CC Minutes 1994 08 08CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 8, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf and
Councilman Senn
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Ma.son
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Todd
Hoffman, and Diane Desotelle
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD TO DAVE HEADLA,
STABLE INSPECTOR.
Mayor Chmiel: David. This is your life. This is a Maple Leaf Award where we recOgnize people who have
provided many services to our city. David, in the past 20 years has been our stable inspector making sure that
the horses were cared for and when complaints would come in, he'd check those out. Fences were mended to
make sure that horses weren't jumping fences. And many other things that David had done through those
particular years. So it gives me a great deal of pleasure to present to you the City of Chanhassen's Maple Leaf
Award which is presented to David Headla, Stable Inspector from 1976 through 1994. In recognition of
outstanding volunteer service for the City of Chanhassen, Chanhassen City Council, from myself and the balance
of the Council, extend to you a thank you and appreciation and I'd like to give you your Maple Leaf Award.
David Headla: I'd like to say I appreciate and value your recognition for service, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Olivewood Addition (Neumann Subdivision):
I) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications
b. Final Plat Approval, Minger Addition including Final Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning the property.
c. Amendment to City Code Section 20-904(c) regarding a time limit for an accessory structure to be removed
after the primary sn'ucture has been removed or destroyed, Final Reading.
d. Resolution g94-75: Order Stage I Improvements for Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Area Trunk Utilities,
Project 93-32.
f. Approve Certificate of Compliance, Saddlebrook, Project 87-15.
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
g. Resolution g94-76: Approve Resolution Designating Polling Places, Election Judges and Rate of Pay for
Election Judges.
h. Approval of Bills
i. City Council Minutes dated July 25, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes dated July 20, 1994
j. Resolution g94-77: Emergency Purchase, Air Compressor, Chanhassen Fire Department.
k. Resolution g94-78: Approve Resolution, Subrecipient Agreement and Third Party Agreement, Community
Development Block Grant Program, Year XX.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Joe Scott: Thank you. Joe Scott, 7091 Plmlico Lane in Chanhassen. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Members of the
City Council, city staff and members of the general public. I'll make this as brief as possible. The packet that
you have in front of you contains information taken from the public record and from public documents. If
there's anything that anyone remembers about this presentation this evening is that Councilman Senn should
resign his position for three reasons. One involving poor judgment. Number two, conflict of interest and the
inability to identify one that had to do with a potential interest. And then also on two occasions he made an
attempt to have the City Council violate a section of the City Code for the same reason to an item he was
involved with. So what I'm going to do is start from the top. Exhibit number 1 is a development review
application and at the top of the page the applicant is listed as the Marcus Corporation. The applicant applied
for item number 2 which is conditional use permit. And item number 9 which was site plan review. The reason
why I use that document is that ff you'll be kind enough to turn two pages to item number 2. This item is
labeled site plan review. It's a document that has been produced by the City of Chanhassen that goes over the
general requirements for an individual or a corporation to make an application. In the case of applying for a site
plan review, evidence of ownership or an interest in the property must be shown. The Press is listed as the
owner and from that I inferred that the Marcus Corporation had an interest in the property. I'll try to make this
as brief as possible for you. Item, a couple more pages, item number 3 is a similar document that the city has
provided that identifies what needs to occur from an applicant to file for a conditional use permit and you can
see that item number 3 on that page also requests evidence of ownership or interest in the property. This
particular item known to the general public as the Press/Kindercare project appeared before the Planning
Commission in the middle of April of this year. For reasons of public safety and architectm'al concerns, the item
was tabled and after that tabling, Mr. Senn took it upon himself to have this item placed on the agenda of the
City Council. Our City Manager, Mr. Ashworth noted that that was rather unusual and asked our City Attorney,
Mr. Knutson to put forth an opinion. Item number 4 shows the letter that was dated April 21st, which is
included in the City Council packets. It was also delivered to each City Council member's residence by a
member of the Public Safety Department. If I can direct your attention to the bottom of the page of item
number 4. Here he stated that my conclusion however, the Planning Commission has rightly or wrongly not
taken action on the Kindercare and the Council would violate Code Section 2044 to act at this time. One good
reason is to assume that upon reading that document, Mr. Senn would have withdrawn his project from the City
Council agenda, That did not happen, Item number 5. This is basically a reprint of the Chanhassen Code,
referenced by Mr. Knutson. Item number 6 deals with tying any violation of City Code sections to the State
2
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Misdemeanor Statute, which item number 7 shows the penalty which is a fine of $700.00 or the imprisonment in
jail of 90 days so the reason why that information is in here is simply to show the serious nature of what
Councilman Senn was attempting to do to move this particular project forward. So now we are at the City
Council meeting Minutes of April 25, 1994 which is item number 8. Mr. Knutson was asked by Mr. Ashworth
to once again restate the Code Section 2044 so it's on the public record that that discussion was taken. And I
included the rest of the discussion on this particular item. The City Council, as they should have done, tabled
the item. It was sent back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission again tabled the Press
Kindercare project because of concerns for public safety and architecture. Mr. Senn once again added the
Kindercare Press project to the City Council meeting dated May 9th and attempted again to get the City Council
to act on it. If the City Council would have that, as I stated before, would have been a misdemeanor. There are
some sections in there that I have outlined. If you will go to item number 9 and go through to page number 9 of
item number 9. There is a comment here that I think bears repeating and a quote from Mr. Senn. It says, I
guess given where this all fits now, where it's at and I guess Roger, who is our City Attorney, would have to
speak of the legalities of it one way or another but I would simply implore the Council to act on it and push it
forward because if it feels it can't do so tonight, my fear is basically just that. So basically this is Mr. Senn
stating on the public record that he is imploring the City Council to act on this issue to move it forward, which
as I mentioned before, would have been a misdemeanor. He goes on to say, a few moments later, "so tI'd just
like to ask the Council to take the bull by the horns so to speak and take action on it one way or another." The
rest of the discussion is included for your edification. The City Council tabled it. The item was sent back. Item
number 10 is a notice of public hearing showing the developer as Marcus Corporation. And one of the final
issues right up here is the City Council meeting of July 1 lth where Mayor Chmiel mentioned, ff I may quote.
This is where we have one of our City Council people who still has his name on a proposed project, which is the
Marcus Corporation. And prior to doing something of this nature I would like to have, see our Councilperson
sign a form indicating that there are no interests on this project and have our City Attorney draft this form for
him to sign. So basically what this all came down to is our Mayor made it a condition of approval that our City
Council member sign that. He goes on to say he's very concerned about what the public might think about this
and our editor at the Villager put together an editorial. Councilman Wing made the comment, and I really feel
the editor of the Villager hit it on the head. That something is wrong here and whether it's right or wrong, there
was an appearance of impropriety or an appearance of conflict of interest. The final item that I have here to
take a look at. Item number 13 and I just have a question for Mr. Knutson. This was the item that...or some
member of staff had put together for Councilman Senn to sign.
Roger Knutson: I can't talk unless recognized.
Joe Scott: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Joe Scott: Okay. I just have a question. I noticed here it says, I was not paid nor will I be paid in the future
for processing the plat or the development. Does that preclude any non-cash compensation?
Roger Knutson: What, the Mayor's statement?
Joe Scott: Pardon me? Did you get a copy of that?
Roger Knutson: The last page..?
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Joe Scott: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: What was your question with it?
Joe Scott: My question was, in the two sentences that we had here, the final one is I was not paid nor will I be
paid in the future for processing the plat or development. Does that preclude the payment or does that preclude
any sort of non cash compensation?
Roger Knutson: The way my intention was, it would include any compensation,
Joe Scott: Okay. So there's the language there, I was not paid nor will I be paid for future for processing the
plat or development. Does that preclude any non cash compensation?
Roger Knutson: It includes any compensation.
Joe Scott: Any compensation whatsoever. Okay. My f'mai comment here. There's another comment on the
July 1 lth that actually Councilman Wing said it. Referring to this action. Whether it is or isn't, that appearance
to me justified...departure from the Council. Councilman Wing I quote, and I hope you're not taking it out of
context. I have I guess a question for Mr. Senn and that is, tonight are you going to resign from the City
Council?
