The URL can be used to link to this page

Packet Items fib . - _ CITY of G CHANHASSEN /„1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Larry Brown , Staff Engineerd) DATE: May 4, 1988 SUBJ: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Eight Acre Woods Subdivision , Phase II (Eric Canton ) File No. 87-29 Attached are the construction documents dated "Received May 5 , 1988" which include the sanitary sewer , watermain, storm sewer and roadway plans for the second phase of the Eight Acre Woods subdivision. The City Council approved the plans and specifica- tions for Phase I on November 2 , 1987. Phase I of the subdivision has been completed with the exception of the restoration. Phase II proposes the extension of the sani- tary sewer and watermain from Chaska Road to the proposed cul- de-sac off of Murray Hill Road. The watermain has been looped to Murray Hill Road to ensure adequate flow conditions in the event of an emergency. The developer has agreed to extend the sanitary sewer and water services 10 feet west of the easterly lot lines of Lots 3 and 15 , Block 1 . This will facilitate future development of the proper- ties to the north and south of the outlots if the outlots are acquired by the adjacent property owners ( refer to Attachment #1 ) . The grading and drainage plan proposes the construction of a sedimentation/retention pond within Outlot A. The property owner to the north of Outlot A had expressed an interest in the past to obtain fee title to Outlot A such that his lots could be split and receive access to the internal cul-de-sac versus Murray Hill Road. It was suggested by staff that the proposed pond for Outlot A be relocated such that the anticipated future develop- - ment could be accomodated. The applicant has stated that the configuration of the lots does not provide adequate space for relocation of the ponding site. Since the applicant has main- tained the predeveloped runoff rate and has provided for adequate storage for a 100-year frequency storm event , the developer has met the criteria as required by the City. Don Ashworth May 4, 1988 Page 2 The grading , drainage and erosion control plan calls for the installation of Type II ( staked hay bales and snow fence) erosion control on the downstream side of all proposed fill sections. We — find this plan acceptable. Approval for the plans and specifications for Eight Acre Woods, Phase II dated "Received May 5 , 1988" upon the following — conditions: 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of these public improvements . 2. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading , and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of the construction . The developer shall be responsible for periodic checks of the erosion controls and shall make all repairs promptly. All erosion controls shall remain intact until an established _ vegetative cover has been produced , at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer . 3 . The developer shall extend sewer and water services to the right-of-way as shown in Attachment #1 as part of this agreement. 4. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District Permit. 5 . The wearcourse for the proposed cul-de-sac shall not be placed until the base course has been through a seasonal freeze/thaw cycle , at which time approval must be received by the City Engineer prior to placement . — 6 . All debris from the existing structure shown on the plan set dated "Received May 5 , 1988" shall be trucked off-site and — disposed of properly. 7 . Hay bales shall be placed and staked around all storm sewer inlets. 8 . The developer shall make provisions for adjusting manholes and gate valves with the base course and again with the wear- course. All castings shall be adjusted to the final eleva- tion of of an inch below the final wearing surface grade. Ramping of manholes for snow plow protection will not be — allowed. Don Ashworth May 4, 1988 Page 3 9 . All sanitary sewer mains shall be televised after the mandrel test has been successfully completed. A copy of the video tape and a written report shall be sent to the City and shall remain the property of the City of Chanhassen. 10 . Working hours shall be between the hours of 7: 00 a.m. and 6: 00 p.m. with no work allowed on Sundays or holidays . 11 . The developer shall be responsible for daily clean-up on and off the site for debris which has resulted from construction or construction traffic from the site. 12. All public improvements shall conform to the City' s standards for urban construction . 13 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1 . 14 . All compacted materials on site shall meet a 95% Standard Procter Density unless approved by the City Engineer PRIOR to placement of the material to be compacted. The specifica- - tions shall be revised to reflect these changes prior to construction start-up. 15 . Item C-17 , page SP-13 shall be revised to read "The hydro- static test shall be for a period of two ( 2) hours at 150 pounds per square inch pressure with zero pressure drop" to be con- sistent with the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health. 16 . A revised set of specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to the preconstruction meeting. 17 . All storm sewer joints from M. H. 101 to M. H. 102 shall be tied. 18 . All fire hydrants and gate valves that are located outside the bituminous mat shall be signed as per the City' s standard details . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Water and Sanitary Sewer Service Diagram 2 . Hydrant and Gate Valve Location Marker Detail 8 `" m f Zr', In A A 0 m m D Xi D CA -I Z CO 0 -4 man r n m -4 ' o Z m 0 m A 0 o \, m x -4 c0 z 0 la l... • / / _ / / CO 0 N / V cop CI O a ir/ d. rn la 111 < O O. N V X 0 Z H oocn Z<w < 0 A - 0 z0 a. latI. mom ' 0 ? aa •o al m rim au Z aom 0 al' 4om m Z N J cl- N < m < _ D La Z.FI 0 o Nm 0, m - - Z -I • -ib La w M. Z 1-4 n o m ZZ CPZ D n A m Z ti n CI 1 91 m rn CO D <- pm U, rn 8~m AA Fc'_* $y NAA tea. AD T al': • �n — D nmA �m mI. _ C. < \ n Sr y I 3 _ 3 1 1 J z -, I r MURRAY FILL ROAD r ZE s 0 } I. I a I- U. N 0 W 0 O -s Nw X Q Nj_ t j W WCf� 0 la~ S al ~ 14 O_O J 0__z tu J J ttQ - — N QQ S i0 F¢ ZOy2 4.1 w �W o M� QS►-O CC co J u.,_ i , 7 ¢OW 2W 0pV W I .� a3AOJ NMI „O-,L W =3 ~vG2 - J S F J�_'a Q 1 W Z a N W X 1 -1 X 7 d . r7 = Q W X —"lam— - cc >� > I1 uu MOM - . r---- , -cv NO ISN3a13X AO3 1N'VroOWA„H9 a,OL .i. am.'' i J ,� II _ _ _ V N U izror [E— -_ I. \\I )\ _ 'rn- 2 a i W ct J r a. i- a . J Q acr N I-- CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: May 4 , 1988 SUBJ: Approval of Development Contract, Schwaba-Winchell Addition Attached please find the Development Contract for the Schwaba- _, Winchell Addition on Minnewashta Parkway. I recommend that the City Council approve this document as presented. CITY OF CHANHASSEN — DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements ) — SCHWABA-WINCHELL ADDITION SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated , 19 , by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation , ( "the City" ) , and Ellie Schwaba and Kevin C . Winchell, ( the "Developers" ) . 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developers have asked the City to approve a plat for Schwaba-Winchell Addition — ( referred to in this Contract as the "plat" ) . The land is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" . 2 . Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that the Developers enter into this Contract and furnish the security required by it. 3 . Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans . The plans shall not be attached to this Contract . With the exception of Plan A, the — plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the — written terms shall control . The plans are: Plan A--Plat dated , 19 , prepared by — Plan B--Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan dated , 19 , prepared by — Plan C--Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated , 19 , prepared by 4 . Improvements. The Developers shall install and pay for the following: A. Storm Water Drainage System B . Streets C. Concrete Curb and Gutter D . Street Signs E. Street Lights F. Site Grading G . Underground Utilities ( e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV) H . Setting of Lot and Block Monuments I . Surveying and Staking J. Sewer and Water Service Lines 5 . Time of Performance. The Developers shall install all required improvements by November 30 , 1989 . The Developers may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 6 . Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract , payment of special assessments , payment of the costs of all public improvements and construction of all public improvements , the Developers shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ( "Security" ) for $ . The amount of the security was calculated as 110% of the following: Site Grading $ On-site storm drainage $ Streets $ Street lights and signs $ Erosion Control $ Engineering, surveying, and inspection $ Landscaping $ TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $ This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restric- tion on the use of the security. The security shall be subject to the approval of the City. The security shall be for a term _ ending December 31 , 1989 . The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of the Contract . If the required public improvements are not completed at least thirty ( 30 ) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval , the SP-2 security may be reduced from time to time as financial obliga- tions are paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a — point less than 25% of the original amount until all improvements are complete and accepted by the City. 7 . Notices. Required notices to the Developers shall be in writing, and shall be either hand-delivered to the Developers , their employees or agents , or mailed to the Developers by registered mail at the following address : Ellie Schwaba and Kevin C. Winchell 3603 Red Cedar Point — Excelsior, MN 55331 Telephone: ( 612 ) 474-2166 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand- delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address : — Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive — P .O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Telephone: ( 612 ) 937-1900 — 8 . Other Special Conditions. (This section to include conditions of approval from the plat review and plan and speci- fication review process) . A. The cul-de-sac shall be constructed to City — standards for urban roadways . B . The applicant shall apply for and obtain per- mits from the watershed district, Department of Natural Resources — and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval . C . Construction on Lake Minnewashta Parkway shall be prohibited. D. Lots that are required to share a singular sanitary sewer service will be required to provide a 6-inch cleanout on each branch of the service located between the house and the wye. E . Lots required to share a singular water stub will be required to provide a curb box at the wye and on each _ branch of the wye. F. An acceptable grading plan shall be provided by the developer for the corrective sight distance grading of Lots 4 and 5 prior to the issuance of building permits . SP-3 G . A 15-inch diameter culvert will be required underneath the northerly proposed driveway. H . A grading, drainage and erosion control plan for each lot will be required as part of the building permit application process . I . All private accesses shall be served by the internal cul-de-sac. No private accesses shall be allowed onto Minnewashta Parkway. J . The accessory building on Lot 3 shall be removed and properly disposed of. 9 . General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract, approved by the City Council on February 22 , 1988 , are attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor ( SEAL) BY : Don Ashworth, City Manager DEVELOPERS: Ellie Schwaba and Kevin C. Winchell BY: Its BY: Its SP-4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen , a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the — corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council . Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by Notary Public SP-5 CONSENT Timothy Fisher, fee owner of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them. Dated this day of , 19 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss . COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by Notary Public SP-6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT ( Developer Installed Improvements ) EXHIBIT "B" — GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 . Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the _ earth, remove trees , construct sewer lines , water lines , streets, utilities, public or private improvements , or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1 ) this agreement has been fully-executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2 ) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3 ) the plat has been recorded with the County Recorder' s Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4 ) the City Engineer has issued a written letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer may proceed. 2 . Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. 3 . Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two ( 2 ) years from the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City' s Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or — federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the _ City may require compliance with any amendments to the City' s Comprehensive Plan, official controls , platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract. 4 . Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract shall be installed in accor- dance with City standards , ordinances , and plans and specifica- — tions which have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission — and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The City will , at the Developer ' s expense, have one or more construction Revised 2/18/88 . Approved by the _ City Council on 2/22/88 . GC-1 inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis . The Developer shall instruct its engineer to respond to questions from the City Inspector( s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer' s design. The Developer or his engineer shall sche- - dule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff , to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty ( 60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the city with the following: ( 1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans , ( 2 ) two complete sets of blue line as-built plans , ( 3 ) two complete sets of utility tie sheets , ( 4 ) location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, ( 5) location sta- tioning of all utility stubs , and ( 6 ) bench mark network. 5 . License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents , employees , officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development. 6 . Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any utility construction is commenced or building per- mits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control require- ments if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as other- - wise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certi- fied seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible . All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer' s expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer' s and City' s rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements . Erosion control needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction of the improvements has been completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where in the opinion of the City there is no longer a need for erosion control, the City will remove the erosion control measures . Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $1 .00 per foot of erosion control that is required to be constructed in accordance with the erosion control plan for the plat, Plan B, to cover the City' s cost for the removal. 7 . Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and GC-2 orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including all blowables, from streets and the — surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 8 . Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by the City of the work and construc- tion required by this contract, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property. After completion of — the improvements , a representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developer' s engineer will make a final inspection of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City — accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and the Developer and his _ engineer shall submit a written statement attesting to same with appropriate contractor waivers . Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City Council resolution. 9 . Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been — paid, and the laborers , materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety ( 90 ) days before the security required by this Contract will expire, the Developer — hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22 , Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts , to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount — up to 125% of the claim( s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further pro- ceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdic- tion to determine attorneys ' fees . 10. Park and Trail Dedication. Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential construction within the plat, the Developer, its successors or assigns , shall pay to the City the park and trail dedication fees then in force pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions . 11. Landscaping. Unless the lot already has one tree on it, the Developer shall plant a tree on every lot in the plat. Suitable trees include: Maples Ash Linden Basswood Green Ash Birch Honeylocust Ginko (male only) Hackberry Kentucky Coffee Tree Oak Other species of trees may be approved by the building inspector. Trees which can cause a public nuisance, such as cotton producing trees , or can be a public hazard, such as bug infestation or weak — GC-3 bark, are prohibited. The minimum tree size shall be two ( 2 ) inches caliper , either bare root in season, or balled and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard. In addition to any sod required as a part of the Erosion Control Plan ( Plan B) , the Developer shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a minimum of four inches of topsoil as a base. Weather permitting, the trees , sod, and seed shall be planted before Certificates of Occupancy are issued for a lot. 12. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor material and faulty work- manship for a period of one ( 1 ) year after its completion and acceptance by the City. All trees , grass , and sod shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be warranted for twelve ( 12 ) months from the time of planting. The Developer or his contractor( s) shall post maintenance bonds (Miller-Davis Company form No. 1636 or equal) or other security acceptable to the City to secure the warranties at the time of final acceptance. 13 . Lot Plans . Prior to the issuance of building per- mits an acceptable Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control , and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot as required in the Special Provisions , for review and approval by the City Engineer . Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from — buildings and that tree removal is consistent with City Ordinance. 14. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be respread against the plat in accordance with City standards . 15. Street Lighting. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $200 . 00 for each street light installed in the plat. The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity for each light for twenty ( 20 ) months . 16 . Street Signs. All street name and traffic signs required by the City as a part of the public improvements shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the Developer. 17. Responsibility for Costs. _ A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements . This fee is to cover the cost of City staff time and overhead for items such as review of construction documents , preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction progress , pro- cessing pay requests , processing security reductions and final acceptance of improvements . This fee does not cover the City' s cost for resident construction inspections . The fee shall be calculated as follows: GC-4 i ) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than $500 , 000 , three — precent ( 3%) of construction costs; ii ) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between $500 , 000 and — $1 , 000 , 000 , two percent ( 2% ) of construction costs; iii ) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over $1 , 000 , 000 , one and one- half percent ( l % ) of construction costs . Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon construction estimates . After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon actual construction costs . The cost of public impro- vements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special Provisions. B . In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all out-of-pocket costs incurred by the City for providing resident construction inspec- _ tions . This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 17E of this agreement. — C . The Developer shall hold the City and its offi- cers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third — parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs , damages , or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims , including attorneys' fees . D . In addition to the administrative fee, the — Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attor- neys' fees . E . The Developer shall pay in full all bills sub- mitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full . Bills not paid within — thirty ( 30 ) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year . F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges and special assessments may be imposed such as but not limited to sewer availability charges ( "SAC" ) , City water connection charges , City — sewer connection charges , and building permit fees . 18. Developer ' s Default. In the event of default by — GC-5 the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four ( 4 ) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies , assess the cost in whole or in part. 19. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for installation of public improvements . Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty ( 30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless other- wise approved by the City Engineer. B . Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster' s request. C . Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract. D . Breach of Contract. Beach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits , including lots sold to third parties . E . Severability. If any portion, section, subsec- _ tion, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. Delays. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements , the Developer assumes all resulting liability and costs from delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public im- provements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, sub- contractors, materialmen, employees, agents , or third parties . G . Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the City engineer, no one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface. H. Waivers/Amendments . The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City' s failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be GC-6 a waiver or release. I . Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer' s request the City will execute and — deliver to the Developer a release. J . Insurance. Developer shall take out and main- tain until six ( 6 ) months after the City has accepted the public improvements , public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for pro- perty damage which may arise out of Developer' s work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500 ,000 for one person and $1,000 ,000 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $200 , 000 for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of $1 ,000 , 000 or more. The City shall be named as an — additional insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat . The certificate shall provide that the City _ must be given ten ( 10 ) days advance written notice of the can- cellation of the insurance . The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. K . Remedies . Each right,power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or — hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right , power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed — expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. L. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council . The Developer' s obligation hereunder shall continue in full force _ and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots , the entire plat, or any part of it. M. Construction Hours . Construction equipment may — only be operated in the plat between 7 : 00 a.m. and 6 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday. Operation of construction equipment is also prohibited on the following holidays : New Year' s Day, — Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve Day, and Christmas Day. N. Access . All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway improvements shall be the respon- sibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat. — 0. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until streets within the _ GC-7 subdivision are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer when hazards develop in streets to pre- vent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to detours . If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface — drainage . The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing operations . The provision of City snow plowing ser- vice does not constitute final acceptance of the streets by the City. P. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unac- ceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. — - - - END OF GENERAL CONDITIONS - - - GC-8 CITYOF -- GCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM v TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planne DATE: May 5 , 1988 SUBJ: Final Plat Approval - Curry Farms , Second Addition /5 /2. __ __ BACKGROUND _ The City Council approved the final plat for Curry Farms , Phase I on July 20 , 1987 . The City Council approved the preliminary plat for the subdivision on May 4 , 1987 , subject to 15 conditions . Of those conditions , the following remain pertinent: 1 . Lot 13 , Block 2 , Lot 6 , Block 5 and Lot 15 , Block 3 , shall receive a variance to the 90 foot lot frontage requirement with all minimum house setbacks at the 90 foot lot width and all other lots shall meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. 2 . The triangular lots shall be changed to reflect a more stan- '! dard lot configuration. 6 . A conservation easement at the 992 foot contour shall be provided along the northerly side of the park area. 10 . The outlots shall not be considered buildable. 11 . The street name shall not contain Lake Lucy or Teton. 12 . The conditions established by the City Engineer in his report dated April 17 , 1987 . 14 . The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing landscaping for lots abutting the contractor' s yard. 15 . The applicant shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners that a contractor' s yard exists . The items identified in the Engineer' s report of April 17 , 1987 , will be addressed in the plan and specification review as well as -- the development contract process . Don Ashworth May 5 , 1988 — Page 2 ANALYSIS In regards to condition #1 , Lot 13 , Block 2 refers to a lot in the first addition ( not part of this review) , Lot 6 , Block 5 has become Lot 1 , Block 2 , Second Addition and Lot 15 , Block 3 has — become Lot 1 , Block 4 . These lots were given lot width variances but the house pads on the lots must meet a 90 foot lot width. As to condition #2 , the applicants have straightened the rear lot — lines of Lots 5 and 6 , Block 1 as much as possible to avoid a triangular shape. Their shape as proposed provides a better means to measure rear setbacks and establish property corners. A conservation easement was required to the 992 contour along the northerly side of the park area. This should be separately described and made a part of the development contract and — recorded against the lots once the plat is filed. It should be noted that the proposed Ashton Court was originally considered partially on the Donovan property during preliminary plat review. _ However , now the entire road right-of-way has been shifted to the Centex property. Because of this shift, a minor impact results in the depth of Lots 4 and 5 , Block 2 such that the conservation easement travels into the lots deeper than anticipated. When — legally described, a minor shift will be made to accommodate an adequate house pad on these two lots . As to the conditions regarding the outlots , the plat contains four outlots, Outlot A ( access to park property) , Outlot B north of Franco Loris ' property, Outlot C and Outlot D adjacent to the north side of Bretton Way. Outlots B , C and D will be retained — by Centex. Outlot A will be conveyed to the city. The Teton street name has been retained for the road matching — existing Teton Lane. Although blocked by a barrier , the road should retain this street name for continuity, safety, and addressing purposes . — The applicant is complying with condition #15 by stating the existence of the contractor ' s yard in the purchase agreements of the lots . — Condition #14 pertains to the landscaping requirement for lots abutting the contractor' s yard. The applicant has submitted a — landscaping plan for that area between Devonshire Drive and Kerber' s lot as one enters the subdivision. The city has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan and as reflected in Mr. Koegler' s letter dated May 3, 1988 , it is recommended that addi- tional evergreens be planted to provide a more continuous screen during the winter months . The intent of this screen was to pro- vide not only a noise barrier but also a visual barrier from Devonshire Drive to the Kerber property. Mr . Koegler recommends Black Hill Spruce as it will tolerate road salt better. Don Ashworth May 5 , 1988 Page 3 All lot sizes exceed the 15 , 000 square foot requirement as exemplified in the applicant' s letter. Because the city reduced its lot depth requirements to 125 feet, there are no need for variances for lot depth as was considered during preliminary plat review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the final plat stamped "Received April 18 , 1988" and subject to execution of the development contract, filing of a letter of credit, and compliance with all preliminary plat conditions as established by the City Council on May 4 , 1987 , and compliance with the recom- mendations of Mr. Koegler' s letter dated May 4 , 1988 . NOTE: The top sheet of the plat submittal identifies the prop- erty boundaries of the area including Teton Lane which is noted as Tract C RLS #11 . This drawing is not part of the plat appro- val other than to show the current relationship of the lots in relation to Teton Lane. Platting of this area will eliminate confusing description problems in this area. Also, staff will be meeting with Centex and the Kerber' s Monday afternoon to resolve any outstanding issues regarding the development . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Letter from John Spiess dated April 18 , 1988 . 2 . City Council minutes dated May 4 , 1987 . 3 . City Council minutes dated July 6 , 1987 . 4 . City Council minutes dated July 20 , 1987 . 5 . Proposed landscaping plan . 6 . Letter from Mark Koegler dated May 3 , 1988. 7 . Letter from John Spiess dated May 2 , 1988 . 8 . Final plat stamped "Received April 18 , 1988" . C�1 mes Raker Technology Plaza — 5959 Baker Road Suite 300 Minnetonka.Minnesota 55345 April 18, 1988 Ms. Barbara Dacy City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 — Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: CURRY FARMS PHASE II FINAL PLAT Dear Ms. Dacy: Enclosed for your use are: — 1 ) 10 copies of Curry Farms Phase II final plat and lot area calculations. — 2) 10 copies of landscape plans providing landscaping for lots abutting contractors yard. If you need additional information please contact me. Yours truly, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION Minne1.ta D. ision ft or John Spiess — Production Manager cc Tom Boyce — Baker Technology Plaza, 5959 Baker Road, Suite 300, Minnetonka, Minnesota/(612)936-7833 r' 4/18/88 CURRY FARMS PRASE II AREA CALCULATIONS REPORT ****** LOTS IN BLOCK NUMBER 1 ****** LOT NUMBER AREA, SQUARE FT AREA, ACRES 1 19903.2048 0.4569 2 18842.0081 0.4326 3 17268.9473 0.3964 4 17731.4905 0.4071 5 17823.0110 0.4092 6 17473.7753 0.4011 7 16515.8153 0.3792 8 17056.2807 0.3916 9 16520.3174 0.3793 10 20327.1801 0.4666 11 16559.2113 0.3801 12 18396.2518 0.4223 ***** LOTS IN BLOCK NUMBER 2 ****** 1 25275.5555 0.5802 2 24257.1373 0.5569 3 18153.7597 0.4168 4 16950.5530 0.3891 5 19033.6495 0.4370 6 32590.0257 0.7482 ****** LOTS IN BLOCK NUMBER 3 ****** 1 16767.7964 0.3849 2 16541.6329 0.3797 3 19325.4430 0.4437 4 17357.7794 0.3985 5 16667.3795 0.3836 ****** LOTS IN BLOCK NUMBER 4 ****** 1 15374.04 0.3529 2 16892.20 0.3878 3 18470.90 0.4240 _ 4 16605.20 0.3812 5 19317.60 0.4435 ************************************************************************** TOTAL LOT AREA 523998.1455 12.0304 277 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 , CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 17: A. SUBDIVISION OF 53 ACRES INTO 81 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER CLASS B WETLANDS. — Jo Ann Olsen: This is a subject made up of two parts. The first one is a subdivision proposal and the second one is a wetland alteration permit. It's -- 81 single family homes in the single family district. The net density is 2.13 units per acre. The lots layout is within six lots and there are some variances that are required. Eight of the lots didn't meet the 90 foot _ minimum public street frontage requirement. Six of them are on cul-de-sacs and three of them are flag lots. The cul-de-sac lots could be adjusted with the lot line being adjusted and Staff did recommend that those lots meet the 90 foot street frontage requirement. The flag lots required a variance and — the Planning Commission did approve those variances. Some of the lots also required a variance to the 150 foot lot depth requirement and those were also approved as a part of the subdivision approval. There are also some triangular — lots and Staff recommended that those be adjusted. We have spoken to the applicant and he has shown some preliminary designs for making those more standard configurations. As far as the streets, the site is adjacent to CR 17 and Lake Lucy Road. It also is adjacent to Teton Lane which connects with — Lilac Lane which is partially within Chanhassen and partially within Shorewood. The City of Shorewood has submitted two letters stating their concern with the development using Lilac Lane and has requested that the City — include Lilac Lane on any feasibility study if Teton is moved to be improved as a public street. Carver County has approved the access location onto CR 17. As far as utilities, sewer and water is available through an internal — watermain and also along Lake Lucy Road. Drainage, the applicant have worked very hard to maintain the natural characteristics and have provided a ponding system that is maintaining the existing run-off. The drainage is consistent with the City and Watershed District and is being protected with an easement. — Vegetation, the applicant again has worked closely to preserve much of the vegetation and the only areas that are going to be impacted is where the street constructions will take place. Staff is recommending that a — conservation easement be granted along the 982 contour along the southern wetland area and the 992 contour around the northerly pond where the park area is. We are also requiring silt stablization and erosion control. As far as _ Lhe Park and Recreation Commission, they reviewed the proposal and determined that the area was park deficient and recommended that the development provide park area. The applicant is proposing approximately 6.38 acres of active park area and the Park Commission has reviewed this park proposal and has approved it. They were concerned with the wet soils but the applicant has assured them that it will be drained adequately after every rain storm. That you will be able to use the field within 24 hours. They are also recommending a trail _ along Lake Lucy Road, an off-street trail and internal trails around Roads D, B and G which will also connect with the park. There are several outlots with the subdivision. Staff is positioning that these are unbuildable until they meet the City's requirements. Finally, the street name, Staff is recommending that Teton and Lake Lucy not be used just to reduce any confusion. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision with the condition - 23 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 that Teton Lane shall be improved to an urban section and shall connect the subdivision with Lilac Lane and that Staff will work with the City of Shorewood to address the concerns on the impacts of Teton and Lilac Lane and if the street configuration is changed, that the preliminary plat shall again be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Also, the subdivision is next to Larry Kerber's contractors yard and we are requesting that the applicant landscape or berm part of the property so the property owners would not be impacted by the contractor's yard and we are also requesting that the developer be responsible for notifying lot owners that there is a contractor's yard at that property that has been approved by the City and will remain there until they decide to move or ceases to do business. So we added those two conditions that the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing landscaping for the lots abutting the contractor's yard and that the applicant shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners that a contractor's yard exists. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps the developers would like to present their overview of the project. Tom Boyce: I'm the president of the Minnesota division of Centex Homes. Centex Homes is a subsidiary of Centex Corporation which is listed on the New ` York Stock Exchange. We're currently building homes in 21 cities across the country. In Minnesota we're a relatively small builder I guess building between 150 and 250 homes per year. We're currently building projects in Eden Prairie and Bloomington. We hope to build one here in Chanhassen and are planning projects in Apple Valley and Mendota Heights. In Curry Farms we will be the builder as well as the developer. We will be building homes in primarily two price brackets from $110,000.00 to $140,000.00 and from $140,000.00 to $200,000.00 because of the two distinct areas we've got there on top of the hill and the low kind of standardized lots. For the most part it will be primarily what we would classify as a move up neighborhood. We started the project back in October and I met with the Staff and the neighbors a couple times. At least at the Planning Commission meeting one of the major concerns was more with Teton Lane and Lilac Lane than really with the project. I guess we've tried to deal with that as best we think we can. We looked at a number of alternative plans to serve the upper portion of the site as well as Teton. Saw the possibility there of us purchasing Teton and actually dedicating it back to the City for potential future improvement later anyway. I have a couple other people I would like to introduce and I can have them walk through the plan briefly with you. Dick Putnam is with Tandem Corporation and Tandem is the planner for us on the project. Keith Nelson is right behind him with Westwood Planning & Engineering, the engineering consultant on the project and Kevin Clark is next to Keith and he will be the project manager for Centex out there on a daily basis. I guess I would like to ask Dick to kind of briefly go through the plans and then we're here to answer any questions that you or the neighbors would have. Dick Putnam: I'll try to be very brief. Between the Park and Rec Commission and the Staff and Planning Commission, I think we have beat most of the issues around and if you get a chance to go through your packet and look over the Planning Commission discussion that went on for a couple hours, I think most of those issues were pretty well discussed. If I could I would like to 24 /- ,- 279 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 highlight what some of those major concerns were. Maybe we could start with the easiest one. There was a major concern initially about the project that — the property was being overdeveloped. We looked at probably eight to ten different ways of developing the site ranging from 100 units of single family under your Planned Unit Development Ordinance with 12,000 foot minimum lots to what we'll call a larger lot concept which is reprsented here on the plan that's before with roughly 80 to 81 lots. I guess through the process of hearing what some of the folks around the site had to say, the Staff and then looking at some soil borings, and I can appreciate the discussion you had — about Lake Lucy Road. When we took an extensive set of borings throughout the property, we found the soils were very variable. From bottomless where the auger never did hit anything that was worth a darn to 3, 4, 5 feet of bad _ soils with good underlying materials so the soils really changed quite a bit throughout the site. That provided us with some very good information. As you might expect the poor soil areas correspond to where they were low. That's nothing you would expect except in one area which was right up here where there is a riding ring today which is right off of by Teton. Evidentally, that was a marsh at one time because under about 4 or 5 feet of reasonably good soil was about 8 feet of organic soils. You wouldn't know it — by looking at it so every once in a while you get surprised. What we looked at was if you can put a plan together that had some densities that made sense in the scope of what the City of Chanhassen was looking at in your Zoning Ordinance as well as some of the concerns that the neighbors brought, we'd be money ahead i.e. out goes the Planned Unit Development idea with smaller lots and a little higher density and back to your more conventional zoning approach. The other thing was that since we were on the cutting edge of the — L MUSA line and the Urban Service line is on our western boundary and then again on the southern boundary on a portion of Lake Lucy. The areas west and south are outside of the MUSA. We had kind of the unique situation where abutting — owners, some of which would be very interested in the ability to connect to sewer, others had absolutely no interest whatsoever and wanted to make sure that our project wasn't going to force them into sewer service and urban costs. One of the things we did do quite consciously was in the southwest — portion of the site, which is the knoll and primary wooded area, we tried to make those lots as large as possible to reduce the grading and just basically cut the streots in and let what amounts to custom homes go in on rather large — lots, 30,000 to 50,000 square feet. I guess that responds a bit to the terrain as well as some of the quality and size of the neighbors adjacent to us. Another thing that was brought up that we tried to address was the park issue. I think that was quite well discussed at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The plan that you have in your book which is a blow-up of the park area shows some changes in the grading in that area that will allow some development of park facilities in the future that the Staff and Park and — Rec Commission felt were important there. The plan has changed slightly. After the Park and Rec Commission meeting we provided a trail connection, parking area and made sure that the park area was large enough to accomodate — the facilities that the Staff had outlined to us. Ballfields, tennis courts, totlots, that sort of thing. Keith might touch a little bit on the issue of how the ponds and that sort of thing work. Basically, this is a revised — grading plan. You can see that there are a couple ponding areas in the park. Those are connected with storm sewer and the other portion of the property is graded so it will work for those facilities. The other issue that we dealt 25 2S0 _ City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 with early on in the project was the question of wetlands. What we had on the site in terms of wetlands and what we ought to be doing with them. We were made aware early on by the Staff that the City was very concerned about wetland protection as well as wetland enhancement so the Staff had arranged to have a biologist from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Elizabeth Rockwell out to the site who looked at the site and basically her recommendations and her appraisal of it were included in a letter to the City that basically came back and said that there is one good wetland area which is in the southwestern corner of the site which has water on it. The balance of the site is, through years of agriculture draining horse operations, farming, whatever, really didn't degrade it to the point where it isn't functioning as a wetland really at all so what we did was look at it and said to enhance the site, first of all. Deal with the poor soils that we have in some of those areas. Provide for a water detention system, ponding area that will help in clearing up the water and that sort of thing. Holding the water on the site before it can be discharged in the natural drainage to Christmas Lake and also take the water that comes from off-site. There is drainage through the site in really three directions. East of CR 17 where the pond is there is an overflow here. There is a wetland area that's north of Lake Lucy but flows into our site coming from the south and there is a culvert system going under Lake Lucy Road. There is also a ravine on the western portion of the property by Jim Donovan's property that comes up back and hits a little lake that's up here. Those three areas provide drainage into our site. That drainage then goes out under CR 17 through a wooded ravine down toward Christmas Lake. We're all very aware of Christmas Lake. In fact, Keith Nelson, our engineer, is a skin diver in Christmas Lake so we were well aware of the concerns about the water quality going off the site and I think the system that Westwood has designed will work very well in that case. It also provides some zip and pizazz frankly to the back of the lots with ponding and some natural areas around those ponds should make for better lots quite frankly. The other thing and I'll just touch on it with this map, because of the terrain that we have, where we have probably 60 to 70 feet of grade change on that site, if you go look at it right now you would say you need a mountain goat to get around. That's both good and bad. From our perspective for homesites, if you're trying to provide $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 homesites, it good and we've been able to keep most of the trees that you see which are located, lucky for us, along the slopes and by the same token it allows us to put some homesites on top of those hills. Both on the — southwestern portion and up where the riding arena is today without really disturbing very much. It results in big lots that we think will be some really, really nice homesites. That's the good news. The bad news is that because those lots are in a strange shape, we call them flag lots or some rather odd shaped things, they don't necessarily meet the requirement that says 90 feet 30 feet back from the street. They may be 150 feet 70 feet back from the street but they aren't 90 feet at 30 feet. I guess what we've been asking is, in a lot such as number 5 for example, which is up here off of Road G, at the building pad setback we're at about 110 feet or more in width. Unfortunately is you take a straight 30 foot setback because the street curves, we're probaby closer to 60 feet and we've got an easement for another flag lot as well as a trail easement coming there also. We think that's an awfully nice lot. The lot is very large square footage wise but doesn't really meet that standard so what we would be looking at is, wherever we building, if we choose to build 40 or 50 feet back from the street rather than 26 ( ( 281 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 17- a straight 30 foot, that we would have to have a 90 foot minimum setback and we feel on all of the lots in the project that won't be a problem at all. The flag lot like number 6 or number 5 in the same instance or down here, 13 is — probably the most vivid example, where we build going across that lot with the minimum at the front with a 90 foot setback, we think that would meet the requirements that your city has. Lastly, I guess I would just hit Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. As Tom mentioned, Road G really is on the Teton Lane alignment. I guess early on when we talked with some of the neighbors and got a jist of what some of the issues were, where some folks would like to see 4 or 5 homes on the site instead of 50 or 80. There is also concern about — access. What we found was that Teton Lane is a private easement, 33 feet. It's owned by Mr. Carlson who owns this chunk of property which is listed as an exception. It provides easements to I think there are probably 13 or 14 — separate people listed on that document surrounding this area. It became evident to us that there were some very different opinions as to what the status of Teton Lane should be and what it will be in the future. We heard a _ lot of stories about somebody tried to give it to the City back 15 years ago and the city wouldn't take it and a number of other things. The bottom line for us was that this site has a lot of exceptions that we're building around such as Mr. Loris' house or Reamer's house up in here or Carlson's property or the Kerber property or the Jacques down on Lake Lucy Road. We're really kind of fitting in, if you will, to an existing neighborhood. Granted some of the homes are very, very high value and some of them are very not very high value and they may be within 300 to 400 feet of one another. It's very, very 1 difficult to take a $300,000.00 or $400,000.00 house versus a $70,000.00 house that are 400 feet from each other and come up with a compatible type. I think you can appreciate the problem. As it related to Teton, we felt that the solution was to acquire the right-of-way and provide that to the City as public right-of-way to do with what you choose and that would mean talking to all of the affected property owners who have access to it and finding out if it should be closed off. If it should be improved. If it should be a mat of asphalt applied to it. If it should be given back to the people who take their access from it for them to maintain but one way or the other for the — City to be in a position I guess to determine what happens to it rather than currently the situation where the fellow who owns it is not real wild about continuing to pour gravel and oil and money and new culverts and all these things on it because he doesn't feel it's his responsibility for everybody to — use it so our solution is, we've gone out and signed a purchase agreement contingent on approval with Mr. Carlson to purchase the right--of-way that you see here that cuts across this property as well as the 33 feet of right-of-way that he has that goes out to Lilac Lane. We would improve Lilac Lane within the confines of our site and that little road H that provides access to Reamer's property and we would do that at no cost to anybody else then we _ would convey the right-of-way from that link, which is roughly the pillars if you've been out there. If you are used to that area, it's close to where the pillars would be. To provide that right-of-way to the City and they would then make some judgments on what to do. It's going to take a while. If you were at the Planning Commission meeting, you would have gotten the jist that there is no simple solution at this point in time. The letter from Shorewood $ which I did have occasion to talk with the City Manager today from Shorewood, didn't really provide anything any easier to understand either because I wish we would have known about the meeting and been allowed to attend the meeting. 27 C- 9067) City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 I mentioned to him that I think he ought to have a couple positions presented rather than the one that was presented by some folks who talked to the Shorewood Council so at this point the solution to Teton is at least we're providing the right-of-way and it allows something to happen in the future. Quite frankly there are very few units, there are about 18 units in our project on top of the hill, if you count Loris' house and Reamer's, that's about 20 units that are in the general area that would conceivably use this area as well as the existing one or two homes that access it right now so the number of units that would go north would be fairly small to begin with and I guess the traffic wouldn't really be a significant number. At this point maybe what I'll do is ask Keith to very quickly explain the drainage system for you and utilities other than the sewer and water on all the streets that you would normally expect but the drainage system Keith maybe you can touch real quickly on. Keith Nelson: As Dick indicated I am a diver so I do have a special interest here with the water quality on Christmas Lake. Just to go over the drainage here, it's sort of complex. There is a lot of drainage from off-site that does drain through this site. There is a large wetland basin up to the west that does drain through a ravine to the proposed ponding areas and out through culverts. There is drainage from this wetland area that there is presently storm sewer through Lake Lucy Road and empties into another wetland basin that's located south of Lake Lucy Road and again through other culverts. A drain that does contain north and then it goes out the same point out through CR 17. There is another large wetland basin on the east side of CR 17 and there is a controlled culvert and controlled inlet that does discharge into he site and again flows through the site back to this ponding area and out back under CR 17 through this 36 inch storm sewer pipe. We looked at a storm water management plan for the entire area. We've looked at possibly restricting some of the flows off-site to utilize some of that existing ponding boundaries that are available and again we did this same thing on site with the construction of five ponding areas and we can really restrict the rate of flow in the developed condition at approximately one-third of what the flow is now in the peak rate of flow in the undeveloped condition so again for grade restrictions we are really dropping down the amount of run-off that will exit the site via this area in pond #4. During construction phase you want to minimize erosion. There is extensive grading around the site. Not in the wooded areas but in other portions of the plat. These wetlands that we are going to be construction are going to be constructed such to enhance a wetland type growth and vegetation. A ponding area will be constructed to clean 1 and 3 feet beneath the outlet pipes proposed that will restrict rate of flow so these areas will act as pumps as say basins or sump traps during the construction phase which will catch a lot of the sediment. During construction the first thing we would do is excavate out these ponds, ` construct the berms, trying to hold the water, contain it on-site and before the outlet culverts are construction, and we won't put those pipes in until all the grading is done and turf is established. We will seed and mulch everything upon completion of grading. What we will do to these berms is construct like a rock filter. We'll actually put in a large pile of rock as part of the berm and what that will do is let the water trickle through and will filter out a lot of the sediment and will hold a lot of the sediment back [:: in the ponding areas so again I think we're really going to minimize the 28 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 effects downstream, mainly Christmas Lake. I have forwarded a copy of my drainage plan to the Watershed Engineers. They have reviewed it. They have no problems with it and we will be making a formal Watershed Permit — application. Mayor Hamilton: That concludes all of your presentation? Perhaps we can — start with Clark. If you have any questions or comments you wish to make. Councilman Horn: I like the layout. I think the park worked out fine. The storm sewer system looks good. I like the protection for Christmas Lake. One — question I did have though is that you only showed us four housing types. I didn't see any housing types in what you would call your other section. These obviously are the higher priced homes. Tom Boyce: The house you have right there is $120,000.00 to $140,000.00 house. We try to give you a range. — Councilman Horn: Every one of these is a two story or split level. What about ramblers? Tom Boyce: We don't build any ramblers. Councilman Johnson: I would like to say I appreciate all the time you've done — in the saving of the trees and a lot of the work you've done here. I think it's an outstanding project as going. On the north side it's pivotable on Teton Lane. Without Teton, the whole north side falls apart with that being — an extremely long cul-de-sacs and no real way to get out without having to go into the neighbors to your west and back down somehow or another and with the wetlands and stuff in there I don't think that's feasible at all. It's an extremely difficult piece of land to develop in there and I really appreciated all the hard work you're doing on this including the lot that you're putting together on here. What is your phasing plan? Tom Boyce: We would be working from the south to the north. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so there is some time on Teton Lane to work it out. Tom Boyce: Maybe Dick would like to some them some alternate plans. We've looked at I guess 7 or 8 different plans. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I was impressed at the Planning Commission meeting of how many different plans you had. I think you were up through F or G. Tom Boyce: There is another way to serve the area to the north and you probably saw it at the Planning Commission meeting. The only way to do that is through the area right now that's proposed as park which may mean some other things would need to shift around I guess. How does the City foul about long cul-de-sacs? Councilman Johnson: I personally am very much against long cul-de-sacs from a — public safety point of view. That's why to me Teton Road is very pivotable to get to the people in Block 6, Lots 1 through 6 in an emergency would be very 29 //C-Yy2l City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 tough without Teton Lane and Lilac Lane and the cooperation of Shorewood so for a city of our size it's going to be a challenge for you and our city. Are we going to be starting a feasibility study on Teton Lane in the near future or how does that work? Mayor Hamilton: That's a possibility that we'll get to here in a few minutes. Don Ashworth: That's a recommendation of approval. Councilman Johnson: I would to see that the park entrance between Block 6 and Block 5 be a more direct route to the park. If there was some way to work it in between Lot 5, Lots 1 and 2 or 3 and 4. The more direct access, that would make even Lot 6 a more nice remote lot rather than having a trail around that lot. For somebody that really wants their privacy back on that flag lot. On the lots like Lot 5 of Block 5, I would like to see us make sure that the houses aren't built up towards the front of the lot. Is there anyway we can do that Barb or Jo Ann? Tom Boyce: I have absolutely no problem addressing that in the development agreement. Put it so the house has to be built where it's at least 90 feet wide? I have no problems with that or deed restriction. Jo Ann Olsen: You just have a minimun setback that you can't get any closer to the road frontage. Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is on a couple of these lots, to be specific Block 5, Lot 5 at the 30 foot setback he has about 70 feet and this is on a turn which is similar to on a cul-de-sac. If he goes back another 20 foot he'll hit his 90 foot width. I'm saying is there some way we can assure that he'll be back that additional 20 foot to hit that 90 foot width so the homeowner can't come in and say I want mine 30 foot up and then he builds it that way. Jo Ann Olsen: The only thing that would stop him from being able to do that is the width of the house. The sideyard setbacks would prohibit that. Councilman Johnson: Unless they build the house deep and narrow. Jo Ann Olsen: You can make it a condition that it would have to be set back at however many feet. Councilman Johnson: All housing setbacks have to be at 90 foot width is what Tom suggested. That could be an easy condition on here. Mayor Hamilton: It would be in the development contract. Otherwise it can't be done. Councilman Johnson: Okay. There are several of those. I agree with the triangle lots. I don't like triangle lots personally. I hear you are getting rid of those. Is there something being done on Block 2, Lot 5 which has a 81 foot frontage? Just as you come in on Road B, second lot in. Is that going to be readjusted to give us the 90? We have the 90 at the housing setback on 30 285 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 ir- that one but there is no reason for it on a straight street. If we have a curve or a cul-de-sac, there is a reason to use the house setback. Jo Ann Olsen: I believe the lot lines can be adjusted. Councilman Johnson: Are we requiring that adjustment to be made in here? — Jo Ann Olsen: It was in the conditions. In the condition that said all lots shall meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. Councilman Johnson: Okay, that is part of condition 1 so that will be done. Councilman Geving: I have a few questions. Basically I want to make sure — that the comment regarding the various lots that the Staff indicated could be adjusted will be and I'm looking at your staff report on page 3. Six of the lots which require a variance can be adjusted. Have those been adjusted? — Jo Ann Olsen: They haven't yet but that's part of the conditions that they must be. — Councilman Geving: Is there any imagination that could be used on the three triangular lots that they can look to some kind of a scheme? Could you show me how you might do that? — Dick Putnam: What we end up doing is just expanding Lot 12. All the lots have plenty of square footage in them so what we do is we but off the back — yards here on 9, 8, 7 and 45 and just create a larger, deeper backyard here and then these are wider in the back. That's what I reviewed with the Staff. Councilman Geving: Okay, so Lot 12 will be extended to the south. I was a little bit concerned about Lot 6, Block 6 and it's access however you do have a substantial size lot there and I think we can build a pretty nice home on that lot. It's rather steep. Normally I would object to that but I think we can fit a house on there. Also on Lot 13, Block 2 is a very narrow corridor there but I don't have the footage here but it's a big lot and off that cul- de-sac I think we could also make that. I had some other comments regarding — the Teton Lane. I don't know how that's all going to work out in response to Shorewood. You may not be doing us a great deal of a favor by dedicating that back to the City because then it becomes our problem and from there I don't know what we're going to do with it because eventually it's going to have to — be, if we go through the feasibility study and build the road, somebody is going to have to pay for it. We'll have to take up that issue but I'm not so sure we're really getting a favor by picking up that roadway. Do you have any — thoughts Staff on what could be done there? Barbara Dacy: Again, the preliminary plat as proposed shows a connection to Teton Lane to Lilac Lane. The Planning Commission was very specific that if the Council, as part of the plat approval does not recommend improvement of Teton or including Teton at all in it's plan, that it go back to the Planning Commission. It does result in long cul-de-sacs and if the Council chooses not — t to improve Teton Lane or require it's improvement then Staff is recommending that we take another look at the access issue. However, Staff is recommending 31 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 7- that the connection exists now and we are recommending improvement of Teton Lane as well as the Council initiating the feasibility study process. Councilman Geving: Okay, we'll address that later. Is there a Park and Rec Commission member here tonight? If not, what were their comments in regards to this? Is it basically a lowland that they are going to be picking up? 6.38 acres. We talked about getting a swamp, an area that can be improved. Mayor Hamilton: If I remember right, didn't they say that it was quite lowland but you were going to do some improvements in it to try and eliminate some of the water. Tom Boyce: It's a very flat lowland. There is no drainage out of it. What we're going to do is go back in there and improve it. Build the ponds to hold the water. Councilman Geving: I guess I know that it's quite low in there. My personal feeling is we'll take the 6.38 acres but I'm not sure about park dedication refund of any kind. That will have to be worked out by the Council to off-set the addition of parkland that we would accept. Do you understand what we're talking about? Dick Putnam: Not exactly, no. Councilman Geving: Well, it's a point of negotiation for the Council to accept your 6.38 acres but at the same time we wouldn't necessarily have to give you 100o credit for that land. It might be a 50o credit for park dedication fees. Currently our park dedication fees run about $400.00. Better than $400.00 per unit. We might give you a 50o reduction because of the land that you're giving us for the park but not necessarily 100o so that anybody buying a home, picking up a permit would still have to pay possibley something towards a park dedication fcc to develop that park. Do you understand now what I'm saying? Dick Putnam: I guess we do. What we talked with the Park and Rec Commission about was, rather than giving you land we were giving you a park. Councilman Geving: But now you're talking to the Council. Dick Putnam: I'm talking to the Council the same as I'm talking to everybody and that is we can do one of two things. We can give you a park that's developable, seeded, ready to go, that's dry and going to meet all your conditions that the staff and your engineers will approve the grading for and will do the grading as part of our project and that will more than meet our requirement for park contribution. If what you're telling us tonight is, well gee whiz maybe... Councilman Geving: I'm not telling you gee whiz. Dick Putnam: Maybe the land isn't good enough as a park and there should be a [:: park contribution on top of the improvements we're going to make to the land, then yes, you're right. We better talk about that right away. 32 id/ (7 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 I Councilman Geving: That's a Council decision. We make that decision. Don Ashworth: I think we need to come back to the Council potentially. We could meet as well Councilman Geving and go through the level of grading that is proposed on this site. I have some concerns as well as to the suitability _ of those soils. You are absolutely right, we've got to make sure that they will be dry and the level of improvements that they are going to do to those, to the property, could greatly off-set the necessity for additional monies. I feel confident that Lori and myself have been working with them in that area. — I'm sure we're aware of your concerns and we will bring the item back to you. Councilman Geving: Okay, that's fine. I have just one other comment. I _ think I had a note or two on the plat itself. I had made a comment regarding Lot 5, Block 2 and Block 2, Lot 7 and you have made those adjustments. Is that what you're telling me Jo Ann? For the lot width? Jo Ann Olsen: Not yet but they will be. Councilman Geving: How about the road that we identify as Road I. Isn't that — a rather unusual cul-de-sac? Is that an unusual cul-de-sac for maintenance? Jo Ann Olsen: It is kind of a bubble but the reason it is designed was to — protect the wetlands and the slope area and vegetation. Councilman Geving: Do you agree with that? From the Staff's standpoint you agree with that? — Jo Ann Olsen: From the Staff's standpoint we saw several different street alternatives and this one preserved the area the best. — Councilman Geving: I have no other comments. Mayor Hamilton: You said you were going to do not only the developing but the building. Will you allow other builders in the area? If I came in and wanted to buy a lot and have somebody build there, you don't allow that? Tom Boyce: Usually not. It's certainly not our intention at this point. If the interest rates are at 17% tomorrow and somebody wanted to buy a lot it would be difficult for me to say no but no, that's not our intention. — Mayor Hamilton: There are a lot of people here. Is anyone here that would like to make a comment or ask a question about the development? Marc Simcox: I live on Lilac Lane across from Teton. I think the big concern that I have and that most of the residents have is that a lot of people are going to pay to improve the road that is going to serve only one individual who lives on that road presently but in order to really serve a development and that's the major concern. I've been done quite a bit of work to try and discover what exactly is going to occur and I keep finding that everything is — 1 being proposed and improved prior to finding out exactly what's going to happen Teton Lane which we're really concerned about. As it presently sits, Teton Lane is abutted on two sides by one property owner who has approximately 33 2-66 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 800 feet on one side and then throe others who own about one-third a piece. Out of all the property owners only one of those actually uses Teton Lane. The others exit and go on Lilac Lane which of course in most cases would have to approved at least for drainage. The way the developments been proposed now, there has been no northern access but to cut down the length of the cul- de-sacs on the northern side of the project other than through the use of Teton Lane. One thing was mentioned in the Planning Commission and the plan was covered and turned over pretty rapidly, I didn't get a chance to see how the road layouts worked but that used and addressed the possible use of this path. The cul-de-sac here, I guess it's Road E where it goes over Road G. The cul-de-sac in the corner of your Block 3, Lot 15. That was used at one time when the sewer was being constructed on Lilac Lane for temporary access. I spoke with the County today about that because we were informed at the Planning Commission meeting that the Council didn't want the access there so I did speak to the County and they said they have no objection to that as long as it's a safe intersection with proper sight distances. I think the sight distances there are probably better than they are at the proposed exit on CR 17 and Road D. There would be some extra grading involved to do that but the costs would not come out of the Teton Lane abutting property owners to provide that access. It probably isn't a whole lot different distance wise if that was used than if Lilac Lane and Teton Lane connection was used to access those cul-de-sacs in an emergency. Mayor Hamilton: What's going to be proposed, so we don't go on about Teton — Lane all night, is that we're going to suggest that a feasibility study be conducted to look at not just Teton but the alternatives to that particular road and how that may fit into the project then we can take a closer look at that and look at just one issue and discuss that and see how that is going to be resolved. Marc Simcox: That's in a feasibility study? Mayor Hamilton: You bet. That's what the study would be about. Marc Simcox: The plat is not going to be approved as it exists until that has been taken care of? Mayor Hamilton: No, that's not true. The plat can be approved with the condition that the feasibility study needs to be completed on Teton. Marc Simcox: The one concern of course by the property owners there is that the City and the developer want the feasibility study to show the Teton Lane is required, that's exactly what the feasibility study will show. Right or wrong that's the way they are feeling. What we would suggest is that Teton Lane would be used for access onto the development and the rest of it dedicated to the City until such time that that property may be developed 20 years in the future and the City can then go in and do something. . . Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what our feasibility study will tell us. When it should be developed and in what manner and how the road configuration should be for the development. 34 ]SJ�- 289 _. City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Jim Donovan: If I might I would like to step up here and just show you something here. I'm the owner of this piece of property here. I own from here up to Lilac and from Lilac down to here. This is the road that we're talking about Teton here. I'm concerned that this road here would then become a public road if was deeded to the City of Chanhassen for the benefit of the development down in here. The taxpayers here are not the largest taxpayer in _ this thing here now. I would be virtually thrown out. I bought this piece of property, came from Bloomington two years ago and I dreamed about this thing for 14 years and purchased this piece of property and the adjoining piece over here and now I see this happening for the benefit down here. Not for the -" benefit of the people here. I can assure you I will put this in writing and anything you want, this will never, never, in my lifetime, ever be developed. These people here are going to have to pay. I'm going to have to pay for the — benefit of this thing. Mayor Hamilton: That's what the feasibility study will show. Jim Donovan: I understand that but I just want to impress upon you that the people here feel that the feasibility study is a foregone conclusion that it's going to say that for the benefit of this we're going to be sacrificed because — of bigger tax benefits to the City of Chanhassen then what this property now gives. Mayor Hamilton: I hope we can do a better feasibility study than that. Just because you have property there and you're not benefitting doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be charged for the road at this time. Jim Donovan: Somebody has to be charged for the road. I understand that. What we're saying is that this is not necessary to have the exit go here. It can go out here to CR 17. Lilac Lane is a very bad exit right now. It's very — bad. Come out here onto CR 17 would be much better. We don't know what a feasibility study, if we're allowed to have input into a feasibility study or can we come to a hearing or is there a hearing. — Mayor Hamilton: Absolutely. When the feasibility study is completed, it will be put on an agenda and it will be discussed at that time and all alternatives will be looked at will be discussed and opened to the public as is any other meeting. Jim Donovan: Okay, thank you. _ Barbara Dacy: Just to further clarify Mr. Donovan's comments. Before we discuss the feasibility study, the first action before the Council is the _ subdivision preliminary plat approval. If you approve a plat as proposed you are in essence looking at a connection to Lilac Lane via Teton Lane and obviously the property owners are proposing instead of doing that, offering an alternative to make a connection to CR 17 by a second access so there is a second option proposed tonight. The first option is what the developer has proposed on the preliminary plat and the second option is what you just heard from Mr. Donovan and Mr. Simcox. Just to reiterate that subdivision approval is first and that would really dictate authorizing the feasibility study to improve Teton Lane. By approving the proposed plat, you are giving direction 35 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 to improve Teton Lane. Mayor Hamilton: To authorize a feasibiilty study not to improve it. Barbara Dacy: Right, I just wanted to clarify that. Jim Donovan: We're not being sacrificed, is that what you're saying? Barbara Dacy: No, I'm just saying that they are offering a second potential access plan. Mayor Hamilton: That needs to be considered in the feasibility study. Don Ashworth: I don't agree. In the feasibility study we will look to the other access. If that is the recommendation per the Planning Commission recommendation, they would have to look at that new access. Barbara Dacy: Then the developer would also have to indicate to use some type of phasing plan so some of the lots that could be affected by this secondary access are not affected so we're not approving final plats until the feasibility study is complete. Don Ashworth: That's fine. I don't see where it's a problem though as I would hope to have this completed within the next 6 to 8 weeks and I'm sure it will be a more difficult process but I think we faced Creekwood, Bluff Crock and a number of other challenges and I think we can face this one as well. Marc Simcox: Just to make sure that we have this correct because we heard this a couple different ways. We were told before that the feasibilty study does not decide whether or not it's done. The City Council approving a plat decides that it's going to be done. The feasibility only decides how it's going to be done. So if the Council approves the plat, it is going to be done. The Teton connection is going to be made. Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily. If we approve the plat, we are also saying that a feasibility study needs to be done to look at Teton Lane improvement and alternatives. Councilman Johnson: Tonight we're approving a preliminary plat, not the final plat. There is a considerable difference here. The preliminary plat says that this is a way we can do it. This is a way we see to do it. There is a feasibility study going on. There can be changes made between now and the final plat. Marc Simcox: We're real concerned about that. Tom Boyce: We can certainly final plat the south half of the property first and plat the upper half as an outlot. I guess that's what we had intended anyway. To final plat the southern portion of the property. 36 291 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Larry Kerber: They are proposing I think it's their main entry from my south property line, is that correct? Councilman Geving: That's correct. Larry Kerber: My concern would be the amount of traffic coming by my place.You are going to be putting in a road, I won't benefit out of that road. It will run approximately 10 to 15 feet from my property line and I would just like to see that road, their main entry road contained within, at least one lot within the perimeter. I look here at other projects in the area, I can't find too many with the main entry accesses another abutting property owner. I don't know what's going to happen with Teton but I can end up with all the traffic coming in and out of that project at my property. — Mayor Hamilton: I don't know how you can figure you can get all of it. Lake Lucy Road is going to get some. There will be another entrance someplace. — Councilman Horn: A proposed alternative as I see it would be on both sides of it. They have a main strut road B on the south and then a proposal on the north. Councilman Geving: He could get hit with both of them. Mayor Hamilton: Potential yes. It depends on what the feasibility study says. Councilman Horn: Somebody is going to lose in this thing. He's either going to have a road on both sides of him or it's going to go out to Lilac. It's not going to stop. Mayor Hamilton: We'll consider that. It's something else we need to take a look at. Larry Kerber: Yes, I would just like to see something between the road. A Lot if there is anyway they can route it just because of the special type of operation I have going on there. _ Councilman Geving: I was thinking in Larry's case, when I looked at this plan, I was kind of hoping we could curve that Road D between Lots 20 and 21 and leave a single family home abutting his land. That leaves a problem — though with Lot 1. Could the developer work that out? The reason I'm saying this is because when I looked at this plan, I understand what Larry's saying, if we could have a buffer there of one lot, Lot 21, I think that would solve — Larry's problem and get him another 100 and some feet away from that road. Dick Putnam: What our interest is quite frankly is to build the largest berm _ and put the most vegetation we can right there. If you recall in the Staff Report at the Planning Commission the recommendation was that we screen off the abutting lot which is Lot 1 from that property. The reason being that Larry has a contractor's yard and three stall garage for equipment and a parking area right there. The last thing I want to do is put a house there because when he starts equipment at 6:00 in the morning it's not a 37 • City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 particularly good thing but by the same token, the best neighbor from our perspective is quite frankly a road and large berm and plantings and rocks and that sort of thing. That will go a long ways to solving any of his concerns, which isn't for his house because his house is on the other side of all that equipment. It's the concern that the people driving by there will object to that particular use in the future so our interest is to build a screen that he won't bothered by us and likewise by him. Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure. I haven't been out to Larry's place recently but if I looked to the south from his garage, I don't believe there is a whole lot of land that you can make a berm with. Larry, when you look at the area to the south of you, doesn't that go down? Isn't that a depression? Larry Kerber: It drops off almost from my property line, is the start of the drop off and it drops off quite severely. Councilman Geving: I don't know where you're going to be the berm. Dick Putnam: The first thing we have to do is we have to fill the area where the road goes because you have to have a flat grade not like Lilac so it's going to be flat. Right now it drops off but there is going to be dirt brought in there to bring it up. In the process of bringing that up, I told Larry what we will be doing is building a very large berm. If he wants us to put part of it on his property and move the trees he has put in on his side up higher, we would be happy to do that do we'll do it on our property but I think our interest, in this case, are entirely the same. We want to build a separation that's permanent and I think that's what he wants too. Councilman Geving: Dick, could we call that area to the north of the road there, just as you come in and to the north, could we call that an outlot? Dick Putnam: Sure. Frankly it might be easier to make it part of the public right-of-way if you would like and just come right across like that. That might be a posibility or we could keep it as an outlot, whichever is easiest. Councilman Geving: What do you think? Don Ashworth: That sounds like a solution for both sides. Councilman Geving: Just so we have a separation there. I think that's what we're looking for. Dick Putnam: That's our interest 100%. Councilman Horn: Is the biggest concern going up to Lilac the assessment or is it the actual road going through? So they are both equal? Marc Simcox: I would say that the assessment is one of the biggest issues because there are so very few people to absorb that assessment. The impact on Lilac Lane, I don't know how the grading would be done and how they can improve the grade as you come up from Mill Street because it's a fairly steep grade and also continues steep to the south and also drops to the north. I 38 (T 293 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Ir- don't know how that grade will be improved. It's already now, anybody who drives up that road can tell you it's a constant wheel spinning all year round on that road and as an access, I don't know how the grading can be changed. Also at the top of the hill you have to make an immediate left turn onto Teton which is also a grade and that's a real problem in the wintertime for people to get up. I live right across the street from Teton and so far I've had two — vehicles in the last four years that have come over my wall and it's about a 8 foot drop or 7 foot drop. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, I think all those concerns will be addressed in the feasibility study. Councilman Geving: I want to ask a questin of the developer. Would you be — willing to pay for the improvement of Teton to Lilac? Tom Boyce: No I wouldn't. Councilman Geving: The answer's no. Dick Putnam: We can purchase some of the property on either side of it, sure. Tom Boyce: I guess I tried that at one point. Councilman Geving: I'm placing this question before you because you are really the major contributor to creating this problem. Tom Boyce: There are other alternatives to develop the site. This is the alternative that we felt was best and I guess Staff felt was best and was the one we presented. We did look at access to the northwest. We don't own that property and we looked at acquiring a number of other pieces in there but — quite frankly it just didn't make common sense. Dick Putnam: If you just focus in on this F business, this reflects what I — think was suggested. Connection out through the city property and I guess you do have some control over what's done here because you own the chunk of property in question which is this triangle right here. This represents a — connection through Lot 15 onto our site and we talked to the Staff about that. To be perfectly honest with you, the reason we proposed what we proposed was that the road that's there today is not going to be maintained by the guy who owns it anymore. That's just a fact of life. I don't know if Mr. Carlson is — here tonight but he quite frankly is not going to continue it and there are people asking him for dust nuisance control and all this business and it was pretty obvious to us that something was going to happen here between the — neighbors. Not us but between the neighbors. The other reason was that the Staff had indicated the City would like to see a public street connection. Not only for what happens with our project but just for the area in general and look at it from a total perspective of public street access of all the properties. Public Safety, the neighbors pointed out very eloquently that Lilac Lane and Teton are terrible in the wintertime. You can't get up. If somebody has a heart attack, you'll never get an ambulance up. They convinced — me that they ought to have another way in and out so what we did is said okay, here's a way to connect it. Quite frankly, we'll plat it and over the course 39 jbZ1 . City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 of the feasibilty study and the time it takes to resolve the issue, if alternate F is what you want us to do, we'll revise the plat here so it won't bother anybody. The dust control problem the gentlemen has ain't going to be resolved. Jim Donovan: It's not going to be there. The dust is not going to be there. Dick Putnam: The problem is going to be that people who have access to it today will continue to have access. We have not built one thing up there and the folks are having problems and they have called the City and they complain, whatever. Mayor Hamilton: Thanks very much for your comments. I think that's plenty. Franco Loris: I have lived up there for 19 years now. I've walked many times by that road from Carlson-.so all of a sudden this company is coming in and they are picking it up and they are going to improve it-but that's not true. I would have bought it from him but just the road, not those old shacks. I would be willing to do that right now but not for a public access. I would maintain it too because after all I've been up there for 19 years and I guess it's for my use as well. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's something else that should be included in the feasibility study is talk to Franco. I think a motion is in order. We have two items before us. A subdivision of 53 acres into 81 single family lots with the conditions as outlined by the Planning Commission and the Park and Rec Commission and a Wetland Alteration Permit to alter a Class B wetland. Councilman Johnson: When does the feasibility study get approved? Mayor Hamilton: That's item 13 of the conditions. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Curry Farm Subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat dated April 2, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. Lot 13, Block 2, Lot 6, Block 5 and Lot 15, Block 3 shall receive a variance to the 90 foot lot frontage requirement with all minimum house setbacks at the 90 foot lot width and all other lots shall moot the 90 foot frontage requirement. 2. The triangular lots shall be changed to reflect a more standard lot configuration. 3. Teton Lane shall be improved to an urban section and shall connect the subdivision with Lilac Lane. 4. An access permit for Road D shall be requied from Carver County. 5. A conservation easement at the 982 foot contour shall be provided around the westerly side of the pond in Block 2 and along the southerly side of the park area. 40 ( 295( _ City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 jr- 6. A conservation easement at the 992 foot contour shall be provided along the northerly side of the park area. 7. All necessary drainage and utility easements shall be provided. 8. The conditions as established by the Park and Recreation Commission — dated Apri 9, 1987. 9. The applicant shall provide acceptable drainage calculations for the -- determination that the park area will drain properly. 10. The outlots shall not be considered buildable. 11. The street names shall not contain the names Lake Lucy or Teton. 12. The conditions as established by the City Engineer in his report — dated April 17, 1987. 13. Staff shall work with the City of Shorewood to address their concerns _ on the impacts on Teton and Lilac Lane and if the street configuration is changed, the preliminary plat shall again be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 14. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing landscaping for lots abutting the contractory's yard. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners that a contractor's yard exists. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-6 with the following conditions: — 1. The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. — 2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the ponding areas throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the areas. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: What will the timeframe be, Barb or Gary, you'll be doing the feasibility study? Gary Warren: I would say 6 to 8 weeks we'll be done with this. Mayor Hamilton: Be sure to include the alternatives that we looked at and be — sure to talk to Franco so we can pursue that avenue also. 41 296. ( City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST LOCATED JUST EAST OF 1915 STOUGHTON AVENUE, GARY DUNGEY. — Acting Mayor Geving: It was passed unanimously by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the reason for it is that there is a topographical problem in the back of Mr. Dungey's property and that is the reason for the hardship in this case. \ ' FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, CURRY FARMS, PHASE I. Barbara Dacy: In the report there is noted several changes. The applicants notified staff that they conducted additional soil tests in the area and found that they needed to adjust the street alignments and building pad locations to work with those poor soil conditions and alleviate some of the water table concerns as well. I won't go through each individual change. That's fairly spelled out. Acting Mayor Geving: Why don't you go over your analysis section. Barbara Dacy: Okay, the major issues I think that are needed for clarification from the Council are regarding the 90 foot lot width at the setback line. Originally the Council did approve the subdivision as stated there in condition 1 that the 90 foot lot width could be met at a point beyond the 30 foot setback. Because of the change in the arrangement of the lots, noting that lots 2 through 5, 16 and 17 of Block 4, which is along the cul-de- sac along Arlington, are some of the ones that are going to need a setback variance. They can meet them at the -35 to 40 feet back but not at 30 foot setback. The other ones that I've noted is Lot 1, Block 2 can be adjusted with minor lot line changes. Pending Council decision on that issue, Staff is recommending approval of the final plat subject to the execution of the development contract and submission of financial securities, submission of required conservation easements and correcting the plat to show side lot line easements as five feet. So again, the major issue is the lot width. Acting Mayor Geving: Clark, would you care to comment on the issue of the 90 feet setback or any other comments that you might have? Councilman Horn: I didn't have any problem with the Staff recommendations. Councilman Boyt: I think we have basically committed to a decision that a 90 foot width at the building site is going to be acceptable. We've done that. We've allowed that variance a couple of times and I'm comfortable with it in this situation and possible we could move to change the ordinance to reflect that. The question that I have, I guess I have a couple. One is we granted and maybe this is too late, you can cut me off if it is, we granted apparently a variance that allowed lots that were less than 150 feet deep and we have two of those that are back to back and I'm concerned about that. That we approved it. They're on the last page where it has Block 4, Lots 3 and 16. They both come off of cul-de-sacs and if I read the Staff Report and map correctly, they are both lots that we gave variances to or we proposed to give variances to. [:: My understanding that one of the reasons why we have a lot depth requirement 16 ( ( L.d 9 7 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 is because one of the most difficult things to find is distance from your neighbor. It's very expensive stuff to buy and one of the things that you buy when you get that is a little quiet. When I see two lots that are both short, — backed up to each other, that tells me that there are two folks in there that didn't get their fair share of quiet and I think that should be corrected. Acting Mayor Geving: How could we correct it Bill? Is there a Staff recommendation? Barbara Dacy: The approximate distance, maybe the applicants can address that issue also, but it appears to be about 255 feet from the end of Wesley Court to the edge of the cul-de-sac on Arlington. Again, maybe the applicant should address that in relation to what they were trying to do with the poor soils — and the water table problems. Maybe they could relate some of the physical characteristics. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we could get back to that when they make their presentation. I had another question, I saw in here some comments about park fees and whatever Park and Rec decided but since we didn't get their Minutes and I didn't find any recommendation from Park and Rec I have no idea what — that is and before we give final plat approval I have to know what Park and Rec is committed to. Barbara Dacy: I did go back and check the Council meeting that this was approved at. I don't think you were here the time of this issue but we will make sure that the Planning Commission Minutes are attached. — Councilman Boyt: No, I wasn't in-attendance. Do you know what their recommendation was? Barbara Dacy: Dedication of the park site that you have included here and that the development contract is going to address the issue of park dedication fees so those issues will be coming back to the Council. — Councilman Boyt: So we are going to get another crack at the parks and the park dedication fees and the trails and the trail fees? Barbara Dacy: Their specific recommendations will be included in the development contract, yes. Councilman Boyt: If I understand it correctly then I'll get a chance to vote on that at another date. Then I have a question about Teton Lane. It seems to me that I recall the discussion of the Planning Commission there were _ several residents that had questions about Teton Lane as well and one of them was who's going to pay for it? Can you enlighten me a little bit on the Teton Lane situation? Gary Warren: Bill Engelhardt is currently preparing the feasibility study and that was the directive we had to resolve the issue was to conduct a feasibility study. He's in the process of that. He should have that — completed here shortly and that would provide us the answers as far as who ___ owns it, who should own it, who should maintain it and also whether an 17 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 alternate access to CR 17 should be provided from the northeast corner of the plat. Councilman Boyt: Then you're comfortable seeing us reach a final plat on this without those issues resolved? Gary Warren: My understanding of the phasing program that is being proposed here still allows those options to be loaned to us. Barbara Dacy: Right. That was part of the original motion that they could proceed with what is being called here as Phase I. Councilman Johnson: I have quite a few. My personal rememberance of our allowing 90 foot at the building setback, not where they build the building. The building setback in this case is 30 foot which is considered where the building setback is. There have been occasions when I guess we forestood the setback. I have a real problem with allowing, especially Lots 3 and 16 both to push their setbacks back when they're having variances in lot width plus we're pushing the houses back. Within this first phase, originally there were 52 lots, now there are 53 lots. The addition of the additional lot has been some of the problem here. This is the old one. Acting Mayor Geving: We don't have a current one is that correct? Gary Warren: Other than the foldout. Councilman Johnson: The one in our packet is the original? Barbara Dacy: I proposed that the first phase on that plat 1 could depict what the final plat is. Councilman Johnson: Within that area, as I count there are 52 lots on preliminary plat. The final plat we've got 53. Within Block 1 there used to 21, now there's 22. An additional lot will have something to do with our lot widths and having to push the houses further back and closer together here. Lastly I would like to know whether we've still been able to maintain 15,000 on each of these lots. Getting beyond that issue, I think we need the developer to talk on the soil issues. Where the bad soil is and why the bad soil forced them to create one more lot within this block. I would like to see a lot summary. I also noticed some minor technical things on these drawings. There's no north arrows or scales which is kind of good to include on the drawings. They're not signed by a registered surveyor. Whether they need to be signed by a surveyor I'm not sure. Most other plats I've soon have been. This is the only one I've seen so far that's not signed by a surveyor. Barbara Dacy: As a final plat we just request the applicant to submit blue line copies. They are required by State Law to have a certain scale. I thought they did have a 1 in 60 scale on that. Councilman Johnson: Cn page 3 they do. The rest of it they don't. 18 } 299 t City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Barbara Dacy: They are all 15,000 square feet to answer one of your questions. The other question I guess I went back also and reread through the Council Minutes and interpretted your comments to be opposite of what you just said tonight. Councilman Johnson: I think the comment I was talking specifically on the — flag lots because if you look at what we said, we said that at the building setback for those flag lots, if we go back on that, the preliminary plat, Lot 13, Block 2, etc., etc., receive a variance to the 90 foot front with all — minimum house setbacks at 90 foot lot width and all other lots shall meet the 90 foot frontage so we said specifically those flag lots don't have to meet the 90 foot. Flag lots couldn't possibly meet at the 30 foot setback so — that's ridiculous so that specific group of three flag lots that we approved, we said where the building is going to be built and the rest of them we said according to the ordinance and now with one more lot into this block, they don't fit anymore. — Barbara Dacy: All I can tell you is, in the correspondence to the applicant we notified them that our motion meant that they could locate the house pads — at a distance greater than 30 feet back. That was our interpretation from the Council action. Acting Mayor Geving: As long as it met the 90 foot width. Is that your — understanding of it Jay? Councilman Johnson: I'm just reading what we voted in for the preliminary — plat. Item 1 on the front page says exactly what she said for three lots. Lot 13, Block 2, Lot 6, Block 5 and Lot 15, Block 3 shall receive a variance to the 90 foot frontage requirements with all minimum house setbacks at 90 foot lot width and all other lots shall meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. Barbara Dacy: It's that all minimum house setbacks did in fact meet, all the lots within the subdivision. Councilman Johnson: It says all other shall meet. If you read the rest of the sentence it says that all other so specifically that's talking about three — lots as far as I'm concerned. Barbara Dacy: Those that can meet it at greater can, those that can not have to moot the setback. Acting Mayor Geving: That's really the key issue. Councilman Johnson: I personally don't believe we gave them carte blanche to play with the front lot setbacks and move them anywhere they have to. I don't know how far back Lot 3 has to be. Approximately 40 feet. — Acting Mayor Geving: They said it would 35 to 40 feet. Councilman Johnson: So it's 10 foot on that one. 16 probably doesn't even — need that much just eyeballing it. I still have a problem there. It seems to me that they created the problem by taking out the given area space that was 19 � t 300 I City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 approved for 21 lots and putting 22 lots on it. That created a width problem. We didn't have a width problem at preliminary plat. There's no reason for us to address it. Acting Mayor Geving: Do you feel Jay uncomfortable with the report from the engineer, the consulting engineer we haven't received yet, regarding the other access? Do you feel uncomfortable passing this tonight not knowing what that report might look like? Councilman Johnson: I don't believe the first phase, with the topography in the area that Teton Lane is going to terribly affect. That was purposely done that way. Barbara Dacy: Right and that was part of the original approval that they could proceed with the Phase 1. Councilman Johnson: First phase pretty much stands on it's own as far as I see. It's that whole top half that is in jeopardy with Teton Lane. We've got multiple accesses in this first phase. Things like that. Cn that issue I don't have a problem. Acting Mayor Geving: Let's hear from the developer Jay and maybe they can answer several questions that have been raised from Bill and you. Who's speaking for the developer? Councilman Johnson: Can I ask him one more question as long as he's going to answer our questions? Acting Mayor Geving: Go ahead. Councilman Johnson: Also on Lot 16 and the corner of Lot 2, there's a great big jog in Lot 2. What is the purpose of that in Block 4, Lot 2 back at the corner of 16 and 17? It's a totally unusual lot. Seven sides plus there are directions and distance on that lot between Lot 2 and Lot 3 there? That's kind of strange. The preliminary plat had it going to the corner. Lot 16 going all the way to the corner. Is that required so Lot 2 has the full 15,000? I don't have the calculations so I don't know. Kevin Clark: There's a sewer easement that goes through there also. Councilman Johnson: Why is Lot 2 has that little flag on the back end of it? Why don't we have the flat back end lot line on Lot 2? Kevin Clark: I don't have the calculations with me. Councilman Johnson: If that's what is being done I don't want that. Acting Mayor Geving: I would rather have it out of there. Councilman Johnson: If that lot is 14,900 now because of that extra 100 foot, that's playing games. I won't use the same terminology I used last week on this one. 20 ( ( I City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Ir- Kevin Clark: I can refer that to our engineer if that was a consideration in changing the layout or if it was just an oversight in the multiple drafts we took. — Councilman Johnson: The other oversight I want to point out is right on that lot line between 2 and 3. Right there you've got a jog so you should have a — distance and a bearing along there as far as your surveyors do that. Acting Mayor Geving: That's something the engineers can clear up. Could you respond to the questions and give us you name? — Kevin Clark: My name is Kevin Clark. I work with Centex Hanes. Acting Mayor Geving: Why don't you start with the extra lot that was added. Kevin Clark: The fact is, and not to point out an error on Barb's part but _ • our original phasing included that entire cul-de-sac to the north. That wasn't a straight jaunt across the top and that thus made the Phase 1 approximatley 55 or 56 total lots. I think it was 57 in original Phase 1. In essence what this alternate, or what we've modified here, we've actually lost — a lot in looking at the total picture. What we're doing is a reduced Phase 1 and losing a lot. We've actually doing less lots in Phase 1 and overall reduce the total density in the project by one. Where it was 81 lots, it now _ is 80 so really we weren't trying to cram any more lots into a smaller area. In essence, really our consideration was the soils and that's been our major concern for the last couple of months. Acting Mayor Geving: One thing that was brought up earlier, it's kind of nice to see a summary listing of all the lots. How big they are and a whole sheet. We've had that on every other plat except this one. — Barbara Dacy: Again, that's been with the preliminary plat approval. Technically the final plat, as required by State Law, you can't have any lot — square footages on there. Staff is checking those to make sure that they meet those requirements. Outside of the lots that we have noted with substandard lot width, all of them meet the 15,000 square feet. They have more than adequate depth and width to meet that 15,000. Kevin Clark: The 90 at the 30, I guess we've been of the understanding since the preliminary plat approval that there was an understanding that it could be — set at the building line had to be 90 feet and we weren't trying to extend to accommodate more lots. We would have tried to look at that impact when the design the second phase so that was not a consideration but we did take that — into consideration when we were doing our calculations and trying to make the project feasible. In allowing ourselves a lot if it was very graphical to get exactly 90 feet and we worked with Barb in trying to consistently keeping that understanding and trying to keep them to a minimum so I guess we were working under that train of thought in trying to meet the ordinance in all cases at that's liveable and in cases where we couldn't we tried to minimize that reduction as much as possible. _ 21 t City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Acting Mayor Geving: Could you respond to Mr. Boyt's question on Lots 3 and 16 please? Kevin Clark: 3 and 16 are what really came because of the soils and we did T approximately 37 testings with the backhoe out there and we also had a professional engineering firm do a total of 19 borings to determine the constitution of the soils. What we found in areas that weren't very identifiable to the eye were organic soils sometimes in excess of 30 feet or water tables very close to the surface. So in taking that into account and trying to analyse the topography of the land we then, we keep getting additional information, we got as much soil information and define the boundaries as we thought we possibly could and that necessitated these modifications in the preliminary plat. Acting Mayor Geving: Are you satisfied with that Bill? Councilman Boyt: Not without seeing a map of where your soils are. Do you have a soils map with you tonight? What you're telling me is a good portion of Lots 3 and 16 are not buildable, is that correct? Kevin Clark: 3 and 16, no. Councilman Boyt: But you told me you had an area smaller in depth. Kevin Clark: Where the street is and the area where the street was coming in off of Powers reduced our distance there between the two lots. We removed the T to make that more curvalinear. Councilman Boyt: Let me approach this from a little different angle then. Are you telling me that Arlington, which is your cul-de-sac, can not be further to the right? Further east? Kevin Clark: Not without encroaching on the 150 foot lot depth for Lot 1. Councilman Boyt: I had some difficulty in matching up your new drawing with the original first plat, preliminary plat. Would you point to me the quadrant on the first preliminary plat that we're looking at when I look at the last page in Block 4. What I'm looking for is translate for me if you would please that Block 4, tell me where that is on your preliminary plat. Acting Mayor Geving: We have to move along. Councilman Boyt: But this is important. He's telling me Dale that he doesn't have any room to move that road and what I'm looking for is Block 4 would be Block 1 in the preliminary plat. So on your piece of property then, what you own, you have nothing to adjust with is what you're telling me? That's it. You're locked into that spot. Kevin Clark: We've done numerous calculations with this layout in trying to meet the 150 setback, the 90 foot at the 30, the 15,000 minimum lot square footage and jockeying with the orientation and some instances possibly, that's Chanhassen's lot there that was abandoned with Lot 2. That was to accommodate 22 - 4 t I ( 3 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Ir- some square footage requirements. This is a pretty tight configuration here of this lot so there is very little room. Councilman Boyt: How much short are these lots? They're supposed to be 150 feet is it? Barbara Dacy: Measuring from Arlington to Wesley Court it is 255. Councilman Boyt: How deep is 3 and how deep is 16? Did they split that in the middle? Barbara Dacy: Approximately. Kevin Clark: 130 and about 127. Councilman Boyt: We lost 40 feet in there and we're 20 feet short apiece. — • There's a lot of things I like about your development but I don't like that. Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know else you could that either unless you shorten up the cul-de-sacs. Would that help? -' Kevin Clark: Shortening up the cul-de-sacs would help the lot depth but it would actually make the setback width and that was a consideration when we — were laying out the lots too. It was sort of the worse of two evils. Kevin Clark: If I shorten up the cul-de-sacs I can narrow the lots. Acting Mayor Geving: Let me ask ;you Kevin why you could not have drawn a line between Lot 2 and Lot 3 there? Straight north extending the line from Lot 3 through to Lot 2. I guess someone else made the comment about all this area —' in here. Kevin Clark: That area there and that large easement is primiarly to design- ability and realigning the storm sewer. Acting Mayor Geving: But who's going to own that proprty? Who will own that property? Kevin Clark: That will be dedicated to the City as an easement as a part of the lot. — Acting Mayor Geving: It's part of Lot 16? Kevin Clark: It will be part of Lot 16 and 17 and 2 and 3 but as a utility easement for that sanitary sewer. Councilman Johnson: I believe his question is why can't you get rid of that little flag in Lot 2. Kevin Clark: We can take care of that. I don't think will be a problem. - 23 F I -- City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Don Ashworth: The question that Jay had asked, there is a total of 81 lots. 1 We verified that 81 are exactly as they are. When they submitted their original request they did show the 58 lots as a part of Phase 1. We showed 51 lots and that's what the•Council had approved. In rem eeting with the applicant and looking at their actual construction, we agreed that they could go to 52 lots but there is no increase in the overall lots. It's just what will be constructed in Phase 1 versus Phase 2. Councilman Johnson: Which direction has Devonshire been moved? Kevin Clark: It's bccn moved south and east. It was directed south. Councilman Johnson: So it made Block 4 smaller? -- Kevin Clark: Yes. It did reduce Block 4. It is more curvalinear now with the T shape. Councilman Johnson: So Block 4 is actually reduced from the preliminary plat but had one lot increased in the number of lots in there thus leaving a problem with lot widths. To me it's a simple solution of lot widths. Councilman Boyt: I bet if you took a lot out you wouldn't have a lot depth problem either. Councilman Johnson: That may be a simple solution to the problem. Acting Mayor Geving: Which one would that be Bill? One out of Arlington? Councilman Boyt: We have to, if they did something with that clump, 15, 16, 3, 2 and they might want to juggle it around another way but they could get some depth in there I think. I'm not a planner. Acting Mayor Geving: I kind of agree with you in terms of looking at the cul- de-sac on Arlington. I think they could improve the whole plat by removing one lot from Arlington. Councilman Johnson: Or Wesley. Acting Mayor Geving: Wesley, those are pretty good size lots for the most part. Any Staff input on that? Barbara Dacy: At this point no. I guess we would have to go back and work with the applicant on that. Kevin Clark: I guess we feel that refined this area to try to make it as doable as possible by taking into account the soils and the topography and grade and off-site drainage and storm sewer so sanitary sewer could go through there. Again, I think first when we reduced it from what was a 100 lot project now down to 80 and it's not a lot but you can see that we're getting concerned with the number of lots that the project is going to incorporate so I guess we would like to work with the Council as much as possible to try to remain within this area. 24 I ( 5 _. City Council Mooting - July 6, 1987 Ir- Councilman Boyt: What can you offer to buy in distance? If we can't create distance between 3 and 16, what can we give those folks so they've got some — room? Physcological and sound room. Kevin Clark: I don't Mr. Boyt if you were at the preliminary meeting. Councilman Boyt: I wasn't. Keying Clark: I'd like to back up a little and build another amenity into -- this area that would provide the quiet or the aesthetics. In the center of Block 4 and it's not shown on the plat in the grading, there are a number of retention ponds on here that we built into the site to accommodate storm run- _ off, off-site drainage and also to improve the degregated wetlands that were on the site. So in that area and it's pretty much the whole center easement that you see there, will be an improved ponding area. A natural, let's say a man made wetland and we've gotten some guidelines from the DNR and we are going to improve this area so that you are now providing that backyard kind of a quiet area and that will overlap into 3 on the corner there, into 16 and 15 and all the other lots so I think that, rather than seeing just a fence or we -- can say we can plant trees all along back there, I think the environment that we are going to create here and the wetland environment will mitigate the reduction in the lot depths. Councilman Boyt: So you have five lots that are short and what I'm saying to you is there are two of them that really concern me because they back up to each other. For me and it doesn't take long to pass or reject this thing but — for me, if I was to vote for this I would want to see a commitment to move those so there were not two short lots backing into each other or I would like to see something by way of landscaping or another reasonable plan that you _ might come in with that would provide those people some relief from each other. There's no need to debate this into the ground, that's my position. Dick Putnam: We have the benefit of sitting there and scratching away while Kevin is trying to figure out what to do up here. A couple things that I think could happen. One on Wesley Court. I think your suggestion about pulling this thing back, I think we could do that. In other words, that gives -- more depth to Lot 16. Arlington gets a little tough. Maybe we could do that • a few feet. I hear what you're saying. Every little bit helps to get to that 150. One of our problems was that on Lot 20 and the back of Lot 19, this area _ was one of those areas where the soils were strange and I think if you know the site, how the ground goes up and down real quick. Unfortunately for us the ground underground does exactly the same thing and hence the number of holes and trenches that were dug. The ground will change from 20 feet of peat to 5 feet of peat within a matter of 12 feet on the ground which is really, nobody expected it including the soils report. That's why a lot of this was done. Lots 20 and 19, by moving this too much that way creates a problem. Shortening the cul-de-sac probably doesn't but it will reduce the setback on the street by doing that. Acting Mayor Geving: And how much are you going to give us there Dick? -` 25 t t City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 Dick Putnam: I don't know. I guess we need to look at it but I hear what you're saying there. The same thing with Arlington. One of our problems is where I'm scribbling right through here and where we got into that little notch is that there is an existing sewer and we have to tap into that at that point. That sewer line goes all the way through the property like this and that's in place so that was part of the concern about getting building pads and that sort of thing and why the lots ended up like this. In terms of moving Arlington as an example further west, or moving Devonshire Drive further west, the problem we get into is the same thing with the soils. Just off of Devonshire Drive on those lots it starts to drop off like crazy. Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, we understand what you're saying and I think at this point though we have to look at the Staff and we've asked for a few more feet Barbara. We're looking at final approval on this tonight. We don't know whether this lot is going to be 133 or 134, whatever the final lot 3 and 16 are going to look like but could we still approve it and put it back on the Consent Agenda so we can see it again and know what those lots eventually come out to if we do go that route. Councilman Boyt: Would we approve this part of it on the consent agenda? Acting Mayor Geving: Block 4. Councilman Boyt: Block 4, the bigger lots which I don't think anybody has brought up any problems with. Acting Mayor Geving: We haven't had any problem except Block 4. Councilman Boyt: Could you bring Block 4 back to us? Councilman Johnson: Has the developer agreed that in Barbara's comments that we can get the property lot width on Block 1, Lot 6 and 14. You will be rearranging those to get 90 foot widths? -- Dick Putnam: They're at the building site. Acting Mayor Geving: The issue that we have to resolve is the setback. Could you tell us exactly what the Staff recommendation is? It's confusing in looking at the two different ways that it's written here on Page 1. Barbara Dacy: Okay, Staff in developing this report we had thought that Council action was to approve lots so they would have 90 feet at the location of the building site and not necessary at the setback. They were cul-de-sac lots and the 150 foot lot depth variances and then there were all other lots. Acting Mayor Geving: That's the way I understood it. Does anyone disagree with that? That's exactly the way I understood our motion. That the 90 foot would be at the building pad. Okay, so let's resolve that for now and hopefully at some time in the future we'll even amend the ordinance to make that official. That will be a staff directive. Does anyone have any problem with approving this for final except for the last page of this which is Block 4? Okay, then let's go to the motion. I think we're all comfortable 26 City Council Meeting - July 6, 1987 jr- with the recommendations that have been provided and move on. Councilman Johnson: Does the developer have a problem? Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not worried about the developer. Let's worry about the Council. Can we make a motion on the recommendations provided to us by - Staff with the agreement that we just made on the lot widths. Does anyone want to make that motion? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the final plat for Curry Farms, Phase 1 stamped "Received June 16, 1987" subject to the following conditions: 1. Execution of a development contract and submission of financial securities. 2. Execution of the required conservation easements. 3. Identification on the plat to show that side lot line easements are five feet width. All voted in favor and motion carried. Acting Mayor Geving: The directive to the Staff is that we review, have Staff go back and take a look at the setback and bring it back to us and also bring back Block 4 on a potential Consent Agenda. We don't need to Goo it — again other than on the Consent Agenda. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 105 ACRES INTO 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF TH 101 AND CR 14, DON HALLA. Acting Mayor Geving: Let me say one thing to the Council and to the Staff — before we move into this area. Tonight we are discussing a lot of subdivisions. They are really crucial for what happens in these subdivisions are going to be the way the City looks for years to come. I'm most concerned about a very important issue and that is where our trails are going to be connecting all of these subdivisions and I want Staff to specifically understand my direction to you is in every subdivision make this provision for the trail connection. I know this goes to the Park and Rec people but insist upon giving us a recommendation so that these will eventually all link and look like some kind of a system. Not just jagged and irregular pieces. Okay, do we all understand that? That's really a crucial point to me. Moving on — then, let's go onto item 5, Mr. Halla's subdivision. Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located south of CR 14 and on the east and west _ side of TH 101. It's split into two parts. It's single family. They all have at least 2 1/2 acres and 90 feet of street frontage on the lots. The Planning Commission approved the subdivision. The first time it went in front of them it was tabled because of the street issue where they had private — drives rather than public streets for each lot. They then came in with this new proposal with a public street going to the center of the eastern half of 27 ► e cHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 1987 --1r- Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Coucnilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt and Lori Sietsema APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the addition by Mayor Hamilton of discussing the National League of Cities Conference and the Minnesote League of Cities Conference. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendatiosn: „:7,-;.141 a. Final Plat Approval, Curry Farms, Phase I. c. Resolution #87-68: Acceptance of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition Improvements, Project 85-13. e. Approval of Accounts dated July 20, 1987. W. f. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval, Burdick 2nd Addition, B.C. Burdick. g. City Council Minutes dated July 29, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes dated July 8, 1987 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated June 25, 1987 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 16, 1987 _ Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 30, 1987 J'7- h. Approval of Saddlebrook Development Contract. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS, PEGGY GILLIGAN. Peggy Gilligan from the United Way was present at the meeting asking that the City Council pass a proclamation to support the United Way for the community campaign that will be conducted in Chanhassen. Resolution #87-69: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to recognize the United Way's community campaign during the week of August 12th in the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and motion carried. 1 �1 i...t „ I r3bn� - r3, • 74g313Zic - ., ' '' z D ' :Mit? / . -I3 ' --.: rn i‘Rl T p me — _P ,w W 0:7 i I I , • ...074.. ,. ,, , go- / 1 q, f l ) - g 6ti / _ w !. 1 I �Id �x �-r 1 g • G►"� '0 ( \ .• 01 . 4 o----z--;--- ,i w '1 c'' �a — �b I.,1 , 1 � ,,, , .. ` ij ��•A?d C) l -i it> I t 17-1 ., , Co. 471 CU • Van DorEr Hazards Stallings May 3 , 1988 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg. II,Suite 104 Minneapolis.MN 55447-2175 612/553-1950 Ms . Barbara Dacy , City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317 Dear Ms . Dacy : As per your request , I have reviewed the landscaping plan for the entrance of Curry Farms at the intersection of County Road 17 and Devonshire Drive . In addition to providing an attractive entrance to the development , it is my understanding that the proposed landscaping is also intended to serve as a screen separating the adjacent contractors yard from the residential development . As of the date of this letter , the two Marshall ' s Ash , the lilacs and dogwoods have been planted . My review and comments on the landscaping plan are consistent with the premise that the purpose of the landscaping is to substantially screen the contractors yard from the view of incoming and outgoing vehicular traffic from Curry Farms . Plantings at the entrance area can effectively screen most of the contractors yard , however , they can not necessarily screen either views from new residential structures nor views of Curry Farms from the house to the North . In general , the plants that have been identified on the plan are appropriate for screening applications . The Norway Pine will provide an opaque barrier and the dogwood , lilac and amur maple will provide seasonal interest and color . Norway Pines are — susceptible to injury from road salts . Substitution of Black Hills Spruce for the Norway Pines would alleviate the possibility of damage from the spray of road salt from County Road 17 . After reviewing the site , I question the effectiveness of the screening due to the placement of the conifers . The plan shows Norway Pine on the east and west sides of the Marshall ' s Ash with deciduous shrubs in between . As a vehicle exits Curry Farms on Devonshire Drive , the primary view of the contractors yard is through the area between the two ash trees . In this area , the plan calls for dogwood , amur maple and lilac shrubs . The plan does not identify botanical names so it is impossible to — ascertain the eventual height of the screening in this area . Depending on the variety selected , the lilacs could eventually provide a very effective screen , however , it would not be present during the winter months . In order to provide an effective screen during both the winter and summer months , it may be more appropriate to place additional Norway Pines between the two ash . The deciduous shrubs could be moved and / or planted in the — foreground of the four Norway Pines at the entrance and in the foreground of the additional Norway Pines planted between the two ash . Due to the narrow width of the planting area , it is difficult to provide total screening of the contractors yard area . If the plan is modified as outlined above , I feel that the plantings — will provide an effective visual barrier between the contractors yard and Devonshire Drive . If you have any further questions on this matter , please contact me . Very truly yours , VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS , INC . By : h R . Mark Koegler Landscape Architect Vice President RMK/ sd Enc . — �1 • - . 11.0.--co— t 1Cc , a rib --.___ 111 , ...t , L TJ4"I , rri 2 -.7 t . f _ Or q IV '' ./ . t,i W to ..Lea � c W • 44. g j' • i /I" ...\ teff: 41: _ -7 Y r I i,`.- ` / N.)--Z—t> C'� 1� 1 I 1�'� ' /444 .cv . 0c}t=4 rli d , Ili l '-it ►-. -, . b 4= r • • � .r ,b 4 %. -,...._ — ~y.�oA.. 3 ,t, \,I' / tV�,l , ` i ? ZcDn y gym = • �� Is� 3� cy-!0--..Cr-N. . ..:4. 1 ' --: 7- ='7:Eli g . . ::::4,..*:',. mc $„,/ Z '' ' •_ / ...) 1 .. g I ''A'q./4// — of 3 1 1 • 2 . .,. � „, ./ .. w ,'i% 1 01 -. • . VII' ' •-N. V-.'". ' $ E..... „,...---., • • t it . / ` 3 - r. •,s, Ilis:*_ ..• x‘11 . g 4, ., . r .iii. 46 ii 1,1‘ _ 1• P . .„. ,.....* Tt. fie he4 ./ r...,,,..._ _ PI ( ; b . : A - ' C 1" IC.31 , �.1 . �� i a.\ %b' 4-? �Ifs. o 1 G O - ll a Ffuj 11 • b ll l i ` — • -' ice, — (Th(,,a C))_ 1 , •/,.y . ' it 171 0) l'"-).e • L., 1.4 1- ti , ., Cr) CentagnieS Baker lectrcdogy Ram 5959 Baker�,Sumo 300 a. .55345 May 2, 1988 Mr. & Mrs. Kerber 6420 Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Recap of 4-27-88 meeting Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kerber: At our meeting of 4-27-88, we verbally agreed to the following items: 1) Centex will fill an area on your property with earth. The final grades will be elevated from two to five feet higher _ along your west property line. Centex will push the topsoil back and respread the topsoil after the earth fill is placed. Final grades will be field fitted to flow water west to a ditch that will flow north to the natural drainage way that flows to Christmas lake in accordance with the attached grading plan. 2) The Kerber's will remove approximately 300 lineal feet of fence and posts, and ten trees prior to the earth fill operation and any other materials you wish to replant or reconstruct. All at no charge to Centex. Thus the Kerber's and Centex's position is that the Curry Farms development water drainage onto the Kerber's property is no longer a disputed issue, and the Kerber's give up any and all claims against Centex in regards to the Curry Farms development. Centex also agrees to complete the work not finished at the culvert under Devonshire Drive and the Kerber's southeast property corner in the right of way. 3) The Kerber's will reseed their property. 4) Kerber's will grant an easement to the City to maintain the culvert. J MAY 0 4. 1988 CITY. OF CHANNASSEN Baker Technology Plaza,5959 Baker Road,Suite 300, Minnetonka, Minnesota/(612)936-7833 5) All of the above is subject to all government authority approval. Please feel free to consult with your legal council before signing this letter of intent. Yours truly, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION Minnesota Division John Spiess — Production Manager cc Gary Warren Barb Dacy Tom Boyce — John Spiess Date Larry Kerber Date — Kathy Kerber Date • f ILL ==r — ;f : j , -t• c 0 _74ecli..11-1--,;--i 's ' <-. c 5,). . 1 c c.1 ^ r rr,c,i' • ... la '1 I.- r i/ '0. CO O t� C3 C : trt t \ 4 . 1'.4 -.t - • \I ‘i ‘ i 1.11 . i . O S` f 1)441, .• 1 ;:P.''' .1'C'-"•—*L.? / 0'f-• 4• _ • --/ , 4c- xr� ; _ O. � ®� • —A .I{ M1 —�_ � 14 i _ ,', i 2165 . a �� _ tii 1 -- /....r...._____------( •, ---'' rlii.- ri --". ------ c,-,2 s GA O • 3 - • _ \ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES FEBRUARY 22 , 1988 — MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Tom Hamilton MEMBERS ABSENT: Dale Geving — STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF A DOCK WITH FOUR SLIPS FOR OVERNIGHT STORAGE AND TWO CANOE RACKS, STRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION Dacy presented the staff report to the Board. She stated that based on the City Attorney' s opinion, there was no hardship proven to grant the variance. It was suggested that the City — amend the ordinance rather than granting a variance request. Bob Pierce, the applicant, submitted a letter from Dave Headla in — support of the variance request. Pierce stated that the ability to have a beachlot would increase the value of the four lots abutting Minnewashta Parkway. He stated that if the beachlot and variance were not granted then the lots and homes could lose — value up to $100 ,000 . Allen Willcutt from Schoell and Madson reviewed the proposed — recreational beachlot plan. He stated that trees would be removed. He stated that the storm sewer pipe has been moved so that tree removal can be avoided. He stated that the size of the beach area has also been limited to preserve the natural area to the south. Bob Pierce also stated that the area where the docks are to be — located was in excess of 100 feet. He also stated that the plan was designed to create as much of a buffer as possible to adjacent property owners . The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive, stated that she had no — objection to the docking, however, she did object to the beachlot in general because of the existing activity on Lake Minnewashta. She stated that the city should stick by its current ordinance. — Ray Roettger, 3221 Dartmouth Drive, stated that people who own property adjacent to the lake take care of the property better _ than those who do not. He stated that his own experience has been bad living next to a recreational beachlot. He stated that usage has increased and the beachlot is becoming overloaded. Chuck Lawson, current owner of the subject property, stated that there has been a dock on the property for a number of years. He stated that the Leach property was very busy many years ago and — he can see no agrument against having a dock on Lake Minnewashta. BOA Minutes February 22 , 1988 Page 2 Motion by Johnson, seconded by Watson, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Hamilton stated that each case should be decided on its indivi- dual facts and merits . He stated that the city should encourage canoe racks as it would promote non-motorized activity. He stated that he did not have difficulty with installation of the dock. He also stated that a homeowners association should be created to properly maintain it. He stated that the proposed beachlot request would help clean up the dead trees in the area. He stated that the beachlot can not be seen from the road as one travels by. He stated that the lake is there for all people. Hamilton questioned the City Attorney' s opinion regarding the property being split by Minnewashta Parkway. He stated that the parcel should be considered as one lot. He suggested to the Board that they consider a motion to allow the canoe racks and one dock, but allow overnight storage for thboat slips only. Johnson stated that he did have a problem with the lot depth issue and that the city should stick by the ordinance regarding the number of slips. Watson also questioned the City Attorney' s opinion on the separate parcel issue. Dacy stated that the current ordinance states that if a lot is split by a road right-of-way, the abutting land on either side of it should be deemed as a separate parcel . She reviewed the City Attorney' s opinion explaining that if it is to be considered as one parcel it would be difficult to measure setbacks , lot covera- ges and other building requirements. Mary Jo Moore stated that the city would not receive property taxes from beachlots . Hamilton stated that he did not believe that this was true. Hamilton moved to grant the variance to allow the installation of a dock to permit three slips for overnight storage of boats, installation of two canoe racks according to the plan stamped "Received February 18 , 1988" . The motion was seconded by Johnson . Watson stated that she felt the ordinance should be clarified first rather than considering a variance request. Johnson and Watson voted against the motion, and Hamilton voted for the motion. The motion failed. BOA Minutes February 22 , 1988 Page 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Watson moved, seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes of October 5 , 1987 . Watson and Johnson voted in favor . Hamilton abstained. Hamilton moved, seconded by Watson, to adjourn the meeting at 7 : 30 p.m. CITY OF CHANHASSEN - � G 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 tirtic� ,: MEMORANDUM ✓ TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: May 4 , 1988 SUBJ: Fireworks Display Permit � - � Attached is Bill Naegele' s annual request for a Fourth of July Fireworks Display Permit. As in past years , I am anticipating that there will be no problems and I am recommending approval with the followng conditions: 1 . The City of Chanhassen shall be held harmless in the granting of the permit. 2 . Prior to the date of display, the City receives copies of an insurance policy naming the City as a co-insured. 3 . Inspection of the site by the Fire Inspector with his approval and/or recommendations . 4 . Any other special requests of a reasonable nature from Waconia Ambulance or Chanhassen Fire Department. I am also requesting that one ( 1 ) Fire Department pumper and two ( 2 ) or three ( 3 ) men be on stand-by at the park during the event and that a Waconia ALS unit be in the City. cc: Dale Gregory, Fire Chief Steve Madden, Fire Inspector Mike Liddicoat, Carver County Park Director Greg Weinand, Waconia Ambulance L CITYOF ,N , � CHANHASSEN _ ,,,,,,,,..� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-19W MEMORANDUM — TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator r cjeA2 DATE: March 31, 1988 SUBJ: Fireworks Display Permit Request — Attached please find a letter from the Lake Minnewashta Fireworks _ Committee . This group makes an annual request for a permit to buy fireworks for display on the Fourth of July. The group has hired Americana Fireworks Display Company to provide setup, ignite, and clean up the fireworks . Americana will also provide — the necessary insurance. It is the recommendation of this office to approve the permit _ request as proposed. Lake Minnewashta Fireworks Committee 3301 Shore Drive Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 March 28, 1988 Honorable Mayor Thomas Hamilton Imo & Members of the City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mayor Hamilton & City Council Members: Please consider this letter as our official request to host a fireworks display at dusk on Monday, July 4, 1988; or if it is raining, Tuesday, July 5th. We will be shooting the display from our residence beach at 3301 Shore Drive. Once again, the fireworks are being funded with contributions from the residents around the lake. I have enclosed blank copies of the permit for your use. We will forward an updated Certificate of Insurance from Americana Fireworks to you as soon as we receive it. We look forward ..to hearing from you, INN WASH A FIREWORKS COMMITTEE 4/(/// Bill Naegele 474-2501 or 38-3000 WON:jmw CC: Mr. Don Ashworth. City Manager MAR 2 9 1988 �IlY OF CHANhASSEN PERMIT TO BUY FIREWORKS FOR DISPLAY OR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES • COUNTY• TATE 19— — • This prrmtt ti isswd to to shoot and display firsworha on the day of • 19---. a t a'clock P.M ai _ in said County, Americans Fireworks Display Co. 450 3rd St. 'Rai of Office of Issuing cQr EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 $y (612)474.4116 iBnature o cer ssusn8 snnit 41 / , r_ 46 04/21/88 City of Chanhassen Page 1 PAYROLL CHECK. REGISTER APRIL 22, 1988 • ICheck Emp Check j • Number Nbr Employee Name Amount 002544 1201 ASHWORTH, DONALD 1 , 186 . 25 • 002545 1202 ENGELHARDT, KAREN J 695 . 54 002546 1203 DUMMER, NIKKI 288 . 30 002547 1206 SCHULLER, NORMA L 285 . 92 • 002548 1207 MEUWISSEN, KIM T. 453 . 90 002549 1301 MEUWISSEN, MARY JEAN 562 . 92 - 002550 1303 CHAFFEE, THOMAS L. 858 . 84 . 002551 1304 DUNSMORE, CAROL M. 459 . 55 002552 1701 HALL, EUGENE H. 162 . 74 ._ 002553 2110 CHAFFEE , JAMES A. 1 , 063 . 00 • 002554 2502 JULKOWSKI , RONALD F . 857 . 51 002555 2504 KIRCHMAN , STEVE A . 696 . 96 002556 2510 HARR, SCOTT 905 . 92 002557 2602 MADDEN, STEPHEN J. 702 . 53 40 002558 3101 WARREN , GARY 1 , 119 . 48 002559 3103 KLEIN, DONALD J. 79 . 33 r • 002560 3104 BROWN, LAWRENCE A 726 . 17 002561 3201 SCHLENK, GERALD W 614 . 71 002562 3202 BREHM, CURTIS 606 . 69 • 002563 3203 GOETZE, DUANE E . 636 . 36 002564 3205 WEGLER, MICHAEL 766 . 64 002565 3207 THEIS, JAMES M . 728 . 25 i • 002566 3208 SAUTER, STEPHEN M. 510 . 00 1 002567 3701 BROSE, HAROLD 606 . 14 002568 3801 GREGORY, DALE J . 559 . 87 002569 3802 SCHMIEG, DEAN F. 624. 93 002570 4201 SIETSEMA, LORRAINE 686 . 02 002571 4202 HOFFMAN, TODD 572 . 94 4P 002572 5201 DACY, BARBARA JOAN 766 . 63 - 002573 5202 OLSEN, JOANN 669 . 82 002574 5203 CHURCHILL , VICTORIA E . 553 . 44 41 002575 5204 GERHARDT , TODD R . 634 . 70 002576 7201 BOUCHER, GERALD 844 . 25 `- 002577 7202 KERBER, ARTHUR M . 664 . 73 . 002578 7203 ZIERMANN, CURTIS 561 . 84 002579 7205 EILER , CHARLES A 685 . 28 **** Grand Totals **** 40 23 , 398 . 10 rip r 1 • r a 4P H r l 05/04/88 City of Chanhassen Page 1 PAYROLL CI-IECK R E G I STER MAY 6, 1988 I Check Emp Check r 41Number Nbr Employee Name Amount F 002582 1101 HAMILTON, THOMAS L. 299 . 00 r 002583 1102 HORN, CLARK 199. 00 002584 1103 GEVING, DALE 199 . 00 r ' 002585 1104 BOYT , WILLIAM S . 196 . 10 41 002586 1105 JOHNSON , JAY E. 196 . 10 002587 1201 ASHWORTH, DONALD 1 , 185 . 05 Fs 002588 1202 ENGELHARDT, KAREN J 695 . 54 002589 1203 DUMMER, NIKKI 315 . 40 002590 1206 SCHULLER, NORMA L 285 . 92 002591 1207 MEUWISSEN, KIM T. 453 . 90 Fs 002592 1301 MEUWISSEN, MARY JEAN 562 . 92 002593 1303 CHAFFEE , THOMAS L . 858 . 84 002594 1304 DUNSMORE, CAROL M. 459 . 55 Ft 002595 1701 HALL, EUGENE H . 143 . 21 002596 2110 CHAFFEE, JAMES A. 1 , 063 . 00 002597 2502 JULKOWSKI , RONALD F. 857 . 51 r F . 002598 2504 KIRCHMAN, STEVE A . 714. 01 { 002599 2505 BARKE, CARL E. 319 . 34 002600 2510 HARR, SCOTT 905 . 92 - 5 002601 2602 MADDEN, STEPHEN J . 702 . 53 002602 3101 WARREN, GARY 1 , 119 . 48 002603 3103 KLEIN, DONALD J. 155 . 76 40 002604 3104 BROWN, LAWRENCE A 726 . 17 002605 3201 SCHLENK, GERALD W 614 . 71 002606 3202 BREHM, CURTIS 604 . 34 41 002607 3203 GOETZE, DUANE E . 636 . 36 '"' 002608 3205 WEGLER, MICHAEL 765 . 79 002609 3207 THEIS , JAMES M. 643 . 55 41 002610 3208 SAUTER , STEPHEN M. 487 . 90 002611 3701 BROSE, HAROLD 606 . 14 002612 3801 GREGORY, DALE J. 541 . 41 11 002613 3802 SCHMIEG, DEAN F. 624 . 08 002614 3890 ERNST, JENNER F. 236 . 37 002615 4201 SIETSEMA, LORRAINE 686 . 02 r 002616 4202 HOFFMAN, TODD 572 . 09 002617 5201 DACY, BARBARA JOAN 766 . 63 - 002618 5202 OLSEN, JOANN 669 . 82 40 002619 5203 CHURCHILL , VICTORIA E. 553 . 44 002620 5204 GERHARDT, TODD R. 634 . 70 _ 002621 7201 BOUCHER, GERALD 948 . 54 • 002622 7202 KERBER , ARTHUR M. 688 . 01 002623 7203 ZIERMANN , CURTIS 580 . 38 002624 7205 EILER, CHARLES A 685 . 28 - **** Grand Total3 : *** -11 25 , 158 . 81 V t i C C C C C ( ( ( r e C i ( ( ( ( .' F" ,- ( C) H O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O C) -3 W CJ W Ca C) CA C.) W W W CJ W W C.) W C.) CJ Ca Co) C.) CJ CO x -C — r r r r r .-- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 01 C) Ca C-) Ca CJ C.) C.) Ca W W CJ C.) C.) N N N N N N N N N C] O ✓ r r O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 CO CD CO CD CO CO CO CD CO 2 2 N r 0 CD CO -1 co co . CJ N r 0 CO J co co .P CA) N r O it C) s 9 z 9 x 9 r 3 CO CO C.) r C.) r co Co - - - 0 01 co r r r N N (Cl N CD r C>1 co C) 0) CJ co co co r 'Z .A N N N CO o CO W CO N r 0 r N .✓a r CO r 0 r .P N C r. o o O O co CO CD CO 0 (Cl C11 0 CO N co N C) O O C.) (Cl r Z O 0 CT C.71 CD r 0) CT CT O O O O As i- co co O O Na r1 O O O O O 0) W CD CO O O O O O N co O r O O �1 co co -3 9 — m H C:-, C C) X Co 'd C 0) C) 0) 4 3 Z 3 3 H -0 0 '11 3 C] C] C 0 '-i 9 0 9 H C • 07 C) 9 9 m 0 m Z • 0 z C .-4 X C 3 r Co -C 9 MI Co m > C Z C 71 H 0 Co 0 -C Z r C] 9 C m H z H r - 9 z '< 9 0 H 05 C) • H E cn Z 01 0 3 m m t, C) H CO Z m x 0 -3 CO 3 z 1-4 m 9 0 0 c] x 0 9 C) • 1 0 Z z z E > • 9 C CO m 9 2 co m C 3 X z 9 a m X -3 0 Co Cl' 0 H C c. 77 m m H 0 9 m • m 0 0 m Cr) 9 m • H I-' 9 H — • X n7 0 m Z Z 3 co ')1 0:1 C) x) H Cn m R7 Z 9 3 Z 9 m 0 0 0 x ro C H r m Cq co m H H 2 m co 'V 77 m 01 9 Cl' 01 0 Z m 01 m 77 3 9 H 1-4 C -C 2 0 0 '=1 r 01 '-1 'S Z m 1-+ x C m H C 's1 -< • 1-•i H 3 m 0 > Z m -3 Z cn 77 m '17 En 9 CZ 0 Co En 9 C 2 0 m C] m H Cl' m z C c r 9 .-3 — 01 x En 0 Co H r '-3 2 0 -3 r 1t1 Z 3C Co r= 0 2 z x ' r 9 C) • Co 0•C7 r 0 "C7 1•-+ EEn '00 9 0m 9 2 Cr) 77 • Z 0 0 C 9 9 99m S 0 0 93 9 90 9 9 — z CZz Z 0 O Z3 Z z z Z Cal C C C C C C C C C I 1 I I I I I I I r '11 H H -3 ro 01 Co 0mm 0'11 C C 3 H m C) H CnC0 77Cn .3 'v 0r 0C) C)r 'V m 77 Z 77 O C 001• 0• m m 9 77 m 0 m C 70 O OP-1 01-1 O1-4 m m > 9 D En 0177 ZC'-i Zm 's1 C) 'C 9 m Z r 9m 0107 9 Cl) Zm zH Zm C C < < < --3 H H• • H• m m 0 < CO H m H < H .3 01 H-C -3 01 - m m m 9 ')1 9 71 C) 71 77 2 2 0) m - 77 C) 0')1 n1 9 h7 > 7x 77 7J W O r. C' r 0 7< 1--1 1-1• 1--1• 77 77 r H 2 74 r O I-1 1--1 1-1 x I-4 1-1 CT Co m C WZ9 C)9 m m + Co tC1 0 roc C m CZ t0r.1 07Z 'V I m + + + ea • 0• • • C C + m • Z 9 '•C7 + - Cr) • 9 • co o O 29 - 0 - C] C) - m '<Z Z9 - - r - 0 co < H -3 H '< 3'd C) 0 C) 0 H < 9 '< H C -3 0 >4 2 70 71 C9 70m9 29 0 0 c 01 F-1 N CC C9 77 rpm .-12 1-4 01 Co co 0 9 9 9 C m .< m'< 3 3 Z 9 C] Z r tb 9 Z C z Z C co — m '-1 r1 ).-1 r H H 9 H 9 '1C7 C) C] I-1 m Co m C'' r En Co 1-4 Cf) m Z z z m I-.9CO 1-1C 01 m H z m z • ro . z • C 1-I H H 01>C r 01 r Z z r H F-1 9 co 9 111 Z Z Z m 01 m m Cn Cn Z Z -< -< 9 c] 0 0 - 01 9 -93 H 01 0) 01 r< 1-. IH r r 9 0 0 m m — C) Z Z r m r C Co H Cr)-3 Cr).3 'Z1 0 -d H r'(D K m K CD K W < K K — G 8 0' 5 C1 8 m K CD m N 9 r•< r•< r•< 7r K 'C7 < 7 0 CD D CD 0 CD C) Po CD r•De r Cu r 0' r Re 0- K r -J K K K m CD 04 a a 9 01 a CD on 0 a F-1 < < < C) CD cD < a CD Cl' c1 • 01 a 'C C] C] C) to 0 C] CD CD CD CD K Co CD C) - - - 0 v CD - C+ C) C e r• C C C r• r•C — 0 r- r• r• G r O r• O CO 01 01 K CL N to CO 0 Al CU CD r• K 0' CO CO 0) 'J 01 C.) cf c+ cf (W C+ . CD CD CD CD N K K '1 'O K CT CD — I C C h0 K .P K K K 5 \ CD CD CD r• ro b ro \ a CO Co CO '1 K K CO CD CD CD — Cl. A. 0. O a) 0 CD CD cD CO CO CO CO CO CO • 0 e L L L L L • • t L L. L L L' • 0 L L L 0 i--I O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O 0 0 0 0 0 a C.) CO W 4) CA Co CO W CO W W CO W CP CA W W CZ CO CO CJ CO 03 0) x 'C — r '•' r r I-, I-, r I•+ r r Ir r I� I, r r r I� F. I� I- I- - I-, m ' CO CO CO 0) W W CO W CO 0) W CO CA 0) 0) CO CO 0) 0) W 03 W W CO C) 0 CO Ca CO CO CJ CJ CO N N N N N N N N N N I•• '+ r N 1� F-' 1-+ 77 h 3 0) CO .P 0) N '+ O CD CO -.7 CO CT .P CO N r 0 CD CO -4 0) co .A co xt C) 2 a 9 2 a r Co r o) co N O co O '-' 3 U1 - - 0 m r co .P N CO 03 0) N N r CO CO 03 CD CT W N '+ N .P N 2 I-+ 0) 0) -) N CD CD N -7 --7 O O .P CO -7 N W O .A N Co co co C — O .P CI .P .A O -) 01 N O 0 03 CA .P CO .P O Co N CO -4 CT .P N z O O N -7 01 01 CD 0 0 O 0 N N 0 CT -7 0' 01 co O co O O Co O O 0) 7 0) O -) O .A O O O -3 CO VI CO 0) .P CT O N O O -7 -3 a — ro 3 3 Z 3 C Co C) 2 0 'd 'd 2 Co Co 'i 9 3 3 < a C) 9 CA 0 C) 2 I-I '-I 0 0 • H z a 2 9 C) 0 m 0 1-+ '-3 Z • a 0 x r 01 -3 z o z z 05 • co 9 m Co a 9 2 01 a z z 9 E r 0 -3 2 Z '3 '3 a r +-+ 2 m -3 01 2 m kb < a > .0 CO - o m VI C) 0 0 .3 '-I 0 1-1 X 2 Co m -3 9 3 0 r 1-1 3 a 0 CO 0 0 I C) C) '0 m - IH 1-3 r • 'A a Z .4 1-1r 0 a VI 3 td Z 74 71 2 2 a Co r - m -3 z I-+ C 'a -3 co Co 3 • a m m C m Z 77 m m I1 m z a '0 2 0 Z 9 C) -3 z co 3 X E Co 0 2 C) 2 'C '-I 1 m C 3 2 >e 0 V1 0 a 74 -3 '0 < 0 co Co m c 'i z x 2 00 m C 7, 2 t 1 r m 0 -3 t3 9 2 0 m C) 9 Z r x 9 •3 C) 2 2 0 r 0 01 a 9 a 0 t i 2 r • N O 1-4 C) 0 • R1 I1 .4 Co z •3 c) m -3 3 01 a 05 Co 9 z Co 2 t0 to 2 m C m N z 'c 9 0 71 -3 C C C VI c 0 0 m 0 '1 Cl) C) -3 a a x I-+ a -3 — . z r C.) 0 x Cl) m go 'a -3 '•I 2 -3 '0 a r 2 3 9 9 '0 - 11 0 C) 0 F-I t0 • 2 0)Co X 0 1-4 C'' Z Io C] 0 a a c m • Z m co 0 0 -e '0 Co 2 2 C] 'C '0 03 Co • • .4 co 9 0 99V1 C) 9 9 0 z • a a — C) 22z 0 Z z 0 C) 2 Z 03 as a a a a I I I I I I r u) C C -3 3 a 0'V"1 a 0'0 MI Cl) 0 Co C Cl) 0 r -3 a Co co 'a -3 'o a 0 2 ro C Z -3 m I1 m 0 m• m 0• C 2 C '3 C 0 9 m '3 C C m 21 07 E 0 C=) m 'd m I--1 r Z 2 2 a I1 'n 2 0 m '0 mi'0 I1 '1:1 Z z r I1 '0'0 C1 9 11 9 2 m a 2 3 r ('I 2 m -3• • m -3• '0 I1'0 r 'd -3 a m r 2 2 Co < Z 2 -3 Co ▪ • r ro .-I 2 z 01 0 0 2 21 '2 r C)r I-I r 01 I Ill I-+ r r - m -3 a 07- x 0 N r .3 2 M 2 M M• 2 F-I• '•I m 11 '-3 H H '11 0 -3 H H t•' H m a 01 • m 0 '-I O 2 m C0 2 9 m 151 9 C m m I--I m 05 C 0 '-I V)01 Co Z a C)Cr) '0 I Co -C m z C] a • 0• C Co m C!) 01 Co • 2 z m Co Co m + G) '3 m O - 3 Co m 0 - 0 - 2 - k)- Cl) - - C) CI Co - - 05 C) Co 01 0 co m 3 C) 3'0 C) '0 C 01 C -3 9 0 C 1 O 2 m 0 01059 0 29 a 0 .4 O m I1 9 mC I1 2 z 2 .0.4 Co Co 2 '•3 3 m 'a 3 m'4 '1n 'G'V 3) 2 Co m 0 9 a to 9 C) Co — 'L) -3 '0 -3 H 9 '0 3 9 1"+7 3'=1 C Co m C a~ m I I H 'C m m I-I C) 9 m I--I 9 b7 m I-1 W I-I m I--I M • r.N 2 '0 9 r r 0 0 x z 0x z Mi 0 20 .0 + 20 I-I c 0 CO 2 • m 3 Co m m N MI m .3 VI 3 3r z 00 0 r a 2 '0 a • '0 a • m 11 m m 0 r 2 VI 0 a '3 a '3 Z 3 2 Co I1 '-3 m '•C I-I 'C I I -3 '0 -3 co 005 9 0 9 0 2 9. CO 2 Co 2 l m 0 Co N ' x m 4o 0 0 • Cl) m � m — • 0 0 CD B B 01 a 0 0 CY ct 0 I IS/ '0 • 0. Cb 0 ID O Ib 4:1 C C r I• Dc' h+ n a c+ c+ a m m c+ 0 hn a 'C CD CD 0 r 0 µ a 'i 'S 0 'i I-1) E 01 Cl -3 CD m r• 0 0 m C — µ C 0 CI) - 0. 0 'i 'S I••• C B c+ 0 CD D• 1-, a' D Ifi '0 a 0 R' O. µ 0 c+ 'S c+ I•'• 1r- a 0 CD CD R. '< a Coa C m C I-I C .11 a 1—' m Cl. 0' B C. CD r 3 0 H. R. a 0 0 s-' C 0 I••' a H• W a I•'' CD C c+ µ C+ m B r- .... CD X' a a y CD I-I c+ B c+ O m H. c+ co c+ CD Co • • e l L L L L • • t L L L L L' • • L L L l i f f ( ( e e .' a �� E' f' t' c' E C t:. c� a I-1 o O o O O o 0 a H Cl) CO W CA CA CO C.) Z Hr — P. P. P. P. P. P. H t=) co co co co C.) C) W a 0 -4 .o. .o. . co W co 7.3 h7 co r0 P. 0 co CO -4 cli * 0 C) Z.. 9 Z a Z a (V 3 cn N P. O Co C+) - 0 tr1 .P -) CO N co Y+ z co co CT -) P. CT C.) C — -) CO O 3-, CV CT 0 W ,... Z (r 0 0 -4 o to o co • o o CT O o O C7) H CO .P a — C.. of a z ro c a 0 0 zEzn H9z D. r 0 zozC, mdn z t a o 01 Z Cl 03 H W Sd Co 0 C.. n a 0 P. i-e H c a ro • 0 P.1 71 H m M z x W • 0 0 )-C Z ▪ 1-4 H r d Cl) 0 r a H 01 3 01 H I 70 'l 0 Z CO It 'A 01 03 < 3 a H tn1 t=1 Z 70 H 03 )'q z to 0 z d 01 C Z a H "A 01 C H 0 < Z MI H H a to • z a a — CA 0 z W : Co 1 C") H Ys1 h) C C LV CJ) H H )'d 0 t`1 tt 1 x Z nn cro a a 03 c 01 Cl) Cl) H H H < C 0 n a t.1 01 z o r r r DC r r cn 9 Co Co 01 01 c "d 1 Co tr) 01 Cn Co ro + + 0 H C C CD Z--4 --3 H O H H C 9 Z1 7i Co Co o n 0 CO a a CO — C R) In) r H 1--1 MI Z tl] Z Z a H H ''d P. z z a r a a a 01 3 01 — dd H H CA Z a r A) CO < CD 0 — C r Co (D 04 Q. a CD CO K H• DA cr M• (A r+) Co c+ 0 C H I 'C II 0q Da Co co s a - ?( 0 CD c+ H - 0 0 P. a — 0 c+ 0 et ro rr• • n 0 a (D C) C 0 fi 0 M- 0' ro co Y. CA C Z 01 0 (D P. a P. C r Cl CD lb' p. CA CCC H• )t1 H 0 n 0 .41. r 01 P. 0 c+ Cl 0 CO P. R0 0CC H) — I (D CD (D n a +1 \ .-3 B 0 CD N K H. 0 Cl CO Sb c+ HI () \ Cl CD CD co @ hs _• CO 1.41 CD m 0 n o CD • • e L L L L L • • c L �. L L L • • L L L L f i t _ d ( C) ,y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C a 0) W W CO W W W C.) W W W W W W W W W W W W W CO CO W W C •< O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 m N N N N N N N N N N CO N N N N N N r r r r r r r r 0 0 r r r r r r r O O O O O 0 0 O O O CO CD CD CD CO CD CD CD PC •11 (7) CT .P Co N r C CD CO 1 O CT .p W N r O co co -) 0) U .. C,) N • iL C1 C 9 Z 9 x 9 r 3 Cl) N co r J Cl) - - - O m co N r N r c71 r r 03 W r r r CT r --) r N r Z .P CO CT O r -) 0 W ,p r 0) .P CO CO .P CO G) N O r CO O N CO C O O r O 0) CT .P O CO ..-4 CT r) 0 0 O CO 0) CT CO 0) CO CO CO CD Z O 0 .P 0 W N 0 0 W 0 - C7) -1 CO N 0 r C 0 r CO CO 0) .0. W O O O O O N O O CT O O O N CT CO O 0 O O CO O CO O O CO .-3 9 t7 17 0 c, 0 C 0 C] 0 0 0 C 0 td Ed 3 to C C tEl 9 C7 m 9 9 0 0 0 > ro > 0 C C C C C 9 9 a C 9 70 m pa a 0 9 3 r r r .-3 3 3 Ro 9 9 > 9 9 C) z Cn O 77 9 z E X •3 z ro m 1-El r 0 r m m 3 Cn Z Z z z < < r Z •'3 C '-3 - 0 9 r C C ✓ C to C Z C) C C x m m Z Z z m .R. r -4 9 9 0 m 0 0 z 9 9 9 a 9 z C m --+ C 0 r C a ro 0 • 77 C 9 r Z En Cl) En En Cl) Z C) m 9 Z m 9 < r C m ro • 0 Pt En Cn En Cr) C 0 Cl) 0 m z m C) Z > Z 1-1 r m 0 9 H > m C=) m m -3 0 I C 0 Z • '-3 Cl) 9 C7 3 z z Z C o.--a C C z z Z z G) a m h) 3 t••i C C C Z ro m Cl) > o r > ••3 • z Cn m z )-. 9 E a a 0 9 ••3 C 0 a 0 0 z En < En ro m •3 cn 77 m z r 0 m W C) 0 r ro Z En m m O r Ro -C m 77 m m 77 77 r Ro Z En 9 • 0 m ro Cl) -3 0 Cr) C z r 7d m En •3 Co N Z z C 9 0 m m W -3 m 9 •3 -3 Cn .-. 7J C C 0 C 9 •-3 _ ' 0 C C C a] m ' Z r z r Pia z C ro m a •-3 < 1-4 H a 0 m > 0 z ro E C .- 9 r z 9 m - 9 r 0 r Ro C) r 9 •-I -3 -3 0 > C ro to Cl) •< En 0 Z 0 1-' m 7] .-I .-3 I•-I C - C 9 •C 0 m 0 •< 9 z C 0 En 9 CD z 1-+ r C m r CO m 9 Z 9 • m z 9 9 0 9z a d d d• Cd I I 1 I r • .4 3 Cc) ro C 9 0 C Cn IV C-3 C) m En 0 m 0 m En 13 0 Cl) 3.3 cn Cn Cd Ed ro z 9 C m m S •-3 m C C m 77 C m a r m C m a m C a r 77 r C 0 0 m En .-I ro m ro 9 x m C .4 m 9 IV m ro m m ••3 m It m'3 ro r 9 0 Cy 0 0 a • Z ro C • z1 m En ro z En< • Cl) ro 9 Cn Cn En ro Cn En ro m< z En C C .- ' - -3 r - C a3 - r -3 - m - r C - r - r - rC r 9 m cn C En Cl) C o • m r R. m r r r R. I-I r 0 N 0 -i 0 r C CT 0 Z m En C7 m Cl) m Z Cl) Cl) m Z cn m Cl) m u)M m m 9 N+ + MI C.) > Cl) m 3 0 m Cl) 0 m+ 3 m En 0 m m Cl) m Cl) + z ro o Z z - 'C 9 0 C C - 77 > a7 - C m 77 - C m - 37 '-3 ro ro 0 CO ' r 0 < r O r < 9 <.-3 r < + < Z < <Z .3 • m m 1 m 0 r z z ro 1--1 0 z r mz r 0 .-1 0 1-i 0 r 0 < MI En x 7C CO 03 r ) 0 H En 3 0 C C7 0 9 H C7 ) X 0 r 0 C 0 r m 9 r + r 1-1 Co .-I 3 C) m • ••3 m m C) m r • m "17 9 m Z m '13 m Z C r C) 0 0 m 9 9 r - Z r ro z - r Cr) m r m r z 'Z 3Cy CI ' C H C C7 .3 0 C 1-1 C1 ••3 m 0 m C7 r 9 m H r ro • r m m 77 0 m CO Z m m (=I 77 m 77 r Z r 3 C] C7 D. C 71 9 Z r G) 0 r r (.1 CI Cl) M 9 9 00 I1 H a -3 r C 77 Z Z En m r r m .3 9 .-. m En I-•1 m 0 0 77 En En . Cl) CA 0 I-I-I 3 0 •.) C .T. •3 Z m < m m ri En 0 z 9 m m C a ••3 r Cl) En Cl) bd ro C] .A 9 ) C 77 0 3 C7 o O r -s 0 I Cl • ro(D r• Cu r 0 < . D1 r• 0 '•3 r• a 77 On c+ 'C CD 6 (D 0 0 CO 0 3 r• 'G W 'CS K x.• c+ tD 0 Al 0 O --3 0 G Cl' (D r Z r 0 x •S r• c+ CD a P3 7J C) CD D) D, Iv DI CO CD C) w (D r r CC G7 r r CA On rt CI. — `+ << •° 0 CD 4 9 ro c ro K G lb C+ K \ r• C7 0 0 O r C•. 0 c+ CD C) () r On L. Cl 01 Cl- CD ' 1- n CD D C) K co 1 C) Co O m 9 3)' b XC Cl 0 Co 0. 0 0 •s Cl < 0 K CO (D r DG• r C) K co Cl. w c+ - on K .- c+ co 9 r• ai C7 C K CD 04 r• 'n I--, C+ • • e L L L L L • • t L L L L L • • L L L l. f f C a H O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O a -3 CA Cl) Cl) C.) W W CO W CO Cl) W W Cd Cd W CO C.) W C.) W W C.) Co Co "C r 0 O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O Co Ni Ni Ni Ni N Ni Ni Ni Ni Ni N Ni Ni N N Ni Ni Ni Ni Ni Ni CO Ni a 0 CO CJ C.) CJ C.) CJ C.) CJ C.) CJ Ni Ni Ni CO N) Ni N N Ni Ni r r r Co 'i1 CO CO -) 0) CT .A C.) Ni r O CO CO - O CT .D. C.) N) r O CD CD --1 IX a Co 9 Z 9 Co 9 N Ni 3 Cl) �1 .0. r C.) C - - - O Co r CD CD r N r .0. --I N r CT -1 r r ,A Ni r CO Z .P a) 0) CD CJ .A CT CD O �1 CT O CT 4, Ni �1 -1 C.) Ni Ni 0) r CA C . , CT CJ 0 Cr) CT N) O CT O C.) J> A O CT CJ -1 O 14:. CO r CO r r Co O Ni 0 O O CD Cn O O O -4 O O O -4 r O J O CO J 0) 0) O CT O O O CD O CT O O CT O O 0 -4 O O CA O Cr, CT O CO H 9 3 3 3 3 3 r r Co R1 H H H H !-4 H CD O 0 0) 0 's1 'x1 C.1 a C) a 9 Z Co Co 9 0 -3 w Z Co Co 9 x1 m Co • H Co r a Co • C 'n Co 7a '�) 9 Co C -3 Cr) Co C 9 z Co -3 Z Co c r C) o H C) Co 0 m CC 9 Co• 3 Co m m - Cn Co H 3 Z 0 'i1 I--I C Cl) C-+ C) Co 01 C' -3 a 0 Z Co C C] -3 Z 9 0 Co Co Co - -3 Cr) Co C Co 9 r • H 0 Z r > 9 • Co Cn 'C 9 -C 2 i) a Cn 0 '+1 2 Cn r r '-3 H Cl) H C I 2 -3 - Co C 9 r m 0 • 9 r a Cr) • Co r -3 H 0 Co Cn a 0 r O Si CC CC.1 'a.1 3 Z 21 CO 0r 'Cl Co a C - C > Co 9 0 'r) r -3 C C+7 > a 0 3 Co Co r Co H Z -3 9 Cn C '=1 m 0 -3 C) -3 9 -3 Z C 's1 -3 '+7 m C+1 H '0 Co H -3 C 9 H a 0 - 7C Si r Z -3 Z Si 0 H Z a -3 'Cl Z Co Cn r 9 m -3 H H Co m 0 Z 0 Co Co Co > -3 Cn C '0 9 Cl) Co - a Z Z Cn '=1 Z H H Co 21 C -3 0 CD Co CCa -3 Si cn Cn '0 C) -3 0 '0 'd O 0 0 Co - H - 'r] Cr) - Co Cn r ' Cn Co Co Co Co C) H Co 0 a r 9 Ro Z a 0 21 C Co 0 -C 9 H Z Co • C • -C Cn H Co m - a H Cn Z a Co H --3 Z 9 O a • 'G 9 Z 9 Cn a a - Z a Co Co Co Co I I r o Cl) hn '1 Co "1 Cn Cr) Co '+1 0 '-1 Co Cn C Co Cn a 0 Cn 0 Cn a Co Cn 'v C C m m C m C C C Co -3 m 0 CZ Co C C1 '-3 C -3 C m CO. C Co -3 '0 Co Cr] CO Co hi'v '0 Cr) Co Co 0 Co H Z '•0 Co 2'd x '0 CO H 'L1 C Cn 'Ci Cn Cn Cn Cn a s a N Cr) Cn Co Cn a -3 'CI C m'0 m '0 H Z '-Cl H r - - a - r r r - Co - Cr: C) 0 9 r - m r Co r -3 r Co 0 Co H Co H H H 'CD Co r H H H I-I Co ri CT Cr) Co Cn Cl) H Cn m m m Cl) Co Cn + H 3 - Co Cn m m Cr) Si Z Co Co 'v I Cn Co Co '-0 Co Cn Cn Cn Co 12) Cr] 'd Cn Cn m .O Cn 0 Cn -3 9 Cn O m - Co 21 .3 2 - - - 2 C Co '0 -3 m - x C- C - m z - 0 CD Z Ci < - C C H C. Co • + OD C. H H Co a I 0) m H H H m< Cr] H '•d H Co C C H hi O 'CIC m Co Cr] Cn Co H a) a a + a .Co .(1) a 3 a H + 0 H Co a 3") 3 m En 0 co Co C m m Cr] a C m Co Co O r 'd Co m ma1 m Co -3 C C Co Co H Co +-I H H Z Co 3 0 3 H Z H Z ''' > H Co '-Cl Co 'Tl a hi -3 H m -3 Co a -3 a -3 a -3 'd '•d Co Co 3 3r 3 a 3 x Z r Co r Si Co 9 H Co CD m m Co 9 CO H -3 Co Co 01 m a Z Z Cr] Z Cn Co r m Z Cn co H Z Co C) -3 21 H -3 Cr: Co 0) 9 -3 Cn Cn r — M a a Cl) Co H ri Co 'd a CT Cn Cn Cn Cn CO a r Cl) r r E'0 O Cu 'i 0) E co co co (v I-A 10 Cu V 0 CCr'i C+ 0 H. (D 0 A J r C+ (Y m CA r 'ti co Cl CD m a ii r R° r 'd 'S ID • W 2. r 0 IJ- 00 9 Cu 0 Z r•• r Co 0 Cl. a r 'C1 a CD () CD - 0 a CD 0" Co OCI 0 '1 a (D 0 0 co r- 0 - "1 CC C3 0 'i 'i CO 'i C+ a C+ a '0 a r• (n C+ 'd 'i r CD a- 0 r co 0 r (D C C+ 22 a 'i r 'i D0 r- co. co co co o R. r-C RI O re.p.. 0) r- r- r• 0 -3 '( O Cl . (IQ c+ +-' a — CD • 0' r a 0 O 'i O r a 0 01 co C+ 0 'i • • e L L L L L • • t L L L L L' • • 1 L s,... r f <" _ ;" _ i� a tj 1 ;m. a 1-1 O o O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H Co W co co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Co Co Co CO CO W CO CO 5 K, — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO VI N Ni N N N N N Na N Ni N N N N Ni Ni N N N CO N N N (-4 0 D) Cr) 0) CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT a, .A .P .P .P .A .P Ja .P .> ,7C '17 N f+ o CO co -4 CA LT .P co Ni F+ O CO co --1 O) Cr, .P CO Ni r• O it a C a , z — 9 5 9 ' 3 Cl) I-, N 1-• C-• r• Cl) - - - - 0 Cif CT Co 0 r C) r+ 1-+ f.. ,p r N O O) Ni LT .P Z Q) -4 O (V CO 0 .P. 0 Cam) CO i-' r CO .P 0 CD Co CO CO N CT CD Cr) C h•• rP Co CT --4 CT r O CO cT CT .p Cr) CT CONi -4 VI CO CT -) v o �' z , O Co O CO 1 0 Na 0 C-• CO N .P Ni ? N O 0 0 CD 0 CD .� .P o CT O Ni co O CT O O) O O O -) O) 0 J 0 h-• .P 0 CD 0) 0 H 9 — < C C H H (7 to Cl) to co Co 7) 77 77 ro ro ro ro 3 3 3 3 3 n n R1 Z • 77 -4 9 '< X C H Z 0 0 CO 7) 0 n 9 H Z C-1 C.1 h7 7) ra Co C C17 < a Cr) r a a a ^< a £ co z • t7 7) = r a z Cs7 • ri) 1-4 0 t) r =I co a a z C i m C) n z E r r a o a a 3 r 4-4 0 0 7) C x 0 • a Cam) - 1-1 a 0 O 7) Z < 0 C < H C1 77 77 r 1-1 ro C' + 0 Co Z z 3 CM > 3 H Z > 77 C C Cs) C Cs) C) 7) 71 < Z -3 C-, C 3 CA CA r 3 Cr7 C7 Z '-1 77 Z Co Co C) C=) ,--1 X Co Co — a H C C '-I CA CA CD z n o a co to a a a 3 z , H C t.1 z a Co C a Cs] C x '=7 po co 77 H -< Co a: x Z Z ro i-•i 5 IT) Cl) z z C C+7 C) ,) C=1 0 o ro a a a H H r a CO 0 E C) 71 - r Cl) Co 70 CI) 5 73 77 ' Ci) 1•1 C) C 9 C=) 77 ro C7 m m • '-1 F-1 a C7 C7 C CA , Z 3 C-1 1--1 H Ci7 < C M ,-i .3 k) - > C r x z > 1-1 z r H 1.1 C7 z z C Cs7 .-3 9 9 H Z H G) C 0 R. n r n 0 ro Cti M 0 C 7) ro n Ci) r-1 z MI M C ro Z H R. n C') Cr) C) C z - Z Co Co IH a r 0 a a a 5 z a Co C a a: 1-1 H I-1 4-1 -3 o a a ro > > < n Z C=1 Z Z `••+ O n1 • Z Z -3 0 77 n a z cm 7C 7C a C • a aH > 9999aa — z-< z zzzzzz to a (I ) tzi r "i7 C ')1 "7 27 3 Cl) z 5 ' It "l) co 0 ro Cl) 0 to 3 C co 3 Co 3 Co to Co 7)3 Co Co ro on z 71 71 Cs) a C CM 71 7) 73 71 C ,-•3 77 C ) C 0 Z C 9 3 a 1-,3 C 71 a C C rn C) 4-+ CM m ro /--1 ,13 ro ro H 11 m ro C C-1 ro ) ro H H ro c-C a 4-1 0 a ro ro 1-1 ro ro C Cl) CL7 co CA • z ,v • • z z Co ro 73 z ro H C 0 )ro z r Z Z r ro• Z ro ro O - H r H ►3 - r 77 H r n r C O r H C',-3 Corr ,-3 r r 7:1 0 — C Re ts) H + + H H H 1-1 1-4 R) N „))1-1 C) 71 M 1.)H 1-1 CT Co 3 CA CA z CA z Z CA 73 CM Z VI 71 '7 3 Cs] z -3 Z 9 H C) Z 73 C) ro I tit Cr) C) ri1 3 9 Cl) 3 3 0 0 tO Cl) k) 0 CA ts) Co C Co to a 0 a z o Co 3 a Co Co co • 7) oo 7) 9 Z - 9 > 7:1 - C - kJ - R7 - z o z C7 o- a z- - O CO , < + < < 1-1 n I-1 H a > < 1-4 a C r + a r a r r)a i 1-1 1-1 1--1 z Cs7 O z z z z 1-4 < ro z < 1-1 m Cl) ro C)1 co cm co tot 7 z t)7<0 to co a n n n H ,=7 C3 ,•3 C7 C7 n GO 3 C7 C+7 ro k) n 5 1-1 k)+3 C=1'11 Co ' C) r GO Cf) • 3 C+7 MI 5 GO 5 3 C + rO 3 + 3 0+ C• 3CCi7 71 O - 9 '-1 - - ro ro H Z 73 H C) r1 0 0 9 > Z H- 9 1-4 1-4 H H n C C n '3 C n z ro r H73 '3 71H 971ro Hnn ro 3 C) CA CM C C Cb C1:1 r el r H 3 C 59 C) R)tO r.C3tOGOrGO a 1-1 k) 7J H C3 r r C r C+7 tom) C ,-1 3 77 C 77 Co C C=)k1 77 77 a C) C H N H 1-1 Fi Cl) H Cr) 7. 73 'Z N N H 1-I Z C I••1 Co Ci7 a 1-1 > r r co Co Co H 1-1 0 9 ro a ro,-3 I-•1 9 ro r '-1 -4 C 5 5 a r • r • ror — 3 co '3 -3 1+ ,-I 1-1 9 co Co 3 co GO C< -< Z Z C Z GO Z C) 0 0 H z C)) • H CA H < 77 CA 7J a 77 r H r C) a 5 a O CD a CD CD (D 0 O 0) Qt 51 0 'i — r• 'Cl 0 'o CO ro 'i A" m a 0 0. Go Z A+ .1 1-' '< O CD < C. D) r• r• 0 (D a• -3 01 D) a- a �` a'm Ka(0 Co Co CC a a ca.Co CD a x' 0 0 a `I OO Co a- D CD ro R. 1.-.+ O 0 — • m CO 1fi 0) 01 0 < O , n Ci MI CO (D 0) ro '1 Co < (D v- r CD (DCO0 0F5 )' CD (0 m m 0 a x ca., CD R. Z < CD CM ) 0 0 07 CD '< O Ci C7 ,_ Co 1--, cc-o Da c+ ro 0 r N E E tD r• CD C O 1-' 'i 1-S O) a < '1 a c+ c+ (D a P. Co H < CD R° r- c+ 1•-' 1--1 a r D) — ro CD w rn0 Cl' Co Fr c+DO O < '< CD a (D 1-,Co (D CD - a co CD D) H c+ Co CD Cl a x• co • • e L L L L 4. • • t L L L L L • • L L. L L It Y� `ai ,ice a. . c .- 4 l i . r ...• ( a r O 0 0 0 0 0 o a -3 CO CO CO CO Co CoCOx •C .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [+7 O N CO N N CO N N a O .3 CA 0) 0) CO co 0) CA 7V ni 9 CD Co 0) CT .A co C. -) 13. C] CO 0 O 9 '.1 z — 9 x 9 '--' 3 CA co r r CA '-. o - 0 C.] co CO N ,t> CA z a - N C7i CA CD r 0 CO C — 0 C.) CO ,r,. CO Cr CD Co N Cs] r Z a r CO 0 4 O C7i co C7' 7C • r O O O 0 Co CD .-3 CA .P CO .3 9 0 .� 3 N N N Z E E a a a 9 (Ti 9 9 r R7 9 9 C-, 'Cl MI a r cn ••3 x C. a a 3 O CA CA O Cam" 2 9 0 til 0 a 2 ro a r C — co Cl)CA a C7 a � 0 MI 3 z N Z 0 C m CA C Z 9 .3 2 En mi - a CD r = .-3 Z CA -I a X 00 Z CA a VI • a a ro w Z 0) 0 -7 7a 9 CA .c r • z 9 a 9 — z 12 d i r u) Cl) cn Cl) ro 3 0 .3 '0 C Cri ro ro C 12 r r 0) a C C .33 =r '-Cl C'' •3 0 MI o r r r H r C.3 C CT t=1 VI CA 0 0 a 0 + ro o Cl) Cl)CCl) - - - - Z Z 0 CD I < < m 0 z C0 .3H 2 Cl) co . 0 x C 'xi t7 3 a r Cam) CA � ✓ r r r '10 9 0 Z a a -o a C .3 cn r it (Ti VI � Co 0 cn 0 0 CA CA Z r r C:3 '-3 CA > x r �' r co Z a v • • e L L L L L • • t L L L L L, • • L �. _ � 1ry_ INVOICE 47333 MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHOENIX _ H - _ +. s-.s 45-1-1:.. aIESV--,.. . _ , - -. . - 'RAC._ City of Chanhassen DATE: December 31, 1987 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 7-8711 i ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, P.E. _ A City Engineer Page 2 of 2 kizas .10/ 1 Salary Cost x 2.0 = { $ 1,636.56 x 2.0 = $ 3,273.12 Total Due Hourly Services = $ 3,273.12 . I — l TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 7,872.55 Billed to date = $ 7,872.55 ,�, I 1 i j WO) , _ - I (!!!::,, .v.)1.1 . Tt y' AA, a .6 241 h"\1\57 . f0411) 001'4‘' per°` 4,,, :7,///e0e . 4./// "1 -3 f i 3 : `a _ BENNETT, RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 UMW I i : i), .:i 1 INVOICE A � _JL .) . 43200 MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHOENIX le .d6=51,111•SraMISMIMAS;..-,vmsTANOZCIMMUMMINIBIIIIIII City of Chanhassen DATE: February 29, 1988 690 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 JOB NO: 62-8730 Chanhassen, MN 55317 j ...'• ATTN: Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager Invoice Period: Through February 29, 1988 Re: Chanhassen CBD Signage Study Signage Study initiated by Mr. Don Ashworth to review and make recommendations ,1 J for standards and designs for CBD Business Signs. Services Provided: I 1. Prepare revised signage concept site plan i 2. Preparation of drawings for presentation to Planning Commission Billing is consistent with agreement for Hourly Services (STD Downtown Contract) ..I dated May 8, 1986. Classification Hours 0n ,/ .—' Professional II 6.0 A)3V Professional I 7.0 Technician I 2.0 ' 15.0 • Salary Cost x 2.0 $ 252.71 x 2.0 = $ 505.42 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES: BRW Graphic Reproduction Department 6.30 I i j —.l 33 1 t TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 511.72 i 1 4 .100) BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 ... f rS�` ' eireCi raj L 1. ; _);: . t: - I , , INVOICE �: t iruini...j0LIS• MINNEAPOUS • DENVER • PHOENix w - .....,. •w•'"'"--_...•<,,,...S r'Z a IAM6= Aiu'0IF iARh§'�1 11R f A'_ 3F-7, City of Chanhassen DATE: February 29, 1988 '=`� *-- . 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 7-8709, 62-8726 _ i ATTN: Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager RE: North Side Public Lot Final Design For Professional Services rendered on Final Design during January and February 1988 for the Public Lot on the North Side of West 78th Street. Billing is hourly and in accordance with the rates established in our May 8, 1986, agreement. ' CLASSIFICATION HOURS I Sr. Professional 2.0 Professional II 17.0 Technician I 1.0 20.0 Salary Cost x 2.0 $ 369.84 x 2.0 = $ 739.68 1— Expenses: None 0.00 I a TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 739.68 a a 1 I O P CI' (...,,.., .." MAR 2 3 1988 ,.,1 i Y OF CHANE:Ao:-i�1y BENNETT RINGROSE. WOLSFELO. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 d1f \i ,.,r eu..t..uti.. CHEiriv J MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHOENIX City of Chanhassen DATE: February 29, 1988 ...! 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 62-8711 ATTN: Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager l -.L Invoice Period: February 29, 1988 I RE: Downtown Redevelopment Project Additional Services provided to the City of Chanhassen HRA through the direction —1 of Mr. Fred Hoisington, Ms. Barb Dacy, or Mr. Don Ashworth are as follows: 1. Preparation of three concept alternatives for Bernie Hanson's Lawn and va7-y3c. Sports on West 79th Street. 2. Revising approved concept to meet setback, utility, and lot coverage Y 4 7- H?0 requirements under City Zoning Ordinances. 3. Completed Design Development Phase for the north side parking lot for pre- sentation to Property Owner, as requested by Mr. Fred Hoisington. Billing is consistent with agreement for Hourly Services (STD Downtown Contract) _ dated May 8, 1986. Classification Hours Associate 1.0 Professional II 68.0 • Sr. Technician 4.5 Technician II 2.0 Technician I 1.7 j 77.2 Salary Cost x 2.0 %/ $1,377.71 x 2.0 = yC 7 - 4.,.30o $ 2,755.42 J Reimbursable Expenses: Reproduction " r`! 14.38 "•" a TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 2,769.80 1 .0) BENNETT, RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370.0700 • 6- r _ fr /i r ~^ `3, s:: `e INVOICE 1 h1.1..) .k,14. . i'l 4 3 1 9 5 MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHOENIX _i City of Chanhassen DATE: February 29, 1988 690 Coulter Drive 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 62-8803, 87-8803 ATTN: Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager i 10) NN r�rls® INVOICE PERIOD: February 29, 1988 RE: Additional Architectural Services 1 Additional services provided to the City of Chanhassen HRA through the direction `I of Mr. Don Ashworth: 1. Provide three concept alternatives for Rear Facades for the Pauly's Ponies, Prismas Buildings as directed by Mr. Don Ashworth in a letter dated January 1 22, 1988. `' ' 2. Provide a colored perspective sketch of Heritage Park as directed by Mr. Don Ashworth in a letter dated January 26, 1988. 3. Provide Architectural Services to Bernie Hanson including Programming of — Building Functions, Schematic Building Design, and concept elevations. Rear Facade Study Class Hours Professional I 28.0 i Salary Cost x 2.0 6/C-'-9 492.12 x 2.0 = $ 984.24 Heritage Park Perspective Class Hours A Professional I 26.0 U ? _ Salary Cost x 2.0 �' $456.86 x 2.0 = 6/c?-5,20., 913.72 3 I Bernie Hanson Architecture (467-4300) ,1 1 Class Hours Professional I 53.3 . - Salary Cost x 2.0 $956.55 x 2.0 = MAR 2 2 1988 yG 7 - V3" 1,913.10 EXPENSES: Postage ,,I I Y OF CHANHASSEN 10.75 1 e TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 3,821.81 • BENNETT. RINGROSE, WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612'370-0700 • ` l r - .11 DI ` `� INVOICE r. uL� MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER PHOENIX m. City of Chanhassen DATE: February 29, 1988 d 690 Coulter Drive • Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 7-8707 ATTN: Mr. Don Ashworth - i City Manager 101, 10) RE: Electrical Service Conversions Downtown Area For Professional Services rendered in conjunction with the final design and ana- lysis of the secondary electrical services. Services include design services as necessary for issuance as bidding documents. Billing is consistent with our written agreement dated May 1, 1986. Partial Payment #4 (Hourly) Period Through February 29, 1988 _ Employee Classification Hours Sr. Professional 3.0 Sr. Technician 5.5 8.5 Salary Cost x 2.0 $ 195.78 x 2.0 = $ 391.56 Expenses: None this Month 0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 391.56 —' Total Billed To Date: $ 3,472.54 l,-S�� 3 .3i BENNETT RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612,370-0700 r 1 j: ; i,-.gyry7 INVOICE MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER - PHOENIX m. 11* of '.5=4: _ - _ ... - _. _. - ,- City of Chanhassen DATE: February 29, 1988 690 Coulter Drive ` PO Box 147 JOB NO: 62-8731 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ATTN: Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager 40) Invoice Period: Through February 29, 1988 — I Re: Chanhassen City Hall Landscape Design I Project initiated by Mr. Don Ashworth to prepare a new landscape design for the — . Chanhassen City Hall which portrays design concepts utilized throughout the 1 Downtown Redevelopment Project. -I i _ Services Provided: 1. Continuing work on initial design concepts for Chanhassen City Hall landscaping and circulation 2. Coordinate work with EOS Architects on base map information, parking lots, . and proposed City Hall Expansion I Billing is consistent with agreement for Hourly Services (STD Downtown Contract) dated May 8, 1986. Classification Hours Professional II 8.0 ` Salary Cost x 2.0 7 i $ 143.30 x 2.0 = 6 l a - Y2 g o $ 286.60 A, �, 1 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 286.60 — I 1 9 j ..I i _ 1 i si A BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SOUARE - 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.II,Suite 104 Minneapolis,MN 55447-2175 612/553-1950 Van Doren Job No. 88-302 Hazard Stallings.Inc To City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE March 23, 1988 THIS INVOICE IS DUE AND PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT Re: South Lotus Lake Addition - UNITS RATE Final Assessment Roll Period 02/01/88 through 02/29/88 Principal Planner 1.0 65.00 $ 65.00 Senior Engineering Technician 4.0 44.50 $ 178.00 _ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE $ 243.00 O VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS. INC. _ 1 By ' � ia,, MAR 2 i988 Max J. Daubenberger, Vice President CITY OF ChANF,ASSEN �� :I,� v INVOICE �` ifl 0 4 3 3 9 4 MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHOENIX :Y!yio.�- 'S'' •...,.::, .. > _ .. __., :.,....->. .,tip - IN City of Chanhassen DATE: March 31, 1988 — 690 Coulter Drive s Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 62-8711 ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE y City Engineer .01 Invoice Period: March 31, 19880— 43d9 z. . 1 RE: Downtown Redevelopment Project Additional Services provided to the City of Chanhassen HRA through the direction 4 of Mr. Fred Hoisington, Ms. Barb Dacy, or Mr. Don Ashworth are as follows: 1. Preparation of final concept for Bernie Hanson' s Lawn and Sports on West -. 79th Street. 2. Revising approved concept to meet setback, utility, and lot coverage • _ requirements under City Zoning Ordinances. 3. Preparation of site plan submittal package for planning commission review which includes site plan, grading plan, landscape plan, building elevations and floor plans. Billing is consistent with agreement for Hourly Services (STD Downtown Contract) 1 dated May 8, 1986. Classification Hours Professional II 50.0 Professional I 0.5 APR 2 1 1988 Sr. Technician 7.0 -- Technician I 4.2 CITY OF CHANhASSEN • 3-Person Field Party 13.5 75.2 Salary Cost x 2.0 ,.i $1,267.96 x 2.0 = $ 2,535.92 ▪ i Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 158.64 ' - l TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 2,694.56 BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSEELD. JARVIS, GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 lob INVOICE 'LLEIALY. 4 3395 MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHOENIX City of Chanhassen DATE: March 31, 1988 — : 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: (62-8803), ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE 87-8803 City Engineer I INVOICE PERIOD: March 31, 1988 RE: Additional Architectural Services i Additional services provided to the City of Chanhassen HRA through the direction of Mr. Don Ashworth: 1. Provide Architectural Services to Bernie Hanson including Programming of Building Functions, Schematic Building Design, and concept elevations. Bernie Hanson Architecture (467-4300) • Class Hours = Professional I 41.0 • Salary Cost x 2.0 — $759.25 x 2.0 = 1,518.50 A TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 1,518.50 i ItW 9 _ — ;J APR 21 1988 CITY OF CHAN'r:r1 6LIN BENNETT, RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS, GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 6121370-0700 ii=� '' 1 INVOICE MINNEAPOLIS DENVER • PHOENIX City of Chanhassen DATE: March 31, 1988 ‘,) 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 7-8706, 62-8721 ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE City Engineer hoOj • RE: Downtown Redevelopment Project Construction Services For professional services rendered during March 1988 in conjunction with the — Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project in accordance with our contract dated May 8, 1986. _ 3 Hourly costs listed below are for construction management/field surveying/ inspection services for the Downtown Project. Classification Hours Principal 2.0 Sr. Professional 36.0 • Professional II 17.5 Sr. Technician 86.0 Technician II 21.0 Technician I 11.5 3-Person Field Party 6.0 180.0 Salary Cost x 2.0 ▪ $ 3,677.80 x 2.0 = $ 7,355.60 Expenses: Braun Engineering $2,730.80 Mileage 51.30 Telephone and Telegraph 119.37 2,901.47 -- A TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 10,257.07 Total Billed To Date: $220,361.89 (978 APR 21 1988 CITY OF CHANhASSEN BENNETT. RINGROSE WOLSPELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612 370-0700 139Y ` 483 ? MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHOENIX City of Chanhassen DATE: March 31, 1988 — ` 690 Coulter Drive rChanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 7-8801 IN ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE ' _ City Engineer N. wi 1. b ,3 i ... 1 RE: Downtown Redevelopment North Side Building Demolition "- `4 For professional services provided in conjunction with the demolition of the Bait and Tackle and Labolo Building. Services rendered are for engineering 1 studio personnel in preparation of Plans and Specifications for demolition of — building. ? Billing is consistent with hourly services agreement and contract dated May 8, ` i 1986. 1 Class Hours Sr. Professional 5.0 5.0 .i —. 1I Salary Cost x 2.0 $142.62 x 2.0 = $ 285.24 EXPENSES: Road Runner 28.80 1 A _1 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 314.04 iw.tQ } ) BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC- • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 5*°rETIM--- -:ipk7. ,. _ � ,�+I7 INVOICE 48390 MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHOENIX _ City of Chanhassen DATE: March 31, 1988 3 690 Coulter Drive `' Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 7-8707 -F ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE City Engineer _ _ RE: Electrical Service Conversions Downtown Area For Professional Services rendered in conjunction with the final design and analysis of the secondary electrical services. Services include design services as necessary for issuance as bidding documents. Billing is consistent with our written agreement dated May 1, 1986. Partial Payment #5 (Hourly) Period Through March 31, 1988 Employee Classification Hours i Sr. Professional 3.5 3.5 Salary Cost x 2.0 $ 99.84 x 2.0 = $ 199.68 ` Expenses: Mileage 8.28 1 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 207.96 4F Total Billed To Date: $ 3,680.50 ,,11 ' lEIT---' ` w J APR 21 1988 _ 1 ; CITY OF CHANFIASSLA F tsiva BENNETT, RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370.0700 __ .10)„,.... �� ,�SL, Y INVOICE 43392 MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHOENIX r. MIIIMMMIIMIIIIMMIENIIMIIIIIMMINIIMIll ll City of Chanhassen DATE: March 31, 1988 690 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 JOB NO: 62-8731 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE City Engineer 4) Invoice Period: Through March 31, 1988 : Re: Chanhassen City Hall Landscape Design 3 al -1 Project initiated by Mr. Don Ashworth to prepare a new landscape design for the Chanhassen City Hall which portrays design concepts utilized throughout the Downtown Redevelopment Project. I --` Services Provided: 1. Preparation of site plan, grading plan, and landscape/lighting plan for Planning Commission. Billing is consistent with agreement for Hourly Services (STD Downtown Contract) dated May 8, 1986. . 1 3 Classification Hours a Professional II 18.5 �1 Technician II 9.5 APR 2 1 1988 1 Technician I 1.0 CITY OF CHANI-;ASSEN ". 29.0 7 1 Salary Cost x 2.0 `j $ 468.29 x 2.0 = $ 936.58 1 EXPENSES: BRW Graphic Reproduction Department $ 2.10 I Road Runner 23.40 25.50 —1 A 1 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 962.08 _i ...........) .r. BENNETT, RINGROSE. WOLSFELD, JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 1_ rL' „.,..., !IVki .7 INVOICE J ;) _ 11:. 43030 MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHOENIX r City of Chanhassen DATE: March 31, 1988 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 7-8702, (7-8705) ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE _ City Engineer 11 r e441, RE: Downtown Redevelopment Right-of-Way Acquisition Services 1 iFor professional services provided in conjunction with the Downtown Chanhassen i a Redevelopment Project. Services rendered are for engineering studio personnel — I in preparation of legal description documents and acquisition maps to assist the 1 City Appraiser and legal firm in land acquisition proceedings. I r i Billing is consistent with hourly services agreement and contract dated May 8, i 1986. Billing is for property acquisition, easements, exhibits related to the Chanhassen State Bank/Mithun Enterprises property and the Post Office property. • Employee Classification Hours Sr. Professional 16.5 Professional II 5.0 Technician II 23.0 Technician I 0.8 45.3 Salary Cost x 2.0 $ 892.31 x 2.0 = $ 1,784.62 a EXPENSES: Mileage 24.30 1 A TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 1,808.92 (pz3 -4 6° r; 4 /"..''..(T.,.. ...M.-''''''.."7 APR 2 2 1988 ) BENNETT RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 . _ . _ . . _ k „ . --„s7--7) ir �. c J r m t•) %.0 CO m 1--• m Z XI •.`! Z -I < -1 \ — n z m O O _ \-.--------\(:) �y 1 ID ! ! lT m \ m Z .r co !J Z O { • Z m co " m !� z i 0 x m D = `' 0 X m r > — ` •:. m T. 33 Zt_1 0) 7J 77 —I rt' - 7c r Z 0 DMmm D ° �-+ C) 2 -IZ !�, -_n 2 ri o !_! m - !1 T X Z 33 m In '_ _ �A 7J Z r^ D (I) XI £ CO 11 r, ° (A - a z > ImD !-' o Z G) _= 7J D ID) -1 0 z .) it C) — , + -: r1 71 i!i m m .-• m = > T r-! N = -< ,--1 co !-1 v _ 7im .G -- Z m '� .• < O v` Fri ;-+ : r-+ 3 0 C ' - COZ f D 0 m '—' 2 m _ ` ") mz7, m _ z CT r-i {� !,� r1 n z T < z7' `- _ " m � Z m m `- r, O i! m • Z N -- rJ X. .. = m y ,-, z ,."., m z m •f_t i�) (XI O r^ 3 Z CO \ m a) Z m A CO F N n m I Zn A O an m co m y ...1UI m ° z ' CO < C 2 CO m -i v 00 GI — � m a) n . K O U m cn 1 W c, Z cn . p CO m l 7 l i_i CO C o i ' • -I Z v iQ OD i:i i.) -< C { ! I a t — (n C!.ID i!a f- 77 D rn ni :".:!);7:1N7 cCo z zH ',r IIIz < m D _ m f 1 OD 0.- =i 1.-.) � -13 I r7 ;n Z 1 : Cil: vFJ m -Im 3IrfHr, o D z... , Z _ in n i-i rn 3 C Z ,! C-1 -4 0 -Z. *....-Z. *........ m• = \ • n O m z T T x < m 1-.. D m I-• 0 37 01 r tJ t..) i0 z r. ci w to m , . C ,� .1Ln Z Q D 0 m ;IN -< Ft C•olik r 1 :: CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ` l CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448.3435 'NES0 COUNTY OF CAI�VEQ ZJ � 1 - •, INVOICE 1 10 11/ DATE: 4/15/88 INVOICE NO . : 101 — TO: City of Chanhassen Barb Dacy, City Planner 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 T.H. 212 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AND STUDY REPORT Distribution of HNTB Inv. #1-12389-11-51 $14 , 311 .64 Chanhassen 9 . 375% $1 , 341 . 72 Chaska 9 . 375% $1 , 341 . 72 Eden Prairie 9 . 375% $1 , 341 . 72 Carver County 9 . 375% $1 , 341 . 72 Hennepin County 9 . 375% S1 , 341 . 72 Metro Council 15 . 625% $2 , 236 . 18 Mn/DOT 37 . 500% $5 , 366 . 86 TOTAL $14 , 311 .64 Account Balance : $0 . 00 Invoice Amount : S1 , 341 . 72 AMOUNT DUE : $1 , 341 . 72 Please make check payable to: CARVER COUNTY TREASURER Remit to: Carver County Public Works 600 East Fourth Street, Box 6 Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Attachments : HNTB Invoice #1-12389-11-51 Statement of Account APR 2 0 1988 Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer l i I Y OF CHANhASSEN STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ON T.H. 212 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AND STUDY REPORT Governmental Agency: City of Chanhassen Contact Person: Barb Dacy Title: City Planner Address : 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Telephone : 937-1900 Participation Amount : $30 , 000 .00 ; Invoice ; Invoice ; Check ; Amount ; Account ; .- ; Date ; No . ; Amount ; No . ; Received ; Balance ; 1 1 1 I I 1 I I : 4/15/88 ; 101 ; $1 , 341 . 72 ; $1 . 341 . 72 ; I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 ! I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 { 1 1I I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 l 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 ''''' 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I i Total $1 , 341 . 72 Total $0 . 00 Contract Administrator: Roger Gustafson Carver County Engineer 600 East Fourth St . , Box 6 Chaska, Minnesota 55318 448-3435 Ext . 255 J L HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN BERGENDOFF SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES February 23 to March 25, 1988 The following professional services on the T.H. 212 EIS were performed: 1 . The job budget was prepared and subconsultant agreements executed with Archaeological Research Services, Enviroscience, Inc. and Professor Matthew Huber. 2. An outline for the DEIS was prepared in accordance with the Oct. 30, 1987, FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A. 3. The 2005 TH 212 Traffic Forecasts Report dated August, 1985 was obtained and reviewed. 4. HNTB met with Mn/DOT and discussed air and noise ambient monitoring -- Mn/DOT will do the air and HNTB the noise. The location of monitoring sites was begun. 5. An analysis of appropriate EIS impact criteria was begun -- by impact category (transportation, social, economic, environmental, etc.) -- in coordination with affected state and federal agencies. 6. The Phase I archaeological survey was begun. 7. Lists of key community leaders were obtained from Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska -- and several were contacted. Percent of total work completed 4 24% HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN 8. BERGENDOFF April 15, 1988 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE Public Works Department 600 East 4th Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 In Account With HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF Architects Engineers Planners Minneapolis, Minnesota Invoice No. 1-12389-11-51 CONTRACT MAXIMUM: $ 320,000.00 For engineering services in connection with the environmental impact statements and study report on the 18.5 mile T.H. 212 corridor from the east end of the Cologne bypass to 1.494 in Eden Prairie in accordance with Agreement dated February 23, 1988: DIRECT SALARY AND OVERHEAD COSTS February, 1988 through March 25, 1988 - (Detail Attached) $ 4,065.36 Plus Previously Submitted 0.00 4,065.36 Provisional Overhead Rate - 126.97% 5,161.79 $ 9,227.15 Facilities Capital Cost of Money Rate .76% X $ 4,065.36 $ 30.90 (Maximum $ 728.08) 30.90 FIXED FEE - $ 32,700.00 Salary Costs To Date Excluding FCCM = $ 9,227.15 = 04.24% Complete Total Estimated Costs Excluding FCCM $ 217,472.00 04.24% x $ 32,700.00 1,386.48 Balance Carried Forward $ 10,644.53 Invoice No. 1-12389-11-51 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE Page No. 2 Balance Brought Forward $ 10,644.53 DIRECT EXPENSES February, 1988 through March 25, 1988 - (Detail Attached) $ 111.68 Plus Previously Submitted 0.00 111.68 SUBCONTRACT EXPENSES - Estimated Maximum $ 50,000.00 February, 1988 through March 25, 1988 - (Detail Attached) $ 3,847.50 Plus Previously Sumbitted 0.00 3,847.50 Total Earned To Date 14,603.71 Less 2% Retainage 292.07 14,311.64 Less Previously Invoiced 0.00 Amount Due This Invoice $ 14,311.64 We certify that the above statement is just and correct and payment has not been received. HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF BY: FCCM This Period $ 30.90 FCCM - (Previously Submitted 0.00 Total FCCM To Date $ 30.90 FCCM Maximum - $ 728.08 55I 2HNTB .- LjI08) HUMAFT AEEDLES___TAMMEN_6__BEKGE:NDDFF __REPORL 4_- (RUN: 03/02/89) LABOk DISTRIBUTION _—_ 4__0EEKS ENDING 07 26 $b _-- --- PAGE 1342 BIt4LIN-G__ITEMI_12389-11 -- — E k EETIQ!!; BO: .012 P/A:__RDB,012 PM: . LND,012.— OPC. E:MP. —_-------- -- - --.._— PAY TYP BILL. N0. NO. EMPLQYEE< NAME_ RATE £- LASS- RI)[iRS AMUULIT___-..REMLHKS- 012 2.0516 DALLA.K_.LAWKENCE N. _-_ - 28 . 37 —19 539. 03 _REGULAR_ - TOTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION - - - - BILLING ITFH : 12389-11 19 539 . 03 REGULAR ___-- . 00 _HEG-UVT_- . 00 PREm-ovT 19 539.03 TOTAL. - -0 _ • • _ 5582NNTB_1BY JOB) HOWARD NEEDLESTAMHEN & BERGE:NUOFF RE_PORT 04 (RUN: 03/29/88) LABOR DISTRIBUTION- 4 WEEKS ENDING 03 25 88 -_-_ PAGE: 1333 BILLING ITEM: 12389-11 1012ESCRIPTION ; T,H. 212 EIS,MN BO: 012P/A: RUBJ0_12 PM : LND,012 OFC, EMP. PAY TYP BILL, NO. NO. _ERELOYEE NAME RATE CDE CLASS HOURS AMU1INS RF.HARKS - 005 03763 JAECKE:L__JOHN R 21 ,55 1_--_-_21,55- kEGUIAR 012 06526 BECKMAN ,RICHAPD_ D 34,72 1 34,72 REGULAR - 012 06527 KNIZTSO ,JAM1 S C, 24.74 24 593,06 REGULAR 012 06527 KNUTSON ,JAMES C. 24.74 5 123.70 REG-0VT - 012 0b584 OLSON ,RALPH EDWARD 12.58 1 12.58 REGULAR 012 0b641 SWANSON ,DIANE H. 10.53 3 31 ,59 REGULAR 012 06723 TkE.ANOR ,MARGARE.T S. 10.24 b 61 .44 REGULAR: 012 20509 HADUEN ,ROBERT K. 7 ,41 5 37.05 REGULAR - 012 20509 HADDEN ,ROBERT K. 7.41 9 11 81 .51 RE-G-CUH - 012 20510 ARLIG ,PATkICIA A. 16,00 18 288 , 00 REGULAR a2) 012 20516DALLAM ,LAwRENCE N. 28 . 37 54 1 , 531 .98—REGUt,Ak 012 20517 HARRIS ,ROSS D, 11 .55 5h 646. 80 REGUf.,Ak 012 20517 HARRIS ,Roa_ D. 11 .55 3 )465 HE�.oy7- 012 20525 VINCENT_,ANITA ADAIft_-__--9.00 --- --_-- .- ._ 3 --- 27 ,00 -kEGULAk - - - - TOTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION - - - - BILLING ITEM: 12389-11 183 3, 367 . 98 REGULAR 8 158 . 35 HF.G-OVT . 00 PREM-UV 191 3,52b. 33 TOTAL - HOWARD NEEDLES -___TAMMEN_-b _8ERC.ENDnFF—_-_— REP.D.RT_4E (RUN: 3/31/88) EXPENSE DISTRIBUTION BY JOB NUMBER _TOR_THE -MONTH_ENDED 03/25/88 _--3'AGE 1115 JDR_ 12389 T_H. 217 FIS. MN CP! PDR PV. yND ), SEGMENT: 11 12 12 ------.-._ -- ASLIANG DFFICE:__�2 DATE OFC EXPENSE ITEM CHECK EXP EXPENSE TYPE NET MO/DY dMft DE;SCR1PTION R --TYPE DESCRIPTION AMnIJwr - 03/18 12 METRDP-DLITAN _--124320._21 PRINT--_REP_R0_Iti_RECT1F___---_1_4.0.0- TOTAL-1PENSE__TYPE_- -___ .-_ _21-._PRINT_REPRO.-6_BELTIF -03/04 12 ER L DALLAM n3=-D-3-S8 77—TRAV_E_L- _SllNSISTENCE A55 03/25 12 ER L DALLAM 03-25-88 27 TRAVEL & SUBSISTF.NCE 9.00 - —03/25 --12 --ER R MADDEN ---- -03-21-B2 27 TRAVEL._.& SUBSISTENCE - - ------_-... --.--. ._._.__.TOTAL-EXPENSE --TYPE: - - 27 TRAVEL J..SUBSISTENCE- 27_fiA - - -;OT-1..-NON-PAYROLL EXPENSES - 111 E - ---------------- --- ----- ___D _ 5622r7 NDWLRn NEEDLES TSMMFM t RERCFMDLIFF RFPf1RT dE (RUN: 3/31/88) EXPENSE DISTRIBUTION BY JOB NUMBEF FOR THE MONTH ENDED O3/25/4R PACE 111 ` JAR' 1218Q Tom, 712 FIS,)r4 rP: Dna PF: r.N( SEGMENT: 51 12 1: =c) RILt,INr, f1FFTrF: 1; DATE OFC EXPENSE ITEM CHECK EXP EXPENSE TYPE NET MO/DY DESCPIPTZO$ NBR TYPE DESCRIPTION IMflttNT 12 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH SERVICES 17 OTHER SUBCONTRACTS 3,847.50 T T L—NOt+l—RA-RIIL-L—EXPF'N SFS 3,847.50 _1E1) ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH SERVICES 2637 Humboldt Avenue South #3 MINNEA°QTTS. MN 554nR March 78- 1 9RFFXPENSE DISTRIBUTION G ACI:T.I DAP P'�. I I No. Mr O1 ': _0 ...`.:CU'T Attention: ----' S/ O .__ ..._. �. Lawrence Dallam L Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff _ w..oer .�T;, c�s 6700 France Avenue South a CHECK MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 cr arse —_ Na Re: T.H. 212 EIS/DSR -- Archaeological Survey INVOICE • The following professional services have so far been rendered by ARS staff in connection with this project. Staff members involved: Christina Harrison (CH) as principal investigator; John Strot (JS) and Joseph McFarlane (JM) as field assistants. Records Search; Preparation of Criteria; Review of Maps, Soil Information and Aerial Photographs: Late November, 1987 (CH) 24 hours 1/20/88 (CH & JS) 8 " 3/10-12/88 (JS) 24 " (CH) 9 3/21-22/88 (CH & JS) 15 " Initial Walkover Reconnaissance: 3/22-25/88 (CH & JS) 17 hours 3/30-31/88 (CH & JM) 15 B-tLl.C1t:C J Total hours per staff member: APR 4 1988 Christina Harrison 88 hours @ $32.5 $2860 John Strot 64 hours @ $12.5* $800 FINANCE DEPT. Joseph McFarlane 15 hours @ $12.5* $187.50 TOTAL: $3847.50 * includes a 257. overhead Please make check payable to Archaeological Research Services. Sincerely, Christina Harrison, P.I. coc"G.°• TERN CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY NORTNWES /a/w RETURN YELLOW COPY WITH y YOUR REMITTANCE TO: Ip G / C & N W TRANSP. Co. 9129610 / �� P.O. BOX 93000 B- ILL 3/9 / CHICAGO, IL 60673 TO ' Chanhassen, City of c/o City Manager 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 INV. DATE INV. NUMBER - J i 03/31/88 30049 HwOc AFE 86349 - DESCRIPTIONS AMOUNT 'Final cost to install flashing light signals at Bluff Creek Drive (M.P. 30.92) in Chanhassen Chaska) , Carver County, MN. AFE 86349 ngr. File 18-54-210 _1inn. Project RRS RRP 0025(11) S.P. 10-00109 'lgreement No. 62149 dated 2-15-85 progressive Bill No. 1 and Final PLEAOFSE RETURNINVOICE REMIWITHTTANCEPAYMENT PORT. ION DETAILS ATTACHED. 6,175.22 ▪ THIS !NM= tr,S _.= J r- n.r.-D IN rF] T::_ r.^.v'VIC,T.:' Cc:-r - _ D11 _:J 3 C TJtE FiD_F,AL-A!D k(GYL�t4.Y P,;-,^•;-!;� F.".,11UgL 0- THE FEDERAL ( �HIGHNAY A R. t BY: "tug SUBJECT T _ ANAGER-FRA ACCOUNTIF : : i PLIANCE RECORDS FOR THE FOLLOW ARGES BACK PAY mAR 3 0 1988 L it BE LOCATED R THE OUNCE OF ADJUSTMENT' T TT STMEN C��tEClO'2•P,^.OPERTY ACCOUNTING `/'�ijo,J,J At,JI 1`` CIIY OF CNANf1ASStA) .,_,Ot:C NORTH,'.: TERN CENTER - CHI.F.'.O. ILL:.:OIS 60606 ACCOUNTING DISTRIBUTION ,, TOTAL ' - ICC � AMOUNT JT FUNCTION ACCT.,G.W.O.. DUE , 6,175.22 DISTRIBUTION FAC STATE AREA NUMBER A.F.E..BILLING AMOUNT CREDIT CODE OR DIESEL NO. A 4501 1 86349 4,334.41 — 4501 2 86349 (375.39) 0999 2 89993 2,216.20 v DIRECT ALL INQUIRIES TO v DIRECTOR PROPERTY ACCTG. — ONE NORTH WESTERN CENTER • CHICAGO, IL 60606 ORIGINAL 17 City of Chanhassen / 7 D ' Page 3 Re: McGlynn TIF District For All Legal Services Rendered Through February 29 , 1988 As Follows : 2/23/88 Telephone conference with D. Ashworth . 50 regarding creation of new TIF district . 2/24/88 Review proposal TIF amendments ; telephone 1 . 00 conference with D . Ashworth regarding same. 2/25/88 Telephone conference with D. Ashworth . 50 regarding project . -" Total Services : 2 . 00 $170 . 00 1 �. 1 ray✓ r / MONTHLY INVOIC. . ISRAELSON , REESE, ELLINGSON & Assoc., INC . • 11000 W 78th ST., SUITE 220 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 612-944-0672 TO: City of Chanhassen DATE: April 12, 1988 690 Coulter St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 WORK ORDERED BY: Gary Warren RE: PROJECT NUMBER: C 8719 DESCRIPTION: Hydrologic Analysis for Mn Auto Serve Center Property FOR: PROFESSIONAL Engineering Services BILLABLE HOURS: REGISTERED ENGINEER 10.0 hrs @ $57.00/hour $ 570.00 TECHNICIAN II 5.25 hrs @ $34.00/hour 178.50 OFFICE/CLERICAL .25 hrs @ $25.00/hour 6.25 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE: $ 754.75 kci This invoice is due and payable within 30 days after the date shown on the invoice. After 30 days , a finance charge of 1 .5% per month (19.56% per year) will be placed on the total balance of the account. If you have a disagreement or question on your account, you must respond within 30 days or the amount indicated on your invoice, with finance charges , will be considered collectable. ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, DESIGNERS LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ a Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone : ( 612 ) 333-0543 April 11 , 1988 Mr. Don Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Downtown Redevelopment Project (Chadda) For All Legal Services Rendered Through March 31 , 1988 As Follows: 3/04/88 Telephone call from A. Merry regarding . 25 status of CHADDA project . 3/09/88 Telephone call from C . Glaser regarding . 50 meeting to discuss financial material ; telephone call to B . Voto and A . Merry regarding same . 3/10/88 Review materials for March 11 meeting . . 50 3/11/88 Office conference with K . Glaser, K . 2 . 00 Talley, B . Voto, A . Merry and CHADDA regarding revised proposal . 3/15/88 Telephone call from A. Merry regarding HRA . 25 meeting date on CHADDA revised proposal . 3/16/88 Work on memo to HRA. 1 . 50 3/17/88 Telephone conference with R. Thomesgard and . 50 B . Johnson regarding CHADDA proposal ; telephone conference with B . Voto and A. Merry regarding same. 3/17/88 Make additional revisions to memo; . 50 telephone conference with T . Gerhardt regarding same . 3/18/88 Telephone call from D . Ashworth and B. 1 . 00 Voto; telephone call to A. Merry and T . Gerhardt regarding material for meeting; revise same based on B. Voto ' s suggestions and transmit memo. 3/21/88 Telephone call from R. Thomasgaard . 25 regarding material on housing project . APR 1 1988 CITY OF CHANF,A5S ;s4 City of Chanhassen — Page 2 3/22/88 Work on additional materials for 1 . 00 presentation to HRA regarding mechanisms for financing. 3/23/88 Telephone conference with A. Merry . 50 regarding review of Chadda proposal . 3/24/88 Review and compare all proposal figures and 2 . 50 make comparison form for HRA; telephone conference with B. Voto regarding meeting . 3/24/88 Attend Chanhassen HRA meeting . 1 . 75 3/26/88 Office conference regarding mechanism for 1 . 00 structuring tax increment repayment note and review law regarding same . 3/29/88 Telephone call to B. Voto regarding . 25 development of contract . Total Services : 14 . 25 $1 ,710 . 00 For all Disbursements as follows : 3/28/88 Quicksilver Express 15 . 50 3/28/88 Quicksilver Express 15 . 50 3/28/88 Quicksilver Express 15 . 50 3/28/88 Quicksilver Express 15 . 50 3/28/88 Quicksilver Express 15 . 50 3/28/88 Quicksilver Express 15 . 50 Photocopies 14 . 40 Messenger Service 4 . 50 Total Disbursements : $111 . 90 Total Services and Disbursements : $1 , 821 .90 Re: T.H. 101/5 Intersection Improvements For All Legal Services Rendered Through March 31 , 1988 As Follows : 3/09/88 Telephone conference with F . Hoisington 1 .70 regarding Chanhassen special legislation; office conference regarding same; review of legislation . City of Chanhassen Page 3 3/10/88 Prepare for testimony before legislative 5 . 00 committee on special legislation; telephone conference with F . Hoisington regarding same; appear at committee hearing. 3/11/88 Telephone conference with F . Hoisington 5 . 20 regarding TIF legislation; office conference regarding same; attend house subcommittee meeting regarding same . 3/14/88 Follow up on SF 1659 and H .F . 1871 on tax 3 . 50 increment financing and how it affects Chanhassen. 3/14/88 Telephone conference with F . Hoisington 1 . 00 regarding TIF bill ; office conference regarding progress of House and Senate bills . 3/15/88 Telephone conference with F . Hoisington 1 .00 regarding House version of TIF bill ; office conference regarding same; draft memorandum regarding TIF bill . 3/15/88 Checked status of S .F . 1659 and H .F . 1871 1 . 00 on both houses . 3/15/88 Senate Tax Committtee - monitored committee 2 . 00 hearing to find its flavor and when and if tax increment will be part of committee process . 3/16/88 Checked both House and Senate Tax 2 . 