CC 1995 0911CHANI-IASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, and Councilwoman
Dockendorf ' '
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Berquist
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Charles
Folch, John Rask, and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda
amended to delete item 8, City Hall Expansion, per Councilman Berquist's request until the next City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the follo~ving
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
b. Resolution/t95-89: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specifications for
McGlyr~n Addition, Project No. 95-16.
g. City Council Minutes dated August 28, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 16, 1995
h. Approval of Bills.
i. Approve One Day Beer License Request, Septemberfest Celebration, September 23, Chanhassen Lions
Club.
j. Resolution #95-90: Set Public Hearing Date, Sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds, Control Products.
k. Accept Donation from Chanhassen Lions Club for Emergency Rescue Equipment.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: I also xvanted to address item (e) and we'll put that down as item number 13.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor? We do have a consultant representing that item on the agenda tonight. If you want
to address it now, as long as they're here.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't want to.
Councilman Senn: It depends on, are we paying him?
Charles Folch: By the hour.
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Well let's go to item (e).
E. APPROVE PLANS & SPECS AND AUTHORITT~ ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, ICE HOCKEY/INLINE
SKATING RINK IMPROVEMENTS; CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER, NORTH LOTUS LAKE
PARK~ CITY PROJECT RA-492.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, do you want to mention anything on that right now.'? Or have the consultant come
forward.
Charles Folch: Actually at this time I'd like to turn the microphone over to our consultant, Mr. Jon Horn, who's
here tonight to answer any questions you may have on that item.
Jon Horn: Mayor, members of Council. I guess I could certainly go through a brief description of the project if
you'd tike but if you'd prefer to just ask specific questions, I could respond to those too. Whatever is your
preference.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you just give a rather brief overview for a few of the people that are here in the
audience.
Jon Horn: Sure. The project basically includes improvements at two sites. One of them is North Lotus Lake
Park on the north side of Lotus Lake, in the northeastern part of the city. The other improvements are at the
new elementary school recreational center site off of Galpin Boulevard. The improvements basically include
construction of hockey facilities. Bituminous surfacing, wooden hockey boards for winter hockey use and they
will also be used for inline skating in the summertime. So kind of a dual purpose type of facility. There seems
to be a great increase in the inline skating activity in the metro area and I think the park staff thought this was a
good opportunity to capitalize on some of that so we have a dual use facility. In addition to the hockey
improvements at North Lotus Lake Park, the improvements include some parking expansion work as well as
some overlaying of the existing parking lot that's in pretty rough shape. I guess in a nutshell that's the
improvements we're proposing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Mark. Do you have some questions? Go ahead.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Memory fades with age but I remember not too long ago we had a rather lengthy
discussion about asphalt versus concrete and after much ado and a lot of reasoning as to ;vhy it had to be
concrete rather than asphalt, we passed on some kind of a change order saying we were going to use concrete.
Now I see you coming through with asphalt. What's happening?
Jon Horn: I'd have to defer that one to staff. I know from talking to Todd Hoffman there was a bid alternate
included as a part of the recreation center site for concrete surfacing. It xvas my understanding that that concrete
surfacing wasn't approved.
Councilman Senn: Well I remember we had a big discussion about it.
Mayor Chmiel: That was strictly sidewalk issues.
Councilman Mason: Those were sidewalks.
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Trail issues that were, yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I remember discussing the line inline. It had to do with the surface.
Councilman Senn: It had to do with maintenance. Long term maintenance costs. It had to do with the ability
to maintain a sheet of ice. I mean there were tons of reasons. I mean we got a whole list of reasons why it had
to be concrete because the concrete was going to be much more costly than the asphalt and we were looking at
using up a big chunk, or at least a part of the contingency as a result of that. And now like I say, this is kind
of really a 180 degree turn back again so I was wondering what's changed or what happens one way or the
other. That was one question. I guess if anyone can't answer it, I'll go on. Second question was, from a
standpoint, I understand Todd and a lot of his staff are very busy but at the same time on a project like this,
total construction's $150,000.00. An additional $30,000.00 for engineering and construction coordination just, I
mean I understand construction and there's complicated construction and to me there's kind of simple, slam dunk
construction. I mean this seems to me like very simple slam dunk type of construction. I don't think we should
be looking at $30,000.00 in fees to build a $150,000.00 worth of asphalt and boards and a few lights, etc. So
that was the second question. Why $30,000.00?
Jon Horn: Okay. I guess in response to that. The ``vay our proposal is set up it's on an hourly basis. Like you
said there is difficult construction and easy construction and...project goes fairly well, hopefully we wouldn't be
billing you for the full amount. That's a not to exceed amount. Not to exceed amount was just established...
with the budget and the improvements but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the final cost will be if the
project moves forward. I guess it all depends upon how active we need to be during construction. If }2ou get a
good contractor, there isn't a whole lot of problems during construction, we'll be looking...better than that. On
the other hand, if you get a bad contractor with a lot of complications...
Councilman Senn: My last question ,,vas for Don Ashworth. Several meetings ago we talked about you coming
back to us with a good picture of where we sat in relationship to the contingencies on this project and that
hasn't kind of come back yet. So I mean I was kind of wondering where this fits overall in relationship to that
contingencies and financial issues. Again, this kind of goes back to point number 1 which I raised because I
thought we had okayed part of a contingency going for that concrete or whatever previous so I mean.
Don Ashworth: And you were correct. I apologize. I guess Hoffman and I didn't communicate as to then who
``vas actually going to write up that response. But even with this item, I talked to him again today and that will
put that project over the budget, meaning this particular expenditure. And what I said to him was, I need to,
which we're in the process of doing, finalizing that update on that tax increment stuff with Dave MacGillivrary.
I asked that a separate, that this item be bid as two items so there should be a bid for North Lotus Lake, which
North Lotus Lake there's not a problem with but the community center, there could be a problem. Well, it will
go over the budget. The next question then would be, is there sufficient increment to pay that additional
amount and does the Council wish to use it in that fashion, recognizing the recommendations of Park and Rec.
The problem we have is that, oh I'm sorry. Yeah, bids are to be taken the 21st for presentation to the City
Council on the 25th.
Jon Horn: Correct.
Don Ashxvorth: And so xve will 'knoxv 2 xveeks from tonight what those bids are and what monies are available.
Councilman Senn: Am I correct that the plans and specifications are done?
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Jon Horn: Yeah. I've got a copy of the plan xvith me tonight.
Councilman Senn: Okay so we don't, effectively to get from this point to the point that the bids come in, we
don't need to spend any more money?
Jon Horn: Just the bidding process. Advertising and getting the plans out to bidders and taking the bids.
Councilman Senn: Which is how much?
Jon Horn: Minimal cost.
Councilman Senn: Minimal meaning less than $1,000.00.9 Okay. Well then I guess from my standpoint I don't
have a problem just going ahead and authorizing it but I really would like those questions ansxvered and the
information come back to us on all of that prior to the time that we're at some of those bids.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah that was one of my concerns too. Basically xvhat you're talking about, what dollars are in
each in these funds and xvhat is the total cost of the entirety of the thing. Whether or no we're over budget or
still maintaining a budget. Okay.
Councilman Senn: So with that I will move approval xvith that contingency.
Mayor Chmiel: With those contingencies, right. Okay. Is there a second.9
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #95-91: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the plans and
specifications and authorize advertisement for bids for Ice Hockey/Inline Skating Rink Improvements at
Chanhassen Recreation Center and North Lotus Lake Park, City Project RA-492 with the contingencies noted by
Councilman Senn. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL TO REZONE 22.4 ACRES FROM
R12~ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PUD TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT
TO SUBDIVIDE 46.57 ACRES INTO 79 LOTS~ 30UTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR 79 SINGLE FAMII,Y DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE HOMES ON 19.64 ACRES; AND
A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND WETI~ND SETBACK; LOCATED ON THE LAKE RILEY
BOUI~EVARD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY~ NORTH BAY~ ROTTLUND COMPANY~ INC.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Councilmembers. This project was last before the City Council in June
of this year for conceptual approval of this development. It's located north of Lake Riley on the Lyman
Boulevard extension. With the preliminary approval there are basically three primary issues that needed to be
resolved and staff had provided recommendations to the applicant. The first was a recommendation that the
access point be moved to the eastern property line to provide access both for the property to the east of this and
then to this development. We were recommending this at that time because we believed additional wetlands
could be saved and not have to be filled by shifting the road way over, and to minimize the number of access
points off onto Lyman Boulevard. The second issue was the alignment of Lyman Boulevard. The applicant
City Council Meeting o September 11, 1995
was proposing a shortened curve for that alignment. Staff was recommending that they provide one that met
State Aid standards for a 35 mph. And the third was resolving the ponding issues for this. plat as well as the
surrounding land. The applicant xvas able to work out an agreement with the abutting property owner to shift
the roadway alignment into the project over to the eastern property line and with that we were able to reduce the
amount of wetland fill on the site. They have provided ponding area on the north side of the Lyman Boulevard,
which is sufficient for this development. We're still working to see if we can size it sufficiently for a regional
pond for that area. The roadway alignment, I believe staff is recommending that I go back to the city's original
alignment. This is a modification to that. It would, I believe, meet the standards but we want to push it
forward. The final issue that they had was a Park and Recreation Commission recommendation that the city
require dedication of the land on Lake Riley for parkland. From a technical standpoint staff believes we either
worked out or are close to working out all the issues involved in this plat and we are therefore recommending
approval. The Planning Commission requested that we look at infrastructure adequacy in this area and there is a
memo from the City Attorney addressing that but we believe with the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard, we will
have adequate capacity to handle this. This project is below the guidelines established as part of the
comprehensive plan. However, it meets some other housing goals that we have in providing diversity to our
housing type as well as, while it doesn't strictly meet the affordable housing criteria for Chanhassen if they meet
their range of $120,000.00 to $160,000.00, it would be relatively affordable. With that staff is recommending
approval of the preliminary planned unit development and the first reading of the rezoning with the wetland
setback as shown on the plans. If there are any questions, I'd_be happy to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay..Are there any questions of Bob at this time?. I don't see any. Would the developer like
to come forward and please state your name and your address and who you're representir/g.
Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, Don Jensen, Land Development Manager for the Rottlund Company, 2681 Long Lake
Road, Roseville, 55113. We're here tonight to bring forward the preliminary plat, which essentially took all of
the recommendations of the concept approval that were granted this project by the Planning Commission and
Council and the Parks Commission. We have tonight a number of additional graphics that were not available at
our last Council presentation, both on the architecture side, landscaping as well as site planning. I have on an
easel up in front of me the current site plan that was just on the overhead that staff presented on the easel in
front of me. There's a board in front of me of building material selections, color palate. Hopefully you can see
that. If you like, I can pick it up on the easel as we go. We have renderings that describe common open space
and our entry treatments that we have for the housing types. I also have a couple of perspectives of our
cottages, which is our one level housing type that we have, which is at the lowest portion, or the main entry
point of the development. That's the furthest along in our research and development. Just a couple of minor
items in our staff summary that I'd like to get at. Most of these are Minutes that I did not get a chance to
approve. They're really very minor. We were talking about in a couple of cases is that this project...research
and development and that's farther in there. I believe it's on page, it's toward the end of our Planning
Commission meetings...here and then on page 41, what we were looking at, in case you're looking back on the
Planning Commission meeting, and the reply at the bottom of the page in the Minutes talk about a tree area and
I believe I was describing it as a trade area. I'll get at that with my presentation if you like. We concur with all
the bold face conditions of approval in the Planning Commission recommendations, as well as what staff has put
in. As staff noted, we still have an issue regarding parks. Our counsel can reply to that a little bit later this
evening. The plans that we have prepared for you took all of the drainage concerns that we were able to
accomplish by Pioneer Engineering. We've also worked with addition engineering from RLK who have been
consulting with Lakeview Hills Apartments. They are to the east of this development and we share the drainage
basins and a number of our common boundaries in this particular site plan design. Our goal this evening is to
explain any facet of this development that remains unclear from our preliminary presentations that you as
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Council have any questions about. Second goal tonight is obtain our approval tonight in order to assure the
Council and staff that we're ready to move fonvard to the final plat. That we finally can deliver these housing
products to the City of Chanhassen. Thirdly, that we're able to move forward and that we need the Lyman
Boulevard project and the utility project to the corridor. We understand that staff has now accepted the plans
and the Council has accepted the plans and they are out to bid. We would need that project approved for this
development in order to proceed this year. And we're also able to offer the city, through your approval of this
project tonight, the chance to analyze that set of documents for cost savings. That project was designed with a
little bit more density and dwelling units targeted for this particular piece of property than what is in front of
you tonight. So by loxvering the amount of dwelling units which are possible, we have perhaps some pipe sizes
or that the lift station that is in that particular project, may be able to be downsized and become more cost
effective. We don't 'know that but Charles has assured us that once the preliminary plat is actually approved,
that there's a potential to examine that. That's another goal of tonight. We'd like to be able to discuss and
obtain a fair and mutual understanding of all our conditions of approval. We believe we have that with the
exception of the parks issue tonight. We'd like to then also solidify our planning...towards purchasing this
property. We have under purchase agreement. As part of that we are conveying to the City of Chanhassen, in a
separate purchase agreement, all of the residual lands to the north of this development, including the 212
corridor that are using some of the other Met Council funding sources that are available to the City of
Chanhassen. So by our closing on this property, then that property would be sold to the City of Chanhassen.
And lastly, as our goal tonight we ~vould be able to proceed with permitting with the outside agencies that really
are looking to us to add a binding preliminary plat approval before they'll proceed with their...analysis. For the
most part you can talk with them and they say, plan',s good. Do you have a preliminary plat? No. And ~ve'd
like to be able to say, yes. And therefore they can move onto their planning. We have a lot of joint efforts
with the city. Not in this particular project as we're at the combined areas for multiple developments, and
particularly storm water. In regards to the staff report, an item that was not touched on in the Minutes
previously was from public works and engineering regarding the potential for easements to exist over North Bay
Drive, which is kind of a proposed private street for the development. They had posed a question in the staff
report that if we were willing to grant a 40 foot easement over this roadway, that the utilities could then be
maintained publically. We're willing to do that. They also posed a second question that if there was a 50 foot
easement over this roadway, the City would contemplate taking upon the obligation of the maintenance of the
roadxvay. We're not sure we can accomplish that because we never did get a chance to discuss whether or not
or both of those easement scenarios we would still be able to accomplish a street tree planting program as is
shown on this particular graphic. We get a street tree program in and it works with the utilities and everything
else that needs to go in there, we're open to having a 50 foot easement in that zone for the city for both utilities
and roadway. So I'm here tonight to put that on the record .... that that was a question posed in the report by
staff that we completely omitted discussing at the Planning Commission. Lastly, with the use of the lakefront,
what I'd like to put up on this easel is sort of a larger sketch. To the far left of the drawing over here is our
lakefront area. The plat that you have in front of you tonight has three outlots. One of Which is for the existing
use of the docking area that the Lakeviexv Hills Apartments currently owns and operates. They did a non-
conforming beachlot permit for that. Stated that correctly. That is to remain unchanged. There will be no
improvements. As it's illustrated on this sketch, this side will remain a gravel opening, gravel use. The land
that we are purchasing that is part of this application has all of the remaining lakefront in fee title that would
come with this development and we had anticipated that would allow at least 5 overnight boat slips for the use
of this particular neighborhood. Some type of a lottery pool or purchase basis. We certainly would, it is
certainly helpful that this plan approval will guarantee that to occur. Our original plans have private park use,
and the Parks Commissioners, and there is some conflict in both Minutes as to the recommendation, as for the
very westerly portion. A third outlot that we have dedicated or set aside for purchase for some type of an
association with the Rottlund Companies so that could be public parks. We're not designing it in. It's there.
