to be put in place. There is a letter of credit in place for that so additional
landscaping will be put in adjacent to these gentlemen's property but you're right. I think that's something we
28
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
have to make sure that we're on top of. Making sure the conditions of the PuD agreement are upheld. Now
when they misrepresent something and a new person takes it over, sometimes that happens. When it's a deck
and it's supposed to be a porch, as I stated earlier, that was an oversight. If it's an enclosed or 3 season porch,
it has different setbacks than a standard deck. But what happens lots of times too, you issue it as a deck and 2
years later they come back and they want to enclose it. You have the same situation but you're right. Internally
we can make sure that We, we have asked that, as you recall we had a rash of these before. Now when the
building department does plan checks, if they notice that it's a walkout, there's sliding glass doors or something
like that, they identify on the plans that there's a possibility of a deck being placed on the future and they mark
it that way so as we review those, it raises a flag for us to indicate to the builder that if you are going to put a
deck on here, or a porch, that you may not be able to meet setbacks. You'll recall we had a rash of these as far
as wetland setbacks and we've changed our policy on how we handle those.
Jay Jasper: Just a comment to city staff. I think the city staff does a rather thorough job of keeping us posted
on issues that are part of the PUD contract. Flood range. Seeding. We get a punch list, typically we've met
them out there...so they have kept us posted on things that need to be done, completed, finalized, punch list
items for...
Councilman Wing: I just had a clarification. This 25 foot setback, that was for the building pad of the
structure, correct7
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Wing: So as long as a deck could have incringed on it perhaps but the fact that it is a structure,
we're defining it as a structure still, with this one exception, meets the setbacks.
Kate Aanenson: Right. But I think what the two neighbors are saying, which I understand, is that they were
represented one thing. Even though they still are allowed within the setback, would have been more appropriate
to show the range of the building pad instead of saying this is where the building's going to go so it wasn't
misrepresented to them. I think that would have made it clear to them. That there was a possibility of it going
closer. That the building pad can slide within this area. I think that leads to a little bit of misrepresentation.
Again, just saying it's a deck as opposed to a 3 season porch. I think when we do go through this with the
neighborhood, we need to make those things clear. That they know there is some flexibility there.
Willard Johnson: Can I make one comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, sure Willard.
Willard Johnson: There is no sliding doors to this porch...There's heat ducts in it. It's insulated...It's a room on
stilts.
Councilman Senn: For discussion purposes I guess I'd like to suggest a potential win-win situation. What if we
would consider granting the variance on the basis that the contractor provide, pick an arbitrary number of
$1,000.00 in additional landscaping to be placed as the adjacent neighbor's so designating either on this property
or on their property.
Councilman Mason: In lieu of the double fee?
29
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilman Senn: In lieu of the double fee and in doing so, I have no problems doing that because that
$1,000.00 is going to come out of his surveyor's insurance one way or the other. And I would like to see the
neighbors get something back out of this. At the same time as I think it's really kind of silly to start ripping
down structures over 15 inches and so it's just a suggestion. I don't know how everybody else thinks about it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it's an excellent suggestion.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that would be a good suggestion for the fact that even though that were planted would be
on city property.
Jim Jasper: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Jim Jasper: Would you permit me to make just one last comment concerning the.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you come up to the microphone please.
Jim Jasper: I guess until the comments from these two neighbors were made, it never occurred to me that we
might be misrepresenting what we were doing there when we offered buyers the option of be it a screened porch
or a 3 season porch or 4 season porch... Those were the options that buyers were given. I think that when we
conceived this project quite frankly we thought that very few people would opt for sunrooms or 4 season
porches. As it turns out, I think nearly everybody has opted for a 4 season porch, which maybe means what
we're building is too small. They feel too cramped. I don't know. I just want you to understand that I didn't
realize that we had misrepresented this in the presentation to the extent that it would cause a problem for the
neighbors. It never dawned on my that a neighbor might make a distinction between there being a porch there
and there being a deck there and to that extent I apologize. It was not our intent to deceive anybody. We
honestly felt this was an option that we needed to offer buyers, but probably very few would accept and now
that was wrong.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay. I'd entertain a motion of Richard's.