Councilman Senn: Are you done?
Joe Scott: I'm waiting for you to answer my question sir.
Councilman Senn: I will answer it in due time. I'll answer it in due time. I'm just asking, are you done?
Joe Scott: Well, I have one more document that I'll present to you, our City Attorney but I'd like you to answer
my question.
Councilman Senn: I'm not going to answer your question Joe so go ahead and go on.
Joe Scott: Well, assuming that Mr. Senn's answer is going to be no, I have a proposed amendment to the City
Code and this is something for your review and doesn't have to be acted on right away. But I know the Mayor
had made mention of the fact that either Code of Ethics or City Ordinances need to be looked at to allow that
things like this do not happen in the future. This is an effort to address that and as I said, this is not intended to
be acted on today but...on the agenda. Thank you very much,
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Joe. I guess one of the things that I'd probably like to just throw out in looking at some
of the things that Joe had brought. Council is looking at some of the things that were said within the paper and
I'd just like this for Council thought. Maybe with Roger, let me ask you a question, ff there's been any
improprieties, or conflict of interest within this, I would really like to see this cleared up. Only because of the
fact that I don't want to see the city have a mark against it. I would like to proceed. I know you can guide me
in this, receive an opinion from your office regarding where do we go with this. The other question being, why
this is being reviewed and whoever may have an opportunity to look at this. Either the, as I was thinking of the
Board of Ethics, Attorney General's office or League of Cities or wherever, Maybe you can give me a little
insight.
4
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Roger Knutson: I'll first start out by saying that our office obviously could not be anyone to investigate this in
investigating because we work with Councilman Senn on a weekly basis. Obviously...and could not be a part of
that investigation. As far as other possibilities, again I could look into that and in the next week, 10 days, send
you a letter setting out your options. I think it's too important a matter, not to the reflection...I'll just expose
most of this...I'd you'd like that opinion, I'll supply that opinion.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I would like to get some feeling from Council as to what they think too the direction
should be. At least that's where I think it should go. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I think as Mayor it's your responsibility. Had I been the Mayor, which I'm not. I say
that respectfully. I think I would have, and this is in hindsight. I would have stopped this and simply have gone
no further until this had been resolved. And that's hindsight. So I guess I support your position as Mayor. I
think you should do what you think is best. My only comments on the issue specific is that if I take Mark at his
word, and there is no conflict of interest or any impropriety, and I'll make that assumption that that's the case,
I'm spending time for the third meeting in a row here talking about this with the problems and the newspaper
picked up on it. And the neighbors have picked up on it. If there is no conflict of interest, if there is no
involvement in this project, it would have been a very simple, simple thing simply to sit down. I mean the thing
passed. And to have complicated it didn't show good judgment. That doesn't say that Mark's wrong. I just
guess I would have stepped out myself personally and it's my own opinion. So for that reason I'd be hard to
support Mark's position because it's conlrary to how I would have handled my own personal belief on this issue
so, I simply support your position. I think you should do what's best and I'll follow your lead.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I too would like it to get cleared up and I guess I have a general comment.
Ethical Codes of Conduct are, I mean they're never black or white. They're more shades of gray and I think it
would be hard for any of us to say unequivocally that personal considerations have never come into any of our
decision making. I mean whether we work in the city or own a business in the city or live in a particular
neighborhood, on a particular lake or drive a particular route through town to work, we all have personal life
experiences that enter into our decision making within the city. And however I think all of us, including city
staff, everyone on the commissions and certainly on the Council, I would say always put the interest of the city
before our own personal interests. At least I do and I guess for that sake I would just really like to see the
matter cleared up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Mark, is there anything that you would like to say at this time? And you
needn'L
Councilman Senn: No. I mean I really have no problems with Roger doing that. I have no problems with any
of that at all because I think the question was asked. I think the question was answered and there's basically
nothing there anyway so it doesn't bother me one way or the other.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, so with that Roger, would you pursue.
Roger Knutson: I'll make sure I do that.
Mayor Chmiel: And get back with an opinion and we will move ahead with it.
5
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Wing: Don also, just to follow up kind of one of the original comments. It's not to say it wouldn't
happen again...Colleen with any one of us. You were going to, Roger was going to come up with what some
other cities have done with guidelines or ordinances. Is this being pursued?
Roger Knutson: I have a draft on my desk. Interestingly I only found one in Minnesota which was pretty
incomplete and I have another one connected to municipal officers and Don had one that he's going to give to
me to look at.
Councilman Wing: Is it~
Roger Knutson: Eight of them?
Councilman Wing: Is it simple enough where if simply the Council, in my case with the Fire Department, said
because it's a red fire track and we know your passions, it might be best if you weren't involved. Would just
that opinion of the Council have the power to exit me from the discussion?
Roger Knutson: It depends on what you finally decide on doing. A Code of Ethics, if that's what it is you
decide to adopt. You can give someone the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval so to speak for following it or
you can...for not following it or you can hold them up to scorn in the community or what have you but that's it.
You can remove someone from office or send someone to jail or f'me them or..,
Councilman Wing: Well I understand.
Roger Knutson: But it's on the rules as opposed to an ordinance, which would make it a crime to violate.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But again, that's what I mean by shades of gray. I don't have any problem with
you voting on something regarding the fh-e department. Who cares if it's your passion. You're a fairly
uninterested, well I mean you're an interested party but it would be the same for me removing myself if there
was an issue on Rosemount or something because my husband's employed there. I mean it's, like I said, it's
shades of gray.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there are a lot of gray issues but when it comes to development, there aren't too many
gray issues when it comes to seeing something moved forward or to have something on it and there is some, as I
mentioned, there was something there that I didn't like and it bothered me some and I indicated that concern at
the time. In fact at Council. And so I just feel that we'd best move on with it. Get this cleared and if we have
to go to the League of Cities to have them take a look and review, or County Attorney or being that you're not
going to really provide that. You're going to make a suggestion from what I understand. Then we move ahead
with that.
Roger Knutson: I can do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else for visitor presentation?
Jim Andrews: Very brief sir. My name is Jim Andrews from 7014 Sandy Hook Circle and I'm before you for
the same issue. I'd also just remind you it was about one year ago we had a similar uncomfortable situation
regarding the Planning Commission. At that time there was a suggestion made by me that we also investigate
Code of Ethics and some directives and I think this is just another sign that this is something that we really need
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
to pursue. I think the discussion was already had regarding direct or indirect conflicts and that we should have a
wriuen I think notice of an interest in a project or a decision regarding any personal or business gains that are
possible. I think also if a person involved in a decision making process is active in a lobby for or against some
project or decision, that should be disclosed. I think we're all here to do things that are for the good of the city.
I think it would be easy to be equally critical of Councilman Senn if he had decided to locate this in Eden
Prairie without approaching the city of Chanhassen. We might ask questions as why didn't he think about
bringing it to Chanhassen so I think we have to look at all the potential pros and cons. I think I would support
all of the Council here that they do their best. That they txy to do what's best for the city and that I don't think
we should jump to conclusions until really all the facts are'out. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Steven Peterson: Mayor, Council, I'm Steven Peterson. An attomey...in Chanhassen. I feel that perhaps the
actions by Mr. Senn have compromised the entire Council and I'm a little, I'm primarily upset that he hasn't
seem to have noticed the position he's put the rest of you in. Secondly I wonder if in order to try to put this
thing to rest, a second letter could not be drafted for Mr. Senn that is much broader and more encompassing than
the one that was in this packet tonight. It's fairly specific as to what he may or may not have been paid for and
there is any number of things that could have come up. Any form of compensation and for doing any number of
jobs. And it would be nice, if in my mind, I knew there was nothing coming to him..for anything. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Steve. Is there anyone else? If not, we'll move right along with the agenda. Thank
you for your comments.
SEWER AND WATER CONNECTION CHARGES: REQUEST TO DEFER CHARGES, ST. HUBERT'S
CHURCH/SCHOOL, DISTRICT 112.