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
We just have a discussion about how it's going to be obtained for use by the city of Chanhassen. That leads us
to the conditions 31 and 32 in the staff report as to public dedication. Full park fees, which we believe is
somewhere in the neighborhood of 150% of typical park fees for a neighborhood. We're looking for a little bit
of a clarification then tonight and our counsel could talk to that if need be later. That's in the Minutes that we
have from the concept plan approval on June 26th on page 32. The Mayor had asked the Parks Director what
was going on xvith the lakefront. The reply discusses an acquisition, which we're comfortable with. Having
either a combination of fees and acquisition of land and fees. But the conditions of approval that are
recommended or are attached in this report, talk about dedication and that's a concept that we would like to get
cleared up tonight. That really concludes the short portion of our presentation tonight. I don't need a long
portion if you're comfortable with our plans are presented in your packets. If you have particular questions. In
summary we have a very similar development proposal from what was here at the concept level and I can detail
any of the particular components, private play area, the lake frontage in more detail. The housing products that
we have around the perimeter. Any of the additional conditions of approval. Our counsel from Barney...and
Steffen is here tonight that is with us in real estate matters and their most pressing reason to be here tonight is
our park dedication issue. Other than that xve are more than xvilling to answer your questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. There are a lot of different things that have been brought up. One of the
things Charles with this lift station. Some of that could be done differently than what was presumed previously.
Charles Folch: Actually the, xvhat-xvill change, we've actually done an evaluation of the pipe sizes and due to
the difference in reduction in density, it really isn't going to affect the change in pipe size that much. Where we
will experience a cost savings is'probably a lowering of one or two steps in the horse power i-ating of a pump
that we would need for the lift station so there will be some potential cost savings. I would say anywhere from
maybe $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 with slightly smaller pumps.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is it all single phase xvith a particular area or is there three phases?
Charles Folch: No, it's three phase.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Kate Aanenson: I just have one quick comment. Mr. Jensen indicated that based on the land of the beachlot,
he felt like you're giving approval to show that you look favorably upon the beachlot. We indicated in the staff
report it requires a separate conditional use and there is some clouded issues as far as Lakeview Hills
Apartments and xve're not saying that we xvon't look at it. We just don't want to prejudice us. That's a whole
separate issue and we want to make sure it's clear that approving this plan in no way gives approval to the
beachlot. That's a separate permitting. It's not a condition but it is addressed in the staff report so we wanted to
make sure that was clear.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could you, I noticed we were still in the preliminary stage but I see that you
brought some building materials. Do you have any facade drawings of the different types?
Don Jensen: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My concern is that we do have some variation.
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Don Jensen: That was a concern echoed by the Planning Commission as well. This is an upgraded elevational
study which should be in your packets in some reduced manner, shape or form of our cottage series.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that was around the perimeter, I'm sorry.
Don Jensen: That was located all along, excuse me here. The main entry all along the lakeshore as well as on
these six dwelling units on the inside. This happens to be a perspective sketch that was recently generated of
what that product looks like. There's a second perspective sketch. I might as well step in front here and
describe it. Part of xvhat's going on with this particular product type is that there are multiple floor plans to
choose from and this particular space in through the front is slightly different on this drawing here. Is a bonus
room option that people would have. Typically the front door or the entry is slid approximately to the rear of
the garage. That's about 20 feet back from the regular front projection. There's a lot more going on with roof
lines than what we originally proposed so we've got some canopy coverage for some front porch areas. In the
case where some were to choose that front bonus room, hopefully you can see that on this particular sketch, the
doorxvay slides around more to the side and you have more of a front structure projecting .forward. That's very
similar on our two story product plans and I was looking in my package and it appears that of all the boards
that I brought, that xvas the one that I did not bring. But that is similar plan, concept in that there's a number of
spaces and we just had described that previously where there's bonus rooms over the garages that xvould affect
these front facades. With the different floor plans, I don't know if the camera at home can pick this up. Each
particular product series has choices of building facade colors as well as different variations on brick. So unlike
our other multiple family and attached product neighborhoods where we strive to have brick as one of the
common threads and color. In this case it's very mUch like a single family neighborhood where each home can
be different. It can be either next to or adjacent to another home and that the covenants that we would have on
this particular neighborhood would preclude two of the same color samples from being immediately adjacent to
or touching the property next to it. So you'd end up with how that arranges itself on the plan form is every
building that was immediately across the street or even next door, could not have the same color. It would have
to have one that's different. Maybe go eveur other building and it might be replicated but immediately adjacent
to those properties, it could not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's exactly what I was getting to. Thanks for asking for the question that was
unasked, by answering it.
Don Jensen: I hope I answered that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Bob, have we looked at Ladd's concerns about the doxvn zoning? What will
it do to our percentages2
Bob Generous: Well, it could be worse. We have, there are the, it looks like the '95 study area, if the city goes
ahead with the, either the parkland referendum xvhich decides to purchase addition parkland, that may be
appropriate to designate additional land for multiple family adjacent to that. Pioneer Trail, Audubon Road for
example. We will, we're in the initial phases of doing land analysis to see what land is available and how much
of it is developable in that area.
Kate Aanenson: It does bring up a good point though. The property immediately adjacent to this one also, we
also...less in the density in that and there isn't an area right now to replace that density inside the MUSA, which
is a concern as we'll talk about later on the Livable Communities Act because while we think this is a good
market nitch, we don't have this product, it's not meeting the affordable goals of under $115,000.00 or even the
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
density, which is a valid concern. Where else do we put that? People have already made decisions on their
homes based on what's around them and where do we put that so as Bob indicated, we really don't have a
choice before we bring in addition areas inside the MUSA.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It is a good transition between...You're looking at marketing these between $120
and $160?
Don Jensen: That's correct. Based on the square footages that you have, you're still looking at approximately
somewhere between $75.00 and $100.00 finished square footage prices at a retail level based on what the
different...so right now, given the information we understand about the Lyman Boulevard project and all the
other factors, looking at this development, that's where we're believing we would like to market this. Kind of
where we think there's a strong nitch. Start getting about that price point...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any other questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well Colleen asked some of mine. Don, could you just talk a little bit about what's going
to go on in the private play area?
Don Jensen: Certainly. The sketch that I have up in front of me, which has the aerial photo of the overall area
down on the far left side close to Kate describes, and I'll hold this up just above the big one for the m6ment.
This is a bloxv up of this particular area here on the main concept plans which shows our overstory trees. We
have our village series of homes, which is two story. This overall street steps up approximately a foot and a
half each dwelling unit. We're substantial higher here. This is our high point in the whole development. Again
we're stepping down and these dwelling units all step down almost two feet apiece and they're spaced a little bit
farther apart and as this street goes down, that's ~vhat's happening. There's a landform so. In general, in plan
it's not very well described but I guess as an overview that's what's occurring. If you drop down to this
particular sketch here. What happens based on that triangular space, which was outlined in our minutes about
.65 acres so it's approximately 2/3 of an acre large and that is keeping kind of a private space and measuring it,
for discussion purposes, of about 10 or 15 feet for each dwelling unit. Roughly in line with what we have on
this planting concept here and also immediately behind this particular walkway that's shown on this sketch here.
Likewise that same line occurs in our cottages series on this side. What you have, because these buildings are
stepped, is essentially an upper plate, which is this area. What ~ve're looking at there is that this area be set
aside, we believe a program should be more adult uses. It could be a very active gardening area. It could be an
active flower gardening area. It could just be an open space for sitting, remembering that this is a fairly high
point, approximately 40 feet above Lake Riley. It'd be a very nice vie~ving area. Could have benches. You
might even find that the mix of people in this neighborhood would like a private volleyball area. It would be
big enough for instance to accomplish that. As these structures are stepping down, what we have is, on the
grading plan in your packets, a little spill or a ridge that falls down or cascades down is how I describe it.
Previously it would be similar to what you have in the upper tier parking to your lower tier parking. You have
probably not quite as severe a grade change as that example but that's what's occurring in this center planting
area. So you have a smaller pocket that's at a lower tier that we described as being possible for a totlot area, if
in fact that's what the mix of residents desires. We offered it to the Planning Commission that we were
concerned about having a mandate to fund a play structures in here that these people would then be paying
insurance costs on. You 'know as the Council looking at your budget ~vhat liability insurance coverage is for
parks and play areas. We want to be careful that these people xvere very willing to step into that insurance
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
obligation by having a play area. We think xve can create a very modest investment there. You've got natural
boulders to plant and if you've got natural other pieces of equipment that these folks would like to buy into but
you get a sense of enclosure down in this southerly area. This triangular area and it's smaller and the tots are
the one area that some people believe that you have a lot in your neighborhood, you ought to take care of them
at home. Once they're getting past the tot age, then they're really still...provide parks. There is a neighborhood
park that's supposed to be in the next...
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I was just going to comment on that. I'm not sure if you're aware but we did look at a
park on the Klingelhutz property immediately adjacent to this. I think when the Park and Recreation
Commission looked at that, they felt that would probably serve some of the need, but as Mr. Jensen indicated,
they want the flexibility, which we concur, to see what the market nitch is there and let them determine some of
whether it should be more active, loud or quiet and I guess we kind of concurred with that.
Don Jensen: It's not listed as any condition of approval but we were more than willing, and had said previously
and tonight again to be able to work with staff. That this draxving represents a certain amount of dollars in
order to create the previous drawing or if we were to set that in an escrow. At the time we were 50% built out,
we could have a meeting and your planning or parks or somebody could send a representative. We'd go over
ideas and agree that this is how we're going to spend the amount of money that's represented on this plan for
example. And they would have their say in that. And that wouldn't be unlike what you've done in parks that
are undeveloped and then when your neighborhoods get built around...I hope that didn't take too long.
Councilman Mason: No, no, thank you. Very thorough. I have no more questions at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Oka}r, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I have none. Mine have been asked already.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess the other thing too that I wanted to check with Charles. Charles, xve're looking
at, as mentioned that being a private street and then looking at the potential of this going to maybe a 40 or 50
foot with maintenance by the city. Give me some of your thoughts on that.
Charles Folch: Well, our past experience when we deal with private developments like that, the utilities end up
being private. First of all we require that they're all constructed to our standards anyway but when there's a
problem 5-10 years down the road with the private utilities, more often than not xve're the.ones called to come
in and take care of it at that 2:00 in the morning xvhen the sewer's backed up. They don't want to hear it's
private. They should call Rotor Rooter. They want the city to come out and help so often times we end up
going out there and fixing a problem. Then because there hasn't been routine annual maintenance along the
way, the problem is usually much larger to fix so in discussing these types of situations with the utility
superintendent, we believe it's probably in the city's best interest to maintain these utility lines. Maintain the
service that's provided to them and when you're dealing with 40 foot utility and drainage easements, getting
another 10 foot and having a road that's constructed to city standards makes utilities much more accessible to us
on a year round basis, during the wintertime and such so we feel it's in our best interest and the interest of that
neighborhood if we can make the streets and utilities public.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You mentioned your two story, do you have anything that depicts what that txvo story
dwelling is going to look like?
10
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, I would like to double check. In your packets that you received all of the drawings.
You have a reduction. I have them on a board but did not end up in my packet so what rll do is hold up a
plain blueprint.
Mayor Chmiel: I was sort of looking for that rendition as to what you have for the on slab ones with the single.
You don't have anything as such, other than what's in blueprints?
Don Jensen: No I don't. Not tonight. What I have in front of you, which should be reduced on the packet are
our two story product. The elevations are down at the lower portion of this particular drawing and our floor
plans. These are going from approximately 1,300 to 1,800 square feet of total finished space. You can see that
the elevations were slightly different for each particular floor plan similar to how we were having the elevations
constructed for the cottages. The entry points were again set back from the garage front and the use of windows
above the garage, to use in this case there's an example of garages that are for two cars but they are a single
garage door configurations. There's some variation going on. That would replicated in this as well as I believe
the cottages. The cottages plan, which wasn't illustrated in front of you. You have to look at the plan for them
also has several that are turned 90 degrees and I can show you that on our plans where we have. Those are in
very fixed locations and have reasons for that option happening. For example we have two units that are side
by side in this location. This one, if you look closely actually has the garage doors access from the side rather
than from head on and that was important for us one, because we had the street curving away. But two, it
reduces any type of conflict movement where Lakeview Hills Apartments is now accessing the public street. If
it were a head on garage, it'd be backing up in essence out right next to probably one of our highest conflict
movements of the whole subdivision. We also have options as we fan up the streets of possibly this unit or this
unit to go to the side load. And this dwelling over down through here at the end is a side load so of the 26,
we've probably got 4 or 5 that are the side load configuration representing about 15%. We don't have that
option xvith this particular building type. Mr. Mayor, xvas this blueprint that I'm holding up at least adequate
enough for the moment?
Mayor Chmiel: Right now, yeah. I believe you wanted to discuss regarding Park and Recreation as we have
within our Minutes on page 17. Did you have some discussion that you wanted to do a little more on that?
Don Jensen: Jeff, do you have?
Jeff Johnson: Thank you Don. Members of the Council, my name is Jeff Johnson. rma partner...office. It's a
pleasure to be with you tonight, rm not going to spend a lot of time talking about a number of legal issues but
what our position is that what the conditions of the plat as they relate to the park dedication of full park
dedication fees paid per unit as well as the dedication of land itself along the lakefront is unfair. That is asking
for too much. Is there a substantial reason why the city needs the lakefront property because of this
development? Well if someone argues that there is, as you can see the proposal doesn't ask for a building site
or anything to be put on that portion of the property, so we could just make that a private dedication to the
homeowners association, if this plat really is what is driving the need for that additional park space so, we're
looking at it as it's a city wide effort. It's the need for a trail and xve understand that and that's perfectly
legitimate in our mind that the city would want something like that. But to charge park dedication fee on every
unit, as well as require a dedication really seems to be over, stepping over the bounds as an extraction from the
developer and it's that what we want to consider, or this Council to consider. I don't think that we're saying that
we're opposed to having that lakefront area as a park. But if you take it as a park, if you require dedication,
there should be some credit given back for park dedication fees that the individual units would be responsible to
pay. The other issue that I'd ask is, are we being treated differently than any other developer within the city.
11
City' Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Have you asked other developers to pay full park dedication fees as well as make dedication for park purposes
of a parcel that's on the lake. I know that one of the issues that one of my partners...spoke with counsel for the
city and the issue of this is a planned unit development and that matter it's a discretionary zoning but I don't
think the discretionary zoning entitles the city to extract more than what the development itself would dictate is
relational to the development. And again I think what's relational to the development is we do pay our per unit
park dedication fee. If you want to trade it off in a land acquisition of acquiring the piece on the lakefront,
that's fine but I think that needs to be recognized and what you're asking for in the unit dedication fees.
Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, to follow that, what we're prepared to do, in recognition of that as an accepted
condition of approval that would state that in 30 days, 45 days from your approval tonight that our counsel
would meet with your counsel and staff to solve what is a fair and reasonable park dedication for this
development so that we don't need to hash it all tonight. Essentially provides our issue and our background and
the frame of reference that our counsel has recommended to us. It doesn't set an unreasonable precedent for
other developments to look at, and yet we're more than willing to negotiation and work with the city to come up
with a fair and reasonable solution for this subdivision here in the city so that we can both go forward and not
have this be kind of a roadblock to an otherwise successful plat that is in front of you tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well a comment on that issue. I don't think that we need to make it a condition
that the lav~7~ers hash it out. In my opinion it is a double dip...Fd just as soon. charge the fees. The people of
this neighborhood will be using that be'achfront. I don't see a whole lot of other people from Chanhassen
needing that so I would say that it is...
Kate Aanenson: Can I just comment on what Todd's recommendation would be on that? Is that I think the
Park Commission would still like to acquire that property. If they have to do that through compensation, that
they would still like to have that option to acquire Outlot C. Make it a public access. I don't know if you have
to compensate them for that but they would still like to see that as an opportunity for public space.
Councilman Senn: I understand that as Todd's recommendations but.
Kate Aanenson: I'm talking about compensation. I'm not talking about just taking.
Councilman Senn: No, no. No, I understand but I think there's broader, you -know I looked at the discussion
from the Parks Commission and I understand it because that's their job you know in relation to it but I think
there's some real broad issues here that need to be considered as it relates to acquisition on that parcel. You
'know a public access may be one thing now, which I believe Todd is suggesting as a fishing pier but in the
future could be improved to be something more than that. There's the issues with the trees and the vegetation
there which I think are going to be dramatically impacted either way. Especially xvith the public access
approach. And I'm going to say more importantly, and I don't know how the xvord's got out but it's got out but
I've already gotten several calls on this from some people who live down in the area and they're very concerned
about (a), the public access and (b), the fishing pier in terms of it's use and how it would be used, etc. So all
I'm saying is I think if that's something we want to do, I'd like to kind of separate that issue out and really look
at both sides of it. As I mentioned when.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, being this is preliminary, a lot of that can still be hashed out prior to coming back to
Council. So a lot of that can be addressed without any problem.
12
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Councilman Senn: Begging Council's indulgence for a minute. I had a dumb idea. You know and I don't think
it's something that we necessarily have to resolve tonight because it's just something that off the top of the head
is, as we were going through some of this, but here we have a product that starts at $120,000.00. That's a new
kind of product that we haven't seen in a long time and you look at the project, I think the project really looks
good in relationship to the product that it's delivering. At the same time, that $120,000.00 range really made me
start thinking a lot because if you look at all the affordable housing issues, the maximum limit under affordable
housing is $115,000.00. You know, what's the old expression? We talk the talk, we walk the walk as it relates
to affordable housing all the time but here we are another situation where instead of trying to take things off,
we're trying to add things on which is going to push that $120,000.00 or necessitate them to try to sell these
units for closer to $160,000.00 rather than $120,000.00. Is there any, I mean would Council be, I mean I'd love
to explore the option, if nothing else explore it. You know you've got 76 units here. 76 units at $120,000.00
plus. What if we made it 71 units at $120,000.00 plus and got 5 units dispersed through here at $95,000.00 and
forget the park dedication fees. And we've accomplished 5 affordable housing units under well, for a distance
under the maximum but at the same time it helps us meet some of the goals we've talked about in the past
because if affordable housing is going to work, it's going to be dispersed. I mean here you've got 5 out of 76
units. It's single family, which was another key point. It allows it to be the same style because we require the
developer to build it to $120,000.00 and sell it for $95,000.00, which makes it fit with the rest of the
neighborhood. But that's where you 'know, where it's a trade-off between us getting maybe park dedication fees
and I don't know. It just seems to me that if ~ve don't take the time to try to have that discussion, we could
really be missing the boat here and- we're so close here, we ought to take advantage of it I think. And if it, this
is preliminary but you know, spend a couple weeks doing that I think could really have some merit.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that staff could have discussions with and I'm sure they're not able to
give any ansv`'ers right nov,,.
Councilman Senn: No, and I'm not asking for them.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. But it's a concept. It's an idea and I'd like to know what the pros and cons to those
specific issues xvould be as well.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I agree. It's really, it's off the top of the head so I mean it may be a terribly bad idea.
It's I'd like we should look at.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think that's something that we can come up with.
Councilman Senn: I mean I'm curious. Would you have an objection to that?
Don Jensen: You know I think right now what we're trying to do is make sure that we've got a binding
approval at our preliminary plat and that we don't have any conditions in there that we're sitting on our knees
here begging for forgiveness on a few months from now.
Councilman Senn: But to you it's a financial trade-off, correct?
Don Jensen: You know those things certainly seem reasonable for us to explore as a company. Our goal is to
try to deliver housing v`'here people seem to have a nitch that's not being built and this is one of them...
extremely difficult to deliver at market rate xvithout any kind of subsidy housing at, falling within the Met
Council guidelines of affordability. Usually it's some give and take.
13
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We can put all those things together as xve continue with this. Is there any other
discussion?
Councilman Mason: No, I'd like to move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to move Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85
acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to subdivide
46.57 etc. I'd also like staff, Mark certainly raises some interesting questions here. I think it's worth taking a
look at that. So yeah, I'll move preliminary plat approval and let's take a look at the concept here.
Mayor Chmiel: Some of the things discussed, okay.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, Roger.
Roger Knutson: You want to address conditions 31 and 32?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think we do.
Roger Knutson: And approval will be subject to the conditions set forth in the recommendations from staff.
Councilman Mason: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Roger Knutson: Do you want to deal with 31 and 32?
Councilman Mason: Well I think that that is also, like Mr. Jensen has said, something that can be discussed
between staff and them would xvork that out.
Mayor Chmiel: Prior to coming back to us.
Councilman Senn: Could xve say it won't exceed the normal?
Councilman Mason: Oh right, yeah. I mean clearly there was.
Councilman Senn: So they understand that. That it won't exceed the normal.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, yeah, right.
Councilman Senn: Does that make you happy too Roger?
14
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Roger Knutson: I'm always happy.
Mayor Chmiel' Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: I did already.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve preliminary approval of PUD/495-1:
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD)(plans dated 4/17/95, revised 5/4/95 and 7/17/95, prepared by
Pioneer Engineering), approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit
Development (first reading); preliminary plat to subdivide 52.1 acres into 78 lots, 4 ouflots and associated right-
of-way; site plan review for 76 single family detached zero lot line homes on 19.95 acres; a variance for
wetland setbacks for Lots 12-16, Block 1 and Lots 16-19, Block 2 to permit the house placement as shown on
the plans; and a wetland alteration permit for North Bay, subject to the following conditions:
A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,
NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly
located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance//9-1.
.
Redesignate Lot 1, Block 3 as an outlot. Lot 57, Block 1 and Lot 21, Block 2 are unbuildable for
d~velling units and must be maintained for common open space.
Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the
surroundings, provide evergreen screening from automobile headlights for Lots 1, 13, and 15, Block 2;
increase the number of evergreens to a minimum of 20 percent of the tree plantings as required by
ordinance; and incorporate additional evergreen plantings along the 212 corridor.
.
The applicant shall provide financial guarantees to the city to assure satisfactory installation of the
landscaping.
Revise grading and drainage plan to indicate lowest flOor level elevation and garage floor elevation. This
should be done prior to final plat approval.
Submit soils report with lot by lot tabulations to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to
issuance of any building permits.
7. Change proposed Lake Riley Road to Lake Riley Road East.
Obtain a building permit for retaining xvalls exceeding four feet in height before beginning their
construction.
.
The applicant will need to revise the erosion control plan to include temporary sediment basins, Type III
erosion control fence, seeding type and schedule of site restoration. The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the
xvetlands.
10. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and
15
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval three weeks prior to final plat
approval.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
City xvill install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20
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 stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal
xvater level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient
catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on
Walker's Pondnet model.
The applicant shall enter into a PUD/development agreement xvith the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the PUD/development agreement.
The 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 regulator3, agencies, i.e. Carver
County, 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 appropriate drainage and utility easements shall 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 shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas.
17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within any street right-of-way.
18.
19.
20.
The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a
minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level.
The proposed stormwater pond 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. A landscape plan providing
upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended.
The proposed multi-family residential development of 16.07 developable acres is responsible for a water
quantity connection charge of $47,808.00. These fees are payable to the City prior to City filing the
final plat. Credits will be applied to these fees after final review of the construction plans. Staff shall
review the developable acreage and fee prior to final plat.
16
citY Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
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.
Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman Boulevard and also
with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels. The applicant shall be responsible for
acquiring the necessary easements for grading outside the plat. All site grading must be completed prior
to street construction.
The existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site shall be relocated in conjunction
with the development. The applicant may petition the CitY to vacate the existing utilitY easement once
the line has been relocated.
Final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City Council awarding a bid for the first phase of Lyman
Boulevard/Lake Riley Area Trunk Improvement Project 93-32B and MnDot approval of the alignment of
Lyman Boulevard. The applicant shall also dedicate the required 80 foot wide right-of-way for Lyman
Boulevard prior to the finalization of the construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. Final vertical and
horizontal alignment for Lyman Boulevard shall be subject to CitY and MnDot-State Aid approval.
All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored upon completion of the site grading with seed and disc-
mulched or sod or erosion control blanket. All grading must be completed prior to issuance of building
permits on the site with the exception of one mode. 1 home directly off Lyman Boulevard. Wetland
mitigation areas shall be restored in accordance with the wetland restoration/alteration permit.
26. The construction plans shall be revised to include the following changes:
a. Delete grading of the channel through Wetland Basin A.
b. Provide outlet control structures from the proposed pond north of Lyman Boulevard to the wetland
mitigation area adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and from the mitigation area to Wetland Basin A.
c. Type III erosion control fence shall be placed adjacent to and around all wetlands and mitigation
areas.
d. Provide a temporary sediment basin on Lot 57, Block 1 in or near the proposed irrigation house
between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1.
All storm sewer catch basins shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence until the streets are
paved and the site fully revegetated.
Revise grading plan to ascertain most appropriate method for conveying stormwater across Lots 4
through 31, Block 1.
g. Add catch basins on ne~v driveway access to apartments.
h. Prohibit parking on one side of all streets.
i. Address relocation and abandonment of existing gravel driveway on west propertY line.
17
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
27.
28.
29.
30.
j. Include a drain tile system behind the curbs on all lots that are not adjacent to a stormwater Pond or
wetland.
k. Use city standard detail plates.
1. Provide utility stub to vacant parcel which lies south of the apartments.
The applicant shall obtain and convey to the City at no cost a street, utility and drainage easement over
the west 30 feet of the Lakeview Hills Apartments parcel lying north of Lyman Boulevard and
terminating where the full 60 foot xvide right-of-way begins in the plat of North Bay.
The applicant shall provide a temporary barricade at the end of Lake Riley Road and include a sign
indicating that "This street xvill be extended in the future". A condition shall also be placed in the
PUD/development agreement ac 'knowledging the intent to extend Lake Riley Road in the future.
Parking shall be restricted to one side of North Bay Drive and Lake Riley Road. The applicant may
choose xvhich side of the street to restrict parking. The city will adopt the appropriate resolution
prohibiting parking and place the appropriate regulatory, signs.
The applicant and/or property oxvner shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the
special assessments associated xvith city public, improvement Project 93,32B including, but not limited to,
hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. Staff and the
applicant will work on developing revised language for this condition that conveys the intent of the
condition.
31. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Dedication of Outlot C for park purposes. This dedication to be a condition of the granting of planned
unit development status.
The applicant shall provide the city with some assurances that there will be some variation in brick and
siding colors, potentially designating certain areas within the project for specific brick and siding colors.
The applicant shall install a watermain along Lake Rile), Road in accordance with the city's feasibility
study for Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction Project 93-32B. The city shall credit the oversizing cost back
to the applicant by means of a reduction in their assessments for project 93-32B. The oversizing cost
shall be the difference between an 8 inch line and the proposed 12 inch line based on fair market value.
No improvements to the land south of Lyman Boulevard will be permitted until a conditional use permit
for a beachlot is approved by the city.
The applicant shall provide a pedestrian access between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1 to_encourage access to
the common open space.
Staff will work with the applicant on providing acceptable setbacks for Block 1 including reducing the
eastern and northern perimeter setbacks.
18
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
38. The applicant will work with staff to consider the Klingelhutz right-of-way alignment proposal for Lake
Riley Road East.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR "AFTER THE FACT" GRADING/EARTHWORK FOR 36~000.
CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIALi SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF GALPIN
BOULEVARDi HOLASEK GREENHOUS~
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why don't we just move it?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Kate Aanenson: I'll go ahead and cover it. This is an after the fact violation of grading on the site. The
Planning Commission reviewed it and recommended approval, except that they requested that we look at the
city's cost and attorney fees involved and double fee. They wanted that spelled out, which Dave has in his staff
report. But as it tums out, Mr. Holasek went ahead and got some, had the availability of getting some dirt and
graded the site without approval based on the timeliness... We did look at it based on the fact that there is a
wetland in there. We did have some issues with that, but it appeared that it was exempt so that was our biggest
concern and we wanted the site re-~stablished and making sure that it wouldn't cause a prOblem in the future so
xve did add conditions of approval, xvhich xve are recommending and we did add again, number 3 which the
Planning Commission wanted us'to address. Excuse me, number 5. Attorney fees.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Is Mr. Holasek here? Is there anything that you wish to address in regard to this?
Mr. Holasek: No, I don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Bring it back to Council.
Councilman Senn: Move approval as per staff and Planning Commission recommendations.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Interim Use Permit #95-3 for Holasek
Greenhouses for the material that has been hauled in as shown on the plans pnepared by William Engelhardt &
Associates dated May 31, 1995 and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall pay a grading permit fee in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, Appendix
70-B, based on the amount of earth work hauled into the site (36,000 cubic yards). The applicant shall be
responsible for a grading permit fee of $319.50.
The applicant shall complete and resubmit the signed Wetland Conservation Act certificate of exemption.
The interim use permit shall expire on October 15, 1995. All disturbed areas as a result of the filling
shall be reseeded and mulched or employed in crops. The applicant shall supply the City with a financial
escroxv in the amount of $2,500.00 to guarantee restoration and compliance with conditions of this permit.
19
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred for the enforcement of this permit including
engineering and attorney fees.
The applicant shall hold the City and it's officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and
third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit approval or work done in
conjunction ~vith it. The applicant shall indemnify the city and it's officers and employees for all costs,
damages or expenses that the city may pay or incur in consequence with such claims, including attorney
fees.
All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Item number 5. It appears as though the applicant, I don't 'know if they're all going to be here
at 9:00. We're trying to put them on the agenda at that specific time. I'm wondering xvhether or not if we can
just bypass that item 5 and come back to it and go to item number 6, unless the applicant's have come in. I
knoxv one portion is here but the applicant's are not. Okay, why don't we do that. We'll just skip over to item
6.