Councilman Wing: Just for discussion. I agree with Mark. That's an excellent idea and that's a solution.
Convert that $1,000.00 from your 'knowledge into landscaping. We've got 4 lots here and a distance of.
Councilman Senn: I'll get them a place where they can buy a dozen 8 foot pine trees for that, if they need a
place.
Councilman Wing: Do you think that's adequate?
Councilman Senn: They should be able to get that much out of $1,000.00.
Councilman Wing: I just wonder if it's enough. I mean if that's the solution and we're going to save them.
Councilman Senn: Well you've got limited land area is the only thing I'm thinking. I mean you aren't talking
about huge lots or a lot of depth and again, I'd like to see the neighbors have some input as to whether it goes
30
City Council Meeting- November 28, 1994
on this property, the city property or on their property if it helps as far as the screening goes. rd like to kind of
see them get together and get that figured out because I'd like them to be the beneficiary of it basically.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There was one thing that was done very similar to that with Mr. Curry, if you
remember over on Lyman Boulevard where they came up with that particular solution. And they did place
those trees on that person's property as well.
Councilman Senn: Well I'll move that if you want.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to, as per discussion. Any other questions?
Councilman Mason: So with all of this, the variance will be granted. The homeowners will be getting
together with who, to talk about where these trees will be going7
Mayor Chmiel: They will have that option. Staff will take care of them. Okay, any other?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve ~he Variance Request #94-10 for a
one and a half (I 1/2) foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement for the construction of a three season
poreh with the condition that the applicant, staff and the neighbors work together reganiing the placement of
$1,000.00 worth of landscaping. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE PRESS INC.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council. Before you for your consideration is a private redevelopment agreement
between, it says HRA in the packet but it is between the city and the Press Inc. This past spring you may
remember that the City Council created a new Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-1. I've included in your
packet a map that shows that area. Along with that plan that you approved, you incorporated the city's current 3
year incentive program for businesses to locate in this area. But a business to take advantage of this program,
they must meet one of the following three qualifications. One, the city must try to discourage businesses from
moving to another state or municipality. You can provide funds to those businesses. Or two, if they increase
employment within the state. And three is to preserve or enhance the tax base of the state or the city.
Currently the Press would be meeting two of those qualifications. They are proposing to increase employment
base from 12 to 15 additional employees and also they would be increasing their overall tax base by $36,554.00.
You may notice the expansion is underway right now. They're approximately 75% completed. The amount of
incentives available to the Press total $54,831.69. At this point staff is recommending approval of the private
redevelopment agreement and would take this time to answer any questions of the public or the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions?
Councilman Mason: None from me.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
31
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Was this foreseen or is this, they need the money because the Kindercare project
fell through?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that might be back.
Todd Gerhardt: The Kindercare project's probably going to be back before you but if you noticed, there was
substantial amounts of dirt being moved around on the site so they did have some soil corrections and so that
will probably go to help offset that. But if Kindercare moves ahead or doesn't, they were going to ask for the
assistance in any case, to answer your question.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No more questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any either. You indicated all the concerns that I had right now.
Todd Gerhardt: Also attached in there, on the last page it determines how the Press would get their assistance.
This is the tax formula used by Hennepin County in determining how taxes are calculated and they are adding
value of $600,000.00 to the addition. So based on that and minus out school aid and fiscal disparity
contributions, the total xvas $54,831.00 over a 3 year period.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is it ironic that the total amount of tax base is going to be that $36,554.45. When I
took those two increments that we're giving for '96, '97, '98, just taking the two, comes out to that total amount
of taxes.
Councilman Senn: You mean ironic or well planned.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the question. Okay. I guess I don't have any other. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'll move approval of the private redevelopment agreement with the Press Inc.