00 Committees ; discussed with Rep. Rest situation with tax increment bill . 3/17/88 Check both House and Senate Tax Committee 2 . 00 regarding omnibus tax bills . 3/18/88 Check with A. Loehr regarding tax increment 2 . 00 amendment . 3/21/88 Review of house tax bill before House Tax 4 . 00 Committee . 3/21/88 Check Senate - tax laws and economic; 2 .00 amended SF 1659 unto SF 2370 ; reported same to firm; delivered house tax bill . 3/21/88 Office conference regarding legislation ; 2 . 70 telephone conference with F . Hoisington regarding same; telephone conference with T . Gerhardt regarding status of matters; office conference regarding same . 3/22/88 Office conference . . 30 City of Chanhassen Page 4 3/22/88 Draft two letters to Representative Kelso 3 . 50 and Senator Schmitz regarding city ' s position on TIF legislation; office conference regarding same; office conference regarding legislation; telephone conference with F . Housington regarding same. 3/22/88 Senate tax subcommittee - taxes and 5 . 00 economic development, Sen . Reihgott _ amended SF 1659 on Ron Dicklich SF 2370 - Virginia bill ; made copies of engrossed bill; discussed and give copies to Sen. Schmidt , A. Loehr, R. Batty, Sen . frank and Rep. Becky Kelso; discussed bill and effect . 3/23/88 Telephone conference regarding special 1 . 30 legislation; office conference regarding same; telephone conference with F . Housington regarding same. 3/23/88 Followed House and Senate Tax Committee 11 . 00 hearings on tax bills ; met with Sen. Schmidt , Sen . Frank , Sen Gustafson, Sen. Jude, Sen . Bernhagen , Sen. Leidig, Sen . Bellanger, Sen . Benson and Sen . Peterson; made these senators aware of our problem with Sen . Reichgott SF 2370 . 3/24/88 Telephone conference with R. O'Connell . 70 regarding status of TIF legislation; telephone conference with F . Hoisington regarding same. 3/24/88 Work with Sen . Schmidt and Sen. frond on SF 8 . 00 2370 ; contacted R . Patty to draft an amendment to satisfy Chanhassen concern; met with A . Loehr with various proposal to bill ; monitor house tax committee . 3/25/88 Attend Senate tax committee hearing and 6 . 20 testify regarding amendment to Reichgott TIF bill ; telephone — conference with F . Hoisington regarding status of TIF district bonds ; office conference regarding same . 3/25/88 Work with House and Senate tax committees ; 8 . 00 hearing on all tax bills ; particularly SF 2370 on tax increment; met with Sen. Schmidt and A. Loehr on amendment to change effective date . City of Chanhassen — Page 5 3/28/88 Office conference regarding structuring on . 50 transaction so as to "expend" TI money by Friday. 3/28/88 Telephone conference with D . Ashworth 1 . 00 regarding use of TIF funds prior to expiration of district ; office — conference regarding same. Total Services : 80 . 60 $5 , 588 . 50 For all Disbursements as follows: 3/24/88 Mileage and Parking 17 . 90 3/28/88 Quicksilver Express 10 . 50 3/28/88 Quicksilver Express 15 . 50 3/28/88 Quicksilver Express 10 . 80 — Long Distance Telephone 2 . 52 Total Disbursements : $57 . 22 — Total Services and Disbursements : $5 , 645 . 72 Re: McGlynn TIF District For All Legal Services Rendered Through March 31 , 1988 As Follows: 3/08/88 Meet with B. Dacy regarding TIF project . 2 . 00 3/15/88 Draft resolution calling for public hearing 2 . 50 on TIF plan; public hearing notice — and planning commission resolution regarding TIF plan; draft letter to B . Dacy regarding same . _ 3/21/88 Telephone conference with T . Gerhardt . 50 regarding TIF project . 3/29/88 Telephone conference with B. Dacy regarding . 50 TIF plan . Total Services : 5 . 50 $467 . 50 — For all Disbursements as follows : 3/24/88 Mileage 7 . 87 — Total Disbursements : $7 . 87 Total Services and Disbursements : $475 . 37 LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ a Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone : ( 612 ) 333-0543 April 11 , 1988 CLIENT SUMMARY 511 City of Chanhassen MATTER # MATTER NAME FEES DISB TOTAL B2887 Downtown Redevelopment Project 1 ,710 . 00 111 . 90 V 7 - $1 ,821 .90 5529 T .H . 101/5 Intersection 5 , 588 . 50 57 . 22 17'4 7 _ y $5 , 645 .72 5604 McGlynn TIF District 467 . 50 7 . 87 AZ — ,act $475 . 37 TOTAL: $7 ,766 .00 $176 . 99 \ $7 ,942 . 99 I declare under penalty of law - that this account , claim or demand \ � '` is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid . ignature of Claimant — l/ INVOICE JoBNO. 3-0-8139 1 April 1988 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Twin Cities St.Cloud 15050 23rd Ave.N. Engineers Plymouth,MN 55441 Planners f,y 0 612/476-6010 Surveyors •City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive .P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Construction services in connection with Project No. 86-13, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Extension. Services for March 1988. Reg. Engineer . 7 hrs @44.00 30.00 Technician .5 hrs @30.00 15.00 Amount due this billing 45.00 F.F' . 1938 CITY OF CNANt.r+.»LN 1111111111 of McCombs Frank Roos Associates,Inc TERMS:Net on Receipt of invoice. 1 th%Service Charge per Month assessed on Past Due Accounts.(18%Per Annum) CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 6 , 1988 J Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Ti.m Erhart, Ladd Conrad , Annette Ellson, Steven Emmings , Brian Batzli , James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Larry Brown, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH A CANOE RACK AND .- A DOCK WITH THREE OVERNIGHT STORAGE OF WATERCRAFT ON LOT 37, SHORE ACRES , ON LAKE RILEY, SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present : Name Address Kevin Sharkey 380 Deerfoot Trail Ken Wolter 341 Deerfoot Trail Paul and Sue Olson 9239 Lake Riley Blvd . Joy Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd . Lucille Remus 9245 Lake Riley Blvd . Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Dick Nelson 360 Deerfoot Trail Jim Oeckoog 510 West 78th Street Jill Koeugh 9361 Kiowa Trail Richard Blumenstein 9361 Kiowa Trail Gary and Kay Eastburn 9355 Kiowa Trail Jack Harweeno Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Emmings : We ' ll open it up for comments from anybody here who wants to speak on this issue . I ' d like to hear from the applicant ' s first , if they' re here and would like to say something . Kevin Sharkey: I 'm President of the Homeowners Association of Sunny Slope. You ' ve seen this request before. We have modified it a little bit . I 'm here to clarify any questions you might have . Emmings : We can hear from anybody else who wants to speak on this subject . I , personally, am particularly interested in hearing from the people who live on the properties adjacent. Paul Olson : I live adjacent to the property on Lot 36 . Emmings: Which would be on which side? Paul Olson : Looking at the lake it would be on the left side . The east side towards the point. I guess I oppose it because your proposed useage is for 12 families to use that property. It ' s original platting was R-1 , Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 2 single family useage . If you look at the property, on the map you can ' t tell but it ' s only 50 feet wide . That ' s a very small piece of property to be trying to moving boats around on so I 'm opposed to it for all those reasons . Emmings : I ' d like to ask you , do you feel , in your opinion , would it depreciate the value of your property and your home to have that next door to you? Paul Olson : Yes I do . That ' s my major concern . Headla: You mentioned about boats . You were concerned about the boats . — How many boats were you concerned about? Paul Olson: I 'm concerned with the idea of a dock. To put a dock down there and you put one boat or two boats and they have to access off of either side. The property is only 50 feet across and coming around the point , they' re cutting me off virtually if they put too many boats there. It affects my access to my property with too much traffic. — Headla : How would you feel if they didn ' t have boats there? Paul Olson: I 'm still opposed because I 'd view it ' s useage as a beachlot . f- k, Headla : So you ' re basically just opposed to the beachlot? Paul Olson: I 'm opposed to the whole thing because of the valuation of my property. — Joy Tanner : I live on the adjacent property of Lots 38 and 39 . About 10 years ago I went to my first meeting regarding this matter . That was at _ the time when we needed a variance for setbacks and so forth i.n the road before the whole landing was built . The developer at that point withdrew his request and they' ve been after him ever since . I was assured by City Council and whoever , Planning Commission at that time, that it was — absolutely against any intent of the ordinances i.n anyway whatsoever to give the permission or a conditional use permit or to call it a recreational beachlot . Nothing has changed except the ordinance has — become more restrictive . I felt protected by the City' s ordinances . I would like to feel protected again . The Sunny Slope residents have used that lot as though it were approved. They' ve had a dock in as if it were _ approved . They' ve started going overnight all last summer . The summer before as though it were approved. I ' ve had difficulty getting response from the County Sheriff ' s Department . On a Sunday afternoon when they' re busy with drownings and things like that I can understand that but it ' s a — difficult situation and I would like to see a resolution of it . Emmings : I would like to ask you the same question. Do you feel that i.t would depreciate the value of your property to have that used as a beachlot? Joy Tanner : Definitely. That was my opinion before we bought our property and we were assured that it couldn' t happen. Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 3 r Headla : Did that dock present any problem last summer? Joy Tanner : It did in that it wasn' t supposed to be there and there weren ' t supposed to be boats anchored there. If it is , it violates the ordinance. And there were comings and goings, noisy docking and taking off very late at night which is real unusual on a quiet bay that we live on. Jack Harweeno : I have a couple of lots to the east of Paul who spoke here before and we' re building a home this summer so that ' s why I came tonight . I just have a question really. I don ' t know that much about this and I wonder , what is the utility of that lot? Was it intended to be as a buildable , as a 50 foot lot or what are the alternatives for the people who are making the decision? Emmings : That ' s a good question . If it ' s not used as a beachlot , at least from what I know of the history of this, I think we could probably expect to see , probably it' s only use is as a residential property. Jack Harweeno: But it is buildable at the 50 foot width? Emmings : It would need a variance obviously. It ' s a very small lot but if they couldn ' t put a house on it, they probably couldn' t do anything with it then , if it ' s not approved as a beachlot . 1 Jack Harweeno: The history of it was, how long has it been that you had to have 100 feet to build on? Emmings : I have no idea. Barb, can you answer that? Dacy: 100 feet to build on as far as a house? As far as a beachlot? Jack Harweeno : Yes . Dacy: The beachlot ordinance was adopted in 1982 which imposed the 100 foot lot widths requirement . Then in 1986 the City amended the beachlot ordinance to require a 200 foot lot width for a recreational beachlot . Jack Harweeno: For recreational beachlot which i.s what this application is for? Dacy: Right . Emmings : Were you asking how much , if it has enough frontage , could be used as a residential property? Dacy: Alright. The standard for any new lots in the single family district is a 90 foot wide lot. Because this is a platted lot of record , meaning that the plat was filed I believe in the 1920 ' s , the City does allow lots to be built on if they meet 75% of that 90 foot lot width. Obviously at 50 feet that would not make that requirement. They would need a variance not only for the lot width but the lot area and more than likely for setbacks . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 4 Jack Harweeno : So it really have no utility for those who own it except as a recreational beachlot . — Dacy: Unless a variance is granted for a single family home . Gary Eastburn: We live over on Kiowa Trail and all the residents of Kiowa Trail were not notified of this hearing but I live approximately right here. I have a concern i.n that over here the City Council has already granted a recreational permit for Lake Riley Woods for a beachlot — over here already. The concern that I ' ve got and some of my neighbors have is that the DNR has restricted this lake to an access with 15 boats I believe is the restriction on it and they did that for a purpose in — itself. To restrict the use of the lake . My concern is that on the left of my lot there are three vacant lots already and it ' s owned by Sid Mossen who has owned it for about 15 years . They use it as a _ recreational lot for four families . On the weekend it is a zoo out there with four families and each have 3 or 4 kids and there ' s 20 people running around on my block next door. That ' s a nuisance to me as it is so if I was to have another recreational lot on the north side and then one on the south side plus the public access over there, the value of all the lakeshore property goes down. I guess the concern I ' ve had , in 1976 I believe, or 1977 was when they had the previous hearing on this before — and at that time they denied access to that property as a recreational beach and at that point in time they said that they would in fact allow a variance for building on that lot and grandfathered in because i.t was since platted so I think there is value there for the purpose of building — a home on it . It is very distressing to us , who have paid a premium for the lakeshore itself, it have the residents who are off of the lakeshore, be able to enjoy the same benefits that we ' ve paid extra money or — incremental money for when there is a public access that everybody has access to on the east side. Don Sitter : I ' ve been up here before . I ' ll kind of give you the same speech. People that live on Sunny Slope are our friends and our neighbors and we don' t want to create a hassle with any of these people. Emmings : Where do you live? Don Sitter : I live about 5 lots to the west of this . — Emmings : On the lake? Don Sitter : Yes , on the deadend . My concern is this . Agreed , there — are other properties on the lake that could eventually have lake access or beachlots conceived on their property, it could be sold off . There could be a real impact on the lake. The 15 boat limitation on the public — access , as I understand it , is up for discussion here in about a week . The DNR has ruled that that is illegal to have a 15 boat limitation and they' re going to open up the public access to however many people want to launch their boats on the lake. I feel we have a real problem with this L- poor little lake. It ' s a nice little lake. It can barely handle the traffic that it ' s got on there now and if Eden Prairie opens up that public access to any number of boats , we have this beachlot with more — boats , the Lake Riley Woods and other property that could be developed , Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 5 i I think we ' re really asking for trouble with the lake . I think we ' re going to be back here again in the future asking for speed restrictions and all sorts of other things that I 'd really prefer not to get into . I also feel like the people at Sunny Slope king of got misled when they bought their property. They bought it with lake access property and I feel real bad that they can' t use that. I would like to propose that we allow it to be a beachlot. Allow it have a dock. Allow them to have the canoes but I would like to draw the line at the boat launching and the overnight storage of the boats . I don ' t know if you can change their request or as it goes to Council because I don ' t feel very neighborly saying we don ' t want you on the lake because I don ' t think that ' s the procedures at all . I would like, if they could amend it . I don' t know if that ' s possible to do and give them some value , something to use that beachlot for . Hopefully they can come to some kind of agreement and we can all live as a cohesive neighborhood . If we can put this issue to bed this time. I 'd like to take care of it . Emmings : A couple of people have eluded to boats being launched across the property or boats going in and out there and I believe that our ordinance states that you can not launch a boat across a beachlot . Gary Eastburn : Could I ask one more question? Who enforces that ordinance? Emmings : That ' s the $64 , 000. 00 question. It takes people who see violations basically calling the City and getting the sheriff to come out . It ' s tough. Don Sitter : We' re supposed to call the police on our neighbors? That ' s a hard thing to do. Headla : I think there' s another alternative . Require the beachlot owners to put up some pilings across there so you ' re not going to get a vehicle in there . That ' s all you need . Emmings: I think his question is broader than just boat launching . I think he' s asking , how do you enforce all of these things? Don Sitter : You bet. If they put 3 boats overnight and the 4th one slips out there , what are we supposed to do . Call the Sheriff? That ' s crazy. I heard a comment the last time we were here that this is a self policing policy and I have a hard time with that . It is not a self policing policy. People like to get on the lake. I know they will do anything they can to get out . The public , I ' ve seen drive by their lot and start to back down . They've come down my driveway and tried to launch boats . They think they can get on here because the public access was filled so I guess that ' s the other part of the problem. Who enforces these regulations when we do set them up? Emmings: I think there' s no question that when beachlots are permitted , there are abuses . There ' s just no question about it . It happens . Gary Eastburn: One other thing too before you close up the discussion on this thing . What is to stop this from becoming a precedent setting Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 6 thing? Becaues the Lake Riley Woods is one that , you can see that dividing line there between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. Just to the — left of that is another development. David Vogel owns that I believe and he ' s proposing 14 lots. It ' s been before the Planning Commission. I assume he too is going to want to have some way of having access for the _ off lake lots for these people. So if you have one at Lake Riley Woods , you have the public access , then you allow this one over here , he ' s going to want to have another one on there and how do you deny this person one if you' ve allowed the previous one and the previous one before that . — Emmings : Simple answer . The ones we have coming in now comply with the ordinance and this one doesn ' t come close . — Gary Eastburn: Which one? Emmings : The one that ' s being proposed today. Sunny Slope . We ' ve got — an ordinance . Gary Eastburn: You mean the 200 foot limitation . — Emmings : Exactly and this one doesn ' t come close so I don ' t think that that ' s a concern. Gary Eastburn : One last point , what would be the DNR' s position on the overcrowded situation that this might cause to Lake Riley? Emmings : I have no idea . The DNR is an absolute mystery to me . I don ' t know if there really even is one. Dacy: The number of boats stored at a beachlot dock are the same number that would be permitted if it was an individually owned riparian lot . Three boats stored overnight . Now granted , during the day somebody from _ the Sunny Slope subdivision could go over to the Eden Prairie side, launch their boat and in essense you could have additional boats out there but "overnight storage" at that dock could not exceed three. DNR' s position is probably going to be discussed more in conjunction with the Eden Prairie boat access issue . Richard Blumenstein : My wife Jill and I have moved in on Kiowa Trail on Lake Riley last summer . We don ' t have much different to say than has already been said before . We moved from Minnetonka where we moved from a very nice house, which we traded for a house that was basically trashed on the lake, and it was an even trade so that we could live on the lake. — We feel we sacrificed a lot and we ' re going to have to put a lot of money into this house to come up to the standard that we were living before . That was our sacrifice to live on the lake. I empathize with the owners at Sunny Slope. I wish there was an easy solution for this but apparently there really isn ' t. I guess we sort of feel the way Don Sitter did who talked before sitting in the back there about we wouldn ' t — mind if had canoe storage and people could run their canoes out of there but we would not like to see launching because we' re concerned with additional boat traffic on the lake. — Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 7 r Headla moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Emmings : We have choices here. We can go around and make our comments on this but I don' t think that 's probably a good idea in light of the fact that we' re going to have to hold the public hearing open to the next meeting but I think it probably would be, if anybody wants to give an indication of their general feelings on this issue or how they feel about it, at least with the input we ' ve had so far , I think that would be both — fair and reasonable to the people who have shown up. If you don ' t want to comment, fine, just pass but let' s go around and give a general indication of how we feel about this thing . At least with the input — we 've gotten so far . Headla : I 'm glad to see it deferred . I ' d like to see what happens with 5. The outcome of that but generally, I think the public has a negative stereotype feeling on beachlots and I don ' t know where that happens . I ' ve got three beachlots within a block of me on Minnewashta and every one of them have been an asset to the community. The lakeshore is kept — clean. The people keep it neat and I see this lot very, very similar to Minnewashta Creek beachlot . I stopped in there Sunday. That ' s a pretty neat place. The grass is cut and they' ve got a grill . I think it adds — something to the community. They' ve got a little bit of a sand beach . f- When I went over to this particular place, I see the houses very close �, together . Barb, what' s the lot width on the adjoining lots? — Dacy: In this area here? Headla : Yes . Dacy: Similar size. It ranges between 40 to 60 feet . Headla : Yes. To me, if we' re going to be consistent, I think we 've got — to let these people have a dock. I go down there and see house after house, they' ve got a dock. Those people bought the land. They pay taxes on it. So I called the Tax Assessor and asked him, what do you do on a — beachlot? They don ' t even put any value on the beachlot. However , the people who have access to that beachlot , their value of their property is increased due to the beachlot . The Assessor doesn' t ask you if you have — a dock or not . He charges them. He ' s assessing them just like that lot owner right on the lake. I think Mr . Sitter certainly, that ' s the conclusion I came to . I really would like to see a dock in this situation. I would like to see them have canoe racks . I ' ve got a lot of concern about the boats but we also have the situation that if you have a dock, even if you don ' t have a dock, those people can bring 5 to 6 boats just like the adjacnet property owners . They can bring 5 to 6 boats in — one day. You can ' t stop them. They' ve got a perfect right to be there. I was thinking more along , as I look ahead, if we allow some boats there , there ' s nobody policing those boats and they' re really open for people to come and rip stuff off . Pretty soon then, I would suspect people are T..- going to want a nightlight there. Now that ' s really an imposition on the neighbors . I don' t think that would be right . So looking at the whole thing, I would like to see the ordinance reworded. I think we know much Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 8 more now. How to reword an ordinance or how to write an ordinance on a beachlot . I 'd like to see us back off from this and rewrite that — beachlot ordinance so the beachlot is considered to be consistent with the community where they want it . Let ' s have some basis for the number of feet they put in. 100 feet or 200 or whatever . That ' s all . _ Wildermuth: I can sympathize with the people who own this lot, in the Sunny Slope Association but I think the fact is , the description of the lot doesn ' t in any way meet the ordinance. It doesn' t meet the current — ordinance nor did it meet the previous ordinance . I think considering the kind of use a beachlot gets, I think the ordinance is a good one and I think basically it should stand with some minor modifications which — we ' ll be discussing later tonight . Batzli : I agree with those sentiments . I think the lot is so small for _ the use that ' s being proposed that I think that ' s an unreasonable burden to put on the adjoining land owners and I do think it would substantially harm the values of their property. Part of my problem is that it doesn' t even come close to meeting the current ordinance as it reads . I — understand that this is coming back and it is probably closer than several years ago but I still think it ' s too small of a lot to put something like they are proposing in on a conditional use . — Ellson : I agree with Brian . I think I 'd be more inclined to grant a variance to have another house so this size property is exactly like the ones on either side than I would allowing 12 families to come in on this — small property. Emmings : On that issue , if I could just interrupt here for a minute , I — seem to remember from the last time we were here that the people that lived to the west actually built on more than one lot are they not? You own two lots so your house is built on two lots? — Joy Tanner : I have two lots . Conrad : I agree with most of the comments to date other than Dave ' s . — The beachlot is a real priviledge because it ' s an intensification on a few feet of lakeshore . Therefore , to achieve that priviledge you have to meet certain things and you ' ve got to be real sensitive to the neighbors . — I happened to be around when that ordinance was drafted and a lot of work went into it and a lot of good thought . I don' t see anything that tells me other than some small changes to it that are good , that the ordinance _ should be changed. There are real good reasons for 200 feet of lakeshore . Real good reasons and here we' re so far away from the intent of the ordinance that I think there are other uses of that property should be explored . It ' s real clear . There ' s just not any doubt in my — mind that this does not meet the beachlot intent. Not even close and therefore I think it ' s wise to send a signal that we should pursue , the City should pursue, the owners should pursue a different course in using — that land . Erhart : Fill me in again . Why are the owners of this lot , why do they feel they have rights to a beachlot in the first place? They were told — by the developer? Did we have such a thing as a beachlot when this Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 9 development took place? Dacy: I would prefer that the applicant would answer the question to make sure that ' s correct . Emmings : Would you be willing to answer the question? Kevin Sharkey: Yes sir . Erhart : During the time of development , did a home owned . . .recall that this lot was to be used by the developers or by the people who owned the houses? Is that true? Kevin Sharkey: Yes , at least four of the current owners were told that they had the right to have a dock on the lake. The balance of us in Section 2 it was implied to. We have it in a written statement with Steve Burton so we' ve been led all the way along that we could have. . . Erhart : We didn' t have a beachlot ordinance at the time? Did we have anything at the time to prevent them from doing that? Dacy: The beachlot ordinance was enacted until , I think it was March of 1982. It was my understanding at that time that there was no dock on the property or there was no active use of that lot as a beachlot . C Erhart : Who owned it? Dacy: I don ' t know. Erhart : Was there a Homeowner ' s Association at the time? Kevin Sharkey: In 1982, yes there was . It was incorporated in 1979 I believe. Joy Tanner : I ' ve been living next door to the beachlot , Steve Burton owned it. One of the first families there. And they asked us if they could use our dock. . . .and my former husband and I said yes . Absolutely. You ' re free to use our dock when your relatives are here . But when it ' s more than one family though , that ' s it . I don ' t recall how long . . . Erhart : Barb , somehow the City doesn ' t feel that this has been grandfathered in . Dacy: That ' s correct . It would have been a different situation if there had been an active use of that lot. If there was a dock out there. If there was dock limitation , then it was a "beachlot" . Ever since their first application in 1984 , that ' s been the City' s position. Erhart : Who owned the lot in 1982? Kevin Sharkey: The Sunny Slope Homeowners Association did . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 10 Erhart : That clears up a few things for me . I guess my feeling is that it ' s just too narrow to be acceptable for a beachlot . I would vote against it . Emmings : Me too . Again , I think it ' s too bad the way this matter was handled by the developer but I think the ordinance is very clear . I think the ordinance is good . There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it would depreciate the value of the neighboring homeowners and that in itself is enough to kill it for me. It ' s also one of the criteria in — our ordinance under granting conditional use permits is that it can not depreciate surrounding property value . It would just , not only for the adjoining neighbors but also from people don ' t live right next to it that _ they feel it would depreciate their property values and I don ' t think we could possibly grant it on that alone . I think from here then , given those comments, I think it ' s pretty clear which way this will probably go _ if we voted tonight . It probably isn ' t going to change a lot but I think we ' ve got to hold the public hearing open so that notices can be sent out to all the people who own lakeshore around the lake that are in Chanhassen and give them an opportunity to speak and be heard on this issue if they want to be. With that , I would ask that we have a motion to table this and continue the public hearing until the appropriate notice can be sent out . Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to table the request for the conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot on Lot 37 , Shore Acres , Sunny Slope Homeowners Association , until the appropriate notices can be sent . — All voted in favor and motion carried . Dacy: Before the public leaves on this item, the variance request has been scheduled in front of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on Monday, April 25th . If we have not sent the notices out already, you _ will receive a notice on that issue. The next meeting that this will be considered would be April 20th so we' ll be sending out notices on all of the issues within the week . PUBLIC HEARING: TRAPPERS PASS ADDITION, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND — PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF HWY 101, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION: A. SUBDIVISION OF 32 . 5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS . B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET. Public Present : Name Address Greg and Deb Cray 320 Pleasant View Road Frances O' Brien 450 Indian Hill Road Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 11 James and Esther Holte 330 Pleasant View Road R.D. Stevens 6614 Horseshoe Curve Jim Wehrle 241 Mountain Way Michael A. Pflaum Lundgren Bros . Construction Peter Pflaum Lundgren Bros . Construction Rick Sayther Applicant ' s Engineer Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item. Emmings : Does the developer want to make a presentation? Peter Pflaum: If you want a presentation . Emmings : If you have anything that you want to present in reaction to what . . . Peter Pflaum: There' s only three issues . It ' s a pretty simple deal . No point taking your time unless you have questions . There are three issues that we are concerned with . My name is Peter Pflaum and I 'm the president of Lundgren Brothers . The three issues , I have to go from memory but that I remember that we are concerned with . One dealt with the tree issue. It ' s sort of hard for me, we' ve had such a good relationship with your community, I don ' t know how to state this without offending people, but to us it really was an insult to put restrictions on us in taking trees down or your concern about it and let me explain why. We bought this site or controlled the site since 1979 . The only reason we were interested in the site really was because of the trees . On top of that, we planted probably more trees on that site than any of your developments in your community and we plan to plant more . First of all that ' s why we feel it ' s an insult . The reason we' re there is because of the trees and we planted a hell of a lot of trees out there. In addition to that , as a developer I ' ve always been a little bit incensed when you require something of a developer you don ' t require of the other citizens . I mean, after all , we are a property owner and we should be treated , you really discriminate . I 'm not saying you , because it happens in other communities but it really bothers me as a developer when you tell a developer he' s got certain requirements he has to do with regards to taking trees down yet the average citizen doesn ' t have any. To me that ' s discrimination . Emmings : Well , it isn ' t discrimination but let me just explain what I think is going on here because I don ' t think it ' s anybody' s intent . I don ' t know what you ' re doing out there and maybe none of the rest of the people do either . That ' s sitting up here, I don ' t know who does or doesn ' t but the point is , that ' s something that I see on every one of these that comes through on every development . It ' s one of those boiler plate type conditions that we see in all of them and it certainly isn ' t directed at you or your company personally, I 'm positive of that. Secondly, we ' ve had experiences with developers who come in who have said we bought this property because of the trees , why the hell would we want to take the trees down? The next morning they' re all gone. That would probably seem stupid to you as a developer maybe who knows what he' s doing and maybe those others didn ' t but we ' ve had that experience . Don' t take offense. Just understand it as an item of boiler plate. Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 12 C Peter Pflaum : But the other side of it is , it is a major inconvenience to us to have to go to some city official and take an inventory and something we object to violently. Not only that , I don ' t believe it ' s been a standard procedure because in the first two additions of Trapper ' s — Pass , to my knowledge, we ' ve never had it . I would ask your Planning Commission, I will object to the Council also, have them go out there and see if they' ve got any objections . I haven' t heard one objective from the residents or from the City. As a matter of fact, I ' ve heard — compliments . Just the opposite and so I object and we will object . Why should we have to do that? I do think if you ' re going to require us to do it , you should have it in your ordinance . You should require every — citizen who buys a house in your community, that you want to review his backyard because why should we be treated any different? Wildermuth: There is a difference though. The residents lives on the — property. You don ' t live on the property. You ' re a developer . You develop and you move on. Emmings : I don ' t want to get into an argument here . We' re not going to get into individual arguments here. You have to understand that this is , I see development after development . — Peter Pflaum: Is this part of your ordinance? r Emmings : I don ' t think it ' s in the ordinance but it ' s been a condition — on every one of these over the last year or so and all that we ' re doing is saying , we don ' t intend to insult you . That ' s not what ' s going on here. It ' s just boiler plate and I would differ with you too. There is — a difference between one person developing one lot for his own home than there is a developer coming in and doing a really huge development like you' ve done here . There is a difference . But anyway, go ahead . Peter Pflaum: That was one point . The second point deals with the sidewalk. There ' s a requirement that we put a sidewalk. First of all we had , as you know, done quite a bit of developing in your community with — no sidewalk in this project . Now you ' re coming to us and telling us you want us to put a sidewalk in a part of the subdivision that leads to nowhere . Maybe you should show them what we ' re talking about . Rick Sayther : On this street and on Oxbow Bend . Peter Pflaum: I have two concerns . First of all , I don ' t think we — should be required to put a sidewalk i.n that leads to nowhere and benefits nobody. It just costs us money. Second of all , a portion of that street was already approved before under an additional plat with no — sidewalk. I 'm sure what ' s happened is you have a new ordinance or concern about getting sidewalks in the community but in a planned unit development such as ours , which is in it ' s sixth year of development , which is 80% done, it doesn' t seem to make much sense to take one portion of it and put a sidewalk in that leads nowhere . Really, the reason we developed out here, and I think the reason a lot of the residents are out here, is they didn ' t want sidewalks . Certainly in our project it ' s inconsistent with everything we've done. So that' s why we object to that Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 13 because we don ' t think it serves any purpose and it ' s a needless cost and we don ' t think our residents want it. The other issue deals with the wetland . The only reason we thought we wanted to dredge a portion of the wetland to create a pond just to create an amenity to that end of the site that really needs some help. The only reason I wanted to acquire this piece of property was to develop another entrance to our site. Our site has a serious problem and really I think a health and hazardous condition in that there' s only one street that serves I don ' t know how many units. 150 or some incredible number and they were in the flood , if you talk to residents , one of the big ponds there flooded and they didn ' t have access. Most of you weren' t around when we bought this property and got it zoned originally but there was concern then , when we did the project about how much access there should be on Pleasant View. If you looked at our original plat , the original planned unit development that was approved and it was always planned that there would be connection from our project through this piece of property now. Maybe you could show them where that is . Rick Sayther : It may not be clear to the people back here but this is TH 101, Pleasant View Road . The site that we ' re looking at now is over here . The only access from Pleasant View now is near TH 101 and it feeds back into this big area to the west. When this was approved , there was approved a stub street that deadended into the piece , the O' Brien parcel that we ' re dealing with tonight with the idea that there would be some sort of a looped street system to that property. Emmings : Where does that road go to the north? Rick Sayther : This is the Shorewood/Chanhassen boundary and in the other Galpin/Near Mountain PUD there ' s another road that comes down . Emmings : That Trapper ' s Pass that stubs , that little stub they' re talking about putting a barricade across and that goes into , when that land to the west of that is developed , will there be more entrances still out into the existing roads? Peter Pflaum: The point I was trying to get to and I got off the subject a little bit , the reason we wanted this site and the only reason we wanted it was to develop another access to our property that was originally intended as a way to have access to our property. The reason I was concerned about doing something with the pond is I wanted to dress up the entrance to the property. We had a private meeting with the neighbors and I asked the neighbors , there are some of them here , if they would object or what their feeling was if we created a pond there because if they didn' t want it , we wouldn ' t do it . My understanding was the neighbors felt it was a good idea . One of the neighbors was concerned whether , maybe more than one , if we did something to that pond it would somehow affect flooding on their property. Rick studied that and he can show that that is not a factor . All we really wanted to do was just open up a corner of the property so we can have some open water so we can landscape around it and just enhance the property. We also want to do quite an intensive landscaping around the entrance because at that point in time , just like we did in the Near Mountain entrance . There ' s no vegetation so we wanted to put some trees in. So that ' s all we' re Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 14 talking about but the reason is just to improve the property. I think our concern was , the way the condition is put on it by the staff, we — couldn ' t live with it because of the way that it was written would not allow us to really improve it with the idea of opening up some water . That ' s the only intent was to do that . So those are the three issues . _ The trees , opening up some water in the marsh and the sidewalks . Those are the three issues between us and the staff . Everything else I think we ' re in agreement . Emmings : Just so I 'm sure I understand , are you saying that you ' ve got an application here for a wetland alteration permit and the staff is recommending approval of that permit . Now, if you get the permit with — the conditions that are on it, will that give you what you want there or are you saying . . . Peter Pflaum: No , we ' re saying the conditions placed on it will not — allow us to do what we want . Emmings : What specific condition? — Dacy: Number 1. Michael Pflaum: Let me try to explain . I don ' t have the Fish and Wildlife Guidelines before me but basically as I understand it, by reading it , the objectives that these standards serve are to establish . beneficial habitat for wildlife creatures and marsh vegetation. Produce a nice ecosystem that will be beneficial to wildlife in general . What we are attempting to do here is take a small piece of that wetland . It ' s about 6% of that and make a hole there . Open water so we don' t have — vegetation growing up through the water . There ' s going to be I think 7 1/2 acres of wetlands undisturbed . Actually it ' s going to be a little less than that because we are building our pond, our pothole, on a portion of that 7 1/2 acres . Basically about 7 1/2 acres remain undisturbed. A 1/2 acre is dredged to form an open water pond without the shallow slopes and ungladdy bottom and so forth because really that ' s not the aesthetic that we ' re trying to make. — Emmings : And then real specifically, how does that first condition cause you problem with what you want to do? — Michael Pflaum: It ' s so small to begin with that having an irregular shape is almost impossible to create. The second one has to do with side slopes . Side slopes are too shallow. You have very abundant weed growth — coming up to the surface which does not create an open water pond . If you have an uneven bottom, where it ' s rising and falling , you have irregular weed growth throughout and basically, we' re not trying to — create a rice paddy. We want to create a pond and leave the rest of the land as it is . Mr . Stevens : What constitutes as wetland is all that I want to know and how is this 7 acres a wetland? This was farmground . Dacy: Yes , it' s to my understanding that many years ago it was farmland . — . . . in any case, a wetland exists our there today. It is on the DNR' s map Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 15 and we had a gentleman from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife come out and evaluate the site. He confirmed that it is in fact a wetland. There are three things that determine a wetland . Vegetation , soils and if it supports wildlife habitat. In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife person ' s opinion , those three tests were met . Mr . Stevens : I have test borings here from 1978 where at 15 feet it impacted 8 , 000 pounds and no water appeared in the hole in four hours on the adjacent property. The first lot just south of this one and that was the wetest spot on the area . We had horses down on that for about 5 years. We pastured horses in there. Mr . Hoyt has two evergreens in his yard about 50 feet tall that came out of that same sewer area you ' re talking about and I think O' Brien ' s farmed it for many years . Dacy: I 'm not disputing that . I just want to make clear that even though there may not be standing water at consistent time periods throughout the year , again , that there is wetland vegetation , canary grass , sedge grass , if there is peat and muck soils or wetter soils than the typical hayden clay soils that you find in Chanhassen , then the Fish and Wildlife people. . . Mr . Stevens : You probably have those conditions now but they were created. It wasn ' t that way. Dacy: Right , and we have to look at what exists today at this point and not what was 10 or 15 years ago . Mr . Stevens : How long ago did they determine this was wetland? Dacy: It was in February. Mr . Stevens : How about my lot next to this? Is it buildable next to that pond? Dacy: With a variance , potentially yes . Mr . Stevens : A variance for what? Dacy: Depending on where you ' re going to place your house on the property. . . Mr . Stevens : I 'd like to split them into two lots . It ' s 9/10ths of an acre. Dacy: If you ' ve got 90 feet of lot frontage , 15, 000 square feet of lot area and you can meet the 75 foot setback . . . Mr . Stevens : But we can put a road in along side and split it for two lots can ' t we? Isn ' t that in your ordinance? Dacy: You ' re talking about. . . Mr . Stevens : We' re 150 feet wide or so on the front . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 16 Dacy: You would have to create a full blown city street right-of-way. With 150 foot lot width , you could not split that into two 90 foot lots — running on Pleasant View Road . Mr . Stevens : We ' re planning on putting it this way. . . Emmings : Sir , I 'm going to have to ask you to address the issue that ' s in front of the Commission. Mr . Stevens : I think it is the issue because if they put in that pond and then I have to set back 75 feet from a wetland and they' re calling that a wetland now, then the condition is changed . — Emmings : But you ' re asking our staff to tell you whether or not you ' ll be able to divide your property and until you put in an application and they have a chance to look at it in detail , it ' s unfair for them to put them on the spot. If you have questions like how far do I have to be set back from that pond or something , that would be appropriate but don ' t ask us to do a review of your property here tonight . It just can' t be done. — It ' s not fair to you or to us . Dacy: With or without this pond , this boundary represents the limits of — the wetland today so even if they didn ' t create this pond, their pond isn ' t creating your issue . You have to deal with this pink boundary in here as it goes through your site. Mr . Stevens : My question I guess was when did it become a wetland because it certainly wasn ' t when I bought the property? It was called buildable lots by the City and the sewer and water is in on them. We ' re — paying taxes and assessed for it and I certainly would like to be able to build on it . Jim Wehrle : I 'm the President of the Near Mountain Homeowners Association. I guess there' s just a few key points that we'd like to communicate . Those of us who live in that immediate area , especially such as myself and my neighbors . Obviously as far as the trees go , we ' re — pleased with the apparent resolution that ' s been reached with the agreement . To put something in writing to protect the trees . We ' re in favor of that but I ' ll second the thoughts that Lundgren Brothers have — passed along that they have done a pretty good job in saving the trees , even though they haven ' t been required to . Secondly, I think my primary concern, speaking to you as an individual from this point, that there under no circumstances be, hopefully any resistence to allowing another — exit out of our development for safety purposes . We found ourselves in a situation last July of not being able to get the Life Squad back into that area and it is still the exactly the same exact situation today as — i.t was at that point in time. We could not , if a flood came up out of our ponds across the streets , the one real access street that comes back into the area where I live, we can ' t get any first aid as needed . I had — a life squad truck stall out under 3 feet of water in front of my house on July 21st , or whenever it was and I think there are getting to be so many homes back in there and there ' s such limited access right now, that that ' s an absolute necessity for health and safety if nothing else , as — well as traffic flow. As far as the pond , I think all of us who built or Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 17 —ir bought in Near Mountain did so because it was a very nice planned unit development . It has a lot of nice ponds in it. I think Lundgrens di.d a great job in putting in the ponds that are there now and I think this is comparable to , my understanding of how they went about putting in the pond that are in there now. Dredged out an area perhaps 6 feet deep . I would think if they were allowed to do what they' re proposing here , that it would be a great enhancement to the vegetation and/or wildlife that may want to live in that ecosystem because it is dry, as has been discussed here , a considerable part of the year . That would see to it that there was some wetland available throughout certain parts of the year . So not only aesthetically would it be nice but I think it would enhance whatever necessities the wildlife had for that wetland. Lastly, I ' ll just concur that we do not have sidewalks throughout the rest of that planned unit and there wouldn ' t be any consistency with what is there now. It ' s not a big deal to the homeowners association one way or the other but I will concur that it seems to be a needless expense that' s non-conforming with the whole atmosphere of the existing development . Emmings: Is what they' re calling sidewalks here, is that the trail? Dacy: Off-street trails. Emmings : The portion of the trail system that ' s been recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission. Is there anybody else who wants to comment on this item? Greg Cray: I live on the second lot down from where that pond is there . I really like the development as it ' s laid out but there again , the one problem that I have is the pond in general . That whole wetland area , there ' s no drainage out of there except for one very small tile line that was put in by the City when they put the park in which is just to the southeast of that area . Right in there. The end of that tile line would end up approximately in the middle of that pond the way it ' s drawn there . I want to make sure that there ' s some means for getting water out of that area . Like during that large storm last year , we got a tremendous amount of water back in that area. Probably, I would guess 8 feet deep on a site over that wetlands area . The tile itself that was put in was put in quite high in my thinking. It really would have to be extremely deep out there before it would ever be of any kind of use for draining that area out. I 'd just like the City to take into consideration the possibility — of that tile being changed and enhanced to make sure that there ' s no drainage problems and so on especially since I ' ll commission the hillside could have an impact as far as the watershed and so on . Emmings : How long have you lived out there? Greg Cray: Approximately 6 years now. Emmings : And we' ve been hearing that it ' s typically dry in there . Is that your experience? GregCra It depends on the time of Y= P year . It generally has water . At the time we bought, it was dry. When I bought the lot. The next spring during the time where I was building the house , it got quite a bit of Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 18 — water in there and it ' s gone anywhere from so dry you can walk across it to 6 to 8 feet deep, depending on the weather . — Batzli : How does it impact your lot? Greg Cray: The big impact it has on my lot is that my sump pump never quits running when it gets high. It just raises the water table of the whole area because there' s no outlet . Emmings : Do you have anything further? Greg Cray: No. — Emmings : Do you want to address this outlet question? Brown: Yes. I ' ll address part of it and then I 'm going to defer this question to the applicant ' s engineer , Rick Sayther . We' ve discussed this 6 inch tile line quite extensively being that the public has been quite concerned about it . Upon submission of the storm sewer calculations for — the plat , I raised the question to the engineer , Rick Sayther , what happens to this 6 inch line once the development is in? Are we overloading that line and Rick explained to me that in their — calculations , and I went through and verified this , they completely disregarded that line. The reason for that , in the event of a 100 year storm, they have provided enough storage in the ponding area to take care of their development alone without any run-off from the 6 inch line that — now exists out there . So they' ve provided more than adequate storage for it . This 6 inch line will adequately drain it off obviously at a slower rate than an 18 inch pipe would but the storage issue , I think they have — addressed quite well . As far as the neighboring structures , I ' ll have Rick discuss that . Rick Sayther : I 'm Rick Sayther with Sayther-Berquist . We' re the planners and engineers for Lundgrens . After we had our neighborhood meeting or at our neighborhood meeting this gentleman came and was concerned and I was too, not knowing what the elevations were out there — so I sent my survey crew out to do a couple things . One was to locate the edge of the wetland and the other was to shoot the elevation of the tile line so we could see how high the water would get before it ran out . — We also went onto his lot and I hope he isn ' t mad at us for it but we went out and shot elevations around his house and shot the garage floor elevation. It ' s not a walkout so we couldn ' t shoot the basement floor _ but I would guess it ' s probably an 8 foot difference between the garage and the basement. Something like that? Greg Cray: Yes , it would be about that . — Rick Sayther : Okay, we shot the garage floor at 923 . 98 which is about 924 . The tile line right now would outlet the wetland at 912 . 7 so from — f the garage floor down to the tile is about 11 feet . The basement would be at about 915 or 916 so the basement level is 2 or 3 feet above the tile line. In the 100 year storm, we expect the water to rise in the wetland up to the 914 contour which is that pink line on the drawing . — The theoretical 100 year storm which we got way more than last year . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 19 Emmings : Is that with or without the pond or doesn' t it matter? Rick Sayther : That pond together with the other ponds will serve to reduce the run-off rate to what ' s there now. We' re proposing a couple of other ponds that aren ' t colored that are the stuff on the top of the drawing . Emmings : So if you didn ' t have the pond , would the water be higher in the 100 year storm? Rick Sayther : I 'd say yes because we' re increasing the total amount of run-off through the development process. If the tile line wasn 't there at all , then that marsh would continue to fill and there would probably be a problem someday but even with that small 6 inch pipe, it will have adequate capacity to drain the water down . Water will drop down to at least the pipe elevation and then it may evaporate out and go dry like it has in the past . The wetland . Or it may stay up at that elevation of the pipe. It just depends on the season and the wetness . It ' s a good thing the pipe is there and our calculations show that it would be adequate for the future. Emmings : If that is dry so much of the time, how will the pond have — water in it all year round or all summer long? Rick Sayther : We believe that although the surface gets dry sometimes , below the ground level 6 inches or less , there ' s water so if we dig down — 4 feet , we'd have 4 feet of water in that excavation. That ' s really what we ' re doing . We dig below the surface level to have open water where now the water is just standing in the soil . Emmings : So you ' re digging down into the water table and have you dome something out there to test that notion? Rick Sayther : There 's water there most of the time just at the surface . Just below. Our experience in the area with all the ponds that we ' ve done have shown that that ' s a real practical way to create a pond . Brown : If I may address one other thing . Prior to me coming aboard on staff here at the City, as I understand it, there ' s been a great debate over the 6 inch tile line that was placed out there by the City. Being that it is now, at the present classified as a wetland and at the time that the tile line was installed, we could not drain the wetland dry so the intent of putting the 6 inch tile line at a certain elevation was to maintain some moisture in that wetland so that wouldn ' t be a euthification of a wetland . Emmings : Anybody else have any comments on this? Mr . Stevens: Are you also aware that there ' s a culver that drains the parkland back over into that slew? Brown: Yes we are . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 20 Mr . Stevens : Although the contour of the park has changed quite a bit . — It used to drain the run-off into that area . Conrad moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Erhart : You stated that you planted trees in this area . Are you referring to when you developed the other areas in there you planted trees to landscape after you did the subdivision or you planted trees in this particular area? Peter Pflaum: We didn ' t do any of this in this particular site . What I was really referring to is , if you were to drive in Near Mountain, this whole area didn' t have any trees on it. Every tree in that subdivision. If you went into this area right down here you 'd probably find , I don ' t know 70-80 15 to 20 foot evergreens . I was talking about this area . — Just driving you can see . That ' s what I was referring to . When I was talking about woods , from this area where my hand is all this area is woods . What I was saying , we developed all this land in here in the — woods . We went out there and working with backyards , there wasn ' t any requirement , it was never a problem. It ' s a real hardship for a developer to have to come in and bring the city out there and show them iL what trees you' re going to take down. I can see your concern if somebody — has abused something and I can also see if i.t was an ordinance that required to every development . Erhart : This is something that started after . . . The condition number 1 there Barb, what does it exactly involve? It says tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building permit application for Lots 1. . .? Dacy: Basically what that means is that when the Certificate of Survey is submitted for each building permit application. At the time of — building permit application for individual homes . Erhart: What does that have to do with the subdivision? Dacy: I ' ll finish . A Certificate of Survey will show where the proposed house pad is going to be and the finished floor elevation of that as compared to what the existing contours are out there on the property. So — what we would be asking the builders to do would be to label on that plan where the construction area would extend to . How much of the lot would they be grading out during construction of the single family home so we have a record that they are not going to be clear cutting the entire lot . Erhart : In our clear cutting ordinance, we have a clear cutting section in our subdivision ordinance right? Dacy: Right . It ' s tree removal and conservation of vegetation in the subdivision ordinance . — Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 21 Erhart : It states that they will all be 3 inches or something , that are removed for streets . . . Dacy: No , I think what you might be referring to is shoreland requirements for tree removal but that specific diameter size is not identified anywhere. Erhart : In the subdivision ordinance? Dacy: Right . Erhart : We do have it as clear cutting provision in the subdivision ordinance? Dacy: The term clearcut is not stated i.n the ordinance but there are six provisions in this section which allows the City to require these types of removal plans . Erhart : In the subdivision ordinance? Dacy: Yes . Erhart : Is there anything else in the process that requires the developer to identify house location? Dacy: No , the Certificate of Survey is the best method to do that because the surveyor has gone out to the lot. Again, the developer has suggested an alternative condition that would be acceptable to staff . Erhart: What I 'm driving at is , this particular paragraph just started showing up in the subdivision proposals about a year and a half ago and you ' re the first person who ' s really objected to it. I don ' t remember being on the Commission where we ever actually discussed this particular thing . I think we just accepted it. Do you remember Ladd? Conrad : Yes . It was like a policy. Erhart: Yes , we kind of accepted it but I don ' t know if it was ever really clear what we were asking . Conrad : The detailed requirement of the developer , we base it on staff ' s opinion of what is necessary for a landscape plan or clearcutting plan . Erhart : Without spending a lot of time on it , if we thought it through and this is what we want to do, that ' s fine. If we haven ' t , I guess I would suggest perhaps at a later meeting we do think through this particular requirement and really understand the ramifications to subdevelopers to see if there ' s a possibility to accomplish the same thing without placing much effort into it . That ' s enough of that. The other thing is , the sidewalks , the trail system. Again , unless I 'm wrong , this is the first time that I can recall seeing a subdivision come in here where there was actually a request of the subdevelopers to actually put in the surface for the trail system. Am I wrong on that? Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 22 47 Dacy: Yes . There have been other subdivisions where off-street trails have been required. Erhart : Where they' ve actually been required to put them in? The asphalt surface? Dacy: Right . — Erhart : Recently or a long time ago? Dacy: Lake Susan Hills West. Curry Farms. Kurvers Point. Again, the Park and Rec Commission adopted their trail plan within the last year so they' re just following through on those requirements . Erhart : So we' re to understand that it is now city policy here that now that we' ve got a trail plan, that we' re expecting developers to do that as a part of the subdivision? If that ' s the case , then I think that ' s — something new. Dacy: I guess I would even go one step farther with the Commission and — say that that recommendation is from the Park and Rec Commission and certainly the Planning Commission is welcome to comment on that particular condition. However , the final disposition of that particular condition should be up to the Council . I would feel uncomfortable having — the Planning Commission acting on what the Park and Rec Commission did . Erhart : I 'm not suggesting to do that . Again , I 'm bringing up, we ' re acting on policy for a program in the City to do that so it ' s probably worth our while to have Lori come in here and tell us what is the grand scheme of these things. On the other hand , if this is something that' s _ been going for a long time and we just missed it , then you can just ignore than. What was the purpose , are we requiring the developer to extend the Trapper ' s Pass up to the end of the property or is that their idea? — Rick Sayther : I don ' t think the staff has required that we run the street up here but we found that the buyers of the lots , the builder or _ the home buyer can ' t really fully appreciate how that will look after the street ' s built unless the street gets built so it ' s just been the policy of Lundgren Brothers to build the street adjacent to any lot that ' s platted whether it ' s going to be used right at that time or not. — Erhart : Alright , we appreciate that . Lastly, do you want to defer the wetland questions until we get to that or just go? — Emmi.ngs : You didn' t really present your report on that did you? Dacy: Between the discussion of the developer and Larry, I think staff ' s presentation is fine . Emmings : Okay, then let ' s just talk about the whole thing now. — Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 23 Erhart : There ' s simply not enough run-off there to make essentially a wildlife wetland. It' s seem the proposal is simply an aesthetic pond which I 'm all in favor of . There simply isn ' t enough drainage there to take the 912 or the 911 and create and improve a combination an aesthetic area and wildlife . Rick Sayther : I believe that through time , after the development is finished , since there will be more water going into the basin, that water will stand in there more often for longer periods and you ' ll probably get more aquatic vegetation than you' ve got. The base of it is a big , flat bottom basin . The water stands in a couple spots and the water has to get 1 1/2 to 2 feet deep before it can run out. I think through time you ' re going to have that position where the water is standing there 1 1/2 to 2 feet deep over quite a big area . I think the wetlands will become more viable . Erhart : That being the case , could we resolve , the real problem with ponding is your slope. You said in a small pond you can ' t make the increase of water with a 10: 1 slope around the whole perimeter , correct? What about, let ' s assume the area does become more ponded as time goes on , could we increase the size of the pond slightly to the west? Forego the requirement for the 10 : 1 slope on the east half of the pond but slightly increase the size on the west size to get the 10: 1 slope toward the center of the bowl as an alternative . Rick Sayther : That ' s a creative idea . I think what ' s really going to happen though is , it slopes all around that basin. The whole basin has slopes of 10 : 1 and 20: 1. As the water fills in there and it gets to get 1 1/2 feet to 2 feet deep, I think exactly what the Fish and Wildlife is hoping for would happen with most of the wetland . Whether we do the pond at all , that condition will come to be. There will be a better habitat . What we really want to do with that little half acre piece there is to create a permanent open water area for the attractiveness of it . Erhart : I think you can accomplish both simply by expanding the size . Maintain your open area because you want 3 feet of water there to keep open and just expand your grade off towards the center . I understand you ' re limited by road and you have lot constraints. I just suggest that as a compromise solution on this but again , certainly a pond is better than nothing at all . That is the real problem isn ' t it? The slope. There ' s really no other problem. It ' s uneven to me. It ' s too small to have a rolling bottom. Muck, you ' re going to have it whether you want it or not . That ' s the real problem. Rick Sayther : The intent is to dig it to be 4 feet deep from the pipe down. Erhart : I 'd say it' s pretty straight forward beyond that so I ' ll pass . Conrad : Larry, on the streets when we have a 10% slope on Trapper ' s Pass , what does that create? What kind of drainage problems does that create when we have a slope that ' s a little bit steeper? Is that a concern of yours? Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 24 Brown: At 10% grade, no. — Conrad : You' re worried more about safety and access than you are with drainage? Brown : Correct . The reason that you see the type of storm sewer casting that is speced out, that you see commonly around the City is for that very reason . At a 10% grade the water does not go shooting past the — grate but falls down into the curb box so that' s not a concern of mine . Conrad : For drainage specifications , you ' ve considered the grade and you — feel comfortable that they can deal with that? Brown : Correct . Conrad : As far as the pond is concerned , my only concern on the pond is that it does dry out and we end up with something that ' s not always the most attractive thing . I think Peter you had some problems last year when we have the semi-drought before we had the semi-floods. I can ' t think of a solution for that . I guess I would not ask for an expanded ponding site simply because when it does go dry, a pond can look — negative. In terms of how to keep it full all the time, I guess I don ' t have a solution for that particular concern. Because of the developer ' s good track record in Chanhassen and the fact that they have to a degree reforested and have been really pretty sensitive to the environment , I think they should follow our policies but I 'd sure encourage the staff to make it a very easy review with the developer . I don ' t know what kind of guidelines that ' s sending and I guess I ' ll ask Barbara . When somebody — submits a tree removal plan, what does that entail? What is that? Is that specifically detailing which trees are cut or is that a review, a walk through of the site with people from the developer ' s company. How do you do that? Dacy: It basically shows what trees are going to be removed in the area of the construction for the grading and the construction of the home. We — do not require a detailed inventory of each lot and each tree . Just a plan to show us the area that trees are going to be removed and basically, it means kind of a circle on the site or around the proposed — building pad. Conrad : So it ' s a document that is submitted? Dacy: Yes , that we keep on file. It gives the inspection staff and when the building permit is reviewed by all the departments , we can look at it and say, okay they' re not clearcutting the lot , they' re not removing a — substantial amount of vegetation . It appears to be okay. Now, to be honest and totally frank , 5 years from now that property owner could go down and one day at a time take a tree down at a time and put down new sod and eventually clearcut the lot and we probably wouldn ' t know about it but we have gotten burned . There are subdivisions during building permit review that it comes back to staff saying , why didn ' t you catch this and how could you allow such a thing . — Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 25 Conrad : There have been some real bad situations and I think we agree that there should be review of that. I 'm trying to get a sense for , are there degrees in this review because we know that the Near Mountain group has done a real fine job so to impose a burden is not the point of this little exercise . To be consistent however , in how we treat people is to a degree important. So I ask the question again, are there degrees in how we work with the developer and we review that tree removal situation or is it just an absolute? Are there no degrees in the depth that we go to in that plan? Dacy: We can work with Mr . Pflaum and work out some type of solution to this. Yes, there are degrees available and we would be more than happy to work with them. Conrad: That ' s all . Brown : One clarification if I may. To address both Mr . Erhart ' s comments and Mr . Conrad ' s comments, the concerns about extending the wetland out , I think I ' ve analyzed the flows that come down through this storm sewer pipe and pond and eventually go out the 6 inch tile line. To creat an open water pond you need at least 4 feet of water before the cattails will not grow. The rates just would not really facilitate extending this pond out . Being that you have a shallower pond , it wouldn' t be an open water pond and it would be more inclinced for your operaion . Again , you have the scenario that Commissioner Conrad talked about, having the edges dry and having a barren surface out there which I don ' t think is desirable . Erhart : I have a point that the requirement is only a 10 : 1 slope for 30% -- of the shoreline so it ' s not the whole thing . Brown : My intention was not for the slope. That ' s an entirely different issue, but extending it out. They've maintained a certain rate to keep an open water pond out there . Conrad : On the pond , I feel comfortable that the requirement of the Fish and Wildlife Service, condition (a) , I don ' t have a real strong feeling for keeping it uneven and I think that condition can be slipped , in my mind. I 'm not sure that the others, I haven ' t been persuaded yet that the others can be slipped or sacrificed . Based on what I just said Larry, because I am saying that (b) through (f) for Fish and Wildlife is important , did you just say that (b) should not be a requirement of their ponding? Brown : No . I 'm saying that the total overall surface area of the pond , they are restricted in one sense as far as the slopes . I think it ' s a whole other issue . Ellson : The tree removal plan , I wasn ' t here when I guess you ' ve had all the abuse and I certainly understand it. Maybe you can put something in there such as , unless it ' s a developer we ' ve worked with before who has proved himself . If you ' re new then you ' ve got to go through the . . .until — you' ve proven yourself to our City, you don' t have to do it. I 'm not Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 26 necessary comfortable with clearcutting but if staff is comfortable with -- that clearcutting unless approved , then I would be fine. Also, I agree with the rest . I think he ' s been very good with the City and I 'd rather not bring him any more work than he needs . The part about the sidewalk, _ I think the Park and Rec Commission , as you stated before , are just pretty much asking for this to be tagged along with everything from now on but I don ' t really see a point if this is part of the whole planned unit development and it wasn ' t done as a planned unit development then it ' s no longer planned . It ' s all of a sudden something that was stuck in there. It takes away from the idea of being planned . I could see eliminating the sidewalks . I share the same feelings with Tim about the — wetlands thing . I would like to see them try to have grading like there someplace . I 'd hate to eliminate all the major points that the Wildlife Service has and then say, we think in a few years it will end up that way anyway. They have a certain intent and there ' s really good reasons for — it and they didn' t just decide this for nothing . They' ve got these points for really good reasons . I 'd like to see some sort of attempt at a portion of it sloped like that if it could be . That ' s it. — Batzli : I had a couple of questions for Larry to start with . Is the retaining wall only going along the deadend portion of Trappers Pass? _ Rick Sayther : Yes . Batzli : Is there a setback requirement on that or do they put that right "" up to the street? How are they proposing to do that and is that a portion where the Park and Rec Commission has required the sidewalk? Brown: The setback requirement for the retaining wall? Batzli : Yes . That ' s something that you guys are going to have to r approve at any rate, correct? Brown: Correct . Batzli : Is that including if there would be a setback required? You have in here that details for the construction of the retaining wall shall be submitted . Are you comfortable with that? In case you need — some sort of setback from the road or something else that you ' re covered there? Brown : Yes . The plans propose that the wall be placed outside the — public right-of-way and that would address our concern . Batzli : And the sidewalk, as it currently is being requested by the Park — and Recreation Commission , doesn ' t go along right at that end? Brown: It very well may be . I haven ' t reviewed the Park and Recreation ' s recommendations with that . Batzli : On the barrier issue, are you talking about some sort of semi- permanent barrier? What exactly are you thinking about installing right — there? Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 27 Brown : This issue has recently come up before the City Council with the imfamous Teton Lane feasibility study and we are now gathering specifications and trying to adopt a standard for a permanent breakaway barricade. You ' ll be seeing this possibly in the future where it' s imbedded down in the ground . It ' s a sturdy sturcture that wouldn ' t allow a regular car to go through it. However, a fire truck could very easily snap it off at the base and gain access . Batzli : Is aesthetics part of the study that we ' re conducting on something like that? Brown : Definitely. There are several designs that are out there and have been used for a very long time. Batzli : I have a general question and anybody can answer it . Is the Fish and Wildlife Service, after having designated or Department of Natural Resources , after having designated something as a Class B wetlands , there are six conditions that we list . They' re established by the Fish and Wildlife Service and how binding on us are those conditions? Dacy: We use the Fish and Wildlife Service as much as we do DNR or the Watershed District . They make recommendations to the City. The City' s wetland ordinance goes beyond the requirements of DNR or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife . If that wetland was not on the DNR ' s maps , it is on the City' s maps because we cover all types of wetlands . So city staff is recommending that these conditions be a part of the wetland alteration permit and a recommended condition of approval . If the Commission feels that this is not appropriate in this case , that ' s fine . Then you can remove all or some of the parts that you don ' t feel i.s appropriate in this case . Batzli : I think I heard you just say that our standards are tougher than the DNR' s but we included here their standards . Dacy: No , what I was saying is , our ordinance covers wetlands beyond what the DNR covers . Batzli : That ' s all I have. Wildermuth : I think most of the issues have been pretty well discussed . I guess I 'm not persuaded that a tree removal plan doesn ' t have to be submitted . I think Barbara , between you and the developer you can reach some kind of an accomodation for a simplified plan in view of the track record that the developer has . I think the Fish and Wildlife recommendations should be observed . I think in view of the investment into the trail system that the City is going to be making , we should — definitely stay with the trail system. I like to see this kind of development . I think it ' s a real asset to the City. Large lot development with nice homes. It ' s going to be a real asset. There is t- one issue though that I would like to bring up and that is , at some point I think we' re going to need some help from these developers in giving our highway system a little further developed there. TH 101 is a pain now and it ' s going to be even worse. I see this 32 home development , some of Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 28 the other land that Lundgren has is zoned multi-family. That ' s going to — put even more pressure on Pleasant View and TH 101 . Emmings : In that regard , did I just see in the paper that the State and — the County swapped some land and that the County is going to be taking over TH 101 . It looked like it didn ' t come that far south . Dacy: That was only north of Hwy. 12 was my understanding . — Emmings : But the article seemed to say that after some improvements are made, south. It sounded like Hennepin County or both of them. — Dacy: South of Hwy. 12? Emmings : Yes . Maybe I 'm wrong about that but I thought that was an interesting piece of news that somebody was finally actually being forced to take over responsibility for that thing . Wildermuth: I think at some point we ' re going to have to put the brakes on development in that area because of what ' s happening or what ' s not happening with TH 101. That ' s all I have. — Headla : Street lights are going to be required? r Dacy: Yes. They are part of the development contract. — Headla : Would you tell me again what you ' re going to do with that whole wetland area . Just give me a quick shot at it . Are those bullrushes , is — that going to change? Rick Sayther : I guess I 'm speculating a little on what nature will do _ through time. Our intent was to put i.n a storm sewer pipe that would drain the water from the streets and the frontyards and the driveways , run the water down into a 4 foot deep open water pond and the water would then drain out through the 6 inch tile line the City built through the — ditch and the park and eventually to Lotus Lake. The rest of the wetland we wouldn ' t do anything to . This 7 acres plus the south there we wouldn ' t touch at all but I was saying that I thought through time it — would become a wetter wetland . I don ' t know if that makes a lot of sense but right now it ' s seasonally dry. In some seasons it ' s dry. I think through time, because all development generates more water than no development, it will tend to be a wetter wetland . — Headla : Larry, do you think that pond would be filled up? What ' s your guess? When would that propose pond be filled up? It holds roughly — 100 , 000 gallons . When would run-off fill that up? One spring? Five springs? Rick Sayther : Immediately. As soon as it was dug it would be full . As soon as you start digging with a backhoe , there' s enough water in the soil that it would fill immediately to the surface of the ground. Some of the ponds that we did last year in Shorewood Near Mountain, we were — building ponds that were above the ground water level . Those we needed a Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 29 -t° long time . We need the big rain to fill those up but this is a different situation. We ' re actually working in a perched water tabled . Headla : The reason I wanted to know that is , when I drove through there , I really felt pretty much a sterile, naked area. Well manicured ponds and I saw some geese in there . They were swimming period . You go look at that whole wetland area, that was teeming with ducks , geese and a muskrat or something at the far end but they were in there feeding and I suspect they were getting ready for nesting . When you have just a well manicured pond , outside of being a catch basin , it ' s worthless to wildlife and I sure would hate to see that wildlife habitat disturbed or lost . It almost sounds like, from what you said , if you put in that pond you ' re going to be draining the moisture back into that pond until it gets filled up . Rick Sayther : I don ' t believe it would . The pond area that we ' re talking about is about 5% of the wetland area . A pretty small percentage . Greg Cray: I ' d like to make a comment . I 'd say about 90% of that pond area is under water right now. It ' s under water . The water level is that high. Rick Sayther : I don ' t think the water is up where you think it is . Headla : It didn ' t seem like it. It just looks like that pond , on the balance , that that whole area there . I don ' t have a comfortable feeling on it and I don ' t know enough about it to even say I 'm right. I haven ' t seen anything here to give me any confidence that we ' re not going to upset that balance. Brown : If I may add a point . The water table at this point , I think everyone will agree, in that area is fairly high. It ' s a perched water table . Essentially what you ' re doing is just removing the soil . The water is already there. Right now it ' s not real evident because the soil is there . You remove the soil and you have a ponding condition along with that perched water table. It ' s not as though you ' re taking a dry area , digging it out and letting the runoff come into that dry area . Headla : So on the map there, like where it has 7 . 5 acres , your feeling is you aren ' t going to drop that water table maybe an inch or a couple of inches at the most for the time being . Brown : No , because the water table right here is perched already. If there was not a perched water table at that point , then I would say yes , that is possible . Emmings : What does perched mean? Brown: Perched means that there is an impervious layer somewhere down that will allow the water to go above normal , the lake bottom or any body of water . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 30 Headla : Barbara , I 'm pleased at item 5 . I just love to see that type of — thing on the wetland. That ' s going to give us more clout and help everybody. When the builder starts applying for permits at Murray Hill , did you have any trouble there? Remember all the discussions we had — about the tree plan? Dacy: Oh , the six lot subdivision down at the bottom of the street? I was employed here . Headla : No , they' re just putting them in now. Emmings: It ' s the one where they took out the house to create that entrance into that Murray Hill? Dacy: Okay, that ' s called Eight Acre Wood . Headla : Did any problems develop, is the builder and you communicating with what trees are going to be removed? — Dacy: They' ve gotten plans and specification approval . We haven ' t received any building permits on any of those lots yet. They' re doing — what they have to do for the road and utility construction. Larry, you 've dealt directly with them. I Brown : For the first phase only they put in utilities . Right now that -' project is being held up by the Watershed District but that ' s not relevant here . A point to note , we have and I will not mention the names to protect the innocent but we have run into problems , serious problems with not having tree removal plans . . . Headla : I just got to support item 1 on that tree removal . I think _ we' ve got to go all the way on that . We ' ve asked the same thing and we had the builder here , I think he' s outside now, who went through that whole bit . We didn' t , at least I 'm not aware of any problems with him. I think we ' ve got to be consistent and require that . I want to support the — one on the trail system. I think we ' ve just got to ask the same thing of him that we ask of anybody else. That ' s all I have. Emmings : I don ' t have much additional . Brian has pointed out a section of the code under required standards for PUD' s . It does prohibit clear cutting of woodland areas and prohibits cutting trees over 6 inches in diameter unless it ' s demonstrated there is no feasible way to develop the _ site . Dacy: That ' s Section 20-1179? — Emmings : No, this is Section 20-504 (b) . Dacy: Okay, Section 20-1179 is part of the landscaping ordinance and it says the same thing . It would apply to the non-PUD areas also . Emmings : And it talks about the number of trees per lot and what size — they have to be so there already are some things there. It doesn' t sound Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 31 to me like it' s a very formal requirement . I 'm a little torn on this issue because I think a developer who ' s done a good job and has proven he ' s done a good job ought to get some credit for that but I don ' t think that means we relax our standards . It doesn ' t sound to me like it ' s that big a deal to put in a tree removal plan . You want to know the general areas of cutting and it sounds like they can take a plat and just circle on those lots that you ' ve expressed concern about , circle a general area of where there will be tree removal and that ' s all you really require . It sounds like a pretty easy job to me. It ' s not like taking a complete inventory of all the trees out there and then deciding tree by tree which are going to go and which are going to stay. I think we ' ve got to leave that in there . We put it in on all of them and I think we ought to stay consistent on that so we don ' t have problems like we' ve had in the past ever again . On the wetland question, I think it ' s a good thing to put , if that pond wasn ' t sitting on a wetland I think we'd all be all for it and I don' t think it makes any difference that it ' s sitting there on a wetland in this particular case . I think it' s a nice thing . I wouldn ' t want to own Lot 1 however and worry about kids coming and falling down into the pond but I don ' t have to buy a lot now so it ' s not a problem. Another thing on the pond is it just seems like such a differdnt kind of alteration . We ' ve been real firm about forbidding alteration to wetlands but it seems to me when we ' ve done that it ' s been where they ' ve wanted to fill them or they wanted to put roads through them. Alterations of that kind . This seems like a very different kind of thing . It would be nice to hear what someone like Dr . Rockwell would have to say about this particular one but it seems to me that some of these Fish and Wildlife Service items can be a way to create what they want to create there in this particular case. That ' s all I have. Erhart : Steve , I think we ' ve been doing a lot of these haven ' t we? Where there are alterations of Class B wetlands where we 've had holding ponds and stuff . Emmings : Where we ' ve put ponds in them? Dacy: The best example that I can draw for you to draw a similarity is the City' s pond at the end of West 79th Street . Remember when the City went through it ' s wetland alteration permit . The basic purpose of that pond was for storm water retention and we couldn ' t achieve some of these six conditions because the HRA and the Council felt it should be more aesthetic and more appealing . They didn ' t want to see the wetland vegetation around the rim of the pond . Emmings : So that ' s directly analagous . Dacy: Right , so you have a similar situation and the other point being that it is a fairly portion of the total wetland . Erhart : I think in this subdivision right up here , there ' s a lot of ._,, ponds . 44— Dacy: Right , there ' s no question that we have on a regular basis implemented these conditions . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 32 Batzli : Would it be a reasonable condition to request that they get some sort of a DNR opinion that what they' re going to do won ' t adversely affect the wetland? Dacy: Sure, that ' s fine. Batzli : Is that the sort of opinion that a DNR official would give? — Dacy: They may or may not need a DNR permit anyway. Emmings : You went out there with somebody. From Fish and Wildlife? What did they think? Dacy : Right . Prior to Dr . Rockwell leaving , both Dr . Rockwell went out — there with Jo Ann and Mr. Leech went out more recently in February and they felt that the wetland was a marginal quality. It wasn ' t extremely good but it wasn' t extremely bad and they felt that the proposed — alteration could be achieved but as typically, they have always recommended the implementation of those six conditions . Emmings : Do you know if they were asked if this was just a pond like they' re proposing , if it would have any detrimental effect on the balance of the wetland? Dacy: To be honest , I know that Mr . Leech did not have the benefit of this detailed plan when he went out to the site. His main purpose was to tell us the quality of the wetland and where the edge of the wetland — vegetation was to advise the developers . Emmings : Could his opinion as to whether or not the pond , as it ' s _ proposed , would be detrimental to the balance of the wetland be obtained before this gets to the City Council so they could take a look at that? Dacy: Yes . — Emmings : Okay. Anybody else have anything? A motion was made at this point. Discussion followed . Conrad : Point 1, you don ' t feel Dave that you want to simplify the tree removal plan at all? You ' re comfortable that the developer should go — through. . . Headla : We' re saying a tree plan . A tree plan ' s a tree plan . Now the — people who work with the contractor , there ' s going to be some repoire and I 'm sure there ' s going to be give and take as they develop a tree plan. If somebody comes in and they really don ' t know what he ' s like, I 'm sure they' re going to look at it a lot more seriously what they' re doing than somebody they' ve had repoire and worked with for a few years . Conrad : So you don' t want to send a signal saying , in writing , a —' simplified tree plan? Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 33 r Headla : No . Conrad : You think that staff can interrupt the words right now? Headla : I think right now it gives them enough leeway that they can work with that person and do what they think is the spirit of the recommendation . Emmings : I agree with Dave on that , by the way. I don ' t think we should change. That ' s a boiler plate condition and I think it ought to stay that way and let the staff work with the applicant , just like Dave says . I think it ' s very appropriate and it doesn ' t sound to me like we ' re requiring that much anyway. Conrad : I don ' t know what simplified versus complex is and I think Tim' s comment is we should probably talk about what this is because it ' s really good but we don ' t know what we ' re asking . Dacy: And that ' s probably because you don' t work with it everyday. The building inspectors and the planners , we ' re out in the field all the time and we work with them and we can tell from the Certificate of Survey if they' re really going to be needing to remove all those trees . Conrad: Maybe Mr . Chairman you can have staff educate us in the weeks to come on what ' s required . Erhart : I 'd ask staff to come back at some time and help us understand this requirement and whether or not we' re really putting a hardship and we ' re not gaining anything but as far as this proposal , I think we ought to move ahead . Headla moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #79-2 for 34 single family lots as shown on the plan stamped "Received March 4, 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1. A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building permit application for Lots 1-5 , Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3 and Lots 7-14 , Block 4 . 2. The applicant shall construct off street trails along Trappers Pass , — Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted and trail fees waived . 3 . Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit. 4. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these improvements . 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit and the permit from the Department of Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 34 C Natural Resources . — 6. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of any grading , and once in place shall remain in place — throughout the duration of construction . All of the erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer . — 7 . Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize slopes greater than 3 : 1. — 8 . All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City' s standards for urban construction. 9 . The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer details for the construction of the barricade on the deadend of Trappers Pass between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4 with the plans and — specifications. 10 . Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side of the _ Class B wetland along the rear of Lots 1 through 9 of Block 4 . The City' s standard detail for the installation of Type II erosion control (staked bales and snow fence) shall be placed on the grading plan . 11 . Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall along both sides of Trappers Pass deadend shall be submitted as a part of the plans and specifications review for approval by the City Engineer . 12 . Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4 , as depicted on Sheet No . 1 of the plan set dated February 18 , 1988 shall be revised to show the correct property boundaries . 13 . The driveway for Lot 16 , Block 4 shall be constructed such that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois Avenue . 14 . The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which will serve as an emergency overflow swale for the ponding site of Lot 2, Block 3 . 15. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front and rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility easement for ponding site and storm sewer facilities shall be — shown on the final plat . 16 . All private drives shall access internal streets to the subdivision . _ No driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant View Road . 17 . The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the time of plans and specifications submittal and design adjustments made — Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 35 accordingly, if necessary, to facilitate proper conveyance of stormwater under Pleasant View Road . All voted in favor and motion carried . Conrad moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-5 to permit development within 200 feet of a Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within the Class B wetland with the following conditions : 1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must meet the following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service : a . The basin will have free form. b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10: 1 to 20 : 1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife . c . The basin will have uneven , rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0. 5 - 3 . 0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation . d . The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation . e. The basin will have water level control (culverts , riser pipe, etc . ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland . f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland . 2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the pond within the Class B wetland , the applicant shall provide details on area of construction for the pond within the wetland and how the remaining wetland will be preserved . 