Don Ashworth: The first item was the Kurvers Point item, has been deleted from this agenda. That item has
been resolved and there's no necessity for any City Council action. The second request for a deferment of sewer
and water connection charges arises from St. Hubert's Church and the usage of what is referred to as the old
Kenny's building as a school site for both St. Hubert's Church as well as the school. Initial discussions between
myself and representatives of St. Hubert's Church noted that you really have not provided any exceptions to the
collection of the local sewer and water charges. I guess the point here is, whether they be a small church
congregations, etc, we've established a uniform charge where we've reflected that. In further discussing the item
with representatives of St. Hubert's, they're primary point was, not really trying to get away from paying these
charges but the true question in their own mind as to whether or not that building will continue to be used as a
school for a long period of time. They didn't define what they meant but let's say they felt within the next 3 to
5 years they would have an idea as to usage. In light of the fact that schools are a relatively high generator, and
that the total charges against them, if it would be continued as a school, again are quite high. If on the other
side of the coin that use would return or I shouldn't say return but let's say at some point in time in the future
they remodeled the Kenny's building and used that for the Priest and study and library and other type of uses,
the local sewer and water charges would drop to one which is the same as they're getting credit for today.
Accordingly, oh and there's one other factor here in the discussion. The church recognized that they may very
well do an expansion. Or they need to do an expansion. The question really becomes one of where that will
occur and they thought well, they'll be paying these charges in any case. Is it possible that if we expanded the
new church site or the existing church site, could those credits be transferred across the slxeet and I found out the
answer to that to be yes. They could be but it would require a designation or it would require an action by the
City Council instructing the attorney to prepare a document which would insure that those credits could Wavel
7
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
with the church if they develop across the street. On Thursday I received the letter from the church which was
included in your packet. Again, at the time I wrote my cover report we were kind of going both ways. One as
a thought on their part to go ahead and pay the charges with the idea that they could be transferred. The second
alternative would be to seek a deferment, a 5 year deferment which means that we would establish those as a
charge against the property. The charge would not be levied to the county until after a 5 year period of time.
At that point in time it would be brought back to the City Council to make a determination as to whether or not
that charge would stay in place or not, And assuming, I had another discussion today with another representative
from the church who thought that they may still wish to pursue the alternative of just going ahead and paying
and look to the transfer. So I guess at this point, staff would feel very comfortable with either of the two. If
they paid, they may be allowed to transfer in the future. Or if the church would like to see the deferment with
the knowledge then that it would come back to City Council before it would ever be levied down to the County.
With that I guess I'd like to hear from the church. Really where their current position is.
Councilman Senn: Question first, if I could. With the deferral you're talking about, okay. The deferral
effectively is temporary okay, and it's actually putting.
Don Ashworth: Putting it on hold.
Councilman Senn: Putting it on a time line basically for that so it's purely a deferral. Okay. If the church and
schools basically go ahead with this project, would they be putting any additional load capacity on the system
that they wouldn't be putting on by putting those same functions in both of their existing facilities downtown
now?
Don Ashworth: I think they would have to respond to that but I don't know how they could add that many
additional classrooms without adding space. I thing something.
Councilman Senn: I don't know, the school districts do it all the time. My kid's gone from 17 to 32 in a class
SO.
Don Ashworth: The number of units are determined by MWCC. The Metropolitan, the old Melxopolitan Waste
Commission and supposedly that is after years of studying actual usage from various sized schools and
developing a standardized charge associated with those and they came up with the determination that the
Kenny's building was converted to school use would produce the equivalent of 7 single family houses.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and maybe I'm not being clear enough but I guess the question I'm after or the answer
to it really is, if the church or the school district or the church and the school district would simply perform
these functions in their current facilities, there would be no charges, correct?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Councilman Senn: No additional charges.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess maybe what you're basically saying is if they were to take their library out and put the
kids in there, utilize that particular facility, or some of the other rooms.
Councilman Senn: Or use the library as a classroom, yeah.
8
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Don Ashworth: But it would still trigger the necessity for additional restrooms, bathrooms, etc and at the time
they would make application to put in those additional facilities, it would trigger a re-review by MWCC and
the...
Mayor Chmiel: Is the church representative here this evening? Wish to make a comment.
Dave Bangaster: Good evening. I'm Dave Bangaster, a member of St. Hubert's parish and also a member of
our long range building committee as well as our program needs at this particular time. I've also got with me
Tim...who's our parish administrator. I guess I'd just like to make a few comments. Right or wrong, it was a
big surprise to us. Whether we should have known about it is another question. We thought we had done some
checking around but obviously missed this one. At the time we went to pull our building permit we found this
roughly $20,000.00 issue out there which was a big surprise and really seemed quite excessive when you
consider the number of plumbing fixtures actually being put into this facility. There were a couple of toilets in
the space before. There was a deli as part of the Kenny's space I believe. I believe Chalet Pizza was in that
facility as well, which is a restaurant. Restaurants tend to have high usage. We've got some water closets and a
lavatory and a drinking fountain. The classrooms don't have sinks in them like most classrooms these days. I
should make the distinction, this is a temporary. St. Hubert's does not own this building. We are leasing it.
We have a 3 year lease. We do have some options beyond that to either lease or purchase but at this time, it's a
3 year lease and because we don't know what our long range plan is. Just like Chanhassen is growing quite
quickly, so is St. Hubert's and we're in the midst of studying how best to make use of the parish. It does seem
as though this is excessive considering, particularly what was in the space before. When we looked at it and a
couple of restaurants in there before, and when you consider these toilets, it doesn't seem to be the usage is
going up that much. The sewer and water services is not being increased at all to the building. The utilities that
are there are going to be adequate for what we intend to do. The toilets that we're utilizing are the Iow V
...toilets. Half the normal toilet usage. I'm also concerned, and I'm not sure Don if you're even aware of this.
I was, today as I was checking up on the Chalet Pizza angle, I called the city and talked to Jean. I'm not sure
what Jean's last name is.
Don Ashworth: Meuwissen.
Dave Bangaster: And I was inquiring about SAC credits for the building to see if maybe there were some other
credits that could be applied to our case and actually found to my dismay that maybe I knew something that I
didn't want to, which is to say that there apparently has been no SAC charges paid on the facility at all and now
what I guess what we as a parish thought was excessive at $20,000.00, now I'm wondering if is the city going to
go back and say, because all these previous uses had not paid, that we're going to be required to make up for it
and bring it all up to date. So I guess in terms of what we're asking for. Clearly we'd like to see it waived.
I'm not sure that that's realistic. I would certainly like to see at least a reduction based upon the fact that the
building has been used for restaurant facilities previously. Whether or not they've been charged previously is
another question but get some credit for what the previous use had been and that increase over the restaurant and
supermarket is not all that great. So I guess we would like your consideration on a reduction and if that is the
case and we are required to pay the water and sewer connection charges, we would like to see that those charges
are transferable such that when we do decide what our long range plan is, whether it's to build or whatever,
should we not renew our lease and move out. Move into a new facility. We'd like to see those funds credited
to us. Any questions, we're available.
Don Ashworth: Mayor, I think clarifications. The Kenny's structure, the entire building was built prior to the
time that the Metropolitan Waste Contxol Commission came into being and the whole business of starting with
9
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
local charges. So you're absolutely correct. A restaurant use would have a much higher use under their
guidelines but that use existed prior to the full charging system coming about. Since that point in time they have
moved out and a realty fm~n has moved in. If, on the other side, the realty fnxn moved out and now a restaurant
came back in, they would then be paying those higher units. Again I would really caution the Council against
the charging system is established as one again that we use the formula established by MWCC. I think that once
we get into a position where we're going to negotiate that, we're going to be negotiating it on each development
that comes in. I'm not aware of any time that we have negotiated that number over 25 years. And again, the
request for a waiver, I think that that would be very precedent setting and it has never occurred. The issue of
the deferment or the Iransferability. Staff would support either of those two options and I think that they're
reasonable options and we would continue to recommend either of those.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Richard. Do you have any comment on that?
Councilman Wing: Nothing to add to what Don said.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I would agree with Don that these are the two options and I guess it would
be up to St. Hubert's to decide which they would prefer.
Councilman Senn: Let me clarify that. Is that what's being offered? Pick one?
Don Ashworth: At the time I wrote this report, yes.
Councilman Senn: So I mean all we have to do is say they're both options and the church can pick which one it
likes best basically?