Mayor Chmiel: Second? Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Private Redevelopment Agreement with
The Press, Inc. and their request for $54,831.69 in city assistance. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO TI-IE CITY CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (GAZEBOS) ON
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS, FIRST READING.
John Rask: Back in October, City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance
allowing gazebos on recreational beachlots. This issue was prompted by a recent conditional use request for a
beachlot with a gazebo. The'City Council did not take final action on the conditional use request in order to
32
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
give staff time to draft an ordinance revision. Both Council and Planning Commission agreed that gazebos
should be permitted on beachlots. On November 2nd the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment and recommended approval. I guess staff is recommending the City Council adopt the ordinance
amendment and the standards that go along with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks John. Let me ask you one question. By adding, except gazebos and unenclosed
shelters, I don't have any problem with gazebos at all but when we start adding unenclosed shelters, I can see all
kinds of Taj Mahals being built and I really have some concern with that.
Councilman Senn: Should look up really the definition of unenclosed, right?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Mason: Well that will be an issue.
Mayor Chmiel: And it could.
Councilman Mason: What is an unenclosed shelter7
Mayor Chmiel: Right. So I would just as soon see us just stick to a gazebo and then leave it there. But that's
just my opinion. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I had lots of questions. What about the screening? What about plumbing? What about
fireplaces? I mean these are all things I've seen in "gazebos".
Kate Aanenson: Well a gazebo doesn't necessarily mean that. What we did is put some, first you have to
remember, this is part of the recreational beaehlot, which is a conditional use. So that gives you the authority to
review that. And as a part of that we also put in standards for you to measure this against. So those standards.
Councilman Senn: So each one is a specific individual approval.
Kate Aanenson: No, it's part of the beachlot. This would be within a beachlot, recreational beachlot. As you
go through all that criteria, you'd be reviewing these.
Councilman Senn: But I'm just saying, if somebody already has a recreational beachlot.
Kate Aanenson: They would have to come back. Those are non-conforming. We've already approved them.
The only thing that's going to come in somebody new such as the one for Minnewashta Landings. You went
through and reviewed, decided whether or not architecturally it was compatible. We gave you criteria. That's
what this does is say whether or not, this is the height it can be. This is the maximum square footage. So if
you're not comfortable with those standards, then I think that's where we need to make the changes. But the
reason we left gazebo is gazebo has a specific definition which as you indicated, maybe this is somewhere
where you want to allow some screening. Maybe there's one where you don't want screening or maybe you
want a fireplace but you have that review when it comes before you. Now the non-conforming ones you're not
going to, those have already been permitted. They can't expand.
Councilman Senn: Is there anything, I guess of the things I mentioned, is there anything that's prohibited?
33
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, maybe what we can do, just something as such, regarding fireplaces and all the rest of
what you're saying, is to completely exclude all those specifically.
Councilman Senn: That's kind of what I was getting to in terms of, I raise these questions because I guess
we've gone through this discussion on this in our neighborhood where we have a beachlot. I mean we've had
certain people who advocate, you know they don't want a port-a-potty down there so they said let's build a
gazebo and put a bathroom in it. You know I mean like I say, everybody's definition is different. The (¢) and
(d) in here, I have great problems with as setting a standard because I think they're very excessive as standards.
In fact I think should never be something that's achieved. To me 10 x 25 gazebo is a picnic shelter, not a
gazebo. To me a 20 foot height anything is something far more substantial than is needed on a recreational
beachlot.
Kate Aanenson: The one that Ken Durr came in with was 10 by.
John Rask: 16 foot in diameter so roughly...
Councilman Senn: I understand that but the normal gazebo is maxed out at about 10 feet in diameter and your
height is generall3r no greater than 10 to 12 feet. It just seems to me when we set this kind of a standard, we're
kind of challenging people to come in and meet the standard and I have real problems with that in terms of just
in terms of (c) and (d) and then I just, I'd still like to come back to.