SET PUBLIC I-~A~G DATES AND ADOPT 1996 MAXIMUM PROPOSF, D LEVY
Don Ashworth: At one of our last work sessions the Council had agreed that the date for the Truth in Taxation
hearing should be set for December 6th. If you recall, we cannot hold our hearing on the same night as one of
our school districts or county, which really limited the number of dates that were open. Again back to
December 6th. I was able to get ahold of Lori at the County Auditor's Office. She had given me some
preliminary numbers. Quite truthfully, I simply do not believe them. I would be afraid to set a levy based on
the figure that she gave me. What I would strongly recommend to the City Council is that you set the
maximum. Realize when we use the word maximum we're not trying to take and get the most out of the
property tax system What maximum represents is that is the amount that would be used in the Truth in
Taxation hearing notice and as we work ourself through the budgetary process, the City Council can always
come down from xvhatever figure we set this evening. You can reduce it but you cannot go over the amount we
set tonight, which is the reason that they call tonight's action setting the maximum levy. I would strongly
recommend that the City Council set it at the existing mil tax capacity rate, which is 25.5%. And that when I
verify what the figures are from Lori, I will multiply that 25.5% times the verified tax capacity total, with the
full understanding that it would be the intent of the City Council to try to see a property tax decrease. And
quite truthfully, and I mentioned this to the Mayor when we had met today with the school district at the
Arboretum. That he had been looking for a goal for say a 5% decrease in taxes and I really believe that this
year we may be able to achieve that goal. Just if these preliminary numbers are in any way correct. But again
I would suggest that you set it at the existing tax rate xvhich again is the 25.5%. It's been that percent basically
for the last 3 years, maybe even further so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Question?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Senn: If we set it at the maximum, the notices are going to go out to every house in Chanhassen.
What is it going to show? It's going to show a big tax increase, correct? Over what they paid last year?
20
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Don Ashworth: We're aware of the fact, and again I was trying to get back to Orlin's office. We saw a number
of property owners come in xvhere the increase was 4% to 5%, according to Orlin. We had others who came in
and said that they had an addition, they had this, they had xvhatever but the general increase for those
neighborhoods that were re-evaluated was 5% or less.
Councilman Senn: You mean this past year?
Don Ashworth: This past year.
Councilman Senn: When he was here for the hearing I thought he said 6% to 8%.
Don Ashworth: No, and I could re-verify that. I'm just cautious of setting it at that 5% lower figure right now
and then finding out that wasn't really correct and we didn't really fully understand the additional costs
associated with the community center or you know, whatever else may come up during the budgetary process
and then our hands are tied. I do know costs associated with debt will be up significantly, more in 1996. But
other general operating costs I'm not sure of at this point.
Councilman Senn: Well is there a number inbetween that we can come up with that effectively when these
notices would go out would show no net change rather than increases again? I mean that's the problem. I mean
you send it out the maximum and it shows the tax increase and the phone starts ringing and everybody believes
that's what it's going to be all the way up to the point that they come in here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: On the other hand you tie your hands if you set it at some number less.
Councilman Senn: Well that's xvhat I'm saying. I mean is there some kind of a safer number inbetween that
would effectively cause no net increase? I mean here you're saying 5% decrease. You knoxv hey.
Don Ashworth: Well if, oh I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Don Ashworth: If all properties within the community saw a 5% increase, then sending out a notice that they
could show a 5% decrease xvould in fact have their taxes neutral. It would stay exactly where it is. The
problem is, let's make the assumption that Orlin is correct and that 1/4 of the total community was in fact re-
evaluated. That's every 4 years they're supposed to take and carry out the evaluation process for each
neighborhood. When you would do your 5% reduction, all neighborhoods would benefit from that reduction.
Those that were not re-evaluated. So the net effect back to the city is, since that increase did not occur to all of
them. Only to let's say 1/3 or 1/4 of those, as far as our revenues are concerned, we would only see... The
average affect would be like a reduction of 1% for all neighborhoods. 1.25 and whereas the 1/4 of the
neighborhoods that truly were increased by 5% would actually have a 3.75% increase. Do you follow me on
that?
Councilman Mason: A question. Can we set the public hearing date tonight and adopt the maximum proposed
levy 2 weeks from tonight?
Don Ashworth: No. It has to be returned by...
21
City Council Meeting - September 1t, 1995
Councilman Mason: Okay, alright. You know I hear.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd rather be on the high side than the.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We go through this every year.
Councilman Mason: We do and I do hear.
Councilman Senn: And we keep asking not to.
Councilman Mason: I do hear what Mark is saying. I remember the first year that xve had to do this and I did
have dozens of phone calls and I was kind of holding the phone out here. But as people are getting used to the
fact that that is maximum and every year we've done this we've come considerably under that, I'm comfortable
with what you're saying. Although that's not to discount what Mark's saying either. So I'm ready to go ahead
xvith this I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other discussion.'? Can xve take that as a motion?
Councilman Mason: Sure. So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Resolution #95-92: Councilman Mason moved, Councihvoman Dockendorf seconded to set the public hearing
date for the Truth in Taxation hearing for December 6, 1995 and to set the maximum le,vy at 25.5% All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask, is there anyone here for item number 5? About the preliminary and final plat
request to subdivide 6.55 acres. North of Pleasant View Road. I see some people here. Alright. The
applicants are going to be just a little late and asked us to hold it until 9:00, if that's alright xvith you. We'll
move right ahead with some of the other items on the agenda. As it's closer to 9:00, if they're not here, we'll
move it ahead.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING SEASONAL/TEMPORARY SALES~ FIRST READING.
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The Chamber of Commerce Retail Committee is
requesting an amendment to the City Code to alloxv for an administrative permit for temporary outdoor sales
events. Their goal is to develop an ordinance which would allow outdoor sales to occur without going through
the interim use permit process. The Chamber's recommending an ordinance which allows special sales events
for the following situations. One would be an individual retail or sale promotion. Txvo, a retail center
promotion, and three, a city wide promotion. As many of you are axvare, this issue has been before the City
Council in the past. One of the major concerns was over which uses to permit and how to regulate the more
transient type merchants. By that I guess the sunglass vendor or the so call art vendor that sets up on a corner
somewhere. Staff has attempted to address some of these concerns by specifying xvhich type of uses xvould be
permitted in the ordinance and provide an additional criteria and standards when evaluating these type of uses to
make sure that they meet the ordinance. Attached is a cop}' of the ordinance as prepared by staff. It basically
22
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
takes into account the recommendation of the Chamber, along with some additional criteria specified by'staff.
Again, all of these outdoor sales events would require a temporary permit which would be issued
administratively. Temporary sales is currently listed in the CBD, BF, BG, BH and BN districts. As you're
aware, this requires a $400.00 application fee, a public hearing in front of Planning Commission and the City
Council. Staff is of the .opinion that we could look at some of these administratively in certain districts, and
those districts being the CBD, BF, BO, BH, BN and OI districts. These districts would be changed to allow for
an administrative permit. In an attempt to address some of the aesthetics concerned, we set standards for the
use of mobile equipment, lighting and other related items. Because it involves administrative permit, we tried to
clearly spell out what the criteria would be for each one of these. That's why the ordinance is kind of lengthy°
We thought it is needed to put the standards and requirements right in there so that everybody knows what's
expected of them. And we added a purpose and finding section to the ordinance to try to clearly identify what
the intent of this ordinance is. That we're looking to promote things like sidewalk sales, Christmas tree sales,
and similar events that kind of help to evoke a community spirit or get people out of their cars walking around
downtown. Obviously we spent a lot of time in creating a downtown that's pedestrian friendly. We feel that if
done properly, and in moderation, that these type of special sales events done outside can add a lot of flavor to
the community. With that we are recommending approval of the ordinance. On August 16th the Planning
Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed ordinance. The Commission did recommend approval
of the ordinance as presented. Members of the Chamber of Commerce are also present at this meeting and
spoke in favor of the ordinance. With that I'd be happy to answer any .questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ,Does anyone have any questions.of John?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, a couple. Is there any fee associated xvith this permit?
John Rask: There would be, yes. It has not been set. We'd look into what it would cost to administrate it and
base the fee on that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Did you look at any specific length of time?
John Rask: Yes xve did. We did break it down to the sidewalk sales we limited to, well Christmas trees and
produce sales we limited to 60 days per calendar year, and no more than 3 activities per year. Things like, oh if
somebody wants to do non-profit type sale. A hamburger sale outside of Festival or something along that line
or just a fairly minimal sidewalk sale, we put a timeframe of 15 days per year with a maximum of a 3 day
display period.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I don't have any questions at this time. I know this has come up before and I think this
looks like a lot of thought's gone into it and I think as long as we maintain some control over it, I'd like to see
it. I know Excelsior does this kind of stuff and there are people just crawling on the sidewalks. So I think it's
certainly worth a try.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep, agreed. Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: No questions. I have some comments if we're going to come back to that.
23
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Prior to taking any comments, is there someone representing the Chamber this evening
that concurs with basically what's been said?
Audience: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? Mark.
Councilman Senn: In, you knoxv as far as where we've gotten it to now which basically allows the non-profits
to effectively do this, I guess I was a real advocate or whatever of limiting or doing it that way. I have no
problems with the suggestion that that process be simplified to be done administratively, you know rather than
have to go to the Planning Commission and Council. I continue to have real concerns over broadening this
beyond the non-profits. The real issue I think with this type of an ordinance becomes one of enforceability and
every other city I've seen that adopts this type of thing, it becomes a little bit of a joke because the outside sales
go up on late Friday afternoon and they come down Sunday night and they figure as long as city staff isn't
working, it works great. You know likewise looking at this ordinance, there really are not penalties you know
with any teeth that are going to do much of anything. Nor really any addressing of how this is going to be
enforced by whom, and how. This type of thing, in my mind just gets crazy real quick. I mean before you
know it, everybody's having a truckload sale or a tent sale is the other one. And I think our downtown area has
a lot more character than that. One of the recurring themes that I picked up basically coming through the
discussion from the Chamber and stuff related to produce and stuff like that and it seemed to me there's a lot
better solutions to that than this potentially looking a.t identifying some city parking lot or park parking lot or
something or a farmer's market type of'thing that you -set up for specific hours or that type of a thing to allow
you know that type of thing to happen if it's that necessary. You know again that's, I don't know whether that's
a terribly good idea or bad idea but I think it's one that should maybe be looked at and I just, I continue to have
real concerns and don't really support just kind of dropping it all and opening it wide up because I think it's
going to end up turning around to haunt us and once you do it, it's real hard to take it away. It's a lot easier to
walk into it slowly and.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't fully agree with that concept. I think you give it a good shot to see what it does. If
there are a lot of problems with it by people making and doing some of the things that you've indicated, and I
think it can be looked back by Council to come up xvith a little more stern address of it. I think the business
people are astute people in the community and hopefully they will be aware of the fact as to what the
requirements are within the community. And I think they would also respect that. So I guess I share some of
your concerns but I don't think that's probably the way to go about it.
Councilman Senn: Well you knoxv Don, I sincerely hope you're right but that's not what history has shown me
in other communities and it could happen.
Mayor Chmiel: Well this is Chanhassen.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but I don't think our downtown area needs truckload sales either but
the, if Council's going to pass it and go ahead, I just would really ask them to really do something as it relates
to addressing the enforceability issue as well as penalties, because if not the ordinance isn't worth the paper it's
written on. And that just is not there at this point to the point, or at least in my mind the way it xvould need to
be if you're going to go so. But that's up to you guys.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, an.,,' other discussion? Colleen?
24
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike?
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'I1 call a question. Is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move the first reading to the City Code regarding seasonal and temporary
sales.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of the amendment
to the City Code regarding Seasonal/Temporary Sales. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who
opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor? I'd just point out for next time. Although this is first reading, it passed on a
simple majority. The next reading _requires...
Mayor Chmiel: Right, 4/5. Thank you. Okay, we're.about as close to 9:00 as we're going to get. I'd like to go
back to item riumber 5.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 6.55 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS AND VARIANCE REQUEST TO SECTION 18-57(O) WHICH AIJ,OWS LIP TO 4 LOTS TO BE
SERVED BY A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY~ 6225 RIDGE ROAD, NORTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD~
JAMES AND KAREN MEYERS.
Public Present:
~ame
Address
S. Rosenberg
Carl Zinn
Hank & Sharon Graef
Gordy & Patsy Whiteman
Irene Joseph
Deanne Schilling
Dean Wetzel
Jim & Karen Meyer
6175 Ridge Road
5820 Ridge Road
Ridge Road
825 Pleasant Viexv Road
6290 Ridge Road
6280 Ridge Road
6260 Ridge Road
6225 Ridge Road
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The applicant's proposing to subdivide 6.24 acres
into 4 lots. The subdivision will create 4 lots from the existing 2. In conjunction with the subdivision, the
applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.57 which states there shall be no more than 4 homes on a
private street. The application as submitted does not provide any dedicated right-of-way or improvements to the
existing street. The four lots average approximately 1.56 acres and range in size from 47,000 square feet to
approximately 97,000 square feet. All lots meet the minimum lot width, depth and area requirements of the
25
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
zoning ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision and variance subject to the conditions of
the staff report. The Meyer's property and other properties along Ridge Road are served by a substandard
private street. As I mentioned before, under the current zoning ordinance you can have up to 4 homes on a
private drive. There is currently I believe 9 and the existing road ranges in width from 12 to 16 feet. A road
width of 12 to 16 feet provides a number of obstacles. One is traffic passing in opposite directions can be
difficult. In addition, the trees in this area and the overgrowth along the roadway also hinders the movement of
cars and traffic and has some negative impacts as far as fire and safety equipment. In the past staff has
recommended that this street be served, or the properties along the street be served by a street built to urban
standards. However upon review of the existing development pattern, staff has determined that it would be
unfeasible to construct a public street at this time. Property line and home locations, as well as the trees would
make it veD, difficult to upgrade this road to urban standards. Staff is recommending though that the street be
upgraded to what is our minimum standards for a private street, which is 20 foot wide pavement, 7 ton design
and an adequate turn around be provided at the end of Ridge Road to address some of the public safety
concerns. On August 16th the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the preliminary plat for the
Meyers Addition. The Commission, by unanimous vote recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject
to 17 conditions. The Commission did move to strike the first sentence of condition 7 xvhich xvould require the
street to be upgraded. In order to address the public safety concerns, the Planning Commission added conditions
14 through 17 to address some of these concerns. Staff still maintains that the road should be widened up to 20
feet. The Fire Marshal had also made some clarifications which I think are fairly clear in the staff report,' and I
think he's here this evening to answer any questions too you may have regarding that. Condition 14 requested
that the City Attorney address the liability issue associated with not upgrading the street. Upon review of
current State law, the City Attorney concluded that 'the city is immune from certain types of liability issues
under State laxv. These immunities appear to cover the liability issues associated with not upgrading the drive
and there is a memo in the staff report I think that also clearly explains that. The commission also directed staff
to look at the possibility of using the turn around in Shorewood for public safety vehicles. More specifically
fire apparatus. Upon review of this by the Fire Marshal it was determined that this would offer very little as far
as addressing that public safety concern. And again, staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the
condition that the road be upgraded to a 20 foot wide pavement width.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any questions of John? Okay if not, just one quick question. Roger, I
noticed you looked at this regarding the proposed subdivision. Carl Zinn has indicated he's the owner's
representative. Is there any kind of legality as far as him signing off or for him to sign their names with his
initials? Which would be right after page 2.
Roger Knutson: There's a question mark...The owners have to sign the plat. If for some reason the owners
representing the owners...
Mayor Chmiel: Right, okay. Good. Thanks. Is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward and
please state your name and address and who you're representing.