Don Ashworth: The instructions back to the City Attorney's office are going to be slightly different under
whichever option they choose so I would assume that if that's what the Council is saying, they make the choice.
Then that gives me the authority to inslruct Roger to prepare which of the two legal documents he's going to
prepare. It would be two different documents.
Councilman Senn: I think in terms of that, I think both of your options are acceptable. If you're going to take
the option that deals with the payment, transfer of credit. If there's some way to maybe set some timing up on
that might be helpful. If we could do it through assessment or you know, I don't know what the legality of that
is with the church one way or another but it sounds like it was kind of a big surprise. I'm not sure they have
the money to necessarily handle it. If you could set up some type of a payment schedule, if they should choose
that option, that might be another way to look at it. It just might be for whatever it's worth.
DOn Ashworth: There have been a few, if I may.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
DOn Ashworth: There have been a few times where the owner has been surprised by this. I think of Prairie
House and I remember talking with the owner there and I know that he had come in and made a similar pitch to
the Council at that point in time. What the Council did, and I think it was started with the Prairie House was the
first one. Is if for whatever reason it does produce a hardship, we do offer the ability to actually assess that
10
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
charge over a period of years, which is really a third option and staff would support that. So if it's their
decision to take. those 6 units and have those spread over 8 years at 5%. That would be a third option. The t-u-st
option would be, it's deferred. So it just sits there. Jean's got it on the books.
Councilman Senn: But it sits there and ultimately the church, as I understand it, the church doesn't necessarily
have to pay that ever.
Don Ashworth: No. If they would abandon the school use and convert it over to a study for the priest, that
would probably the same as the one credit that they're currently getting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Hypothetically what they could do is wind up putting additional classrooms on the
existing church property and utilizing the, and I don't know this but I'm sort of guessing, even though I go to St.
Hubert's. And utilizing the balance of the Kenny's, if you so choose to purchase that within a 3 to 5 year
period, to use that for office space or something of that nature. Is that what you're more or less, I know you
have several different options. You don't know which way they're going but that could be.
Dave Bangaster: At this point we're looking at, we have a 3 year lease and we're assuming if we build, we may
not be in that building at all. We just may not...We don't know and until we finish, we're still trying to study
what our needs are to formulate our game plan. We hope to, we are a ways down the road in assessing our
needs and we hope that this fall we'll develop our plan but at this point in time we've got to go under the
assumption that we may not be in that building in 3 years.
Don Ashworth: If I hear the Council correctly, their willing to pass a motion this evening which would give the
option to the church of any one of the three methods. I outlined two here and described a third which would
allow that those charges to be put onto the tax rolls. Oh wait a minute, we don't have tax rolls for the church.
Dave Bangaster: Because we're leasing the facility, it is, we are still paying tax.
Don Ashworth: Okay, so that is a third option.
Mayor Chmiel: Can we combine two of those options? In other words what I'm thinking about is going to the
deferment because they don't really know what they're doing. Keeping that for a 3 to 5 year period and ff they
so choose to proceed with that, then give them that oppo ,nunity to put it over an 8 year period at a 5% or
whatever percentage proportionally would be at that particular time.
.Don Ashworth: That is an option as well.
Councilman Senn: So that can be Option 4 now?
Mayor Chmiel: No, that would still give us 1, 2 and 3 but combining 2 and 3.
Councilman Senn: Or a combination thereof.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Take your choice.
11
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I don't want to force St. Hubert's to make that choice this evening. I would
just move that we approve the deferment or any one of the three options or combination thereof and have staff
work it out.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that to me would be fine.
Councilman Wing: Second,
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to direct staff to work with St. Hubert's
Church/School District to work out a solution from the three options or combination thereof, to the sewer
and water connection charges. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Dave Bangaster: Thank you for your consideration, Don, I'm glad you mentioned you're a member of St.
Hubert's and we'll gladly pass the collection plate your way.
Mayor Chmiel: I was there just last Sunday. Thanks.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS OF METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL, EDMUNDS ADDITION, 1861 SUNRIDGE COURT.
Kate Aanenson: Back in October of 1992 you approved a metes and bounds subdivision for the Edmunds
property as a part of the Sunridge Court subdivision, Ix>cated just off of Audubon Road and north of Lyman.
It's an existing home site and they split off this parcel here. One of the conditions of approval is that they
extend the sewer and water to the lot they were creating. The ordinance does require that all lots...maintain the
2 1/2 acre, which they have. They are in the area exempt from sewer and water if they so choose..,staff did
concur that based on the fact that extension of the sewer line is in excess of 150 feet away, that they do not have
to hook up as long as they provide, demonstrate to staff that they can have two septic sites on the property, that
we would be willing to allow... So we're modifying that condition or recommending modification of that
condition that they could either demonstrate how you could service it with sewer and water or they can provide
the two septic sites, That they could put the septic on their property so we're recommending modification of
that condition,
Mayor Chmiel: Just a question Kate, If that sewer and water goes into the first property and to Outlot A.
Kate Aanenson: It comes through here. My understanding is it's coming through here so there's potential.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words then it would have to.
Kate Aanenson: ...subdivision,
Mayor Chmiel: In other words then, it would have to cross over the entirety of that property and provide the
additional service to Parcel B.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
12
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. By that we could also then have an easement for that but as you're saying, the distance
is greater than 150 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Right. If they choose to do that, they...and they did hook up to sewer and water, it may be an
option. We would accept either or. If they do choose to put septic around that, that's also...we're saying either
or.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, is there anyone here this evening for the Edmunds Addition? Would you like to step
forward and please state your name and your address?
Robin Edmunds: My name is Robin Edmunds and I'm...First of all I'd like to interject something. That
property line...we've already got an approval on the division on the property. On changing the lot lines. Access
to Lot B. At some future date we would hope to subdivide it into another lot. Right now we don't have enough
acreage there...sign anything because of the cost involved. The city has recommended a $34,000.00 letter of
credit... We're building our own home and we have...a friend of our's that will be putting in the sewer and water
for us. We would like to put in sewer and water to our home, existing home and by doing so we put in T's on
the pipe to just a lot for Parcel B and I don't think that Parcel B...I'd hook up to city sewer and water. I
wouldn't put in a septic but that would be their choice. And by doing that, we don't have the financial resources
to back that stuff up. To be able to...put in $34,000.00 worth of stuff and dig up...
Councilman Senn: I guess I'm confused.
Mayor Chmiel: You and me.
Councilman Senn: Okay, I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think the issue is, when you put in public infrastructures there's a requirement for
bonding surety. Okay, in order for this lot to go forward, being they are...we're saying they're excluded from
the MUSA area so we're not, it's a lot of record...the option to provide sewer and water against a septic and a
well. So what she's saying is they may look into...the intent is how do we get sewer and water to Outlot B.
What we're saying, what we're looking at is...
Mayor Chmiel: And that's where you're saying Parcel A is 4. some acres and Parcel B was something like 2
1/2 or something of that nature.
Kate Aanenson: That's right.
Councilman Senn: But we can't just approve A.
Kate Aanenson: You already approved the splitting of this. What you originally put is both lots have to be
serviced by sewer and water. They can't, they don't have the f'mancial resources to provide a surety that we
would reqtfire for the public improvements.
Councilman Senn: Can't we just require the surety on A and leave B to be provided at the time that it's
developed?
13
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Kate Aanenson: We don't...we're getting into an area that's really engineering. I'm sorry Charles isn't here to
answer some of that stuff but what we're saying is, we're giving them the option. They still could do that.
Certainly. Or the other option is, because it's in a rural area, the other option could be...
Councilman Senn: But I mean I hear the applicant saying, you know probably they would hook up to sewer and
water and I'd probably agree with that. So it'd be kind of a long, yeah it seems like kind of a long way around
it.
Kate Aanenson: Well they've been in numerous discussions with engineering. I don't want to usurp what
they've already been told...