Kate Aanenson: I guess what we did is you liked Ken Durr's model so we took that standard and then we put it
in here so I guess what we're saying is, if you don't like his model, then we need to go back and tell him we
didn't like it because this is what we developed that around. We tried to develop it around that framework so, it
does have a pitched roof to it. And again, these are the only ones that are coming in. It's not the existing non-
conforming. I think your other point, we just add (g) or modify to say no screening, no fireplaces.
Councilman Senn: Well I'm not saying I'm necessarily opposed to screening for example. Or I guess I'm not
necessarily opposed to any of them. I guess my question is more of one, is there anything in the ordinance now
that prohibits any of those things or is it purely a Council determination on each one as they come through?
Kate Aanenson: Right now you can't have a structure on the premises at all, unless it's.
Councilman Senn: No, but I'm saying if we pass this ordinance. Can they be anything as long as Council
approves it? Can they include any of those things?
Kate Aanenson: Well what we did is we said, it would have to be, architectural high quality design. So what
does that mean?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So basically everyone that comes in has discretion.
Kate Aanenson: Right. If you don't want it in, I think you should say you don't want it in there. You don't
want to see those things.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so there's nothing in the current ordinances once you plug gazebo in to prohibit
plumbing or prohibit fireplaces or whatever, unless the Council just wants to stick that stipulation in. When I
34
City Council Meeting -November 28, 1994
was trying to take that and plug it into the ordinance and figure that out and I couldn't figure it out so I'm sorry,
that's why I'm asking the question.
Kate Aanenson: Well, what it says right now, except provided, no structure, ice fishing house, camper, tent,
trailer, shall be maintained upon any premise. Now we're saying except gazebos or unenclosed shelters with the
following criteria. So if you want to add additional standards to that, I think that's where we should put it in.
Councilman Senn: Okay. But as written you could do any of those things.
Kate Aanenson: No plumbing, whatever. But again, the square footage, I agree with you. 250 seems big but
you felt that that beachlot, and you've got to remember, our beachlot standard is almost an acre. And that was
the size that you had placed on that beachlot that you felt comfortable with so we tried to develop the standards
around what you felt was an acceptable size. You're right, it wouldn't work on a 60 foot strip, non-conforming
beachlot and they couldn't do it anyway.
Councilman Senn: Well in my mind, and the reason I'm asking the question is that, and making the point on
the 250 is, I guess if it is our intent here to create picnic shelters, then I think that's what we should call them
rather than try to disguise them as a gazebo because if you go to 10 x 25, to me we're creating something more
than, at least in my mind, under any sense I can visualize as a gazebo. And I'm not saying that that's
necessarily bad but I'm just saying.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: To me that's semantics.
Councilman Senn: Geez, I've never seen a gazebo 10 x 25. I'm sorry, I've been in the business, in the industry
for many years and I've never seen one that large.
Mayor Chmiel: ...has one 10 x 20.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I don't have a problem with it because it does give us latitude to evaluate
each individual one. I mean I don't feel that we're backing ourselves into a comer. An association's going to
come in and say, but your ordinance says it can be this big. I mean it's very clear just by the non-conforming
permit that we have ultimate control over what goes in and what goes out.
Councilman Wing: These are large lots that they're going into. They're not like a strip of narrow ones and if
Mark's happy to call them picnic shelters, that's fine with me, I mean gazebo sort of adds a touch of something
that picnic shelter doesn't. I'd rather have a gazebo than a picnic shelter.
Councilman Senn: Well and I agree with Colleen that it's semantics but an unenclosed shelter, I mean that's
kind of where you start opening the door.
Councilman Mason: I don't 'know if I like that word. That's scares me a little bit. Unenclosed shelter, well
what's that?
Councilman Senn: I mean how enclosed can it be without making it unenclosed?
Mayor Chmiel: I think if we defined it strictly as a gazebo and put those conditions in it, that no plumbing, no
heating, no fireplaces, no whatever else should be put in there.