3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8, Block 4 to completely protec ;t the wetland from any construction activity. 4 . All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9 , Block 4) must meet the 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland . 5 . The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration of the wetland area on Lots 1 through 9 , Block 4, beyond the 914 elevation . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 36 6. The developer shall make every effort in it ' s pond design to improve the wetland and make the wetland an attractive, useful wildlife habitat . All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and motion carried . Batzli : Is staff going to have the Fish and Wildlife come back out? Emmings : If you want to amend the motion , if you want to make that . — Conrad : Would you like me to add that staff bring the Fish and Wildlife? Emmings : Or get an opinion from them. Maybe they don ' t have to come back out. Wildermuth : I don ' t think DNR or Fish and Wildlife can do much with a — wetland that small . Conrad : I 'm comfortable that they don ' t need to be invited . — Emmings : Brian, do you want to state your reasons for your vote? r Batzli : I guess I 'd prefer that we invite somebody out that actually — knows what they' re doing to take a look at what we' re proposing . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE, SPECIFICALLY LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BF, BUSINESS FRINGE _ DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 608 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, JAMES FREEMAN AND BRAMBILLA ' S INC. Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item. Emmings : Has the applicant been asked if he 'd be willing to go along _ with closing off one those? Brown : The applicant , we received word that the applicant was dissatisfied with closing off one of the accesses . — Jack Brambilla : In regards to your little diagram there , you brought up — the question about the speed going by there. If you back up to the east about 100 yards , there ' s a warning light there that will come on when the traffic light when you go to the left there is lit red. That warning — light will slow traffic down if the traffic light is for stopping . It ' s a little problem corner there. I don' t think the cars are going no 55 mph there . People do slow down . Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 38 p. Erhart : Only the traffic that turns to the left here has to slow down . All the traffic going to Chaska can go right on through . Jack Brambilla : There is a right hand lane that ' s been widened . The State come in there and purchased some property from me to widened that lane to give it two extra lanes going straight ahead . Erhart: This is actually a three lane road . Jack Brambilla : That ' s right . Right at that point . Erhart: You' ve got more than two more conflicts there than you 've shown . When people go to Chaska . . . Jack Brambilla : I ' ve owned the property and there' s never been an accident in front of my property from going into on that property yet . Heaven forbid . Erhart : It hasn ' t been open for use . Emmings : We ' re not going to have arguments between members of the Commission . You go ahead and make your points and then Tim you go ahead and make yours . Jack Brambilla : Other than that , the only thing was on the removal of the driveway. I have talked with the State, they had talked to me about that . I do not want to give up a driveway entrance either on or off at that point. It would really be a dilemma for the property to lose a driveway. What we ' re using with a 25 foot setback, if the people have to come in one driveway, make a turn inside and go back out, that ' s ridiculous . Brown : Mr . Brambilla , does that mean that you are in full agreement with the one entrance marked in and the one entrance marked exit? Jack Brambilla : If it worked properly. It has not been tried . I wanted it to work properly. I would be in agreement to the two driveways , one in and one out because that is the way that normal people would be entering that piece of property. Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Headla : After the clarification on the fuel storage tanks , the letter said the condition of the tanks is not acceptable . Then a condition is compliance with the Fire Code as to the use and location of the fuel storage tank. I don ' t know what all that means yet . Dacy: The intent is, compliance with the Fire Code as to the use means that he has to come in and receive a permit . That means he ' s going to have to either buy new tanks and conform with whatever the Fire Code says . I think it' s fairly clear that the existing tanks are rusted . . . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 39 17 Headla : Alright , that ' s the way. The existing tanks are unacceptable? — Okay, that ' s fine. Dacy : If you wanted to clean up condition 1 there . — Headla : I wasn ' t really sure what it was . I kind of got hung up on the letter . Then is expansion a problem? If he ever wanted to do any expansion at this site? — Dacy: That was one of the issues from staff ' s standpoint because outdoor display of merchandise for sale means exactly that and we felt that the — applicant had indicated to us that they wanted to put up a greenhouse . We felt that that was going a step beyond the intent of that use. A nursery, wholesale or retail is not a permitted or a conditional use in that district so we wanted to put the Planning Commission on notice that that ' s what the applicant is thinking of and they would have to process another zoning ordinance amendment if that were to be considered . Headla : He ' s well aware of that? Dacy: Yes . — Headla : I 'm going to let Tim address the road . He ' s got a much better feel for that . Batzli : I was going to talk about traffic but I think that ' s going to be covered. I did have a question on why the appropriate sign permits must be obtained prior to occupancy. Why wouldn ' t that be prior to their — installation? Why are you requiring them to get sign permits prior? Dacy: Maybe that was a poor choice of words on my part . Yes , we need a _ sign permit before they put up a sign . That was the intent . Wildermuth : I don ' t have anything . Batzli : So you feel comfortable changing the "occupancy" to "installation"? Dacy: Yes . Batzli : My other question was regarding the pumper contract . You ' ve lessen the condition that ' s in the Section 1982. I think what I would like to do is that I 'd like to amend it eventually to read , the applicant shall comply with all applicable codes , provide the City with the proper septic tank pumping contracts at least once every 3 years to make it read — as Section 1982 actually reads . That ' s it . Ellson : I can ' t see a reason necessarily to deny it because we have it — zoned business fringe like that . It does meet the requirements . I don ' t like the fact that this area is zoned that way but I think it ' s a terribly dangerous area but I would probably approve just because of the way we' ve got it written and the fact that he ' s certainly giving us a — condition that ' s been approved . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 40 —I Conrad: No comments . Erhart : With all respect Mr . Brambilla , if I owned that piece of property I 'd be doing the same thing but I think we' re into a bigger picture problem here and Barb and I have been doing a little research on this whole business fringe district down there. You' ve got a situation where you have a 2-lane in many places , 3-lane and 4-lane highway that goes for miles in the agricultural area , it ' s zoned agricultural in Eden Prairie and agricultural in Chanhassen and then again agricultural as you get farther west out to before you get into Chaska . It ' s also downhill all the way from Eden Prairie all the way down and the result is you get really high speeds there. It' s nothing to see 65 and 70. Maybe right at the corner but down that hill and the fact is , with the growing population of Chaska and Shakopee, the racetrack and everything and the rush hour traffic , you get 20, 000 cars a day coming by there. By making this a BF district we ' ve encouraged business should go in this area yet we simply haven' t provided the safety standards to go along with it . It ' s like putting Pryzmus on a freeway and having a left turn through the median . If we' re going to make a business district out of this , then I think we ought to have provisions and plans in there for service roads . There ' s no other place where you 'd ever have 65 mph traffic directly accessing onto businesses . I think we' re just nuts and I don' t know where MnDot ' s thinking is on this thing . We are encouraging businesses at this intersection. I buy gas frequently down there at the SA station and I think it ' s an extremely dangerous situation . We ' re adding to it . It ' s going to get worse. We' re going to have more because there ' s potential for other businesses down there . Right now, Barb and I looked it up and I think we determined that everyone except one or two is non- - conforming even as the BF district is written . I guess I 'm working on a letter to the Commission here to have them really review it. I ' ve already asked once and I feel that we should look at it conjunction with the Comp Plan. I think it ' s real dangerous . I don ' t know what to do about this situation . We have to look at this thing in a very serious manner . I ' ll vote against not because, I think you do meet our zoning ordinance but I think it ' s a definite safety problem. Emmings : I don ' t have anything to add . I think Tim' s comments are well taken . I think it ' s dangerous to the point of being foolish but I don ' t think that ' s a reason that we can deny this . A motion was made at this point with the following discussion . Emmings: Did you want to limit it to the west driveway being the exit and the easterly driveway being the entrance? Batzli : That would be my recommendation but I suppose the Highway Department and Larry have something to say about that as well . I wouldn ' t want to limit them to that. I think that may be the best plan right now but if the consensus is that they want to see something like that , I 'd be open for a friendly amendment certainly. Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 41 Conrad : Was there discussion under future use , and I apologize for not — being here, but was there discussion as to providing the applicant with a feeling of whether we thought a nursery was appropriate in the future? Did we address that? Emmi.ngs : No . Barbara talked about it . Dacy: I had anticipated on putting the BF district issue for discussion — on the next agenda on April 20th . Maybe it would be appropriate to advise the applicant at this time that since the Commission is wanted to look at that in more detail , that we can start that study so to speak, — within the next couple of weeks and provide direction back to the applicant at a later time so the Commission can take a broader approach to the whole district . Conrad : That makes a lot of sense but I guess it makes a whole lot of sense right now that we do that but if this motion passes tonight, I think the signal is saying that you meet the ordinance but we have great — concerns for how that area of Chanhassen is being developed. We' re not saying that in the future we will be as open to expansion . We may be but right now we can ' t give you that signal . — Jack Brambilla : I had one question . This property we' re talking is about 2 1/2 acres in size . I am after a permit for the whole 2 1/2 — acres , not just the front so the useage of the property out in back for storing of plants for sale, everything should be, and we ' re talking the whole acreage of the parcel , not just the front . Am I correct? Did you understand that also? — Dacy: Then we may have a gross misunderstanding because I thought I made it clear that that site plan has to show what you want to do on the — property. Jack Brambilla : Barbara , the rest of the property right now has trees and Mr . Tykus has been farming up in the back side and if my renter wants — to put a product up there in bowls , the tree bowls , it should be that we can use the property that way that we' re talking about . Not just restricting it to the front 50 feet . — Dacy: I 'm at a loss Mr . Brambilla because that ' s what was represented . I sat down with your wife. I sat down with Mr . Freeman. What ' s shown on _ the plan is what the Planning Commission has to look at . Jack Brambilla : The main part of the business i.s out front. If I can ' t get a greenhouse application , I have to make application for a greenhouse — but you mean to say he can ' t put a tree on the other side of the fence? Dacy: That was not made clear to me as a part of the application . Just — for the Commission ' s input, I sat down with Mr . Freeman who is going to be operating the outdoor sale and I said , show me what you ' re going to be doing on this site. He said , I just want the display area up in front . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 42 47 Jack Brambilla : That ' s mainly what we are after but we still have 2 better than 2 acres of land . Emmings : Let me ask you a question here . Is the applicant supposed to submit a site plan which shows the entire property and which parts of it is going to be used? Dacy: Yes . Emmings : That ' s a requirement isn ' t it? Dacy: He submits a site plan showing what will be occurring on the property. Emmings : And is this the site plan that they submitted? Dacy: Yes . Emmings : And it doesn ' t show the back part of the property? Dacy: Right . Emmings : Would you like us to table this so you can submit a new site plan? Jack Brambilla : No , not tonight . Emmings : Because if you get any approval tonight it ' s just going to be for the front part of the property. Jack Brambilla : Then we should change the site plan because it says on there 171 feet back. Emmings : But it doesn ' t show that area and it doesn ' t show your intended use of that property and that was not laid out to staff . I 'm suggesting to you that maybe you ' d rather have us table this . Jack Brambilla : Today what I 'm looking at i.s trying to get a renter in there and get this property working . It has been vacant for a long time . I just want to know here, are we going to have a lot of restrictions if we do want to use the rest of the property going up? Emmings : I don ' t know. See, we ' ve got a problem here . These things are assessed by staff and then brought to us for our comments . Now, because you ' re bringing it up now at the llth hour here, staff doesn ' t have any opportunity to assess what you ' re doing there . You should have made that clear to them when you brought in your application . Jack Brambilla : He did put the footage on there but I understand your point . Emmings : You ' re required to have a drawing of the property showing the entire property' s intended use showing what you intend to do with it . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 43 Jack Brambilla : We did send a copy of the Exhibit A which is the whole — plot is listed there. Emmings : That ' s not a site plan . — Jack Brambilla : I guess we have to go with what we had initially on the site plan. Dacy: As represented in Attachment #2 is what you will be basing your approval on . Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-4 as shown on the site _ plan stamped "Received March 16 , 1988" for outdoor display of merchandise, specifically landscape products, on property located at 608 Flying Cloud Drive and subject to the following conditions : 1. Compliance with fire code as to the use and location of the fuel storage tanks . 2. The appropriate sign permits must be obtained prior to installation . 3. Display areas shall not encroach on the 25 foot front setback. 4 . The applicant shall comply with all applicable sewer and sewage disposal code and provide the City with the proper septic tank pumping contracts once every three years starting on the effective — date of this conditional use permit . 5. The applicant shall prepare with the city staff an appropriate _ driveway access plan . 6 . Display of merchandise is restricted to the area indicated on the site plan stamped "Received March 16 , 1988" . The display area is — limited within the area designated by the fence and TH 212 . All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and motion carried . _ Erhart : I 'm opposed for the reasons stated . Emmings : Traffic considerations? — Erhart : Safety. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH _ REQUIREMENT FOR A DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE. Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 44 Public Present : Name Address Bernie Hanson • 4125 Thomas Avenue, Minnetonka Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Robert Pierce Applicant Emmings : Again , as a preliminary matter on this one , just as on the first one, I 've got to ask staff if notice went out to all the lakeshore owners pursuant to the ordinance? Dacy: Notice went out to all of the homeowners associations with recreational beachlots but not the individual riparian owners . Emmings : Then I 'm going to recommend that we do the same thing with this one that we did with the first one. There are people who probably would come tonight to speak about this . I think they should go ahead and make their comments known and then we should hold open a public hearing and continue it until notice can be given because it is a zoning ordinance amendment that requires notice to all the property owners abutting the lake pursuant to Section 20-43 . Erhart : Are you sure? In what you ' re looking at , requires us to , when dealing with a specific property proposal , it requires that we notify everyone on that particular lake. Emmings : This is under Division Two , Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance . Erhart: Then we have to notify everyone on all lakes because the zoning ordinance deals with all lakes . Headla : It ' s got to be more than just the lakes . It has to be published. Erhart : Did you publish notification? Dacy: We did the public hearing ad and we prioritize the homeowners association with the beachlots . Emmings : It makes sense with the conditional use permit section. Does it make sense to have it here under the Zoning Ordinance Amendments? Does having this provision , which is in here? Dacy: I really think it' s a judgment call on the issue. If you want to table it for us to contact everybody, that ' s up to the Commission . Emmings : Let me explain. I live on Lake Minnewashta . I look directly at this property just like I look right across at Red Cedar Cove. I didn ' t know Red Cedar Cove was going in until it went in. My neighbors and I thought gee , it ' s amazing they can do something like that without saying anything to any of us who are directly affected by the project . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 45 This is 500 feet of the lakeshore on our lake . It ' s right over there to the right where we all look and I got no notice. If I hadn ' t been on the Commission , I 'd never would have known this was going on and I know my neighbors didn' t either . Erhart : But we' re not dealing with Red Cedar Cove. Emmings : I 'm aware of that but we' re dealing with this piece of property — that ' s closer to me than Red Cedar Cove. Dacy: I do know that the applicant is here. Maybe we could do the same — thing that we did on Sunny Slope . Emmings : That ' s what I 'm proposing but now I 'm questioning whether this makes sense on zoning ordinance amendments . It ' s here in the ordinance — but I 'm not sure that it makes a lot of sense . It ' s one thing if we ' re talking about a zoning ordinance amendment generally but here we ' re doing it really at the instance of a particular developer for a particular — piece of property. Even though it would wind up changing the ordinance for all future beachlots , this is coming in from a person who wants to do a specific thing to a specific piece of property and I think at least the — lakeshore owners on that lake ought to be here if they want to be . Besides, that' s what the ordinance says . I guess what I would like to do is literally read the ordinance . Go ahead and do everything we can do tonight. Handle it the same way we did the first one and hold the public — hearing open . I think there are people who would want to come. Erhart: I 'm not arguing , I agree but what do you want to do? Invite — every lakeshore owner? Emmings : Here ' s what they' ve done . They' ve given notice to the _ homeowners association, for example Minnewashta Heights probably has one and the ordinance requires them to do that and they did it but they did not do another thing the ordinance requires and that ' s to give every property owner abutting the lake on which the development is going to — occur , that same notice. I 'm not in any homeowners association . Minnewashta Lows has no homeowners association . Ellson: So you ' re saying every lakeowner? Emmings : The ordinance says that . Erhart: On what? Emmings : Under public hearing for amendments to the zoning ordinance , it — says is a development is proposed adjacent to a lake or will affect the useage of the lake, the applicant shall provide the City with a list of property owners abutting the lake at the time of the application. The — City shall provide mailed notice to the lake homeowners as in compliance with the procedures above, which specify the procedures for notifying homeowners associations . Erhart: I didn' t hear zoning ordinance . Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 46 Emmings : Yes , the whole section in one zoning ordinance amendments . That 's what the whole section is . Batzli : Can I propose that we do table it but we allow the people who have shown up to speak in public hearing, ask the City Attorney to give us an interpretation on what exactly is required and then go through with the appropriate notification procedure? Emmings : That ' s fine if you think that ' s appropriate. I don ' t know that it needs interpretation but if you feel like it does . Well , let' s go ahead . Is there a staff report? Dacy: I have nothing more to add unless you did want me to go through it. Robert Pierce : I guess I 'm not quite following where we' re at with this process . This is the third time, which has cost thousands to me, that the notices have been out to the wrong people and it ' s getting somewhat tiresome. I guess, where are we going from here with that. Is the City Attorney, is that what ' s going to happen? Emmings: I don ' t know what the City Attorney is going to say. What I 'm saying is there' s a provision in our ordinance which says that everybody who lives on the lake gets notice of this meeting so they can have input if they want to . They didn ' t get it . Robert Pierce: Is that Lake Minnewashta? Emmings : Yes . Robert Pierce : Okay, so that ' s the only lake we ' re concerned with . Is that a month away now? Dacy: No , two weeks . Can I say one thing? We just took the interpreta- tion that it was a zoning ordinance amendment that would affect all lakes and that ' s why again , we just notified the homeowners associations . In the case of Sunny Slope , we made a mistake. We should have notified everybody on Lake Riley. In this case , we felt that a homeowners associations with beachlots would be directly affected. You have brought up another side of that concern that we did not look at so that ' s why. Robert Pierce: What ' s done is done. I just want to know to eliminate maybe a problem in the future so we can get it to the next point . At any rate, let me just go through a little bit of what we' re planning here . I ' ve gone to quite a few meetings so I might get somewhat directly to the high points. We ' re asking for one dock with three overnight storage facilities . The slips would belong to Lots 3, 4 and 5 of the dock. They would go with those lots . We' re also asking for a canoe rack. One canoe space for lots in there and there are 15 lots and each one would be allowed just one. We ' re putting the dock on the widest side of the parcel towards the north . We' re leaving basically intact all the trees . We' ve had them located and we' ve designed our path down to the lake Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 47 I around the trees in order to leave as much as possible . The beach area in — it 's natural state. We are having a sand blanket. We shorten it down from our original proposal considerably. On either end , to the north and to the south, we ' re leaving quite an area , basically untouched other than — to clean up the area . It gives a lot of a buffer zone to any adjoining properties . Emmings : I don ' t mean to interrupt but I just have a thought that the way down the slope, there was a lot of talk last time you were here about whether it was a ramp or stairs . What is that? Robert Pierce: I guess at this point it doesn ' t really matter to us . We' ll work with staff or whoever might have recommendations . It' s just not a big concern. I think personally the tiered steps may look a little nicer . That would just be my feelings on that but we ' re willing to look at it. I think you' re pretty familiar , we have 550 feet of lakeshore roughly and we ' re about 115 feet on the north side and about 80, it ' s slightly narrower in the middle. We' ve moved from the original proposal that we looked at , most everything towards the north . The dilemma we' re having here, the docks allow us to start on our development with a far , far higher caliber of home. If we are able to go ahead with that and — market it at thi.s point, we' re going to be looking at homes probably from the $200 , 000 . 00 to $400, 000.00 range. You can' t market that with the docks and the beach, we ' re going to be reducing , in my feelings, about $100 , 000 . 00 per parcel for the finished product . I think it ' s — advantageous for all concerned, including the City, to have this area start out in a nice fashion . There ' s a lot of land in the future that the City Planners have brought to your attention. Everyone is probably — going to be opening up here over the next , who knows how long . It might be soon, it might be a while but I believe this area is one of the areas that starts off , the flavor will probably carry through onto the other _ parcels . I think for the City, for tax reasons, this would be a very good idea . Also , it ' s just the same useage as far as overnight storage , as I 'm sure you ' re all aware of , one dock with three boats is the same what one single family can have. We ' re trying to work with the City and — bring our request into line. To step on as few toes and do it in a nice way that we can for everyone concerned. I think as a whole, we ' re on very good relationship with people around us . I think we can maintain — that. Larry Wenzel : I live just south of that area . I guess I 'm a little confused as to what we ' re doing with this not only just on our lake but all the lakes . Apparently the change is to a requirement which is 100 foot depth by 200 feet in lakeshore to come within the conditional use variety for this type of piece of property. That ' s a lot of land . It — seems to me that the overlapping program here is that anybody to utilize that as beachlot has got to be within 1, 000 feet of either that beachlot or waterline, I don' t know which. If you look at that in relation to the size lots , probably 7 families could utilize 20 , 000 square feet . Now, on our particular lake right there, we had a public access that was utilized by the general public and we would have 10 to 20 to 30 cars parked on the street illegally. Nobody did anything about them. Couldn ' t get anybody — to tag them, move them. They did finally put up signs but that doesn ' t _ Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 48 mean anything . They would unload before dawn and pick up late at night . Screeching tires and the whole thing. We' ve got another access just down — on Little Joe that ' s about another half a block with the access is a driveway. The quantity of people who can use is unlimited . Then you come to the othe side of the coin and you say, if you ' re a landowner or developer or you ' re a group of people and you want to utilize it for people that are owners within the area , you have to have all this space . It doesn ' t seem to fit. Something ' s missing here. We do have recreational beachlots on the lake. They are much less impact than a — public access . The only reason the public access on our side of the lake was closed is that the park went in on the far side and as soon as you started to charge on the far side, you put boulders in so they'd have to — go there to unload . That dramatically dropped the useage of the lake but something ' s not fitting right . Emmings : What would you like to see the City do on this issue? Larry Wenzel : I don ' t think that you can take an overall scale of square footage or lineal footage and apply it to every condition on every lake — because they' re not all the same. The conditions are different . The population on the lake is all different and I don ' t know that you can just put in a straight ordinance that fits everybody like that . It — doesn ' t make sense especially when you ' ve got public accesses and public accesses in some cases are adjacent or very close to what they want to do with the beachlot . Everybody has their own position but this isn ' t fitting right for some reason . I have no objection to the beachlot the — way Pierce i.s laying his out because right there, we' ve got others and they' re more satisfactory than the public access , as far as the landowners that are there or the neighbors . That ' s not a problem but — when you start talking about something that ' s all of a sudden is 200 feet by 100 feet or 20, 000 square feet and you only get limited amount of spaces for utilization , that doesn ' t necessarily make sense either . If you go half a block away and use the public access and run your boat into everybody' s shore and beach it because they can ' t kick you off anyway from the lake. It just doesn ' t make sense. We' re so restrictive on the guy that owns the property but we' re not restrictive in the sense of what — we do with the public access or the utilization of the lake. That ' s kind of where I 'm coming from. — Emmings : And you ' re expressing support for this plan? Larry Wenzel : I think this plan in this particular area , which affects me, is great . This might not fit , but I don ' t think for instance if — you ' re going to say that he ' s got to have 20, 000 square feet, which I think you ' re thinking about the ordinance changing to be, and I 'm not sure what that is . Emmings : Right now that i.s the ordinance . It ' s 200 feet of lakeshore with a 100 foot depth. All the way along it is the way right now we ' re interpretting it but we ' re going to try and clear that up. Larry Wenzel : In some places you' ve got roads that come down and shorten that down. Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 49 C Emmings : I think they looked at that and this is the only place where we' ve got that situation isn' t it? Dacy: On the west side of Lake Minnewashta . Larry Wenzel : So then that gets amended in that sense or what? Dacy: What ' s being proposed is that the ordinance language is proposed to be amended so that you only have to have 100 feet of lot depth where the dock is going to be located . As long as you meet the area — requirement and as long as you meet the lake frontage requirement, if you have 100 feet of lot depth where the dock is located , that ' s the proposal . Larry Wenzel : What if you don ' t have 100 foot anywhere in the section? Dacy: Then you would have to receive a variance . — Conrad : Then basically we don ' t want a beachlot there . Emmings: Do you own land between the road and the lake? Larry Wenzel : Yes . Sure . Emmings : And how much frontage do you have? Larry Wenzel : 240 feet and it ' s 10. 5 acres total but I 'm already into two front lots. It ' s plotted that way now but that doesn ' t necessary mean that at one point or another , I ' ve got no benefit going either way if I develop because lots on the front that have their own lake property _ in relation to a series of lots all sharing , I 'm not sure how that value would be accepted . The value of the lot exclusive or jointly but it just seems that all of a sudden we' ve got a situation where there ' s a road that cuts in like that. That road has been there , my house has been — there since 1850 and the road was there and all of a sudden things are changing and it just doesn ' t seem right that the ordinance. It doesn ' t seem right that these ordinances become so restrictive but it ' s isolated . — You can go just a short way away and you ' ve got public accesses where there are no restrictions . That just doesn ' t make a whole heck of a lot of sense . Emmings : Do you have any other comments on this item? Larry Wenzel : No. I 'd rather see $400, 000. 00 houses than I would — $200 , 000 . 00 houses because that helps everybody. If that ' s the type of thing that creates it , I 'm all for it . Conrad moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the public hearing was closed . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 50 Erhart : Specifically the current ordinance does require that it all has to be 100 feet so if this thing was 1 , 000 feet long and there was one spot in that 1 , 000 feet that wasn ' t 100 feet wide , you couldn' t put a dock in? Dacy: Right . Erhart : That seems a little silly doesn ' t it? I think it sounds like a reasonable thing to do. Did you want to discuss the canoe thing too? Emmings : Give any comments you ' ve got so he gets the benefit . Erhart: Okay, we' re not going to vote on this tonight then? Emmings : No , we' re going to table it . Erhart : You ' re suggesting that the number of canoe racks simply be left to the judgmental decision at the time the conditional use permit comes in, is that correct? Dacy: That ' s correct . Erhart : That ' s all I ' ve got . Conrad : I have no problem with changing the amendment . I think that ' s fine . I do think that for canoes , I agree with the concept , I don' t know why we had limitations on canoes before . I think if we want a million canoes on a property, that ' s fine with me if that ' s the way they choose to decorate their beachlot . However , as part of the staff report , it said instead staff recommends that canoe racks be a permitted use in recreational beachlots . The number of canoes to be determined as a part of the conditional use permit review. I guess we need some guidelines and therefore I 'm kind of happy we' re tabling this because here somebody' s going to come in with canoe racks that dot the shoreline and I 'm not sure what those guidelines could be Barbara . I started thinking what they are. I think philosophically I don ' t know that we need to limit the number . Yet on the other hand , to say it' s going to be a conditional use and we' re going to review it , we should have something that ' s going to guide that review. Otherwise I don ' t want to see it because philosophically I 'd say we could have a million canoes so I don ' t really want to see this unless we have some standards to apply to different situations like the gentleman was describing . I think staff should do a little bit of analysis on the canoe aspect . Emmi.ngs: That brings up another issue too. We call these canoe racks but they store watercraft . They don ' t just store canoes and I don' t know, it looks like you can put sailboards on them, small sailboats, all kinds of things and I don ' t know if we want to get into that but that could be another issue. Maybe you want to tie the number of spots to store something on a thing that looks like a canoe rack to the number of houses? Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 51 Wildermuth : Didn ' t you say that somewhere Barbara? Didn ' t you try to -- equate the number of residents in the beachlot association with the number of available racks? Dacy: That would be one idea because that is being proposed by the applicant. That ' s fine . I think maybe in the term canoe racks , maybe we should change that language regarding to that section to be storage of non-motorized watercraft because Mr. Chairman , you ' re right, it' s canoes . — It ' s sailboats and sailboards . Emmings : What about a 15 foot aluminum boat, rowboat? — Dacy: That ' s fine . Emmings : As long as it doesn ' t have a motor on it , they could go on — there too right? Conrad : That I get real interested in because that ' s a whole different — animal we ' re talking about. Batzli : Isn ' t the distinction made by the people that license watercraft _ in the State of Minnesota? Whether you need numbers on the side or whether you just need like the sailboat and sticker on the side? r Wildermuth: They all need numbers . — Batzli : No , they just need the sticker on the side . Conrad : Yes , your sailboats and canoes just need stickers . Batzli : You might look into that as being able to make some sort of _ distinction based on the State ' s definition of that. The recommended language for the amendment to the dock section , I would strongly recommend that you don ' t include the language where the dock is proposed to be located but actually where it is located . I am assuming you want the dock to be located at the 100 foot depth, correct? Dacy: Yes . _ Batzli : So you don ' t want that to be where the dock is proposed to be but where it actually is located . My second comment would be that I would prefer that there be some , taking Tim' s comment , that if you had 1, 000 feet of lakeshore and only one foot didn ' t have the 100 foot depth , change around to have 999 feet of it as 2 feet deep and you ' ve got 1 foot of it that extends back 8 billion feet so you get the required square — footage . I 'd like to see that there be some minimum amount having the 100 foot depths still . At least as a minimum. For instance, how much land has to be on either side of the dock? Emmings : The setback? The side setback? Batzli : Do you know what that is? — Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 52 Dacy: There is a "dock setback" but I can ' t recall what that is right off the top of my head . Batzli : Since it ' s being tabled , I guess I 'd look at something like that and I assume it' s going to be 10 feet or 15 feet and double that so that you have a minimum 100 foot depth of 20 or 30 feet . If you look at it and you don' t like it, I ' ll still probably recommend something like that next time. Wildermuth : I think that' s a good idea . I think Brian ' s comment is a very good one. I think maybe the distinction and the criteria for a canoe rack ought to be something along the guidelines that he was talking — about with the number requirements or just the sticker requirement. That might be the way to describe that . Headla : I like what Pierce has proposed . I certainly support it . I think the 200 foot and the 100 foot dimensions are purely arbitrary. I think it ' s ludicrous that you should try to stop one fellow because he doesn' t have 100 feet. You automatically stop him from getting a -" beachlot . I have yet to hear any rationale , whatsoever , what ' s so magic about 100 feet? Why is 100 feet better than 50 feet? Why isn' t it 200 feet or 300 feet deep? Until I hear that logic , you ' re cutting off somebody. Pierce has to screw around with us for how long just because we' re using an arbitrary number of feet on the depth . I think that ' s unacceptable. This isn' t a day where we just arbitrarily put any number and say, that ' s good , let' s fly with it . I think we really got to take a look at it. If you want to tie square foot per person per lot, I think that has some value . I hear a lot of opinions on this but damn it , why doesn' t somebody go to somebody like Pleasant Acres and look at it. They' ve got a big area , how much of it is really used? They' ve got a road down there and they probably use 30 to 40 feet of it and they' ve got a volleyball court , they have a catamaran , a boat there , two satellites , that' s the area that they really use . Emmings : Two satellites? Headla: 30 or 40 feet from the lake. Emmings : Have they been there all the time because those are not permitted on beachlots . Headla : That ' s another thing , they should permit them. It ' s ridiculous we don' t have them. Emmings : If I didn' t know better I 'd think you owned land between the road and the lake too Dave. You sound like those guys . Headla : The requirement of no cars , I think that' s an excellent requirement and that 's got to stay. That ' s going to stop a lot of people ,r from using it . Emmings : The only comment I ' ve got is I think he ' s got a very nice plan here. I like Brian' s comment that the dock setback, at least the area of Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 53 ,: the dock setback and maybe double ought to be the minimum area that has — to be 100 feet. That ' s something that we should look at. This plan I think fits this property very well . I think it would be ridiculous to wind up with a result here where we denied all the people living right _ across the road from that shoreline , the ability to get down to the lake. I think it' s a very minimal impact on the lake. I look at this. I 'm directly affected by it and it doesn ' t bother me at all . I think it' s a good plan. — Conrad : It ' s a great use of a beachlot . It ' s a classic for what you want to do . — Emmings : The problem with the beachlot thing to me is , if everybody could bring in a plan and say, this is what we want to do, I think we wouldn ' t have any trouble saying yes , this one ' s good and that one' s bad — but we wind up with more litigation over beachlots probably than any other issue for the simple reason that it' s just impossible to try and define a set of standards that we can apply. That ' s an objective set of — standards that we can carry from one beachlot to the next . That' s the problem. We ' re all bending over backwards trying to get this one approved because it makes sense and we ' re going to do everything we can , — I think is what I hear and is the way I feel about it, to get this one approved . Unfortunately we can ' t write a standard like that . We' ll Capprove it if we like it and we won ' t if we don ' t . Robert Pierce : The only thing is I am anxious in the economic climate to start marketing them and I ' ve been a little hesitant to do that . It' s very hard to market them saying we ' re going to have a dock here. I 'm in — the process that looks good. People say, well call me back later . I guess that ' s where I 'm coming from and maybe we ' re closer here . Conrad moved , Erhart seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-263 (6 & 7) of the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance until the proper notification has been done. All voted in — favor and motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 5 AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT — PARK (JUST WEST OF MGM BUILDING) FOR BERNIE HANSON FOR THE FOLLOWING USES TO BE LOCATED IN A 19 , 048 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING: A. SMALL VEHICLE SALES B. OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE C. SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE — D. AUTOMOTICE SERVICE CENTER Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 55 Dacy: The ordinance reads that there should be a 2 foot hedge between the parking areas and public rights-of-ways so it would just be a minor change. Wildermuth : Are there going to be any underground storage units? Dacy: Not to my knowledge . Wildermuth : They' re all going to be above ground . I guess the only other thing that has to do with the site, again, and that is the turning radius in and out . If you look at the other businesses along there, they've all got a problem with the radius. The width of the entryway. I guess I would hope we don ' t make that mistake here . Dacy: The driveways are designed to our standard . Wildermuth : Maybe our standard needs a little attention . If you ' re going to the dentist and the doctor, the liquor store down there, it' s a real problem turning those corners? Conrad : Why is that? It is a real valid comment . What are the specs that make it that difficult? Dacy: When those buildings went in, to the best of my knowledge , we didn' t have any specs. As a matter of fact, that was in the days that everything in the central business district was a conditional use permit . Everything. Now that we' re a little more sophisticated now but now we do have minimum width requirements and maximum width requirements for driveways and we can certainly take a look at that . Conrad : Just so we don ' t make the same mistakes as at the dentist office . Tim Erhart made a comment that couldn ' t be heard on the tape . Dacy: That ' s a good point because, correct me if I 'm wrong, because I think as a part of Phase 2 reconstruction of West 79th Street , we are going to correct that problem between the separation of the street and the entrances in . Emmings : Apparently we' re going to talk both about the site plan and the conditional uses. Are you going to make a separate presentation on the site plan? Dacy: No , at this point , Larry and I are prepared to answer questions . Emmings : Dave, do you want to go back and see if you have any comments on the site plan? Headla : I was just looking at the recommendations . The one question I had was , small vehicle sales shall be conducted in the proposed building . Does that mean they can' t talk to customers outside the building? Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 56 Dacy: As a matter of fact Mr . Hanson asked me that same question . The intent here is that the small vehicle sales, that we don' t have an area of outdoor display which becomes a sale area . That we have a congolmeration of a number of a vehicles and people congregating on the site . The intent is that it ' s an indoor use and it should be kept in there. The only outdoor activity is to display these 14 vehicles . Headla : That was a clarification? Dacy: It ' s the best I can do. — Headla : Give me a for instance of the area you ' re trying to avoid maybe. I 'm confused as to what you ' re really trying to do . Dacy: There ' s no question that I 'm sure Mr . Hanson is going to walk a client out and say this is my John Deere riding lawn mower and it looks great . Then that person says , I ' ll take it . Then they go inside the — building and transact the actual sale inside . They pick up the equipment from the rear portion of the building . Headla : On the site, I did slip over one thing . Does any of that wetland develop? When you look at it , it looks like it ' s on the fringe area . Dacy: I went out to the site previously last spring when Mr . Burdick ' s application was in and there ' s a distinct different between Burdick ' s property and the subject property. This is not at all . — Wildermuth: Is the number 14 vehicles acceptable? Is that something you came up with? PEND Bernie Hanson : I discussed that with Barb and I feel it ' s a little bit short at times . It ' s not to abuse the thing but there are certain times when I know I would like to exceed that . It was sort of a compromise . Wildermuth: When you get a shipment i.n or something like that? Bernie Hanson : It would be for display. It ' s not going to abuse the thing but when you ' re in the lawn type business, you do need a place you can display them. Wildermuth : Is there any reason why we' re going to buckle down so tight? Dacy: The City' s primary concern was aesthetic and visual impacts for a — highly visible area . We wanted to set some type of control on it so it wouldn' t get out of control . Wildermuth : I guess I 'd rather see us talk about maybe square footage of outdoor display area rather than the number of vehicles . He can kind of use his own, if he wants to pack them in tight , fine. Set a few out there . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 57 17 Headla : Haven ' t we limited others though by a number? Would this be a new yardstick we ' re generating here? Wildermuth : I don' t remember that this has ever come up has it? Dacy: Not to my knowledge . Wildermuth : I guess I 'd prefer to see that . We talk about a square footage rather than the number of units . Ellson : What was the difference between each other? You were talking 24 and she was saying 14? How far apart were you that this was the compromise? I see what you ' re trying to do , you ' re trying to give him some more leeway but was it that far apart? Are you real unhappy with 14? Bernie Hanson : No , the thing is , if you took , we' re also into the Toro groundmaster professional line, this is a large piece. When I say large , they have 6 feet maximum in height and 10 feet maximum. Now that ' s a big mowing piece of equipment. If you have half a dozen pieces this size, that part we could live with but then you get down to the walk behind type lawnmowers , you can display a dozen of them easily along side the building and I don ' t think that ' s pushing or violating anything when you look at the size of this building . We' re talking on the west side along here , if you put a dozen walk behind lawnmowers in a nice display along the edge. Wildermuth : With a 2 foot hedge , you ' ll never see them. Headla : How many did you display out at your present place? Bernie Hanson : That would be 20 units maybe . We' re not trying to exceed that by any extent . It ' s just that you can put these out there so people can see them. Not to try and make it look like a cluttered mess , because what we' re putting into this building and what we' re trying to make it look liks . Then I have also allowed myself to be restrictive to the storage, which we haven' t had. I put a lot of restrictions on myself. I guess if I could have a little leeway there , I would like it . Like move i.t up to 20 pi.eces or something . Wildermuth : I ' d be favor of that . I think we want it by the square footage of area rather than the number of pieces , depending on what showing or displaying . Emmings : How do you figure out an area size? Wi. ldermuth: If you ' ve got 14 Toro Groundmasters and figure out what that area is . Bernie Hanson : I think is a person put 6 or 8 of the larger pieces and took a dozen, I 'm talking to my son Jim here, you think maybe a dozen of the smaller ones or 15? They don ' t take much space. I think that would Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 58 1 be one way to put something . I can understand if you say square feet ,that could get a little hard to define too . Jim Hanson : I guess our point is , we don ' t , at any time , want to make it — look like a bone yard. We want it to be a class act display. There will be times I 'm sure when we will want to run specials and open house and we ' ll want to park more equipment out on those particular one or. two days . On a normal day, like we ' re talking , we might have large equipment — and we might have a dozen or more small mowers . Wildermuth : That ' s just my feeling . I feel we shouldn ' t be quite so — restrictive. Bernie Hanson : I would appreciate it if you weren ' t so restrictive. Jim Lasher : I was going to try and offer a solution . What we can do is take a look at the south side of Bernie ' s structure , which apparently he owns the space that he has for a multiple storage area and look at maybe — a distance from the front of the building out towards West 79th Street and say it could be a maximum limit of where material could be outdoor display and leave it up to Bernie to decide , do I fit 10 larger items in — here or 15 smaller items. That ' s the way to calculate, at least a distance away from the structure where he could visibly display outdoor merchandise. That' s one way to solve the solution rather than putting a number . - Batzli : I have a question for Barb . Somewhere in these numerous conditional uses , something that says that the vehicles displayed — outdoors , there won ' t be other vehicles displayed outdoors as well other than for the automotive portion . Dacy: I 'm sorry, which vehicles for which use are you talking about? Batzli : The small vehicles . Dacy: For Bernie ' s Chanhassen Lawn and Sports? Batzli : Right. Those are limited to the enclosed storage or where are — those limited to under these uses? Dacy: The display of small vehicles for Bernie ' s uses are limited to in _ front of the building and along the west side of his portion of the building underneath the canopy. Batzli : And are they limited somewhere to be stored? — Dacy: For storage? Well , inside the building he has more equipment and so on . There is to be no outside storage of any other equipment beyond the display vehicles . Batzli : I was curious , if I recall , there ' s in Section D, the automotive service center . The applicant shall submit information about the flammable , combustible liquid storage in the building . Shouldn' t that Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 59 apply equally to the small vehicle sales? Dacy: Probably unless Mr . Hanson tells me otherwise . I would think that would be appropriate. Batzli : I would assume there' s oil and gas and things . Bernie Hanson: As far as what we have storage inside, any flammables, that ' s in a fireproof cabinet as the fire code says so that ' s a very small amount . Brown : The Fire Department at the present is putting together a program where they can have a floor plan in a command vehicle for each commercial site . I believe the reason that the Fire Marshall brought this up is, that way if they are involved in an entire structural fire, they know exactly where the hazardous materials are . Batzli : I guess I would include , just on this information, something like your condition 5 in the conditional use permit for Motor Sports , Inc . , your last conditional use permit. Something like that regarding small vehicles sales as well . I had a question about the site plan . Prior to building occupancy again. Dacy: Okay, no problem. 63 Ellson: Do you sell used equipment? Bernie Hanson : Yes . Ellson: And do you rent equipment? Bernie Hanson : No . Ellson : I just wanted to know that all the outdoor stuff is all the new stuff . All the shiny and new looking and not the stuff that' s kind of chipped paint or whatever . Not that you would necessarily do that but I think people are concerned when you start getting things out in display that you don ' t want it to look schlocky or whatever so I 'd guess I ' d like to know that that stuff is always going to be the new shiny stuff or whatever versus some of the stuff if you had a renting business , that might be out there. I don ' t know if we came up to a conclusion as far as the number of vehicles . I would rather see it stating the number of vehicles than a square footage. Not only from the standpoint of your interpretting it but from somebody coming out and just counting and saying yes, indeed that' s as many as there are so maybe change to say 18 or something like that which would give him a little more leeway. I don' t have any problems with the site plan. It looks good . Conrad : Barbara , what ' s the impervious surface ratio for this site? Dacy: It ' s below the maximum required . Bernie Hanson : 61%. Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 60 } Dacy: As a matter of fact , as a condition of sale , the HRA has imposed larger than typically required setbacks for screening . Conrad : Barbara , one of your notes on page 4 of this particular staff report says , therefore, the City should establish conditions to prohibit the long term storage, etc . . In the conditional use permit D, you said there shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles awaiting repair in excess — of 72 hours . Does that condition relieve your comment on page 4? Dacy: Yes . _ Conrad : So we' ve taken care of that , the way that motion is worded for us , that ' s taken care of that. Wildermuth : I wonder if the applicant can really live with that, 72 hours. Sometime 72 hours is a pretty short time if you' re waiting for parts . Can you live with that Loren? — Loren Anderson : It ' s pretty rare that it will be there for more than one day waiting for repairs. There are times when you' re waiting for parts — that it will take more than 72 hours . . . From that part of it, that ' s the tough part. . . Conrad : Staff has somebody that circulates and counts cars? Probably we — don' t have a problem. I 'm comfortable with 14 vehicles as stated in the staff report . Not becaues it ' s better than 15 or 13 but I think I could change that if I saw an area designated for these vehicles. If on this — plan you showed me where you wanted to put them. If you had an area . If you had a concrete slab where those vehicles were going to go, then I don ' t need numbers . Then I could take a look at this plan and say, that' s not bad . In absence of that , 14 is where I 'm at on the number of vehicles. I don' t have any reason to say 20. I 'm a little bit familiar with retailing and that kind of stuff and I don ' t know if you put 200 if it makes a difference than if you put 4 or 5. I think what you want to — do is attract people in , show them you ' ve got that kind of stuff . 6 to 8 vehicles out front is going to bring them in . It ' s going to say, you ' re in the business and you ' ve got much more inside or on the side or — whatever , so I 'm pretty comfortable with 14 and I don' t think I need to change that number unless you show me where you want them. Then I ' ll take a look and say, it might be a better of doing it if you so choose. Bernie Hanson : If I went ahead on the drawing on the building , first off on the grass out in front, where we would plan to put the larger equipment . Be it either garden tractor or professional equipment and — like I say, 6 or 8 is maximum. Try to put them in a display that ' s attractive , not just pile them out there . The remainder would be put along the west side of the building because there' s an 8 foot wide _ sidewalk there so we try to make a nice looking display just along the edge. Conrad : That sounds real good . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 61 Erhart : On the landscaping , that whole area around there where we showed the sugar maple, is that bermed or is that just flat? Dacy: It ' s not proposed to be bermed . Erhart: We' re requesting that they put in a 2 foot evergreen hedge . That ' s not shown on this plan . Dacy: Here ' s the shrub area . In this parking area we wanted to extend the hedge around the corner here and wrap it around here. This is the westerly entrance into the site . This is the curb area , the southwest corner of the building over here and technically the ordinance says that you should have a hedge between the parking area and the public street right-of-way. So this is where the hedge would go. Erhart : Then they really aren ' t required to put the hedge all along the west side? Dacy: Right . On other areas of the site , they' re above and beyond . Erhart: What did you mean that it only had one sugar maple. You' re talking about just at that entrance there . Dacy: I think I may have been referring to this tree here. Erhart : Is the City doing anything , like this architecture sort of fits "- in with the theme of the downtown, like the MGM, that ' s just a flat roof building isn ' t it? Is anybody working with them to try and coordinate these things . Dacy: Our primary objective has been the north side of West 78th Street and getting people on that side of the street relocated. I think also , by example , I think once development starts taking place , maybe some of the existing owners will take notice and it will snowball . Emmings : I don ' t really have any additional comments . I agree with Ladd 's position on the number of vehicles . I think since that ' s what staff came up with , I 'm inclined to go along with it recognizing all the while that it' s arbitrary but so is 18. Any number is arbitrary. Any square footage requirement , seems to me would be arbitrary since we don ' t have evidence that it makes any differnce so I 'd be inclined to go along with the staff on that . That ' s all . Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and did not vote on the remaining items . Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 to permit small vehicle sales in the proposed 19,048 square foot commercial building as indicated on the site plan stamped "Received March 14 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 62 C 1. The small vehicle sales shall be conducted within the proposed — building . 2. Compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for Site Plan — #88-4. 3. The applicant shall submit information about the flammable and combustible liquid storage in the building and meet the requirements — of the Uniform Fire Code . All voted in favor and motion carried . — Headla moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend _ approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 for outdoor display of merchandise for sale located on the west and south sides of the proposed 19 , 048 square foot commercial building as indicated on the plan stamped "Received March 14 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : — 1. There shall be no more than 14 vehicles displayed outdoors . No more than 6 of the 14 vehicles shall be located between West 79th Street and the front wall of the proposed building . 2. The vehicles shall be displayed during hours of operation only. fr 3 . The vehicles shall not be located in the parking or setback areas and shall be located near the immediate vicinity of the building . 4. Compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for Site Plan #88-4 . All voted in favor and motion carried . Ellson moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend — approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 for screened outdoor storage to be located in the northeast corner of the proposed 19 , 048 square foot commercial building and to allow a storage area for one — trailer in conjunction with Derhaage Motor Sports, Inc. as indicated on the site plan stamped "Received March 14 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1. The area labeled on the plan as "enclosed storage" shall be enclosed by an extension of the roof of the building, construction of a chain link from the ground elevation to the bottom of the roof line, and the fence shall contain wood slats . 2. The storage area adjacent to the building is to be used for equipment — waiting to be picked up or repaired and for storage of wood logs . 3. A detailed screening and site plan shall be submitted prior to application for a building permit for the location and screening of — the goose neck trailer in conjunction with Derhaag Motor Sports , Inc . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 63 p 4. Compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for Site Plan #88-4. All voted in favor and motion carried . Wildermuth moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 for an automotive service center for Loren Anderson to be conducted as indicated on the site plan stamped "Received March 14 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles awaiting repair in excess of 72 hours . 2 . There shall be no storage of junked vehicles or other vehicles in disrepair in the parking area . 3 . All repair activity must be conducted within the proposed building . 4. A retention system for the flammable and combustible liquids shall be installed . This system must be in compliance with Uniform Fire Code 79 . 907 (a) , Waste Storage. 5. The applicant shall submit information about the flammable and combustible liquid storage in the building and meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code . 6. Compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for Site Plan #88-4. All voted in favor and motion carried . Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 for Derhaag Motor Sports, Inc. to conduct an automotive service center for one race car as indicated on the plan stamped "Received March 14 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1. A detailed screening and site plan shall be submitted prior to application for a building permit for the location and screening of the goose neck trailer in conjunction with Derhaag Motor Sports , Inc . 2. There shall be no outdoor storage of race cars or any other vehicle needing repair . 3. All repair activity must be conducted within the building . 4. A retention system for the flammable and combustible liquids shall be installed . This system must be in the compliance with Uniform Fire code 79 . 907 (a) , Waste Storage . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 64 C 5. The applicant shall submit information about the flammable and combustible liquid storage in the building and meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code . 6. Compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for Site Plan #88-4 . All voted in favor and motion carried . — SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 19 , 048 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL — BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 4 AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT PARK (JUST WEST OF MGM BUILDING) , BERNIE HANSON. Discussion regarding the site plan took place during the prior items ' discussion . Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #88-4 for the construction of the 19 , 048 — square foot commercial building subject to the plan stamped "March 14 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1. All sign permits shall be obtained prior to installation . 2. Light fixtures shall be installed so that there is no glare on adjacent properties or public right-of-ways . — 3. The site plan shall be amended to provide for a screened area for the gooseneck trailer in conjunction with Derhaag ' s automotive center . 4. The landscape plan shall be amended to indicate additional landscaping as shown on Attachment #11 . 5. The exit stair into the storage/repair area must be in a one hour enclosure . The H-4 and B-2 occupancy require a one hour separation . The entire building must have an approved sprinkling system including — the attic spaces . 6. Silt fence shall be placed and maintained along the south side of the site prior to the commencement of any grading . — 7 . An additional fire hydrant shall be added to the northwest corner of the property by the developer . The main shall be sized to meet the — sprinkler and hydrant demands for the property. 8. A plan which shows the exact watermain location, spacing of the fire — hydrants and sizing calculations shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 9 . The developer shall agree to be assessed for his proportionate share — of the cost for looping the watermain to the west and waives any and Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 65 —r all procedural and substantive objections to the public improvement and payment thereof , and waives appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA Section 429 . 081 . 10. The developer shall provide the City a 10 foot utility easement centered over the watermain and shall dedicate this watermain to the City at no cost after final acceptance . 11 . Curb cuts and curb replacement shall be coordinated with the City' s Phase II construction plans for the downtown. All voted in favor and motion carried . Jim Wildermuth left the meeting at this point and did not vote on the following items. SITE PLAN REVIEW TO EXPAND CITY HALL 6, 411 SQUARE FEET AND PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING RECONSTRUCTION. Erhart : There ' s no landscaping plan included? Dacy: You should have received one. Emmings : Are there sugar maples on there? Dacy: There are existing sugar maples I know. Erhart : Is this the total extent to which this building can be expanded on this site? Dacy: No , this is kind of a first phase of another expansion to the north which is proposed expansion . What the ultimate concept is, a mirror image of the existing building . Emmings: I was not happy I didn ' t get to see a floor plan. Brown : I think the reason that the floor plan was not included was strictly because it ' s not complete yet . There are still issues that need to be resolved . Everyone wants to put in their input from city staff and they are slow but sure gathering all those recommendations into the floor plan . Dacy: The primary use are public safety and building inspection personnel in that expansion . Emmings : And space for library expansion in the basement . Dacy: Right, i.n the bottom floor . Headla : The fire department can fight any fire in this building without additional equipment? They don ' t need new equipment of any kind? Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 66 47 Brown: Correct . Yes , they can fight it no problem. This building will be sprinklered also. Batzli : Who did the landscaping plan? BRW? Dacy: BRW. Batzli : And they only put two sugar maples in there? Dacy: The existing trees down on Coulter though are sugar maples. Yes ,they are adding two but there are existing trees . Erhart: When is the street plan going to get put in? Is that this summer? Dacy: The remaining portion of the street? Erhart: Yes , when you turn up past the bank and you can get in here. Dacy: Yes , a couple weeks . Erhart : Is there any plans for doing anything with the old bank building? With that lot there? Dacy: No . We haven ' t had inquiries . Erhart: Who owns that lot, the bank? — Dacy: Yes . Erhart : Would the City ever be interested in purchasing that property out there? Dacy: The City hasn ' t , as far as it ' s own needs although there have been — some inquiries from Waconia Ridgewood Hospital for a potential clinic site and that was one site that was looked at. That ' s been a good year and a half before that issue has really been discussed . — Erhart : Most cities, you end up being able to view city hall from sort of the main street . If that lot would get developed with something else, _ you wouldn ' t be able to do that . That ' s why I asked if there was any consideration of getting an option on the land or something . Dacy: Not to my knowledge unless Don has something up his sleeve. — Erhart moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend _ approval of Site Plan Review #88-2 for expansion of the City Hall for L 6, 411 square feet with landscaping and parking lot reconstruction based on the plan stamped "Received March 14 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : — Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 67 r- 1 . Provisions of a handicapped parking space . All voted in favor and motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 2, 1988 as amended by David Headla on page 1 and Annette Ellson on pages 12 , 13 and 17 . All voted in favor except Erhart and Brian Batzli who abstained and motion carried. Headla moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 16 , 1988 as presented. All voted in favor except Tim Erhart who abstained and motion carried . Erhart moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 50 p.m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim ? ti.n,UNEG CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 410 APRIL 20, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli , James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH A CANOE RACK AND A DOCK WITH THREE OVERNIGHT STORAGE OF WATERCRAFT ON LOT 37, SHORE ACRES , ON LAKE RILEY, SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present : Name Address Joy Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd . Lucille Remus 9245 Lake Riley Blvd . Stephen C. Slaq Lake Susan Ken Wolter 341 Deerfoot Trail Dick Nelson 360 Deerfoot Trail Steve Burke 340 Deerfoot Trail Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Conrad : We tabled this item last time in case we didn ' t follow the right procedures informing everybody involved that may have input. We' re going to open up the public hearing and if there are any other comments or if there are any comments from people who would like to talk about this particular issue , we ' ll open it up for those comments at this time . Joy Tanner : Would you like my comments from two weeks ago? Conrad : We remember them. Joy Tanner : They' re still valid . The Olson ' s convey their wishes too to let you know that they' re still opposed . Mary Jo Moore : I 'm not totally familiar with this request but I do object to the recreational beachlots . Headla : Barb, is the very first issue if they should if they should have a beachlot? Dacy: Correct . .a. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 2 Headla : I think some of the comments before I heard was more or less _ directed at some of the other issues. Are the people still taking the position they don ' t even want a beachlot? Dacy: The property owners? — Headla : Yes . Dacy: Yes . Headla : Totally? No beachlot? — Dacy: As I recall , yes . Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Headla : On item 1 you said use of 12 households with friends and acquaintances is too intense a use for such a small lot . You ' re talking strictly the way 12 households would use that single lot? — Dacy: Yes , that was the Planning Commission ' s reasoning during the 1986 conditional use permit request . Headla : And what did we say could be done with that lot if it didn ' t become a beachlot? Dacy: The applicants could potentially apply for a lot area variance to construct a single family home . Headla : I really thought about these beachlots . Thought about that one — and these others and I agree with the staff ' s position. Wildermuth : I 'm of the same opinion I was two weeks ago . I agreed with the 1986 finding where the use of the beachlot by 12 houses was too intense and I feel that our beachlot ordinance is a valid ordinance and should be enforced. Batzli : I haven' t changed my mind from two weeks ago either . I think it would be an incredible impact on the neighboring lots from the standpoint of valuation and noise and intensity that that lot would receive since it ' s such a small lot. I 'm planning on agreeing with the staff' s recommendation . Ellson : Nothing new. I concur with the rest of the commissioners . Emmings: Same thing. I agree with the comments that have been made so far . I don ' t have anything to add to it . Conrad : I have nothing different to add. I agree. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 3 Headla : Can I say one thing? If we use the rationale that it decreases the value of the surrounding properties, that' s why we vote against it, then I think we should be prepared to seriously consider approval if , when they put in a beachlot it improves the value of the adjoining properties , I think the converse should be true . Conrad : Valuation is one aspect. There are others . Headla : If that ' s the dominant but I think you ' ve got to think consistently. If you vote no on decreasing for that particular item, you ' ve got to vote yes if it ' s increasing. Emmings: On that point Dave , last time when we had the public hearing , I made it a point to ask the neighboring homeowners if , in their opinion , it would decrease the value of their property and they both said they felt i.t would . In fact , some people who even didn ' t live right next door felt that it would decrease the value of their property. I guess the same question would be asked on anyone that would come up. If somebody was going to be next door to one and they felt it was going to increase the value of their property, they'd have the opportunity to say that . Conrad : I think in this particular case, the ordinance is valid. It makes sense . I see no reason to change it myself . I think that the ownes of the property have other uses for that . Steve Burke : Could you define the other uses? Conrad: Obviously it' s a small property and you ' re going to need to seek, somebody' s going to need to seek variances to use that property for those other uses. I think the City can not take that property and keep it worthless or keep it less of a value than it ' s potential but I think in this particular case, my opinion is that it ' s not conforming to the intent of the beachlot ordinance and I 'd rather have it being pursued as a use for other uses. More than likely we ' re talking about putting a house on there which will require variances but in my mind , that ' s more in conformance with the surroundings than would be the impact of putting a beachlot there . The beachlot ordinance is concerned with valuation of property. It ' s concerned with having buffers and not funneling a whole lot of traffic next to people . On 50 feet , that ' s a short distance to put a fair amount of traffic on. That ' s a real quick, short synopsis of what the intent of the beachlot ordinance was but that ' s why the width restrictions or limitations were imposed. Trying to separate the users from the neighbors . Steve Burke : I know this i.s about the third or fourth time that this has been before the Council but you realize that this lot has been owned by Sunny Slope Homeowners since about 1978 . Well before the beachlot ordinance was enacted. We ' re prepared to go before the full Council and state our case . Conrad : And I think you need their input . You need their decision . Absolutely and there are other rememdies , obviously. Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 4 Batzli moved , Emmi.ngs seconded that the Planning Commission recommend — denial of Conditional Use Permit #84-6 for a recreational beachlot on Lot 37 of Shore Acres . All voted in favor and motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR A — DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE. Public Present : Name Address Robert Pierce Applicant — Richard and Ann Zweig 3601 Ironwood Road Annalee Hanson 6400 Greenbriar Avenue Zoe Bros 6631 Minnewashta Parkway — Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive Mr . and Mrs. Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway — Stephen C. Slaq Lake Susan Steve Burke 340 Deerfoot Trail Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . — Zoe Bros : I 'm curious to know, someone has claimed that there is 50 feet — of property there . Depth . I live just a bi.t north of this property. I 'm contesting the fact that there ' s no land there. That there isn ' t any beach area . Emmings : I think the map that was presented to us showed a 100 feet on the north end from between the lake and the road . I don ' t know whether it ' s there or not but that ' s what they showed us . I assume she ' s talking — about Stratford Ridge. What end wasn ' t there a 100 feet? Dacy: According to the half section maps that we have , this distance — from here to here is 100 feet. The property owner is here also. Robert Pierce : I might just say that the survey that we had done are done by Schoell and Madsen who are a very reputable firm. They shoot the — elevations , the water levels, they know the mean water level and shoot all that. I would be willing to say that their data is correct, probably within inches . — Dacy: It is not 100 feet all the way down. In one certain area it ' s a 100 feet and then it tapers down. Zoe Bros : How do you propose to get to this property? To this beach? Robert Pierce : What we have here is a walkway. We ' re planning on — putting a walkway, either steps or a slope down using timbers and we ' ve Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 5 designed it in such a way that we eliminate the need for removing any trees . We ' ve put a lot of thought into trying to leave the bank and the area along the beach there about as natural as possible and to work our walkway around the trees. Our intent is to pretty much leave the vegetation intact . Basically bring in a sand blanket because it shows on the plan, I don ' t know if you can see but stretching from about here down to here. Cleaning i.t up and just making it look nice and leaving the majority of the front in it' s natural state. We have roughly 550 feet there and we' re only using approximatley 100 or plus feet . Zoe Bros: For 15 families? Robert Pierce : Yes . Zoe Bros : Well , I really dispute Schoell and Madsen. I was there today and there ' s no 100 feet . Richard Zweig : We live on the north side of Lake Minnewashta . I haven ' t been down there and measured . I drive by there fairly regularly but the question that I would ask , and I 'm not necessarily going to doubt the survey but what I will say is that measured 100 feet from where the slope goes down and then goes out to the lake or are we maybe talking 100 feet up to the road because there' s a big difference there. You 've got a hill sloping away, you might be talking 25 feet out before you actually get to the base of that hill and then towards the lake so that would be my question . What does 100 feet really mean? Robert Pierce : I would assume that it ' s taken from the right-of-way from Minnewashta Parkway. Richard Zweig : I think that ' s probably where you don ' t see the 100 feet and I don ' t know that I would either if I went over there. I don ' t know what that amount would be , I 'd have to go and measure it but that makes a very small area then. You ' re not going to cut a bank straight down and out. Zoe Bros : Most of it is straight up and down. Robert Pierce: You might say that the right-of-way that is given to Minnewashta , which the measurements have probably been taken off of , is much wider than that. The asphalt that you see there . Zoe Bros : I don' t know what you ' re saying . Richard Zweig : For further widening of the road, is that what you ' re saying? Robert Pierce : No . When you dedicate a city road , not correct me if I 'm wrong , it ' s 50 normally but I 'm not sure, Minnewashta might be 60 foot right-of-way? Dacy: It ' s 66 feet wide , the right-of-way is . The 100 distance is a horizontal distance measured on the map. You ' re absolutely correct. A Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 6 significant part of that distance is a sloped area . That ' s not in — dispute. We use the horizontal distance just as we measure lot width or lot depth and that ' s part of the issue that the Commission will discuss . Richard Zweig : I see that as a real problem if you ' re going to start giving variances . If that variance was flat land , now you might be talking one game but if you see that piece of property, you ' ll know exactly what she ' s talking about . There isn ' t very much that ' s down in the slope. Conrad : Let me just jump in a little bit . The reason we have a depth — requirement, there are two reasons . One, we want room for people to use it. We ' re concerned with safety. If you put a bunch of people on 12 feet of depth, there are some problems. That ' s one of the reasons. The other reasons we do want it buffered from any neighbors . We want — beachlots buffered so that you ' re not abutting a house and affecting them. In this particular case , and we' re looking at the general issue, you ' re obviously very interested in the specific and I understand that ,we have to be real concerned with what this ordinance says in general because other folks will want to take advantage of whatever we do. In this particular case however , because you have the buffer of the street , — we ' re really not impacting the immediate neighbors so that issue in my mind is not there . The issue that is there in my mind is there really enough room for people to be on that beachlot? Is there enough room to satisfy their particular needs and uses of that? I think that ' s key. — That ' s important here but it' s also important that we make sure that our ordinance considers that aspect of use . We just want there to be enough area for it to be an active area if there' s a beachlot. Anyway, I just — wanted to jump in on that thought . Ray Roettger : . . .has an excellent point . We come here and I think we may be against something just because we look at the piece of property so — I think what could happen is it should be defined very well for us . These people maybe are used to looked at this stuff . Are you talking about the road right-of-way that Schoell and Madsen submitted . . . ? — Robert Pierce : To be very honest , I couldn ' t answer that question. Ray Roettger : You should know that is exactly what you ' re talking about. The others , you drawing lines , as Barb confirmed , a horizontal line goes from Point A to Point B but if that line is at a diagonal , you can have 100 feet and end up really with 100 feet along the property line and end — up with 10 foot of depth. The ordinance, is it 100 feet along the property line or is it 100 feet of depth perpendicular to the this particular line? — Conrad : Barbara , are you comfortable that when we say 100 feet , it ' s obviously perpendicular to something . Do you feel we have that control? — Do we think we know the specifications well enough? Dacy: The ordinance even states that the beachlot has to be 200 feet in width along the lake frontage and the depth shall be measured 100 feet — back from the perpendicular line along the edge of the lake. Typically Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 7 how you would measure it , if this is the shoreline, we' ll measure 200 feet this way and 100 feet deep. Zoe Bros : Are you talking the edge of the water or the high water mark? Dacy: The ordinary high water mark as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources . Zoe Bros : Because we have low water right now. Dacy: Right , when they submit a survey they' ll indicate where that elevation is . In the case of Lake Minnewashta I think it ' s elevation 945 so we look for that elevation and take our distances from that . Ray Roettger : You see my point . The property line there is running at quite an angle to that road and I 'm just saying if that 100 foot is taken at an angle. Conrad : No , it would be perpendicular to the water . Barbara , maybe you better help. I guess I can ' t interpret what the ordinance says . Dacy: If this is the property lines here , you can measure perpendicular to here . That ' s how you can measure it. If there ' s a dispute as to whether or not this is 100 feet or whatever , I determined that 100 feet oased on measuring from the half section map. The issue is, and not only 4n this case but in any other case that might occur , is the Commission and City Council satisfied with the 100 feet in depth? If you ' re not , then you have the option to change it . Conrad : But for this gentleman, what you just said, we ' re not really concerned with the lot line . We ' re not running it parallel to the lot line. We ' re running it perpendicular to the high water mark. That ' s what I understand Barbara to be telling us , right? So that should satisfy your concern. Ray Roettger : No , they' re really not the same question . We ' re not just talking about this property but we ' re talking about. . .and we ' re talking about changing the ordinance . I think how that is defined , the depth , if you could get the condition in there. . . I think there' s a lot of variation there. A lot of variation in depth . Conrad : How would you respond to that? Do you still feel that the way we measure that , how many feet is adequate Barbara? Dacy: It ' s up to the Commission. That ' s the way we ' ve been measuring it . If you want to further define it in the ordinance , that ' s fine . Robert Pierce: I feel like there is more than ample road down there for 15 families . I think when you ' re looking at 15 families using it the li.kelihood on any given day that you have 15 families on that is really would be very unusual . If it happens it would probably be on the 4th of July and even then, I doubt you would have all 15 families down there. There ' s a lot of room on that frontage . People who would be using it Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 8 wouldn ' t all be concentrated in one area either . They'd be moving — around. I think it will be a really nice frontage. Richard Zweig : How many docks are you looking to build? — Robert Pierce: We' re looking for right now, one dock with three slips that will be for Lots 3 , 4 and 5 of Block 1 . The ones that face on Minnewashta Parkway. That ' s the same useage for a dock that you would — have allowed by a single family home. You can have one dock with three boats on it. We' re asking for one dock with three boats. Three boats for overnight storage. We have roughly a development of around 9 acres . — We feel that ' s a real light use of the beach. The useage of the lake uown, the canoe racks , that type of useage that would be very easily handled on the lake. Richard Zweig : How many canoe racks and how many canoes? Robert Pierce : What we ' re looking for is one canoe rack , which i.s what we had requested , one canoe rack per lot which would be 15 canoes or maybe 15 sailboats or something like that . Sailboards . Richard Zweig : But they would definitely be non-motorized. They could not have a motor put on them. Robert Pierce: That ' s the way I understand it . — Richard Zweig : There wouldn ' t be a rowboat on the rack and somebody brings a 25 horse motor down and things like that? — Robert Pierce : That ' s what I understand . Also , I think that if I understood it before that these are racks are designed to fit certain sizes of watercraft . Richard Zweig : The regulation is such that it is non-motorized . That ' s what I want perfectly clear in my mind . — Conrad : That ' s right . Steve Slaq : I have some property on Lake Susan. The question I have is , what about the. . . Robert Pierce : No building . — Steve Slaq: Because there is a qualification on a 75 foot setback. Steve Burke: Are we discussing the recreational beachlot ordinance amendment or discussing his particular one? Conrad: Well , his particular one is bringing the amendment to the forefront . We are talking the amendment . Steve Burke: Okay, because most of the discussion is not germain to your — ordinance . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 9 Conrad : We' re using it as a case study to make sure that we can modify the amendment properly. Steve Burke : Let me ask a question then. As you know, I 'm with Sunny Slope, why don' t you leave the ordinance exactly the way it stands and require them, this developer to come in with a variance request and let the City Council determine whether or not they wish to allow a variance to the 100 foot depth then it ' s not your decision, it ' s the Council decision. The other part of your amendment is to change the canoe rack and give the discretion to the City Council . Now when we made the provision we were told , I was wondering , this recreational beachlot seems to be amended every time a new developer comes in and instead of asking that developer to come in with variances, I 'm just wondering what is moving the Council to consider amending the whole ordinance rather than requiring just a variance application and then letting the Council react to that . Conrad : I ' ll try to answer that . Variances are really tough to handle . We prefer not to have variances because they' re hard to document the why' s and the wherefore ' s . If you grant a variance to one , then pretty soon everybody is there looking for a similiar type variance and you really do need some good rationale to document that variance and the reasons you granted that. When we see, as a Planning Commission, a case where the ordinance can be revised because in concept the original ordinance may not have been perfect and we can see some modifications to it so we don ' t have to go through a variance process , we ' d much prefer that. As long as the intent of the ordinance is being upheld, we ' re going to modify that ordinance so that it can incorporate uniquenesses . There are a lot of numbers in ordinances and we find that they tend to be arbitrary in many cases but we do have some standards , we do have an intent of the ordinance that we ' re trying to uphold and if we can make sure that that intent is still being upheld , we can see , like in this particular case, where in my personal opinion , the intent of the ordinance is being upheld . We are protecting the neighbors . We are protecting the people that are using the land. There is plenty of land , when we talk about this , there is plenty of land for a recreational beachlot. It ' s a classic case of a good beachlot. It ' s what beachlots are intended to serve and in this case , the ordinance had some numbers in it that may be didn ' t ever consider this type of situation. I think in my mind , I 'm setting a precedent if we, as a group, decide to change it , we ' re setting a precedent that I 'd feel real comfortable that we could carry forth and have future developments come in and be acceptable under this particular change. Steve Burke : I don ' t disagree with your statement that that particular beachlot is , I think is probably a good one. I 'm not contending that it ' s bad but it seems to me that that one is a classic for granting a variance in that you' ve got the road and you can' t make the lot any deeper than what it is without realigning the road so if your variance , through the process you can say the reason it was necessary to grant a variance for this one was we couldn ' t realign the road . But when you have a developer that comes in and buys a whole bunch, if you change the ordinance and if your intent is to have depth to beachlots and you have a Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 10 developer coming in and buying a large tract of land and placing his — road , now you ' re allowing him to have a narrower beachlot by just changing the ordinance and he can realign hi.s road wherever he wants it to be on undeveloped property whereas this developer , it would seem to me that he should get a variance . If you ' re addressing that particular one, if you don' t change your ordinance, you ' re going to have to come in with a variance and I would say that the City Council is probably going to look favorably on it because they' re probably not going to require the — developer to realign the road because he can realign it on his property but he can' t . . . Conrad : You make a good argument . Steve Burke : My statement was , what you ' re looking at in your beachlot ordinance and if you' re allowing it to become narrower and narrower , from — my perspective, from Sunny Slope , the ordinance was established in 1982 was one thing and we' ve been trying to work and we' re still trying and everytime we turn around it seems that the City Council , for every — developer that comes in, is willing to modify, the Vern Gagne property and you said they aren ' t putting very many people within 1, 000 square feet so let ' s make a rural and urban beachlot and you expanded and — liberalized your language. Now another developer comes in and it seems to me that a variance would handle this much better and you' re ready to, it seems from our perspective , at a drop of the hat , a new developer comes in , sure we ' ll change it for you. I don ' t know if this is the impetus for the City to consider a change to the ordinance , I would recommend that the City Council not change the oridinance but ask the developer to come in with a variance because I think the City Council — looks very favorably, . . .to meet the intent of the beachlot ordinance and there' s a real hardship. Zoe Bros : I still maintain that there isn ' t 100 feet there . Steve Burke: The question is not whether or not there' s 100 feet. Zoe Bros : He keeps on saying this is a good example , it ' s not . Steve Burke: But they' re not ruling on his development . — Conrad : We ' re making a statement that 100 feet should be there , where the dock is placed . That ' s what we ' re looking at. If there isn ' t 100 feet , their application would not be accepted . We ' re not ruling on their — application. We ' re looking at the ordinance i.n general . Larry Wenzel : I kind of agree with the gentleman that this particular — instance, the fact that because of the road and the fact that the square footage, even if he only had 50 feet , still i.s way in excess of the ordinance as far as the number of square foot per house . It doesn' t seem — to me that other than the fact , probably roughly four properties in which there is going to be somebody, at least 100 feet away, as a buffer comes into play in this particular instance because people don ' t , from a practical standpoint, the use from the beach, they don ' t sit 100 feet — away from the water . They' re up high and if you went to the beach and Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 11 you can only get within 100 feet you wouldn ' t go there anyway so that doesn ' t make a whole lot of sense. I guess , I had some other questions that may not necessarily in relation to this particular property but the ordinance. . .and that is with lake property and the way it meanders , when you ' re working with a depth and then you come along and say well , the dock is going to be at the deepest point of that lot at 100 feet and the way lots are joined , it seems to me that what you' re pushing is for docks to be put in a specific position on a lot line where therefore you get a concentration of docks from property to property more so than spreading them out . The other thing is as those things , and I don' t think that that ' s necessarily a good practical thing to have happen from a utilization standpoint. The other thing is , if you ' re allocating where that dock goes from the depth of the property in relation to where the landowner or the people would want it in relation to what the beachfloor is , the floor on the bottom of the lake, you might have to put your dock up in an area that was marshy where you don ' t have a proper beach with respect to x number of feet over where you ' ve got a bottom that ' s beautiful so that doesn ' t make a lot of sense. The next thing is that , if you ' ve got the beachlot and there are x amount of dock spaces for boats and I don ' t know the law today but it seems to me that property will come into the water 10 feet from the existing water mark so that if the water drops, the landowner can still go out 10 feet if the water rises . You still have access to the lake. You can ' t lose your access to the lake. Then enters another situation as to whatever that is , 5 feet or 10 feet , whatever turns from private property to public water . Whatever the state laws and who controls the mooring of boats if they' re properly identified and requested in public waters? So i.f you say you can only have two boats on this property, why wouldn ' t five people moor their boats in public waters because you ' re restri.cti.ng their normal dockage? Just by putting it in public waters , you have basically no control . That would create even a greater problem, it would seem to me , as far as the water useage of getting in and out . Especially if you ' re in a restricted area . You could have a particular beachlot that would have the 100 foot depth and 200 foot width and x number of people using it according to the ordinance of 4 foot per home and the square footage rate. All of a sudden you have x number of boats moored out in open water in front of that piece of property and now you ' ve got another problem. Conrad : How do we regulate the rights for mooring Barbara? Dacy: The ordinance regulates overnight storage . It says that no more than three boats can be stored overnight at the dock. At any lake there is a public, I shouldn ' t say any lake in Chanhassen but at Lake Minnewashta , at Lotus Lake there is a public access . People can launch their boats through that public access and yes , outside of the beachlot , maybe 100 feet on the lake, you could have 5 or 6 boats there skiing , fishing or whatever . The ordinance regulates overnight storage. The ordinance also regulates the number of sailboat moorings that can be located off of a beachlot. The term overnight is defined from a period from 2 : 00 a .m. to 5: 00 a .m. in the morning . The lake is public water and people can operate their boats , if they' re licensed by the Carver County Boat Patrol enforces the license as well as DNR so the key for the Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 12 beachlot ordinance is the overnight storage at the dock. — Larry Wenzel : You still haven ' t answered, who controls the public waters . — Dacy: The DNR and Carver County Boat Patrol . Larry Wenzel : I guess the question is , what is the rule on. . . ` Conrad : If you didn ' t own lakeshore , you could not moor your boat in the lake . — Dacy: And conversely, if you were a member of his subdivision and wanted to use the lake, you would go to the Lake Minnewashta area, you can boat — around the entire lake . You could come to that beachlot dock. Play on the beachlot but if he was not authorized to store that boat overnight , you ' d have to take it back out through the boat access . Larry Wenzel : Okay but how do they handle on Calhoun for instance? Batzli : That ' s Hennepin County Sheriff that patrols Lake Calhoun. — Larry Wenzel : Who has the actual control over the public water and that ' s what I don ' t understand . Conrad : The DNR does . Larry Wenzel : Okay, what is their ruling as far as mooring a boat in — public water? Do you have to be a landowner to moor you boat i.n public water? I don ' t think you do . I think as long as the boat is properly identified as far as traffic hitting it , especially at night with the _ reflectors , it can be moored . Batzli : I don ' t believe that ' s right . I won ' t disagree with you because I don ' t know that ' s a fact but I 'm under the impression that there are ` definite rules about where and when you can moor various objects and I think that you can not just go moor a boat in public waters . I would wager small sums of money that you can ' t do that . — Conrad : I 'm sure you can ' t but what ' s your point? We ' re not really talking about mooring boats tonight . Is this relevant to anything? Larry Wenzel : I 'm worried about if you regulate too constrictively what people can store on the property. . . Conrad : We ' re generalizing tonight . We ' re not restricting. We' re opening it up . Batzli : Your point though is that if we restrict it too far , they will merely moor their boats off-shore and you believe have created a different problem. Larry Wenzel : Sure , why wouldn ' t they and now you' ve got a different Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 13 problem which is a bigger problem than the one you started with . I don ' t know what the rules are. Dacy: The City also has a water surface useage ordinance which applies to this lake. I can provide a copy of that to you. That has not been an issue during previous ordinance amendments . Conrad: The moorings on a beachlot , we do have restrictions on how many boats can be moored . Now I 'm going to say this tongue in cheek a little bit but the DNR, I assume that ordinance has been reviewed and the State finds it satisfactory so we are controlling the number of moorings on a beachlot. However , there have been recent cases when we found that maybe in the wetlands case where we didn ' t have authority. Headla: I think that' s the key thing there. We didn ' t have authority and I really question on the moorings . Conrad : Interesting to follow up, however I don ' t want to get hung up on that one issue tonight . I think we' re looking at some other things . I think we will follow up your comments because they' re of interest and I think we ' ll direct staff to help us struggle through that at some point in the future. Barbara , can you do that? Mary Jo Moore : I would recommend if you ' re going to make any adjustments in the ordinance, that the 100 foot depth be useable land at a maximum elevation . The property that has brought this before the Council is not 100 feet of useable land . It ' s not even 80 feet . There' s a very steep embankment with very little flat ground . I think there should be an elevation requirement . Conrad : But remember the 100 feet is really a buffer . It ' s a buffer and right now you 've got a hill and a road as a buffer so in this particular case . . . Mary Jo Moore : It ' s not a buffer , it ' s whether they can actually use that land for a recreational beachlot which means a swimming beach, canoes . Conrad : You ' re right . They have hundreds of feet on the lake where in this particular case where they can use it . Mary Jo Moore : You have to pin down that number too. Conrad : It ' s something we have to resolve in our minds . Even 50 feet, how wide is this room? 50 feet? 60 feet? Is that enough to put 12 families? You ' ll never get 12 families down there at one time but, by chance if they did go, is that enough room? More than likely. Mary Jo Moore: If it was useable land . Conrad : Let ' s say they only have 50 feet down there but I guess that ' s something we have to resolve up here. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 14 Mary Jo Moore : . . . instance where we have this measurement of land , I am next to an outlot , on this lot they' ve got 60 feet of lakeshore. However , the land is at an angle and 60 feet is out into the water . Actual lakeshore is 30 feet. Now it depends on what measurements you use right? — If you' re going to take Schoell and Madsen ' s with 60 feet of lakeshore , let ' s go out here . . . As far as a canoe rack goes , I think that should definitely be restricted to the number of families that are using the lot as opposed to how many docks you can have. . . Mrs . Wenzel : You ' re looking at this on a square footage basis and 400 square feet for each of the 15 houses, he could have a strip 12 feet wide — by his 550 feet long and it would still be adequate for those 15 houses . It ' s still that much square footage . Conrad : And your point is? Mrs . Wenzel : My point is that it doesn ' t make , if you ' re going to make it 100 feet wide, then it could be less length. He has 550 feet in length and it could be 12 feet wide by the 550 and that would meet the requirements for 15, 000 square feet. Zoe Bros : Last spring there would not have been any property there at all . Robert Pierce : I guess I ' d have to totally disagree . Every time I ' ve been down there and I have gone down there , I ' ve taken my kids down and there used to be a dock there and there hasn ' t been for a period of time since they moved out and it' s been used and all I can say is, on this — particular project and maybe some of the other projects coming along that way, I don' t believe that when they made the ordinance that they were able to look at every type of useage. We' ve worked very hard to watch _ the impact on the neighbors , the impact on the lake and feel that we' re doing a good job and our request is extremely reasonable . Ray Roettger : I live on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta and I know — exactly what she ' s talking about because it ' s a piece of property that ' s defined by Schoell and Madsen Engineers . It was surveyed in 1960 or thereabouts . There is no more land there . It was surveyed , stakes — pounded in, dredged and it has it down something like 35 feet. I 'm kind of , with my engineering background and I ' ve done some surveying , Barb ' s defined the horizontal marks but I can make you a sketch on that board _ and I think you ' ll see what the problem is that I 'm talking about . If you took a piece of property like this and there' s a road there and you took an exaggerated deal like this and the property just happens was laid out someway and you met these requirements but this dimension here is 10 — feet . If this dimension becomes long enough or this dimension , depending on how you measure it , along the shore, you can get a very minimum dimension here and I think that ' s what your ordinance should take a look at . What the minimum depth is perpendicular to this surface. Conrad : Staff is telling us that that ' s how they do it . That ' s what I heard our staff say. Staff is not saying we do that . Staff is saying we measure it perpendicularly from. . . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 15 Ray Roettger : Can you tell us then what that minimum dimension is? Conrad : That ' s what we ' re looking at tonight . Headla : That really isn ' t pertinent now. We ' re talking about the ordinance, not approving that particular one. Ray Roettger : But that should be put into the ordinance though . Conrad: There are some good points being brought up and I appreciate them all . Anything else? Richard Zweig : What are we amending this to? If you ' re talking about amending this thing, I agree with this gentleman over here. I don ' t think you should ever change the ordinance and that there should be a variance but what is it being amended to? Conrad : The beachlot ordinance. Richard Zweig : From what to what? What size? Conrad : Right now we' re looking at two things . We' re saying the minimum requirement depth wise is 100 feet all the way through the beachlot . The recommendation or the thought that we ' re reviewing is , it doesn ' t have to be 100 feet all the way through. Only at the dock. That ' s what we ' re looking at . Richard Zweig : So in other words, the amendment is up to the Council , it ' s up to the Planning Commission to decide whether or not the 100 feet is necessary. You' re not going down to 75 or you ' re not going down to , it ' s on a case by case basis? Conrad : No . There are a lot of situations , if we change it , the 100 feet is an absolute. It ' s easy to measure. It ' s easy to look at . We can always tell . If we change it , there are other situations where one end of the beachlot could be 10 feet and where the dock is it could be 100 feet and that ' s the only place where we have 100 feet and we may not have a good beachlot. That ' s the situation that we 'd have to consider that might roll in . I 'm very confident that this particular ordinance as we ' re looking at it and the changes to the language would , this particular request that we ' re not looking at tonight but as an example , I 'm comfortable that this request is not abusing the ordinance and any change that we' re looking at wouldn ' t have an impact . However , in the future is what we ' re looking at . We' ve got to be real comfortable that we' re not changing the language where we get a different set of circumstances that we didn' t anticipate. And maybe, as some people have brought up, maybe the variance in this case might be the way to fly. Mary Jo Moore: My understanding was that a variance request was put through on this property and everything was approved but the dock. Dacy: That' s correct. The applicant filed a variance. The City Attorney' s opinion was that the City should not consider a variance for Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 16 that particular case . The applicant consequently filed the zoning — ordinance amendment application . Mary Jo Moore : So in this case , his variance was approved except for the — dockage? Dacy: No , no variance was approved . His conditional use permit to allow a recreational beachlot was without a dock . — Mary Jo Moore : Okay, so then because the dock was denied he comes through on a request to change the ordinance so he doesn' t need a permit to get the variance? Conrad : He 'd like to have a dock and we' re just taking a look at the — ordinance to see if that ordinance was too hard and didn ' t consider all the circumstances . We' re looking at this one but we' re really looking at the ordinance. He ' s obviously interested in changing it so he doesn' t need a variance and we' re obviously not proned to having variances . We — really don ' t like variances because they' re hard to defend and we want to make sure that if we change this ordinance that it ' s in the right direction . — Mary Jo Moore : But I don ' t think it should be self serving . Conrad : It' s not . We' re not doing it for him. We ' re smart enough to — know we' re doing it for whoever comes i.n and applies and that ' s why we ' re looking at it right now. We' re looking at it to see if our intent of the ordinance is being upheld and will be upheld in future beachlots that are — applied for . Ann Zweig : All I want to say is what happened to the residential lots that have been denied docks then? There are also those on the north side and west side . Conrad : It has nothing to do with beachlots . We' re looking only at — beachlots . Ann Zweig : This is a beachlot . Residental neighborhood group , 15 — families that have a beachlot . Is that what we ' re looking at? Conrad : If they have been denied and we changed the ordinance , they can come back in and apply. Richard Zweig : Don' t change the ordinance . Ann Zweig : Then we get lots of docks . Conrad : No . I think you ' re wrong on that . The ordinance is very restrictive and you don ' t get lots of docks . You simply don' t get lots of docks . You may get one and if they have enough frontage you may get two . What is it Barbara , after every 200 feet , for every 200 feet additional you may be a dock? And that ' s less dockage than most residential people have on the lake. That ' s less dockage so you ' re not Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 17 getting lots of docks . I don ' t want you to think that we' re out here granting docks willy nilly. It ' s quite restrictive. Batzli : How many beachlots are there anyway? Conrad : On all lakes? Batzli : On the lakes that they' re concerned about . How many beachlots are there on your lake? Dacy: There ' s at least 5 or 6. Batzli : Do we know if we change the ordinance how it would affect those beachlots? Dacy: The existing beachlots would be grandfathered in as they are now. Batzli : I know but if they were denied a dock before under the old rules and if the rules are relaxed under the new ordinance , would there be any additional docks? Dacy: There has not been any other recreational beachlot request on Lake Minnewashta since I ' ve been here so I don ' t know what ones they' re referring to that ' s been denied . Richard Zweig : There are some there without docks . There are some there without docks right now and that ' s why when you relax the ordinance , rather than keep the ordinance , I 'm don ' t know why, I 'm not a city planner and I don ' t know why you don ' t give variances but it seems to me that you would keep a rule sound rather than amending that and then go for a variance . I don ' t have a problem with this plan . That ' s not what I 'm having a problem with. I 'm satisfied here but I don ' t like the idea of amending an ordinance rather than doing a variance because there are some beachlots, I know one in particular and I know the people who do this , that ' s on the northwest shore and they have no dock now and I 'm sure they've got enough , I was going to maybe they' ve got 200 feet , I don ' t know, but if the ordinance is changed , they may just come in and say we had a beachlot before but now we want a dock with 2 or 3 boats. I think that ' s a real problem. Conrad : And why would that be a problem? Richard Zweig : Because there are no boats there now and they were not authorized to have any before. I just don ' t understand . I think the rule that ' s up here is great that ' s set up now and I think that if he ' s granted a variance, I can see where that makes sense but why amend what ' s already there , which is very good and leave it that way and then have him file for a variance on that? Like you say, I don' t see a problem with that . There ' s all kinds of square footage there . He' s only asking for three boats . Why is the City wanting to do that? I 'm at a loss. Like I say, I 'm not a city planner but I don ' t understand . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 18 Ann Zweig : What would be the language of the ordinance? What are you — changing it to? Conrad : We don ' t know. That ' s what we' re trying to decide . The concept — would be , we maintain the 100 feet but only where the dock is placed , with or without some other comments . The current language says you have to have 100 feet throughout the beachlot . We ' re considering having that 100 feet be maintained only where the dock is placed so the rest of the — beachlot could go down to less footage and depth . Ray Roettger : Sir , I 'm going to have to insist on that location of that — dock at a 100 foot depth , you can force someone to put a dock in the worse possible location on that piece of property. I don' t think the dock really would be significant as to where that depth would occur . — Would it not be better to go to some minimum depth anywhere on the property? Conrad : Here ' s what you have for a beachlot ordinance . You have 200 — frontage feet. You ' ve got to have the 200 feet and you have to have 30 , 000 total square feet . Dacy: 30 , 000 for the first dock and 20 , 000 for the second dock plus 200 feet of additional lake frontage. Conrad : So you have those restrictions . That ' s giving us some kind of control . Just generally, the 30, 000 is a good tool to use. Whether that 100 feet is a good tool is really. That 30 , 000 talks to me about buffers and enough size. The 100 feet doesn' t say much other than it ' s an — absolute rule and there are exceptions to that . 98 feet , 94 feet . Geez, 'out we ' ve got the 30,000 in there, we' ve got enough feet . There is enough square footage with ct :r ?arts of this ordinance to protect the citizens so I 'm really comfortable that there are those elements there . We ' re just debating whether that 100 foot is an absolute and whether we should change it or whether we should communicate that we don ' t want to change it and recommend a variance in this case because there aren ' t that many other alternatives and I don ' t know what we ' re going to do . Anything else that ' s new? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Wildermuth: Before you close the hearing I think maybe you shouldn ' t explain what the undesirability connected with variances is and the problems that the City has? Conrad : I tried to do that before . Wildermuth: They seem to have a lot of interest in variances and — handling this situation with variances . Conrad : Let ' s close the public hearing and I ' ll mention that Jim. I ' ll — go through i.t again and maybe Barbara can help. Batzli. moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 19 Conrad : Basically, in terms of going through this again , and Barbara help me if you can because I 'm not that astute on all the ramifications of variances but basically our Attorney says variances are tough to deal with . When you grant a variance you set a precedent and you really have to document why you set that precedent really precisely. Really precisely and many times that ' s not easy. Many times you use general language to document that and most of the time, when you grant that _ variance you have a lot of other people coming in and and taking advantage of that same variance that you just granted because you haven ' t totally documented that and Barbara help me out. I 'm sure if we had the City Attorney here he ' d be killing me on this one . The other thing is , you try to make ordinances as good as you can. You grant a variance it means hey, who cares about the ordinance , it must be lousy and we used to have many variances in the old Chanhassen days 3-4 years ago and it meant that the ordinances meant nothing . What we' re trying to do now is make sure that the ordinance means something . We can stand behind them. We can tell people that they mean something and they mean something for a real good reason. That ' s why we ' re looking at changing the ordinance tonight is saying hey, does it make sense to change that ordinance and that ' s what we' re doing . We ' re trying to make the ordinances the valid ones that rule the City and you really don ' t like to rule the city by variances . You really don ' t because it ' s real difficult. It ' s costly. As taxpayers you spend legal fees , Attorney fees supporting it . It ' s not only the one issue, it ' s the next five issues that come up and typically they break down that ordinance . Therefore , our direction here on the Planning Commission is to make sure that the ordinance is right in the first place . There are times when variances make sense and they are appropriate but we choose to make sure that the ordinances are right . Batzli : There ' s a second aspect as well . I think he spoke mostly of the precedence and the policy. There ' s also a city ordinance as to when you can find a variance which has strict guidelines as well so you ' re not only looking at it from a precedent standpoint but you ' re also looking at meeting specifications on the ordinance to grant the variance in the first place. Emmings : With the 30 ,000 square foot area , minimum requirement and 200 feet of shoreline, if you ' ve got only the 200 feet you ' ve got to have an average depth of 150 feet already so that does afford another protection . Just the area and width requirement gives you some protection right there. I ' ve got some real uncomfortable feelings about this for two reasons . I guess the horns of the dilemma for me are, I feel like we ' re reacting to one proposal and we' re changing the ordinance to let in one project here and I don ' t like that. That feels like spot zoning . It feels like a bad thing to do . On the other hand , I like his proposal . I think it ' s appropriate. I have no problem with what he ' s proposing to do and I live on that lake and look at that shore too . Before I came here tonight I had resolved in my own mind that there ' s nothing wrong with our ordinance and that this matter should be handled through a variance . I think that the comments of the gentleman from Sunny Slope are well taken. I think he said everything that I thought of and then some. We did see a survey done by staff as to what properties are left in the city which Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 20 could become beachlots and the only ones that would require a depth — variance are along that shore of Lake Minnewashta and it ' s Dave ' s property, these folks back here have some property and this one and I don ' t know, there might be a couple of others . The reason they don ' t — have the depth is because of the road which makes it to me a very clear cut case for granting a variance because it 's a thing that' s there that ' s imposed on them. It' s not something they imposed on themselves . I don ' t think that granting a variance in this case would set a dangerous — precedent for those other cases where there ' s potential for beachlots and I don ' t see any reason to dispense with the 100 foot minimum requirement . The other thing about this one is that even if we approve these — amendments , he ' s still going to need a variance because he ' s going to need a variance under Section 13that Barbara brought to our attention tonight. We ' re looking at amending two sections that would get our — ordinance in shape for him to be allowed to do whatever he wants to do but he ' s still going to run afoul with Number 13 isn ' t he? Dacy: If the Planning Commission and Council wanted to change the — ordinance to reduce the lot depth, they would also have to amend number 13 as well . Emmings : I know but all that ' s been proposed tonight , all that ' s been proposed so far is the amendment of two sections and we really have to amend three . Otherwise he ' s still going to have to apply for the variance . — Dacy: Yes and I would follow that by saying that because we are under lawsuit from the Sunny Slope Homeowners Association and because the City — Attorney looked at this case and felt and went through the criteria and said no, a variance would not be justified and said that the Council should amend the ordinance rather than granting variances . That ' s why we — went back and initiated this application . Emmings : My own personal opinion on this , my position on this matter is this. They should leave the ordinance alone. There ' s nothing wrong with — it . I want him to get what he wants and I think he should be granted a variance for the dock. I don' t think it creates any kind of a bad precedent or anything else . The only other specific comment I have is — just probably a lot more trivial , is that I think in the section of the ordinance that ' s number 6 that we ' re looking at amending , there ' s a sentence that starts , I think we ought to get canoe racks out of there . _ In a couple of sentences it talks about racks and then in another sentence it talks about canoe racks but we' re really talking about storing a lot of different kinds of watercraft on these racks . Calling them canoe racks I think just adds confusion to this . I think there' s a — sentence that begins with the word canoes and it ' s about the sixth line down and I think what we ought to do is say that starting there it should read , non-motorized watercraft such as , and then just pick up the — sentence where it starts, canoes , windsurfers , sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they' re stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose and then just take the word canoe out of the next sentence so it would just say, the number — of racks shall be determined as part of the conditional use permit Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 21 process . Just eliminate the word and then it tells them both the general , that we ' re talking about non-motorized watercraft and giving specific examples of canoes , windsurfers and so on and we get the confusion away from the canoe racks. Other than that, I don ' t have any other comments . Ellson : I looked at this from the standpoint of the ordinance change and I think when they wrote the you ' re trying to think of the different possibilities . I don ' t see a reasoning behind 100 feet . I think it was just a number that was pulled out of a hat and everyone say yes , that sounds okay and until you get something like this that brings it to your attention, you realize you pulled it out of a hat and you didn ' t really think as thoroughly as you can so I can see changing that because I don ' t think that 100 feet was something that was really well thought out and thought of all the possibilities . I don ' t see why 100 feet is so magic . Emmings : How about the 200 and 30, 000? Ellson : Yes , those made more sense to me . 200 feet for families and 30, 000, that made sense but the 100 all the way across didn ' t necessarily do that . Batzli : I think Mr . Wenzel brought up a lot of good points . I think in particular , although I was the one that recommended that the 100 feet be where the dock was located , I will admit that I think a lot of good concerns , valid concerns were raised about why we ' re doing that but it still concerns me that I don ' t know, I think there should be a minimum lot footage. I think a 100 feet is probably a good number for the implementing of a barrier both from the surrounding people and the people that are at the beach, for their safety. I think it was a pretty good number that was pulled out . I think that the mooring of the docks in the public water would be an interesting question to direct staff to look into . The variance issue , I don ' t know that I agree with Steve that this is the prime candidate for a variance. I think that what he said , he contradicted himself when he said it was in that I always thought that the hardship was not characteristic of or applicable to other lands or structures i.n the same district and it sounds to me like he said there ' s a bunch of lots that are similar . I don ' t know that granting a variance is the right thing to do here . I guess I ' d rather put an ordinance together that everybody can live with that had some good numbers in it and that the people in the community want and can live with . I don ' t think necessarily granting a variance in this instance solves anything at all and especially if there are other pieces of property that have the same problem with the road . The interesting thing that I started thinking about the minute we raised subsection 13 was the 100 feet that has to be landward of the ordinary high water mark , or what does that say? The width measured at both the ordinary high water mark and at a point 100 feet landward from the ordinary high water mark of not less than 4 lineal feet for each dwelling unit . The current one that we ' re not considering tonight but we' re using as our model , how many lineal feet do they require? How many families? Dacy: It would be 60 . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 22 MIS • Batzli : So they have at least 60 feet worth 100 feet back from the ordinary high water mark? Dacy: That ' s the issue . In some places there is not 100 feet depth landward to measure back from the ordinary high. That 's why I 'm saying if you amend the lot depth requirement in the other section , that shouldn ' t conflict with 13 . . . — Batzli : So they didn' t meet 13 either? They don' t currently meet 13 either? They don ' t even have 60 feet of 100 foot depth? — Robert Pierce : I think we do . I think we can contest to that . Wildermuth: The thing is , Section 13 wasn ' t designed for a 15 family beachlot . It ' s meant for the 40 family beachlot . Batzli : I also had a question for Steve, I didn ' t want to interrupt — because you were rolling but I didn ' t understand your comment about the average of 150 foot depth. I didn ' t catch what you were saying , why you would have to have 150 foot depth . — Emmings : If you had 200 feet on the shore and you have to have 30 , 000 square feet, you have to have 150 feet in depth . Batzli : Yes , average but you would rather think of mean depth because average , you could have 1 square foot that goes back 2 million feet and then . . . — Emmings : I give up . Maybe I used the wrong word . 150 times 200 is 30 , 000. Batzli : I understand what you were trying to say. You were just drawing a straight diagonal line and saying that ' s going to be . It ' s not necessarily the middle but you could have 1 square foot . I think Steve' s — amendment. I don ' t know that I 'm ready to approve at least the recommendation by staff at this time. I think that we may want to put a maximum number on the racks that we allow in the event something about, I — think someone in the public hearing mentioned something about one watercraft per family maximum or something and I might go along with something like that or a maximum of 10 racks or some such thing . I also _ think that trying to clean up this 100 feet, I think we do at least want to make Sections 13 and 7 consistent. I know that staff is measuring them perpendicular and landward and everything else but I think we should clean up that language as well if and when we get to amending the — ordi.nance . Wildermuth : I favor an ordinance amendment because I don ' t think that — this case or other cases would meet the hardship test for a variance. That ' s why we get into trouble defending our ordinances from a legal sense. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 23 Conrad : Are you comfortable with the way that staff has worded the possible amendment? Wildermuth : I find it acceptable . I think we ought to table it this evening because I think there' s going to be some language problems in our ordinance amendment but I don ' t think we should handle these case by case on a variance basis . . . Conrad : I heard some comments that were brought up in the audience . Would we change the 100 feet to another number? 90 feet in total . Do you feel it ' s a minimum depth that should be maintainted? Wildermuth: I was thinking about this . If you look at 30, 000 square feet minimum. A minimum of 200 feet of shoreline . Do you really need a depth requirement? Conrad : A while back it was hoped that we wouldn ' t because of those two things but we found that a case in point. . . Wildermuth : On Minnewashta? Conrad : In this particular case . Are we concerned that if it shrunk to 10 feet, which is not the case, it could skrink to 40 feet, do you feel that a beachlot could shrink to 40 feet . Like some of the audience have said , it may have even disappeared during the rainstorm last year . Do you care? Wildermuth : I guess it ' s not a problem as far as I 'm concerned . If you have a half a mile of 10 foot deep beach, that certainly is not intense use . Headla : I hear a lot of comments tonight and I think they' re. . . The people have their stuff and they want to cut it off. I really believe that the people of Chanhassen and the public have a right to the lake and to all the recreation provided i.t doesn' t hurt the neighbors or damage the lake and I didn' t see us protecting that . That ' s one comment . Another one is I think the people who wrote the original ordinance . . . I think they did a good job then . . . I think now we have a challenege. . . I think we ought to rewrite it to fit the situation. I haven ' t heard anybody disagree with what Mr . Pierce wants to do so let ' s write an ordinance that will fit this situation . We had another situation where the Council approved something this last time . They hadn ' t . . the building was there . We didn ' t do a good job of wording and I think we 've got to improve the wording of this ordinance and we' ve got a good opportunity. Conrad : Let me take you up on that. Staff has drafted some language and you ' re not comfortable with that language is what you ' re telling us . What would you like to see changed versus their language of saying either 100 feet at the dock or 30 feet surrounding the dock of being 100 feet . Do you see other things that we should be considering? Headla : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 24 Conrad : And what might they be? — Headla : Barb , how many people belong to Pleasant Acres beachlot? Dacy: I have it upstairs in the file but I just don ' t know off the top of my head . Headla : Is it more than 20? — Dacy: Yes I would say so. Headla : More than 30? Dacy: Probably. Headla : Ladd , you voted no last time I mentioned this and I think you probably. . . Did you notice the distance from the parking lot to the lakeshore and that ' s the land that ' s being used . There are probably over — 30 families and that' s the place that ' s being used. 35, maybe 40 feet . Wi_ldermuth : I think that ' s the problem with requiring that the dock go _ in the area of the 100 foot minimum. The very thing that you were talking about . That may be the worse place to put the dock where you happen to have 100 feet of depth. Headla : Let me go on with some other points here . Have you had any complaints from Pleasant Acres or Minnewashta Creek beachlots? Dacy: From those two , no . Headla : But if they would apply today, they wouldn ' t get them. — Dacy: That ' s correct . Headla : I think we ' re screwed up if we think we can cut out those lots . — They serve the public well . They haven ' t had complaints . I think we ought to really seriously consider rewording that . Another point , on my place, if I was to sell half my place to my daughter and we wanted a — beachlot , you ' re telling me I need 30 ,000 feet of beachlot for two families and neither one has any kids . I think it ' s screwed up. I think that ' s an incorrect requirement . Conrad : That ' s not the point of a beachlot though . You ' ve distorted what a beachlot is in your definition. Headla : No . I want to get a beachlot but as soon as I sell a part of it , all the rules have changed . Changes, . . .a beachlot for my daughter and myself . Conrad : You also Dave, can ' t let friends store boats on your property either . There are a lot of good things to protect the lake . — Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 25 Headla : I don ' t go along with that at all . Like one radar run on the lake, they can improve that lake a whole lot more than probably 10 or 20 — beachlots . With all those cars driving around and all those people . . . I do like the rule of thumb you have. I think 30, 000 and minimum width so you protect people from north and south , I think that hits the very foundation. I think there' s a lot of logic in requiring so much lake width per family. That kind of gets down to useage and are you really going to . . . Should it be 35 or 55, I don ' t know but those are the rules I really think we should be looking at . The 100 foot depth , from what I — read in all the notes here, was determined because that ' s the setback required for a home. We don' t have any homes . You can ' t have a building. To me, you ' ve got to treat that as an outlot or if I sold Mr . — Pierce 50 feet of property by 50 feet , there aren ' t any requirements on that . I really would like to see those parameters considered in the description of the beachlot . Batzli : What ' s the setback from the rear of the house to the back line? Dacy: 30 feet. Batzli : And what ' s the side setback? — Dacy: 10 feet. Batzli : So a minimum setback in the normal requirement would be 40 feet . Are you comfortable with that? 30 and 10, that ' s as close as you can get — from house to house . Do you like that as a setback? Headla: I think there ' s some logic to that . I think it should be 30 — because that ' s what the house is required . I think we ought to have logic for the number of feet set down and I haven ' t heard that . Conrad : Dave, you ' ll be out there a long time . There isn ' t any. — There' s no logic to 10 feet sideyard setback. There ' s no logic to 30 rearyard setback . You find some logic that says they can pack in 18 people or whatever and I will be amazed. They are arbitrary numbers typically dictated from one city to the next and so you look at city to city. It' s going to be real tough to find real numbers that you can justify based on economics or based on solid rationale. They are — ballpark estimates . They' re best guess . They' re global guesses in many cases and we ' re not going to come up with something that ' s really particular . In this case, Barbara the City Attorney said no variance . Did you talk to Roger? — Dacy: Yes . — Conrad : And what was his comment? Dacy: He did do a written opinion . I can ' t remember the exact text of it but to summarize, he felt that there was not hardship here in the Stratford Ridge application . That it did not meet the five criteria that the ordinance sets out for granting a variance . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 26 Conrad : In your humble opinion you thought there was a hardship, is that — right Steve? • Emmings : I think there ' s a hardship for that entire narrow strip of land ,— where it gets narrow and then goes down to the point. Down to Red Cedar Cove. That strip of land is different than any other place in Chanhassen that can have a beachlot. It may be owned by 3 or 4 different people but it ' s just one piece of land . — Conrad: Are you persuaded? Batzli : Am I? Conrad : These two are attorneys so I 'm using them as a little mini-court here . Emmings : Neither one of us practice this kind of law. Dacy: Just a point of clarification, the Wenzel and the Headla property, these properties wouldn' t be eligible for a beachlot anyway because they couldn ' t meet the lot area . They can ' t make the 30, 000 square feet so — you could be talking about this Stratford Ridge case and you new applications that would occur on the east side of Lake Minnewashta when that area becomes sewered or developed or on the west side of Lake Ann . Emmings : But there are no roads there now that create this condition . Dacy: Right . I just get real concerned about debating the variance — issue because the Council has denied that variance and the City is on a different road here . Conrad : If we vote the ordinance amendment down and we leave the applicant up to a variance request . Ellson : He ' s already had one . — Dacy: The Attorney' s going to come back with the same thing . The crucial part of the variance application is that you ' re saying that there is something wrong with the ordinance so what the Attorney is saying is , if you don ' t like the rules , fine, change the rules but you shouldn ' t be granting variances which do not meet the established criteria in the ordinance. It ' s his opinion that said the Stratford Ridge application — didn ' t meet those criteria so as our legal advisor he said , don ' t grant the variance but if you feel you want to change the rules than change the rules . If you don ' t want to change the rules , then fine and that ' s the — purpose of the zoning ordinance amendment . To go back and change the course , everybody ' s just wasted the last three months . Conrad : We may have wasted the time and I apologize to Mr . Pierce for this but we want to do the right thing . Ellson: If they weren' t thinking in terms of hardship, . . .has gone before — the Council or the Attorney before . — Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 27 Dacy: For the Stratford Ridge application? — Emmings : There aren ' t that many pieces of property that have this characteristic. — Wildermuth : Except for the north end of Lotus Lake and I think that ' s well established . Headla : On an overall basis , I think Steve' s got some really good points — and that is the variance is more defensivible than anything else. Take a look at it case by case if it doesn ' t make sense. — Conrad : Are you saying we should grant a variance? Headla : Yes . That ' s an idea . I don ' t like it but I think his position is the most defensivible and makes the most sense . Take a look at it case by case . Don ' t change it at this time . I don ' t see where we ' re going to come to a mutual agreement . — Conrad : I 'm also uncomfortable that we have the right words in the ordinance amendment right now but I don' t know that we ' re going, I think we ' re going to come up with mumbo-jumbo therefore my comments a few _ minutes ago . Wildermuth : Take the depth requirement out of it entirely. 200 feet wide minimum. 30, 000 square feet minimum. Where are you going to run into a problem? There isn ' t an undeveloped property left on any lake except on the one side of Minnewashta and most of that is park. There isn ' t enough land left on Lotus . There isn ' t enough land left on Riley. Ellson: You guys have to be really confident that what you 've just been saying about the Attorney is well , that ' s okay we' ll do it anyway. Headla : He ' s going to give an opinion to save himself anyway. Cover himself on that . — Robert Pierce : The parcel to the north , the Larson property, for instance right now they live there. She ' s an elderly lady and they might develop that parcel someday and it probably would be a single family — home. The way the ordinance reads right now, if we change the ordinance in the depth , I think that would cover the fact that they can not put a dock on their land. As it is right now, they can ' t even have a dock for a single family home. If the dock is left out , as I understand it , you — can not put it back in. For instance if it wasn ' t grandfathered in because they didn ' t have it in at the time . That ' s strictly because they were elderly people or someone might get sick and not put it in and you can ' t get a variance . I would think if you do away with the depth and have . . .on this particular side of the lake . . . I will guarantee that the Larson ' s will sell that property and without a doubt that whoever comes ._ there thinks they' re going to have lakeshore and they' re going to find out they don ' t will be a little irritated . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 28 Conrad : I 'm a little bit concerned with lot depth because , and I ' ll give — you an example of Lotus Lake Estates . Where property, you ' ve got 900 feet of a beachlot and you ' ve got parcels, and again , we' re kind of beating this into the ground when we don ' t have too many things going to _ come before us but again , let me just give you an example that I could create. Lotus Lake Estates , 900 feet of beachlot and houses coming down to that beachlot , we potentially, if we take away the depth requirement , and they' ve got tons of feet. This is small compared to what they have — there . If you take away the depth requirement , you potentially could have a beachlot that is a 10 foot strip in front of somebody' s house . Batzli : Under section 13 you couldn ' t. You ' d need whatever the lineal footage is and at least 100 feet back. He ' s talking about a dock by amending this one section correct? Conrad : But you ' re saying that a beachlot can be configured differently. You ' re saying no longer does a beachlot have to have 100 feet in front of everybody' s house . It can be 10 feet . Only where the dock is you ' ve got — to have 100 feet but it can be 10 feet in front of 15 houses and that ' s what Lotus Lake Estates did . They have , I don ' t know how many houses but they have a lot of houses abutting the beachlot. We ' re not talking one _ or two so you basically can set a walking trail down in front of the people. Walking trails aren' t bad but again, we ' re trying to buffer so we' re talking distance between space for people and distance between where people actually, other lot owners have their residences . That ' s an — extreme example but it ' s a case where if we took the depth out of there , you potentially could have that situation . Dacy : May I summarize your options? Options on the first issue about the dock. You can deny the proposed amendment all together . Conrad : And then what would happen? — Dacy: The ordinance would remain as is . Conrad : And then what would the applicant do? Dacy: He can reapply for a variance but based on the Attorney' s opinion, — we ' re still going to recommend denial . He may not get that variance . Batzli : That ' s always up to the City Council . Conrad : How many additional steps are there in that process right now? Dacy: We would have to reschedule a hearing to the Board of Adjustment — .nd Appeals and probably at this point would not be heard until the end of May. That ' s one option. Conrad : Brian your feeling was that the language of the ordinance would not permit a variance. Is that right? Batzli : That was my feeling , yes . — Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 29 Conrad: Okay, second option. Dacy: Section option is , you can establish no depth whatsoever . That would also mean that you should amend Section 13 too. Third option would be to keep it at the 100 feet , which I guess is really the same one as number one. Four , you could establish a smaller depth . 75 feet or 50 feet . 75 feet is consistent with the structure setback for a recreational development lake. Staff has said , if you ' re going to reduce it , don ' t go as small as 50 feet . You need area to move around in on the beachlot . The fifth option is the one that you talked last time and that is , requiring a certain amount of area of that beachlot be 100 feet where the dock is located. Ellson : What if we reword the ordinance and list the hardship so that if they went through we worded it. In other words , word the hardship. Do you know what I 'm talking about? Dacy: If you wanted to say that a beachlot have an average lot depth of x amount of feet. Has an average lot depth of 75 feet or whatever . That ' s an option . You can do that . Emmings : The Attorney, in the letter also suggested we had an option to just knock out the whole beachlot ordinance and not allow beachlots . Simply just repeal the whole ordinance and just end all our troubles . Headla : No , I think you 'd have some trouble . Emmings : I don ' t think that ' s a good option . Conrad: Those are four options . Board of Adjustment and Appeals will get it next? Dacy: Right . Conrad : I guess I 'm uncomfortable with the language of the proposal right now. The only thing that I can think of briefly, without a lot of thought is to take it down to 75 feet in depth . Instead of the 100 take it down to 75. Therefore, we ' re not talking about the dock anymore, where the dock is located . I 'm assuming , I don ' t want to take depth out of the ordinance. I think we need depth in there because I can ' t imagine all the different scenarios that may come to play and I don ' t even want to set up a committee to try to figure out the scenarios and waste staff time because I don ' t think we' re solving too many people ' s problems right now but I guess I 'm saying, I 'm not saying that this is my idea and I 'm going to vote for it . I 'm saying that I can see an alternative of changing the 100 foot depth to be 75 foot depth . Wildermuth : Look at the last page of this thing . If John Ziegler Jr . , John Ziegler , Lawrence Wenzel and Barbara Mae Headla got together and decided to develop that piece of property as a parcel , they would have a lot of lineal shore footage. They would have, I guess at some point there ' s 80 feet but if you made the 75 foot minimum, there ' s a lot of it that would be 50 feet. That would mean that that whole stretch there, Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 30 which would probably be over 1, 000 lineal feet of shoreline , could not have a beachlot . I think that ' s the problem with the depth. Where do you put it? Where you cut it off . Conrad : I was persuaded by Steve in terms of variance . I think this is a good candidate for the variance because I don ' t think we can be smart enough to figure this out . I tell you Barbara , the more I think about it. — Dacy : The issue is , what you ' re saying , is the City satisfied with only one part of the area meeting a certain amount of lot depth and having a — narrower part . Do you feel that that ' s appropriate for a beachlot or do you want a consistent straight 75 feet? Wildermuth : I think it is . — Dacy: That ' s the issue and if you feel it should be 100 feet or 75 or if you want to use the term average depth of x amount of feet . — Wildermuth : The area that I live in has probably got the most odd shaped ridiculous beachlot on any of the lakes . That one on Colonial Grove , — that is really a little odd . That thing is only about 25 feet wide going down to the lake but it works well . Ellson : Are we talking about two-thirds of it or an average? — Dacy: That ' s the issue there and we pointed out these other properties to let you know that hey, some of them do get really narrow and where do you stop and feel uncomfortable that a beachlot should be located on that area? Conrad : We have to make a recommendation to the City Council . We can table it for more study. We can react and send it up to City Council who will probably have the same amount of comment as we do . I guess if they would like more study, I think I 'd rather have them ask for it than us at — this time. I think we should make a move on this and I think the power may be in the person who makes the motion . Dacy: On the second issue on the racks , the way that staff has recommended it, I think is what Mr . Batzli you ' re talking about , the intent of it was to allow one slip per lot on the rack situation which was also suggested by the public. — Batzli : Was that in your sentence that reads , the number of racks shall be determined as part of the conditional use permit process? — Dacy: No , it ' s on page 6 . Somehow hopefully that got copied right . My pages were rearranged . Emmings : Why is that one repeated? Batzli : I ' ve got repeated from page 4 to page 6 . — Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 31 Dacy: The staff report reads page 5, page 4 and page 6 . Page 4 was the original recommendation for last times meeting . Page 6 is the recommendation for this meeting . Conrad : There are two issues . Let ' s talk the first one out first , the depth. Anybody want to make a motion? Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to amend Section 20-263 (7) of the City Code to read as follows : No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage measured at the ordinary high water mark and the lot contains at least 75 feet of lot depth measured landward perpendicularly from the ordinary high water mark for at least 50 feet of width where the dock is to be located . (Following is the discussion pertaining to this motion which was later withdrawn . ) Ellson : Say that again, the part about the 50 feet . Batzli : We don' t even have to have that but I 'm throwing something out so we can talk about something . 75 feet minimum depth for at least 50 feet somewhere around where the dock is going to be located. Do we need any requirement in any motion that we do , unless we throw the thing out of course, as to where a minimum or maximum linear footage would be? I guess I can picture a 10 foot strip of sand going in front of a couple of houses and I don ' t know if that ' s really the intent of what we ' re trying to do and I don ' t even know if that has anything to do with a lot ' s ability to have a dock and I think I keep on losing sight myself of we ' re not necessarily even talking here about whether we ' re allowing the beachlot so much as can the dumb thing have a dock on it. It appears to me that there ' s probably a certain amount of square footage that you need to have a dock and I don' t know really that we need a minimum other than what the lot would already have to have in Subdivision 13 . To be a beachlot . I 'm kind of being swayed that way other than your comment where let ' s say the guy does have a 10 foot strip of land and that ' s where they' re going to put the dock and that ' s where all the activity is and they' ve got this big hunk of land over here that nobody is using and they' re right in front of everybody' s house . I guess that ' s the only reason that I can see where you would want the minimum footage around where the dock is. I guess that ' s kind of why I kept it in my motion to take care of that situation where you' ve got the 10 foot strip of beach , that ' s where they want to put the dock and they' ve got this big hunk of land that they got the beachlot because they had this lot of land over here and nobody' s using that . They' re all in front of the neighbors . I guess that ' s kind of why I proposed the motion and take it from there . Emmings : I have a different idea to throw out . What if we essentially left it as it was or we said that you' ve got to have 200 feet of lake frontage, 100 feet of depth, you 've got to have the 30, 000 square feet of land and then just said that the lot depth , in a particular case , as long Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 32 as the area and the frontage requirements are met , lot depth can be — varied if it can be demonstrated that the goal of buffering adjoining property owners has been met . Batzli : Are you talking about just forgetting the dock or are you talking about to get a beachlot? Emmings : I 'm talking about this particular section right here . — Batzli : Okay, so that ' s just to have a dock? So you already need the 100 foot minimum? — Emmings : All those things are in this section related to a dock. I guess what I 'm saying is . . . Conrad : Dock or no dock. Batzli : It ' s two different considerations though . Whether you have a — beachlot or not and whether it has a dock or not . Emmings : But they' re all contained in the same section of the ordinance — that we' re now amending that you just made a motion on. Batzli : This amendment is only as to whether a dock is permitted on a recreational beachlot . — Fmmings : But it lays out when a dock is permitted and it has all those numbers in it . My note says this , if the depth requirement is in there — primarily for buffering this activity from other adjoining properties , then if they met the frontage and the area , we could be forgiving on the depth as long as we ' re satisified that the thing is adequately buffered _ from the neighbors . That would allow his project and doesn ' t tie us down to any arbitrary number for depth . It makes it a little vague. Batzli : Other than the 100 foot minimum in Section 13, per family being — served by the beachlot . Emmings : Well , we ' d have to take a look at that . I think you ' ve got to — do one section at a time and then they can all fit together . Batzli : I 'm looking at that as that ' s an initial threshold that you have to get over and I wouldn ' t necessarily adjust that . — Conrad : I think there has to be a minimum footage. You' re talking about 30, 000 square feet but if you ' ve got a 500 foot lot line, it' s easy to — make up 30 , 000 square feet if you ' ve got 500 feet and it doesn ' t have to be very deep. I think that ' s a mistake. I think the intent of the ordinance is to give distance between the beachlot and the neighboring _ houses and therefore, I can vacillate the 100 feet a little bit. Headla : Maybe that ' s how you want to word it then . That you want distance between that lot line and the neighboring house, 75 feet. Do you want that type of setback? That would answer your concern . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 33 Wildermuth : But Dave, could the dock be in the middle third of the lineal shoreline length? Headla : We ' re on a different point here . Ladd had the concern that we were really trying to define. If we put a 75 foot setback . Conrad : From the closest property line . Batzli : I think he was talking about from the nearest house, not from the nearest property line . There ' s a big difference there . Headla: Not really. Conrad : I think property line is the intent . I think Dave would agree with that. Headla : Maybe there ' s something here. What ' s a setback requirement like for Pierce on Minnewashta Parkway? Dacy: 30 feet . Headla : 30 feet from the road? Dacy: Right . Conrad : If we kept it at 100 feet from the closest property line , in this case, because we have a street and there ' s 66 feet of right-of-way, we got the 100 feet . Headla : I think you ' ve got something . Dacy: You ' re measuring the setback from the dock? Conrad : No, we ' re not even talking about the dock anymore. We ' re talking about the depth on any place on that property. We ' re saying you need 100 feet of depth . Batzli : From the ordinary high water mark . Conrad : To the closest property line . Dacy: Which is how the ordinance is written now. Conrad : No . We ' re saying it requires 100 feet in and of itself on the lot . We ' re not saying the lot has to be 100 feet . We' re saying from the ordinary high water mark to the first property line other than this property. Batzli : But private property so you' re not counting the street . Dacy: You ' ve lost me. Here' s the water and here' s the road . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 34 Conrad : There ' s the road and here ' s the right-of-way on either side of the road and therefore, here ' s the property line for this house that ' s across the street . We' re saying from the ordinary high water mark, we want 100 feet from here to that property line . Not 100 feet here. We _ want 100 feet from here to the closest property line other than the parcel itself . In this particular case obviously what we' re doing is we ' re saying the street has nothing to do with what we' re doing . The street is a buffer in and of itself . — Dacy : What you ' re saying then is that you have no minimum distance between the edge of the lake and the road right-of-way. This could be 10 — feet but they'd have to make up the rest . Conrad : Right. Our assumption is the road right-of-way will be buffer _ enough in the future , any other parcel . That ' s our assumption . That this is accomplishing the intent of the ordinance as a buffer and all that other . Dacy: What happens if you wouldn ' t have a road right-of-way here and let ' s say on Kurver ' s Point, they have Lotus Lake here and the beachlot is something like that and the private lots are over here. In this case, there is no dimension? What happens if there is no road? Conrad : We' re measuring to the next lot line . That still has to be 100 feet. — Batzli : Assuming that that point you just drew the line to is another property line and not like a cul-de-sac . — Dacy: This road right-of-way line though is a property line . Conrad : We have to get the wording to meet our intent . Dacy: How about if you approach it from the standpoint when a beachlot directly abuts a road right-of-way. . . — Emmings : The road right-of-way can be counted . . . Dacy: In the determination of 100 feet . Ray Reottger : You could end up with 1 foot wide strip band . Emmings : No because then you 'd need a 99 foot wide road and we haven ' t got a lot of those . Mary Jo Moore : Using the road with the consideration in the width because of the safety hazard. You have a road there and then you have a 10 foot lot where kids are playing . It ' s a safety hazard . — Emmings: I think it ' s a terrible traffic problem there. I think that ' s a separate issue . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 35 Dacy: Your concern Mr . Chairman though about Lotus Lake Estates having a long strip of land , the 10 or 20 feet not having adequate area , is that still addresses in your mind then? Conrad: Yes . Very definitely. Ellson : Because that road wouldn ' t be there to the next line . Conrad: So you still have 100 feet. You ' ve got 100 foot lot depth until you hit the first property line . Private property. I think we should make a motion very similar to this to bounce it up and have legal opinions and Barbara do some research and City Council take a look. As a footnote to whatever we' re doing I want to make sure that Mr . Pierce knows we' re looking at the ordinance (1) to make sure it ' s solid as itself . We also feel that you have a good beachlot and we ' ll be making , at least I will , be making that clear . Anybody feel comfortable with making a motion that we can kick out of here? Headla : We ' ve got one on the floor . Conrad: That ' s right it' s still under discussion . Batzli : In view of the circumstances that I don ' t think I 'm even going to garner my own vote on my motion I ' ll withdraw my motion. Ellson : I withdraw my second . Wildermuth moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend amending Section 20-263 (7) of the City Code to read as follows : No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least one hundred (100) feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the ordinary high water mark to the first intersecting lot line exclusive of the street right-of-way. No more than one ( 1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two hundred ( 200) feet of lake frontage. In addition , thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand ( 20, 000) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks , however , shall be erected on a recreational beachlot. All voted in favor except David Headla who opposed and motion carried . Headla : You want the rest to read the same? Wildermuth : Yes . Headla : I ' ve got a big question on the other . I don ' t like the 30,000 square feet. I think you' ve got to give them incentive. If somebody is developing their property, you really want more with a minimum number of homes on that property. I think the area on a beachlot should be tied into the number of homes that are going to be using that beachlot. My daughter and I , two people and we need 30, 000 square feet. That ' s at he Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 36 extreme end but that' s the point . Maybe you ought to require x number of — feet for a home. Or maybe it' s so many feet of width but I think there should be a ratio there and that ' s going to be the incentive for the builders not to bring in the absolute maximum number of homes . — Conrad : Do you want to change your motion at all Jim? Wildermuth: I don' t think so. Headla : I 'm opposed and the reason being , I think the 30, 000 square feet is ludicrous . I think the square foot area should be tied into the number of homes using that beachlot . Conrad : We have a second item in terms of the overnight storage on the property. Anything Steve? Emmings : I 'm not sure about , one says 6 and one says 7. I 'm not sure which one. Conrad : Seven racks but 6 boats per rack. The thought there is basically the maximum number of boats at one per house would be 42 based on some of Barb ' s calculations . This would be the maximum number . Emmings : In the proposed language, I 'm looking at page 6. Is that where I should be? Okay, so it says no more than six (6) watercraft are stored on any racks . The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage — necessary to permit one slip per lot served by the beachlot. That ' s fine. A motion was made at this point with the following discussion. Emmings : I don ' t see any problem with rowboats . If somebody' s got a 12 foot boat with oars in it , if they can get it on a rack and they can take it out and row around in it to go fishing or something, I don' t care. Batzli : I think you' ll get people bringing their motors down and taking — them on and off the motor . If they've got a small motor , and I still don ' t know if that ' s a problem. Emmings: You can get it on a canoe . — Batzli : I know, then I don ' t think that ' s a problem anyway. Wildermuth: Remember we talked about this last time, this sticker and number business . I guess the reason my canoe and sailboat always had a number on it was it has a motor on it so why don ' t we define the type of watercraft that can be put on these racks to grant them with a sticker , State sticker . Emmings : Do you have a sticker on a sailboard? — Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 37 Batzli : You need one . Most people don ' t but I 'm actually a law abiding citizen and have one. A lot of windsurfers don ' t have them. Dacy: And there ' s a number on the sticker . Then if they wanted to store a life raft , one of those big ones , doesn' t require one but yet they could store it so that ' s why I kind of stayed away from. Batzli : Requiring the licensing . Emmings : I 'm not going to put that in . I don ' t care if people want to carry a motor down. Conrad : I like the language as is worded . If people can construct a 4 story tall canoe racks that can support . Put a boat in , carry it, I don ' t think anybody' s going to be criti.cking that . I do like the language of this . It talks about the more passive uses . When you have 42 boats , that ' s still pretty liberal . I like your wording Steve . Batzli : I think I have the same problem with the word slip. We haven ' t used that yet and I know that we mean one slot on the rack but slip to me indicates something in the water . — Dacy: Do you want to use space . Emmings : I know when I did some work in Orono , when we had those dry storage racks , we called those slips too but it all depends on how you define the term. The term hasn ' t been defined so maybe you want to say one space. One rack space . Is that clearer? Batzli : I thought it was because I looked at the slip and got confused as to whether we were talking about boats in the water or not . Emmings : Let ' s say rack space . Wildermuth: Where did you come up with the number 7? Conrad : There ' s rationale for that . Emmings moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to amend Section 20-263 (6) of the City Code as follows : No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock however , the allowed number of boats may be clustered . Up to — three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed . Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers , sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one ( 1) rack space per lot served by the beachlot; however , in no case shall there be more than Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 38 seven (7) racks per beachlot . Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes - is permissible at any time other than overnight . All voted i.n favor and motion carried . Emmings : Should we look at 13? Dacy: Actually, you' re keeping that 100 feet consistent with the next property line and you ' re just only excluding those rights-of-way. Batzli : I like 13 in there still , personally. — Emmings: So there ' s no conflict with what we' ve got? Conrad : I don ' t know. I guess rather than reviewing it , maybe instruct staff to make sure that Section 13 is in concert with the motions that have been made tonight . Emmings : It does say from the ordinary high water mark to a point 100 feet landward and it doesn' t tie it to anything else so I guess maybe it does . I think the one odd thing that we ' ve created here is , the one — potential problem I see is you ' ve got 100 feet back from the ordinary high water mark and you ' ll be in a situation where you have 20 feet and then a road and now you pick up 66 feet so now you ' re back 86 feet, you need another 14 feet and it winds up being on the other side of the road . Because the developer comes in and has to put his lot line for his first property 14 feet back from the road in order to get the 100 feet of depth and that is providing the buffering and maybe that ' s okay but . . . f — Conrad : I 'm sure that city staff will look into this before it gets to the City Council and Board of Adjustment and Appeals . Dacy: It would go on May 9th to Council . You ' re just amending the Zoning Ordinance so it does not need to go to the Board of Adjustments . Emmings : I think someone should volunteer to be at the Council meeting to explain all this stuff . ;:onrad : I thank you all for attending tonight because you did bring up some really good points. Hopefully we paid attention to them. I think we changed our feelings quite a bit so thank you for staying with us this late hour and maybe you can attend the City Council meeting when this — thing comes and they have their crack at it . Ray Roettger : Do I understand it correctly? Are you saying that you are — ending up going with 100 feet with a 66 foot road which could be widened , and you would be allowing 34 feet. Conrad : Right . — Ray Roettger : I can ' t believe it . You' re going into a real bad situation . _ Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 39 Emmings : They still have to have 30,000 square feet . Don ' t forget . You find one in this city and show it to me. You can' t . Mary Jo Moore : You do not comply the ordinance for the purpose one developer . . . Conrad : We really feel that he' s got a good parcel . We feel that we ' ve changed the ordinance to be good for Chanhassen and uphold what Chanhassen ' s intent is in that ordinance . Ray Roettger : Why didn ' t you use an average depth? Conrad : Because that didn ' t make sense either . There are a lot of things. Stick around with the issue. I think we could have cut this 100 ways . There were a lot of ways to do it . Mary Jo Moore: I think after a study of 2 years for this ordinance which got public opinion and resolved . . .there was a 2 year study before this ordinance was drawn up and now because a developer has come in and is going to cause more problems for the existing homeowner associations . Conrad: I don' t know that. City Council has their look at this. They — may be advised that a variance is the right way to go but I want you to pay attention to what, I was around for those ordinances . Mary Jo Moore : So was I . I 'm a member of a homeowners association . Conrad: I think it' s real important that the intent be carried out and I think that ' s what we were trying to do tonight . If you can think of a way before the City Council meeting that satisfies the intent, I think they'd be interested in your opinions , as we were. Ray Reottger : Is Mr . Pierce involved with the condominium devleopment down there? Whoever it was , I don ' t know but whoever it was we were talking about last time, power boats were moored out there. I would like to find some way of enforcing whatever guidelines you use . Emmings : What should he do Barb? What should he do to enforce it? If people are parking power boats out at sailboat moorings , what can he do? Dacy: There are a certain number of moorings permitted along with that beachlot request . We'd have to go out and see how many are moored . Emmings : But aren' t they for sailboats? Dacy: I can ' t recall off the top of my head . I 'd have to go back and check it. Ray Roettger : You know what happens , nobody wants to call up City Hall . Dacy: You should. That ' s the only way we can follow up on these. Conrad : We need those comments . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 40 Ray Reottger : You create bad feelings with people . Emmings : But you have a choice of either living with it or creating a bad feeling so make your choice . Ray Roettger : Lord knows we' ve tried in our case and we live across the way also. It ' s not clear to me how many docks has this man got? — Conrad : One. Ray Roettger : You said two. Conrad : No , it ' s real clear . There ' s one dock. He' s got three boats which is in the ordinance . Ray Reottger : I would like to see that cast in iron . Conrad : It is . Mary Jo Moore : The residents of the lake don ' t want to be monitoring — these all the time and that ' s what it ' s turning out to be. Emmings : They' re impossible to police . They just are. That ' s why we should probably not have beachlots at all . '- Ray Reottger : Brian , so you know what we' re talking about , we ended up having 5 boats on one dock with like she said , 35 foot frontage. Right — next to homes and they never clean it . They never cut the grass . They don ' t do anything. So I 'm up to here. PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE TO PLACE AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN FOR HERITAGE INN MOTEL, DONALD KRUEGER. — Public Present : Name Address Donald and Phyllis Krueger Applicants , Heritage Inn Motel Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Donald Krueger : I ' ve read the entire report, whoever wrote it and they say that there needs to be an economic hardship . Well , that ' s the only reason I want to put up a sign is because we are so located that we' re behind Super Value ' s buildings and property so any traffic coming can ' t see us until they' re past. We have one small sign at the entry of the Cline Brickyard development. That ' s the only sign we have outside of our — road sign 30 miles west. We feel that we need a sign east of Chaska so Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 41 people know we' re in town. We get a lot of comments , people coming in . They finally have found us and they say, why don't you have a sign, how — can people find you? I cited in my little note that we need a sign to bring us some more business to help pay the taxes of our business . We' re not asking for a sign to enhance our personal benefit . We just want the business to run and be a success . Phyllis Krueger : How many of you know where the Hertiage Inn is located? Batzli : I think we were just told it was behind the Super Value buildings . Phyllis Krueger : Have you driven TH 212 and TH 41 , any of you? Conrad : Yes . Wildermuth : Yes . Phyllis Kruger : Do you know where it ' s located? Conrad : Yes . — Phyllis Krueger : Do you agree that we are handicapped by our location? Ellson: As far as visibility from the road? Yes . — Phyllis Kruger : Very much so and we have customers that come in occasionally that have made comments like, my god I 've been driving this road for a year and a half and I just noticed you ' re here . We feel it ' s a need . Conrad : Do you have any signs in Chaska? Phyllis Krueger : Yes, we have a lighted sign, as Don said, the Brickyard Mall has a host of signs inbetween two pillars . We are in there . Conrad : So it' s close to your property? Donald Krueger : It' s about three-quarters of a block away. Conrad : Any other property in Chaska that you can put a sign up on? Donald Krueger : No , because they have the same ordinances that you have . Conrad: Naegle has signs there don' t they? Phyllis Krueger : Yes , but I don ' t think a business like ours can afford Naegle. Naegle' s , you have to be a cigarette company. Conrad : There are other sign owners besides Naegle on that same stretch . Not just Naegle. They are more expensive but it is an alternative. Donald Krueger : But you can ' t get those signs because they' re taken . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 42 Conrad : No , you can get them. I get them all the time for advertising so they' re there. Your point is they' re more expensive than this but it ' s not that you ' re restricted , you just chose to have a less expensive sign on a more permanent basis is what you' re asking but there are sign _ locations available all up and down . Even though the Flying Cloud Drive there are more and more restrictions applying to signage and billboards there , they still are there and you still have those alternatives . Phyllis Krueger : As we understand, that piece of property that we ' re looking at has been designated for signs . Is that not correct? Donald Kruger : No, it' s a little piece of ground that ' s there and I talked to the realtor that had it for sale and he says , sure if you want to put a sign, I ' ll work out a lease with you to construct a sign on that little piece of property. Headla moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in — favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad : Dave, we ' ll start at your end . Are you tempted to change the — sign ordinance? Headla : No . We' ve come up against different ones on the sign ordinance. I 'm in agreement with the sign ordinance. I still don ' t have any '— arguments with staff ' s recommendation . Wildermuth: Barbara, this means that if somebody like Naegle came in for — an application, we would not grant a new billboard location? Dacy: That' s correct . Wildermuth : How many existing signs , do we keep a record of what we have allowed in Chanhassen along the TH 212 corridor? Dacy: Yes we do have a record . We do have a sign permit file . I think there is one existing billboard that is within Chanhassen city limits but I know that ' s been there for a number of years . — Wildermuth: It was probably grandfathered in before the sign ordinance . Dacy: Right . — Wildermuth : I can certainly sympathize with the applicant . On the other hand I think there' s a real need for the ordinance and I would agree with — the staff recommendation . Batzli : I was curious Barbara , the economic hardship thing , what is considered an economic hardship? Dacy: It ' s my understanding from the State Statute that an economic hardship would be that if the variance isn ' t granted, that the applicant is claiming that there is either some type of monetary loss if it ' s — Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 43 denied . What the Statute i.s saying , you can ' t grant a variance just for monetary reasons . You have to look at the ordinance and the intent of — the ordinance rather than the particular financial situation of the applicant . Batzli : So our variance ordinance of course applies and we' re looking at the same type of language where the variance has to be due to the lot and the unique nature of the lot and that there ' s no other similarly situated lots . I guess from that standpoint, I agree. I think it' s kind of a — tough case for this applicant but I don ' t think a variance is appropriate in this case . Ellson : I would vote against it also . Same reasons . Emmings: Same thing . — Conrad : I don ' t have anything new to add . I appreciate your circumstance and being hidden. Obviously billboards are what you need . Signage direction , signage whatever , that certainly would help. From a — consistency standpoint, I think a claim could be made by almost every company in Chanhassen that their business would be improved if they had TH 5 visibility and you 'd have to agree with them. I feel comfortable with our sign ordinance as it is . I feel that I 'm not persuaded that a variance needs to be granted here. I also think there are other alternatives signagewise that could help you out . Maybe not as economical as this one but I know that in Chaska itself , you have some — options . Even along the corridor coming along Flying Cloud Drive , there are other options so my recommendation i.s to turn this request down and keep the ordinance as it is . Headla moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign Variance Request #88-2 to install an off-premise advertising sign on TH 212 . All voted in favor and motion carried . — NEW BUSINESS Headla : Did you notice where the Council approved that 5 lots on Minnewashta Parkway? I don' t know how close you really looked at that property but the property drops off real fast on each side . We were uncomfortable with it. The Council appeared to be uncomfortable with it . Their only rationale was , it met the 15, 000 square feet . I don ' t know of anybody who is really comfortable with that wording but we all approved it and it makes me think that wording probably really isn ' t what we think it should be. I wonder if we shouldn ' t be looking at that to see if we — could do something to make it say what we really want it to do . I 'm not ready to make a suggestion what i.t should say but when I see so many people feel uncomfortable but we all approve it . Wildermuth: Do we have criteria for a buildable lot? Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 44 — Dacy: Lot area , lot width and ability to be served by some type of means — of sewer and water . Septic or well . Ellson : I thought you said that they changed that . This is going to be five? — Dacy: It ' s five lots to be served by an internal street . Conrad: And when we saw it , it had two streets didn ' t it? Dacy: It had two driveways , that ' s correct so they eliminated the need — for two drives . Conrad : Which is what we wanted . We really wanted to do that . — Headla : But the other one was , and maybe you didn' t drive out to each side but it dropped off so fast . Ellson: Like no yard at all there . Headla : Yes , there ' s no yard and I remember Ladd you were questioning me more about it . Well , what does it really do? We were kind of struggling with it but we didn ' t really know how to handle it . Conrad : So you 'd like to take a look at the ordinance that talked about street frontage or what part of that ordinance? Headla : No , the 15, 000 square feet. It seems like it should be useable — area . Useable is going to mean different things to different people . Dacy : All of the five lots , the one flag lot was actually 18 , 000 square _ feet . The extra 3, 000 was the handle of the flag but all of them were 15, 000 and I would say buildable. Headla : But on the east side it dropped off so fast . — Dacy: Yes , but that was along the east lot line. Besides they have that 30 foot rear setback anyway. - Headla : It ' s just when we request and then the comments that were made at the Council meeting made me think, are we really doing the right thing — Dacy: The Council was consistent with the Planning Commission ' s intent . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 6 , 1988 as amended by Brian Batzli on page 8 . All voted in favor and motion carried . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 45 BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT DISCUSSION. Batzli : Can we have two seconds of discussing this issue? I don ' t know what to think. I 'd like to hear what Tim, well , I already know what Tim' s thoughts are but is it everybody else ' s understanding that he doesn' t like that as a business fringe area because of the traffic situation? Ellson : Exactly. You ' re going 65 mph and you can stop and turn into someplace. Batzli : So what a solution may be , and of course we ' ve got handcuffs on because of the Department of Transportation but basically if we want to make that a business area or business fringe area , put in service roads one way or another . That gets rid of all the concerns . Dacy: Also with the land use perspective . It was the contractor ' s yards and the outdoor display. Headla : I thought that was the major concern . Emmings: I think Tim thought as you come down , as you ' re going west, you come down off the hill on TH 212 and it ' s all that , except for the Lion ' s Tap it ' s pretty much just bare land and I think . . . Batzli : He wants to keep it there . Agriculture . Emmings : Just because it' s a nice place . Batzli : I think that one corner is already been developed to the point where, at least that corner may not be such a nice place due to the concerns . It ' s kind of a hodge podge of things right there . Wildermuth: I think business fringe development down there is inevitable . I think it ' s a good land use . Probably the more activity, the more congestion there is in the area , the slower traffic is going to have to go . Dacy: Did you want me to give my report or did you want to postpone it? Conrad: Let ' s wait. I want Tim here. It ' s his deal . My feeling is , I think it should remain fringe. I think it was intended to accomodate what was there. It was intended not to intensify and that ' s the way I feel comfortable with it . I think we can let replacement businesses come in, in my perspective. We' re not going to clean it up. It ' s not going to be a pure countryside drive. It ' s just not going to happen . I think it ' s probably a waste to make it a real business area. To put in frontage roads and all that so I guess my perspective is to let it be used by low intensive use businesses down there. We' re not escalating it and we' re not creating traffic hazards . If we can get by with that . Batzli : I guess I think if it continues to be developed and it ' s inevitable , I think that a service road will eventually have to be put in Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 46 because I think there is too much traffic down there to support cars — turning in and out every 100 feet . Conrad : Then that ' s the decision that we have to make . If it ' s _ inevitable and you want it to happen in 3 or 4 years , then let ' s go ahead and make sure that we put that in the Comprehensive Plan or else we say, no , we don ' t want any further traffic problems . We are not going to allow intensification , any intensification of use of that property down — there. So when the garbage haulers come in and they have 12 trucks and we say what did it have before? It had two trucks . We say no , you can ' t have 12 trucks because the intent is no intensification . Batzli : Is there any plan at all , do you know Barb , to expand that to like four-lane road? It kind of goes back and forth up and down the hill . — Dacy: New TH 212 is to replace , not "replace" but the new TH 212 is designed to remove some of the traffic from in-place TH 169/212. There are some proposed improvements up in Eden Prairie near Hennepin County, up in that area but not any planned improvements in Chanhassen . Batzli : That we know of at least? Dacy: Right . Another reason to get TH 212 built . Conrad : I have a different issue . I 'm just curious about the wetland issue Barbara in terms of our control . Revisiting the wetland ordinance based on the last piece of information that we got when we said we could not regulate wetlands below the ordinary high water mark and if that be the case , we ' ve got to look at the wetland ordinance because it ' s invalid . I guess what I 'd like you to do is to prepare a review of that ordinance and present to us the Attorney' s comments and what options we have to either make the ordinance valid again, without changing the language . What alternatives do we have? To either strip the ordinance of what is invalid or how do we change State Ordinance to accomodate what we want to do? Wildermuth : What ' s the minimum wetland that the City considers a wetland? Dacy: What we would call Type I or Class B. — Wildermuth : What is the minimum size? Dacy: It could be a half acre or an acre . We have no minimum size. We go by identification . Wildermuth : But if the property has been platted , then the ordinances don ' t apply? Dacy: Must be talking about those lots in Colonial Grove? — Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 47 Wildermuth: Yes , exactly. Dacy: Yes , that ' s true . When the plat was filed on that back in 1970 whatever , that was prior to the enactment of the wetland ordinance so the plat wasn ' t designed with the 75 foot setback in mind and the City at that time said these lots are buildable. Wildermuth : Can ' t we do something about those lots if they haven ' t been built on yet to prevent them being filled in? Dacy: The best thing that you could do would be to try and minimize the amount of intrusion into the wetland that they would incur but we can ' t deny buildability all together . Batzli : You could if the City was willing to buy the land probably? Dacy: That ' s true. wildermuth : Or individuals . Dacy: You could minimize it by granting a frontyard setback variance to allow them to be closer than 30 feet to the road so they maximize the distance between the edge of the wetland and the house . Wildermuth: That's a shame that those wetlands are going to be filled in and they will be . Dacy: If that plat came through today, it would be completely different . There' s no question about that . Wildermuth : Because I think that all those remaining lots that haven ' t been sold, that will all be filled in. Conrad : Anything else? Dacy: I have a map here of a subdivision that ' s going on in Chaska that ' s directly adjacent to Chanhassen. If you want me to review it, I can . It was on the Council agenda last Monday. The timing was that I had to put it on Council first . Conrad : It ' s a subdivision in Chaska? Dacy: Right, directly adjacent to Chanhassen. Conrad : Anybody want to see it? Batzli : Sure . Dacy: I think you 'd be interested because it ' s supposedly a PUD. This is Audubon Road right here, Pioneer Trail goes around here and then this is the new TH 212 corridor , Hesse Farms in Chanhassen i.s over here and Bluff Creek Drive comes out right here. In total they have about 350 Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 48 acres proposed and they have a combination of single family, multiple family in the orange, commercial site and single family and open space. Average lot size is approximately 12, 500 square feet . Wildermuth: Chaska doesn' t have a minimum lot size? Dacy: Yes they do and as a matter of fact they are considering changing their ordinance to require a minimum of 15, 000 square feet now because, as you did a couple years ago , they feel that they' ve done their share for the smaller lots so they' re looking at changing that. 7 1/2 acres of parkland . A lot of this is steep slope, Bluff Creek. The commercial I _ felt was a good idea because it ' s in their urban service area. It relieves pressure from locating commercial in our rural area and it ' s at a major intersection. However , obviously that ' s a long term situation and it would serve a neighborhood function for all of the plats in south Chanhassen so what the Chaska Council is doing is they' re just going to approve the first phase of the development which is about 50 lots here and there' s a proposed church site down on Audubon. The rest of the area — is going to be postponed for action until they can decide on some transportation issues. One being access to TH 212. They' re looking at adding a separate interchange there as well as , if you remember from the transportation plan, we ' re talking about a new highway TH 41. That runs right through the middle of this so the Chaska Council is gripping with this issue of, here' s the site here and this long term corridor runs right straight through the middle of it . They have no official map. They have no means to acquire the property. They have no means to preserve the corridor and this improvement is designated for sometime in the year 2050. That ' s what the Chaska Council is dealing with. Should _ we prioritize the TH 212 corridor and potential access to that right now? Do we look at preserving this corridor knowing that for long range planning purposes that we are going to need some type of reliever to existing TH 41 and we' re going to need another bridge across the Minnesota . They' ve just approved the first phase and now they' re going to be grappling with this transportation issue at their next meeting . Conrad : Directly east of where the high density is going , on the other side Barbara, what is there? Dacy: Hesse Farms . Conrad : And what ' s the average lot size there in Hesse Farms? Dacy: One unit per 5 acres. Originally they proposed a development density of 12 units per acre and I know it ' s hard to see but there ' s a huge ravine and wooded area between the Hesse Farm lots and the multiple family area . I would think from the people ' s second story, they will probably be able to see the development in the winter but there' s a significant amount of space and a lot of slopes inbetween there . Conrad: Like how much space between? Dacy: I would say at least 100 feet in this area . They' re going to have to be clustering these units and the Chaska staff i.s recommending that — Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 49 they reduce the density. Wildermuth : Those folks in Hesse Farm are going to be coming in for a reduction of assessments . Dacy: We ' ve made them aware of this . There ' s been a presentation made to them. Haven ' t heard one adverse comment. Maybe they have them and they just haven ' t expressed them. Conrad : That ' s lousy. Even though there' s 100 feet there , that ' s not much. Dacy: The topography is , straight line distance again . The topography is so severe though. There ' s a physical barrier between them and there' s a lot of trees back there . Conrad : I can ' t agree with high density there at all . Dacy: When you look at it you think why not up in this corner . Conrad : Or just adjacent to TH 212, I could buy that but that entire orange section, that just doesn' t make sense. How do we respond as a City Barbara to something that one person , maybe myself, doesn ' t agree with? Dacy: That ' s the reason we scheduled it for the Council on Monday night . They reviewed a proposed letter . One of the comments in there was that we were concerned with the impacts of multiple family against Hesse Farms . We don' t have any specific plans yet but we'd like to be made — aware of those. We sent those comments down to Chaska . Conrad : I know we' re negotiating for land swaps and all sorts of stuff like that but I guess if you can relay my comments to the City Council that I think that' s terrible in terms of planning . Now I haven' t looked at the site so I 'm doing it sight unseen but in terms of putting high density next to Hesse Farms , that ' s not neat . Especially that amount of high density and I think the City Council should express their feelings directly to Chaska in regard to high density next to one of very low density for now and well into the future . That just doesn ' t make sense. I want to qualify that by saying I 'm not sure what that buffer really does do . I 'd have to take a look at it . I don ' t like that . Batzli : Does anybody on the Commission like that? Conrad : If they want to put small lots in , that ' s fine with me. That ' s their business. If they want to establish a 12, 000 square foot lot in this PUD but I think when you start putting high density, 12 units per acre next to Hesse Farms . Emmi.ngs : It kind of brings up what Dave said earlier too about that Schwaba-Winchell thing and we've talked about it from time to time. How you blend these smaller lots in against bigger lots and we were going to talk about that weren' t we? Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 50 Dacy: That ' s still on our list . Conrad : We' ve still got to talk about that . We really do have to talk _ about that issue. I 'm still bothered that we have no control when a high density area bounces into the middle of a low density area. We really have no control . Dacy: We' re really not bouncing into it . There is a separation there . Conrad: I 'm not talking about anything in particular but I 've seen too many cases recently where we take lot sizes that are 30,000 and 40, 000 square feet and we put 15 , 000 . . . Dacy: I thought you were talking about this . — Conrad : No, I 'm generalizing Barbara . That really bothers me that all of a sudden , plop, there goes a 15, 000 and here we are planners and we — say we like transition and we like this and that and the neighborhood ' s all screwed up because we ' ve got a 15 , 000 versus a 50 , 000 and you sit out there and say, it meets the ordinance . I 'd sure like you to talk to us about that . Headla moved , Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in — favor and motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 50 p.m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim / ti C I TY O F -- N . CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: May 9 , 1988 SUBJ: Approval of Cable Television Ownership Transfer This item appeared on the City Council agenda of April 11 , 1988 . The City Council acted to authorize preparation of an ordinance which would effectuate the transfer being recommended. Attached please find the ordinance as agreed to in concept form by the City Council on April 11 , 1988 . LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL& KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L.GRANNIS,JR.-1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH MICHAEL J. MAYER PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J.BERG DAVID L.GRANNIS,III ROGER N. KNLMON TELEPHONE:(612)455-1661 April 26 , 1988 Mr. Don Ashworth Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Cable Television Ownership Transfer Dear Don: Pursuant to your request, enclosed please find draft ordinance concerning the sale and transfer of Cable Franchise of Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. to Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. Please call if you have questions or comments. _ Very truly yours, GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FA RELL &, KNUTSON, P.A. BY: __Roger Nam.- K on RNK: srn Enclosure /.PR 2 7 CITY OF CHANhIASS1988 EIy Ordinance No. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IN CABLE SYSTEM AND TRANSFER OF CABLE FRANCHISE OF DOWDEN CABLE PARTNERS, L.P. TO TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P. WHEREAS, Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. , a Delaware limited partnership (hereinafter "Dowden") owns, operates, and maintains a cable television system (the "System") in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota (hereinafter the "City") pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City has the authority and responsibility to adopt, coordinate, administer, and enforce the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and the right to approve any transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Dowden desires to sell and otherwise transfer substantially all of its business and assets used or useful in connection with the ownership and operation of the System and the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance to Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. , a Missouri limited partnership (hereinafter "Triax") ; and WHEREAS, Triax agrees to continue to manage, operate, and maintain the System in substantially the same manner as Dowden; and WHEREAS, Dowden and Triax have requested the consent from the City to a sale of the System and transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance of Dowden to Triax; and WHEREAS, the City finds no reasonable basis to deny the request for transfer to Triax under the terms and conditions set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen: 1. The City hereby approves the transfer of the System and transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance of Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. to Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. , conditioned upon a review by the City's legal counsel as to the legal sufficiency of the organizational and creation documents of the limited partnership prior to closing and subject to an actual closing of the transaction on or before August 31, 1988, pursuant to the terms and conditions as evidenced by the information submitted by Dowden and Triax to the City. 2 . The Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance requires that the franchisee under the Cable Communications Franchise give notice to the City prior to any assignment or transfer of such franchise and give the City the right under certain circumstances to — purchase the Cable Communications Franchise. The City hereby approves such assignment and transfer and waives its right to purchase the Cable Communications Franchise arising as a result of any assignment — and transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise from Dowden to Triax. Except for sales and transfers of the Cable Communications Franchise where consent is required by Section 238 . 