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded that we proceed with the proposal that's indicated for a site
hook-up for sanitary sewer and water located at t861 Sunridge Court, Dan and Robin Edmunds.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the amendment to the conditions of
approval for Subdivision g93-21 to read as follows:
"The applicant shall have the option of either well and septic site on Parcel B or extend municipal sanitary
sewer and water lines to service the property. If the applicant elects to go with the well and septic option, a
grading plan showing two acceptable septic sites shall be submitted for staff review and approval. If the
applicant elects the option to extend city sewer and water to Parcel B, then detailed construction plans for
the extension of the utility lines shall be provided to city staff for review and formal approval. In addition,
the applicant will be requked to enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary
security to guarantee compliance of the development contract. The subdivision shall be contingent upon the
City Council approving the development contract."
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO THE BF, BUSINESS FRINGE SECTION OF CITY CODE, ADDING ADDITIONAL
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, FIRST READING.
Kate Aanenson: ...1986 for allowing existing non.conforming uses in the area. Currently there exists...uses so
we're trying to address...we can accommodate businesses down there and also protect the city's interest while we
look at what the long term uses are probably down in that southern area. Short of that, there isn't a significant
area close to TH 101,212, 169 and then this area here, the western side of the city. We did state on the staff
report the uses that are down there. None of the uses that you have conditional use approval from the city.
What staff is recommending is that we allow to...permitted uses but the permitted uses that we're looking at are
also ones that we feel also are transitory or can change over in a period of fime...not necessarily single family
dwellings but wholesale nursery, private park, agricultural use and then we also looked at expanding the
conditional use section. Adding, besides truck and trailer, which we do have down there now, sporting goods
and boat sales and miniature golf. We do have currently down there cold storage. The Planning Commission
14
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
spent a lot of time discussing this and they had concerns about, and some of the residents there too, concern
about expanding or creating more to the non-conforming uses down there, which we certainly...We do need to
look at this area in light of what...implications of 212 and what's going to happen to this area. So really the
purpose of this is to allow a wide range of uses in the permitted section, but again there are these uses, uses that
also can change the...over time. So we are recommending the proposed business fringe district be amended with
the uses that we have identified in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Okay. Colleen. Anything.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, this question was asked at the Planning Commission and I guess I didn't see
a direct answer to it but what really is the impetus for this? Just because we know things are happening there
and we know we're going to study it but we need a short term answer or?
Kate Aanenson: We do have a use that's down there that has an interim use on it right now and if we don't
want that interim use, basically there's no other use they can use so we're really denying reasonable use of the
property. So what we're trying to do is provide an opportunity for a reasonable use of the property as we
indicated in modifications to the intent statement. Because them are no ordinances available. There are no
municipal sewer and water and...we still have to allow reasonable use of their property. So the intent is to
allow something compatible that would make a good mix of neighbors and that...to them. That would be a good
neighbor and again, could be...but yet it is compatible. And when we look at as far as the wholesale nursery, we
did put in criteria of what is conditional uses. Limiting the hours, the noise and the lighting and say with
miniature golf, some of those...so they do become good neighbors. You can't ask...when sewer and water
become available and land value goes up and they may want to change over to something else so really what
we're trying to do is provide reasonable use of the property.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So the sunset on this really is when the MUSA line gets expanded down
there.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. And also we hope to be studying this too but you're right, obviously until something
else...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Well, I guess I have no problem with the permitted uses. They're all very
low intensity and environmentally sensitive. And the conditional, now help me out here. Permitted uses, they
can just come in and say, you know it's in your ordinance, I can build this. Conditional use is.
Kate Aanenson: You go through the criteria and see whether or not they meet those conditions. And you can
attach conditions to mitigate the impact. So you can limit the hours, the lighting so they would be a good
neighbor. But yet we really need to take...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the conditional uses you have listed here are only because they already exist
with the exception of the mini golf course.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We're showing the...miniature golf but yeah. We thought...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I guess I don't have any difficulties with it. At least it puts it on paper as
to what we're doing.
15
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: That's one part of the city that we've talked about for many, many, many years to really clean
up....and that's fight. They're really not. I think not too much has changed but I think the intent of the city
should be looking at that to come up with some solution in eliminating some of that.
Kate Aanenson made a statement which was not picked up on the tape.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark,
Councilman Senn: I had a question or exception maybe to what Colleen just raised and was answered. There
really isn't a sunset on this at the point that the MUSA line extends. These uses could continue in perpetuity
beyond.
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, but what I'm saying is that we feel these are still palatable under if the MUSA
would expand in that area and we also feel like the land prices would drive, based on...but these still would be.,.
Councilman Senn: But effectively, once this is done, there's really no way to stop these uses to go or expand on
these properties short of setting conditions on them. And they have to be reasonable conditions.
Kate Aanenson: Well that's what I.,.being more questionable as far as,..But we felt the ones that are under the
permitted would be appropriate or would be good neighbors,
Councilman Senn: Well I guess you know, just when I went through it caused me I guess a lot of concerns and
I guess the concerns are still there. If these uses are effectively expanded and maintained or allowed to continue
down there, I guess I'd want to spend a little more time specifically looking at some of these permitted and
conditional uses. You know tmck/trailer/autofooat sales. I mean I just look at the growth in some areas of
what's been happening with that and it what it does to basically to turn around and impact an area. And even
you know some types of basically warehousing. I mean motor fuel stations. I mean that can mean a lot of
things from truck fueling to you know.
Kate Aanenson: I think these were all legitimate concerns and we looked at that specifically, Again, we put the
map up..,we tried to identify all the uses and there really isn't that much need...motel and Admiral Waste and
some of the other ones,.. There isn't a significant but again, the real issue is allowing reasonable use of the
property that's down there,
Councilman Senn: Can't you just do that by grandfathering what's there? So as long as they want to use it that
way, they can?
Kate Aanenson: Well there's some that are vacant out there.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but I mean doesn't reasonable use of the property then become
conforming to the ordinance, but you're taking care of what's there?
Kate Annenson: There's nothing permitted in that zone fight now so.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but I'm just saying what I think, you set a different set of what's
allowed if you were in that situation versus this, would you not? I mean the way I read through this it sounded
like this exercise we're going through is to more accommodate the existing business down there and make sure
that they conform,
16
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Senn: That's not true?
Kate Aanenson: No. No.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Roger.
Roger Knutson: The existing businesses, if you're there, you have the right to stay there as a non-conforming
use. You don't need an ordinance for that.
Kate Aanenson: And that's, some of those may change over too. In time they may go away or...if they change
to something else, it will require a conditional use or something maybe be permitted but this is to, the other
problems that are down there...permitted. There are some existing ones that are legal non-conforming. We've
been working to correct the problems.
Councilman Senn: But as long as this could go on, I mean all the discussion here about stopping the expansion
of the MUSA line and with the pushing out of the timing more and mom and more on 212. I mean it just seems
to me these uses could go on for a long, long time and in fact expand substantially down there and as I'm
saying, that causes me some concern. Just going back to what Don said, I mean part of what we've been trying
to do is clean up the area down there. Not keep these sort of uses going down there.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: I historically have to look at this with a lime bit of humor because the area we're concerned
about I think have canoed at least twice in my lifetime. And this sits right in the flood plain. This whole area's
been under water at least twice that I can remember. I mean totally submerged so I £md it humorous that we're
worried about something that's going to be under water anyway. But I think there is.
Mayor Chmiel: That might be good for boat sales is what you're saying.
Councilman Wing: With it's own launching area. I think we just, I think this has been well thought out. I
would guess, when something of this nature gets through the diverse, directed, opinionated, watchdogs of the
Planning Commission, I tend to be pretty comfortable with it because they really hacked this one over pretty
good. Except Jeff's comment about the cart before the horse but even, after I reviewed that, I guess I was pretty
comfortable with their decision. I think the uses are well thought out. I think we've got good controls. I think
we've got high expectations for any business coming to the city at anytime anywhere in the future and we're not
going to have junk down there. We're not going to tolerate junk. And anybody that would try that would have
a real long road ahead of them so, I'm real comfortable with what's occuffing here.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm going to piggy back on what you're saying there because I think that's Ix~e. For
what we're doing within the Highway 5 corridor and I think we should also apply some of those to that same
particular area and look at that rather extensively. And because of the residential in and adjacent to there, I think
too, the kinds of lighting that would go in should be down lighting. A lot of different things have to be looked
at. So I think that even with the permitted uses. One of the permitted uses I had a lime concern with was with
the agricultural aspect of it and Kate and I had some discussions this afternoon and they're going to look into
that a little bit more. Only because of the mere fact that ff they were to bring any of the animals on site, which
17
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
would still be used for agricultural purposes, you could have some given problems. So therefore they're going
to take a look at that to see if there's any problems that could exist from that. But the rest of it I think is true.