35
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: See I disagree.
Councilman Mason: Yeah I guess I, and I think Kate just said it. Obviously I'm not saying anything well
tonight but Kate had said it earlier. With all these conditionals, eve~ one in a separate issue. So I don't know
that we have to put all that extra verbiage in it because we can clearly say no, it won't wash here and that's
done. I mean maybe.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but at a later time I'm saying that if that gazebo is up and 5 years, 10 years goes down
the road and somebody wants to do some of these improvements to that gazebo by putting in those fireplaces
and doing whatever they want.
Councilman Mason: Well you'd have to get approval by City Council to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to bet?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure they will.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure they will. As I was out at the lake, as one of my neighbors said, if you ever want to do
anything out here, do it on Saturday and Sundays. You never have to get a permit.
Roger Knutson: Just throw in one comment. It's true you have a certain amount of discretion... The absolute
and easiest and best place to exercise discretion and cause the least amount of consternation, is to put it in here.
So what I'm suggesting is, if you 'know you never want a fireplace in a gazebo, then I think it's a great idea to
say so. Then no one, then you never have to deal with that issue again. But if you think under certain
circumstances a fireplace would be okay, then you can leave it alone. But if you know you don't want it, I
recommend you put it in there now.
Councilman Senn: ...fully educated I'd love a little time to think about it.
Councilman Mason: I can see the no electricity and no plumbing but I don't know, a fireplace might be kind of
cool.
Councilman Senn: And I don't know either and it's kind of what I wanted to do tonight was get the ground
rules set because like I said, I kept trying to take this and plug it in the ordinance and to me it was kind of like
all things go. Well, but do we want it to be all things go but if you want to be limiting, what do you want to
limit. I don't know.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: ...I'm willing to limit fireplaces.
Councilman Mason: Plumbing and electricity. We don't need a little kitchen down in those things.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what you use the fireplace for.
Councilman Mason: That's right.
Roger Knutson: ...as some people do, I have a next door neighbor, for whatever reason has their television in
their gazebo.
36
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: That's really getting back to nature isn't it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's get back to the exact, time out.
Councilman Senn: I mean is there any urgency? Can we think about it a little bit?
Kate Aanenson: No. Do you want us to maybe think about some other standards to put in here. Just say the
Council may consider. We'll think of something to put in.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion to table?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the City Code Amendment reganiing accessory
structures (gazebos) on recreational beachlots. All voted in favor and the motion carrie&
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor, I would like to have a Council presentation please.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry you can't.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Please.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Only if we all agree at what it is.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let me convince you. A couple Saturdays ago there was yet another bad accident
on Highway 5 and CR 117 and to put it bluntly I am sick and tired of the answers I'm getting from the city,
from MnDot, from everyone concerned about our hands are tied. We can't do anything at that intersection until
the school goes up next year. We're just ripe for another fatality at that intersection and we have to do
something. Next fall is not going to cut it.
Mayor Chmiel: Where did Charles go? One of the problems is the different things that it has to be tied in with
instrumentation from other lights up on down to that, and all over down to TH 41.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well I'd like some options of something that we can do. It doesn't necessarily
have to be lights. It could be warning signs, It could be something. You know a little more tar on the side of
the road so the bypass lane is bigger. Some cats eyes in the road so, it is so dangerous there and with all the
development both north and south on Galpin, there are more cars than ever. There are big trucks who are going
to the school. It's extremely dangerous. I don't even take it anymore. And it's getting to the point where we
can just not, we can't wait any longer. We certainly can't wait until next fall so I would like to see Charles or
whomever come up with a list of options. Including the city forking out some money for a stop light, if that's
what we need to do.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a lot of money.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I kno~v it is.