Carl Zinn: My name is Carl Zinn. I live at 5820 Ridge Road in Shorexvood. I wonder if we could, Mr. Mayor,
if you could have the members of the public speak and go out of order so the owners may have a chance to
arrive. Their plane was delayed. They called me at 6:00 from Boston and said they had been delayed by a
couple hours. So they may show up after the people who came, the neighbors who came here.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you'd like to go through just a short analogy as to what's there and then xve'll go to that.
26
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Carl Zinn: Sure. Regarding the recommendations. I'll take some of the easy ones first. One is the pool. The
requirement to put a fence around the pool prior to the recording of the final plat. The Meyers are building a
home across the street. They're staying in the area. They're building a home on Christmas Lake. Their home
has been sold. The pool is going .to be closed down here shortly and the new owner is going to be putting up a
fence. There is an ordinance that covers that. It would be in violation and so we would like to take the final
file, the final plat without that fence having been constructed. We agree to apply for a permit and will escrow,
will get a bid and will escrow some money and if we could have that changed, that would be helpful. The next
item has to deal with the tree preservation.
Mayor Chmiel: John, maybe we could put that as item number 18.
John Rask: Okay.
Carl Zinn: It's already on there.
Kate Aanenson: It's number 10. We'd just modify that.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, yes.
Carl Zinn: The other one deals with, and I...tree preservation.
Councilman Mason: Page 8. Tree conservation area.
Carl Zinn: Tree conservation area. After looking at the proposed building plat and walking the lot and seeing
where the trees were, we've been real sensitive to where the trees are and where ;ye want to keep them at. We
think that the 200 feet is overly restrictive and xve'd like a little more leeway in where we build the place. We
think we can actually save some major trees, and there aren't very many major trees xvhere this most west part
of that tree preservation area anyway. That 200 feet so we'd like to have that reduced to 150 feet. I think the
Lot 3, the one to the north is 135 feet. And when you go through it, it's kind of a brushy area and the way we
would like to put a pad in there, having it that deep would preclude having a front yard at all. We really
wouldn't probably save some trees actually in the rear of the lot. So that'd be an item that we'd like to have
looked at. And then the tough item is the road and there's two issues on the road. One being the widening of
it. We had all the neighbors here at the Planning Commission. I think the reason that they're not here is that
even though the Planning Commission is an advisory, they're relying somewhat on the fact that they felt that
this ,,vas a country setting and that to apply urban standards here is...so there are a number of neighbors here and
I think I'll let them speak to the widening of the road issue. It deals primarily with saving trees and saving the
country ambience of the terrific neighborhood. One that's enjoyed by a lot of people from all over the city.
There's people from Fox Chase and people from all over that spend a lot of time walking around that lake and
across that road. That's one issue. The other issue is the turn around and whether or not, what are the safety
issues. You knoxv I don't know much about fire fighting but it seems to me that the problem is a turn around
which sort of by definition means the fire engine's already there and the real problem is getting the fire engine
out of there. And the road is a through road. It was closed a long time ago to pedestrian type traffic. The
reason for the closure was safety. Everybody was, it was the shortcut to high school is what it ended up being.
And so everybody from Fox Chase used to be my front yard. I grew up next to Cunningham's in Doc
Thompson's house and we all, all the people from Carver Beach and all the people in the Minnetonka school
system, that's the ;vay we went to school and so, much to my chagrin, all of a sudden one day I couldn't get to
high school that way. Had to go all the way around. And that's the reason it '`vas cut off but even today. Even
27
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
today you can, every xveek two garbage trucks start here and they go through the gate and they collect the
garbage all the way up here. Unfortunately we haven't been able to get everyone to agree on the same company
so, but they can go all the way through. Today an NSP truck was going through. It xvas going through and
trimming branches by the wires. Everytime somebody moves, there's several homes in here lately where the
moving truck has come through. Now the chain that's up there notv is a pretty formible chain. I mean it takes
the type of a bolt cutters that the emergency vehicles carry tvith them to cut. But the gate that we're proposing
and I'm assuming that you read the part about the type of break axvay gate. Sort of like a tear axvay jersey
where we have a gate that services, that provides for restricting the commuter type traffic and keeps that safety
issue. Yet in an emergency would be break away or easily unlocked or easily cut with a bolt cutters providing
access. And as far as so that from a safety issue, the fire engine's already there. They just can't, and there's two
fire hydrants, one here and one here. So really the home that's in jeopardy is the next fire. The one they
couldn't get out to get to. Not the homes in here. It seems to me that this road here that carries the vans and
carries the north end of Ridge Road and they turn on Covington and they're back in the city right about here.
We're back in Chanhassen. And that that is sufficient egress from Ridge Road. I'll leave that up here if
somebody else wants to refer to it. One of the issues with the turn around area, in addition to taking up a
whole bunch of land is that it's hard coverage and according to the one, the proposed acceptable turn around
areas that I was given is about 4,000 to 5,000 square feet, which is more than the footprint of any of the homes
in the area. And that's running right into Silver and Christmas Lake, xvhich has got to be ttvo of the more
environmentally sensitive bodies of water in that area. Silver Lake I think is a specially designated wildlife
preservation and so if you're putting all that hard coverage up at the top. You're going to lose a lot of trees.
There's two oak trees over 30 inches..Unfortunately in the survey that you haye, the tree preservation thing, it
doesn't cover the trees on the other side of the road and there's as many or more trees on the other side of the
road that are in jeopardy as the ones that are on the east side of the road. You may remember looking at that
tree location survey at the time you looked at Cunningham's. That's another issue and I understand that the
precedence isn't a legal deal but I think there's a sense of, at least the Planning Commission felt there was a
sense of fairness or a sense of equity and that the,,,; knew at the time that they did the Cunningham, that the
Meyer property would be subdivided across the street and make the same request and hopefully receive the
same treatment. I think those are the issues. Is that what you had in mind? Because the applicant hopefully
will be here by the time the public is done.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Carl Zinn: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address this item? If so, would you please
step forward. Indicate your concerns and please state .,,'our name and your address. I was just going to say,
don't be bashful.
Gordy Whiteman: I'm Gordy Whiteman, 825 Pleasant View. We travel the road all the time and we don't
want it changed at all. It's a beautiful setting. Let's keep it just the way it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Irene Joseph: Good evening. My name is Irene Joseph. I live at 6290 Ridge Road. I think the last time I
spoke to the Planning Commission I addressed this from a quality of life point of view and the concern xvhere I
am tonight, I think as far as safety goes, as Carl indicated, if we kept it a drive through as it has been, I feel
that would be sufficient. We really don't have much traffic on the road. Even with a few more houses I don't
28
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
feel like there will be enough car traffic or vehicle traffic to make that much difference. Hoxvever, I do' see
every day large numbers of people using Ridge Road to walk, bike, take their children, their dogs, any kind of
recreation around Christmas Lake using Ridge Road. It's a beautiful road. Running, jogging, ~vhatever. And I
feel like widening it, taking the trees out would destroy that and I think also the City of Chanhassen should
realize that in a sense we're providing sort of a recreation area for the city with a private road. You all really
don't put anything in to maintaining it. Our Ridge Road Homeowners Association does that and I think it
would be a real pity to see it disturbed and I'd really like you to seriously consider leaving the road as it is. I'm
all in favor of safety but I do feel that it wouldn't be too much of an inconvenience to...just like the garbage
trucks do. Thank you.
Patsy Whiteman: I'm Patsy Whiteman at 825 Pleasant View Road. I just had a question about the width of the
road. Are all the roads, all the public roads in Chanhassen 20 feet wide? I'd like to know what Horseshoe
Curve is or the road out to Tanadoona. Are those all 20 feet wide?
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, can you address that specific question?
Charles Folch: Well since oh geez, probably since the middle 80°s when the private driveway ordinance went
into effect, any existing situations or any nexvly constructed private driveways have been constructed to meet
that standard. You do have roads ~vithin the city that are older roads.' You've got roads in Carver Beach that
probably, a few of them that are probably very narrow. They do exist. I guess they're not great situations. If
we ever have an improvement project or something like .that, we tend to buy and take care of those problems at
that time. Fortunately most of the ones that we do have, they're fully developed. There' Won't be any additional
intensity put on those roads and so they're kind of left at status quo until there really becomes a problem or a
need from the residents that live there but, so.
Patsy Whiteman: What is the width of the start of Ridge Road? I mean it's different at the end than it is at the
beginning.
Charles Folch: Yeah. As I understand it, I believe it varies as much a 4 or 5 feet in difference along the width
anyxvhere from 16 and I think it even gets as narroxv as 12 feet in some places.
Patsy Whiteman: So it only gets really narrow at the end point where which would be serving, if I've done it
correctly, would only be serving about 3 or 4 homes. One of those would be our cabin, which is a seasonal use
and if I'm picturing it right, the road is much wider at the beginning. It only narrows up by the Price's would
be the most narrow part, xvhich would be a very difficult part to widen. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Steve Rosenberg: My name is Steve Rosenberg. I'm at 6175 Ridge Road. I am the parcel that abuts the Meyer
property. I am in Hennepin County on the Shorewood side. The current gate that is on Ridge Road is
predominantly, or 90% on my property. The turn around that is mentioned several times by the planning
department is my property. We support the Meyer property proposal on two basis. One, that the gate and road
be left alone in it's current state. Possibly upgrading the gate for a safer gate but now widening the road. And
number two, that there be a restricted covenant on the building pad because of the narrowness of the Parcel
number one. It's 100 feet to 135 feet and we'll place a home between the Meyer's pool and my property line,
which is very narrow. We support that as is. But any changes to the road or a turn around on the Chanhassen
side would impact my property. All too often we hear in these meetings, both on the Shorewood side and on
29
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
the Chanhassen side how everyone has suggestions of what to do with my property. And notwithstanding any
condemnation or other negotiation, I'm not certain that any of those discussions have any merit. But as it
stands, the turn around is on my property on the Shorexvood side so any discussion as to your security vehicles
or safety vehicles using that, I'd appreciate being appraised of that because that is my property. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Anyone else? Yes.
Deanne Schilling: My name is Deanne Schilling. I'm at 6280 Ridge Road and I'm the other half of the Jack
Fess household, which I think you've probably seen Jack up here a few times. I'm not quite as vocal as Jack
but I just wanted to let you know that we do support the Meyer's proposal and I know if Jack were here, he'd
tell you that he would like to see the road stay as it is no~v and I'd like to think that most of the neighbors feel
that way and I just hope that you will...thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Dean Wetzel: My name is Dean Wetzel. I live at 6260 Ridge Road. I'm in my 43rd year of living there and
as we mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting, that that plus the fact that in those years, those 43 years
I've watched my taxes go up considerably. They didn't go up 100% or 600% or 1,000%. You may have read
the testimony. My taxes have gone up 6,000% since I moved in there. And I did admit that that, plus my
longevity buys me one thing and that's a fexv minutes to discuss this with you, and probably nothing else.
Could we have that other slide that shows the expans, ion of the area there? The safety, obviously is_a concern
and a legitimate one for the safety vehicles and the residents but in my 43 years there, I'm not aware of any
accident, not even a fender bender on that little road. It's narrow and it xvinds around. It goes up a hill and we
have a 5 mph speed limit sign posted and it works so people are more careful I think where this is in existence.
As far as the concern of fire trucks, obviously we want to be protected. There's a fire hydrant on my property.
That would be the second one up the hill and a few )'ears ago there was a fire on the north side of Ridge Road
up in the Hennepin Count), side and the fire trucks came up. In fact they strung hoses to our hydrant up
through there, which was darn near, was nearly half a mile up to this point, and it worked fine. The trucks xvent
on through when they got finished. In fact last Friday when I xvas out for my xvalk with the dog, the fire
department had one of their trucks up there and took it out to the end of the road and very neatly backed it back
down. So you can get out of there without a turn around. In fact when these flat bed semi's, first when we was
putting up the road, which they've done now for the Meyer's new property and on the other side of the road,
they also backed those up and doxvn the road. And I realize those are professional truck drivers and they have
an advantage over all of us but so it can be done. And the point of having a turn around up at the end of that
road, if you've been up there, that would destro), the whole end of the road as far as the trees, the two homes on
either side of it. So practically it'd be very, very difficult thing to happen. Also we don't need as much
equipment as is needed on the north side of the road of the Hennepin County thanks to the Planning
Commission and the engineers and the Council a number of),ears back when we put in sewer, they also got
water to us. So we have water on the south end of Ridge Road, and there is no water on the north end of Ridge
Road for .8 of a mile in Hennepin County. So this, we don't need a pumper truck. We don't need a tanker
truck. Obviously we need the fire equipment and we want it to be safe and available. So it is available to us.
As far as the trees are concerned, I brought along a pointer. Last time at the Planning Commission they didn't
have a pointer and you know you put your finger on this little thing and it shakes a little bit like this like you've
got pals)'. So I've got another 79 cents investment into this project. My home's right here on this corner, and I
say I've been there since 1953. This was a dirt road when I moved out here and there were three homes on the
road here, here and here. And this home was built in about 19, oh I guess 56 or so. So there are four homes
on this road for the first few )'ears I was there. And the trees that you've heard a lot about are very close to the
30
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
edge of the road on this east side and the reason for it was, when Bob Niles built this home he pastured horses
all down through here and they had this all stomped down, grazed down except right up along the fence line
where the trees grew and if you've been up there again, it's beautiful trees. Maples and pine and there's
hackberry and basswood. Now some of those trees I'm kind of proud of because I watered those back in the
70's with permission of the Nile's that lived here and then Dr. Meyer after he moved in. So again, that doesn't
make them sacred but it makes them darn precious to some of us who have been there. As far as widening the
road, it would be extremely difficult and again hopefully some of you have been up there, or most of you, and
xvhere Jack Fess lives, right down here at the beginning of Ridge Road, his driveway starts on a steep incline up
to his house and again then the trees take over across up through here. My home, with the edge of the
basement right here, is only 25 feet from the existing road and I've learned here just a couple years ago, it's only
15 feet from my property line. The road actually veered over into this area when it was just a trail so that there
Avasn't much attention paid. The Price's home is right here. The bedroom of this home is 15 feet from the edge
of the road. Directly across from there is the Andrew Meyer's building, which is another 15 feet on the other
side. So the practicality of widening that road any is slim. It'd be a major, major disruption and cost to
somebody to make that possible and a tremendous inconvenience. So I think again you have to look at the
practical side of it. Again the request is only for 2 additional lots. This is a lot now and of course this is so
we're actually asking for 2 additional lots which I really don't think appreciably change the safety factor, the
access or the fire factor, Avhatever. There has been two, I think reasonable requests which we should have
maybe thought of before by the Planning Commission, and that's to have a more viable gate up here rather than
a heavy chain across here. To have an approved, a highway approved break away gate, plus trimming back
some of the brush that has grown up quite a bit around here and it's a little~hard to see around here. Obviously
you don't wanl the fire trucks or-anYbody else's trucks to have to go through brush that's sticliing out and
possibly scratching those vehicles. One other point which, well I have it...interested in. This has all been so
serious. Somebody asked me the other day, he said you've lived there all those years and it's a small
neighborhood and private road, he says have you been very exclusive up there and I said no. We actually have,
right on that Ridge Road there, xve have an Anglo Saxon Protestant family still living there and that's our token
family that we've tried to keep there through these years. And if there's any interest in seeing them, they're
available for viewing but because of the demand, it's by appointment only. So we've got all kinds of neighbors
up there. Gray ones. We've got a great small neighborhood and we enjoy it. It's kind of primitive but we like
it that xvay. Just one last point that I think might have some impact for you. When all this ,,vas done, those
first homes xvere built, when we built up there, again it was a dirt road. A trail and part of it was Carver
County and so really nobody paid any attention to Avhere Ave built, and we didn't care because on a dirt road that
far from Minneapolis, who in the hell Avas going to come out there and build alongside us anyway. So we felt
this was going to our's, the way it was for a long time to come. Well 30 years ago Chanhassen annexed that
area because we were only Carver County up until that time. And again I said, everybody did what they wanted
to do and did their thing and so the homes that are causing the problem were built then. Before this was part of
Chanhassen so I think that that might have some, I realize you can't grandfather every dumb thing that we all
did years ago but it's something to consider. The road is narrow. It's suitable. It's acting, it serves a lot of
people. As xvas mentioned before, Ave have all kinds of visitors going up and down the road and they enjoy it
as much as we do. So we didn't oppose the annexation at that time. We felt it to be good to be part of
Chanhassen and I say, little did I -know what was going to happen to the tax situation, which isn't all of
Chanhassen's problem because I did read my statement and 'know xvhat the school assessment does but so I
guess from a practical basis, to make much change in that area really would be crippled to us so hopefully we
don't have to maim the neighborhood in order to protect it, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Dean. Is there anybody else?