We still have the single family dwelling, 1 per, 1 unit per 10 acres. With the private park and public park and
the rest of them. Those are all permitted and hopefully, and I know you understand those conditional uses
Colleen, That you can stipulate what you feel should be done before that goes in to that particular site with a
condition as part of the conditions that we do with the other developments that we go through.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: And does that give us, excuse me for interjecting but does a conditional use give us
as much power as say a PUD would?
Kate Aanenson: As a,.,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: A PUD. I mean does it,
Kate Aanenson: Well a conditional use you can attach.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Anything.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Reasonable.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was going to say reasonable, You know if we're going to apply Highway 5
standards, that's pretty stringent.
Kate Aanenson: You know screening and those sort of things would be appropriate. Hours of operation. All
those sort of things.
Councilman Wing: This is the fa'st reading and to start with,
Mayor Chmiel: That's fight, this is the first reading,
Councilman Wing: And I would move fLrst reading of the amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Second,
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Discussion.
Councilman Senn: One more question if I could. Kate, what's the rationale basically behind injecting the one
industrial use? I mean all the other ones seem to be fairly consistent commercial uses,
Kate Aanenson: Which is the industrial?
Councilman Senn: Well cold storage and warehousing I'm assuming is.
Kate Aanenson: That's out there fight now.
18
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Senn: No, I understand it's there but I'm just saying as far as allowing it to continue as a permitted
or a conditional use. I mean that's kind of.
Kate Aanenson: You're saying take it out?
Councilman Senn: Well, that one makes me more comfortable because I look at it and say there's an eye right
in the middle of, I mean that could in effect make that a combined zone for whatever period of time by taking
that action out.
Kate Aanenson: You mean...based on a more current type of use.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Well I mean it could be an eye there forever technically on that basis right?
Kate Aanenson: ...attach conditions on there such that...That'd be an option.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that I'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Fa'st reading of
amendments to Article XX. "BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT to read as follows:
ARTICLE XX. "BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT
Section 20-771. Intent.
The intent of the "BF" District is to accommodate limited commercial uses temporary in nature without urban
services, while maintaining the integrity, minimizing impact, and protecting the natural environment. When
urban services are available, land use may change to a higher and improved use of the property.
Section 20-771.1 Permitted Uses.
I. Wholesale Nursery/Greenhouse/No Retail (Pursuant to Sec. 20-257).
2. Private Park/Public Park.
3. Single Family Dwelling (One Unit Per 10 Acres).
4. Agriculture.
Section 20-773. Conditional Uses.
The following are conditional uses in a BF District:
1. Motor fuel stations without car washes.
2. Truck/trailer/auto/sporting goods and boat sales/rental.
3. Utility services.
4. Cold storage and warehousing.
5. Miniature Golf Course (Pursuant to Section 20-265).
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
19
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF "BLUFF" CITYWlDE, FIRST
READING.
Kate Aanenson: As you're aware the City had a bluff impact zone...number of years and as we develop further
and as part of the Highway 5 corridor study we realized that one of the unique features of Chanhassen is our
topography and the preservation of that interesting topography. And we've had a number of subdivisions in
recently that we felt like we just didn't have the tools to review as far as the impact zone so we, this was kind of
initiated by the staff...and try to preserve some of our natural features. So we recommended applying the bluff
ordinance city wide. We went back and looked through the history of why it wasn't...first went before the
Planning Commission and originally it was. And then it was a concern of how much of the city would be
impacted and is this the right percentage of slope and the former Director, Paul Krauss and Rick Sathre sat
down...felt like gee maybe it should be applied citywide. Maybe the impacts would be too significant and we
feel like that was short sighted. We revisited that and looked at a number of areas in the city and we all thought
it would be that...but where it is, we certainly feel like those are areas we would want to preserve...feel strongly
that it would be short sighted to eliminated that natural feature. So we're recommending two minor changes that
would apply to the city wide. And again, we don't feel like there's a significant amount of bluff areas that we
want but those that we do have, we would recommend to preserve them. And those recommended changes are
that it be applied city wide instead of just...the ordinance proposed in front of you and then also that the official
map be changed because the way it's mapped now, it just shows the southern area~ And when we went before
the Planning Commission they recommended approval except Commissioner Conrad who was concerned about
all the history that went before when the Planning Commission looked at this and spent a lot of fime...and we
did talk to former Commissioner Erhart, who also had a lot of concerns and I think he realizes now where we've
come as far as the Highway 5 corridor study and working on a lot of the natural features, including the Bluff
Creek as it runs along the city as a part of that so I think he feels comfortable now. He has a really big concern
about the definition of slope. Not applied city wide but our actual definition of slope. I think he feels
comfortable now using the same definition. We feel it would be very awkward trying to have two definitions to
try to work this over so we feel strongly with just staying with the DNR's definition and we'd recommend that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Now this is still, as it indicates, first reading?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we had discussions on this before and so we'll just go from that point forward. Okay
Richard, any questions?
Kate Aanenson: Let me make just one comment. If there is a concern about this and...we can also look at the
variance issue too if there's an anomaly that just doesn't work and...
Councilman Wing: I'm concerned that, well first of all this is, let me organize my thoughts a minute here. The
history of this dates back before the 1990's and I've said this before and I'll say it again. It's the decade of
rethinking and redesigning and replanning and what they thought and did back in the 70's and 80's during this
historic period they're talking about, has no relationship to the city today. My concern is that this is falling short
of what I think we should be doing. I think we should, we have let this city develop, part of it, this old school
where you just simply came in and leveled it and put your houses down and put your roads in. That doesn't fly
anymore. And I guess what I was hoping we'd come up with, and this is a good start, is a slope ordinance.
And now you say we don't want the double definition and so ff we stay with bluff, I can accept that but we
were, I think when I talked to the Arboretum, we were talking about you can't destroy more than 20% of a slope
20
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
or hill. I think that was, the reason I started out with 10%. You only take 10% of the top off and then they said
no, nothing would be buildable. But you could get into 20% and then you have to build, my point here is, you
have to build to the terrain. You can't just level it out like the school did. But there are areas where there
would be exceptions and I don't question that at all. Kate, do we have to, after the Highway 5 corridor study's
done and low income housing and all this other stuff, would we want to take this and pursue it the next step
further and to try and protect our existing terrain as much as possible or is this going to sort of come.
Kate Aanenson: This is a stop gap on the severe bluffs. What we're finding is now as we're going through the
Lake Lucy areas and...there's a lot of slopes to that area and that would solve.
Councilman Wing: 25 footers?
Kate Aanenson:
Council meeting.
this one.
Yeah, there's some in there. Yeah in Shadow Ridge, which you'll be seeing at the next City
You're right though, I think maybe the slope may be another issue that may be separate from
Councilman Wing: Well I'm real pleased you picked up on this and I'm real pleased you moved on it and I
think, like you say, it's an excellent stop gap and I'm really excited that you hustled on this because the days of
leveling it out I think have got to be over for Chanhassen and like you say, this is a real start so I'm read
enthusiastic about this and I would say thank you for getting it to us.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think you just answered my question that I had in your last comment, which was
where. I mean Where in other areas of the city do we have concerns and it's mostly around l. ake Lucy?
Diane Desotelle: We haven't looked at it really closely but that seems to be where it's one of the higher points
in the city where we've had some concerns that we've looked at. And then there are some other areas in the
southern end that we're going to address. Mostly the bluff impact zone map is strictly within creek area.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay. The other ones, it's just hit and miss as to.
Kate Aanenson: And that's why we looked and though we'll try to map them but as soon as we try to map
them we're going to miss something and so until we actually get a plat submitted, we may not know so we think
it's best just to leave the definition of a bluff.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Just a comment on the actual wording of the ordinance. You're taking out
the planned unit development, which just simply means instead of a comma you need an and inbetween the two
uses. Picky picky. It's a short ordinance. I read it.