37
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: But, and I don't disagree with you because you have a lot of your neighbors that have talked to
me too that are on the north side that don't even go out to get out onto Highway 5 going east. They go all the
xvay back in and around and come back out on Powers Boulevard to go east. But I agree, it's unsafe. It's not
very good. There was an accident there just recently again. One of the things that we're looking at is having
that back in operation by August of this coming year and there are a lot of things that can't be done now and
I've had discussions with Charles on this. And it's tying in instrumentation of synchronizing lights from one to
the other and it takes a little more time than the normal.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: But, I can understand synchronization of the lights right out here close to
downtown but from TH 41, the stretch all the way to Powers has got to be at least 3 miles so synchronization in
my opinion is not as much of a concern as it is with these ones close together here.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, actually it's probably up to Highway 41 is probably about a mile and a half.
Council~voman Dockendorf: From Powers?
Mayor Chmiel: From Powers.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, so much for my depth perception but still. My point is, it's a greater
distance than the ones closer in town and I guess if we can't do stop lights, then we need some other options out
there. It's just way too dangerous.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I think that can be discussed.
Todd Gerhardt: We can bring that back up.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: COMMISSION INTERVIEWS, SET DATE/TIME, CITY
MANAGER.
Kate Aanenson: I can cover that for you Todd. You have an ordinance that requires that you interview the
potential candidates for the available Park and Rec, Planning Commission. In Don's staff report we listed the
people that are up. We're suggesting to you is on the next meeting, the 12th, it's a pretty big agenda, that
maybe you set a separate time for meeting those. In addition, you haven't always interviewed the people that
are on right now. We're assuming that you probably just want to interview the new people so we want
clarification on that. Whether you want to interview just those people that are new people applying or if you
want to interview the existing candidates again and if you w/int to have it on the 12th or set aside a separate
meeting date. Because the 12th agenda is going to be a pretty full agenda. That will be your only meeting in
December.
Councilman Mason: A couple of comments. It was mentioned I know in here about waiting until after the first
of the year.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, that was the other issue, thank you.
Councilman Mason: Which I think has some merit. I also quite honestly think, I think we need to have some
sort of work session talking about commissions and how they are chosen. This Council, since I've been on it
has gone kind of full cycle about.
38
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Cycle or psycho.'?
Councilman Mason: Well tonight I think it's psycho but this whole issue about how commission members gets
decided and what not, I think we need to revisit it. I really do. And in fact, well I just don't know how the rest
of the Council feels but I wouldn°t mind waiting until after the first of the year.
Councilman Senn: Ditto.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I agree with that just because, not because the Council's going to change over.
Basically because my brain is full and I know I just will not be able to deal with it on the 13th.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard really wanted to address that particular issue but. That's fine. I don't care.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to see a work session too.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I really do want to have a, and not just dealing necessarily with Planning
Commission but.
Councilman Senn: No, all commissions.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. And that would also be after the first of the year.
Kate Aanenson: So you want to schedule a work session before you do any interviewing, is that what you're
saying?
Councilman Mason: I would like to because.
Mayor Chmiel: I think really what you're saying is that, if you go through this process, whatever the second
Monday of the month is in January, that it'd be after that particular time.
Todd Gerhardt: For the first work session?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Second, that's going to be late. t mean Ihe first of the year is a Monday or Tuesday. No,
Sunday. Monday.
Councilman Senn: Sunday. Sunday's the 1st.
Councilman Mason: So when will the first Council meeting be?
Mayor Chmiel: It will be the 9th.
Councilman Mason: No, yeah that's fine. I'm not going to come here on the 2nd, I can tell you that.
Councilman Senn: And the 16th is a holiday so.
39
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so why don't we motion to table this and come up with a date.
Councilman Senn: Tomorroxv's our tax hearing, right?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. By the way there's two things that I'd just like to mention again. Tomorrow evening is
the tax hearing here at 7:00. The second thing was, it's confirmation one more time with Minge for 6:00 on the
20th of December. Other than that, any other discussions? Seeing none, can I have a motion for adjournment.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ali voted in favor and
the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
Cit3' Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
40