31
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Jim Meyer: My name is Jim Meyer and I live at 6225 Ridge Road. Have since 1973 ~vhen I bought that
property and have loved it ever since, along with my neighbors who have been very happy xvith it. I would say
that now, since deciding to move right across the street is where I'm going and I want my neighbors to continue
to be neighbors, xve consulted them before we did this subdivision hopefully doing the tasteful caution. I hope I
won't be repetitious but I'll just tell you very quickly is that, as you 'know beforehand there were two, I had two
pieces of property there. 3 acres to the south and this up to the north. Really xvhat I did was divide each one
of those in two so I'm really just adding t~vo more lots, as you know. I guess the points about, I don't know
what's been covered already but the things that I want to address is that about the road, our neighbors were
interested in this not, it remaining the way it is. That sort of country style but yet I've been there for 22 years.
Dean's been there for 45 years and we haven't experienced a problem ~vith safety or fire trucks. It's not, I think
the point that I'd like to make is it's not a dead end. It's at through street. We plow it through and through.
The same guy plows the whole road straight on into Shorewood. Maybe this point's already been made. We
feel that by putting the new gate in, which I had met with the Fire Marshal and he came out and talked about
the things we need to do on our road. (a), cut the brush back so it doesn't scratch the fire trucks and such. (b),
put up some no parking signs so there's not cars blocking the road. (c), put a decent gate in and we're going to
get a gate that meets the MnDot requirements that you can either drive through or also have a lock and keys
made accessible to fire and police. And (d), that the road does have very active shoulders and will allow, fire
trucks have come up that way and can go through. The other thing was that right on the other side of the gate
there is a turn around on the Shorewood side. So I think that some of the fears, oh the other point is that,' as
you all know, there are two fire hydrants here and I would point out that, and maybe you probably already
know this. There's a fire hydrant right here and a fire hydrant right here, xvhich is also very helpful so that a
pump truck doesn't have to come up there. I know that everybody's already talked about saving the trees. If
we had to have a cul-de-sac up by the gate, big enough to turn a fire truck around, I just don't know how we
could, I think that would be a hardship. I think it'd be a hardship on myself and my neighbors and it xvould
take away a lot of the trees and the things we've talked about preserving. In summary, I apologize for getting
here late and I have appreciated the support that my neighbors have given us on this subdivision. They've really
been x'ery, very helpful and we've tried to work this thing through so that everyone would' be happy with it, but
also understand that there are ordinances and/or guidelines that the city has to recognize. In this instance we
would ask for the variance similar to the one that was given and the precedent set with Mr. Cunningham and his
property across the street, where in fact is where I'm building. And I know that precedence are probably not
legal binding but I think ethics and fair pla5, would mean that what you gave a few months ago to one person
you should give to me also. So unless I forgot anything. Did I forget anything? No. That's all I have to say.
I do appreciate, the staff has been very, very helpful. People came out to the house and walked the property
with me. They gave a lot of ve13~, very helpful suggestions. The Planning Commission, as you see, were very
receptive to the things that we have tried to do to help (a), maintain the neighborhood and (b), also recognize
that there's a safety issue that we think we've addressed with the changes we're going to make. Thank you very
much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else.'? Mark, maybe I can call on you to some of the concerns that are in here
in regard to the accessibility of the fire trucks, and I know that the main intent behind that is to provide those
services to the residents within Chanhassen and provide that safety factor for them. Is there anything that you
can add to this in regard to that turn around being absolutely necessary? Would you like to come up to the mic
please?
Mark Littfin: Sure. What I had talked this morning with the planning and with engineering with the turn
around issue, the fire department and myself, we'd be comfortable with, looking that is a thru street. If xve can
get a gate that's something wider than 8 foot or 9 foot gate that's there now, that we can look at certainly cut a
32
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
link out of the chain and open it and get through if we have to. We'd be comfortable with that in lieu of the
turn around. The turn around that's on the Shorexvood side ~vould not accommodate a fire truck so we're better
off with a thru street. The draw back is it's not on any city maps. It's not on any city Chanhassen maps so our
guys don't 'know ~vhat's beyond there. Where it tums around. How far it goes or what's even beyond that point
so that's where we're at a little disadvantage but I think with the proper gate, more importantly the property
width, we can live with that without a cul-de-sac turn around. So that's one item I'm okay with.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Mark Littfin: Another issue would be the trees that are hanging over the road and I talked to Mr. Meyers. You
did talk about trimming them back and the concern is, we did drive a truck up there last week and the concern
is breaking off radio antennas, lights, scratching the paint. Paint jobs are spendy when you try to keep the
trucks up and looking nice and keep them from rusting from scratches so the trimming the trees was something
that I think can be accomplished xvithout any big problems.
Mayor Chmiel: Trimming of trees up and down that road would be, xvhat areas are you talking and how would
we get the permission from the adjacent property owners to allow us or allow them to do that kind of trimming?
Mark Littfin: Possibly something, I don't know if it's something that the city could do. I mean the city has a
pretty good handle on trimming trees. The ones they have to trim to accommodate snowplows and school buses
and equipment. I mean we could use public xvorks Director as a guy to say cut them back so far or walk the
street and take a look and cut them back so far but I think we can come to something on that. And th~ height
is certainly a big thing because the trucks are 12 feet high, 10 feet high so some of them we could drive under...
Dean Wetzel: Mr. Mayor? We have a road commissioner, I don't 'know if you've met Jack Fess or not and he
would be glad to work with you. He coordinates the work we have to go on the road, etc. and come up with a
program if there's someone from your department to come up and guide us, and we'll do it because we're used
to taking care of this road and paying for it and with your guidance, we'll get done what you want done and
then let you approve or disapprove that when it's done.
Mark Littfin: That'd be fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Mark Littfin: The other issue is with access with the road xvidth and getting access. I've been out there on
three separate occasions. Whether I caught it on a good day or bad day. The first time I went up with Sharmin
and the Blazer and somebody had just either sealcoated a drivexvay or put a new driveway in and it was at the
entrance and the vehicles parking on Ridge Road present a problem, which we found out twice. The first time
we would have gotten through with great difficulty. The second time xvhen I saw Mr. Meyers, there was a laxvn
service crew totally blocking the road so if we would have had a fire up beyond that point, I doubt if we would
have gotten through at a reasonable time so I've got some real problems xvith any kind of parking on that road
the way it is right now. 12 foot width is just not going to accommodate a car where cars park plus equipment
getting up there so, but they also did comment that they xvould, they would put up no parking signs or fire lane
signs, something along that line. The other issue is the ~vidth and I recognize and the fire code recognizes that
there are, there xvere and are situations that exist before the city did have a fire code and we're not going to
change those. What we look at with new homes coming in, I had addressed in the packet to the Planning
Commission that we already have 7 or 8 homes that were existing. With the new homes, let's not make the
33
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
problem any worse, or something such as residential fire sprinkler systems installed xvould negate the need for
any other heavier equipment up there where xve wouldn't need as many pieces of equipment so, but I think that
got rejected by them. The road width is an issue and we looked at 20 feet with the fire code. I'm not saying
you do or don't need it. At this point 20 feet is what we need to set our aerial truck up, as far as the outriggers.
Our aerial truck is the second piece of equipment in on a residential fire. We use it to get men and fire fighters
up on the roof to do ventilation. If we haven't got the full width, the truck isn't going to get set up so we'd go
with Plan B or something. It's not that we can't, it's just we have to look at other pieces of equipment. But
there are spots where parking does pose a problem, even up near the north end of that coming around the last
bend there it's extremely tight so I don't 'know if we're going to get the full 20 foot, or just widen it in spots or
something that the neighborhood's comfortable with and that xve can easily get equipment in and out of there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Any questions of Mark? Thanks Mark. Okay. Colleen. Do you have any?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I, I mean we sat here and ;vatched it get resolved. I had the tremendous
pleasure of walking and drMng it this weekend. I've never been up in your neighborhood and it's absolutely
beautiful. So I think if anything demands a variance, it's this neighborhood so I'm comfortable ;vith striking
condition 7 and adding. Or excuse me, no. Just the first sentence. And adding the before, that was
recommended by the Planning Commission, 14 through 17. Regarding condition 8, that still needs discussion. I
don't know. They're looking for 150 feet instead of 200 foot conservation easement. Maybe that's for final and
striking number 10 seems to make...So to keep it short and succinct, I would move approval with the changes
that I just outlined.
Mayor Chmiel' Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason' Alright, it's all been said. I've been up there on more than one occasion and I agree with
everything that's been said tonight from all sides. Do you want to strike 10 or modify it?
Kate Aanenson: I think our recommendation was modifying it. Say obtain a permit and secure escrow to
install a fence.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure.
Councilman Mason: And with that I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Having xvalked it with the applicant, I don't have a problem on 8 in terms of modification to
150 versus 2. In fact I agree on the front yard issue. I think it would be an awfully tight front yard without it.
And then 14 and 17, it would appear to me we can just simply strike. The attorney's answered the question on
14 and 17's really a non-issue.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You're right.
Councilman Senn: But other than that, I totally agree.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With all the specifics as mentioned and all the additions, do you have all those down
Kate? Okay.
34
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Councihvoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve preliminary and f'mal plat and the
variance from Section 18-57(o) permitting up to thirteen (13) homes on a private street for Subdivision #95-16,
Meyers 2nd Addition, subject to the plans dated July 14, 1995 and the following conditions:
1. Individual detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be submitted to the
City for each lot. The City shall review and approve the plans prior to issuance of building permits on
the lots.
.
All wetlands and wetland buffer strips shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans. 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 of the new houses. The applicant will be charged
$20.00 per sign. A qualified wetland biologist shall survey the property for wetlands and write a brief
letter verifying the existence or non-existence of xvetlands and impacts, if any, to wetlands on the site.
The proposed single family residential development of 6.55 developable acres shall be responsible for
water quantity and quality connection charges of $12,969.00 and $5,240.00 respectively. These fees will
be due at time of final plat recording.
.
All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after
grading is completed. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be sodded and staked or restored with wood fiber
blanket.
5. The grading plan shall include the following items:
.
.
a. Erosion control fencing.
b. Move the house pads on Lots 3 and 1 closer to Ridge Road to improve driveway grade and minimize
tree removal and grading.
c. Access Lot 1 from the northern end of the lot to minimize tree removal.
d. The plan certification shall be signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
The applicant shall dedicate to the City a permanent right-of-way easement over the westerly 30 feet of
Lots 1, 3 and 4 and the west 25 feet of Lot 2. The easement shall become effective once the City adopts
a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge Road). Subsequent to the adoption of the resolution, the
road shall remain as a private right-of-way and not maintained by the city. The applicant shall obtain and
grant cross access and maintenance easements over the lots to gain ingress and egress along Ridge Road.
Parking on Ridge Road shall be prohibited. The applicant shall provide and install the necessary traffic
signs.
A tree conservation area shall be established on the easterly 135 feet of Lot 3 and the easterly 200 feet of
Lot 4. To further reduce construction impact on the ~voods, staff recommends the building pad on Lot 3
be pulled 30 feet to the west to accommodate a driveway which does not exceed a ten (10) percent grade
and for tree protection.
The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site xvithin 30 days after the final plat
has been recorded. The applicant shall obtain the necessary demolition permits.
35
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
10. Obtain a permit and secure escrow to install a pool fence prior to recording the final plat.
11. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the
time of building permit application.
12. Tree and branch overgrowth along Ridge Road shall be trimmed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
13. A thirty (30) foot front yard setback shall be maintained from the dedicated right-of-way.
14. The Meyer's are obligated to bring the break a~vay fence or gate up to a standard that's maybe set by the
State parks.
15. The Meyer's present to the city staff some brush removal plan to clear as much of that road and give the
staff and the City Council some kind of assurances that this can be maintained in the future
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
ANNUAL REVIEW OF LAKE ANN PARK PARKING PERMITS~ SECTION 14-59 OF CITY CODE.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. By resolution each year the City Council '
is, by city ordinance, asked to establish Lake Ann Pa.rk parking-fees. It's an annual debate therefore_which has
been picking up some steam over the past few years, gpecifically members of the Park and Rec Commission
have heard from their constituency and as from residents of the city that if anything should be free, getting into
Lake Ann Park which is the city's premiere and most widely public park, should be free. In addition, the fees
are somewhat arbitrary. Over the years since that ordinance was established, numerous user groups have lobbied
the city successfully to receive free entry into Lake Ann Park. Such groups as youth athletic association groups,
both those participating from in town and out of town. Simply inform the gate attendant that they are there to
participate or watch a youth oriented event and they're alloxved in free. The same goes for those who participate
in swimming lessons sponsored by Minnetonka Schools, which are contracted by the city through Minnetonka
Schools. Other instances of free entry. I believe that covers those. But on an annual basis we have a report
prepared for the city. The Park and Recreation Commission and City Council which talks about gross receipts
and why the fee was established in the first place and I've heard a variety of stories on that. And then there's
the issue of the park was established in part with Federal monies and we have a public access on Lake Ann and
therefore charging unequal fees based upon resident and non-resident may not be possible at Lake Ann Park
either, due to Federal regulations governing that money being put into Lake Ann Park for it's establishment and
it's furnishings. A variety of issues but xvhat it comes down to is that the Park Commission again, for a second
year has recommended that the City Council eliminate all Lake Ann parking fees. Allow the park to be free of
charge to any park user, resident or non-resident. But in addition to that, that a park ranger position be included
in the 1996 budget to assist guests, enforce park rules and provide general visibility and security. That motion
passed unanimously by the Park and Recreation Commission. The reasoning behind the park ranger is that
they've often thought that the gate attendant provides some sort of security or a gate guard against activity
which is unwanted in Lake Ann Park. But they're beginning to realize that that is not the case. And both the
commission and residents are beginning to see increased levels of unv,,anted activities taking place at Lake Ann
Park, both in the parking lot areas and beach areas. The picnic grounds is really xvhere the action is taking
place, not a quarter of a mile away at the gate house where that person cannot provide much control for the
park. So with that you have my comments, xvhich go over gross receipts. Interesting enough, you have
$16,000.00 in gross receipts really to date and if you look at that, the softball players or the softball teams are
36
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
each nicked another $5.00 per player for an annual parking permit. That generates about $4,700.00 in revenues
of that $16,000.00. In addition, many company picnics are sponsored at Lake Ann Park and again they're
nicked for either more often a $2.00 daily permit for each of their guests. But they either pay that in a couple
of ways. They present a business card or a pass at the gate. Those are collected by the gate attendant and then
our staff bills the company for the individual receipts. Or they ask their guest to pay that as they come in
through the park, and that collects again in 1995 approximately $6,000.00 of that $16,000.00. So we have a
total of close to $11,000.00 of this $16,000.00 which is just really being collected through other means or other
avenues than actual just cars coming in to park to go to the s~vimming beach or use other areas. At least one
of the original reasonings behind the fee program, which I find most plausible is that, at the time that the
lifeguards were furnished at Lake Ann, they figured you know we need to pay those costs. That lifeguard
contract was up to about $18,000.00 a year through Minnetonka Community Services and here we have net
revenues of approximately $6,000.00-$5,500.00 so we're not recouping. We're about a third of the way there to
recoup those costs so if that was the reason the job isn't getting done, but nevertheless you will have net
revenues of about $6,000.00 at Lake Ann Park this year through this program. Interestingly, net revenues per
day are about $5,800.00 and if you break that out per hour that the gate guard sits at that gate shack, you earn
about $6.00 per hour. You have a manager's comment as well, which I also heard from City Council members
in this regard that during the audit process, with the reduction in federal and state aids, city's are encouraged to
keep their user fees up. User fee levels up, both in dollar revenues and in the amount of user fees. User fee
programs, so this recommendation comes perhaps in an untimely moment. Nevertheless, I bring you the
recommendation of the Park commission to abandon Lake Ann parking permits.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. An~, discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure.