Mayor Chmiel: Short, direct and to the point. Okay Mark.
Councilman Senn: Kate, I like where you're heading with it. I guess Council my concern is that, a little bit of
public process and that is is that unless we identify the areas, are we really adequately informing the affected
property owners and giving them a chance to comment?
Kate Aanenson: Well we are using lots of records for this is anybody that comes in for a subdivision plat.
21
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but there could be a lot of existing property owners out there being
affected by this who don't even know we're putting it into effect.
Kate Aanenson: That would come forward with developments?
Councilman Senn: I don't know. Maybe just to expand their house or something, I mean I don't know,
Kate Aanenson: Well this would be for new subdivision plats as far as that would be for setbacks and then you
do the variance.
Councilman Senn: So this only pertains to new subdivisions? Not existing homes or expansions. That's
different than in this case but that's not what I got from out of this, I tell you, I had some concerns about what
we're doing affecting people here that wouldn't know about it.
Diane Desotelle: That's a similar situation to what happens with the wetland ordinance. We've had some
people wanting to put decks on and whatever and now they're not meeting setbacks so it is something..,
Councilman Senn: I understand that. We've got that one coming up.
Diane Desotelle: ,..do you apply the variance in that situation.
Councilman Senn: Well again, getting a variance down the road is fine but again, I question the process if we
don't let people know up front that they're being affected by things,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But how do we effectively do that?
Councilman Senn: Well, wetlands we mapped them for example so that pointed out the affected properties.
You know we've provided no designation here one way or the other of what the affected areas are. I mean even
if it's a general area, I mean it's better to ask for too much than none, I'm not saying going down to it a parcel
but if you know there's a bluff area in this region, can't you just kind of blank out the area and send a notice out
to the people and say there's something, so I mean if they have a question or concern they can at least come and
raise it.
Mayor Chmiel: They're not aware as to where all those locations are. And that's probably where it's going to
come in. Maybe there could be special attention brought through the newspaper indicating that this is going on.
First reading has taken place and that the second place is going to take place at our next Council meeting. If
there's anyone with concerns in regard to it, to come back in and attend the Council meeting prior to that second
reading.
Councilman Senn: That's a good part measure as long as it really tells them in English what we're doing. You
know it says hey, if you own a property that has this situation on it, you better be aware that this could affect
you and you should get in here. That assumes everybody reads the newspaper in the area but it's better than
nothing.
Mayor Chmiel: At least it gives us a chance to, it gives that opportunity for them to look at it, They may or
may not, Okay, I guess looked at this and I really didn't have too much problem with it really as long as we
continue with the values of keeping and preserving our natural features within the city. I think that's one of the
22
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
major concerns that I had with it. So I would like to get a motion. City Council approve the amendment to
Article XXVIII, Section 20-1402 and Section 20-1406 as noted in Attachment #1 for the fu'st reading.
Councilman Wing: I'll move that with one addition to clarify Mark's position that prior to returning to Council.
First of all I think it should be on the agenda rather than consent agenda for this reason. And that there be some
public notification given prior to returning to Council.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second iL
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussions?
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve first reading of the amendment
to Article XXVIII, Section 20.1402 and Section 20-1406 as noted in Attachment #1 with the condition that
some public notification be made prior to coming back for f'mal reading. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP), FIRST READING.
Diane Desotelle: Well here it is, Surface Water Management Plan. It's been though a lot of work and I'd like
to praise the city for doing this. I came along towards the end here and tried to now get it to...and start to see
what it's going to be like to implement it. Basically we've gone through the task force meetings. We had a
couple work sessions with Planning Commission. I tried to include a number of questions and answers that I
thought maybe were questions that would come up knowing that it's a very extensive thing to read and...but the
first half I think is really important. If you read any of it, the first..really covers it and has some really good
descriptions on what we're doing and why we're doing it. We have our consultants here with us tonight and I
don't know if they're going to want to speak on. it but I'm here to answer questions and try to help you
understand it as best as possible.
.Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Diane. I had discussions with Diane again this afternoon too. I must say that I
didn't take the opportunity to go through this in thc entirety but I did review much of thc executive summary
and some of the table of contents and different chapters in here and just sort of peroused it but as I looked at it,
I think Chanhassen is probably on the culling edge to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect
all the waters and everything within our confines of the city or the corporate limits of the city. And I really
applaud aH those people who have had the opportunity to serve on this particular committee and work this out
and it took many, many nights of working it. Pulling together. Coming up with conclusions as to seeing what
they felt was really pretty good. I know that some of the Council also sat in on this as well so I sort of, I like
what I see and to think that we're ahead of everybody else I think.
Councilman Wing: Me too.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, so with that I don't know if there's any need for any presentation at this time.
Has everybody had an opportunity just to look at it. They knew that it weighed 10 pounds 3 ounces and that
there's a lot of good things for the city. But I would entertain any questions Council might have in regard to the
proposed Surface Water Management Plan. Richard.
23
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Wing: After this much scrutiny and having sat through the history of this, I wouldn't even touch it
at our level. I'm very pleased with it. I wish I could have lifted it.
Mayor ChmieI: Well I just brought it along making sure the TV audience that sees this is in 2 weeks and know
that they did a lot of work with it. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'd really like to laud the efforts of the committee and I know that
unfortunately Mike isn't here to share some of that recognition of his work on the committee. When it was
discussed in the last Planning Commission meeting, we talked about an Environmental Committee to carry out
the nuts and bolts of it and this was, wasn't this a Paul issue in terms of combining a lot of our smaller
committees and under the umbrella of the Environmental Committee and I think it's worth pursuing.
Kate Aanenson: It's a Kate issue too. We've been lobbying for it~ The problem is, I mean when we have this
separate committee...weigh the staff down as far as time. After they take care of their issue they lose steam and
we felt like we had people from each of those task fomes on one committee.,.to work on specific issues that
come up...specific recommendations as far as whether we want to do some water quality projects and to
me..we're trying to work on that now. That committee can give us recommend_a?ions too, and on to you. Also,
we're looking at modifications to the landscape...so we think it's better to have a standing committee that
provides a lot of different so it's not narrow focus...be more specific but they cross all sections so we'd support
that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And bring it up to the commission level.
Kate Aunenson: Correct, yes. Commission level that meets regularly.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and as the Mayor did say, we are certainly on the cutting, if not leading
edge of this. In fact we're ahead of the DNR.
Diane Desotelle: ...suffer growing pains because of it...we might not be able to at the same time, helping to
push the State along in their decision making.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Plus one of the other factors is to still establish more credibility with the DNR and I
think that's what we're really moving.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger.
Roger Knutson: If I could just make one brief comment on this. It's already been useful to the city and to us in
the recent environmental lawsuit. Even though it was only a draft, we made reference to it and got good
mileage. Very helpful to us.
Mayor Chmiel: That's great. That's good, Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I did read it and great document, Gmat job. You can always say there's always different
ways to word things but I think it really gets us where we want to get and I'm very happy with it so.
24
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Wing: You know what this means to me, I'm out of order, excuse me.
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly you are. I didn't recognize you. Okay, Richard. Go ahead. Tell me.
Councilman Wing: To fly by like this just means that this thing is so complex, so big, so over our heads...
Mayor Chmiel: Nobody understands it.
Kate Aanenson: ...using it for a number of months. All the subdivisions you've seen recently we've been
applying all the modeling that's recommended in here. The wetland inventory.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. The wetland inventory I think is probably one of the greatest things that we have.
Kate Aanenson: Right...and we have used it.
Councilman Senn: Well and Dick, I don't think there's anything in here that's that severe that you can argue
about the language and the concepts are all fundamental and the concepts are all good.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, it's a layman document. It was from the start. I agree.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'd like a motion regarding that the City Council approve the adoption of the Surface
Water Management Plan as presented in the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as the f~xst reading.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd be happy to move it.
Councilman Senn: Second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the first reading of the
adoption of the Surface Water Management Plan as presented and amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO ADOPT THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, FIRST READING.
Diane Desotelle: This is another amendment that...started back in 1991 when the State asked the city to develop
an ordinance and it took us a little while because of the staff turn over. There hasn't been a lot of wording
changes really from the State Statute itself. The wording changes that were made were...closer to our ordinances
and...flexibility. I guess a couple of the...changes that we have...the lot sizes on the...we had it at 15,000 so it
would be in conformance with our ordinances. And then also the impervious area...have some flexibility there
within the ordinance. But in general it's been going on for a couple years and again, I guess I'm here at this
point to answer any questions you may have of the shoreland ordinance. Part of the reason we had...
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. I've got just one suggestion unless, and I'd like your input. In here we
indicate that we're to approve the code amendment adopting the shoreland ordinance as shown in Attachment #1
but at this time we have yet not received final approval but temporary approval and if we could just condition
25
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
within that as well the final approval from DNR regarding comments from other neighboring communities once
that comes in so it's all part of that.'
Diane Desotelle: ..,and I don't believe that Ceil Strauss had any comments but we'll just have her finalize it.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, Any discussion? Richard?
Councilman Wing: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No,
Mayor Chmiel: Mark,
Councilman Senn: Yes. Let's see here. Diane, in terms of 20-477(b). It gets into the cutting of shoreland
vegetation and stuff. Now is that simply set up as something you can regulate or does this basically for example
prohibit people from cutting out purple loosestrife and stuff like that.
Diane Desotelle: Basically the ordinance allows you to do cleating but the wording is vague as far as it doesn't
say exactly how much you can do.
Councilman Senn: That was my next question, Where's the definition. Because there really isn't, or at least
maybe I missed it but I didn't see one on shoreland vegetation.
Diane Desotelle: No. The reason a definition of shoreland vegetation, it just talked about clearing for basically
in order to have a view down to the water body.
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, but basically we can't be less stringent than what DNR reqtdrements are but we can
be more stringent to pick up on some of those kinds of concerns,
Diane Desotelle: Right.
Councilman Senn: But that's not a DNR requirement. I mean DNR does allow you to.
Diane Desotelle: Yes, it's worded here so the intent of vegetation clearing within the shoreland bluff impact
zone and on steep slopes did not allow it, But how you define intensive vegetation clearing you know is a little
vague so we have to use our best judgment.
Councilman Senn: But Co) only applies to that situation then? I thought (b) was applying more generally to all
situations under compliance,
Diane Desotelle: I'm not sure.
Kate Aanenson: You're under general provisions?
26
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Senn: Yeah, under 20477, general provisions. Yeah. Item (b). Page 4. I mean there's a constant
battle with some of forms of noxious you know shoreland vegetation and stuff.
Kate Aanenson: ...correct Roger. I mean these are just saying these are the things that we have jurisdiction
over...
Councilman Senn: Well that's what I'm saying. Does that mean a person can't just do that? They have to
come in and get permission for example to.
Kate Aanenson: No, it's further described.
Roger Knutson: I'm not sure what your question is.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you rephrase your question.
Roger Knutson: 20482 sets out the standards for vegetation alteration.
Kate Aanenson: I'm just saying that...general provisions.
Councilman Senn: 484 you're saying.
Roger Knutson: 20482.
Councilman Senn: Okay, 20482. Okay. And then it has under 20-482 preserve shoreland aesthetics. I mean
that's very subjective. There's no definition to it. I mean all the other things here I think are fairly definable. I
mean prevent erosion into public waterways. Fix nutrients. Preserve historic values. Prevent bank slumping.
Protect fish and wildlife. Throwing in preserve shoreland aesthetics. It seems to me now that you're going to
be asking somebody to make subjective decisions on what is and what isn't. It gets real fuzzy. And one leads
to another. I mean that's where it goes but I mean yeah, once you get back under 482, that's a concern I have.
I think that particular reference is far too subjective.
Roger Knutson: I don't have the statute with me but we had an interesting dialogue between city staff and
myself about wording and anytime they call up and say, this doesn't make any sense. I'd say call your
legislators.
Councilman Senn: Well this again isn't part of the State. I mean the State doesn't have language in there that
says preserve shoreland aesthetics.
Kate Aanenson: I think it did. Pretty much all this is. We had the same questions. We went back and forth on
a lot of these things that were in a gray area.
Roger Knutson: Whenever wording came out we said...it usually came fight out of the DNR's model ordinance.
I'll double check that. I can't tell you that that's the case here.
Councilman Senn: Could you check that for us.
27
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can find that out before the next reading and bring that back to Council. Okay, any
other discussions? Hearing none, I'd like a motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move the amendment to the City Code to adopt the Shoreland Overlay
District regulations, f'mst reading.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the first reading of a City
Code Amendment repealing the interim shoreland control ordinance and adopting the new shoreland
management regulations as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
EAW FOR COUNTY ROAD 17 (POWERS BOULEVARD), RECONSTRUCTION FROM TRUNK
HIGHWAY 5 TO LYMAN BOULEVARD (CARVER COUNTY PROJECT), CITY PROJECT 93-29.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. In your packets tonight you should have a copy
of something like this. It's...EAW for the proposed County Road 17, Powers Boulevard improvement project.
Carver County is on line now to initiate this first improvement project that you recently adopted Carver County
and Chanhassen cooperative agreement in highway capital improvement program. This project basically consists
of reconstructing of County Road 17 from Trunk Highway 5 south of Lyman Boulevard to a 4 lane.., which will
include storm sewer, street lighting, landscaping and trails. The current project...forecasts that most of this work
would be completed in like the 1995 calendar year. However there is slated that initial sumharging operation
begin yet this fall. The EAW for this project is mandatory and the County's design engineer.., prepared this
document such that Carver County will adminislxate this improvement project and is the RGU, Responsible
Governmental Unit for this project and the EAW. The purpose tonight basically is to make you aware that this
EAW has been drafted. That it's currently in the comment period and as such if you should have any questions
or concerns as you view this document, please let staff know and we can draft a document or response to the
EQB during this comment period which is...to end at the end of this month.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a quick question. Has Carver County notified all people in and adjacent to these roads
informing them that this is going to take place? The EAW is in process and that construction activities are going
to take place at such and such time and accessibility for those people to get out from their properties will be
worked out somehow?
Charles Folch: At this point, in terms of notifying adjacent properties of the EAW, I don't believe that has
occurred. In terms of coordinating with those entries which currently access CR 17, as the project plans are
prepared this winter, they will develop a staging plan and a detour and traffic access plan which I believe they
probably, it would be a good idea to have a neighborhood meeting once those plans are put together to inform
the neighborhoods and such.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Any idea when the assessments will take place? Or at least the hearings.
28
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Charles Folch: Actually there will be some proposed assessments for the northerly portion. Very northerly
portion of the project which basically goes through the business park. Associated with the, as was previously in
the previous improvement project that entailed business park property owners. I would guess that those hearings,
well the feasibility hearing would probably take place late this fall.
Mayor Chmiel: Have we not had discussions with those people already?
Charles Folch: Actually they were petitioning, basically petitioning property owners to this improvement
project.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the rest of it comes out of County funds and our agreement with them?
Charles Folch: Right.
Councilman Senn: Charles, I couldn't catch you but I asked Don Ashworth this afternoon a similar question to
Don's and that is with the 31st as the deadline. I mean that's our comments but beyond that 31st deadline, from
what you were saying before, I mean there would still be an opportunity for citizen comment and change then?
Or is that.
Charles Folch: That's the comment period in terms of reviewing and concerning the contents of this document
here. In terms of the EAW's impact to the environment as such.
Councilman Senn: But that only considers certain options I guess is what I'm saying.
Charles Folch: Basically to consider the price of the proposed road alignment that's given here and basically the
sole option for the alignment of the road project. Basically going to follow the similar alignment to what's out
there now. There will be a widening to the east along the alignment which will create the additional 2 lanes to
create a 4 lane situation. In terms of input on the design of the plan and things like that, there will be input to
those issues when the neighborhood meeting is held.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Axe there any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendoff: None further.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark?
Councilman Senn: Nothing further.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Axe you saying we need a motion for this as well? I didn't see any.
Charles Folch: Actually no action is necessary.
29
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, just as an informational item. Okay, so with item number 9. Next item on our agenda is
adjournment.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
30