Councilman Senn: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: You bet.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I hate this annual discussion, but nevertheless I'm standing with what I've said in
prior years. This is more hassle than it's worth. You know. What I hear from people, or not so much that,
well first of all they're annoyed with, and I think it's unfair but it's the, they don't anticipate it. I mean they
drive up and they don't expect to pay a fee and that's what really annoys them. They don't have the extra cash
or whatever but anyway I guess in a nutshell it's just not worth the hassle. I'm not certain that a roving park
ranger expense will make it through the budget process but for $5,500.00, let's find it somewhere else. And
now for an opposing point of view.
Councilman Mason: You've got it. I personally, well no. I don't think we should change it. I understand all
the reasons for letting people in free, and I think that's all fine and well. We're talking, you know I look at the
manager's comment and I happen to agree with it. I remember when I first started cross country skiing at
county parks xvhich was back in the mid 70's, and I think a park sticker was a buck and you didn't have to have
a license to ski. Well, I certainly hit the roof when I had to get a cross country ski license but by god, I buy
one every year, you knoxv to use the trails. The trails are maintained and it may be only recouping a small part
of what it costs to run that park but I think that's a revenue stream, albeit small. I have not had one person, and
that includes my wife when she took the kids to swimming. I didn't even know we could get in free if we had
kids taking swimming lessons. We paid the permit anyway. No one's ever said one thing good or bad to me
about it. I'm in favor of maintaining the fees.
37
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I haven't changed my idea either, or I guess my mind from last year and that is I think we
ought to ash can the parking fees. I think what we really need to do, in my mind, is modify or redefine the
situation and let's quit, you know let's quit calling them parking fees. I don't think we should be charging
residents a parking fee to enter a city park. No more than we charge them a parking fee to enter any one of the
other city parks. I think there's a good case to be made in the case of Lake Ann to recognize that that park
services some broader purposes other than most of the other parks in Chanhassen. But to me the way to
accommodate that is to do something a little differently than we are. Well, it's not really different. I think
again it's just really more a definitional or redefining the process. I think xve should keep the gate attendant. I
think we should keep $16,000.00 or more in revenue a year and I think we can do that. And I think we simply
redefine the $4,725.00 that we collect from the softball teams as a user fee. I suggest we continue to charge the
user fees to the sponsors and guest company picnics. Okay. At the same time, I think we should institute a
user fee to non-residents of Chanhassen and I think that's going to make up the difference and I think what
xve're going to be doing is sitting here a year from now and saying okay, we've got another $16,000.00 in
revenue. $6,000.00 in staff cost and we haven't lost a blasted thing, except xvhat we've lost is charging our
residents for parking in their city park. And it seems to me that that's the idyllic, idyllic? I don't know if that's
the right word or not but idyllic solution? To the dilemma. You know at the same time I think there's been a
number of complaints lately about behavior activities at the park. I don't 'know, that's something I think we're
going to have to deal with as a separate issue when it comes in in relationship to the budget. I don't think we
should probably get that mixed in here at this time so I guess I'm saying I agree with the manager. I agree with
the auditor. I guess I'm agreeing with ever2;body but it seems to me that's the solution. Let's look at it that way
rather than simply do we have a parking fee or don't we have a parking fee.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I'm in the same position as I xvas the last time, not relinquishing the fees but
staying with what we have only because Lake Ann Park is a park that is, far exceeds a lot of parks around this
particular metro area. I think it's something we'd be proud of and continue that kind of maintenance and
upkeep. And the cost, because of all the cutbacks that are coming, I don't think it would even be a thing to do
this year at all. So my suggestion, recommendation is to keep it as xve have and to continue with it rather than,
and to review it to see if there's ways that it would also benefit the city in years to come but no longer taking it
and reviewing the parking permit aspects.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question. Todd, have we ever looked at the breakout between resident
and non-resident?
Todd Hoffman: Some of those are in your packet. 1994 it's non-resident revenues of $3,700.00 out of a total
of $19,000.00 that 3, ear. Daily passes are far and away just over $10,000.00 that year, out of $19,000.00 so
approximately half.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Where are you reading these numbers from?
Todd Hoffman: It's further back in the report. Each 1994 gross revenues figure for Lake Ann. $24,000.00. It's
labeled 4C on the lower right hand corner. It lists 1994, $24,000.00 and in the back side as revenues collected,
it lists daily passes, seasonal and resident seasonal, non-resident. It should go back each year in a similar
fashion. 1993, $20,000.00 gross revenues. 1992, $18,000.00. And $18,000.00 in '91. Some of the biggest
years are the drought years. We had $3,000.00 on single weekends in the month of May and June.
38
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But we don't break it out for the daily pass, xvhether that's resident or non-resident?
Do you have a feel for that?
Todd Hoffman: No I don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not I'll call the question. All those in favor.
Councilman Senn: No. We don't' even have a motion on the table yet. Do we?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh I thought, I'm son3'. I thought you made a motion.
Councilman Mason: No, but I'd be happy to. I'll make the motion that we retain the Lake Ann entrance fees
and I'd suggest that we continue to search new ~vays to obtain revenue from Lake Ann Park.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? If not, I'll second it.
Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to retain the Lake Ann Park entrance fees for 1996.
Councilman Mason and Mayor Chmicl voted in favor. Councilman Senn and Councihvoman Dockendorf voted
in opposition. The motion was tied with a 2 to 2 vote. .
Mayor Chmiel: That mean it's going to go back to Council at the next meeting on the 25th.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEE POLICIES, CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The Chanhassen Recreation Center officially opened,
along with Bluff Creek Elementary School on Tuesday, September 5th of this month. The center is
experiencing a trial opening if you will. An open house effective through the 24th of this month. We took
ownership of the building 2 months late...contracts so all furnishings are not available. All the equipment isn't
there and so we couldn't offer the complete product at the posted price until xve had the building fully outfitted.
But in the meantime we're still working through policies of operation and one which has certainly received a lot
of attention on the administrative level is who's going to be charged what to use the particular components of
the building. The City Council has authorized policies relating to the rental of the meeting spaces within the
community center, or the recreation center. However, in regard to user fees for what is called the punch card
system, exercise with options program, there are still some outstanding questions which we would like the City
Council to answer for us. Specifically, how would you like to charge resident, excuse me. How would you like
to charge employees of the city of Chanhassen. Those people who work within the city of Chanhassen and how
xvould you like to handle employees of the City of Chanhassen itself. Obviously one of the main inquiries
comes from school teachers who happen to be teaching at that particular building. They think it's very
convenient but we also have how many employees within this city that ~vork here, 10,000-12,000 jobs.
However many jobs we have within the community. Those folks are wondering xvhat basis they're going to be
charged for using the building so we have a very functional center, from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. on nearly 7
days per week so we can cater to those alternate shift people. When they get off work in the morning from any
one of our industrial buildings. They can come over and participate in recreation. But are they going to be
charged, if they live outside the community, at a non-resident rate or are they going to be charged as a resident
of Chanhassen, since they do work here? And then the other question is, how would you like to handle the
39
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
employees of Chanhassen itself. The City of Chanhassen, and I believe you have two policies there. One from
Chaska where they pay resident rates, and the other from Eden Prairie where they are offered xvhat's called
working for your workout, employee fitness program where they're given certain advantages two free uses of the
center per xveek. So again those txvo questions are, how would you like to handle employees who live here or
who work here. Who do not live here. And how would you like to handle city employees of Chanhassen in
regard to user fees for the Chanhassen recreation center.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Don Ashxvorth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: In talking to Todd a little bit today, I don't have a suggestion of the city employees. I think
that's something you might want to think about but I really strongly believe that we should be encouraging
employees of our businesses to use this facility. I think that you can ask people like Jerome Carlson ~vho
continue to be supporters of various city programs and I think if we were to take somebody like that over to this
facility, made him feel that his people were welcomed in this facility, that we would have a much better chance
of ensuring that this facility does in fact generate some revenues as a part of the operation of that facility. I
think that we could do a real campaign to try to again get our corporate community to be part of the facility and
part of what's going on and potentially paying costs associated with their employees. Again, all in an effort to
make sure that this facility does in fact generate a positive return for us.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well both issues have to do with so called xvellness programs. And for city
employees, those are the first things that you cut in tough times. However, well let me just say for city
employees I believe that they should be offered resident rates. For our businesses in town, I think it's up to the
individual business oxvner to make that a company policy. If they want to subsidize the program for their
employees, fine. But I don't think that's the city's responsibility. I think we need to have a year under our belt
to see what our revenues are. My gut feeling is that there will be such a demand that we ~vill not need to go
out and solicit additional users of the facility and offer them a reduction by giving them a resident rate. That's
my opinion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: I certainly agree with xvhat Colleen said about people that are employed by the City of
Chanhassen. I guess I'm kind of on the fence between xvhat Don said and what Colleen said. I certainly think
it behooves us to get people involved. I see what Chaska does and for purchasing memberships at a discount
when 10 or more people participate. Well that's, I mean then that kind of puts small businesses out if they've
only got 5 employees so I don't know what to do about that. I guess I'd like to have some more discussion
about what we could work out with the corporate community. I see perhaps some sort of introductory rate or
something like that. I'll admit, being a teacher Pm certainly not biased about whether School District 112
employees should get a resident rate. Of course I'm biased and I guess I think that's fair. They certainly, at
least at Bluff Creek anyway, are certainly working in the community but I guess I'd like to hear what some
more people think about the corporate membership.
40
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Have we had any discussion with corporate people in regards to this?
Todd Hoffman: No.
Mayor Chmiel: To see maybe what their thoughts might be at all in regard to maybe subsidizing or things of
that particular nature. This fitness thing that Colleen mentioned, that's true within a lot of larger corporations
whereby they will provide some dollars for that. Physically fit employees are worth more than those who are
not. It's the same thing that we go through the process with our firemen by providing the downstairs of the fire
department to exercise and get in shape. That to me makes some sense. I don't know if you feel that that's
something that should be discussed with some of the, few of the corporate members in the community to see
what they might even think. They are part of Chanhassen. They are a part of the community. A lot of them
who own their businesses and live here. I shouldn't say a lot but a good share. I think maybe it should just be,
to invite them to sit down and just talk about it and see ~vhat happens. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I think we, well we have a facility with a limited capacity. I guess we haven't really defined
that capacity yet. That's what bothers me. I'm not sure that even, you know. I think that's something we're
going to have to seek out and find I'm not sure whether we have them pay a resident or a.non-resident fee is
really going to make a whole lot of difference there because if I'm reading the proposal right here, you're
basically talking 50 cents difference per visit. Or less. And stuff-. In- my mind it ought to be very clear. If
there's a resident rate, there's a non-resident rate. And if the difference is 50 cents, so be it. There should be a
difference. As far as city employees go, I don't think it should be part of this fee policy period. I think it
should be part of our employee benefits policy that it's included as a resident fee so then'we don't have to
bastardize the policy. And it seems to me other~vise we keep the policy, at least to start with, very simPle,
xvhich treats it as resident and non-resident and with that minor difference, let's view it as a learning experience
and see where things go from there but I think there needs to be a delineation between residents and non-
residents and I really don't think we should start out coming out of the hopper so to speak with saying this
group's different than that group, because I think it's going to cause a great deal of confusion and I think it's
going to inundate us with requests from some people to be treated like other people and everything else. So
that would be my recommendation at least to start with.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess you've got some direction. We can wait for those changes.
Todd Hoffman: Would you like to make that a motion?
Councilman Senn: I'll make mine a motion. See if it gets a second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would second it. Well you're talking about a 50 cents differential to come out of
the current employee benefit budget of the city.
Councilman Senn: No, what I'm saying is don't even mention city employees in here. What we do is we put it
in the city personnel benefits package that they are included, no matter what the fee is, as a resident fee. Okay,
period. So I mean they're paying a resident fee regardless of where they live and that's part of the employment
contract or whatever with the city. Beyond that, we have residents. We have non-residents. We have two fees.
They're 50 cents difference, at least to start with and I assume we're going to be re-examining that annually.
Let's start with that and beyond that there should be no delineation betxveen groups or of groups.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, second.
41
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Now any other discussions that have been put in here should also be
considered as well. Or at least thought about. And I don't know if it's necessary to be part of that motion. But
we have the motion on the floor.
Councilman Senn: Well Don, if you're talking about the corporate thing. That's inherent in this. I'm assuming
we'd pursue that either way. That really becomes a separate issue. If the company wants to subsidize the 50
cents or even a great portion of it, that's great as far as I'm concerned. That's up to them to set.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. But I think if we don't talk to them about it.
Councilman Senn: Oh, I see. Yeah, then they don't 'know.
Resolution/495-93: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to establish a resident and
non-resident fee for users of the Chanhassen Recreation Center. CiD, of Chanhassen employees will be charged
a resident fee, which will be outlined in the personnel policy for the city. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT~ DATASERV PROPERTY.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor and Council. For the past year staff has .been xvorking the Minnesota Department of '
Transportation and DataServ in tiying to obtain the t~vo lots south of Highway 5 xvhich is surrounded by
DataServ. Under State Statute the State must first off6r to the city to sell these two lots. If xve decide not to
purchase them, then the State must then offer them back to the individuals that owned it before the upgrading of
Highway 5. If those landowners then decide not to purchase the property, then it goes through a closed bid
process. Staff feels that the best option for the city is to purchase the property and then sell it back to DataServ.
In doing this we would then make sure the land is all developed into one unit... One additional condition on this
is that, with that staff is recommending approval of purchasing.
Don Ashworth: You are obtaining the additional right-of-xvay.
Todd Gerhardt: There would be additional land for Dell Road and...
Don Ashworth: I think that's a major plus for all three.
Mayor Chmiel: What would be the estimated cost of that particular portion of it, $30,000.00-$40,000.00?
Todd Gerhardt: ..this afternoon and we came up with around $65,000.00.
Councilman Senn: For?
Todd Gerhardt: The land and the easements. If we were to purchase them outright from DataServ.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, if we were to purchase them outright. Now if they were coming in. I mean the
second part of that discussion was if they were coming in to replat their property or xvith a development
proposal or whatever, that would not be a cost that would be part of the overall deal with the city at no cost, or
potentially no cost.
42
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any questions of Todd? Any discussion? Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: No, I have a couple points I'd like to raise if I could.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: You know I agree 100% that we should buy it from the State. I think from their, for the
time being, I don't know. I really question the rush and wonder why we just don't hold it. You know
effectively doing this, you know it seems to me normally this is part of an overall negotiation and development
package. That they're trying to negotiate some things and we're trying to negotiate some things and that's part
of the process and we end up with a final package. I mean here it seems to me we're giving something away up
front. Well I'll say more than giving away. I mean we're basically going to put, what is that, about 70 some
thousand dollars in their pocket instantly overnight. I mean what they're selling their property for is $1.00 a
square foot more than what we're paying the State for it. And more than they're going to buy it from us for. So
I mean to me we're giving them something. I mean it's a dollar a square foot. That's significant. $70 some
thousand dollars. Why shouldn't that be part of a development negotiation as it relates to the development of
that parcel. Why should it not be part of the negotiation as it relates to furnishing the right-of-way there and
everything else. I mean it just seems to me we're kind of rushing this. Putting the cart before the horse but
again, I agree we ought to acquire it because then I think we're in the control position. And then I think we
ought to hang tight and wait. It's going to happen pretty soon. I mean DataServ's got some plans of their own.
There's plans on the property further on the northern edge. At this point I mean when they come exactly come
in with something solid, you kn6w it may be a little while. Just a thought.
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, and I don't disagree with it but, $75,000.00 and they turn around and pay us
$75,000.00 back and xve get the easements from them, which normally costs us something to buy anyway. By
-having them acquire those properties with their proposed expansions that they may be looking at, I'd rather see
taxing dollars come back to us rather than sitting around holding it for periods of time as well.
Councilman Senn: Well except we wouldn't normally acquire that under a development proposal from them in
terms of those easements. Not necessarily. I mean again that's part of the negotiation on what happens. And
like I say, we're going to pay $75,000.00 for it and they're going to pay us $75,000.00 but they're turning
around and selling it to another party instantly for $1.00 more a square foot.
Todd Gerhardt: If I may add the one point to this is that DataServ or future owners may not want to purchase
that for above the $75,000.00 mark too. They may, it's kind of a good will gesture that we are trading property
here so that we may finish Dell Road into a safe condition and they may just sit there and say, we control it and
continue to keep the property off the tax rolls and try to buy it down almost where we'd almost just give it to
them. So in this xvay it's a win/win situation that we break even.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what I was looking at really. Any other discussion? Is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we would approve the purchase agreement with DataServ.
Councilman Mason: I will second it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the purchase agreement to purchase
property from MnDot for S75,000.00 (See Attachment/42) and then resell the property to DataServ for
43
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
S75,000.00 plus expenses and require that DataServ convey an easement and quit claim deed for real property
needed to finish Dell Road south of Highway 5 to Eden Prairie (see Attachment #3) on the condition of
combining the two lots with their current site, (see Attachment #4). All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn
who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT~ PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Kate Aanenson: I hope you had the opportunity to read the information on the Livable Communities Act. Don
Ashxvorth and myself did have an opportunity to meet with two representatives from the Met Council regarding
our opportunity to participate in this program. As you probably arrived from reading the information, ;ve have
the opportunity to participate. If we don't, possible things. There will be a report card to the legislature to
apply for LCMR money. RALF applications. All those things ;vill be scored against us so I think it's in our
best interest to participate in the program, especially we're one of those fringe communities that we will have to
go back and ask for MUSA expansion and all those will be consideration. What this means as far as
participation and if you read through that, there's three different programs. Tax revitalization, livable
communities and local housing incentives. Some of these programs are meant to equalize kind of the core with
the suburban areas. We may or may not participate in grants to clean up contaminated land. Or ones to link
transit and job opportunities. We may have the opportunity down the road but right noxv I think what we'll be
participating in is just the local incentives. What they've done is come up with criteria. Goals that they would
like us to meet as we talked about earlier. What the)' consider affordable housing xvould be $115,000.00. And
then they use a rental rate of 1990 dollars, which is approximately $500.00, which we have concerns about
using those 1990 dollars which xve'll have to negotiate further. I put in your packet a chart showing what the
criteria are. They were omitted from your's. I'll go through those with you. Where the city looks and just
briefly touch on those. I did want to talk about some of the things that the Met Council's suggesting that xve
can do towards affordable housing, which I think a lot of these things we're already doing. We did have our
Comp Plan updated in 1991 and I think we are doing a lot of those things. It just so happens that the market
forces aren't here on a lot of issues. I'm not sure there's been a lot of affordable rental housing built in the
southwest sector. There is a map that shows the communities that we are being compared xvith and ~ve're in the
sector with Minnetonka, Orono, Long Lake, Victoria, Chaska, Mound. So that's kind of our comparable cities.
But I think if you look in those areas, I'm not sure there's been a lot of rental units built in xvith the $500.00
affordable. Also in looking at'some of the things that they xvould like us to look at reducing lot sizes and
encourage zero lot line. Offer density bonuses. Again, all these things that we have in place in our
comprehensive plan. Again there's some market forces that are driving some of these issues. I xvould like to
share xvith you what they're setting our goals at and talk about those briefly. What their goal is to have the
resolution. In order to play we have to put together some goals and agree to these goals by November 15th.
The City Council acting through a resolution agreed to these rules and then they would have public hearings and
the Met Council would and adopt these. Just so you can see where we're at. I'll go through these briefly. Our
goals. For affordability, these are outlined in one of the reports too. Rental, excuse me ownership. The goal
for the city of Chanhassen would be 60% to 69%. We're at 37%. Again, this data, a lot of this data xvas taken
from 1990 so I think we're in better shape. We've been approving a lot of different products most recently so I
think we're in actually a lot better shape. Again rental, we're meeting the goals there. The city index, we're at
44% and the goal is 35% to 37%. Again, we have a lot of older apartments. That's xvhat's helping us because
those rents are holding down.
Mayor Chmiel: What was that later part? 30, how lnany percent? For the rental.
44
City Council Meeting o September 11, 1995
Kate Aanenson: 35% to 37%. And again we have, you look at Lakeview Hills and some of the older '
apartments that are in town here, and then when we look at senior housing again that's more market rate but
some of those are subsidized and those are issues that are adding to it. Life cycle housing. Again, single
family, we're at 19%. The benchmark is 95% to 37%. Life cycle again is just'providing diversity of single
family. Again, a lot of our's is the single family detached. They look at twin homes. Some of the other types
of mixes, and again looking at xvhen this information was provided and we, most recently, even the one tonight
that you looked at, the Rottlund product, we've seen quite a few different mixes on that. Owner renter mix.
15%. Again our goal needs to be somewhere between 25% and 33%. So that would be an area we'd have to
improve on. And as far as density, we're really in pretty good shape. If you look at the single family as 1.5. If
you look at what we use for assessing server projects, it's actually 1.75-1.9. That's our general standard so we're
going to get clarification on that. I think actually ~ve're meeting the goal on that. And also on multi-family, our
density again is really pretty much at the target on that. So really it's the mix and then the rental and there's a
lot of other issues that we can't deal ~vith as far as rental and I think the Met Council's aware of that. So what
we'll be doing is putting together a list of goals for your review to look at things that we can do. Again I'm not
sure that we need to change a' lot of things in our comprehensive plan. I think we can do documentation. Some
of the things that we've already been doing, such as subsidizing through HRA, the senior housing project. A lot
of those things go towards it. Credits. Just so you're aware. Again we have to put something together by
November and ;ve have to designate a certain dollar amount. We don't have to spend that dollar amount in
1996 but we do have to spend it by 1997 and what we have to allocate towards housing is $50,000.00 and that's
the amount that they're giving us that we have to budget and demonstrate that we're going to use it. Again, it
doesn't have to be spent in 1996 but it has to be shown in 1997. We can also do clustering, which we can work
with Carver County, HRA and some other jurisdictions to provide that-and since we do have the HRA;-there are
other opportunities to provide that. So really this is for your information. We just want to let you 'know what
the requirement is and xvhat we'll be bringing back and if you had specific directions of things you wanted us to
be looking at or consider, I'd be happy to take that input.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, have you had an opportunity to review the thing that I received from Maple Grove in
regard to the same process that they've gone through with Met Council?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and as a matter of fact during the.
Mayor Chmiel: And in some of the things that they've indicated was that they were probably a little too quick
to move on. Hopefully we're going to make sure that we're not going to put ourselves in that position as to
what the3' have.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Again I think we're in pretty good shape. If you look at Mission Hills. They have 200
units down there that are under, that are in the $90,000.00. They're all under $115,000.00 and there's maybe
less than 3% to 5% that are over the $115,000.00 and that's 200 units right in there so I think we are moving in
the right direction. Again it's market forces. Once we get the commercial developments or the multi-family
took place. The other products that we've just approved, the other projects just to the east of the elementary
school xvhich are also multi-family. A lot of those things are adding to it. It's the larger lot developments that
affect the density so.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Any questions of Kate? Thanks.
B. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION~ REVIEW VERBATIM MINUTES POLICY, PARK AND
RECREATION DIRECTOR.
45
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Todd Hoffman: At present our organizational culture has us creating verbatim Minutes for Park and Rec
meetings. Would you like that to continue?
Councilman Mason: My only comment on that is, are the commission meetings taped?
Todd Hoffman: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't see a need for verbatim Minutes then. They're audio taped? They're not
audio taped?
Todd Hoffman: They're audio taped and then the verbatim Minutes are.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I guess I'm saying, as long as we have audio tapes at hand, if somebody wants to
need them, we can get at them. I'm fine with summai5, Minutes for Park and Rec. That's my opinion.
Councilman Senn: Is that what you're suggesting? That xve keep the tapes?
Todd Hoffman: No.
o
Councilman Senn: Because we don't now, correct?
Todd Hoffman: No, we don't keep th~ tapes. We create Minutes out of them'and we keep the Minutes. So if ''
you wanted to keep tapes, we can start keeping tapes or we just forego it altogether and do summary minutes
based on the motions which were made at the meetings.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I do like, what a one year cycle on them.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I was going to say, it'd be nice to see a limited cycle of a year or something.
Councilman Mason: Yeah and I don't need, are you saying tapes or verbatim minutes?
Councilman Senn: Tapes. Keep the tapes for a }rear and get rid of the verbatim Minutes.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, from a legal aspect. If there are things that come up and something's questioned that go
beyond that }rear or whatever. What's the ramifications of that?
Roger Knutson: The Park and Recreation Commission makes recommendations to you and so from a legal
point I'm not really concerned whether you have verbatim Minutes or not. I mean frankly, I mean I've never
surveyed all the cities so I shouldn't say this. I don't know any other city that has verbatim minutes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd still like them from Planning so don't get any ideas.
Councilman Senn: Well you could just film them and put them on TV and turn your VCR on.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And fall asleep.
46
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Councilman Mason: I would move we change from verbatim to summary minutes and that we keep audio tapes
for a year to date.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission change from
verbatim Minutes to summary Minutes and keep the audio tapes of the meetings for a year to date. All voted in
favor and the motion carded unanimously.
C. SET WORK SESSION DATE~ COURT SETrLEMENT AGREEMENT BEDDOR ETAL~ EXTENSION OF
NEZ PERCE DRIVE.
Don Ash~vorth: This item ha appeared at the City Council twice. I had anticipated that we would have a
settlement. Now I'm fearful that it's been so long since you've discussed this item with the City Attorney that
you may all be a little vague as to kind of what we had actually agreed to. So accordingly I would like to, and
Roger tells me, he thinks that we will be getting into a final form by the 25th and I'd like to use that as a closed
work session to just have Tom Scott go back through the major points of that settlement and we could easily do
it in about half hour, 45 minutes. I don't think the points have changed any but I think the Council should be
quite aware of what those area in advance to the item being publicly presented probably than their first meeting
in October so that all of a sudden the people come to the microphone and say, well we don't like this aspect or
that we've heard about and you're not sitting there saying oh gee, I can't remember.
Councilman Senn: So when are you suggesting?
Don Ashworth: Either 6:45 or 7:00 on September 25th.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, if we have a Board of Adjustments then I'll miss it.
Mayor Chmiel: Just make sure you don't.
Councilman Senn: Do you want to xvager that one again?
Councilman Mason: 6:45 or 7:00?
Mayor Chmiel: 6:45 just in case.
Councilman Senn: 6:45 so we have 45 minutes.
Mayor Chmiel: Has anybody received any calls on this?
Councilman Senn: Yes. Several letters too. No~v 18th, do we have anything the 18th then or not?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Don Ashworth: I don't 'know about a budget work session.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have anything down.
47
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
Councilman Senn: I don't have anything down, that's why I'm asking.
Kate Aanenson: ...working on my budget to present it to you on the 18th. You scheduled me to present the
budget, my budget and Todd's budget on the 18th.
Councilman Senn: The reason I'm bringing that up is Todd made a comment today to me that we were going to
be looking at this budget next week and I looked at my calendar and I said, no we're not.
Don Ashworth: Well, xvhere xve may not have picked the thing up, I did the same thing. He says, we revisited
the fiscal policies which included the financial calendar and as a part of that Para has done the detail, because
we've missed one of the budget work sessions. We rescheduled it as a part of that.
Councilman Senn: Well we already missed one and you were going to reschedule that.
Don Ashxvorth: Right. But I'm saying, in the detailed financial policies from two weeks ago, that that's where
it shows the 18th as proposed work session for the budget. But you probably, like myself, never wrote it down
on your individual calendar.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we have a meeting next Wednesday, is that what you're saying?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so can we go forward and make sure we've all got this squared then on other ones?
Don Ashworth: I will have Karen update that special work session schedule.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And what time's our work session on the 18th?
Don Ashworth: 5:30.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And it's budget.
Don Ashworth: Is that too early?
Councilman Senn: I don't care. Budget for whom again now?
Don Ashworth: Park and Rec and Planning.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
D. STATUS OF HALLA DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT~ PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Kate Aanenson: I just want to make sure that you're aware of this situation. We gave final plat approval to the
Halla plat on June 26th. Since that time we scheduled for the City Council the development contract and it's
been pulled, and we're not sure if it's a miscommunication or whatever. This thing has dragged on for 7 years
and we want to bring closure to it so what we did is we sent him a letter that gave him until October 13th and
if we haven't got all the issues resolved, and there's been plenty of time, then on the 23rd we're going to revoke
48
City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995
the final plat. We just feel like there needs to be closure on it so we just want to make sure that you're 'in
concurrence xvith that and are aware of that so when he comes before you. Hopefully we can get it resolved.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. Motion for adjournment.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carded. The meeting was adjoumed at 10:32 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
49