083 , Minnesota Statutes, the City hereby consents to the sale or transfer of the — Cable Communications Franchise from Triax to any person or entity (an "Affiliate") affiliated with Triax by virtue of direct, indirect, or common control or ownership. Notwithstanding any provision contained — herein, in the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance, or Section 238 . 083 , Minnesota Statutes, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that Triax and its Affiliates shall have the authority to pledge and collaterally assign, and to grant a security interest and lien with respect to, the Cable Communications Franchise, to any lender of Triax or its Affiliates as security for the payment of the debts of Triax and its Affiliates, and any such lender shall be entitled to all of the rights of a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code of the State of Minnesota. 3 . The City consents to and approves the transfer of the System and transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance from Dowden to Triax subject to the following conditions: a. Triax shall accept the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance by giving written notice of acceptance to the City and thereby agreeing to perform all of the terms _ and conditions of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance, within thirty (30) days of such transfer and assignment, unless the time for acceptance is extended by the City. — b. With its acceptance, Triax shall furnish to the City and in accordance with the requirements of the Cable — Communications Franchise Ordinance, the performance bond, evidence of insurance, letter of credit, and such other items required by the Cable Communications Franchise _ Ordinance. c. Triax shall agree that the remaining provisions of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance remain in full -' force and effect following the completion of the transfer and assignment. d. With its acceptance, Triax shall pay all costs and expenses of the City, including legal and other consulting fees, incurred as a result of this process and to the extent such costs and expenses have not previously been reimbursed. -2- 4 . That Triax shall, within sixty (60) days after the closing, file with the City a copy of the deed, agreement, mortgage, lease, or other written instrument evidencing such transfer of ownership and assignment of said Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance, certified and sworn to as correct by Triax. 5. That in the event Triax fails to comply with any of the above requirements within the time specified, unless the time is extended by the City, this Resolution, and any and all approvals set forth herein shall be null and void. 6. The Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance is in full force and effect, and there have been no amendments or modifications to the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance, except as specifically referred to and provided herein. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1988 . Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor -3- CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING in APRIL 11, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Geving, Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Horn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Larry Brown, Lori Sietsana and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Gevi.ng moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the addition by Councilman Boyt of a -- citywide trash pick-up under Council Presentation. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Gevi.ng seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Conditional Use Permi.t Approval for Food Processing Facilities and ILSite Plan Review for McGlynn Bakeries. c. First Reading of Rezoning, Subdivision and Wetland Alteration Permit Approval for Minnewashta Meadows, Gary Carlson. 1. Resolution #88-28: Minnewashta Meadows Subdivision Petition for Public Improvement File No. 88-2. e. Resolution #88-29: Cable Television---*" , Request to Transfer Ownership. f. Resolution #88-30: City Hall Expansion: 1) Approval of Plans and Specifications 2) Authorize Bids 3) Approve Architectural Agreement — g. Accounts Payable dated April 11, 1988 i. City Council Minutes dated March 28, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated March 16, 1988 All voted in favor and motion carried. -- CONSENT AGENDA: (B) SUBDIVISION AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT APPROVAL, LAKE RILEY WOODS SOUTH, GEORGE NELSON ASSOCIATES. Barbara Dacy: It's obvious from the staff update that we wanted to follow up on the street connection issue regarding this subdivision with the adjacent subdivision to the west. That being Great Plains Golf Estates. Larry Brown 1 le_ - C I TY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: April 11, 1988 SUBJ: Cable Television Request to Transfer Ownership Approximately 30 days ago the City received notification from Dowden of its desire to sell its communications system, which includes Chanhassen, to Triax Midwest Associates. Included with that information was the proposed transfer agreement, sales docu- mentation, their financial audit reports, and supporting documen- - tation ( 4-5 inches of documentation) . All information received was forwarded to the City Attorney' s office requesting his review, advice, and recommendation regarding how to proceed with the request. During the past month, the City Attorney and this office have discussed, hopefully, all aspects/options associated with the proposed transfer . Although not shown in Mr . Knutson' s final opinion, I did have the attorney research the City' s ability to require documentation regarding rates , programming, etc. His findings in these areas were not surprising in light of a similar question posed to him approximately six months ago when Dowden unilaterally proposed to increase their fee structure, i .e. the federal legislation requiring deregulation of industries such as airlines , communications and cable television has virtually stripped local governments of most regulatory powers. The City may keep intact its franchise agreement requiring certain main- - tenance levels , etc. In addition, the maintenance of a bond to insure that the technical aspects of the system are maintained is allowed. In almost all other respects, deregulation removes local control. A key provision was maintained in that, should the City be dissatisfied with the regulations as established by the company, the City does maintain the ability to acquire the system at its fair value. To date I have not received $90 million dollars worth of complaints and accordingly, am not proposing City acquisition. I have had approximately three conversations with Triax/Dowden representatives regarding the proposed transfer . All local Mayor and City Council April 11, 1988 Page 2 operational personnel would remain employed with Triax as a part of the merger . I have a great deal of respect for Dowden' s ( proposed Triax' s ) regional manager, Mary Smith. Mary feels very confident that the acquisition will improve not only her own — position, but also the positions of Triax and the City. The "buying power" associated with larger networks for station programming makes it very difficult for the smaller communication — systems to continue to compete. Dowden ' s acquisition by Triax should reasonably assure the City that rate increases will not occur as often and that the level of programming can not only be — maintained but hopefully increased. In light of recent agenda lengths, I have not encouraged repre- sentatives of Dowden or Triax to make a presentation before the City Council . I am confident that they would be more than willing and would welcome the opportunity to provide a presen- tation of who they are, what they would propose, and why the — acquisition is necessary. Again, the City has maintained an outstanding relationship with Dowden and all communications to date with Triax would lead me to believe that that will continue _ to be the case with Triax. Again, the Council may wish to ask that a presentation be made solely to maintain the personal rela- tionship which has existed over the past several years. This office would recommend that the City Council approve in con- cept the acquisition of Dowden by Triax Midwest Associates . As a part of the concept approval , the City Attorney should be — instructed to prepare a franchise ordinance modification reflecting the transfer while binding Triax to all portions of the existing franchise agreement, including bonding. A potential presentation by Triax could be made at the time of consideration — of the first or second reading of the modified ordinance. C • LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER VANCE B. GRANNIS Elam B. KNETSCH VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE PATRICK A. FARRELL MICHAEL J. MAYER DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J. BERG ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 March 29, 1988 Mr. Don Ashworth City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: CATV Dear Don: You asked me to review the proposed sale of the Dowden Cable System, which includes Chanhassen, to Triax Midwest Associates. Article X of the City' s franchise agreement with Dowden gives the City the right to purchase the CATV system within Chanhassen. Assuming there is no interest in purchasing the system, Article XI of the franchise agreement provides that the proposed sale _ requires the City' s consent "which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. " The new owner will be bound by the same franchise agreement that binds Dowden. The only concern the City may have is their ability to perform. Since Triax is investing over $90 million dollars, presumably they think they can perform. The City could have a financial audit performed to determine if they have enough capital to succeed, but I really don' t think that is necessary. There is no feasible way of keeping Dowden in business and the sale, on ir—face, appear legitimate. \ V ry truly y urs, ' �\ oger N. K tson RNK:srn MAR 3 0 1988 1/4-1(Y OF CHANhM:D3r2'4 Dowden �._._. Cablesystems - March 30 , 1988 - Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Don: On behalf of Triax Communications Corporation and _ Mr. James C. Vaughn, its Director of Operations, I am enclosing the following information for your review: -Financial Statements for Year End 1987 — -Organization Chart of Triax Corporate Staff -Brief Biographies of Key Personnel -Triax Growth and Development Brochure Also enclosed is a proposed resolution from Triax for your consideration. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, nr,_o_y_tA Mary A. Smith Regional Manager — MAS :mrf Enclosures — CC: James C. Vaughn M. Kent Sharp APR 0 1 198$ CITY OF CHANhASSEN • Managed By Dowden Cable Partners, L.P., 2381 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound,Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-6394 — ( C J C. M 0• O CV CO •0 J y, M P O .A O < O LO 0 P •O srV, 0 N IAf+ CO 0 — ~D •D 1OO�Q 0. M pO. ./ INN. '0 •P.. 0 0 N- O O CO ~ CO uY coN LA PMI N, PA .O LA Q INI V1 In I- N IA I. N .- ^ N .- PA A ..f .f V1 .- .O • V1 • '0 .p • '0 • CO - .. � N- N N 0 I. .} aD V. Z • CO CO PAO Ih. . C. J -C '0 .0 q O 4CV '0 P 1n IL K c0 v v .7 U 0 N .-• • M P N .O CO ul O O d M • O — O M • Jl '0 CO M P P. CO O N N y� ^ fV V, J N- O. 0 Al J 0 N O0 N CO M N V, N J M M J > P M (c Vp • .f D. a M (V N N N M 0 • x < CO aO . W 0' N- 0 V1 _ P M WI- . U) (V M N .- .O H N LA J - N N I. 0 PAJ C) 0 pn CO .p v sr IA J N IA N P 0 .- CO .N- fV N CO x P •-• PAO - • .► 0, N O . N N I. 0, 0. • InM 0• I- M pQ.. IAm CT1� In 0, •0 P 0 U) •O M M .0 0 O C. • .T `- N M OP V1 .7 M, M 0 N M J 0 .0 I. M V1 M ^ Cp N N ,0 ..2 CO 0, 0. ^ CV O• .A Z • v O oC U) •- ul W H m - K = 2 CC W — < Lu U a a w 6 0 0 -. O o .,, . M 0 x .t .t J 0 ti • Oo U o < O 0 IA M P C. P .- 00. M .Js 0• co P O w - - MI/1 _ M Z H Z O O I� O V1 P Is. CO P N ►. .- .r N PA LA.- 0, N .A IL M Z N N I. .n M J M .- w < = N 0- CC I- 2 F. IL I- d < Z O r O N = _ x -. Is. CO CO M .O M N N WI O h .- .O • J < 0 w < 0• N • .7 - '0 O CO 0• IA CIN- • .t J Z > I- 0• CO N • N 1!1 ./ ul .n .Q .!1 •0 V, • 0 — cc -- J . - H z W P I. I. M1 P. J _ V1 V1 N q .Q J N •O •0 .t CO N I. N O CO (V OW COLA J CO WI N 6 w .t .- M N N1 M U S I- ..... v O • O 0 0 0 ., C7 .t N. I.- .} N • • • MOC - N Pw . . ^ CO IA M U. `Q ,o 2 Q .No U) J o V, HY u -0p. CI (V MO 0.0 0. co .- N, O M • N O CO CO N. •O CO N •0 .2. o In .p .p In N N CO CO M N. N Ui 1u > CC I- 6 < < 0 U, CC U) '- -+ w D cocoN m _ D Z = D U) U) W > = Q. W 1qq-CC N <W 2 IX 0IL2 O CO W D W J 2 J U) N N > 2 > .0 < 0 C7 .tl < w .A .0 0 W W W I- Y- 2 2 � GOv CC > CC < 0 X ^ ^ -J 0 2 VI 0 x — U IX OC J IX < W CC ♦- J W W •- •• 1,7 K )d W N U) I.- _ .t U) O W OL• Z 0 I W ~ W < K I- .� W CC pp W J N X < tl U D CO U. 0 < Z a 0 X ..7 .. US W U 2 ..- K C7 W I W < CC 2 > U. CO F- Z Q. I.• COI U./ w < 2 < .0 0 IL/ K LICC COW 2 u • • J ap ap N i r c0 O O 0- O M M c0 •O N V frT .- N 1l�t r O. M M M J •O V01 CO CO O M M J I� 2O is- ry O --I -01 CO 0, CO Os N inO• OP .O CO0. o0 in 0- N .O N CV N .7 •0 .7 1• VI N .O U M N •O _ • N M '_ • O .7 .7 .7 I O i+N1 P ^o PPA PA Os M -I I- N P .O W < J O N CO CO 0 2 ... .7 N P P P n O in O •O In O o a) • 0. .O L.) .O O N N O CV N .O N O M N r •O .0 0. N .- (V ha N N. O N N N M M 0, O.O c0 U 0, InO O 00 d CV 0- N > O ,n .O{ M 0. M M • •,- al in NI 01 < CO N f. N .- 0 V1 . N .- '0 �7 • M N PA N • P M M M CO 00 •O ..0p cn CO O. N .- M In un in O un in inJ CD N. . v. .- (V .t .7 v. O .7 .t 0 O• N O, .-••. N N ..N1 .- M O O• ir- VI • N O 0 1n O • N N - O 4- .7 .- 0- 0 (� • 1.- LA N J N N J •,- .7 • N 0 N d PS • N N H .7 N M N in N 0 .7 N. 0 N N N N A P inV .- . Ni v N 0, 7 O .- O .7 in N •• O IA CO N P .4. POy11 .- .- in a)1,- D C) 00 in • '0 0, .- CO • O 1- . - N Ps- 0::/ 0 PA • O. 1r1 CO ill `O N. N in M al � N 1-. O. 01 •O N en .t N M 1n ....• M W W x co) CO •-• N. '4 O-.2 CV N 00 M 00 • O O N N O in N < - O• N- •.0 N .O N O W I- .2 P A M .- ti O. O. N CO M M N P CI - . . . X J_ _ N N O. N N M •O N M N N P .7 in .- O .- N CO In N in N X < M 1A .O 1,1 v CO `0 N M N CO _ CO cc 1� (V O •O 0- N O OC w .- U 0) in N M Z I -- w X U P O w 11 N O 1� CO 0 N O 1�6 U _ - U al •O I.: f• 1.- N.. N O` Os Os N `t .7 .t O N � 0 v 03 CY 0 N • • OS CO N N w 0 .7 • 0. • N • P • .f O• 0 co ..77 cv in .f .f LA 1-U • • N N .-.Q IA O O Pc1 CD hi .77 •...777 • •0 O N .O N .O N .O N CD a) • N CM1 O O. N. O .O CO M P O 0. PAN -5 N ry N 0- P O• N M N N 01 - U.S w y Z Z w 0- 1- X Z N w W W - I Z N G W A w W _ - 1- 7 7 N < O[ O F- u w Cu Z J U J 4.4 CI1 .0 .- 0 < V1 •- N < to U u. .. > --- 2 lJ < > 7 V1 2 < W 2 in w < Z J fa! 2 -.• U W J U) > -. 7 CO > Lai -.aW Na. .- 2 O < W o cc I') W < H W > OC m > < - CA 0. Z < OC < co ce 0 > N lc W .0 0. 0 W 0- 00-- < I W H J 2 I- -- Of U I-- 1/1 • 2 CL' > Z At W CY OC N W U) OC W OC 1- x 0 W 0. Q. W W - 1- H < > WN U > w 0 xUI 2 x •• < U Z cc OC I- Z Z - WUZO D N U < - 0. O. O - _.• ] < O U 0 W W CO CA < N < -a • TRIAX COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION CORPORATE OFFICE ORGANIZATION CHART MARCH 1. 1988 JAMES O(SORUEM1O CMAIMAA O( 1[K Mw10/CEO SAMOA M[ATA �. EJ<ECUTIMI Qp1E1AAT JAT S. MACK PRESIDES, GAVE COT CURT METERS JIM VMIGrt MIES PALE 1 MAI(ET OEVELO►IEMT M.1.1. MAMAG(R O►E,AIlee1 CCIIPCAt( CO1I LER 1/( feel PAU( GAST SCMUIIZ PALS MAZAIOJ JOE VItO SIEVE FUME , GEVERLT MEAN MAIE(T OEVE(OPIIENI AATIST SALES MANAGE, SPECIAL MOJECIS MAMAGEU ACIDAIIK MANACIR ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGE, / ADMtl11SIRAIO, I OFjICE MANAGER 7 c(ll(T RUR(E ,All WAITERS OAVE IIOTD [1M STAAOM Al ,AMIREZ A:MI.111*AT IV( ASSISIArt G(N IEDG(t ACCOIINtg.t ACCOUNIAMT ACCOJMIS ►ATAAIE ACCU NIS ►ATAALE T (ATMT AND/1S0M CAlaT MAT(DA OPEN •(C(PTIONIST Aor11NIS1[AI Iv( ASSISIAMI S(C((IART. ADMIN. ASST. TRIA>K COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION 14 • TRIAX COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION — MANAGEMENT BIOGRAPHIES JAMES DESORRENTO - Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Mr. DeSorrento has served as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Triax Communications Corporation since the company's formation in 1982. He is also a General Partner of Triax Associates I, L.P. , one of TCC's operating affiliates. Mr. DeSorrento has been involved in the cable television industry since 1970, holding various operational and management positions over the 18-year period. Mr. DeSorrento is a past president of the Ohio Cable Television Association, and was active on the state's President Committee, an NCTA subcommittee formed to lobby — Congress regarding the passage of Copyright legislation. Mr DeSorrento has been responsible for financing and managing the growth of TC)C and its affiliates from zero to nearly 60,000 subscribers. During this period, the Company won aver 40 new frandiisPs and completed 16 acquisitions. Under Mr. DeSorrento's direction, TCC's — gross revenue has grown to aver $18 million, and operating cash flaw has increased to over $9 million. Prior to TCC, Mr. DeSorrento held positions of Vice President of Corporate Development with U.S. Cable Corporation, a 150,000 subscriber cable — MSO; and spent almost five years as Vice President of Investment Banking at Daniels & Associates, one of the largest investment banking and brokerage firms serving the cable television industry. Fivm 1970 through 1975 Mr. DeSorrento held various — operational and management positions with Viacom International, Inc. , including Director of Marketing, and General Manager in San Francisco, one of the larger cable television systems in the Parly 1970's. After San Francisco, Mr. DeSorrento became Viacom's Regional Manager in Cleveland, Ohio. JAY R. BUSCH - President Mr. Busch has responsibility for TCC's continuing operations with emphasis in the areas of corporate finance, acquisitions, and corporate development. Mr. Busch's 14-yPa r history in the cable business has focused on corporate finance and mergers and acquisitions. Responsibilities include asse<sing capital needs and designing funding alternatives to reach corporate objectives. As a Senior Investment Banker with Daniels & Associates over the last eleven years, Mr. Busch completed financing transactions totalling about $500 million; merger transactions totalling aver $1 — billion; and a variety of consulting projects for clients such as General Electric, Tribune Company and Warner Communications, Inc. Mr. Busch assisted in the strategic planning and development of the Investment Banking Division at Daniels which grew _ fLvm six people in 1977 to 20 people at the end of 1987. Mr. Busch is a regular speaker on the financial panels offered at Paul Kagan Seminars, the National Cable Television Association Conventions and Daniels and Associates seminars. Prior to joining Daniels & Associates, he spent four years working for Syracuse University — designing, and implementing a cable television system on the University campus. Mr. Busch completed his B.S. degree with a major in Finance at Syracuse University and received his M.S. in Business/Engineering from the University of Colorado. — JAMES C. VAU( {N - Director of Operations - Mr. Vaughn has overall responsibility for the day-to-day operations of Triax Communications Corporation and its respective operating entities, including administration, plant construction, technical operations, franchise and customer relations, budget and expense controls. Over the last six years, Mr. Vaughn has held operations management positions with Enstar Communications, Harte-Hanks, and most recently, with Tele-Co maulications, Inc. in the 500,000 home Chicago system. In these positions, Mr. Vaughn supervised start-up cable operations in Miami, Florida, Chicago, Illinois and several smaller southeastern communities. From 1977 to December, 1982, Mr. Vaughn was Director of Engineering for Cox Cable Corporation, supervising aver one million total subscribers and specifically overseeing the start-up of cable operations in New Orleans, Louisiana, Tucson, Arizona, Omaha, Nebraska and Cleveland, Ohio. Prior to joining Cox Cable, Mr. Vaughn held the position of Director of Engineering in various Viacom International, Inc. cable systems. In thnsfa positions Mr. Vaughn participated in many engineering projects including the development and execution of satellite delivery and launch of Viacr n's Shawtime pay television service. DAVID M. DDWNEY - Director of Marketing and Franchise Development Since 1983, Mr. 410owney has worked at a variety of operational positions with Triax Communications Corporation. Currently, Mr. Downey has responsibility to conceptualize and administer the direct marketing plan of TCC and its affiliates. Additional responsibilities include rate planning and new property development. Prior to joining TCC, Mr. Downey worked for U.S. Cable Corporation in their corporate development office. In that position, Mr. Downey was active in system franchising and assisted in system planning and budgeting. In 1980 and 1981 Mr. Downey worked as a staff representative for the franchising efforts in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Prior to joining the cable industry full time, Mr. Downey produced television commercials for Los Angeles based retail advertisers and held a door-to-door sales position near Pasadena, California. J. MICHAEL PAUK - Corporate Controller Mr. Pauk joined TCC in August, 1986, during the start-up phase of its corporate headquarters. Mr. Pauk helped develop and implement financial, accounting and administrative controls including initial set-up of Chart of accounts, computerized general ledgers and reporting systems. Mr. Pauk is involved in a number of acquisition projects and analyses including contract review, projections and analyzing financial structures. Mr. Pauk is responsible for cash management, regulatory filings, financial statement preparation, insurance coordination and corporate administrative functions. Prior to joining TCC, Mr. Pauk held the position of Audit & Accounting Manager for Arthur Andersen & Co. where he was responsible for all levels of planning, supervision, coordination and review of audits of various sizes ranging from $1 million to $6 billion in asqpts. • i — ERIC OLSEN - Regional Manager Mr. Olsen is the Regional General Manager of the newly-acquired Illinois systems, where he molded together seven companies. He implemented policies to upgrade the systems, raise rats and begin an extensive marketing campaign. Prior to being appointed Illinois Regional Manager, Mr. Olsen held several positions in TCC affiliates, including Data Processing Manager, whereby he converted 16,000 recently — acquired subscribers into a new billing system. Upon joining Triax Associates II in 1983, he designed and oversaw the construction of 200 miles of plant in Indiana, serving 2,500 subscribers. He was System Manager of the North Webster, Indiana — system serving over 14,000 subscribers, which included duties in the areas of engineering, marketing and budgeting. Prior to joining Triax Associates II, Eric worked for U.S. Cable where he began as an installer in 1978 and rose to the _ position of Chief Engineer, a position he kept until leaving U.S. Cable. STEPHEN R. TRIPPE - Regional Manager Mr. Trippe is the Regional General Manager of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. He has had extensive experience in the cable television industry during the past six years, including the areas of marketing, customer service, franchising and operations. — Prior to becoming a Regional Manager, he spent three years as a System Manager in Waterville, Ohio, where he .was responsible for the daily operations of the system. Previous to this, he was sP7ected as Marketing Manager for Triax Associates II in North Webst r, Indiana. He spent two years in this position where he supervised and — maintained a sales staff of 12. His experience also includes three years as a Platoon Leader of a combat engineering platoon in the Ohio National Guard. He spent four years on active duty in the United States Army where he graduated from Officer — Candidate school and the United States Army Engineering School at Ft. Belvior, Virginia. GARY T. CROSBY - Regional Manager Mr. Crosby has served as the Regional Manager in Illinois and Wisconsin for Bowden Cable, Inc. since joining the company in 1982. Plug' his headquarters in Lena, -' Illinois, Mr. Crosby has been responsible for construction and development of 29 systems serving 55 communities. Under his supervision, the regions have grown to 18,000 subscribers served by 525 miles of cable plant. Included as part of Mr. — Crosby's responsibilities are management of 28 people, maintenance of a cable network of systems from the East St. Louis area to Central Wisconsin, and public relations. Mr. Crosby is familiar with the franchising process and is active in _ unity affairs. He is currently active in the Illinois Cable Television Association and Chamber of Commerce affairs. Prior to joining Cowden, Mr. Crosby was Vice President and third-generation principal of Crosby Cable Co. , Inc. , which was founded by his grandfather in the early 1950's. — 17 JOYCE VFCE - Regional Manager — Mrs. Vermace is Regional Manager for Dowden's Iowa systems and is a 6-year veteran of the company. She began her career assignment in 1982 by coordinating early efforts in Iowa as Dowden pioneered the cluster concept of small community cable — television operations. Mrs. Vermace has played an active role in all phases of cable development and operations fmn franchising through construction to customer service. She is responsible for a network of 35 systems serving 45 communities which serve approximately 12,500 subscribers in Central and Eastern Iowa. Her day- - to-day responsibilities include personnel training and supervision, government and public relations, marketing and overall systems operation. Mi . Vermace is Vice President of the Iowa Cable Television Association and has lobbied in Washington, DC, on behalf of the cable television industry. Prior to joining Dowden, she was Shipping Coordinator/Dispatcher for Santee Cement Corporation in South Carolina. MARY A. SMITH - Regional Manager Mrs. Smith is Dowden's Regional Manager in Minnesota. She is responsible for supervision and development of the 15 headends serving 43 Minnesota communities. Her strong organizational skills, public relations and marketing efforts have placed Dowden in a highly-respected position in an area where cable operators have often failed to deliver on the expectations of cable television. Before joining Dowden, Mrs. Smith was Manager of Zylstra/United Cable Television Company's Chaska and Shakopee, Minnesota systems throughout the construction and initial operations stages. She coordinated land acquisitions for several headend sites, established public arrpss studios and business offices, hired staff, directed marketing and — gales, initiated television production workshops, and produced and hosted a weekly television show. Mrs. Smith was instrumental in setting up the Twin Cities Cable Consortium and the Twin Cities Metro General Managers Committrr. She is presently Chairman of the Twin Cities Cable Marketing Consortium. RIC HANSON - Regional Manager — Ric Hanson joined Triax in March, 1988 as Regional Manager. Prior to joining Triax, he was Regional Manager for Combined Cable Corporation for over nine years where he operated systems in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin. Mr. Hanson was responsible for franchising 17 communities and overseeing the construction of 27 cable franchises. He converted all subscribers to CableData's on-line billing system and completed CableData's training and conversion seminars. He built and operated the company's only addressable system which linked ten communities' school systems together via microwave. Mr. Hanson was also responsible for developing a four-state dispatching system, allowing cable csnstomers 24-hour services. 6- • t• r 0 ' '.i 4 4 , g 5 TRIAX COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION 1 1 I [ • 1 . . sos....- ., :...4). . , . 1 . " • - • it eh- ': I 74 ..-v.4..1 Lc. 4,4...* ......;- ••• .•"'4.1. ..1.17-4 .:::#74`r1-- -- -IP--ii e.... Olt 01,1!4" 1; .,. ie. .,%. . V* a . .„...E. ' . . •J •. Z. ...41 „; • 4 j‘ • - r.; ilikrf. ..,N. 4:. -3. ./ ., A * • -4-i-• ,. It `..... . * , .-e*.4,4",... . ....- - •it ',.:•ey.Att.•AI,.a.% • iii....,.• . ., I,C-. % f. i'...-1- `6"1.1)k.i_ir-VII,0 t-..•-41 1 _ , °'IP!S*1‘.%Ii 1.'itft. . • ".'r,' . , -- ••--... • . .. ....". . 4....t... .,..4., A,. ...'"•,„ ,,g• ' ••%. .11(4111.11.. Vi ' -4 •--- . • a-. - Am.,......-- ,„por_.•x .,.., ‘.Jiii.:"..". ;::. •• .....- .7•P: Ir‘lof 1 .4 ii. '4" - . i,..P.,•,.....V.i% . • . . . .1 . •. a.r....ir.....• .1 ri.411.44 • !,P.' . 1 i :a's e... - •_ 03' -: '411.'1...7. - 4.111 P.A. %,r.• .'*# .• a i itt-; go'''.i. 01 An i - Icc!, .S. *. • ' . ...•'‘'. - 4h, .' ...er. .Y 40..44.- .•ei 0 ...... •. „. 4. • ..,.. ' .11.A.N, V 4••b...S.-. .•-.• 'eft b.'.4 •'.-• 4"...40i,•7^ ••,,. • ... VON 1 4 i ...' :4-p. , rip, 1.4 •„•,' . ginc..... •,.. -44.. •. .g le er is' . $ g ... .....,,„ v: •,ii.•-..Tr"' it fee, - PVT:-• 4.iT,'.!' - et . 1. ' • ' --- -. r .-: . p • • j 114 & 11111•• ...;• - - -.•• 4'; 71 •17, - . '6ec';..-77.aors t. 014 .F.J. - 1 l'..• Il• -;:t .li.,,‘ otl, a ' • .• ".-;)-.16•"` . . el;. 4 t. ah,t 'PI %tit. . :--• .., 7* .44, -... 4 '' IP 41-rf'47:ttl tk, '416 6i g' 'c- • - ......._ li 4 -‘ 131 160 1 iltp... gr, Ir. 1.1.:Nr; .,.% . 1,.•..7''.4tItk• -. .. s el' s, •tiko 11,0, ":•'' ."4 7:IVA ...i. .'ii P rik % .11 III ir......% i ' i• , .. .4 I .. ... 9 ........106;_...wai.,.....ir itii I • IV 4 40,.......16444 P :TI.St q" • I 444if ir ,•oiy• .. • *.4. .... 71‘...4-4A, •;',. yos - :• s' • 5r-.17_r)...Z. • - . :..: 1 . . V 4'... lk.-i : •'A 1, .. 41-.1% 8- • • •-. ii.-4---• • i .., . 4'. ' N. 1,..- ...'.•-.. -oxf.,, 3.... jprios..I#• y • -pi?•ftelk j4 - 11 . .31 1,, . ..• a, , c ,a ,14 • c I 24;11411%':.Sif... .-- ..11-" f w.l'bio- :•,„! -_ . . -.'....0. #-:"... - Ii-.9. r qr. '• •-0 ' •arsir 0: : •• ..-1 ,J.0.4%. . 4 I At 4":...'... '' .S. .bk• ii.. 414 Icsiiik .._4 4.asre ,at---•• .." I iii P. -,-- - -!' - z. . ,41.- 1.1ii-; . - - - V.- I 0 jr.• /1 -- 1- -•4 giiijr. . JP er ',I, 21,,•- ••- - •4.A .• . '1'1' - .- ,Sr' 61.10: ,7 p •-. r: ,... ..,44 it e 1 • , %. 1...rt. e .,- * . Ait,--A.:- -- _6. lig...,....•- .,,.....-5,...„ c•,e.,. •„,,„ . . i c..ik'• •9 X'41\ .t..._-_--- I t,r, 41111r)pAiN,. 4,i• Ant*I.."..I!al .....0 -Iv 0 1. I _- . ,r14,;':- '1`.• ri;t1 -.A.4 I'll"IC irmtaKrs ,s I,j„. P4.Or:v/74L.A.. it. • &A 1A. .-* I ., il I ••• 'fk° 4.••!. .*''. .': O. ire• Vi:: 'w4'.:14; ' .14a-:`-' -1:: 71:3.- , , 1'1 •i , •-* 1....i .,- j ti. ... • 3? 4"4.t, it:. .e • • I. er.r..- 731-4k.‘;?:..;1.4f•4.44,6. Iti 4init. bk .-I vl -.- •-. .- ,_. i_.: .. •=. . dr-I.44 4 ,,,, P ,04,I . ••. .'N.4.1•tNir, • •d 4444k,%evt. i ,;...,•••'!, z, /-•• .<*- ,-..7-..:.Iv, „tt • ..r . -S. i••- •.1'.1..4'''"'''• .'A' ,NI i a.•4-A 1.W.11.-•:14--44 1., -..'a ' ' -' I •-.13.,..y......gel zjle 2/, . %,,lit........,,-.., at .,..-J...,_...c * t • r • . .- . !-Istrf,,,,470 re t INA 17:•:- • . "1.. ::a. • •111 4:14„:• ii•„,, ''....:Z.-•2;3 Mt: " .4n.• -....4---"'If 4b filtit ' - ;4:, .4. 1-,41-4?ti`-' Pi , ,•,.,. ' i t*:j i . - • -#.. f g IP,lipfiy:,"..e 4M43...7 43' . 1‘,. p -3-re• ...--i- i . -At, u... . ..,.... ,,,,,i.,,--,....3.g., ,: . z, ......4 ''rlay. I :--' k -:'.. •4 '." '- - . ..- ....„ !. i t 7k-_il‘'iti-_'''' zi: ..7 r. .1)..-,, Ad sk:„...• ,...,,, ... .,,, It . ' ,,. P. 1 I f,-..t 1/44 rie yap,4. N 4' -' ,f4e-4,•!:1 • it, I , . . k. r. •Iirt?* '•-•-I • %.9 .. Z.:• • /a. C..A.V . ‘4,.. .'"V-N-1411'. I-. I "'.4.% • f ' . ,,e, It'iill..-, -‘_•Vi... 1 .*:„,.. r..:. .•f.; ..,t...- , . A 40_,.• - i la' I 0 a -*'*1,lr 1..... .....-• ‘“-14.,,t r -.4'ilft"441rt- 'd '- -. s .*‘' -?, tl 4,1 •••4•4';.°4' P 'Airi-e ...,.Y.,"hr, it...,,„ ; 10, ), Illy .....;II :41.•..I.Z. .7..al ". :. er. it,. ...,', i # •-.4. '''•v, -.1 1.-- z. liF ..1 it-,lr-ir ""b - ; It . .4 `? - - • 4a. ;-` - • ; . ' . ''''•-'ICI " CABLE TELEVISION IS OUR ONLY BUSINESS " - .1-- k .• ' i• 1 I ; t _ , . lz' , TRIAX 'lir COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION n 1982, conventional wisdom held that the cable industry had become a big money game; that only giant conglomerates had the financial resources to compete in this capital-intensive growth business. That same year, James DeSorrento and a partner committed their personal resources to form Triax Communications Corporation. Triax was founded on the belief that growth opportunities still existed within the cable business, and that selective acquisition of cable properties and the application of sophisticated management skills would result in superior financial performance and exceptional increases in asset value. Triax applied this concept to the marketplace, and the results have consistently exceeded performance and growth projections. Today, Triax Communications Corporation manages several cable system complexes in 6 midwestern states and serves nearly 60,000 subscribers. Triax Communications Corporation was founded at a time when the cable industry was beginning the process of slowly consolidating. The large multiple system operators (MSO's) were constructing major urban franchises and acquiring adjacent properties to increase their share of the market. r 6• _ Ott • �'.yam" S.:�j •wR- r� ' lot : Yam. ♦ + r I At the same time, the vast majority of cable properties continued to remain small, independently operated enterprises. These systems were often technologically outmoded, and did not utilize the sophisticated marketing and customer service techniques that had — been developed by the large MSO's for their urban systems. As a result of these historic trends, a new entrepreneurial — opportunity beckoned. Because of the emphasis by the major MSO's on rapid growth and large urban systems, many smaller cable properties were being ignored by the marketplace. Triax began by commiting to the strategy of franchising and — acquiring a number of small adjacent cable properties . Triax centralized operations, and implemented modern management techniques and reporting criteria. These networks of small cable franchises now operate at similar levels of performance and profitability as larger cable franchises. _ In essence, Triax found a niche in the cable business that was both too — small and specialized for the large MSO's to exploit, and too demanding of the limited resources of small, independent cable _ operators to duplicate. Beginning with the acquisition, construction and integration of a — network of new cable franchises in rural and suburban areas of northern Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, Triax has successfully — applied its innovative formula. let24, _ _,1/4...- ,,,. r.:t v 1 3 _04.ii '..1-. 44/. • f Atiii.. _ . _ „....______, , . , , ,_ ,..... ., 11,111*gi. 4:..,A.:(4 ..N. i .' 1 i I -tea - -3---__ _^' \ 5 f '4". .. AL,.i �.-nwr ; . , - - �_f r. _k,i. . .,, ,, -jam / ry 4• ��T�" a _ ..: '.T t I i cy. !.tX /1 ;;. . •,irk-<1:- 0I �. -ice •_ . orc � ,. — A:3 r.ati• '1.. '4 , am' - ?z.#w ,_ . . - 1• i I Ilr- Statistics and Service Area Map i 'N M!UJCN$ r .2, GROSS REVENUE :8 - 17.521.381 The charts located on this page reflect Triax's steady growth in gross revenues, ems.. { homes passed, and subscribers. .4 -, 12.159.031 _.5.4. ,), v _4 r s _ i , •�;.- ..,,, fe 6.001.856 • 44 ,t'; ., opposite page: "1988 Service Area Map" 7 - • .. f. -. x- y r :4 y��y 24953 1982 1983 1964 1985 1986 1937 19A8 YEAR IIN THOUSANDS 106,952 107 93 TOTAL _'—T ' -" ' TOTAL • HOMES '� SUBSCRIBERS PASSED ,� I . _ 57.108 60839 90 '1 1 ir 415 • a EC • 4 50 ;.. r65 - `rI a -H 59.472 :`� i um. 50 - a 31.3671 , T : .. ii :1-.I.';'.;:..:: 23.974 /' -1 .'Al.' 1 4. at 1932 1983 1984 1985 1986 1967 ;9$w 1962 1983 1964 1985 1988 1987 1988 l aps a_e-a.• YEAR '�~ IIII ARIZONA — .vr4• • .r •roman J l 3 0 — aaoaro A • — 0. • c,....Wry MINNESOTA •••• .j • • O• T a a•7 O. z , • U — A y '.4 a A' • • WISCONSIN Y • •S : % .• MICHIGAN 1 • • •• S I 04,111. I • • •• • i ,. . . .�,. • • • PEE • •Caear RIIl ti 'Kua^uZOO �( — • • o,...-oon.it A •Cf-cayo • fo 13��•a �' 9 JI OHIO ~ 9) INDIANA — SP...G..E •Cv. I • e • .,K anaP... +.a�sas can i tea; — MISSOURI TRIAX - 1'(1 COCORPORA IONS I _ I LEGEND 1 TRIAX ASSOCIATES I, L.P • DOWDEN CABLE PARTNERS L.P. 3 TRIAX ASSOCIATES II -: VANTAGE CABLE, INC. TRIAX ASSOCIATES IV, L.P. (NEW) — `RIAX GOAMMMJNICATIONS CORPORATION COPYRIGHT YII88 — ! During the first four years of operation, Triax and its affiliates grew 3_ to nearly 19,000 subscribers. In July, 1986, the company repurchased s Mr. DeSorrento's partner's interest, recapitalized the company and acquired nearly 13,000 additional subscribers, bringing to nearly — 32,000 the number of subscribers under management. During the period July, 1986 through June, 1987, Triax aggressively pursued _ additional cable systems resulting in the acquisition of another 23,000 subscribers. This series of acquisitions combined with internal growth has increased the customer base to nearly 60,000 subscribers. Triax management is acutely aware that although a particular _ strategy worked at one time, modifications of the company strategy are required because of ever-changing industry trends and technological developments. For this reason, Triax is carefully positioning itself for the next major phase in its growth. — In addition to the companies basic strategy of acquiring and consolidating small cable franchises, Triax has also sought and acquired mid-sized cable properties that are underdeveloped and have significant growth potential. 1 — The resources of these mid-sized cable properties serve as a financial base for the acquisition and integration of adjacent small cable ! _ franchises that otherwise could not be operated at the level of technology and efficiency required by Triax's performance criteria. N. N, '" J -- \ - -.---- ,,- - ' .1k--. .. -- - :-. N 1. • _ __ _________ - . . V ---. a'dir , ' ' ; r V. ', \—\4111ma ‘. 4. 1.1 et. -.., - — ) - .. :4., .' 41‘ \'- •J TIIIIII.IIIIIIIMIIIIMIIIII(,I-IIMIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMIIIIIIIIIIrIMIIIIIIIII1lMIIIIIr .. L. - •r . ' a ' ' - - - '- . "'V .. .., ,• Z'• ►O 1 s ;.— ,..y:_ w _Z M;'aw ems, ram. rr• iy y .� ems, i"7t'''*ft� 14-... .ter s- ."�"' t _ ._ -� ..� • 1! _ ai OJ^v >a 1 i' N r .2.r X '' ; 4.. 7 . a as , - t a 2 i rItt ..r w tR ,> '� i s .. c, }• �- .•till, • �:.s. r t,• .: z { : V. ; .. +_.mil, r .ry - ' + - . = ► tF: ` ;... .•..._ f . g t i ?\u: .i � - 1..-.1- lit •,. • t ` firs ` ' s ` .• �.- ..'. . . �- '-f. -�rab' ifegit -j ` f a : t ,i--; :.... ... .., .,..., „ I..... ..., .......:.". .f %' •rite :4fs .• ;i 3 - .'1 i • E a+' r ti r _ • j it.' �� ' f I. . S r .. i e p a s .JrJ t off L-L.- l ,I• 4 i - �, V"s.� F.Y fay.1' umfr eCt. r • ""�k- "il 'i'j�'•r fir,,., '�i.'�a4 3'ti::+cN-'Y• i ,,The primary emphasis throughout the Triax organization is to achieve and maintain excellent picture quality. Our service call ratio is consistently maintained at better than acceptable industry levels. We believe very strongly that the major benefit to subscribers of a cable system is a crisp, clear picture at all times, supported by a comnutment to customer service. Add to — this a wide variety of programming, and the essential nature and function of a cable television system is achieved." — JAMES DeSORRENTO Chairman of the Board; iTriax Communications Corporation — - .. . .,__ T-, . = 0 0 7. ., . . IMMOMMOrt. t- F; `,- ' • ; = _: .• ! ..: 11 COMMUNICATIONS . i CORPORATION . - , • - , ..•= • ,-- 1000; HART-ROAD':r BARRINGTON:_ ILLINOIS': 60010 .._ . 1 (312) 382=6801T' TELECOPIEFnt (312y 382;-6163-. -i - - . _.. L . ... , . . .:::...r....i,-. ,•:'.k,N...11.:i ‘ .. ''-• i k • -.• si...!-,, :.?4,-,v•:. --, , .,..!. .1.: , .. Of • 1., ••1:..r: "".% ,,, .„... e7 • - -- . '••••••11‘..1.--,. --e-•`•••fss. '‘..,',. f & ' . -- V •-•,.t, t --- --. -- ..-.- •-..- :,_-. .- .1. ,e,:y4t,„41N)-$•-;`.-^;-r,C+• 4 It A';'.. -- . Ilk '' ..Vr-t'-$',k....„4..;1•-44ei .444.s?ki?'•-1-•:-.•` .- :•:;- •' .,-,4`r.--.‘ -.i••••••••••• ..- A Ili -a,,i._ • :4‘.,- .„J . It. '..-Y•fkit...4.....7"."-. Ihkilli AL•elp,ii,i. -. ---. ..,., ... ,,,• .. 7.7. ,,,,•,„-.,_ ..,...,,,,,,„.........--:-.„-:- .. , -..„:„..,..:., .e.s„..,..• 4111 , I •-4 - '.95 - 1:-'"--,;-3 „1. .•-,,,,,, .. -,trz7,•••tr.,•&, .13.4. ,..,-,; ..41;,,sts,,,,,.,, . •..-r,..:::::-.•.. „.....- . • --.4. ... • ' . ..,-., ••,,,.t.t• • --:;" ',.; ••'-'• - - " ' I - ,...!••_7_11•41: _--,.,".1‘;- -.. 3, ,' -..1.. ..tc.-% -......-,f4;.-01... 14:,.. :-.,• - .-..4:.-. . ' • - - • •-*.... .< (- .•••••24. -.,- .,_ -. .ti..!: .;••;...-.-4 . • ---.. -. ..,.. L. -; • t"-SP.A. -,.-'-4`• . .445.. ••44, •,1 .4.1e-44.7 ..3tr,;,-„,to--•••, , -: - . -., •' ..--..' ,7..-.1.1.7r..:4..s. :..,i‘v‘%. •,-;.17--..--1..---V .1 '4• - ‘ t. .P.-..1.'• ••t. .*•• •••-!...".• ,-A . ty,,. !-i-ri- - ,,:. r-v. .... -,--4,. ,--.. :- - .t . r • +,..+. -t-1.:. e/....:0‘ •C . .. .,,.... ... 6'47• '•-••,„: .4.7• 6'..r. ..,0...r •..A.4..• ....k::{4...1 ' ' ...-- _ -' : ;1 . __•yi..;14 ,, ` ‘ •41..479;e;Rti: ;.Vista._ :e..-1;;;Z:f't..7`.1:-.!•' -..- ;.1 4-;'14; •;---i -r‘c4..4!?"•-‘ . ' `IC ..tn,-,-...k;raltr._ -•,•-q-crIttc.,,,,,:-._ _-_--•-:_.„, ,,, ,,,. . . • - , . ,,,t, ...., '.1,..... ‘.,,W..v...)....,1_..• ..iPi+•1.4'.. ....••-• • -1-i •-...t.'w-151.--tifi .e.."' 1;(- , ..1,. Zat ., --.• .s Jr .,••et.itf- .P. s 11,„..„,_ """iitlea•-•-, 'in' ...;!! •-. .in•.P .0•Sti,..•••.44,%•••••....••s• •. . -• .- . I •, • ok .- v., •.., -1e,P-a.....w-,i- i- -• • --.. -:. .•-• -,-. • /.,;,.....,. •,....,-, ...,-,.. .,-. . ..2telf.,...•1-.. rS.--,-, .. .!.,‘tp.4-i..7,1. -,,vIce.•;.% 5 -3't 4 A4';'•: ;t..., * Z ;-7--.''..1*. - ,••••• . 1.c*.•: •-••••'•*-•* •."%I? .....i,',i;•.t"t" • ) :•--'V`.•,,- :-...i's. -•?-r40Z 44+7 %lc 1....-7.• • ''''.7.41`'' .' .,4' -..x.-ii.g; 4V."-iote -r. 41ttl....- -M.••1‘ •• ''.**--••... •-3:.--+.'Ir - --.... :r, - .---e.••••-• • - 7.'301 t' •:--1%- •• .:°.•-iL',...- -.1.- .,.. ....„g„,,,? ro, ....,,,,,rfurk.• .- i. • ...,,!.. ....---tv , 1 .,:-.(1 4 ..;..+a-4:.--j..' $_.: ,.0.....,,. ,, - 47 '41":+' ";•°;•1 •-;---,-e-4.1., 41••711.,•", I, 1,'M.-.2,.•A.,11i--.- I,' -Vitst-.1 ,,,,•.',0",.. -..- .. . --- ' :-.4fc •:1/4 ......# ..r..,,‘,1,..rtik.,,,..„ . -441:' t.,-t, ilg:74.1.Stele-,APN -1 ,.. - , • • -..•;•„;,,i-• -• ._ , ,,r_ic •.t-3,..* .Z...1 _-; '.;,;#,O°0$-.4-i-si-IA, ' '•-•-.ti--Ii&Et--r L 4 ••••.,-4 ...-4*- 4- .,ty.,,,,_4 tr.i.t,%.. 14‘.:% -14.:.-•:.*• ••11,1.....'- - --= ' -•,.-4 ;2. 2 ... .1-4 • P'ttl‘N.Z 21--`'Ar I f.....t..; -...t.g.1.4,41.'4_,4 •• ‘:-r.v.ti,-,.f.,..Aii-''' . . . • ' -'4-L•rl• i• 'Titit/D-''....-z. . 4z-i4.; ..ed"t.' - -r.'t':: r * • .. _.: ‘,.. ...-, .,.•..- • r _ ,,..t.- '::t'*--.---- .. ..7".7.--,-t/t. ' - ,,z, .‹.' - . , '... : 'IA.*%:,..111r-r.r::'.,..,, 45.$'7‘.0v--.- *• \..i.*:'....F•4k;-- i.t.-•",-t t •14. -''' - ''-'''• ...ick,L.-.7:4N- • Nri.v.. ,t• 16, -f.0-- .I..„ ' -").•., 4 . -4 L • 1..k.::-..a, .er,?'• • ‘ --4 t-- 7- :;•-i. - .a••:';-1=-7114:•;74 --'...f.':.-- !.,•.."-n. . :1-'-i-g.:: - ' -..- -,,,,, ." 4:•s....24`," --- c•,Itro.y,"7-'-Cr -, 41..47?..,„i'-..'':. .-t- -44:44,4A. 1171 ..•.--..,..F_ - "'.;.;-, '-'`..W - . * • 1,..'-;'• '- ••••, 14.j. . irtior.......44. •-•4 jir•ip .._14,,.. ..ati,. oo• ...I...,.4...1....,....-....4., -:t.....;•7•Ly•-•,--: -..-,d,.•.'st- - r:-.f.!„..... , .".• , ../,,:,-,,•, . 111'.- . -i'ltue,z, - --_,:•Ift-- ---r4:. - 1-..-...-,•-,.- . •-....-.----, -f..,•_- . .--..•-7.1,;.7 7...:.a-1-.'-4.t.l....1I..1 i.'P 9r,•',,.-Lif.'t.:j.1.:..:..-.-,"-;,I.5.9'''..0-.:•.'#.'a 47St-.•-..i7...-:S7:,.'i.-'--4,4.-;-'...1.,':,..,..41.7''•41•-.%•7t1k X:1 1..1j:P6f.A`".*:5•.,44f:4:.v4:.:.;..:..t-4..'•.,.0-..;...11..,,1;1..:.:.._i,.4.k"74.g,7•';,.•.'•i•..ig•„1..,.A,1'...•1.rf.:)•7,5i•.--"•16,0,,:"-V41•4.:.'4.,.*g.... 4.'"-..a.1'..--.....,P•.;,-.V.,4:,•-,:A;k2.•- .:,.-*:.':$7'.1•A-•'7•.0.:I 44•.F l-••'L'.."•r2*.1 1:)-::-.•i;;S 1 e:-I.1..:c r i 1•• A. 4... ,.. la . e-:•1.l.1.r..,./4•I*..e.kJ..•A..V 1..0,..... ■:'••A•?.•. .•12:1(144.'... r.i'.'.../...r.i•r4,.!.'4.:.A-_1...17.::-i rS • t.\'4?..1-.•.',,t..,:•r:,4'.a :-.74-e..6..:- ,'1_•' ,...,:.,"'.''• .•3••1•:5..4•.:4:-;L,.1"e.w;:7t7.,-.!‘,.-„-,7-;1!•.•-•.7...:.--1-.,.1:..i.-re..4l-...-.i..:...t,.,.:..-,7......1,..1/4Z`..,,7leii:•„.,14.1:..:”a:.f•,40t.1.V.r.4•.,-1?••.:%•r1.404.I:-t:_..e.:‘-.$...t1:.,,:r1„.ti,4:2.,4.:• .:i,..:t.N-,..)1•1..,,4.,i.41:..,-.,,-•.-..7..;.....-4..1:.sr.1,:.:.4.,•:::-.•e:,`t:I..4.:;:!4.„::1!I117:::,-K,......:,:,1P.:1-.,.':-..,...1':.l!.'.4•:.1.•,11-•,•.1-:;.- .1..,....;. - i ,1.- . A/ • •. . " ,r,*,,a1 Ae • ' 3 . orr - , l: N . 1 . 4.,•`°`Vili••d•i'1.:"It:.00-5 ---'1--;- '-' • 4.,:•1 -4.71't3'{', ' 4- ...*. . • ..--V..,.t. tij.1 • ..,,,,74-....'.1/4:•-.. ,t- 71., '13tt--- -8,4*,1.11 rA • ....,,,.1r• . t'-,-..c... ,. , . , i. /,.. TF...2,•;' 14,It'14--- In f.,;..-.1 - •_'.0-IT„N't::.!f'e-tiL. ,--,- A -1. -41&.I.. • It -1- ,,,_.-4.k d ....4,•••:-;,j,...,:l.-, -:::: ' t„.-'4 WA.'fe•-•4't-•.ii-lk•.4 .3., , ,'.,r;g.,,,--lt, 4F...,, II :•,c. - -' '' ' '`C,-,It. WI:4.1,ra'ic. - 4 'fr• i••-.0*.•yr••• r- ••2 i`g -• .i,l, 1 .1{-natl t• ,. 4 '•*1--••••1.41.k,. .4-'..-.1.',44.i Strf•e4 ,....tt• , -4 4.! .. a_ ', .4. 1184,-...,%, -•,_;.144,••••••;-,„•:•...4 . 4.- Tit "t04..',-'L. ' ..1,‘". •••%C.4„. • ;+ 4 . -Sf. .4,... ,ti, ,t,t . •' •••414- Ve .1.4., V. 6 . c7.7.4 :i4fsik '''At* -ill t• - -‘ 1+;11:.i"it"‘*;:.;-•*".'72..'I .,--.- '',• ..;.. xt4-.,,- t • e...- " •• ...::.- % --t••••• .,g,' .: • --- *ci e --.. ,-, t.4 ':.-:•• 4 -i.. - L. _-. 'slt-7. :-:-:,...-"V' -'- •i' 401XT-4L .i-5'.-• •:Ic .• .4.0tr-134 ; '!:•' ,..t e%-, ,e kker.;1::1;7- 1 . :40..41,0c '... '..,t ..V. ./ ...e. - •Zre-: - •7.0:.•it:',1,,ell,0• -40 ' S.1. •••••••• 'to, :, '••• ‘t .•1 ••.4, •.. -* '-',. ,..7:16"." '...er,,..!1 ""...ir .,..,,N, .4,••• .1:ic.J..,. , . i fA:N.,...titrt...4.1..., .. -..-... ..., ,.. ..... . , 1 _ ..',..4'0.•Ap' . 'c., ''.tr r,i....4 ..,_ ._.,. „..„,,,,,,,,,„..,..„ ..,.. ,,.. . .„ ....„,,,1/4. •,T..3., . - A. :•••• .t.s• -• it ..,...,. ,., ,,...,..,,. , ......„..,, _ • ,,. . 44/.•'"44.1.4X1f-1/4kkiitia. ' • - 11 • _ ..v.„, . Ay.__,.. . ..: - . 4 ...l 7-4,4,• •Z 4 0 44114.,,,,i, -;.-- • .41L• 1 .5( Vr. ot4 •••...'• ... -1--'t.° "7•• g", -,..i .,, t ' ,.....; •, 4.• _ : ....1.,wo.a. •,:r44,- ipk„.'r, ..•• -1 ,3 .:1' •to:•• • , '' AK,4i•-i. -I +-O., • • i.....• ••••• te ..s. - i _t • - - . , ,S A._ .,Lk, .+....tlf.........X.r. -'-v•• -SP.7/./1117.•'•••••'! %,'`••,' 1 '' Ny, %- tri,•-•,?•.).g.,j,,A7-1,:••4•4 .•••••. t•..1. '- :••..r.•'.•.•-••i•.0' . ,i, ri •at, • ' • V,Y" , -t. :....t..4,-.:44to.,, .,k.."'‘..-y-.0• , --- • -, .,... 4.. • 14,-..If '1•••04.2 4.4 "4'4 1,---6--;,--'0• 4'4°1 ' • - -, •*, 4L- --t • ' 1.• 'll•V. 40•Iii.y.Sri f---ri ze . .-t.t'..:,.....,, .-, •. .„. • , 4114,..-1-A"Vtt o••-••••••• 0-11"V't•'1'1'. N.;•:- .P.' ':•.1'-*."' • e IT-1:1" -e 4 .itt,f4;4-42.:s3.1ii)...e,„ 4•%-:• .,:.:.-v.% . - .'' - 1 , . -. . '' .." a 14 4 4 ...-3, Ve'AIV:-.T. • .4,..f..44.. ,.• elleir .int 1 1 •'r ' :n.4,40 .A.:. •AA. tr ....? '4' Pti• .•'1...4•• .• • ...1. . k''..1....i.r PA.': "". ..."4.1, ' ,••••,..).0,it.. •Vt• r S-4...,.......0.4%-•ii., ',,,.1 7, . , ,n ..... ' t•.- •Yr j.: ,t-..0" &. ,.. _• . k .-. . ,- il L'A.-).kollt..e.•*„.v.tc.,•:‘ .4 "2 4"'s 'A.."•I'.V•:its-Tziiltr."4'..1r1N+,4 IN:• ! ••-•-., -. , . ,A -^ •" . nf*";,..!•4,.,...,„„7",,,:.:1,`,*, ,trk '':.. •-: - • . ' • - -:::;,`":.:1F.:..4:1:4:;.*".;•'§',c 7:17.-"1„:.-4..-, ,l'It'... .- . - siIvIkk'4"-I•f7f''e?A•k ;-!* 447-it. '' -- 1 • . ' i • 044201 .....1 .k......4if . L •-!. -.- --,•-• ..t:... 5.:.- r-•71..1.4.:-,.7-7--,t. 4 '- • •, - :' . ' - • 4.-at• • -..... 114 - .1.` re,. •.-.•-.. .: „ .. • -.L. TRIAX COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION COPYRIGHT 3/1/88 • . . • --- Dowderf - C Communications _ February 26, 1988 Mr. Don Ashworth City Mayor — City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, Minnesota Via Federal Express Dear Mr. Ashworth: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of today. Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. has signed a purchase and sale agreement for the assets of Dowden Cable Systems with Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. including the cable television system serving Chanhassen. — Pursuant to our franchise dated April 2, 1984 we are obligated to offer the city an opportunity to purchase the system. — Assuming there is no interest on the part of the city to purchase the system, we would like to exercise our right to request that the formal transfer process begin. Triax Midwest has agreed to purchase 100% of the assets of Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. free and clear of all liens, liabilities and encumbrances for $91. 5 million dollars. A full — package of information detailing the terms of the sale is being submitted to your city by John Byrnes, attorney for the seller. It is my understanding that Triax Midwest will continue to operate the system in the same professional manner as has Dowden and no changes in local management or technical staff is contemplated. FEB 2 6 1988 - CITY OF CHANHASSte! Dowden Communications Investors, 3333 Peachtree Road-East Tower.Suite 1400,Atlanta,Georgia 30326(404)233-6960 * (7 c Mr. Don Ashworth Page #2 Mr Jim Vaughn, Opeations Manager of Triax will provide you with his company's resume and plans for operating the system in Chanhassen. Dowden and Triax Management are prepared to answer your questions and attend meetings necessary to expedite the transfer process. A closing date of May 30 , 1988 is projected. Should you have any questions please feel free to call me. We have enjoyed our relationship with the city of Chanhassen over the years. DOWDEN CABLE PARTNERS L.P. By Dowden Communicationg' Investors, L.P. By TCD Corp. 1--/c0 Zifr /4/// By: M. Kent Sharp, ice President CC : Mary Smith Jim Vaughn John T. Byrnes • • • b:- CI TY O F i= Nk# CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Pla e DATE: May 5 , 1988 ��s f fa SUBJ: Moving Permit Application - Thomas Bickel , 6701 Minnewashta Parkway PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to move a 1 , 344 square foot house from the Hennepin Technical Center to 6701 Minnewashta Parkway. The proposed structure is a single story wood frame building with a double attached garage. The home was constructed at the Hennepin Technical Center . Because it has been constructed off site, the home must be inspected and approved by the state as a manufac- tured dwelling. The proposed moving route is Highway 169 to Highway 5 to County Road 41 north to Highway 7 and west to Minnewashta Parkway south. - The applicant intends to move the building the week of May 15th between the hours of 1 : 30 a.m. and 6 : 00 a.m. It is anticipated that a 7 or 9 ton per axle truck will be used. ANALYSIS Section 17-31 through 17-45 regulates moving buildings into and within the city. Section 17-31 states that all buildings moved into or within the city shall comply with the following: 1 . The Uniform Building Code. 2 . The building is well maintained and in a good state of repair. 3 . Chapter 20 ( Zoning Ordinance) . 4 . The building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values . The ordinance also allows the Council to approve the permit with reasonable conditions . Don Ashworth May 5 , 1988 _ Page 2 The Building Inspector has reviewed the proposed building plans — and has inspected the proposed home to be moved. His report is attached. The inspector has verified that the building will meet the requirements of the UBC upon state certification . — The exterior of the proposed home is to be redwood lapped siding. The appearance and the size of the structure will be such that it should not materially depreciate surrounding property values . As to the moving procedure, the Public Safety Director has advised that state and county permits will be necessary to be — obtained prior to the move and that he be contacted regarding the estimated time of the move, the average speed of the move, the logistics of the move, and the sweep of the proposed route to — locate potential utility problems . The mover, Stubb' s House Movers , has retained a state license in the amount of $500 , 000 from the state. The City Attorney has verified that if something should happen during the move, the city can make claims through the insurance policy. The propoosed lot is located along Minnewashta Parkway adjacent to Lake Minnewashta and contains approximately 30 ,754 square feet . The lot was filled in conjunction with the home construc- tion to the north in 1986 . Erosion control is in place, although it will need to be replaced or strengthened prior to construc- tion . Soil borings verifying structural stability should be sub- mitted prior to building permit issuance. The applicant has submitted a certificate of survey showing the proposed location of the home on the lot. The proposed location — meets the 75 foot setback and the 30 foot setback from the front property line. The property has been assessed for sewer and water and can be serviced. Existing on the lot at current, is a — raised manhole structure. The elevation of the manhole will need to be coordinated with the final elevation of the lot around it. This should be verified with the Engineering Department prior to building permit issuance. — RECOMMENDATION The proposed structure meets the requirements as setforth in Section 17-31 for moving buildings . It is recommended that the City Council approve the moving permit subject to the following conditions : 1 . Compliance with the recommendations of the Public Safety Director' s memorandum dated May 5 , 1988 . 2 . A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the Building Official deems that all Uniform Building Code requirements have been met. Don Ashworth May 5 , 1988 Page 3 3 . The mover shall comply with the City Engineer' s recommen- dation for the axle weight to be used during the move. 4 . Installation of Type II erosion control ( silt fence with staked haybales) along the edge of the fill area. 5 . Submission of soil borings and an acceptable review by the Building Inspector and City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 6 . Submission of the necessary information to the City Engineer to coordinate the final elevation of the existing manhole prior to issuance of a building permit. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Application. 2 . Memo from Public Safety Director dated May 5 , 1988 . _ 3 . Memo from Ron Julkowski dated May 5 , 1988 . 4 . Proposed certificate of survey. 5 . Pictures . 6 Location map. 7 . Proposed house plans . APPLICATION FOR MOVING PERMIT CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ( 612 ) 937-1900 APR i 1988 �l� ClT_Y_OF CHANhASSEN APPLICANT : 111Ayv1GS to. at t ADDRESS : (9005 Creek. RRtc!‘JJg2 rover f iv,.fve1b Ai 55345 - Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) : Q v30 - 155 1 (Lon-e) q3q- 03 PROPERTY OWNER (Where Building is to be moved) : NAME: LQQ ADDRESS : 6 (4\ 11,n✓tiZ ii,2 /1c. f XCCl( 1L*" , 11'1)'\ . 475 -33 TELEPHONE (Daytime) : -? "y - -I� I — i PRESENT LOCATION OF BUILDING TO Be MOVED (Address ) : 14en t tnjec.6.“41 Col-me - Sc>►`M Ccaw, uS °ROO Fl �h4 CI0141 slve� Eder lrt � .I PROPOSED NEW LOCATION (Address ) : 1p1O' minnew' hT�- t�ark'' — LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) : SOU 1 1-k b.33 -Feet LoT 4 13166C1 — Jl�bd�V1511�Y� o� �Ie4t4�T Ac.aa ,1 TTTff� , f x �o — SIZE OF PROPERTY: A y yir.4Te11 GTT�G�Qd Sk1�Qt,� 6eL PRESENT ZONING : ReSideeT)G1 51Y1±e `wtv161 luk.c1Vh..5 — DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING (Floor Area , Number of Stories , Type of Construction , Age , Condition , Etc . ) : _ STuderT 1au►11" 4ow► 4tnnep►h lec.\h;c 4\ CQY Ter- 140K42.. I c%_ be I h C, b tki IT ov. vomiA'T I Ova -ILA. 104-, (gw►Tvs w►ll,\ — covnicucnov, ID 6e- con\cTed 6\ 5 f[o$? . j 1 CTL Y 1 LOCO- ,w,,� — Cov►SINUcn CNN w 134'4 sver a doWa‘e aTiz+c.\ied 8arGco,. S h IHS :Ted Q rta bt sttoe_ 1nZir2L- t ,(.5(it G+" tc\v2/1 TA4v) (over ) City of Chanhassen Application for Moving Permit Page 2 ROUTE WITHIN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO BE USED DURING MOVE : 11,7 5 -TO CO. AYI1/ AicT L, l� �� 7 /4/67" 77 Ar/fl( U.•Gj'trc /Gr dux,y So 7i — c • C.-; 7(4 a Z . rh.7e 4?rorrnfhO4c4(1 Cif ' FILING INSTRUCTIONS This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or — clearly printed and must be accompanied by a site plan , photo- graphs of the building, and a list of property owners within 350 feet of the site where the building is proposed to be moved. Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Building Official to determine the specific ordinance and proce- dural requirements applicable to your application . FILING CERTIFICATION The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . r . Signed by Applicant Date The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. Signed by Applicant Date Date Application Received d/ S1 Application Fee Paid $100 . 00 3 Vi/5/g� City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Chanhassen City Council at their meeting if the application is received by CITYOF \ , GCHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 r (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner DATE: May 5 , 1988 — SUBJ: House Moving Permit, 6701 Minnewashta Parkway It appears that the proposed route for the proposed move occurs on both state and county roadways . The applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate permits from these agencies . Further , I would recommend the following conditions being imposed on the permit: 1 . The mover provide the city with estimated times of the move _ to include start and finish time ( proposed date for move) . 2 . Average speed of move for each building. 3 . The logistics of the move to include front and rear escort vehicles , etc. 4 . A sweep of the proposed route be made to locate potential utility problems ( especially along Minnewashta Parkway) . 5 . Receiving the appropriate permits from Carver County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Please contact me if you have any questions . — C I TY O F CHANHASSEN ,_•.. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner FROM: Ron Julkowski , Building Official DATE: May 5 , 1988 SUBJ: Moving Permit Request, 6701 Minnewashta Parkway I have reviewed the proposed building plans and inspected the proposed building on May 5 , 1988 . The proposed home will be in compliance with the Uniform Building Code upon state cer- tification. Because the structure has been built "off site" , the code categorizes the structure as a manufactured dwelling which requires the state inspector' s approval . Fill has been placed on the property. Soil borings should be submitted to verify structural quality prior to issuance of a building permit. CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Land Surveyors _ 8110 Eden Road Phone (612) 941-3031 Eden Prairie, ICI 55344 Certificate ii. f fpuril ep _ Survey For T ►.1 13 /c-ke/ Book 33/ Page 6/ File y 8l/ 6OO5 Creel( R, dye CT, — /I /N,veT0 .4..k1 , fl N .%\[1 3 3 33 i 4 /_ — - - - - - I -/ fry N Line_ of Satith l yb. IS of l di4 `I'� .. /� / AIL gsi3 ��L,P 96�1.3 ob _F- - 2tl 6.52 - 5 ° ;1 z.3 c 0. �' 4°./ k \')'‘:) 4 a./ 4 )11 , 50 , / i L �. ,. / 'O ,.41----\, ...• / J b 4/vF ^ 7 l` I � % � _ah n 6At gy1.0 � _ Y / , �' q a1>y CI / "E---' 3 0 c v543 -7 - '`, h v / / 9 4,5.t i q�'b (� _ — seT ' / 1 7 S,on rlS / ' Sauti Line of' Lot 4 — Prop. Elev. C — Prop. 1st Fl. Elev. 156,o Prop. Gar. Fl. Elev. ?Ss. o Prop. Bas. Fl. Elev. 198.0 - 3m .982.° PliJ ® s 5de- of L9 BKy — 1►vekry.rm11y duet MY Is a true sad arts of A y e dwi...I -r� S e i.1`� I Y 6.l 5 o f L.T 4, E.?, o CIL 7 P L.ail.;a. "J Lr�.es a I , st►..Gwq,Wwseue..d d 1b Wailes of eN Ielldises Aerese. .,4 .M — visible.....+.«+a M e.y,free or ea rid lee/Surveyed by r Ala 3 dew.f M 0.4 » _. CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. _-...,..........--- . _.... - - ..,::. • -.I. - -..,.. ..-.. . • • ._ - - ...pv...-.•:- •. - ,_.,. ... li.i. 4.-. " -7- -- .le4:414171t 4 4"." --'•- •1- t....1..-.:.1.wiiii-A.71i.. '.....,•'-. ''':.• ''-'''ii-"...Z. t : . ),.4 tl•..ri -7ireil .---...,-..mam..:1 -,--.411411".".".....-.1......i....... ,......-•L':-.4.-4.-”,..,,,,e_•••••-•-•--\\:41 r•-• I ''',....t..?, ..,.. ......v.j . asiz:=11.,,........”... ..x _. . -,,,-, ......"......;.......:.:-!..f.:.::: , "• ilSt1 % tit I 1 .447 • •St........".."61 •fr-4a. .....6..--.....,-- _. ....-'—'w..111talikiarrei :, 1 1 • .i.. - *_f_i . .. — ..iiicrurrry:•L.we:~ ', - .-"" -`-‘ ..1.-'- ..•.^..-.=;..------4 ••••.e.... . P.:'-,....... - za,.: -----•• •61.•%-aig•. ‘-------"'-:::, _ .v...- 1 -,-v-i"-/19., ..,x.e.....521- "Au.: • J1 i is _.- .c..._ .a.•, , _.r- w tjer,I ,.,,•, 7.1r.,rk:.M.."... 1 Mr 'ET).7.'il i-lf..77.V.4.i t 17 ..=,'---.-'. ..1...;'',..1.5'....er'''‘'''.•••.' z. 'S.Air j•7: VS114S ".'.- .A. I !1!:1'44...; •1 u- • :- .,....,..„ — #.4.,..• i .-...z.A.w...i•goitie,..arrsokasi... --i z,.. _,.....•••.,•...,„•..... ,,,.... .. • ---,-.._ .. .f.......-_ •- . • ._ -_ - " -- . ... . , -,,-••, ...c-- -,._-,--.:,.___,,--7-----:,---_,---.----- .--......,,.--., .,..- ,••.; . ..; Ira- ;0;•>:.,:**Fex---;,--!-;•:"."*--•'" ..... - . , . .11,,......,...., 1. ...A•4."*"4.• i -..........-0.,..44.4.7, . ...," — . . -r ....,41P-ti'...- • .- •. ... • . ,i;lAile..:.. ., -..r.''.. - . ' ' mm -. - - • )11411 . mm '...- 4 • s — .. IF' k' _________-__________. . ..- --."- . • _ _. __ - ..z:-- _- • ..- • _ _ ._ . .......____ . •=-- - - ---- 4. . .. - •. — . . •. ,. .- . - • _ — ir. -'.- ._. . - _ -.. -- - . ._, . - : ii•-- ,_':'...- '-- • : ___ .... . .,_...._ ...• , . . . - : - - _- -- i . -. , . •• - , . . • -- IMMO& r..... _ ..,,, ... • . iiiIIIIIIIIiirms IIIIIIiiiillirum 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 It a.0 A B M M O QCO M MI Inw MI � t� - = 62No . ... -a T:� :.1M /r-kil• / sismionvosirwiE,..!- -4, ly: 4 ..0,4•,Av_...L : Vigo g . ir IW df — 6 Eli ii I'it a mg: 11) ;/ cr - lib . . _ Apos"))..72_46., 4 _ . , .. 4,...,„-tr.....„ ,_ __ __ , .1 '1' 1117. OP 4 t'lligailit‘ r hi. .: A, 4.11,:..... . , . . ilia;r.,-- cAvar..,-;_ftirft* it., moviw - ---E1`4 I r 77) Al // ' ►r. ♦ Imo,.. mor 1_ T■! MOVE SIDLE F/}kuiLi) — LAKEqp et / , — r/ M / NNEWASHTA 10 RSFICIGS RQAe PUD-R Z 1 tE1ii1IiL Q LAKE ' .. 1., fry. R ./,yam STJOE — . Di:has, ,„maim . , ...•.‘. ' alt\- 4 "Fir tuilltt _ , , \i, 4 iff • I ,it.)>,) ■ RR MAPLE SHORES DRIVE U ' 1 Arillril 67- d '47 _AI W,167/ &./a6, /1` r -2, e e. /iv 8/ 17 haat, oet . tw9) ;oro5-3/7 letzfaeirded - rote Jie - - "Ft Q �I� Q r' �G� �P ✓o delir •/ )%1(.0 JefLt/i _,‘&467 „ - 71607/A ,-mr)(!? J/1 MAY 0g 1988 C I T Y O F BCOA.C. :: 883 E DATE: : May 9 , 1988 — � �' CHANIIASSZN , r CASE Variance Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: To Receive a Four Foot Side Yard Variance To Permit a 12 ' x 24 ' Addition to a Single Family Z1c4on by C^J .".Jf _t c� U LOCATION: 3621 Ironwood Road APPLICANT: Charles C. Erickson _ �� /1J' 3621 Ironwood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Sli/cfd' PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 1 . 23 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family S- Lake Minnewashta QE- RSF; single family QW- RSF; vacant W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the property. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is a riparian lot with a slope towards Lake Minnewashta. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential . ....... A B 8 0 0 0 0 0 in 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . (.., 0 cr) co r•-• 0 .1 ill tv It 0 v pi in in 0 re) in P7) r I q7 , cD in 7 L — 1 _m•MI11.1.111111 . ...ata.• MINI.mom.... '.V. i I / W. 62NO 4 ST 13. pPIIIII7mdg givi mil 11 )01301)61 .:::Aitt w _ ,,,,,,k —7111.) A -.41 g_40 '1) i&- stoz r st. a•a.i c-/* _ ---."--:_s- -\. — / AIIIIL.01116‘ tk• i lato • --;-• c ' .iNta: /14111401. ;A111111 ________ _ . ...„ .,, _,,,, • 4.411111101!!tekimt .-f\-,--__ ' ' w4 Pp*. - 4I-14 vt.eset r-iii*1/47- '' .f, • StPe-- VPI-k.t — .. .• ,. 0 4 t.,Am .. v..11. tow( 't It .4 triSir: Wilk, V A-R_C '-mk.;V . alai* Iralrft-* ifti • . °A ‘ • 41737."2"S se VI& / :ril1vr A ANL, „I! ion\ aft •404111P jrqI -e-m:atjj : 4iss., Illfs raZI*1 i) i 1 • LAKE IP _ 7 Q- -' — _ IV" RSF M / NNE WA S HTA , _ RD ., - ICP1G$ ROAD ‘, PUD A-R • _ • i II _ - m 1 ,- - 4 41)' (1) i Oa- -itifr . , < _ T t A KE ' --11 •r_44:911 le' ' tsrdoE-410 yea: :1- x DPava l illy. :::poismini. 1... at 4 I= 11— RE e‘ Inibila 1 RR _ MAPLE SHORES 5 NUM 7 I- dr DRIVE I m _ ow - r4 / 4 D• - . DR •. 111111 MVO aft,I I.Tillil . UMW MUM IIMM INOMM MN= _ t • • ais.. WM / '- Erickson Variance May 9 , 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-615 ( 5c) of the City Code requires a 10 foot side yard setback for lots in the RSF District (Attachment #1) . ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting to add a 12 ' x 24 ' addition to an existing single family residence. The home is currently located 18 feet from the west side lot line. The proposed addition would be 6 feet from the west side yard lot line, which requires a four foot side yard variance. The proposed addition is a 12 ' x 24 ' master bedroom. For the addition to meet the ten foot side yard setback, it could only be 8 feet wide . The property directly to the west of the subject parcel is a large lot which is currently vacant. There must exist a hardship for a variance to be approved. The existing home meets the setbacks of the RSF District and the size of the proposed addition results in the need for a variance. The applicant could add on an 8 foot wide addition and still meet the 10 foot side yard setback. The property directly to the west is currently vacant but is large enough to be subdivided into single family lots . The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following facts : A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. * The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not deny the owner use of the property. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district. * There are no special conditions resulting in a hardship. C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . — * The variance is not necessary for the applicant to enjoy substantial property rights. D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- - sequence of a self-created hardship. * The size of the addition is creating the need for a variance. Erickson Variance May 9 , 1988 Page 3 — E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. * The granting of the variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommend — denial of the four foot side yard variance request for a 12 foot wide addition to the existing single family residence. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Section 20-515 ( 5c) of the City Code. 2 . Site plan. — 3 . Application. ZONING § 20-631 Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an"RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Private stables, subject to provisions of chapter 5, article III. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of five(5)acres. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-4), 12-15-86) State law reference—Conditional uses,M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety(90)feet,except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be ninety(90)feet in width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty(30)feet. b. For rear yards, thirty(30)feet. c. For side yards, ten(10)feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. b. For accessory structures, three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-616-20-630. Reserved. ARTICLE XIII. "R-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential _ development at a maximum net density of four(4)dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) 1209 . • . . •...As • s c 'a., I • N._ rjo c • T., (•4.• • • . . 4:1•••••e• •••. .Nek V • T MP" ••••b 'NG I .=M1 ??../1 fir Z •=M. -.••••••••••• • ••— • • dna • • • 4 A -47/ .M111 5 ,4•3 - i LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Charles E. & Maxine L_ OWNER: Same 3621 Ironwo�dNRd. Excelsior, MN ADDRESS ADDRESS 55331 Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 475-6400 TELEPHONE REQUEST: 1t7q-7/ ?Y Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED P\ SIZE OF PROPERTY 125 ' X 430 ' LOCATION Reg. Land Survey #9 , Lot A - N. Shore, Lake Minnewashta a REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST To add a Master Bedroom which will make the dwelling more consistent with other homes in the area. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) 47 C _ City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . Signed By Date Applicant The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been — authorized to make this application for the property herein described . Signed By L _' Date !///: Fe O- ner J — Date Application Received — Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting . CITY OF � P.C. DATE: April 6, 1988 �\\l CflAI1AEI C.C. DATE: April 25, 1988 r CASE NO: 88-3 ZOA Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-263 ( 6 & 7 ) of the City Code to Amend the Lot Depth — I- Requirement for Installation of a Dock and One Z Canoe Rack/Dock Requirement. U LOCATION: ^li l. APPLICANT: Pierce Construction Q 3915 Farmhill Circle Mound, MN 55364 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- Mxrr S— A'2J3C— Fe5. E- '._ _ r W— nate.vijbm r d 2� WATER AND SEWER: -' PHYSICAL CHARAC. : 1990 LAND USE PLAN: Stratford Ridge ZOA April 6 , 1988 — Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS — Section 20-263 ( 7 ) of the City Code requires at least 200 feet of lake frontage for a recreational beachlot and requires at least — 30 ,000 square feet and 100 feet of depth for any recreational beachlot to have a dock (Attachment #1) . Section 20-263 ( 6 ) of the City Code permits only one canoe rack per dock (Attachment #2 ) . BACKGROUND — On February 22 , 1988 , the City Council reviewed a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot as a part of the Stratford — Ridge subdivision (Attachment #3 ) . The property proposed for the recreational beachlot is long and narrow with less than 100 feet mean depth . The applicant received approval for a recreational _ beachlot but was not permitted a dock since it did not have the required 100 foot depth. The applicant had also requested three canoe racks with 15 slips . Since the recreational beachlot was not permitted a dock, the canoe racks were not permitted either. — The Planning Commission and City Council commented that the variance was not justified but that the applicant should pursue a zoning ordinance amendment (Attachments #3 and #4 ) . It was com- mented that the proposed site had adequate area and lake frontage ( 31 , 000 s . f. and 550 feet) to support a dock and related activi- ties and that review of the Zoning Ordinance would be appropriate. ANALYSIS The applicant has applied for a zoning ordinance amendment to permit a dock on a recreational beachlot without a mean depth of 100 feet and to permit more than one canoe rack per dock. — Dock The Zoning Ordinance requires a mean depth of 100 feet for a — recreational beachlot to have a dock. The intent of the 100 feet of lot depth requirement for a dock was to maintain adequate area for the intensity of use related to a dock. Staff reviewed — existing parcels around the city' s lakes which could be applied for conditional use permits for recreational beachlots (Attachment #5 ) . The majority of the remaining parcels will be _ able to provide the required 100 feet of lot depth. Only along Minnewashta Parkway does the potential exist for recreational beachlots without 100 feet of lot depth. This is a result of the location of Minnewashta Parkway near Lake Minnewashta. Staff feels the 100 feet of lot depth is important to maintain in the proximity of the dock because this usually is the area of _ _ Stratford Ridge ZOA April 6 , 1988 Page 3 higher use . To accommodate the sites that do not have the mean depth of 100 feet but have enough lot area and lake frontage to support a dock, staff recommends that the following language be included in the Recreational Beachlot Regulations : Section 20-263 ( 7 ) - No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beachlot unless it has 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least 100 feet of lot depth where the dock is proposed to be located. The above language would permit docks on recreational beachlots that meet or exceed the lot area and lake frontage requirements yet have a portion of the lot that is very narrow resulting in less than 100 feet mean depth. As a part of the conditional use permit process a site plan will be approved which will ensure that the dock is located where there is 100 feet of depth. RECOMMENDATION - Dock Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends amending Section 20-263 ( 7 ) of the City Code to read as follows : No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least two hundred ( 200 ) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least one hundred ( 100 ) feet of lot depth where the dock is proposed to be located. No more than one ( 1 ) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two hundred ( 200 ) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand ( 30, 000) square feet of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand ( 20 ,000 ) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three ( 3 ) docks , however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot. " Canoe Racks The Zoning Ordinance currently ties the number of canoe racks permitted with the the number of docks permitted on a recreational beachlot. The code states that no more than one canoe rack shall be allowed per dock. Staff feels the number of canoe racks permitted should not be dictated by the number of docks permitted on a recreational beachlot. There may be situations where a canoe rack is appropriate where a dock is not permitted or more than one canoe rack is acceptable. The number of lots which have use of the recreational beachlot normally dictate the number of canoe racks ( slips ) that are requested. The applicants typically request a number of canoe Stratford Ridge ZOA April 6 , 1988 Page 4 rack slips equal to the number of lots proposed ( six watercraft are permitted per canoe rack) . Therefore, it is difficult to — regulate a maximum number of canoe racks for all recreational beachlots . Instead, staff recommends that canoe racks be a per- mitted use on a recreational beachlot and the number of canoe _ racks be determined as part of the conditional use permit review. This would permit each site to be reviewed separately to deter- mine the appropriate number of canoe racks . — RECOMMENDATION "The Planning Commission recommends amending the fifth sentence of Section 20-263 ( 6 ) of the City Code to read as follows: No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of over- — night storage or overnight mooring of more than three ( 3 ) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one ( 1) dock, — however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three ( 3 ) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes, windsurfers , sailboards , and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. The number of canoe racks shall be determined as part of the conditional use permit process. No more than six ( 6 ) watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. " PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 6 , 1988 The Planning Commission tabled action on this item until lot owners of all lakes within the city were notified. The notifica- tions for this public hearing were mailed on April 11, 1988 . Staff has received a number of phone calls regarding this item, the majority of which are to clarify that the ordinance change does not affect individual lot owners their ability to install a dock. The Commission ' s comments as to the first issue of consideration, the lot depth requirement, ranged from having no minimum require- ment of lot depth to establishing some type of standard either for the entire beachlot or for just the area where the docks are to be located. There is a need to have some type of minimum standard. As the ordinance requires a minimum lot depth for a single family lot or creates a minimum setback, the intent of that provision is to provide some separation between adjacent buildings, streets or uses to prevent overcrowding of the land and safe access . In the case of recreational beachlots, some of them are located directly adjacent to major streets , others are located within the subdivision. The beachlot activity, as any other use, should have some type of minimum separation. The problem is how to establish that standard. — Stratford Ridge ZOA April 6 , 1988 Page 5 In existing cases , the lot depth issue has not been a problem. The majority of the beachlots are at least 100 feet in depth. Most of the issues pertaining to the older beachlots were lot width and area. For future beachlot requests, the lot depth issue would arise only in the area where the Stratford Ridge sub- division is proposed between Minnewashta Parkway and Lake Minnewashta. Other potential beachlot requests are located in areas where there is not a road in the immediate vicinity of the lake. In the Lake Minnewashta area, the lakeshore varies to as small as 25 feet and to as deep as 200 feet. The Planning Commission also suggested that the dock setback zone of 10 feet be doubled or tripled so that the area where the dock is to be located is at least 20 to 30 feet wide and 100 feet in depth. In the Lake Minnewashta area, the following properties _ could not survive even a minimal amount of area for the 100 foot lot depth: the Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla properties ( see Attachment #7) . Reducing the lot depth to 75 feet would still prevent the Wenzel and Ziegler property from meeting this requirement. The Wenzel and Ziegler property at its narrowest point is approximately 40 feet. At its widest point it is about 80 feet with an average depth of 50 feet. The Headla property is about 80 feet deep. The Wenzel and Headla properties have approximately 250 feet of lake frontage and the Ziegler property approximately 450 feet . Both these properties cannot meet the lot area test also. It is questionable then whether these sites would be considered as beachlots . Potential language that the Planning Commission could use is as follows : No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least two hundred ( 200 ) feet of lake frontage and the lot contains at least one hundred ( 100 ) feet of lot depth for at least thirty ( 30 ) feet of width where the dock is to be located. The Commission can reduce the 100 foot lot depth requirement. It is recommended that at minimum 50 feet be maintained in order to provide a picnic area, sand blanket, storage of canoe racks, and allowing other park activities . The 30 feet of lot width recom- mended for the area where the dock is to be located is based on twice the dock setback from a lot line ( 10 feet) plus 6 feet in width for a typical dock. As to the number of canoe racks, the Commission wanted to establish some type of standard either a maximum number of racks or a maximum number of slips per rack. Some beachlots could con- tain at least 30 to 40 single family lots ( for example, Kurvers Point subdivision on the east side of Lotus Lake) . One slip per Stratford Ridge ZOA April 6 , 1988 _ Page 6 home would mean that if a rack contained 6 slips for storage, that anywhere from 5 to 6 racks could be located on a beachlot . The largest number of lots permitted within 1000 feet of a beach- lot would be approximately 40 . Seven racks at six/rack would allow storage of 42 boats . _ It was also suggested that distinction for the type of boats to be stored on racks would be the ones that are licensed by the state. Canoes and sailboats do need to be licensed by the state as well as small row boats . Inflatable rafts do require a license. The intent of the rack is to be able to store the non- motorized watercraft in a neat and safe fashion. Further, the intent of the ordinance is to permit overnight storage of these types of boats and to provide guidance as to the number of racks stored on the property. Therefore, based on the Commission ' s _ discussion, the following is recommended to be included as part of Section 20-263 ( 6 ) : "No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of over- night storage or overnight mooring of more than three ( 3 ) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one ( 1) dock, — however , the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three ( 3 ) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes , windsurfers , sailboards , and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six ( 6 ) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one ( 1) slip per lot served by the beachlot; however, in no case shall there be more than seven ( 7) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is per- missible at any time other than overnight. " NOTE: Remember that the racks do pose a visual impact, but if _ properly designed, the site plan during conditional use permit review can address this issue . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION — The Planning Commission recommended the ordinance be amended as follows : Section 20-363 ( 6 ) "No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three ( 3 ) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one ( 1) dock, however, the allowed number of — boats may be clustered. Up to three ( 3 ) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes , wind- surfers , sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight _ Stratford Ridge ZOA April 6 , 1988 Page 7 on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifi- cally designed for that purpose. No more than six ( 6 ) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack per lot served by the beachlot; however, in no case shall there be more than seven ( 7 ) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. Section 20-263 ( 7 ) No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least two hundred ( 200 ) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least one hundred ( 100) feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the ordinary high water mark to the first inter- secting lot line exclusive of the street right-of-way. No more than one ( 1 ) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two hundred ( 200 ) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand ( 30,000) square feet of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand ( 20 , 000 ) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three ( 3 ) docks , however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot. " Headla was opposed the amendment to ( 7 ) ( see minutes ) . CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Section 20-353 ( 7 ) of City Code. 2 . Section 20-263 ( 6) of City Code. 3 . City Council minutes dated February 22 , 1988 . 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated January 6 , 1988 . 5 . Map showing potential recreational beachlots . 6 . Letter from applicant. 7 . Detailed location map of Lake Minnewashta lots . 8 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 6 , 1988 , and April 20 , 1988. ZONING § 20-263 d. One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is between thirteen(13)and twenty-five(25) percent. (2) Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five(25)percent shall not be considered as a potential soil treatment site. (3) The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. (4) School and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unless approved by the city council. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(7)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-260. Private stables. The following applies to private stables: (1) Stables shall comply with chapter 5, article III. (2) Stables must be located a minimum of two hundred(200)feet from wetland areas. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(8)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-261. State-licensed day care centers. The following applies to state-licensed day care centers: (1) The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements. (2) Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas. (3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(9)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-262. Hospitals and health care facilities.The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities: (1) The site shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets, as defined in the comprehensive plan. (2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from any residential use. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(10)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-263. Recreational beach lots. The following minimum standards apply to recreational beach lots conditional use in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit: _pf<; (1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred(200)feet of lake frontage. 1175 § 20-263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (2) No structure,portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,camper,trailer,tent,recrea- tional vehicle or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational beach lot. (3) No boat,trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars,trucks,motorcycles, motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. (4) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. Imo (5) Boat launches are prohibited. (6) No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may be stored over- night on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than one(1)rack shall be allowed per dock. No more than six(6)watercraft may be stored on a rack.Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. (7) No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two hundred(200)feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a one hundred-foot depth. No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beach lot every two hundred (200)feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand(30,000)square feet of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreational beach lot. (8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four(4)feet.The width(but not the length)of the cross-bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five(25)feet in length. (9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, provided, however, that the owner of any two(2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one(1)common dock within the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock is the only dock on the two(2)lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. (10) No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two hundred(200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one(1)sail boat mooring shall be allowed for every two hundred(200)feet of lake frontage. (11) A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms 1176 ZONING § 20-280 shall mean those beach lots which are located either within(urban)or outside(rural) the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the com- prehensive plan. a. Urban recreational beach lot At least eighty (80) percent of the dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be located within one thousand(1,000)feet of the recreational beach lot. _ b. Rural recreational beach lot: A maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units (including riparian lots)shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into the _ rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply. (12) All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming '— areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. (13) Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one hundred (100)feet landward from the ordinary high water mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner association or residential housing developers. (14) Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. (15) The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(11)), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 80-A, § 1, 6-15-87) Sec. 20-264. Electrical substations. Electrical substations are subject to the following conditions: (1) The substation must be served by a collector or major arterial street as desginated in the comprehensive plan. (2) The substation will not have sanitary facilities and will not be used for habitation. (3) The substation will be located on at least five(5)acres of property. (4) A six-foot high security fence shall surround the substation. (5) A landscaping plan shall be submitted for city approval. (6) Substations shall be a minimum of five hundred(500)feet from single-family residences. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(13)), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-265-20-280. Reserved. 1177 rz_'4 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Department, we'd like to award you with this plaque Chad and thank you personally for your act. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to congratulate Chad and certainly thank you for your showing outstanding courage and timeliness in an incident like this. The world and our community and others like it can certainly use more people like yourself. Thanks again. STRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE: A. VARIANCE TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE FOR LOT DEPTH AND NUMBER OF BOAT SLIPS. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Mayor Hamilton: This item was discussed at the Board of Adjustments and Review and it was voted by a 2 to 1 vote to not issue the variance. Consequently, the applicant would like to have the Council consider this item. The reason given for the vote was both Carol and Willard did not want to issue a variance to the 100 foot lot depth. My feeling is that it's one piece of property. It's under one PID number. It is one parcel and I'm not convinced that the 100 foot lot depth exists even though there is a roadway passing through the property. It is one parcel. It's not two. You can't build a house on the lake portion of it. It's all connected. It was sold as one. It's under one ownership. Perhaps Barbara could give us just a brief overview of this item. I think we reviewed it previously but you might want to show us what our alternatives are here. Barbara Dacy: The applicant is requesting in essence three variances. The first variance is the depth requirement of 100 feet. In order to have a dock _ you must have 200 feet of lake frontage, 100 foot in depth and 30,000 square feet of area. The subject site does not have consistent lot depth of 100 feet. At the northerly part of the property, it does measure 115 feet. However, the narrowest portion does measure 40 feet. Fifth, the variances granted to have the dock and then the next request is to have four boat slips instead of the required three boat slips. Thirdly, the number of canoe racks in the ordinance is tied to the number of docks. One canoe rack is permitted per dock. The applicant is requesting two canoe racks for the storage of 11 canoes. The staff's recommendation is based on the City Attorney's opinion which is included in your packet. That recommendation is to deny the variance request. The Attorney's suggestion is to amend the ordinance rather than issue a variance. If the Council is going to approve the request, the following summarizes a proposed motion. Again, the variance should be issued to the lot depth requirement first in order that the applicant can receive the dock. Then the Council should decide on whether or not a variance should be granted to allow one additional slip. Finally, a variance to the number of canoe racks. Again, two being proposed and none being permitted. We'd also suggest that if a motion of approval is made, that the motion contain reference to the plan stamped "Received February 18, 1988". Finally, in regards to the second item on the agenda, even if the variances were denied on all of these items, the applicant still has the right to petition for the use of a beachlot in a more City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Jr- passive manner. That being a swimming beach, recreational area, etc.. Mayor Hamilton: We have members here in the audience that I think would like to speak to this issue. Did you want to comment again? Mary Jo Moore: I live on Dartmouth Drive in Chanhassen next to an Association that has a dock. It's gotten totally out of hand. I think this ordinance that Chanhassen came up with, it was after a 2 year study based on the fact that we have too many of these associations around the lake. They get out of hand and — they're not maintained. It's a good ordinance and I think we should abide by it. I have no objection, because of the size of this property, I have no objection to a swimming beach, volleyball, whatever, canoes, but I don't think they should be allowed a dock. Thank you. Ray Ruttger, 3221 Darthouth Drive: I guess my comment was relative to the access road which has a dock on it. Was loaded with 6 boats at one time and then 5 and after a lot of hassle the City became involved in it. The neighbors became angry at us. Essentially, they had not maintained it. They do absolutely nothing to maintain it or remove the dock or put a painting on the side. There are cans out there. Whatever maintenance is required in the dock area. Then they became upset because they couldn't put boat lifts out there but it wasn't just the 3 boats or the 4 boats or 5 boats, but you're talking — about large pontoon boats. The last person who parked the big pontoon out there became upset because the realtor told him that he could put any and all 1 boats on the property. So we kind of indicated that he better check it out _ with the City. He better check it out with the Ordinance before you go ahead and buy a piece of property. I think what I'd like to do, I feel like Mary Jo that the beachlot i.s fine and it is a good size piece of property. I would like to see the City have some nice development, some well done homes, — expensive homes. I'm looking for a larger tax base but I think it should be policed and I think if, as Tom indicated, go along with 3 boat slips. That it should remain at 3. Be cast in iron and the people that buy the property or the lots know exactly who i.s to be allowed to put a boat at the dock. That it should be very carefully policed because, I don't know if you want me to say this but I didn't think the development to the south is really maintaining what they're supposed to be. There are boats out there tied to floats to get by the — additional dockage. I'm talking about the condominium development. Councilman Boyt: I feel that what staff and the Attorney recommended that we not grant this and my position would be, if we need to look at the ordinance again, let's look at the ordinance again. I'm not convinced we do need to but I am convined that we've got to live with the ordinance we have. Councilman Horn: I think we've already compromised our beachlot ordinance in one case. Apparently with some bad repercussions. I think in this case, the reason that we did that was, we said that the beachlot was entitled to the same rights as a riparian homeowner would have if they were to build a house on a piece of property. If I heard the staff report correctly, this is not a developable lot for a home. Therefore, it would not have a home and be a — riparian homeowners situation. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary for us to compromise beyond what we have already done in our ordinance and I would suggest that we go along with staff's recommendation. Councilman Geving: I think that this is certainly a large piece of property City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 and by denying the variance we wouldn't be denying them reasonable use of the land. They can still use it for a beachlot, for swimming and playing but it certainly doesn't meet our ordinance and I think I would not be in favor of granting the variance simply because it is precedent setting. We do have a memorandum from the Attorney with his recommendations and on that basis, I would stay with the staff and the Attorney's opinions that the variance should not be granted. That's the end of my comment. Mayor Hamilton: I would just call your attention to one of the questions that the Attorney, Roger Knutson, addressed. I felt that he asked more questions than he answered. That was the issue of the 100 feet. I felt that his answer to that question, part of it is that you could count both halves of the lot. The lot size requirement. What about setbacks, coverage and lot frontage? So I think there are some unanswered questions here yet. If it is in fact a single parcel, and I'm not sure how we determine that. Maybe Elliott can help us with that question. Elliott Knetsch: I'd be happy to. I guess what you're referring to there in Roger's letter is that under the existing ordinance the road, being where it is, the proposed beachlot is one lot and the portion across the road is a separate lot under the existing ordinance so it can't be counted to meet the depth requirement of the beachlot ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: Under our existing ordinance? Elliott Knetsch: Under the City's Zoning Ordinance. It regulates the beachlots as well as the Zoning Ordinance in general. The existing interpretation is that that would not be considered all one lot. What you did mention earlier at the prior meeting that he raised more questions than he answered. I think, as Barb mentioned, he was being rhetorical there. If you start getting a different interpretation of what the lot is, then all your other zoning requirements such as setbacks come into question too. Where you measure from. That becomes a question where you start to put your setbacks. The size of a lot and lot covereage. A11 those things come into question. Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a problem with it. I think we should probably address those questions. Elliott Knetsch: I think the basic recommendation here is, if it's the feeling on the Council that something like this is appropriate, the way to address that is not through a variance but through an amendment to the ordinance. Under the existing ordinance you have our opinion that it doesn't meet the test for granting that variance. If the Council's uncomfortable with that position, what they should do is take another look at the ordinance. Once the ordinance is on the book, it should be followed and if you don't like the ordinance, it should be changed. Mayor Hamilton: To go back to the point that Clark made too, I don't think it's right. There can be riparian rights here if the developer decided to sell five lots on the lake, those five lots would have riparian rights and you would just deed that part of the property on the lakeshore to those five owners that he has plotted out on the front of that. They would have 100 feet, is that our [7.7 ordinance? 100 feet of lakeshore? What's the minimum? /.'T• _� City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Barbara Dacy: Of lot width along the lake? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. — Barbara Dacy: 75 feet. Mayor Hamilton: So he could have even more than that. Barbara Dacy: But based on our current ordinance, you would in essence have to grant almost 5 lot area variances for those 5 lots between the road and the lake. Again, because the current ordinance defines if you have a parcel that's split by a road then each piece is a separate lot. Mayor Hamilton: I disagree with that. Then by doing that, in my opinion, we are taking his property. We are in fact forcing a hardship on him and the City better buy his property because what we're telling him is we're not going to — allow you to divide that property into five lots and let him put five docks out there and the use of the lake for those people. He can't do it and I think that's a taking. I would certainly see it that way. I'm not an attorney though. Elliott Knetsch: My response to that is, the City has the opportunity to impose reasonable regulations. Obviously, the word reasonable is not a clear cut standard and I'm not sure I could tell you what a Court would say. In our opinion, this ordinance, this does not amount to a taking. I think he does have reasonable use of his property. — Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce, did you want to make some comments? Robert Pierce: Originally, when I drove by this parcel I looked at it and I — thought, wow, look at the lakeshore we have. There's got to be a way to have some lakeshore, at least 3 or 4 lots across there. We have 500 feet. So I went into it a little further and I checked it out and talked to the City — Planner then I went to the Planning Commission meeting and at that point, at the Planning Commission meeting I went there for one reason. Multiple reasons but the one major reason was I wanted to see the feeling and get some direction _ at that point because we were into a contract to purchase the property, and see what they would have to say. At that meeting, it's in the Minutes, it was pretty clear cut that, some language to that effect, that to deny us a dock with that type of useage certainly wouldn't be reasonable. That's the — direction they gave us. I believe we came in with a really light, light useage for this parcel. Again, like I stated earlier, I have talked to the neighbors that are living on the north and I had quite a long discussion today with the — neighbors to the rear of the property, to the west and to the south. Each one of them, I think, excuse me I should make reference that the one to the north really didn't care what went on. She just said, whatever we'd like to do is _ fine with her but the others I think would definitely like to .act a development with a higher grade of homes in there. Without the docks it's just not possible. Plain and simple. We're looking at 15 lots. In my way of thinking, we can reduce the valuation on each home by about $100,000.00 per package which is a million and a half dollars to this single subdivision. In tax revenues, I don't know what that would exactly come out to for the City but if we could start this out, in this development, and we could put together a nice package of high quality homes, it would make sense to me that the area that's City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 developed, and there is a lot of land in that area that is going to develop at a higher quality. I think that is certainly in the minds of the neighbors is a real plus. I would think that also in the minds of the City would have to be a real plus to get more revenue out of it. Also, there are beachlots I know up and down this road and I know at sometimes there has definitely been some problems. I understand, but very few of them have the width that we do and the type of screening. We've been really cautious to try to meet the needs of the neighbors. We've worked with the City extensively trying to just meet every criteria that they would have. We would like to work it for everybody's benefit but we need the docks. It's an important part of this development. Otherwise it just changes it. The neighbors I think are for it. To me, the way we're going right now, I can't even have a dock on 9 acres. It's one parcel. The taxes one parcel. It's been taxed as lakeshore. It's just kind of beyond my thinking that we can't put this one dock in there. The neighboring property, Mrs. Campbell just to the north, I talked to her today and they have not had a dock on their parcel. They don't have the width. They don't have the areas that we do. At this point, without a variance, that's not even lakeshore anymore because the ordinance has concluded that. I think there is something wrong there. In order for us to do this project, we need those and we will do a good job. I think it will be an asset to Chanhassen. It will be an asset to the neighbors. If we're denied that, and we must go along without it, then it's going to be on a much less of a scale. Plain and simple. Councilman Boyt: I guess I would suggest that there is a certain amount of logic to what you say about having a long strip of lake frontage and not having a dock on it. It's just that, my opinion is that we don't have an ordinance that allows you to do that and to give you the variance to that ordinance is to basically throw the ordinance out. I don't know what the answer is. I can recognize the problem as being certainly a legitimate problem and a concern that I would have if I was in your position. I think maybe we need to look at the oridnance. I agree, you mentioned during the appeals situation that that might be a rather lengthy task. I suspect it would be because it's such a volatile issue. Robert Pierce: If I could make a suggestion. I don't know how long. If there would be some way to take a look at it, I'm sure it is volatile. I don't know. I have this development. It's going to go forward. We've come to a point, the dock issue. There's a period of time before we can get the project in the ground and there's a period of time before construction begins. I would be more than happy to work with the City any way possible, to make contacts or anything, but at the point that the first house goes in there, the whole tone of the development is taken. If 6 months later we get the docks, it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It maybe will bring the value of those 4 lots on the front but the rest of it has already been set. I don't have the wearathol to get into a year. I just don't. I plain and simple can not afford it. We're in an economic situation where this property right now can be developed. It can be done rather quickly I believe. It can get it up and get — it back to a finished product rather soon. If we wait a year, we get into the economic situation can stop. I've had that happen before and it just sits. I personally just can not gamble on that. I don't have the ability to gamble on that. Councilman Horn: Where did you get the impression that a dock would not be a problem on this piece of property? It couldn't have been your reading the City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 ordinance? Robert Pierce: No, from the Planning Commission when I went there. They talked about reasonable use. They said that, I think if you'd look in the Minutes I think you'd see that it was clear that they said, let's give it to the Attorney. There must be a way to do this without jeopardizing ourselves. I — know that you have had problems in different areas and I believe you're even in litigation on one on a different lake, or there has bccn something in that order, but the two projects are totally, totally different. There's not — anything in common to it. We're talking 50 feet and then we're talking 500 feet. 50 feet in width and I just feel like the word reasonable is the key here and I think we have a very, very, very reasonable request before you. However it needs to be done but I think time is a problem. Also, we do have, I don't know if you want to go through it but we have a planner from Schoell and Madsen here and he did do the project and he will explain what we're planning to do down there in a little more detail. It might be worth looking at. — Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody want to ;cc it? I guess we still have the concern. You've got 31,400 square feet which is over two-thirds of an acre,550 feet of lakeshore and we're saying he can't use the lake. I think that's a little bit ludicrous. That just isn't right in my opinion. To put 3 boats on there with one dock. I guess the other concern I have is, the request was for, I guess looking at the ordinance, it says we can only have one canoe rack for — each dock. It would seem to me that we certainly want to review that in our ordinance. It seems like that's the type of thing we ought to be encouraging more places to have rather than discouraging and I would ;,cc if there wasn't any dock down there, I certainly can't see any reason why they can't have two canoe racks. As long as they're used for canoes and that's the purpose for them, canoes or sailboats on the lake is what you want to encourage people to use them for. — Councilman Geving: I would have a tendency to agree with that Tom. I do agree that this is a fairly large lot. It doesn't meet the depth requirements but on the other hand, we've got other situations where it hasn't met the total area requirements. I think they're really the same thing. But as far as reviewing the ordinance to provide for the additional canoe racks and for sailboating, I — think that would be a terrific enterprise in this particular development because it would lend itself to that. You've got a number of lots and any time you get a dock with 3 or 4 boat slips, you're going to have contention for those. But on the other hand, if you could have, let's say 2 canoe racks with 12 canoes potential, you'd have enough for your neighborhood that you're proposing Mr. Pierce. I agree with Tom, I think that has to be looked at. Even though I'm opposed to granting the variance, I think the ordinance itself — could be revised to reflect some new conditions. Councilman Horn: I agree. I think that stays within the purpose of the intent of the ordinance. I think we could make an exception to lot area size to the one canoe rack. The problem always comes in when you start having permament dockage of boats. Canoe racks typically are not a lake congestion issue. That would be worth taking a look at but I agree, we shouldn't do it as a variance. — Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the variance to the Recreational Beachlot at 6830 Minnewashta Parkway for lot depth requirement of 100 feet. To allow a City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 dock to be constructed with three (3) boat slips and allow two (2) canoe racks. There was no second and motion failed for lack of a second. Elliott Knetsch: May I make a slight amendment to that and suggest that you move to have staff prepare Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the variance and the actual decision would be made at the next meeting when you have those Findings of Fact. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask why we need that? Elliott Knetsch: There's a requirement that you have Findings of Fact supporting your decision stating contemporaneously with your decision. Councilman Boyt: We have it. What would you call the Attorney's letter if not Findings of Fact? Councilman Geving: It would be just a restatement of that. Councilman Boyt: I don't understand why we have to put that off until next session if we have all the facts we're going to have. Elliottt Knetsch: The letter doesn't address all the specifics that he may want to include to support your Findings. We haven't listed exactly what you want on there. Councilman Geving: This is not unusual. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the variance request to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance at 6830 Minnewashta Parkway and to direct staff to review the ordinance for the change in the potential for a greater number of canoe racks for this particular lot. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATONAL BEACHLOT. Councilman Boyt: Gary I believe you mentioned int he packet that Minnewashta was being, at least in the distant future was looking at four lanes? Gary Warren: We said we were looking to upgrade possiblities. Subsequent information, the 66 foot right-of-way out there would be sufficient for that. Councilman Boyt: When I looked at the map of the beachlot, I remember the statement about timbered walls. Where were the walls going to be timbered on the beachlot? I didn't see that on the map or I didn't pick it out of the map if it was there. Barbara Dacy: You mean the steps down to the pathway? [77 Councilman Boyt: That a timbered wall would be built. That's the reference that I have. '- gg City Council Mooting - February 22, 1988 Robert Pierce: It's the steps going down. Steps or a ramp. There's been some discussion about... Councilman Boyt: I can understand the recommendation by the fire people to look at a ramp. I would think a ramp might create some erosion problems. Are steps less of an erosion inducer than a ramp Gary? Gary Warren: Anything that would minimize the rate of runoff typically helps to also minimize erosion. The faster the water goes over the land, the more — potential there is for erosion so the ramp, as you're saying from that perspective would be more an erosion hazard. Barbara Dacy: This issue came up with the Kurvers Point recreational beachlot and I think the applicant can look at a design where you would have a ramp plus a longer set of steps so you wouldn't have a straight slope down to the beach area. I think the main intent from the Fire Department was to make sure that the steps weren't designed so that they could easily roll stretchers or whatever down there. We've got the best of both worlds on both options. The one to control erosion and the other to facilitate access. — Councilman Boyt: I know we all have our points of concern here and that was just an issue that I wanted to bring up. The last issue is that I feel we should make some effort to preserve the shoreline where you're not having a beach area. I would propose that one condition of approval would be that it remain natural all along the shoreline except where the sand beach is installed. Robert Pierce: I think that's what my proposal had. — Mayor Hamilton: I think along the beach not there are trees that have fallen into the lake and there is a lot of garbage along the lake. Robert Pierce: When I mean natural, I think we want to clean up and improve it but what we want to do basically is leave intact anything that's alive and flourishing and holds our bank in. — Mayor Hamilton: I think what Bill may be referring to however is to keeping the weeds growing near the lake. I don't know if that would inhibit the use of your lot down there or not. Robert Pierce: The sand blanket area that we have there is probably the area that we use for swimming mostly. The rest of it I hadn't really planned on trying to change it much other than clean i.t up. Mayor Hamilton: You may have a volleyball court or something. Robert Pierce: It would probably be on the sand area. Dave Prillaman: I live on Red Cedar Point for 25 years. Now I just heard something that really bothers me. You're talking about a 4-lane highway on Minnewashta Parkway. You can forget then the beachlot and anything to do with it if you're going to have 4 lanes going down there. — C ' City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 — Mayor Hamilton: There's no proposed 4 lane highway on Minnewashta Parkway. Ir- Dave Prillaman: Isn't that what I just heard? Mayor Hamilton: Somebody just asked the question. They said, no, there is not a proposed 4-lane highway. Dave Prillaman: You've got 66 feet for right-of-way? How wide was that road going to be? Gary Warren: That road would be maximum 44 foot road section that could ultimately built. Dave Prillaman: How wide is it now? Gary Warren: That road now is maybe 31-32. Dave Prillaman: I guess all I'm saying is, if we're going to have this freeway, you can forget all the rest of it. All that road needs is to be maintained. It doesn't nccd to be any wider. The speed limits are not adhered to there now. Let's just don't, I know this is besides what you're talking about, but you're going to have an awful big argument with me if you widen that road. Mayor Hamilton: We're not planning on any widening. You'd probably have an argument with me too. I don't have that either. My motion would include the five conditions by the staff also. Councilman Boyt: What about keeping the shoreline natural? Councilman Geving: .. .will be pretty natural anyway Bill. I think they're trying to make this a receational area but I think they want to clean it up, not destroy the natural beauty of it. I have no problem with amending my second to include that. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Conditional Use — Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: 1. The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock or canoe rack(s) unless a variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City Council. 2. The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City council. — 3. All additional standards established for a recreational beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met. 4. A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A. City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 5. The applicant shall provide a detailed grading and erosion control plan for the recreational beachlot for staff approval. 6. The applicant shall keep the shoreline natural except where the sand beach is installed. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: I would hope that you would meet with staff as soon as possible to discuss the possibility of requesting a change in the ordinance and I'd be happy to work with you on it also. If you don't want to request it, I will. I think it's something we should be reviewing and getting on with. — Robert Pierce: I'll call them tomorrow. SUBDIVISION OF 2.5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF TH 5, SCHWABA-WINCHELL, APPLICANTS. — Barbara Dacy: The property is located east of and adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. The parcel is — outlined in green on this overhead. The Planning Commission discussion focused on two major issues with one of the major issues having three subdivisions, if you will. One was lot size and the second one was access and that could be divided into three issues. Driveways versus an internal street. Potential variance request and third, the maple tree that's located in the property. I'd like to address the lot size issue first. As you are all aware, the single family zoning district provides for a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. — There are a number of adjacent property owners in the area that were requesting that the Council look to reducing the number of lots in this subdivision so that the proposed lot sizes would increase and be more comparable to the lot sizes existing in the area. The Planning Commission discussed this at length and directed staff to bring, an issue back if you refer to the discussion, there was no action taken on this particular item. However, the Council should be aware that the proposal does meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning — Ordinance. All of the lots did contain 15,000 square feet as required by the Zoning Ordinance. If these adjacent property owners would sell their properties or some time in the future if the properties were to be subdivided,the same requirements would be imposed. Councilman Boyt: How big are those lots? Barbara Dacy: The adjacent lots to the east are, I would say at least an acre and a half in size and maybe some of the property owners are here and could verify my estimate. As to the second issue of access, one of the issues was — whether or not a variance request was necessary for two driveway accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector. We asked the City Attorney to respond to that issue discussed by — the Planning Commission. His letter is included in your packet. In essence his opinion was that the ordinance prohibits access from "individual lots" meaning if there were 5 driveways proposed for 5 lots, that would be prohibited. However, since the proposed driveways are shared, that does not Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 20 TRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON - ROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE: A. SUBDIVISION OF 9 . 04 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS . B . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. — — Larry Brown presented the engineering department's staff report on the Stratford Ridge Subdivision. Headla : That sedimentation basin, when I was looking at it, it looked like it would be 6 feet below the street level . Is that right? Brown: The elevation at the bottom of the pond is 966 and the — elevation of the roadway is approximately 972. This invert of the storm sewer pipe is approximately half a foot, well it's 966.5 above this. During the 100 year storm, the maximum capacity that it's expected to maintain, the elevation would be 968. This is well below the provisions of the roadway so we won't be creating a problem there. The one problem that does exist is the Park and Recreation Commission had proposed for a trail easement along Minnewashta Parkway. During — the normal storm , say 10 year frequency storm , you can fit a trail f `►rough here fairly readily. There's not many obstacles through there. t will be up out of the ponding area and won't be a problem. The _ problem does come in i. f a 100 year storm does occur , we may start encroaching upon the trail but I seriously doubt that many people are going to be using the trail during a 100 year storm. - Headla : How do you get the water from the sedimentation basin out? Just a culvert under the road? — Brown: Yes, the Watershed has reviewed this and with a baffle structure here, it will flow into Lake Minnewashta. Certain provisions can be made to bring this outlet back further and rip rap it out but I don't think that would be very advantageous. The sedimentation is trapped in the basin and there won ' t be anything . . . Headla : Is all the water coming out of there going to stay on the — Pierce property? The grade in the land kind of makes it keep on going south. The drainage out of the sedimentation basin. You see it's headed southeast. Why didn't it go more east? If you head southeast, - it' s going to continue flowing to the south when it gets past the road . Brown: I think they made provisions. The drainage that comes from here is trapped through the roadway system and storm sewer system. It flows into the sedimentation basin and then goes out here . 41 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 21 eadla : Okay, right there. It doesn't get to the lake. It gets to AL ne east side of the road but then the grade tends to make it flow to the south . Are they going to pipe it right down to the lake? Brown: That was my understanding. Is that correct? Ted : Yes . — Conrad: There's a lot of property that could be developed around there and I guess I still see a benefit of creating a pond. Not only for this project but for others to the north and to the west. Why not? Is the elevation prohibitive of redirecting the front properties to drain to the rear to a pond and how come that ' s not an alternative? Brown: Basicly the initial submittal had the pond in this area and we made them relocate it to facilitate some of the natural drainage path. This area over here, BRW had analyzed that in their report. On their sketch they had picked out specific areas, low lying areas, that a pond could be facilitated. Unfortunately, I don't have an overhead of that but it is in your packet. That was not one of the areas they had picked. Because they met the 100 year frequency, it worked in with the — side slopes of these lots and the existing drainage patterns, I felt that it was adequate. That certainly is an alternative that could be explored but I felt that this pond . . . — Conrad: Tell me a little bit about, if you had a pond back there, like t can' t hold , what would you do with the pond that was there? Would k_ ne assumption be that it could hold a lot of water or would you still have the same type of outlet into Minnewashta? Without looking at the site I have no idea what the holding capacity would be back there but would you potentially have to have the same type of outlet that you — currently have on the holding pond that you planned in this particular map or could a pond be self contained? It flows in and it just stays there. Brown: You would have to have some sort of outlet. Eventually that pond is going to reach capacity. I know that the neighboring properties are very concerned about this area. I think that was one of the major reasons for the placement of the pond over here. Not only that, obviously we're limited by the property boundary and the slopes in the ditch area now. Like I said, I haven't got i.t down to brass _ tacks whether a pond is feasible through here. There could be some shifting of the proposed grades but I think you would have to outlet it someplace and I'm afraid that that alternative would be bad for Lake Minnewashta . Conrad : How does a study, like BRW, how did this get funded? The BRW portion of alternatives. What prompted a study and who funded that? — Brown: BRW has been one of our consultants, for a while, to explore this, we used BRW because we're concerned with Minnewashta Parkway — Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 22 being a collector street. We're worried about the aspects of access Ito Minnewashta Parkway. There are certain problems, as you're robably more than aware of, of sight distance and speed on Minnewashta Parkway. For that very reason, we wanted to explore what restrictions we needed for Stratford Ridge such as this entrance and also to — facilitate future development. If this piece goes, it's fairly inevitable that the surrounding pieces will do that so we had to look at once these pieces start coming in , how are we going to facilitate - utilities through there , the roadway patterns . Conrad : Did that come from your office or did the City Council direct you to do that? Brown: Yes , it came from our office . — Conrad : Okay, and then how does that get funded? Who pays BRW for doing that? Is that just a budget that the city has? Brown: That ' s a budgeted item, yes . We often use consultants . Conrad: You're just talking to us about engineering facts. Jo Ann, you're going to be talking about other things. Anything else for — Larry? Jo Ann Olsen presented the planning department's staff report on the - Stratford Ridge Subdivision . anrad : Would the applicant like to talk to us on what was just presented and any other comments? Ted Kenner, Schoell and Madsen: The two questions that Jo Ann specifically brought up were the area of the property and we have — calculated the area of the property to be 9.04 acres. This apparently disagrees with the tax area which i.s substantially less. Something in the 5 acre area. I have not seen the tax statement , but it is actually a 9 acre parcel. As to Lot 1, Block 2 I understand by looking at it , it does not appear to have the 15,000. If you take the dimensions that are shown out of the plat, that does not calculate out but those are the dimensions to the curves. If you take the length of the lot times — the width of the lot , which is 140 feet long by 108 feet wide, it calculates out to be 15,120. So when the plat is finally calculated, that lot will be made to be a 15 , 000 or larger and it will be based — with that configuration. I guess I don' t have any other issues unless you have questions . Headla: On the 9.04 acres, Jo Ann remember early this fall when we had — that Halla's property and I asked the question, the area they stated, did that include the highway. We were talking about TH 101, and you said no, that's not normally included. When I look at the arithmetic — on this property, i. f I measure strictly the envelope , I come up with 9.04 acres. That includes Minnewashta Parkway. If I take off Planning Commission Meeting .— January 6, 1988 - Page 23 Minnewashta Parkway and the lakeshore, I come up with 7.56 acres which rt what the taxable property was and that's really what you're trying o develop. If you take away the outlot, it's really 7 acres that you ' re developing . Do you agree with that? — Ted Kenner : It depends on how you figure it. I would say that the developable property is the entire parcel less the area that is in — Minnewashta Parkway. The area in Minnewashta Parkway is about three- quarters of an acre so you still have 8.3 acres of land area. Headla : So the 9 . 04 did include the highway? — Ted Kenner: That is correct. You've got three-quarters of an acre between the road and the lake in there or about seven-tenths of an — acre and that is not within the plat itself but it's still land area that is developable and is taxed . Headla : I give you credit for a little bit more area than that. Okay, I wanted to make that point. Can I see your arithmetic on Lot 1? I've tried and tried and tried and I can not come up with the , if you could just sketch it. Give me the overall dimensions and then let me go on — to something else . Ted Kenner : Overall , the length is 140 feet . _ Headla : I get 130. If I take this 100 and this 15 and this 15, that' s ( 30 . — Ted Kenner : All I 'm using is the scale . Headla : I 'm using dimensions right off the print . — Ted Kenner : Okay, that's the way I've based it and that's the way the lot was set up is based on scale. Headla: I don't believe it's 15,000. Until I can see dimensions on the print that says that, I think you're way under. It does not meet the minimum of 15, 000 . — Ted Kenner: I guess I'm confident that it does just based on my calculations . — Headla : What does preliminary plat mean? Ted Kenner: This is a preliminary plat. This has not been calculated at thi.s point . Headla : But if we approve this , what are we really approving? Can you — slide anything around like you want or are we approving this as it is? l_ Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 24 Olsen: They haven't made the final calculations but we check the lot f'mensions with the final plat to match the two. You can ' t change. Headla: What do you really change on here? I'm not sure I really understand preliminary. Olsen: The preliminary you'll establish the lot layout and the lot dimensions and the square footage. The final plat, it just comes in with just the lot lines. That's when you've done the final calculations. So with a preliminary plat sometimes you'll get a lot that's 110 wide and then the final will come in and it might be actually 112 . Headla: So you're really just fine tuning some of the dimensions but these lots aren't going to slide around anymore. I guess I want to make very sure that does meet the minimum requirements. I don't know how they' re going to achieve it. That's all I had on that. On the driveway, on the outlot that you're suggesting, are you going to be doing any grading on that driveway? Are you changing the level of that at all? Olsen: Right along here. There i.s concern that this driveway not be blocked at all . Ted Kenner : The plan is to not do anything in this area. Just leave _ it as is . :adla : So you won't be doing any grading in there and you aren't changing water flow at all then? Ted Kenner : No. It will only be constructed from Mi.nnewashta Parkway up to Stratford Drive where it goes into the development. That will be finished , the roadway up to there. Beyond that will remain the gravel driveway that presently exists there. Headla : Fine, there was some concern and I just wanted clarification on that. When you're doing this, and this is kind of a question that comes up at different times , there's only one way into that house, what happens if there is an emergency up there? Is there always going to be — an access to that place? When you're putting in that 50 foot rcad , how is that person, in case there's an emergency, how does that house get served? Ted Kenner : When you say that house , which are you talking about? Headla : The one directly to the west . Ted Kenner : Hallgren ' s? _ Headla : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting • January 6 , 1988 - Page 25 Ted Kenner : They would maintain the driveway through there so they CAuld get through at all times . Headla : Even when you ' re building that 50 foot road? — Ted Kenner : Yes . Headla: What about on the northeast corner where I think it's Mrs. Campbell lives now, her property goes right into her driveway and I think that's been common knowledge in the area for some time. What happens to her? Is she just out of luck now or maybe the builder can tell me, how is that handled? Robert Pierce: That's been addressed. There is an easement for — driveway purposes . Ted Kenner : Just one comment on that. Since that was drawn , we have _ gotten additional information on the exterior boundaries and they will be shifting a little further from her house on the north side anyway and possibly right to the edge of the driveway. So the drive may not go into our property. — Headla: How do you people feel about that trail going along Minnewashta Parkway and then that 6 foot drop-off there? Then you've — got a 6 foot water pond along the parkway and then you're going to have homes there. Is that going to be a problem for people on the bike ' rail or the homes that are right there that have small children? Robert Pierce: At this point, I guess I don't really know. It's a little hard for me to visualize how the trail is going to go in until I really see where it's going to go. I do know that with the proper — landscaping and the right grades, I think it can be done and made to look very nice. I guess it would be up to whoever is using the trail to use it in such a way that, if they're going at such a speed that _ they can't stay on the trail or whatever, I guess that's where problems would come in but that could be anywhere along the trail . Headla : Do they grate that thing or what do they do? — Brown: There is plenty cf room for the 8 foot trail. Where the problem comes in is actually the 20 foot easement area that's normally required. There's a problem with overlapping the drainage easement with the trail easement and that was my major concern. There is more than enough room to get an 8 foot trail in there. That obviously _ doesn't alleviate the possibility of reaching maximum capacity of the pond and occasionally running over the top of that trail. I think that's the problem at this point. As far as the question we were getting at before about the pond being close to the residential neighborhood right there, we have required ponds on roughly all the developments. One classic example is over here on the Saddlebrook. That's probably the biggest ponding site that we have and that again is — Planning Commission Meeting • January 6 , 1988 - Page 26 adjacent to the rearyard so I really don ' t foresee any direct problem. Headla: So if we set a precedent, it isn't going to be any different than what we ' ve done other places? -- Brown: That ' s correct . Headla : I was looking at that hoping to have the water go back the other way. The other one, I'm concerned about the wetland to the northwest , but we can talk about that. My only other comment is , I was really disappointed in the BRW maps. They just blatantly went right through the wetlands and they are suggesting these are where the roads should go. I'm not going to belabor the point except that I thought it was inappropriate to do. You heard the discussion tonight. We're very concerned about wetlands and then something that the village will - sponsor , we blast a road right on through . Brown: I think that can be addressed by, initially and Jo Ann can confirm this, initially we didn't think that area was a wetland. As I stated before, when the applicant submitted this at first, that was when we ordered the overview by BRW. Shortly thereafterwards, the area back there in the northwest corner was analyzed as a low class wetland. So it's not a real obvious factor when you're out there tromping through the site, that it is a wetland . Emmings: I've just got a little bit here. On the condition 2, Jo Ann cit says Lots 1 through 5 and I assume that's Block 2 that you're talking about there so I guess I'd like to, whoever makes the motion, I think we ought to include Block 2 in there so we're sure we know which Lots 1 through 5 we're talking about. Then, going to condition 1, we're talking about the right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 will be designated as an outlot. Do I understand the reason that's being done -- is to avoid the double frontage question? Olsen: Mostly it's just so the city would not have to maintain a double frontage. It ' s indicated as street right-of-way right now. . . Emmings : Why aren't we doing the same things then at least Lots 8 , 9 and 10 of Block 1 that we're doing on Lot 2 for the double frontage - lots? Olsen : Technically right now it ' s not actually a double frontage lot . Emmings : We are creating double frontage lots right? Olsen: It's possible that when streets are approved there that it will just go straight down from Stratford to this driveway but . . . Emmings: As far as the double frontage lots, I don't have a problem - with that. I don't think the plan is a bad plan at all for the property. I'm glad that they looked to see how it would fit with the Planning Commission Meeting • — January 6 , 1988 - Page 27 development of the neighboring properties. I think that's been looked — at. I guess I don't have any trouble thinking about a variance for ' those because we've already said we want lot depth to be 125 feet and in fact they may not need a variance at all if the City Council goes — along with that. I do however like the idea of having additional landscaping when there are double frontage lots. The only thing I have trouble really conceptualizing in this plan is four of those lots in Block 2, such as 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 really, it would seem to me there is some kind of mushy language in there that we recommend that the houses face the internal streets but I would think as a matter of fact, you'd want to build those houses to look at the lake. —' Olsen: What that means is that it emphasizes is they must be cleared for a driveway. What we would consider the rear of the house they — would consider the front. Emmings: That makes it perfectly clear. Now I understand. I don't _ care which way they go but as long as they have the access off the internal street and they've got some additional , when we say they're going to have additional screening, that's on the Parkway side right? I don ' t have anymore questions . — Erhart: On that BRW plan, on Option A, how are they going to get access from Minnewashta Parkway? — Olsen : Option A is showing it to be accessed from the north . . Erhart : And that street exists? — Olsen: No. I think what they would probably do is put a service road where this dotted line is . — Erhart : And that not being such a good idea, for that purpose we end up with double frontage lots gives us Option B. Option B gives us with double frontage lots . Olsen : But they' re building this already. Erhart: Really, the BRW plan is the one that gives us the variance. Possibly you could have drawn up a street plan and prevented any double frontage lots . — Brown: If I could interrupt , I think as pointed out in the BRW report, that there is a large number of possibilities that one could lay this _ out. Again, one of the other points that was brought out in the report is the ability to develop this area is going to rely on a developer to package several parcels of land together. That may not happen. Some of the homeowners have already expressed that no, my land will never be developed. That may in fact happen but the object of this was not to lay out the specific lots or force anyone into developing, it was just such that we can address Stratford Ridge to accomodate that development — Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 28 if it were to occur . Erhart : I think what you did in putting together a master plan for the area was just great. I think that's super. Whether they did a good job or not, that one I won't make a judgment on. Obviously, if any - company should do this, I agree with Dave, they should go in and find out, before they lay any pen to paper they ought to find out what's wetland in the area because that's just as important as the existing streets. In my mind, I'm just trying to understand the double fronted lots to some degree comes about as putting pressure on the developer to try to stick to our master plan so I guess I don' t have a problem with the variance from that standpoint. Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, they have 70 foot frontage on one side. That's below the minimum allowed. Olsen: There's 90 foot street frontage and including the radius, that _. comes out to 85. Ted Kenner : It ' s 90 at the building setback line. - Olsen: That's for cul-de-sacs . Ted Kenner : Then we should make that lot 90 on the front then. Erhart: Lot 1 should be 90. Lot 2, that one being on an outside curve, you could argue that it would be on the setback, but Lot 1, I think you've got to look at that number. And the extra 10 feet is ir included in Lots 7 through 10 of Block 1 right, because it's double frontage? It is included? — Olsen: Not right now but it will be. Right now it's not. The position right is for Lots 1 through 5 . . . Erhart: If the plan is for them to be double fronted, of course the thing is in this case the developer is not, there is no assurance that that street will ever continue to go through there . - Robert Pierce: There's the possibility too that at a future date, depending on how land would develop around there, that that access may never be used or it might shift over 30 feet . Erhart : So I guess it really isn ' t an issue. No more questions . Conrad: The size of the properties on either side Jo Ann, are large parcels on either side? North and south? Olsen: Yes, they are also narrow to where, as Larry mentioned, they — are going to have to work together. I think the properties to the north is probably coming in for a subdivision. They are all large parcels but they are also narrow. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 29 Erhart: Are you talking about the Charles Anderson property is coming 4- in for a subdivision? And they would get access from where your blue line is? Olsen : I haven ' t seen the plans . Ted Kenner : I have talked to them and they are more interested in developing the property to the north. They are looking at the Charles Anderson property and the one just to the west of there which is owned by the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. They are looking at developing those two parcels together tying both of those off of Pleasant Acres. Conrad: I still have a problem. It still looks to me like we're — putting a whole lot of stuff on a few acres here. I know that our legal consultants say it meets the minimum as long as they all do but when I see the bike trail and I see the holding pond and I see some variances and double frontages, it always means, usually when we have a lot of stuff like that it means we're putting too much on a piece of property. Erhart: Jo Ann are we asking for a variances for double frontage on Lot 7 through 10? How can we do that when there's no street there? We ' re not asking for a variance? — Conrad : We ' re not? Olsen : What you need right now is a variance to that additional feet required on Lots 1 through 5. Headla : What did you say Jo Ann? I didn ' t follow. — Olsen: Technically they're getting the variance for that additional 10 feet . Erhart : And the reason for justification of a variance was what? Olsen: Is that that 10 feet could not be provided without altering. They can shift the street up here , that would provide more lot depth but to provide that additional 10 feet, there is no alternative. They would possibly have to remove this lot and shift i.t up. Again , we were — just working with the location of this street for accessing the property to the north . We felt this was a good street configuration. Erhart : And the 10 feet is added to what? Olsen : The lot depth . Right now they would have to have 160 feet. Erhart : And we ' ve sent on to the Council to change that to 125? c Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 30 Olsen: Yes, and if that does get approved, then all of these lots could meet without the additional 10 feet. Headla : Does it look like that' s going to fly? Don ' t know. — Larry Wenzel: Subject to what happens with this given parcel of property in respect to the other pieces of property with this master layout, that plan, how much of this is cast in stone? It appears that we're pretty well constricted individually, or even as a group, according to the road systems that have been laid out as far as the lots. You've got some variances on this piece of property. How many built in variances have they laid in for the rest of us that we're going to have to get compliance to even to think of the economics of whether this thing is going to be developed in 1989 or the year 3000 subject to the value of what we can sell our piece of land and — therefore a house for. Is this the plan that's going to be maintained subject to whether that ' s approved or not approved? Olsen: No, the only plan that would be maintained would be this one. The only way that this is altering the impact of the surrounding properties is that it is designating where future roads will be provided to the north and then it will be providing this whole length - along here and a road that goes straight to the south and west. That's the only thing that's dictating at this time. These plans are just going to be used for general use to give us a better picture of what - the street layouts could possibly have. Staff is concerned with a lot 1 of separate accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway. We were trying to look 3t a way to provide service to all those lots along here without necessarily having separate accesses . Larry Wenzel : Are they assuming that most of the existing homes will be moved out of there? That ' s the way it appears . Olsen: There's really no assumption, it was just kind of an overall plan just to lay it on top. This was like if everybody would want to subdivide . There are many possibilities . Larry Wenzel: Can I get a copy of those variances that you have listed? The easement for the trail that's going to run, as I perceived - it, along Minnewashta Parkway, running the whole way. That's going to be taken on what , the west side of Minnewashta Parkway? - Olsen: At this point it will be on the west side. Larry Wenzel : And what are they going to do , just cut another swath in there? Another 8 foot swath west of the road? Olsen : Off of the right-of-way. — Larry Wenzel: If they do that, this i.s the third time they've taken our stuff. Along here you've got a major hill and when you cut this Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 31 away I lost that huge tree from cutting in the road and it died from 47 ack of water. Then they put the new street in and they pitched it wrong and you've got all the water coming down this road at 90 mph going right over a mickey mouse curb that they put in after it washed the whole bank out once and out into the lake. Are they going to put some kind of a storm sewer on this side of the street then along with that so handle that kind of a problem? Because you're increasing that — grade dramatically. Olsen: We have not looked at it at this point. Those sort of issues would be reviewed at that time. Emmings: Jo Ann, aren't they just reserving an easement on this plat for a possible future trailway. There' s no plan to build it. Larry Wenzel: It's not connected to whatever, you approved this development, it doesn't cast that into stone and it is there and setting a precedent? Emmings : Just reserving an easement for a possible future trail . Olsen: The Park and Recreation Commission has a trail plan and Minnewashta Parkway is designated to have a trail so as developments come in, we reserve easements for that. When it will be built, I couldn ' t tell you . fr.arry Wenzel : I guess I get a little nervous when I see, and our .eighbor John Ziegler of course isn't here, but I see something like that and I 'm wondering how much thought process went into that thing . Olsen: This doesn't show everything. That might have been a ponding area . Larry Wenzel : That ' s all high ground . Brown: As Jo Ann point out, the proposed plat has really nothing to do with the approval of this. Like I said, a number of these plans could have been drawn up. You could have come in with five of these. The only thing about this plan is that if Stratford Ridge is approved, if Mr. Anderson decided that he wanted to hook into sanitary sewer if he wanted to develop, he may be able to facilitate the sanitary sewer and — water from the Stratford Ridge development. That was the only reason that this report was even looked at. To figure out how we can put in piece of the puzzle if they so choose to develop. But this plan, as far as the lot layouts, as far as even these parcels are developed, is strictly up to the lot owner. It's just so if you do decide to develop, you have a way of doing that. But as far as the lot layout, each parcel can come in and propose as long as they meet the 15, 000 — square foot minimum and in accordance to the ordinance. But this layout is arbitrary. It's just so future development can be made to facilitate if the need should occur . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 32 Headla: Just so you folks on the Commission understand where we're r :oming from, none of us had seen this. We didn't even know it was going on. All of a sudden there's two options. What we're going to possibly do with your home, with your property, so it's a little shocking. You can look at it objectively but for us , it's more of an — emotional thing the first shot. Brown: I think also, as pointed out in the report before, some of these parcels will have trouble meeting the requirements as far as lot area by themselves and this report was a way of informing the neighbors that if they so choose, they can get together and develop this or have somebody develop it for them if they have a smaller parcel. It's just — another method of learning, if they want to develop, they should be informed as to what ' s out there. - Larry Wenzel : I think you're right and I'm not disagreeing. It is a shock. When you see your name up there and all these lots chopped up and your house doesn ' t exist . - Mrs. Wenzel : And no road access . Larry Wenzel: Each one of us, even though our piece is 10.5 acres, — after Dave's explanation, I'm not sure what we've got after listening to what Lawson's might or might not. I don't know who the devil it comes from but in my particular case which i.s inmaterial to this, we've got a house here and a house here, which is fine because of your lake rules. You'd probably get it blocked off and get two front water lots ._ .nd the rest of it you develop or whatever the case may be but there you've got access that exists from the main street now. The way this — appears, all of a sudden that's changed, even though it's there. It might not be and I guess that ' s what makes you a little nervous . - Erhart : Well , it may not be because the ordinance, I believe on collectors, it's 300 feet separation for street access. So the whole purpose of putting together this master plan is a plan that everybody has future access and still meet the ordinance. You do that by preventing situations like this developer coming in and putting two cul-de-sacs with no future extension of the street. So what the plan allowed us to do here is to work with the developer to allow future — access of the one street to go up to the Mildred Kirkson property, if that person so chooses to develop without having a direct access onto Minnewashta Parkway. Larry Wenzel : Yes, but many of the driveways already exist and they are two distinct and separate pieces of property, how can you tell me now that this is going to change. Erhart: No it doesn' t, but if you wanted to develop, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can put in a street outlet to Minnewashta . Planning Commission Meeting • — January 6, 1988 - Page 34 1eadla : They have to come back again? Emmings : No . Headla : If they don ' t make it 15, 000. Emmings: Dave, look at the lot next door is 17,500. They can steal — enough over there to make that one 15, 000 I would think without any trouble at all . If they do need it. Headla : I just want to see it at 15, 000. Emmings: Well, that's what the plan says. Staff has to make sure that happens . That ' s what we ' re approving . Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #87-32 as shown on the plat stamped "Received December 14 , 1987" and subject to the following conditions : 1. The right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 shall be designated as an outlot. 2. Lots 1-5, Block 2 shall provide an additional 10 feet of depth or an approved detailed landscaping plan providing — screening from Minnewashta Parkway. f 3 . The existing building and debris shall be removed from the _ site upon approval of the appropriate permits . 4 . Provision of a 20 foot trail easement on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway. 5. Type II erosion control , staked hay bales and snow fence, shall be placed along the south side of Lots 1, 9 and 10. — 6 . A typical detail for Type II erosion control, staked hay bales and snow fence, shall be placed on the grading plan. — 7. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. 8 . All streets and utilities shall be constructed in accordance to the City' s standards for urban construction . 9 . The watermain shall either be looped or increased to an eight inch diameter . No dead-end stubs shall be allowed . 10. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading . Planning Commission Meeting • January 6, 1988 - Page 35 11 . The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with — the City and provide the necessary financial sureties as a part of this agreement for completion of the improvements . 12. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District and DNR permit . 13. The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to its minimum — possible elevation such that service from the north of the easterly proposed cul-de-sac may be facilitated . 14 . Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the entire ponding site should shifting of the pond be necessary. 15. The curb radius as shown in Attachment #3 shall be replaced by a curb transition section as shown in Attachment #4 . All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who opposed and motion carried . Conrad: The reason for my opposition is I still think there are too many pieces of land on this piece of property. I would recommend that one parcel be eliminated and I think that would solve a lot of my concerns with the subdivision . Headla: On the building on the property, the Fire Department talked to —me and said they were interested in burning it. Did Dick Winger i rally get a hold of you? Robert Pierce: I guess I hadn't contacted anybody at this point because I wanted to get to this point before I made any other arrangements . "Headla : Can we tell them to get in touch with you then? Robert Pierce: Sure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot . —Erhart : What' s happened here in the procedural changes? Olsen: We confirmed with the Attorney and the zoning ordinance. . . Erhart: We've been voting on the zoning ordinance since I've been on the Commission. Now all of a sudden that's not the way it is anymore Dr have we been doing it wrong? Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 36 C' ;en: No, you've been voting on variances to subdivisions and the lot c&ith. As far as the recreational beachlot, the zoning ordinance states that variances should be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments . — Erhart: That ordinance specifically is different than the . . . Olsen : Under the zoning ordinance. Roger Knutson: There are two ordinances. The subdivision and zoning ordinance. Recreational beachlots are in the zoning ordinance. The — requirements with a dock is 100 foot depth. If you want to get around that requirement, it needs a variance and the zoning ordinance says that goes to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The subdivision is a separate ordinance. It doesn't have to go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals . You can decide that. Erhart: We're not chaning anything, we're just following the rules on this one. It's a lot easier for us. The only thing we're dealing with here is just simply approving or disapproving the beachlot as it fits our beachlot ordinance? Simply that. The only issue we have to deal with is essentially the plan of the beachlot. Then the only question I have is, in proposing the change from steps to a ramp, are you not inviting 3-wheelers to come driving down that to our nice beach? Ted Kenner: That's always a problem when you have a ramp. At the same time, I can see what the staff is suggesting for safety, if you need to down there in case of emergency. Erhart: But in case of emergency, then don' t they put the guy on a stretcher and they can carry him up the steps just as well as they can carry him. . . Olsen : Stretchers have wheels on them. Erhart: I don't know. I'm not an expert on either one but I'd sure favor the steps over the ramp. I don't know i.f it's worth getting into a big discussion. That ' s the only thing I ' ve got . _ Headla: Who looks at the tree plantings? There are some beautiful oaks there and I just want to make sure that the oaks stay. Well , you 'd have every reason to want to keep them too . '- Olsen: That will be approved by the DNR forester , Allan Olsen. Conrad : The Planning Commission looks at a conditional use permit, what are we looking at? What are the conditions that we're measuring this against? It seems like the conditions that we're measuring _ against are not in our power to measure but the Board of Adjustments is measuring . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 37 Olsen: We looked at it meeting the conditions of the recreational beachlot . . . Conrad : But not the depth. We ' re not looking at area size. Olsen: You look at whether it meets the conditions. Conrad : And it doesn ' t . Olsen: When it doesn't, that's when you want it to go to the Board of Adjustments. Conrad : So , what are the conditions that we ' re looking at? Olsen: It meets the conditions of just a basic beachlot without a dock . Erhart: The depth is required for the dock but that's out of our jurisdiction. Let me correct this, it does meet all of the conditions for just a standard beachlot? Olsen : Yes. You have the lake frontage. Conrad: And 800 of the houses are located within 1,000 feet? Okay. We asked the Public Safety Director to review the safety of this lot , crossing Minnewashta Parkway. Di.d he ever do that for us? Olsen: He commented on the stairs. Yes and no, people are going to be crossing the street . . . He felt that the bigger issue was . . . Conrad: And the steps simply just for access, emergencies and handicap? That's hard for me to visualize, a ramp. And we're not concerned with where the beach is placed? Headla : Does the builder feel he has to have a ramp? Robert Pierce : No, I guess it ' s really up to you . Erhart : Ladd , I think it is within our duties to make comments about the plan. The layout and where the sand is. I think that's one of the few things we do have input on . Olsen : In the report I did review that we died want more detailed plans if they review the beachlot. I did not make that a condition. Conrad: Yes, I didn't see that as a condition here. What's staff's opinion? I think this is a good outlot for recreation. I think the concern we had last time Jo Ann was the 40 feet. The distance between the lake and the road is 40 feet and is that acceptable in terms of how people are handled? If you get 13 lots, or whatever it is, more than that, 15 lots, can that 40 feet of depth, which we're not looking at, Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 38 handle that many people? Originally, I think the 100 feet is simply to separate, give people room away from property and I think with the road there and everything, I have no problem with that. I'm sure the Board of Adjustments will accept that but there is obviously a clear separation between the outlot and people's land and therefore it's not going to be a great deal of impact on those Lots 3, 4 and 5. My concern goes back to, are we allowing something, have we designed the right amount of space for people who are going to use that? 40 feet is — really not a whole lot for a beach. Especially, I'm don't know how much of that is useable for a beach. Robert Pierce: Maybe I can take this a step back, about the steps or the ramp. I guess, if I had my way I'd rather probably put steps in because of ease of maintenance and I think they can just make it nicer looking but again, it's not anything one way or the other. It would proably just make it look a little nicer with those steps. Then going to the 40 foot , we have a major length of shoreline there and the kind of beaches that I take my kids to, a lot of them out on the lake, a lot — of times where we go we are probably, the sand beach depth and there would be quite a few other boats , a lot of time that beach is not more than just a few feet. And here, we would make it deeper than that plus we would make it 80 to 100 feet . . . Conrad: You're comfortable you can solve the problem that these homeowners are going to put on the beachlot? — Robert Pierce: We want to make an attractive situation for everybody. It's to our advantage, as much as anybody's, to be able to have _ something that will be desirable and that they can see they're going to enjoy. Headla : Did you want to fit the point there , Jo Ann? — Olsen : About the more detailed plans? Headla : Yes . Olsen : Sure . Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions : — 1. The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock unless a variance to the lot depth requirement i.s granted by the — Board of Adjustments and City Council . 2. The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by the Board of Adjustment and City Council . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 39 3 . All additional standards established for a recreational beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met. 4 . A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A. 5. The applicant must submit a more detailed plan of the recreational beachlot . All voted in favor and motion carried . WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Wetland Alteration Permit. Conrad: Can you build on a Class B wetland? Can you build a house? A Class B wetland is not buildable, isn't that right and therefore i.s not part of area that we use to calculate densities . Olsen : We ' ve always used that. Headla : You' ve always included wetlands in your density calculations? Conrad : Wetlands are not buildable though Jo Ann . Erhart : Yes , but you still include them in your overall acreage. Olsen: Yes, I think we do. The developer has done it. I'm trying to think, like for Hidden Valley. When we had that large wetland in that marsh area down there, I believe that went into the net density, we did not include that . Conrad: But in terms of individual lot size, not the overall plat or subdivision, but in terms of the overall lot size. A wetland will help make up the 15, 000 square foot minimum? ` Erhart : The only rule we have is the setback from the building . Robert Pierce: You have in the past because I know of one other subdivision here and they included the wetlands. It wasn't this, it was a Class A wetland and they were included in the calculations of the lots . Olsen: With the Lake Riley Woods subdivision, it was then. Even with that open ponding area in the Lake Riley Woods , we included that. Erhart: I'm not sure it's appropriate for 15,000 square foot lots but it is for the 2 1/2 acre. That ' s how I know I ' ve studied it. _ mob. � i. '•r... �..:�. .. i2, i ant 11�n"f,r.�.(. •' .., .1. ` ii!r gyfs sib \ --.- s-, .r�.i�up l�iayii►:�!!4, !"•:LG4 .,•.,-• ... c'/ I.~Ifl��l.y +'a h '�rJ :L.•,►. 647 11s" •1 r,,e is-•c I ,�. MIN.1 mil ^, t } C � : 1 T� �.,.r i� ��-- ,, l; l j'- f ,: � . lib: ''� ' _:;a� L+I -,�i ��le -_�.1►,�, _ �r - ,y �Sr€��ar�i. • ) iik. i ,��viEli-.-.i1-...1N►Y 1jz t•c.- • A 1, Tun /, ii 0.40 • briMEr-A, .441/ •'.01- 1 . ;...ii; I _ 47 11 A ....-41.1-,r7-T.....1 1 1 ',24:11:/.,gn..\T.i,V,.'1, iir. ',E:-.,2,-- .I AN i c.a' . .-. .. 4 -—--jrni... 1 in", gra NO 7ff- .. :-;-cr...'er"4.r.,:s•t;NI-741 a. . riltir\‘!.. ."(5-U3r '.i ;.Aliram: in """.., .. ....— • Pr,.. dr 4, ' - ' "in.-a . War'.ue / i fb I . ffroaA,_ T. . nfflgr4 . •... ;,...„ . 6,1-• nut it T tt 7____.. -- or It IIII bid g ---1a ... V, ' —I n... 111 "`••"'"''' ''`'-I ...-Tiell.VCittliitr.--7....•111111.1111‘;111:347-; , •114JIN �!or- is - __ / ♦u ,s 0 1iik- -'ws-1 i i ��7 'O t- 4 - . w _ r,3 1i �i'"' 4L. 1 , • DISK.. 1 , MI a otio ...,tp:a!r -,-;-: LAN? an. r all I I I IM 1....)110 ...... OM- W. f 1 .. - VO. [i'': IC Mill* 1 1 i r i ! 1, 1 1 1 ,,,, : • _ e. i .... C Ali ii4 t' rr� r s CITY OF I7 r 111,° IIIFF.= .1, —...l lne. _PCB -r�l a � �� 71a .m r 1UUIIIIL4_ . PREPARED ffY: ,,,_ --�' CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING DEPT. ,^j. \, -.'��,1�1� REVISED JAM.,IW ' ' � ` i/' em— MP ► �.. .,.E 6 11 !� — 0 •"• i I ,. 7 �. p 1 I I Oil 11 I I fi I March 7, 1988 Joanne Olsen City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms . Olsen: This letter is to verify the request to look at , and change ordinances as needed to incorporate the parcels on the west side of Lake Minnewashta concerning recreational beach lots and canoe racks and docks . Stratford Ridge Development has asked for recreational beach lot , canoe racks for each of the 15 homes in the development and one dock with 3 slips for overnight storage . Those slips would belong to lots 3 , 4 and 5 , block 2 . I feel the present ordinance has overlooked the unique parcels in this area. Stratford Ridge Development has 550 ' of lakeshore in excess of 31 ,000 square feet. On the north side , it is approximately 115 ' deep and the south side is approximately 80 ' deep. The proposed dock is located to the north side , leaving plenty of screening to both neighboring parcels . We also have made great effort , at great expense , to maintain the integrity of the shoreline. We believe our request is very reasonable and should be granted in order for this area to be developed in the high quality fashion that it deserves . Houses should range from $200. 000. 00 to $400 ,000. 00 with the dock and lake usage. Without it , the houses + will most likely range from $100 , 000 . 00 to $200 , 000. 00 in price . Thank you. 4f26 ...c„ Robert Pierce President , Stratford Properties MAR 9 1988 CITY OF CHANHASSEN a Z H U1 4 • Q W Z 0 O W = Y Wa Itch. m U G 6 H 2 Q Q l' W Irs iij �,N (� en �.`eV^ ett�" t .�t1 .t4....,,,, f VI Fs- 1 CD W I Off, 4 { W N Z;I CC rn <I y o0 :Ft': Y co -I <e o S'' , f // (.) ,g 1.1. 0 3 dtlW r 1 s, r � • -Le > _ Li1 ,b1'�K'd H 0 _ .--. Sa zLN1; 5 =J T ti NT } ^ N W SCC Oc o P We�,tt H O., 3N WO 2N r �G a. O �� f WA ta ...I ^ Qa = ¢ 4 uo 4.1 Na �n Q N ‘4' (Ap U Q F Z2 m W V � ....� Q J- CO m U 11.0 2 N � N ac CC e3 vt- N W Q m Q O' V V M M U J pZp O OS Q I . I i 4 6y5Si \� � = OS I • OB . SOW/li .--- n '--�` V A cc'ZS t • O`er 1ti'ifrmsc Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 43 "lr Jack Brambilla : We did send a copy of the Exhibit A which is the whole plot is listed there. Emmings : That ' s not a site plan . Jack Brambilla : I guess we have to go with what we had initially on the site plan. Dacy : As represented in Attachment #2 is what you will be basing your approval on. Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-4 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received March 16 , 1988" for outdoor display of merchandise, specifically landscape products , on property located at 608 Flying Cloud Drive and subject to the following conditions : 1. Compliance with fire code as to the use and location of the fuel storage tanks . 2. The appropriate sign permits must be obtained prior to installation . 3. Display areas shall not encroach on the 25 foot front setback. 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable sewer and sewage disposal code and provide the City with the proper septic tank pumping contracts once every three years starting on the effective date of this conditional use permit . 5. The applicant shall prepare with the city staff an appropriate driveway access plan . 6 . Display of merchandise is restricted to the area indicated on the site plan stamped "Received March 16 , 1988" . The display area is limited within the area designated by the fence and TH 212 . All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and motion carried . Erhart : I 'm opposed for the reasons stated . Emmings: Traffic considerations? Erhart : Safety. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR A DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE. Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 44 Public Present : — Name Address Bernie Hanson • 4125 Thomas Avenue, Minnetonka Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Robert Pierce Applicant Emmings : Again , as a preliminary matter on this one , just as on the first one, I 've got to ask staff if notice went out to all the lakeshore — owners pursuant to the ordinance? Dacy: Notice went out to all of the homeowners associations with recreational beachlots but not the individual riparian owners . Emmings : Then I 'm going to recommend that we do the same thing with this one that we did with the first one. There are people who probably would — come tonight to speak about this . I think they should go ahead and make their comments known and then we should hold open a public hearing and continue it until notice can be given because it is a zoning ordinance — amendment that requires notice to all the property owners abutting the lake pursuant to Section 20-43 . CErhart : Are you sure? In what you' re looking at , requires us to , when — dealing with a specific property proposal , it requires that we notify everyone on that particular lake. Emmings : This is under Division Two, Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance . Erhart: Then we have to notify everyone on all lakes because the zoning ordinance deals with all lakes . Headla : It ' s got to be more than just the lakes . It has to be published . Erhart : Did you publish notification? Dacy: We did the public hearing ad and we prioritize the homeowners association with the beachlots . Emmings : It makes sense with the conditional use permit section . Does it make sense to have it here under the Zoning Ordinance Amendments? Does having this provision , which is in here? Dacy: I really think it ' s a judgment call on the issue. If you want to table it for us to contact everybody, that ' s up to the Commission . Emmings : Let me explain. I live on Lake Minnewashta. I look directly at this property just like I look right across at Red Cedar Cove. I didn ' t know Red Cedar Cove was going in until it went in. My neighbors and I thought gee , it ' s amazing they can do something like that without saying anything to any of us who are directly affected by the project. Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 45 ....r This is 500 feet of the lakeshore on our lake . It ' s right over there to the right where we all look and I got no notice. If I hadn' t been on the Commission , I 'd never would have known this was going on and I know my neighbors didn' t either . Erhart : But we' re not dealing with Red Cedar Cove. Emmings : I 'm aware of that but we' re dealing with this piece of property that ' s closer to me than Red Cedar Cove. Dacy: I do know that the applicant is here. Maybe we could do the same thing that we did on Sunny Slope . Emmings : That ' s what I 'm proposing but now I 'm questioning whether this makes sense on zoning ordinance amendments . It ' s here in the ordinance but I 'm not sure that it makes a lot of sense . It ' s one thing if we ' re talking about a zoning ordinance amendment generally but here we' re doing it really at the instance of a particular developer for a particular piece of property. Even though it would wind up changing the ordinance for all future beachlots , this is coming in from a person who wants to do a specific thing to a specific piece of property and I think at least the lakeshore owners on that lake ought to be here if they want to be . Besides, that' s what the ordinance says . I guess what I would like to do is literally read the ordinance . Go ahead and do everything we can do tonight. Handle it the same way we did the first one and hold the public hearing open . I think there are people who would want to come . Erhart: I 'm not arguing, I agree but what do you want to do? Invite every lakeshore owner? Emmings : Here ' s what they've done . They' ve given notice to the homeowners association, for example Minnewashta Heights probably has one and the ordinance requires them to do that and they did it but they did not do another thing the ordinance requires and that ' s to give every property owner abutting the lake on which the development is going to occur , that same notice. I 'm not in any homeowners association . Minnewashta Lows has no homeowners association. Ellson: So you ' re saying every lakeowner? Emmings : The ordinance says that . Erhart: On what? Emmings : Under public hearing for amendments to the zoning ordinance , it says is a development is proposed adjacent to a lake or will affect the useage of the lake, the applicant shall provide the City with a list of property owners abutting the lake at the time of the application . The City shall provide mailed notice to the lake homeowners as in compliance with the procedures above, which specify the procedures for notifying homeowners associations . Erhart: I didn ' t hear zoning ordinance . Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 46 Emmings : Yes , the whole section in one zoning ordinance amendments . That 's what the whole section is . Batzli : Can I propose that we do table it but we allow the people who have shown up to speak in public hearing , ask the City Attorney to give us an interpretation on what exactly is required and then go through with the appropriate notification procedure? — Emmings : That ' s fine if you think that ' s appropriate. I don ' t know that it needs interpretation but if you feel like it does . Well , let' s go ahead . Is there a staff report? Dacy: I have nothing more to add unless you did want me to go through it. Robert Pierce : I guess I 'm not quite following where we' re at with this process. This is the third time, which has cost thousands to me, that the notices have been out to the wrong people and it ' s getting somewhat tiresome. I guess, where are we going from here with that. Is the City Attorney, is that what ' s going to happen? — Emmings : I don ' t know what the City Attorney is going to say. What I 'm saying is there ' s a provision in our ordinance which says that everybody who lives on the lake gets notice of this meeting so they can have input if they want to . They didn ' t get it . Robert Pierce: Is that Lake Minnewashta? _ Emmings : Yes . Robert Pierce : Okay, so that ' s the only lake we' re concerned with . Is that a month away now? Dacy: No , two weeks . Can I say one thing? We just took the interpreta- -- tion that it was a zoning ordinance amendment that would affect all lakes and that ' s why again , we just notified the homeowners associations . In the case of Sunny Slope, we made a mistake. We should have notified everybody on Lake Riley. In this case , we felt that a homeowners associations with beachlots would be directly affected. You have brought up another side of that concern that we did not look at so that ' s why. Robert Pierce: What ' s done is done. I just want to know to eliminate maybe a problem in the future so we can get it to the next point . At any rate, let me just go through a little bit of what we' re planning here. — I ' ve gone to quite a few meetings so I might get somewhat directly to the high points . We ' re asking for one dock with three overnight storage facilities . The slips would belong to Lots 3, 4 and 5 of the dock. They _ would go with those lots . We' re also asking for a canoe rack. One canoe space for lots in there and there are 15 lots and each one would be allowed just one. We ' re putting the dock on the widest side of the parcel towards the north . We' re leaving basically intact all the trees . — We' ve had them located and we' ve designed our path down to the lake Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 47 around the trees in order to leave as much as possible. The beach area in it's natural state. We are having a sand blanket. We shorten it down from our original proposal considerably. On either end , to the north and to the south, we' re leaving quite an area , basically untouched other than to clean up the area . It gives a lot of a buffer zone to any adjoining properties. Emmings : I don ' t mean to interrupt but I just have a thought that the way down the slope, there was a lot of talk last time you were here about whether it was a ramp or stairs . What is that? Robert Pierce: I guess at this point it doesn ' t really matter to us . We' ll work with staff or whoever might have recommendations . It' s just not a big concern. I think personally the tiered steps may look a little nicer . That would just be my feelings on that but we ' re willing to look at it. I think you' re pretty familiar , we have 550 feet of lakeshore roughly and we' re about 115 feet on the north side and about 80, it ' s slightly narrower in the middle. We' ve moved from the original proposal that we looked at , most everything towards the north . The dilemma we' re having here, the docks allow us to start on our development with a far , far higher caliber of home. If we are able to go ahead with that and market it at thi.s point , we' re going to be looking at homes probably from the $200 , 000 . 00 to $400, 000. 00 range. You can' t market that with the docks and the beach, we ' re going to be reducing , in my feelings, about $100, 000 . 00 per parcel for the finished product. I think it ' s advantageous for all concerned , including the City, to have this area start out in a nice fashion . There ' s a lot of land in the future that the City Planners have brought to your attention. Everyone is probably going to be opening up here over the next , who knows how long . It might be soon, it might be a while but I believe this area is one of the areas that starts off , the flavor will probably carry through onto the other parcels . I think for the City, for tax reasons, this would be a very good idea . Also , it ' s just the same useage as far as overnight storage, as I 'm sure you' re all aware of, one dock with three boats is the same what one single family can have. We' re trying to work with the City and bring our request into line. To step on as few toes and do it in a nice way that we can for everyone concerned . I think as a whole, we' re on very good relationship with people around us . I think we can maintain that. Larry Wenzel : I live just south of that area . I guess I 'm a little confused as to what we ' re doing with this not only just on our lake but all the lakes . Apparently the change is to a requirement which is 100 foot depth by 200 feet in lakeshore to come within the conditional use variety for this type of piece of property. That ' s a lot of land . It seems to me that the overlapping program here is that anybody to utilize that as beachlot has got to be within 1, 000 feet of either that beachlot or waterline, I don' t know which. If you look at that in relation to the size lots , probably 7 families could utilize 20 , 000 square feet . Now, on our particular lake right there, we had a public access that was utilized by the general public and we would have 10 to 20 to 30 cars parked on the street illegally. Nobody did anything about them. Couldn' t get anybody to tag them, move them. They did finally put up signs but that doesn ' t Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 48 17 mean anything . They would unload before dawn and pick up late at night . — Screeching tires and the whole thing. We've got another access just down on Little Joe that ' s about another half a block with the access is a driveway. The quantity of people who can use is unlimited. Then you _ come to the othe side of the coin and you say, if you ' re a landowner or developer or you' re a group of people and you want to utilize it for people that are owners within the area , you have to have all this space. It doesn ' t seem to fit. Something ' s missing here. We do have recreational beachlots on the lake. They are much less impact than a public access. The only reason the public access on our side of the lake was closed is that the park went in on the far side and as soon as you started to charge on the far side, you put boulders in so they'd have to go there to unload . That dramatically dropped the useage of the lake but something ' s not fitting right. — Emmings : What would you like to see the City do on this issue? Larry Wenzel : I don' t think that you can take an overall scale of square — footage or lineal footage and apply it to every condition on every lake because they' re not all the same . The conditions are different . The population on the lake is all different and I don ' t know that you can — just put in a straight ordinance that fits everybody like that. It doesn ' t make sense especially when you ' ve got public accesses and public accesses in some cases are adjacent or very close to what they want to do with the beachlot . Everybody has their own position but this isn ' t fitting right for some reason . I have no objection to the beachlot the way Pierce is laying his out because right there, we' ve got others and they' re more satisfactory than the public access , as far as the landowners that are there or the neighbors . That ' s not a problem but when you start talking about something that ' s all of a sudden is 200 feet by 100 feet or 20,000 square feet and you only get limited amount of _ spaces for utilization , that doesn ' t necessarily make sense either . If you go half a block away and use the public access and run your boat into everybody' s shore and beach it because they can ' t kick you off anyway from the lake. It just doesn ' t make sense. We' re so restrictive on the — guy that owns the property but we ' re not restrictive in the sense of what we do with the public access or the utilization of the lake. That ' s kind of where I 'm coming from. — Emmings : And you ' re expressing support for this plan? Larry Wenzel : I think this plan in this particular area , which affects — me, is great . This might not fit , but I don ' t think for instance if you ' re going to say that he' s got to have 20, 000 square feet, which I think you ' re thinking about the ordinance changing to be, and I 'm not — sure what that is . Emmings : Right now that is the ordinance . It ' s 200 feet of lakeshore with a 100 foot depth. All the way along it is the way right now we' re interpretting it but we' re going to try and clear that up. Larry Wenzel : In some places you ' ve got roads that come down and shorten — that down. — Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 49 - 4: Emmings : I think they looked at that and this is the only place where we've got that situation isn' t it? Dacy: On the west side of Lake Minnewashta . Larry Wenzel : So then that gets amended in that sense or what? Dacy: What ' s being proposed is that the ordinance language is proposed to be amended so that you only have to have 100 feet of lot depth where the dock is going to be located . As long as you meet the area requirement and as long as you meet the lake frontage requirement, if you have 100 feet of lot depth where the dock is located , that ' s the proposal . Larry Wenzel : What if you don ' t have 100 foot anywhere in the section? Dacy: Then you would have to receive a variance. Conrad : Then basically we don ' t want a beachlot there . Emmings: Do you own land between the road and the lake? Larry Wenzel : Yes . Sure . Emmings : And how much frontage do you have? Larry Wenzel : 240 feet and it' s 10. 5 acres total but I 'm already into two front lots. It ' s plotted that way now but that doesn ' t necessary mean that at one point or another , I ' ve got no benefit going either way if I develop because lots on the front that have their own lake property in relation to a series of lots all sharing , I 'm not sure how that value would be accepted. The value of the lot exclusive or jointly but it just seems that all of a sudden we' ve got a situation where there ' s a road that cuts in like that. That road has been there , my house has been there since 1850 and the road was there and all of a sudden things are — changing and it just doesn' t seem right that the ordinance. It doesn' t seem right that these ordinances become so restrictive but it ' s isolated . You can go just a short way away and you ' ve got public accesses where there are no restrictions . That just doesn ' t make a whole heck of a lot of sense . Emmings : Do you have any other comments on this item? Larry Wenzel : No. I 'd rather see $400 , 000. 00 houses than I would $200 ,000 . 00 houses because that helps everybody. If that ' s the type of thing that creates it , I 'm all for it. Conrad moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the public hearing was closed . Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 50 Erhart : Specifically the current ordinance does require that it all has — to be 100 feet so if this thing was 1, 000 feet long and there was one spot in that 1, 000 feet that wasn ' t 100 feet wide, you couldn' t put a dock in? Dacy: Right . Erhart : That seems a little silly doesn ' t it? I think it sounds like a — reasonable thing to do. Did you want to discuss the canoe thing too? Emmings : Give any comments you ' ve got so he gets the benefit. — Erhart: Okay, we' re not going to vote on this tonight then? Emmings : No , we' re going to table it . Erhart : You ' re suggesting that the number of canoe racks simply be left to the judgmental decision at the time the conditional use permit comes — in, is that correct? Dacy: That ' s correct . Erhart: That ' s all I ' ve got . Conrad : I have no problem with changing the amendment . I think that ' s fine. I do think that for canoes, I agree with the concept, I don ' t know why we had limitations on canoes before . I think if we want a million canoes on a property, that ' s fine with me if that' s the way they choose to decorate their beachlot . However , as part of the staff report , it said instead staff recommends that canoe racks be a permitted use in recreational beachlots . The number of canoes to be determined as a part _ of the conditional use permit review. I guess we need some guidelines and therefore I 'm kind of happy we' re tabling this because here somebody' s going to come in with canoe racks that dot the shoreline and I 'm not sure what those guidelines could be Barbara . I started thinking — what they are. I think philosophically I don ' t know that we need to limit the number . Yet on the other hand , to say it ' s going to be a conditional use and we' re going to review it , we should have something that ' s going to guide that review. Otherwise I don ' t want to see it because philosophically I 'd say we could have a million canoes so I don ' t really want to see this unless we have some standards to apply to different situations like the gentleman was describing . I think staff — should do a little bit of analysis on the canoe aspect . Emmings : That brings up another issue too. We call these canoe racks but they store watercraft . They don ' t just store canoes and I don' t know, it looks like you can put sailboards on them, small sailboats , all kinds of things and I don ' t know if we want to get into that but that _ could be another issue. Maybe you want to tie the number of spots to store something on a thing that looks like a canoe rack to the number of houses? Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 51 -4r Wildermuth : Didn ' t you say that somewhere Barbara? Didn ' t you try to equate the number of residents in the beachlot association with the number of available racks? Dacy: That would be one idea because that is being proposed by the applicant. That' s fine. I think maybe in the term canoe racks , maybe we should change that language regarding to that section to be storage of non-motorized watercraft because Mr. Chairman , you ' re right, it' s canoes . It' s sailboats and sailboards. Emmings : What about a 15 foot aluminum boat, rowboat? Dacy: That ' s fine . Emmings : As long as it doesn ' t have a motor on it , they could go on there too right? Conrad : That I get real interested in because that ' s a whole different animal we ' re talking about. Batzli : Isn ' t the distinction made by the people that license watercraft in the State of Minnesota? Whether you need numbers on the side or — whether you just need like the sailboat and sticker on the side? r Wildermuth: They all need numbers . Batzli : No , they just need the sticker on the side. Conrad: Yes, your sailboats and canoes just need stickers . Batzli : You might look into that as being able to make some sort of distinction based on the State ' s definition of that. The recommended language for the amendment to the dock section , I would strongly recommend that you don' t include the language where the dock is proposed to be located but actually where it is located . I am assuming you want the dock to be located at the 100 foot depth, correct? Dacy: Yes . Batzli : So you don ' t want that to be where the dock is proposed to be but where it actually is located. My second comment would be that I would prefer that there be some, taking Tim' s comment , that if you had 1, 000 feet of lakeshore and only one foot didn' t have the 100 foot depth, change around to have 999 feet of it as 2 feet deep and you ' ve got 1 foot of it that extends back 8 billion feet so you get the required square footage . I 'd like to see that there be some minimum amount having the 100 foot depths still . At least as a minimum. For instance, how much land has to be on either side of the dock? Emmings : The setback? The side setback? Batzli : Do you know what that is? Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 52 C Dacy: There is a "dock setback" but I can ' t recall what that is right — off the top of my head. Batzli : Since it ' s being tabled , I guess I 'd look at something like that — and I assume it' s going to be 10 feet or 15 feet and double that so that you have a minimum 100 foot depth of 20 or 30 feet . If you look at it and you don' t like it, I ' ll still probably recommend something like that next time. Wildermuth : I think that ' s a good idea . I think Brian ' s comment is a very good one. I think maybe the distinction and the criteria for a — canoe rack ought to be something along the guidelines that he was talking about with the number requirements or just the sticker requirement. That might be the way to describe that . Headla : I like what Pierce has proposed . I certainly support it . I think the 200 foot and the 100 foot dimensions are purely arbitrary. I think it ' s ludicrous that you should try to stop one fellow because he — doesn' t have 100 feet. You automatically stop him from getting a beachlot . I have yet to hear any rationale , whatsoever , what ' s so magic about 100 feet? Why is 100 feet better than 50 feet? Why isn' t it 200 — feet or 300 feet deep? Until I hear that logic , you ' re cutting off somebody. Pierce has to screw around with us for how long just because we ' re using an arbitrary number of feet on the depth . I think that ' s — unacceptable. This isn ' t a day where we just arbitrarily put any number and say, that ' s good , let ' s fly with it . I think we really got to take a look at it. If you want to tie square foot per person per lot, I think that has some value . I hear a lot of opinions on this but damn it , why — doesn' t somebody go to somebody like Pleasant Acres and look at it . They' ve got a big area , how much of it is really used? They' ve got a road down there and they probably use 30 to 40 feet of it and they' ve got — a volleyball court , they have a catamaran , a boat there , two satellites , that' s the area that they really use. Emmings : Two satellites? — Headla: 30 or 40 feet from the lake . Emmings : Have they been there all the time because those are not permitted on beachlots . Headla : That ' s another thing , they should permit them. It ' s ridiculous we don' t have them. Emmings : If I didn ' t know better I 'd think you owned land between the road and the lake too Dave. You sound like those guys . Headla : The requirement of no cars , I think that ' s an excellent requirement and that' s got to stay. That ' s going to stop a lot of people from using it . Emmings : The only comment I ' ve got is I think he ' s got a very nice planamml here. I like Brian' s comment that the dock setback, at least the area of Planning Commission Meeting April 6 , 1988 - Page 53 - C the dock setback and maybe double ought to be the minimum area that has to be 100 feet. That ' s something that we should look at. This plan I think fits this property very well . I think it would be ridiculous to wind up with a result here where we denied all the people living right across the road from that shoreline , the ability to get down to the lake. I think it ' s a very minimal impact on the lake. I look at this. I 'm directly affected by it and it doesn ' t bother me at all . I think it' s a good plan. Conrad : It ' s a great use of a beachlot . It ' s a classic for what you want to do. Emmings : The problem with the beachlot thing to me is , if everybody could bring in a plan and say, this is what we want to do, I think we wouldn' t have any trouble saying yes , this one ' s good and that one ' s bad but we wind up with more litigation over beachlots probably than any other issue for the simple reason that it ' s just impossible to try and define a set of standards that we can apply. That ' s an objective set of standards that we can carry from one beachlot to the next. That ' s the problem. We' re all bending over backwards trying to get this one approved because it makes sense and we' re going to do everything we can, I think is what I hear and is the way I feel about it, to get this one approved . Unfortunately we can ' t write a standard like that . We ' ll approve it if we like it and we won' t if we don ' t . Robert Pierce : The only thing is I am anxious in the economic climate to start marketing them and I ' ve been a little hesitant to do that . It ' s very hard to market them saying we ' re going to have a dock here . I 'm in the process that looks good. People say, well call me back later . I guess that ' s where I 'm coming from and maybe we' re closer here . Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-263 (6 & 7) of the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance until the proper notification has been done. All voted in favor and motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING : CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 5 AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT PARK (JUST WEST OF MGM BUILDING) FOR BERNIE HANSON FOR THE FOLLOWING USES TO BE LOCATED IN A 19 , 048 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING: A. SMALL VEHICLE SALES B. OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE C. SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE D. AUTOMOTICE SERVICE CENTER .. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 4 Batzli. moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend — denial of Conditional Use Permit #84-6 for a recreational beachlot on Lot 37 of Shore Acres . All voted in favor and motion carried . F PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR A DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE. Public Present: Name Address Robert Pierce Applicant — Richard and Ann Zweig 3601 Ironwood Road Annalee Hanson 6400 Greenbriar Avenue Zoe Bros 6631 Minnewashta Parkway — Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Ray Roettger 3221 . Dartmouth Drive Mr . and Mrs. Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Stephen C. Slaq Lake Susan Steve Burke 340 Deerfoot Trail Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . — Zoe Bros : I 'm curious to know, someone has claimed that there is 50 feet — of property there. Depth . I live just a bit north of this property. I 'm contesting the fact that there ' s no land there. That there isn ' t any beach area . Emmings: I think the map that was presented to us showed a 100 feet on the north end from between the lake and the road . I don ' t know whether it' s there or not but that ' s what they showed us . I assume she ' s talking — about Stratford Ridge. What end wasn ' t there a 100 feet? Dacy: According to the half section maps that we have, this distance _ from here to here is 100 feet. The property owner is here also . Robert Pierce : I might just say that the survey that we had done are done by Schoell and Madsen who are a very reputable firm. They shoot the elevations , the water levels , they know the mean water level and shoot all that. I would be willing to say that their data is correct, probably within inches . Dacy: It is not 100 feet all the way down. In one certain area it ' s a 100 feet and then it tapers down. Zoe Bros : How do you propose to get to this property? To this beach? Robert Pierce: What we have here is a walkway. We' re planning on — putting a walkway, either steps or a slope down using timbers and we ' ve Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 5 designed it in such a way that we eliminate the need for removing any trees. We' ve put a lot of thought into trying to leave the bank and the area along the beach there about as natural as possible and to work our walkway around the trees. Our intent is to pretty much leave the vegetation intact. Basically bring in a sand blanket because it shows on the plan, I don ' t know if you can see but stretching from about here down to here. Cleaning it up and just making it look nice and leaving the majority of the front in it' s natural state. We have roughly 550 feet there and we' re only using approximatley 100 or plus feet . Zoe Bros: For 15 families? Robert Pierce: Yes . Zoe Bros : Well , I really dispute Schoell and Madsen. I was there today and there' s no 100 feet. Richard Zweig : We live on the north side of Lake Minnewashta . I haven ' t been down there and measured. I drive by there fairly regularly but the question that I would ask , and I 'm not necessarily going to doubt the survey but what I will say is that measured 100 feet from where the slope goes down and then goes out to the lake or are we maybe talking 100 feet up to the road because there' s a big difference there. You 've got a hill sloping away, you might be talking 25 feet out before you actually get to the base of that hill and then towards the lake so that would be my question . What does 100 feet really mean? Robert Pierce: I would assume that it ' s taken from the right-of-way from Minnewashta Parkway. Richard Zweig : I think that ' s probably where you don 't see the 100 feet and I don ' t know that I would either if I went over there. I don ' t know what that amount would be , I 'd have to go and measure it but that makes a very small area then. You ' re not going to cut a bank straight down and out. Zoe Bros : Most of i.t is straight up and down. Robert Pierce: You might say that the right-of-way that is given to Minnewashta , which the measurements have probably been taken off of, is much wider than that. The asphalt that you see there. Zoe Bros : I don ' t know what you ' re saying. Richard Zweig: For further widening of the road, is that what you ' re saying? Robert Pierce : No . When you dedicate a city road, not correct me if I 'm wrong, it ' s 50 normally but I 'm not sure, Minnewashta might be 60 foot right-of-way? Dacy: It ' s 66 feet wide, the right-of-way is . The 100 distance is a horizontal distance measured on the map. You ' re absolutely correct. A Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 6 significant part of that distance is a sloped area . That ' s not in — dispute. We use the horizontal distance just as we measure lot width or lot depth and that' s part of the issue that the Commission will discuss . Richard Zweig : I see that as a real problem if you ' re going to start giving variances . If that variance was flat land , now you might be talking one game but if you see that piece of property, you' ll know exactly what she' s talking about . There isn ' t very much that ' s down in — the slope. Conrad : Let me just jump in a little bit . The reason we have a depth — requirement, there are two reasons . One, we want room for people to use it. We' re concerned with safety. If you put a bunch of people on 12 feet of depth, there are some problems . That' s one of the reasons. The _ other reasons we do want it buffered from any neighbors . We want beachlots buffered so that you ' re not abutting a house and affecting them. In this particular case , and we' re looking at the general issue, you ' re obviously very interested in the specific and I understand that ,we have to be real concerned with what this ordinance says in general because other folks will want to take advantage of whatever we do . In this particular case however , because you have the buffer of the street , — we' re really not impacting the immediate neighbors so that issue in my mind is not there . The issue that is there in my mind is there really enough room for people to be on that beachlot? Is there enough room to satisfy their particular needs and uses of that? I think that ' s key. — That 's important here but it' s also important that we make sure that our ordinance considers that aspect of use . We just want there to be enough area for it to be an active area if there' s a beachlot . Anyway, I just — wanted to jump in on that thought . Ray Roettger : . . .has an excellent point . We come here and I think we may be against something just because we look at the piece of property so I think what could happen is it should be defined very well for us . These people maybe are used to looked at this stuff . Are you talking about the road right-of-way that Schoell and Madsen submitted . . .? Robert Pierce : To be very honest , I couldn ' t answer that question . Ray Roettger : You should know that is exactly what you ' re talking about . The others , you drawing lines , as Barb confirmed , a horizontal line goes from Point A to Point B but if that line is at a diagonal , you can have 100 feet and end up really with 100 feet along the property line and end — up with 10 foot of depth . The ordinance, is it 100 feet along the property line or is it 100 feet of depth perpendicular to the this particular line? Conrad : Barbara , are you comfortable that when we say 100 feet , it ' s obviously perpendicular to something . Do you feel we have that control? _ Do we think we know the specifications well enough? Dacy: The ordinance even states that the beachlot has to be 200 feet in width along the lake frontage and the depth shall be measured 100 feet -' back from the perpendicular line along the edge of the lake. Typically Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 7 how you would measure it , if this is the shoreline, we' ll measure 200 feet this way and 100 feet deep. Zoe Bros : Are you talking the edge of the water or the high water mark? Dacy: The ordinary high water mark as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources . Zoe Bros : Because we have low water right now. Dacy: Right , when they submit a survey they' ll indicate where that elevation is . In the case of Lake Minnewashta I think it ' s elevation MPS 945 so we look for that elevation and take our distances from that . Ray Roettger : You see my point . The property line there is running at quite an angle to that road and I 'm just saying if that 100 foot is taken at an angle. Conrad : No , it would be perpendicular to the water . Barbara , maybe you better help. I guess I can ' t interpret what the ordinance says . Dacy: If this is the property lines here , you can measure perpendicular to here. That ' s how you can measure it. If there ' s a dispute as to whether or not this is 100 feet or whatever , I determined that 100 feet oased on measuring from the half section map. The issue is , and not only in this case but in any other case that might occur , is the Commission and City Council satisfied with the 100 feet in depth? If you ' re not , then you have the option to change it . _ Conrad : But for this gentleman, what you just said , we ' re not really concerned with the lot line . We ' re not running it parallel to the lot line. We ' re running i.t perpendicular to the high water mark. That' s what I understand Barbara to be telling us , right? So that should satisfy your concern. Ray Roettger : No , they' re really not the same question . We' re not just talking about this property but we ' re talking about. . .and we' re talking about changing the ordinance . I think how that is defined , the depth, if you could get the condition i.n there . . . I think there ' s a lot of _ variation there . A lot of variation in depth . Conrad: How would you respond to that? Do you still feel that the way we measure that , how many feet is adequate Barbara? Dacy: It ' s up to the Commission. That ' s the way we 've been measuring it. If you want to further define it in the ordinance , that ' s fine . Robert Pierce: I feel like there is more than ample road down there for 15 families . I think when you ' re looking at 15 families using it the likelihood on any given day that you have 15 families on that is really would be very unusual . If it happens it would probably be on the 4th of July and even then , I doubt you would have all 15 families down there. There' s a lot of room on that frontage. People who would be using it Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 8 wouldn ' t all be concentrated in one area either . They' d be moving �. around. I think it will be a really nice frontage . Richard Zweig : How many docks are you looking to build? Robert Pierce: We ' re looking for right now, one dock with three slips that will be for Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 1 . The ones that face on Minnewashta Parkway. That ' s the same useage for a dock that you would have allowed by a single family home. You can have one dock with three boats on it. We ' re asking for one dock with three boats. Three boats for overnight storage. We have roughly a development of around 9 acres .We feel that ' s a real light use of the beach. The useage of the lake uown, the canoe racks , that type of useage that would be very easily handled on the lake. Richard Zweig : How many canoe racks and how many canoes? Robert Pierce : What we ' re looking for is one canoe rack , which is what we had requested , one canoe rack per lot which would be 15 canoes or maybe 15 sailboats or something like that . Sailboards . Richard Zweig : But they would definitely be non-motorized. They could not have a motor put on them. Robert Pierce: That ' s the way I understand it . Richard Zweig : There wouldn ' t be a rowboat on the rack and somebody brings a 25 horse motor down and things like that? —_ Robert Pierce : That ' s what I understand . Also , I think that if I understood it before that these are racks are designed to fit certain sizes of watercraft . Richard Zweig : The regulation is such that it is non-motorized . That ' s what I want perfectly clear in my mind . —. Conrad : That ' s right . Steve Slaq: I have some property on Lake Susan . The question I have is , what about the . . . Robert Pierce : No building . Steve Slaq: Because there is a qualification on a 75 foot setback. Steve Burke: Are we discussing the recreational beachlot ordinance amendment or discussing his particular one? Conrad : Well, his particular one is bringing the amendment to the forefront . We are talking the amendment . Steve Burke: Okay, because most of the discussion is not germain to your ordinance . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 9 Conrad : We ' re using it as a case study to make sure that we can modify the amendment properly. Steve Burke : Let me ask a question then . As you know, I 'm with Sunny Slope, why don' t you leave the ordinance exactly the way it stands and require them, this developer to come in with a variance request and let the City Council determine whether or not they wish to allow a variance to the 100 foot depth then it ' s not your decision , it ' s the Council decision. The other part of your amendment is to change the canoe rack and give the discretion to the City Council . Now when we made the provision we were told, I was wondering, this recreational beachlot seems to be amended every time a new developer comes in and instead of asking that developer to come in with variances, I 'm just wondering what is moving the Council to consider amending the whole ordinance rather than requiring just a variance application and then letting the Council react to that. Conrad : I ' ll try to answer that . Variances are really tough to handle . We prefer not to have variances because they' re hard to document the why' s and the wherefore ' s . If you grant a variance to one , then pretty soon everybody is there looking for a similiar type variance and you really do need some good rationale to document that variance and the reasons you granted that . When we see, as a Planning Commission, a case where the ordinance can be revised because in concept the original ordinance may not have been perfect and we can see some modifications to it so we don ' t have to go through a variance process , we' d much prefer that. As long as the intent of the ordinance is being upheld, we ' re going to modify that ordinance so that i.t can incorporate uniquenesses . There are a lot of numbers in ordinances and we find that they tend to be arbitrary in many cases but we do have some standards , we do have an intent of the ordinance that we ' re trying to uphold and if we can make sure that that intent is still being upheld , we can see , like i.n this particular case, where in my personal opinion, the intent of the ordinance is being upheld . We are protecting the neighbors . We are protecting the people that are using the land . There is plenty of land , when we talk about this , there is plenty of land for a recreational beachlot. It ' s a classic case of a good beachlot. It ' s what beachlots are intended to serve and in this case , the ordinance had some numbers in it that may be didn ' t ever consider this type of situation. I think in my mind , I 'm setting a precedent if we , as a group, decide to change it, we' re setting a precedent that I 'd feel real comfortable that we could carry forth and have future developments come in and be acceptable under this particular change. Steve Burke : I don ' t disagree with your statement that that particular beachlot is, I think is probably a good one. I 'm not contending that it ' s bad but it seems to me that that one is a classic for granting a variance in that you ' ve got the road and you can' t make the lot any deeper than what it is without realigning the road so if your variance , through the process you can say the reason i.t was necessary to grant a variance for this one was we couldn ' t realign the road . But when you have a developer that comes in and buys a whole bunch, if you change the ordinance and if your intent is to have depth to beachlots and you have a Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 10 developer coming in and buying a large tract of land and placing his road , now you' re allowing him to have a narrower beachiot by just changing the ordinance and he can realign his road wherever he wants it to be on undeveloped property whereas this developer , it would seem to me that he should get a variance . If you ' re addressing that particular one, if you don' t change your ordinance, you ' re going to have to come in with a variance and I would say that the City Counci.l is probably going to look favorably on it because they' re probably not going to require the developer to realign the road because he can realign it on his property but he can' t. . . Conrad : You make a good argument . Steve Burke: My statement was , what you ' re looking at in your beachlot ordinance and if you ' re allowing it to become narrower and narrower, from my perspective , from Sunny Slope , the ordinance was established in 1982 was one thing and we ' ve been trying to work and we' re still trying and everytime we turn around it seems that the City Council , for every developer that comes in, is willing to modify, the Vern Gagne property and you said they aren ' t putting very many people within 1, 000 square feet so let ' s make a rural and urban beachiot and you expanded and liberalized your language. Now another developer comes in and it seems to me that a variance would handle this much better and you ' re ready to, it seems from our perspective , at a drop of the hat, a new developer comes in, sure we ' ll change it for you. I don ' t know if this is the impetus for the City to consider a change to the ordinance , I would recommend that the City Council not change the oridinance but ask the developer to come in with a variance because I think the City Council looks very favorably, . . . to meet the intent of the beachlot ordinance and there ' s a real hardship. Zoe Bros : I still maintain that there isn ' t 100 feet there. Steve Burke: The question i.s not whether or not there' s 100 feet . Zoe Bros : He keeps on saying this i.s a good example , it ' s not . Steve Burke: But they' re not ruling on his development . Conrad : We' re making a statement that 100 feet should be there , where the dock is placed . That ' s what we' re looking at. If there isn ' t 100 feet, their application would not be accepted . We ' re not ruling on their application. We ' re looking at the ordinance in general . Larry Wenzel : I kind of agree with the gentleman that this particular instance, the fact that because of the road and the fact that the square footage , even if he only had 50 feet , still is way in excess of the ordinance as far as the number of square foot per house. It doesn ' t seem to me that other than the fact , probably roughly four properties in which there is going to be somebody, at least 100 feet away, as a buffer comes into play in this particular instance because people don ' t , from a practical standpoint, the use from the beach , they don ' t sit 100 feet away from the water . They' re up high and if you went to the beach and Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 11 you can only get within 100 feet you wouldn ' t go there anyway so that doesn' t make a whole lot of sense. I guess , I had some other questions -- that may not necessarily in relation to this particular property but the ordinance . . .and that is with lake property and the way it meanders , when you' re working with a depth and then you come along and say well , the dock is going to be at the deepest point of that lot at 100 feet and the way lots are joined , it seems to me that what you ' re pushing is for docks to be put in a specific position on a lot line where therefore you get a concentration of docks from property to property more so than spreading them out. The other thing is as those things , and I don' t think that that ' s necessarily a good practical thing to have happen from a utilization standpoint. The other thing is , if you ' re allocating where that dock goes from the depth of the property in relation to where the landowner or the people would want it in relation to what the beachfloor is , the floor on the bottom of the lake, you might have to put your dock up in an area that was marshy where you don' t have a proper beach with respect to x number of feet over where you ' ve got a bottom that ' s beautiful so that doesn ' t make a lot of sense. The next thing is that , if you' ve got the beachlot and there are x amount of dock spaces for boats and I. don ' t know the law today but it seems to me that property will come into the water 10 feet from the existing water mark so that if the water drops , the landowner can still go out 10 feet if the water rises. You still have access to the lake. You can ' t lose your access to the lake. Then enters another situation as to whatever that is , 5 feet or 10 feet , whatever turns from private property to public water . Whatever the state laws and who controls the mooring of boats if they' re properly identified and requested in public waters? So if you say you can only have two boats on this property, why wouldn' t five people moor their boats in public waters because you ' re restricting their normal dockage? Just by putting it in public waters , you have basically no control . That would create even a greater problem, it would seem to me , as far as the water useage of getting in and out. Especially if you ' re in a restricted area . You could have a particular beachlot that would have the 100 foot depth and 200 foot width and x number of people using it according to the ordinance of 4 foot per home and the square footage rate. All of a sudden you have x number of boats moored out in open water in front of that piece of property and now you ' ve got another problem. Conrad : How do we regulate the rights for mooring Barbara? Dacy: The ordinance regulates overnight storage. It says that no more than three boats can be stored overnight at the dock. At any lake there is a public, I shouldn ' t say any lake in Chanhassen but at Lake Minnewashta , at Lotus Lake there is a public access . People can launch their boats through that public access and yes, outside of the beachlot , maybe 100 feet on the lake, you could have 5 or 6 boats there skiing , fishing or whatever . The ordinance regulates overnight storage. The ordinance also regulates the number of sailboat moorings that can be located off of a beachlot . The term overnight is defined from a period from 2 : 00 a .m. to 5 : 00 a .m. in the morning . The lake i.s public water and people can operate their boats , if they' re licensed by the Carver County Boat Patrol enforces the license as well as DNR so the key for the Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 12 beachlot ordinance is the overnight storage at the dock. — Larry Wenzel : You still haven ' t answered, who controls the public waters . Dacy: The DNR and Carver County Boat Patrol . Larry Wenzel : I guess the question is, what is the rule on. . . Conrad : If you didn ' t own lakeshore , you could not moor your boat in the lake . Dacy: And conversely, if you were a member of his subdivision and wanted to use the lake, you would go to the Lake Minnewashta area , you can boat around the entire lake . You could come to that beachlot dock. Play on the beachlot but if he was not authorized to store that boat overnight , you ' d have to take it back out through the boat access . Larry Wenzel : Okay but how do they handle on Calhoun for instance? Batzli : That ' s Hennepin County Sheriff that patrols Lake Calhoun. — Larry Wenzel : Who has the actual control over the public water and that ' s what I don ' t understand . Conrad: The DNR does . Larry Wenzel : Okay, what i.s their ruling as far as mooring a boat in — public water? Do you have to be a landowner to moor you boat in public water? I don ' t think you do . I think as long as the boat is properly identified as far as traffic hitting it , especially at night with the reflectors , it can be moored . Batzli : I don ' t believe that ' s right . I won ' t disagree with you because I don ' t know that ' s a fact but I 'm under the impression that there are definite rules about where and when you can moor various objects and I think that you can not just go moor a boat in public waters. I would wager small sums of money that you can ' t do that . — Conrad : I 'm sure you can ' t but what ' s your point? We ' re not really talking about mooring boats tonight . Is this relevant to anything? Larry Wenzel : I 'm worried about if you regulate too constrictively what people can store on the property. . . Conrad : We ' re generalizing tonight . We ' re not restricting . We' re opening it up . Batzli : Your point though is that if we restrict it too far , they will merely moor their boats off-shore and you believe have created a different problem. Larry Wenzel : Sure , why wouldn ' t they and now you 've got a different Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 13 problem which is a bigger problem than the one you started with. I don ' t know what the rules are. Dacy: The City also has a water surface useage ordinance which applies to this lake. I can provide a copy of that to you. That has not been an issue during previous ordinance amendments . Conrad : The moorings on a beachlot, we do have restrictions on how many boats can be moored . Now I 'm going to say this tongue in cheek a little bit but the DNR, I assume that ordinance has been reviewed and the State finds it satisfactory so we are controlling the number of moorings on a beachlot. However, there have been recent cases when we found that maybe in the wetlands case where we didn ' t have authority. Headla: I think that' s the key thing there. We didn ' t have authority and I really question on the moorings. Conrad : Interesting to follow up, however I don ' t want to get hung up on that one issue tonight . I think we' re looking at some other things . I think we will follow up your comments because they' re of interest and I think we ' ll direct staff to help us struggle through that at some point in the future. Barbara , can you do that? Mary Jo Moore : I would recommend if you ' re going to make any adjustments in the ordinance, that the 100 foot depth be useable land at a maximum elevation . The property that has brought this before the Council i.s not 100 feet of useable land . It ' s not even 80 feet . There ' s a very steep embankment with very little flat ground . I think there should be an elevation requirement. Conrad : But remember the 100 feet i.s really a buffer . It ' s a buffer and right now you 've got a hill and a road as a buffer so in this particular case . . . Mary Jo Moore : It ' s not a buffer , it ' s whether they can actually use that land for a recreational beachlot which means a swimming beach , canoes . Conrad : You ' re right . They have hundreds of feet on the lake where in this particular case where they can use it . Mary Jo Moore : You have to pin down that number too . Conrad : It ' s something we have to resolve in our minds . Even 50 feet, how wide is this room? 50 feet? 60 feet? Is that enough to put 12 families? You' ll never get 12 families down there at one time but, by — chance if they did go, is that enough room? More than likely. Mary Jo Moore: If it was useable land . Conrad : Let ' s say they only have 50 feet down there but I guess that ' s something we have to resolve up here. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 14 Mary Jo Moore : . . . instance where we have this measurement of land , I am — next to an outlot, on this lot they' ve got 60 feet of lakeshore. However , the land is at an angle and 60 feet is out into the water . Actual lakeshore is 30 feet. Now it depends on what measurements you use right? — If you ' re going to take Schoell and Madsen ' s with 60 feet of lakeshore, let ' s go out here. . . As far as a canoe rack goes, I think that should definitely be restricted to the number of families that are using the lot as opposed to how many docks you can have. . . Mrs . Wenzel : You ' re looking at this on a square footage basis and 400 square feet for each of the 15 houses, he could have a strip 12 feet wide — by his 550 feet long and it would still be adequate for those 15 houses . It' s still that much square footage. Conrad : And your point is? Mrs . Wenzel : My point is that it doesn ' t make , if you ' re going to make it 100 feet wide, then it could be less length. He has 550 feet in — length and it could be 12 feet wide by the 550 and that would meet the requirements for 15 , 000 square feet. Zoe Bros : Last spring there would not have been any property there at all . Robert Pierce : I guess I ' d have to totally disagree . Every time I ' ve been down there and I have gone down there, I ' ve taken my kids down and there used to be a dock there and there hasn ' t been for a period of time since they moved out and it ' s been used and all I can say is , on this — particular project and maybe some of the other projects coming along that way, I don ' t believe that when they made the ordinance that they were able to look at every type of useage . We ' ve worked very hard to watch the impact on the neighbors , the impact on the lake and feel that we' re doing a good job and our request is extremely reasonable . Ray Roettger : I live on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta and I know — exactly what she ' s talking about because it ' s a piece of property that ' s defined by Schoell and Madsen Engineers . It was surveyed in 1960 or thereabouts . There is no more land there . It was surveyed , stakes — pounded in, dredged and it has it down something like 35 feet. I 'm kind of, with my engineering background and I ' ve done some surveying , Barb ' s defined the horizontal marks but I can make you a sketch on that board _ and I think you ' ll see what the problem is that I 'm talking about . If you took a piece of property like this and there ' s a road there and you took an exaggerated deal like this and the property just happens was laid out someway and you met these requirements but this dimension here is 10 — feet. If this dimension becomes long enough or thi.s dimension , depending on how you measure it , along the shore, you can get a very minimum dimension here and I think that ' s what your ordinance should take a look at. What the minimum depth is perpendicular to this surface. Conrad : Staff is telling us that that ' s how they do it. That ' s what _ I heard our staff say. Staff is not saying we do that. Staff is saying we measure it perpendicularly from. . . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 15 Ray Roettger : Can you tell us then what that minimum dimension is? Conrad : That' s what we' re looking at tonight . Headla : That really isn ' t pertinent now. We' re talking about the _ ordinance, not approving that particular one. Ray Roettger : But that should be put into the ordinance though . Conrad: There are some good points being brought up and I appreciate them all . Anything else? — Richard Zweig : What are we amending this to? If you ' re talking about amending this thing, I agree with this gentleman over here. I don ' t think you should ever change the ordinance and that there should be a variance but what is it being amended to? Conrad : The beachlot ordinance . Richard Zweig : From what to what? What size? Conrad : Right now we ' re looking at two things . We' re saying the minimum requirement depth wise is 100 feet all the way through the beachlot. The recommendation or the thought that we' re reviewing is , it doesn ' t have to be 100 feet all the way through. Only at the dock. That ' s what we ' re looking at . Richard Zweig : So in other words, the amendment is up to the Council , it ' s up to the Planning Commission to decide whether or not the 100 feet is necessary. You ' re not going down to 75 or you ' re not going down to , it ' s on a case by case basis? — Conrad : No . There are a lot of situations , if we change it , the 100 feet is an absolute. It ' s easy to measure. It ' s easy to look at . We can always tell . If we change it , there are other situations where one end of the beachlot could be 10 feet and where the dock is it could be '- 100 feet and that ' s the only -place where we have 100 feet and we may not have a good beachlot. That ' s the situation that we 'd have to consider that might roll in . I 'm very confident that this particular ordinance as we' re looking at it and the changes to the language would , this particular request that we ' re not looking at tonight but as an example , I 'm comfortable that this request is not abusing the ordinance and any change that we' re looking at wouldn ' t have an impact . However , in the future is what we ' re looking at . We' ve got to be real comfortable that we ' re not changing the language where we get a different set of circumstances that we didn ' t anticipate. And maybe, as some people have brought up, maybe the variance in this case might be the way to fly. Mary Jo Moore: My understanding was that a variance request was put through on this property and everything was approved but the dock. Dacy: That' s correct. The applicant filed a variance. The City Attorney' s opinion was that the City should not consider a variance for Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 16 that particular case . The applicant consequently filed the zoning — ordinance amendment application . Mary Jo Moore : So in this case , his variance was approved except for the — dockage? Dacy: No , no variance was approved . His conditional use permit to allow a recreational beachlot was without a dock . Mary Jo Moore : Okay, so then because the dock was denied he comes through on a request to change the ordinance so he doesn ' t need a permit to get the variance? Conrad : He 'd like to have a dock and we ' re just taking a look at the _ ordinance to see if that ordinance was too hard and didn ' t consider all the circumstances . We' re looking at this one but we' re really looking at the ordinance. He' s obviously interested in changing it so he doesn' t need a variance and we ' re obviously not proned to having variances . We — really don ' t like variances because they' re hard to defend and we want to make sure that if we change this ordinance that it ' s in the right direction. Mary Jo Moore : But I don ' t think it should be self serving . Conrad : It ' s not . We ' re not doing it for him. We ' re smart enough to know we ' re doing it for whoever comes i.n and applies and that ' s why we ' re looking at it right now. We' re looking at it to see if our intent of the ordinance is being upheld and will be upheld in future beachlots that are — applied for . Ann Zweig : All I want to say is what happened to the residential lots that have been denied docks then? There are also those on the north side and west side . Conrad : It has nothing to do with beachlots . We ' re looking only at — beachlots . Ann Zweig: This is a beachlot . Residental neighborhood group , 15 — families that have a beachlot. Is that what we' re looking at? Conrad : If they have been denied and we changed the ordinance , they can come back in and apply. Richard Zweig : Don ' t change the ordinance . Ann Zweig : Then we get lots of docks . Conrad : No . I think you ' re wrong on that . The ordinance is very restrictive and you don ' t get lots of docks . You simply don' t get lots of docks . _ You may get one and if they have enough frontage you may get two. What is it Barbara , after every 200 feet , for every 200 feet additional you may be a dock? And that ' s less dockage than most —' residential people have on the lake. That ' s less dockage so you ' re not Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 17 getting lots of docks . I don ' t want you to think that we' re out here granting docks Willy Hilly. It ' s quite restrictive. Batzli : How many beachlots are there anyway? Conrad: On all lakes? Batzli : On the lakes that they' re concerned about . How many beachlots are there on your lake? Dacy: There' s at least 5 or 6. Batzli : Do we know if we change the ordinance how it would affect those beachlots? Dacy: The existing beachlots would be grandfathered in as they are now. Batzli : I know but if they were denied a dock before under the old rules and if the rules are relaxed under the new ordinance, would there be any additional docks? Dacy: There has not been any other recreational beachlot request on Lake Minnewashta since I ' ve been here so I don ' t know what ones they' re referring to that ' s been denied . Richard Zweig : There are some there without docks . There are some there without docks right now and that ' s why when you relax the ordinance , rather than keep the ordinance , I 'm don ' t know why, I 'm not a city planner and I don' t know why you don' t give variances but it seems to me that you would keep a rule sound rather than amending that and then go for a variance . I don ' t have a problem with this plan . That ' s not what I 'm having a problem with. I 'm satisfied here but I don ' t like the idea of amending an ordinance rather than doing a variance because there are some beachlots, I know one in particular and I know the people who do this , that ' s on the northwest shore and they have no dock now and I 'm sure they've got enough, I was going to maybe they've got 200 feet , I don ' t know, but if the ordinance is changed , they may just come in and say we had a beachlot before but now we want a dock with 2 or 3 boats. I think that ' s a real problem. Conrad : And why would that be a problem? _ Richard Zweig : Because there are no boats there now and they were not authorized to have any before. I just don ' t understand . I think the rule that ' s up here is great that ' s set up now and I think that if he ' s granted a variance, I can see where that makes sense but why amend what ' s already there , which is very good and leave it that way and then have him file for a variance on that? Like you say, I don ' t see a problem with that . There ' s all kinds of square footage there . He ' s only asking for three boats. Why is the City wanting to do that? I 'm at a loss . Like I say, I 'm not a city planner but I don ' t understand . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 18 Ann Zweig : What would be the language of the ordinance? What are you — changing it to? Conrad : We don ' t know. That ' s what we' re trying to decide . The concept _ would be, we maintain the 100 feet but only where the dock is placed , with or without some other comments . The current language says you have to have 100 feet throughout the beachlot . We ' re considering having that 100 feet be maintained only where the dock is placed so the rest of the beachlot could go down to less footage and depth . Ray Roettger : Sir , I 'm going to have to insist on that location of that — dock at a 100 foot depth , you can force someone to put a dock in the worse possible location on that piece of property. I don ' t think the dock really would be significant as to where that depth would occur . _ Would it not be better to go to some minimum depth anywhere on the property? Conrad : Here ' s what you have for a beachlot ordinance . You have 200 — frontage feet . You ' ve got to have the 200 feet and you have to have 30 , 000 total square feet . Dacy: 30 , 000 for the first dock and 20 , 000 for the second dock plus 200 feet of additional lake frontage. Conrad : So you have those restrictions . That ' s giving us some kind of — control . Just generally, the 30 , 000 is a good tool to use. Whether that 100 feet is a good tool is really. That 30 , 000 talks to me about buffers and enough size. The 100 feet doesn ' t say much other than it ' s an — absolute rule and there are exceptions to that . 98 feet , 94 feet . Geez, but we ' ve got the 30, 000 in there, we' ve got enough feet . There is enough square footage with cr:,._ r -.arts of this ordinance to protect the _ citizens so I 'm really comfortable that there are those elements there . We ' re just debating whether that 100 foot is an absolute and whether we should change it or whether we should communicate that de don ' t want to change it and recommend a variance in this case because there aren ' t that — many other alternatives and I don ' t know what we ' re going to do . Anything else that ' s new? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Wildermuth: Before you close the hearing I think maybe you shouldn ' t explain what the undesirability connected with variances is and the problems that the City has? Conrad : I tried to do that before . Wildermuth : They seem to have a lot of interest in variances and — handling this situation with variances . Conrad : Let ' s close the public hearing and I ' ll mention that Jim. I ' ll _ go through i.t again and maybe Barbara can help. Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted — in favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 19 Conrad : Basically, in terms of going through this again , and Barbara help me if you can because I 'm not that astute on all the ramifications of variances but basically our Attorney says variances are tough to deal with. When you grant a variance you set a precedent and you really have to document why you set that precedent really precisely. Really precisely and many times that ' s not easy. Many times you use general language to document that and most of the time, when you grant that variance you have a lot of other people coming in and and taking advantage of that same variance that you just granted because you haven ' t totally documented that and Barbara help me out . I 'm sure if we had the City Attorney here he 'd be killing me on this one. The other thing is , you try to make ordinances as good as you can. You grant a variance it means hey, who cares about the ordinance , it must be lousy and we used to have many variances in the old Chanhassen days 3-4 years ago and it meant that the ordinances meant nothing . What we' re trying to do now i.s make sure that the ordinance means something. We can stand behind them. We can tell people that they mean something and they mean something for a real good reason. That ' s why we ' re looking at changing the ordinance tonight is saying hey, does it make sense to change that ordinance and that' s what we' re doing . We ' re trying to make the ordinances the valid ones that rule the City and you really don ' t like to rule the city by variances . You really don ' t because it ' s real difficult. It ' s costly. As taxpayers you spend legal fees , Attorney fees supporting it . It ' s not only the one issue, it ' s the next five issues that come up and typically they break down that ordinance . Therefore , our direction here on the Planning Commission is to make sure that the ordinance is right in the first place . There are times when variances make sense and they are appropriate but we choose to make sure that the ordinances are right . Batzli : There' s a second aspect as well . I think he spoke mostly of the precedence and the policy. There' s also a city ordinance as to when you can find a variance which has strict guidelines as well so you ' re not only looking at it from a precedent standpoint but you ' re also looking at meeting specifications on the ordinance to grant the variance in the first place . Emmings : With the 30, 000 square foot area , minimum requirement and 200 feet of shoreline, if you' ve got only the 200 feet you 've got to have an average depth of 150 feet already so that does afford another protection . Just the area and width requirement gives you some protection right there . I ' ve got some real uncomfortable feelings about this for two reasons. I guess the horns of the dilemma for me are, I feel like we ' re reacting to one proposal and we ' re changing the ordinance to let in one project here and I don ' t like that. That feels like spot zoning . It feels like a bad thing to do . On the other hand , I like his proposal . I think it' s appropriate. I have no problem with what he ' s proposing to do and I live on that lake and look at that shore too . Before I came here tonight I had resolved in my own mind that there ' s nothing wrong with our ordinance and that this matter should be handled through a variance. I think that the comments of the gentleman from Sunny Slope are well taken. I think he said everything that I thought of and then some. We did see a survey done by staff as to what properties are left in the city which Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 20 could become beachlots and the only ones that would require a depth variance are along that shore of Lake Minnewashta and it ' s Dave ' s property, these folks back here have some property and this one and I don' t know, there might be a couple of others . The reason they don ' t — have the depth is because of the road which makes it to me a very clear cut case for granting a variance because it ' s a thing that ' s there that ' s imposed on them. It ' s not something they imposed on themselves . I don ' t _ think that granting a variance in this case would set a dangerous precedent for those other cases where there ' s potential for beachlots and I don ' t see any reason to dispense with the 100 foot minimum requirement. The other thing about this one is that even if we approve these — amendments , he ' s still going to need a variance because he ' s going to need a variance under Section 13that Barbara brought to our attention tonight. We ' re looking at amending two sections that would get our _ ordinance in shape for him to be allowed to do whatever he wants to do but he ' s still going to run afoul with Number 13 isn ' t he? Dacy: If the Planning Commission and Council wanted to change the — ordinance to reduce the lot depth , they would also have to amend number 13 as well . Emmings : I know but all that ' s been proposed tonight , all that ' s been proposed so far is the amendment of two sections and we really have to amend three . Otherwise he ' s still going to have to apply for the variance. Dacy: Yes and I would follow that by saying that because we are under lawsuit from the Sunny Slope Homeowners Association and because the City — Attorney looked at this case and felt and went through the criteria and said no, a variance would not be justified and said that the Council should amend the ordinance rather than granting variances . That ' s why we went back and initiated this application . Emmings : My own personal opinion on this , my position on this matter is this . They should leave the ordinance alone. There ' s nothing wrong with — it . I want him to get what he wants and I think he should be granted a variance for the dock. I don ' t think it creates any kind of a bad precedent or anything else . The only other specific comment I have is — just probably a lot more trivial , i.s that I think in the section of the ordinance that ' s number 6 that we ' re looking at amending , there ' s a sentence that starts, I think we ought to get canoe racks out of there. _ In a couple of sentences it talks about racks and then in another sentence it talks about canoe racks but we ' re really talking about storing a lot of different kinds of watercraft on these racks . Calling them canoe racks I think just adds confusion to this . I think there' s a sentence that begins with the word canoes and it ' s about the sixth line down and I think what we ought to do i.s say that starting there it should read , non-motorized watercraft such as , and then just pick up the sentence where it starts, canoes, windsurfers , sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they' re stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose and then just take the word canoe out of the next sentence so it would just say, the number of racks shall be determined as part of the conditional use permit Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 21 process . Just eliminate the word and then it tells them both the general , that we ' re talking about non-motorized watercraft and giving specific examples of canoes , windsurfers and so on and we get the confusion away from the canoe racks. Other than that, I don ' t have any other comments . Ellson : I looked at this from the standpoint of the ordinance change and I think when they wrote the you ' re trying to think of the different possibilities . I don ' t see a reasoning behind 100 feet . I think it was ` just a number that was pulled out of a hat and everyone say yes , that sounds okay and until you get something like this that brings it to your attention, you realize you pulled it out of a hat and you didn' t really think as thoroughly as you can so I can see changing that because I don ' t think that 100 feet was something that was really well thought out and thought of all the possibilities . I don ' t see why 100 feet is so magic . Emmings: How about the 200 and 30, 000? Ellson : Yes , those made more sense to me. 200 feet for families and 30, 000, that made sense but the 100 all the way across didn ' t necessarily do that . Batzli : I think Mr . Wenzel brought up a lot of good points . I think in particular , although I was the one that recommended that the 100 feet be where the dock was located , I will admit that I think a lot of good concerns , valid concerns were raised about why we ' re doing that but it still concerns me that I don ' t know, I think there should be a minimum lot footage . I think a 100 feet is probably a good number for the implementing of a barrier both from the surrounding people and the people that are at the beach, for their safety. I think it was a pretty good number that was pulled out . I think that the mooring of the docks in the public water would be an interesting question to direct staff to look into . The variance issue , I don ' t know that I agree with Steve that this is the prime candidate for a variance. I think that what he said , he contradicted himself when he said it was in that I always thought that the hardship was not characteristic of or applicable to other lands or structures in the same district and it sounds to me like he said there ' s a bunch of lots that are similar . I don ' t know that granting a variance is the right thing to do here . I guess I 'd rather put an ordinance together that everybody can live with that had some good numbers in it and that the people in the community want and can live with . I don ' t think necessarily granting a variance in this instance solves anything at all and especially if there are other pieces of property that have the same problem with the road . The interesting thing that I started thinking about the minute we raised subsection 13 was the 100 feet that has to be landward of the ordinary high water mark, or what does that say? The width measured at both the ordinary high water mark and at a point 100 feet landward from the ordinary high water mark of not less than 4 lineal feet for each dwelling unit . The current one that we' re not considering tonight but we' re using as our model , how many lineal feet do they require? How many families? Dacy: It would be 60. Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 22 Batzli : So they have at least 60 feet worth 100 feet back from the ordinary high water mark? Dacy: That ' s the issue . In some places there is not 100 feet depth landward to measure back from the ordinary high. That 's why I 'm saying if you amend the lot depth requirement in the other section, that shouldn ' t conflict with 13 . . . Batzli : So they didn' t meet 13 either? They don ' t currently meet 13 either? They don ' t even have 60 feet of 100 foot depth? — Robert Pierce : I think we do . I think we can contest to that . Wildermuth: The thing is, Section 13 wasn' t designed for a 15 family beachlot . It ' s meant for the 40 family beachlot . Batzli : I also had a question for Steve, I didn ' t want to interrupt — because you were rolling but I didn ' t understand your comment about the average of 150 foot depth. I didn' t catch what you were saying , why you would have to have 150 foot depth . — Emmings : If you had 200 feet on the shore and you have to have 30 , 000 square feet, you have to have 150 feet in depth. Batzli : Yes , average but you would rather think of mean depth because average , you could have 1 square foot that goes back 2 million feet and then . . . — Emmings : I give up. Maybe I used the wrong word . 150 times 200 is 30, 000. Batzli : I understand what you were trying to say. You were just drawing a straight diagonal line and saying that ' s going to be . It ' s not necessarily the middle but you could have 1 square foot . I think Steve' s `- amendment. I don ' t know that I 'm ready to approve at least the recommendation by staff at this time . I think that we may want to put a maximum number on the racks that we allow in the event something about, I — think someone in the public hearing mentioned something about one watercraft per family maximum or something and I might go along with something like that or a maximum of 10 racks or some such thing . I also _ think that trying to clean up this 100 feet, I think we do at least want to make Sections 13 and 7 consistent . I know that staff is measuring them perpendicular and landward and everything else but I think we should clean up that language as well if and when we get to amending the ordinance. Wildermuth : I favor an ordinance amendment because I don ' t think that this case or other cases would meet the hardship test for a variance . That ' s why we get into trouble defending our ordinances from a legal sense. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 23 Conrad : Are you comfortable with the way that staff has worded the possible amendment? Wildermuth : I find it acceptable . I think we ought to table it this evening because I think there ' s going to be some language problems in our ordinance amendment but I don ' t think we should handle these case by case on a variance basis . . . Conrad : I heard some comments that were brought up in the audience . Would we change the 100 feet to another number? 90 feet in total . Do you feel it ' s a minimum depth that should be maintainted? Wildermuth: I was thinking about this. If you look at 30, 000 square feet minimum. A minimum of 200 feet of shoreline . Do you really need a depth requirement? Conrad : A while back it was hoped that we wouldn ' t because of those two things but we found that a case in point . . . Wildermuth : . On Minnewashta? Conrad : In this particular case . Are we concerned that if it shrunk to 10 feet, which is not the case, it could skrink to 40 feet, do you feel that a beachlot could shrink to 40 feet . Like some of the audience have said, it may have even disappeared during the rainstorm last year . Do you care? Wildermuth : I guess it ' s not a problem as far as I 'm concerned . If you have a half a mile of 10 foot deep beach , that certainly is not intense use . Headla : I hear a lot of comments tonight and I think they' re . . . The people have their stuff and they want to cut it off . I really believe that the people of Chanhassen and the public have a right to the lake and to all the recreation provided it doesn ' t hurt the neighbors or damage the lake and I didn' t see us protecting that . That ' s one comment . Another one is I think the people who wrote the original ordinance . . . I think they did a good job then . . . I think now we have a challenege. . . I think we ought to rewrite it to fit the situation. I haven' t heard anybody disagree with what Mr . Pierce wants to do so let ' s write an ordinance that will fit this situation. We had another situation where the Council approved something this last time. They hadn ' t . . the building was there. We didn ' t do a good job of wording and I think we ' ve got to improve the wording of this ordinance and we' ve got a good opportunity. Conrad: Let me take you up on that. Staff has drafted some language and you' re not comfortable with that language is what you ' re telling us . What would you like to see changed versus their language of saying either 100 feet at the dock or 30 feet surrounding the dock of being 100 feet . Do you see other things that we should be considering? Headla : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 24 Conrad : And what might they be? — Headla : Barb , how many people belong to Pleasant Acres beachlot? Dacy: I have it upstairs in the file but I just don ' t know off the top of my head . Headla : Is it more than 20? — Dacy: Yes I would say so . Headla : More than 30? Dacy: Probably. Headla : Ladd , you voted no last time I mentioned this and I think you probably. . . Did you notice the distance from the parking lot to the lakeshore and that ' s the land that ' s being used . There are probably over — 30 families and that ' s the place that ' s being used . 35 , maybe 40 feet . Wildermuth : I think that ' s the problem with requiring that the dock go in the area of the 100 foot minimum. The very thing that you were talking about . That may be the worse place to put the dock where you happen to have 100 feet of depth. Headla : Let me go on with some other points here . Have you had any complaints from Pleasant Acres or Minnewashta Creek beachlots? Dacy: From those two , no . Headla : But if they would apply today, they wouldn ' t get them. Dacy: That ' s correct . Headla : I think we ' re screwed up if we think we can cut out those lots . They serve the public well . They haven ' t had complaints . I think we ought to really seriously consider rewording that . Another point , on my place, if I was to sell half my place to my daughter and we wanted a beachlot , you ' re telling me I need 30, 000 feet of beachlot for two families and neither one has any kids . I think it ' s screwed up. I think that ' s an incorrect requirement . Conrad : That ' s not the point of a beachlot though . You ' ve distorted what a beachlot is in your definition. Headla : No . I want to get a beachlot but as soon as I sell a part of it, all the rules have changed . Changes , . . .a beachlot for my daughter and myself . Conrad : You also Dave, can ' t let friends store boats on your property either . There are a lot of good things to protect the lake . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 25 Headla : I don ' t go along with that at all . Like one radar run on the lake, they can improve that lake a whole lot more than probably 10 or 20 beachlots . With all those cars driving around and all those people . . . I do like the rule of thumb you have. I think 30 , 000 and minimum width so you protect people from north and south , I think that hits the very foundation. I think there' s a lot of logic in requiring so much lake width per family. That kind of gets down to useage and are you really going to . . . Should it be 35 or 55, I don ' t know but those are the rules I really think we should be looking at . The 100 foot depth , from what I read in all the notes here, was determined because that ' s the setback required for a home. We don' t have any homes . You can ' t have a building . To me, you' ve got to treat that as an outlot or if I sold Mr . -- Pierce 50 feet of property by 50 feet , there aren ' t any requirements on that. I really would like to see those parameters considered in the description of the beachlot . Batzli : What ' s the setback from the rear of the house to the back line? Dacy: 30 feet. Batzli : And what ' s the side setback? Dacy: 10 feet. Batzli : So a minimum setback in the normal requirement would be 40 feet . Are you comfortable with that? 30 and 10, that ' s as close as you can get from house to house . Do you like that as a setback? Headla: I think there ' s some logic to that . I think it should be 30 because that ' s what the house is required . I think we ought to have logic for the number of feet set down and I haven' t heard that . Conrad : Dave , you' ll be out there a long time . There isn ' t any. There ' s no logic to 10 feet sideyard setback. There' s no logic to 30 rearyard setback. You find some logic that says they can pack in 18 people or whatever and I will be amazed. They are arbitrary numbers typically dictated from one city to the next and so you look at city to city. It' s going to be real tough to find real numbers that you can justify based on economics or based on solid rationale. They are ballpark estimates. They' re best guess . They' re global guesses in many cases and we ' re not going to come up with something that' s really particular . In this case, Barbara the City Attorney said no variance. Did you talk to Roger? Dacy: Yes . — Conrad : And what was his comment? Dacy: He did do a written opinion . I can ' t remember the exact text of it but to summarize, he felt that there was not hardship here in the Stratford Ridge application . That it did not meet the five criteria that the ordinance sets out for granting a variance . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 26 Conrad : In your humble opinion you thought there was a hardship, is that — right Steve? • Emmings : I think there ' s a hardship for that entire narrow strip of land where it gets narrow and then goes down to the point. Down to Red Cedar Cove. That strip of land is different than any other place in Chanhassen that can have a beachlot. It may be owned by 3 or 4 different people but it ' s just one piece of land . — Conrad: Are you persuaded? Batzli : Am I? Conrad : These two are attorneys so I 'm using them as a little mini-court here. Emmings : Neither one of us practice this kind of law. Dacy: Just a point of clarification , the Wenzel and the Headla property, these properties wouldn ' t be eligible for a beachlot anyway because they couldn ' t meet the lot area . They can ' t make the 30 , 000 square feet so — you could be talking about this Stratford Ridge case and you new applications that would occur on the east side of Lake Minnewashta when that area becomes sewered or developed or on the west side of Lake Ann . Emmings : But there are no roads there now that create this condition . Dacy: Right . I just get real concerned about debating the variance — issue because the Council has denied that variance and the City is on a different road here . Conrad : If we vote the ordinance amendment down and we leave the applicant up to a variance request . Ellson : He ' s already had one . — Dacy: The Attorney ' s going to come back with the same thing . The crucial part of the variance application is that you ' re saying that there — is something wrong with the ordinance so what the Attorney is saying is , if you don ' t like the rules , fine, change the rules but you shouldn ' t be granting variances which do not meet the established criteria in the _ ordinance. It ' s his opinion that said the Stratford Ridge application didn ' t meet those criteria so as our legal advisor he said , don ' t grant the variance but if you feel you want to change the rules than change the rules . If you don ' t want to change the rules , then fine and that ' s the — purpose of the zoning ordinance amendment . To go back and change the course , everybody ' s just wasted the last three months . Conrad: We may have wasted the time and I apologize to Mr . Pierce for this but we want to do the right thing . Ellson: If they weren' t thinking in terms of hardship, . . .has gone before — the Council or the Attorney before . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 27 Dacy: For the Stratford Ridge application? Emmings : There aren ' t that many pieces of property that have this characteristic. Wildermuth : Except for the north end of Lotus Lake and I think that ' s well established. Headla : On an overall basis , I think Steve ' s got some really good points and that is the variance is more defensivible than anything else. Take a look at it case by case if it doesn ' t make sense . Conrad: Are you saying we should grant a variance? Headla : Yes . That ' s an idea . I don ' t like it but I think his position is the most defensivible and makes the most sense. Take a look at it case by case . Don ' t change it at this time . I don ' t see where we ' re going to come to a mutual agreement . Conrad : I 'm also uncomfortable that we have the right words in the ordinance amendment right now but I don ' t know that we ' re going, I think we ' re going to come up with mumbo-jumbo therefore my comments a few minutes ago . Wildermuth : Take the depth requirement out of it entirely. 200 feet wide minimum. 30, 000 square feet minimum. Where are you going to run into a problem? There isn ' t an undeveloped property left on any lake except on the one side of Minnewashta and most of that is park. There isn ' t enough land left on Lotus . There isn ' t enough land left on Riley. Ellson : You guys have to be really confident that what you ' ve just been saying about the Attorney is well , that ' s okay we ' ll do it anyway. Headla : He ' s going to give an opinion to save himself anyway. Cover himself on that . Robert Pierce : The parcel to the north , the Larson property, for instance right now they live there. She ' s an elderly lady and they might develop that parcel someday and it probably would be a single family home. The way the ordinance reads right now, if we change the ordinance in the depth , I think that would cover the fact that they can not put a dock on their land . As it is right now, they can ' t even have a dock for a single family home . If the dock is left out , as I understand it , you can not put it back in. For instance if it wasn ' t grandfathered in because they didn ' t have it in at the time . That ' s strictly because they were elderly people or someone might get sick and not put it in and you can ' t get a variance . I would think if you do away with the depth and have . . .on this particular side of the lake . . . I will guarantee that the Larson ' s will sell that property and without a doubt that whoever comes there thinks they' re going to have Lakeshore and they' re going to find out they don ' t will be a little irritated . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 28 Conrad : I 'm a little bit concerned with lot depth because , and I ' ll give — you an example of Lotus Lake Estates . Where property, you ' ve got 900 feet of a beachlot and you ' ve got parcels , and again , we' re kind of beating this into the ground when we don ' t have too many things going to _ come before us but again , let me just give you an example that I could create. Lotus Lake Estates , 900 feet of beachlot and houses coming down to that beachlot , we potentially, if we take away the depth requirement , and they' ve got tons of feet. This is small compared to what they have — there . If you take away the depth requirement , you potentially could have a beachlot that is a 10 foot strip in front of somebody' s house. Batzli : Under section 13 you couldn ' t . You ' d need whatever the lineal footage is and at least 100 feet back. He ' s talking about a dock by amending this one section correct? Conrad : But you ' re saying that a beachlot can be configured differently. You ' re saying no longer does a beachlot have to have 100 feet in front of everybody' s house . It can be 10 feet . Only where the dock is you ' ve got — to have 100 feet but it can be 10 feet in front of 15 houses and that ' s what Lotus Lake Estates did . They have , I don ' t know how many houses but they have a lot of houses abutting the beachlot. We ' re not talking one — or two so you basically can set a walking trail down in front of the people. Walking trails aren ' t bad but again, we ' re trying to buffer so we ' re talking distance between space for people and distance between where people actually, other lot owners have their residences . That ' s an — extreme example but it ' s a case where if we took the depth out of there , you potentially could have that situation . Dacy: May I summarize your options? Options on the first issue about the dock. You can deny the proposed amendment all together . Conrad : And then what would happen? — Dacy: The ordinance would remain as is . Conrad : And then what would the applicant do? Dacy: He can reapply for a variance but based on the Attorney' s opinion, we ' re still going to recommend denial . He may not get that variance . Batzli : That ' s always up to the City Council . Conrad : How many additional steps are there in that process right now? Dacy: We would have to reschedule a hearing to the Board of Adjustment — �nd Appeals and probably at this point would not be heard until the end of May. That ' s one option . Conrad : Brian your feeling was that the language of the ordinance would not permit a variance. Is that right? Batzli : That was my feeling , yes . — Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 29 Conrad: Okay, second option. Dacy: Section option is , you can establish no depth whatsoever . That would also mean that you should amend Section 13 too. Third option would be to keep it at the 100 feet , which I guess is really the same one as number one. Four , you could establish a smaller depth. 75 feet or 50 feet . 75 feet is consistent with the structure setback for a recreational development lake. Staff has said , if you ' re going to reduce it , don ' t go as small as 50 feet . You need area to move around in on the beachlot . The fifth option is the one that you talked last time and that is , requiring a certain amount of area of that beachlot be 100 feet where the dock is located. Ellson : What if we reword the ordinance and list the hardship so that if they went through we worded it. In other words , word the hardship. Do you know what I 'm talking about? Dacy: If you wanted to say that a beachlot have an average lot depth of x amount of feet. Has an average lot depth of 75 feet or whatever . That ' s an option . You can do that . Emmings : The Attorney, in the letter also suggested we had an option to just knock out the whole beachlot ordinance and not allow beachlots . Simply just repeal the whole ordinance and just end all our troubles . Headla : No , I think you 'd have some trouble . Emmings : I don ' t think that ' s a good option . Conrad: Those are four options . Board of Adjustment and Appeals will get it next? Dacy: Right . Conrad : I guess I 'm uncomfortable with the language of the proposal right now. The only thing that I can think of briefly, without a lot of thought is to take it down to 75 feet in depth . Instead of the 100 take it down to 75. Therefore, we ' re not talking about the dock anymore , where the dock is located . I 'm assuming , I don ' t want to take depth out of the ordinance. I think we need depth in there because I can' t imagine all the different scenarios that may come to play and I don ' t even want to set up a committee to try to figure out the scenarios and waste staff time because I don ' t think we ' re solving too many people ' s problems right now but I guess I 'm saying , I 'm not saying that this is my idea and I 'm going to vote for it . I 'm saying that I can see an alternative of changing the 100 foot depth to be 75 foot depth . Wildermuth : Look at the last page of this thing . If John Ziegler Jr . , John Ziegler , Lawrence Wenzel and Barbara Mae Headla got together and decided to develop that piece of property as a parcel , they would have a lot of lineal shore footage. They would have , I guess at some point there ' s 80 feet but if you made the 75 foot minimum, there ' s a lot of it that would be 50 feet. That would mean that that whole stretch there, Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 30 which would probably be over 1, 000 lineal feet of shoreline , could not have a beachlot. I think that ' s the problem with the depth. Where do you put it? Where you cut it off . Conrad : I was persuaded by Steve in terms of variance . I think this i.s a good candidate for the variance because I don ' t think we can be smart enough to figure this out . I tell you Barbara , the more I think about it. Dacy: The issue is , what you ' re saying , is the City satisfied with only one part of the area meeting a certain amount of lot depth and having a — narrower part . Do you feel that that ' s appropriate for a beachlot or do you want a consistent straight 75 feet? Wildermuth : I think it is . — Dacy: That ' s the issue and if you feel it should be 100 feet or 75 or if you want to use the term average depth of x amount of feet . — Wildermuth : The area that I live in has probably got the most odd shaped ridiculous beachlot on any of the lakes . That one on Colonial Grove, — that is really a little odd . That thing is only about 25 feet wide going down to the lake but it works well . Ellson : Are we talking about two-thirds of it or an average? — Dacy: That ' s the issue there and we pointed out these other properties to let you know that hey, some of them do get really narrow and where do you stop and feel uncomfortable that a beachlot should be located on that area? Conrad : We have to make a recommendation to the City Council . We can table it for more study. We can react and send it up to City Council who will probably have the same amount of comment as we do . I guess if they would like more study, I think I 'd rather have them ask for it than us at — this time. I think we should make a move on this and I think the power may be in the person who makes the motion . Dacy: On the second issue on the racks , the way that staff has recommended it, I think is what Mr . Batzli you ' re talking about , the intent of it was to allow one slip per lot on the rack situation which was also suggested by the public. Batzli : Was that in your sentence that reads , the number of racks shall be determined as part of the conditional use permit process? Dacy: No , it ' s on page 6 . Somehow hopefully that got copied right . My pages were rearranged . Emmings : Why is that one repeated? Batzli : I ' ve got repeated from page 4 to page 6 . — Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 31 Dacy: The staff report reads page 5, page 4 and page 6. Page 4 was the original recommendation for last times meeting. Page 6 is the recommendation for this meeting . Conrad : There are two issues . Let ' s talk the first one out first , the depth. Anybody want to make a motion? Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to amend Section 20-263 (7) of the City Code to read as follows : No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage measured at the ordinary high water mark and the lot contains at least 75 feet of lot depth measured landward perpendicularly from the ordinary high water mark for at least 50 feet of width where the dock is to be located . (Following is the discussion pertaining to this motion which was later withdrawn.) Ellson : Say that again , the part about the 50 feet . Batzli : We don' t even have to have that but I 'm throwing something out so we can talk about something . 75 feet minimum depth for at least 50 feet somewhere around where the dock is going to be located . Do we need any requirement in any motion that we do , unless we throw the thing out of course, as to where a minimum or maximum linear footage would be? I guess I can picture a 10 foot strip of sand going in front of a couple of houses and I don ' t know if that ' s really the intent of what we' re trying to do and I don ' t even know if that has anything to do with a lot ' s ability to have a dock and I think I keep on losing sight myself of we ' re not necessarily even talking here about whether we ' re allowing the beachlot so much as can the dumb thing have a dock on it. It appears to me that there ' s probably a certain amount of square footage that you need to have a dock and I don ' t know really that we need a minimum other than what the lot would already have to have in Subdivision 13 . To be a beachlot. I 'm kind of being swayed that way other than your comment where let ' s say the guy does have a 10 foot strip of land and that ' s where they' re going to put the dock and that ' s where all the activity is and they' ve got this big hunk of land over here that nobody is using and they' re right in front of everybody' s house. I guess that ' s the only reason that I can see where you would want the minimum footage around where the dock is. I guess that' s kind of why I kept it in my motion to take care of that situation where you ' ve got the 10 foot strip of beach , that ' s where they want to put the dock and they' ve got this big hunk of land that they got the beachlot because they had this lot of land over here and nobody' s using that . They' re all in front of the neighbors. I guess that ' s kind of why I proposed the motion and take it from there . Emmings: .I have a different idea to throw out . What if we essentially left it as it was or we said that you' ve got to have 200 feet of lake frontage , 100 feet of depth, you ' ve got to have the 30, 000 square feet of land and then just said that the lot depth , in a particular case , as long Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 32 as the area and the frontage requirements are met , lot depth can be varied if it can be demonstrated that the goal of buffering adjoining property owners has been met . Batzli : Are you talking about just forgetting the dock or are you talking about to get a beachlot? Emmings : I 'm talking about this particular section right here . — Batzli : Okay, so that 's just to have a dock? So you already need the 100 foot minimum? Emmings : All those things are in this section related to a dock. I guess what I 'm saying is . . . Conrad : Dock or no dock. Batzli : It ' s two different considerations though. Whether you have a — beachlot or not and whether it has a dock or not . Emmings : But they' re all contained in the same section of the ordinance that we' re now amending that you just made a motion on . Batzli : This amendment is only as to whether a dock is permitted on a recreational beachlot . — Emmings : But it lays out when a dock is permitted and it has all those numbers in it . My note says this , if the depth requirement is in there — primarily for buffering this activity from other adjoining properties , then if they met the frontage and the area , we could be forgiving on the depth as long as we ' re satisified that the thing is adequately buffered _ from the neighbors. That would allow his project and doesn ' t tie us down to any arbitrary number for depth . It makes it a little vague . Batzli : Other than the 100 foot minimum in Section 13, per family being served by the beachlot. Emmings : Well , we 'd have to take a look at that . I think you ' ve got to do one section at a time and then they can all fit together . Batzli : I 'm looking at that as that ' s an initial threshold that you have to get over and I wouldn ' t necessarily adjust that . Conrad : I think there has to be a minimum footage. You ' re talking about 30, 000 square feet but if you ' ve got a 500 foot lot line, it ' s easy to make up 30 , 000 square feet if you ' ve got 500 feet and it doesn ' t have to be very deep. I think that ' s a mistake . I think the intent of the ordinance is to give distance between the beachlot and the neighboring houses and therefore, I can vacillate the 100 feet a little bit . Headla : Maybe that ' s how you want to word it then . That you want distance between that lot line and the neighboring house, 75 feet. Do you want that type of setback? That would answer your concern . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 33 Wildermuth : But Dave, could the dock be in the middle third of the lineal shoreline length? Headla : We ' re on a different point here . Ladd had the concern that we were really trying to define. If we put a 75 foot setback. Conrad : From the closest property line . Batzli : I think he was talking about from the nearest house, not from the nearest property line. There ' s a big difference there. Headla: Not really. Conrad : I think property line is the intent . I think Dave would agree with that. Headla : Maybe there ' s something here . What ' s a setback requirement like for Pierce on Minnewashta Parkway? Dacy: 30 feet . Headla : 30 feet from the road? Dacy: Right . Conrad : If we kept it at 100 feet from the closest property line , in this case, because we have a street and there ' s 66 feet of right-of-way, we got the 100 feet . Headla : I think you ' ve got something . ` Dacy: You' re measuring the setback from the dock? Conrad : No , we' re not even talking about the dock anymore . We' re talking about the depth on any place on that property. We' re saying you need 100 feet of depth . Batzli : From the ordinary high water mark. Conrad : To the closest property line . Dacy: Which is how the ordinance is written now. Conrad : No . We' re saying it requires 100 feet in and of itself on the lot . We' re not saying the lot has to be 100 feet . We ' re saying from the ordinary high water mark to the first property line other than this property. Batzli : But private property so you' re not counting the street . Dacy: You' ve lost me. Here' s the water and here ' s the road . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 34 Conrad : There ' s the road and here' s the right-of-way on either side of the road and therefore, here ' s the property line for this house that ' s across the street . We' re saying from the ordinary high water mark, we want 100 feet from here to that property line. Not 100 feet here . We _ want 100 feet from here to the closest property line other than the parcel itself . In this particular case obviously what we' re doing is we ' re saying the street has nothing to do with what we ' re doing . The street is a buffer in and of itself . — Dacy: What you ' re saying then is that you have no minimum distance between the edge of the lake and the road right-of-way. This could be 10 — feet but they'd have to make up the rest . Conrad: Right. Our assumption is the road right-of-way will be buffer _ enough in the future , any other parcel . That ' s our assumption . That this is accomplishing the intent of the ordinance as a buffer and all that other . Dacy: What happens if you wouldn ' t have a road right-of-way here and let ' s say on Kurver ' s Point, they have Lotus Lake here and the beachlot is something like that and the private lots are over here . In this case , there is no dimension? What happens if there is no road? Conrad : We' re measuring to the next lot line . That still has to be 100 feet. — Batzli : Assuming that that point you just drew the line to is another property line and not like a cul-de-sac . — Dacy: This road right-of-way line though is a property line. Conrad : We have to get the wording to meet our intent . Dacy: How about if you approach it from the standpoint when a beachlot directly abuts a road right-of-way. . . — Emmings : The road right-of-way can be counted . . . Dacy: In the determination of 100 feet . Ray Reottger : You could end up with 1 foot wide strip band . Emmings : No because then you 'd need a 99 foot wide road and we haven' t got a lot of those . Mary Jo Moore : Using the road with the consideration in the width because of the safety hazard. You have a road there and then you have a 10 foot lot where kids are playing . It ' s a safety hazard . Emmings : I think it ' s a terrible traffic problem there. I think that ' s a separate issue . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 35 Dacy: Your concern Mr . Chairman though about Lotus Lake Estates having a long strip of land, the 10 or 20 feet not having adequate area , is that still addresses in your mind then? Conrad: Yes . Very definitely. Elison: Because that road wouldn ' t be there to the next line . Conrad: So you still have 100 feet. You 've got 100 foot lot depth until you hit the first property line . Private property. I think we should make a motion very similar to this to bounce it up and have legal opinions and Barbara do some research and City Council take a look. As a footnote to whatever we' re doing I want to make sure that Mr . Pierce knows we ' re looking at the ordinance (1) to make sure it ' s solid as itself. We also feel that you have a good beachlot and we' ll be making , at least I will , be making that clear . Anybody feel comfortable with making a motion that we can kick out of here? Headla : We' ve got one on the floor . Conrad: That ' s right it ' s still under discussion . Batzli : In view of the circumstances that I don ' t think I 'm even going to garner my own vote on my motion I ' ll withdraw my motion . Elison : I withdraw my second . Wildermuth moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ._ amending Section 20-263 (7) of the City Code to read as follows : No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least one hundred (100) feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the ordinary high water mark to the first intersecting lot line exclusive of the street right-of-way. No more than one ( 1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage . In addition , thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand (20, 000) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks , however , shall be erected on a recreational beachlot. All voted in favor except David Headla who opposed and motion carried . Headla: You want the rest to read the same? Wildermuth : Yes . Headla : I ' ve got a big question on the other . I don' t like the 30, 000 square feet. I think you' ve got to give them incentive. If somebody is developing their property, you really want more with a minimum number of homes on that property. I think the area on a beachlot should be tied into the number of homes that are going to be using that beachlot . My daughter and I , two people and we need 30, 000 square feet. That ' s at he Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 36 extreme end but that ' s the point . Maybe you ought to require x number of — feet for a home. Or maybe it' s so many feet of width but I think there should be a ratio there and that ' s going to be the incentive for the builders not to bring in the absolute maximum number of homes . — Conrad : Do you want to change your motion at all Jim? Wildermuth: I don' t think so. — Headla : I 'm opposed and the reason being , I think the 30, 000 square feet — is ludicrous. I think the square foot area should be tied into the number of homes using that beachlot . Conrad : We have a second item in terms of the overnight storage on the property. Anything Steve? Emmings : I 'm not sure about , one says 6 and one says 7 . I 'm not sure which one. Conrad : Seven racks but 6 boats per rack. The thought there is basically the maximum number of boats at one per house would be 42 based on some of Barb ' s calculations . This would be the maximum number . Emmings : In the proposed language , I 'm looking at page 6. Is that where I should be? Okay, so it says no more than six (6) watercraft are stored on any racks . The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one slip per lot served by the beachlot . That ' s fine. A motion was made at this point with the following discussion . — Emmings : I don ' t see any problem with rowboats . If somebody' s got a 12 foot boat with oars in it , if they can get i.t on a rack and they can take — it out and row around in it to go fishing or something , I don ' t care . Batzli : I think you ' ll get people bringing their motors down and taking _ them on and off the motor . If they've got a small motor , and I still don ' t know if that ' s a problem. Emmings: You can get it on a canoe . — Batzli : I know, then I don ' t think that ' s a problem anyway. Wildermuth: Remember we talked about this last time, this sticker and number business . I guess the reason my canoe and sailboat always had a number on it was it has a motor on it so why don ' t we define the type of watercraft that can be put on these racks to grant them with a sticker , State sticker . Emmings : Do you have a sticker on a sailboard? — Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 37 Batzli : You need one . Most people don ' t but I 'm actually a law abiding citizen and have one. A lot of windsurfers don ' t have them. Dacy: And there ' s a number on the sticker . Then if they wanted to store a life raft, one of those big ones , doesn' t require one but yet they could store it so that ' s why I kind of stayed away from. Batzli : Requiring the licensing . Emmings : I 'm not going to put that in . I don ' t care if people want to carry a motor down . Conrad : I like the language as is worded . If people can construct a 4 story tall canoe racks that can support . Put a boat in, carry it, I don ' t think anybody' s going to be criticking that. I do like the language of this . It talks about the more passive uses . When you have 42 boats , that ' s still pretty liberal . I like your wording Steve . Batzli : I think I have the same problem with the word slip. We haven' t used that yet and I know that we mean one slot on the rack but slip to me indicates something in the water . Dacy: Do you want to use space. Emmings : I know when I did some work in Orono , when we had those dry storage racks , we called those slips too but it all depends on how you define the term. The term hasn ' t been defined so maybe you want to say one space . One rack space . Is that clearer? Batzli : I thought it was because I looked at the slip and got confused as to whether we were talking about boats in the water or not . Emmings : Let ' s say rack space . Wildermuth: Where did you come up with the number 7? Conrad : There ' s rationale for that . Emmings moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to amend Section 20-263 (6) of the City Code as follows : No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock however , the allowed number of boats may be clustered . Up to three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed . Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes , windsurfers , sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack . The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one ( 1) rack space per lot served by the beachlot ; however , in no case shall there be more than Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 38 seven ( 7) racks per beachlot . Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight . All voted in favor and motion carried . Emmings : Should we look at 13? Dacy: Actually, you' re keeping that 100 feet consistent with the next —' property line and you ' re just only excluding those rights-of-way. Batzli : I like 13 in there still , personally. — Emmings: So there ' s no conflict with what we've got? Conrad : I don ' t know. I guess rather than reviewing it, maybe instruct staff to make sure that Section 13 is in concert with the motions that have been made tonight . Emmings : It does say from the ordinary high water mark to a point 100 feet landward and it doesn ' t tie it to anything else so I guess maybe it does . I think the one odd thing that we ' ve created here is , the one potential problem I see is you ' ve got 100 feet back from the ordinary high water mark and you ' ll be in a situation where you have 20 feet and then a road and now you pick up 66 feet so now you ' re back 86 feet, you need another 14 feet and i.t winds up being on the other side of the road . — Because the developer comes in and has to put his lot line for his first property 14 feet back from the road in order to get the 100 feet of depth and that is providing the buffering and maybe that ' s okay but . . . f — Conrad : I 'm sure that city staff will look into this before it gets to the City Council and Board of Adjustment and Appeals . _ Dacy: It would go on May 9th to Council . You ' re just amending the Zoning Ordinance so it does not need to go to the Board of Adjustments . Emmings : I think someone should volunteer to be at the Council meeting to explain all this stuff . Conrad : I thank you all for attending tonight because you did bring up some really good points. Hopefully we paid attention to them. I think we changed our feelings quite a bit so thank you for staying with us this late hour and maybe you can attend the City Council meeting when this thing comes and they have their crack at it . Ray Roettger : Do I understand it correctly? Are you saying that you are ending up going with 100 feet with a 66 foot road which could be widened , and you would be allowing 34 feet . Conrad : Right . Ray Roettger : I can ' t believe it . You' re going into a real bad situation . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 39 Emmings : They still have to have 30 , 000 square feet . Don ' t forget . You find one in this city and show it to me. You can ' t . Mary Jo Moore : You do not comply the ordinance for the purpose one developer . . . Conrad : We really feel that he ' s got a good parcel . We feel that we ' ve changed the ordinance to be good for Chanhassen and uphold what Chanhassen ' s intent is in that ordinance . Ray Roettger : Why didn ' t you use an average depth? Conrad : Because that didn ' t make sense either . There are a lot of things . Stick around with the issue. I think we could have cut this 100 ways . There were a lot of ways to do it . Mary Jo Moore: I think after a study of 2 years for this ordinance which got public opinion and resolved . . . there was a 2 year study before this ordinance was drawn up and now because a developer has come in and is going to cause more problems for the existing homeowner associations . Conrad : I don ' t know that . City Council has their look at this . They may be advised that a variance is the right way to go but I want you to pay attention to what, I was around for those ordinances . Mary Jo Moore : So was I . I 'm a member of a homeowners association . Conrad : I think it ' s real important that the intent be carried out and I think that ' s what we were trying to do tonight . If you can think of a way before the City Council meeting that satisfies the intent, I think they'd be interested in your opinions , as we were . Ray Reottger : Is Mr . Pierce involved with the condominium devleopment down there? Whoever it was , I don ' t know but whoever it was we were talking about last time, power boats were moored out there . I would like to find some way of enforcing whatever guidelines you use . Emmings : What should he do Barb? What should he do to enforce it? If people are parking power boats out at sailboat moorings , what can he do? Dacy: There are a certain number of moorings permitted along with that beachlot request . We ' d have to go out and see how many are moored . Emmings : But aren ' t they for sailboats? Dacy: I can ' t recall off the top of my head . I 'd have to go back and check it . Ray Roettger : You know what happens , nobody wants to call up City Hall . Dacy: You should . That ' s the only way we can follow up on these. Conrad : We need those comments . Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 40 _ Ray Reottger : You create bad feelings with people . Emmings : But you have a choice of either living with it or creating a — bad feeling so make your choice . Ray Roettger : Lord knows we' ve tried in our case and we live across the — way also . It ' s not clear to me how many docks has this man got? Conrad : One . Ray Roettger : You said two . Conrad : No , it ' s real clear . There ' s one dock. He ' s got three boats — which is in the ordinance . Ray Reottger : I would like to see that cast in iron . Conrad: It is . Mary Jo Moore : The residents of the lake don ' t want to be monitoring _ these all the time and that ' s what it ' s turning out to be . Emmings : They' re impossible to police . They just are . That ' s why we should probably not have beachlots at all . Ray Reottger : Brian , so you know what we ' re talking about , we ended up having 5 boats on one dock with like she said , 35 foot frontage . Right — next to homes and they never clean it . They never cut the grass . They don ' t do anything . So I 'm up to here . PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE TO PLACE AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN FOR HERITAGE INN MOTEL, DONALD KRUEGER. — Public Present : Name Address Donald and Phyllis Krueger Applicants , Heritage Inn Motel — Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Donald Krueger : I ' ve read the entire report , whoever wrote it and they say that there needs to be an economic hardship . Well , that ' s the only _ reason I want to put up a sign is because we are so located that we' re behind Super Value ' s buildings and property so any traffic coming can ' t see us until they' re past . We have one small sign at the entry of the — Cline Brickyard development . That ' s the only sign we have outside of our road sign 30 miles west . We feel that we need a sign east of Chaska so 1 T Y OF P.C. DATE: April 20 , 1988 C.C. DATE: May 9 , 1988 . CHANHASSEN ' y CASE NO: 88-2 Sign Prepared by: Dacy/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Variance Request to Install an Off-Premise Advertising Business Sign — imm a LOCATION: Immediatelyof West 420 Flying Cloud Drive ( west of old Mobile Station site on north side of — CI. TH 212 ) eQ4C APPLICANT: Heritage Inn Motel 830 Yellow Brick Road Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: 47/ _ DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING 91-20/° AND LAND USE: N- '` _ pcs- E- W- W WATER AND SEWER: J5 PHYSICAL CHARAC. : 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Heritage Motel Sign Variance April 20 , 1988 Page 2 — APPLICABLE REGULATIONS — Section 20-1 Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance states that an advertising sign is "any sign which directs attention to a busi- ness , commodity, service, activity or entertainment not conducted sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is located" . Section 20-1259 ( 1) prohibits advertising signs. — PROPOSAL The applicant wishes to construct an eight foot by sixteen foot plywood sign to be located in Chanhassen on TH 212 to provide exposure to his establishment in Chaska. The applicant owns and operates the Heritage Inn Motel . A schematic of the proposed — sign has been prepared by the applicant, however, it is mounted on a display board. The applicant intends to present this at the meeting. The sign is to be constructed of plywood and would have — a white background with red letters stating: "Heritage Inn Motel - 4 Miles Ahead - Chaska/TH 212" — ANALYSIS Because the proposed sign is specifically prohibited by the ordi- nance, a variance is required to be granted by the City Council . Section 20-1253 states that the Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission "may grant a variance from the — requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this article" . Off premise advertising signs are typically prohibited by sign — ordinances. If they were to be permitted, one could literally expect erection of numerous signs advertising businesses located elsewhere along highways . The intent of the sign ordinance is to — enable the property owners to construct a sign on the premises on which the business activity exists . Although it is recognized that the property owner may not have direct visibility from TH 212 to his property in Chaska, the city would be establishing a — dangerous precedent by allowing the construction of off-premise signs within the city for other businesses located elsewhere . While there may be existing billboards along the TH 212 corridor — and while some of them may exist within the city limits of Chanhassen, they are considered non-conforming structures . Additionally, the proposed size of the sign exceeds the maximum square footage of any type of sign in the sign ordinance. The maximum size sign allowed by the city for a commercial sign is 80 square feet with a conditional use permit. Heritage Motel Sign Variance April 20 , 1988 Page 3 The applicant states on the application that exposure is needed on the highway so that the traveler can locate his business more readily. The applicant states that he needs more business to "cover operating costs and to be able to pay the high property tax that has been assessed" . It is difficult to write this report when the applicant' s intent is merely to improve his busi- - ness; however , the ordinance criteria state that the variance should only be granted when that strict compliance of the ordi- nance would cause a hardship and provided that the variance would not adversely affect the spirit or intent of the ordinance. Unfortunately, the economic hardships cited by the applicant are not applicable under the statutory definition of hardship. The applicant does have the ability to construct a sign on his prop- - erty in Chaska. Secondly, granting the variance would be contrary to the intent of the sign ordinance which is to control and establish appropriate standards for the construction of signs . Off-premise advertising signs should not be encouraged by the city. Further, the size of the sign is such that it exceeds the current ordinance standards for commercial signs in the sign ordinance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of sign variance request #88-2 to install an off-premise advertising sign on TH 212 as it does not meet the criteria for a variance and granting the variance would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the sign ordinance. " Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request, it is suggested that the sign size be reduced so that it is consistent with the maximum sign size for a commercial district in Chanhassen . City Manager' s Comment: Halla Nursery, Chanhassen Inn, and Prairie House have continuously explored means by which they could advertise along Highway 5 ( Halla seeking both TH 212 and Hwy. 5 ) . I strongly support the Planning Department' s position of denial . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the variance request. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the variance request as recommended by the Planning Commission . Heritage Motel Sign Variance April 20 , 1988 — Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1 . Application. 2 . Brochure of motel . — 3 . Detailed location map. 4 . Site plan. 5 . Section 20-1253 and Section 20-1259 of Code Book. — 6 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 20, 1988 . ( LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: //EJF/7"i9-6E . v.v # �4- OWNER: DoIV,4LCl Y f(-afs ADDRESS g 1) �t:L/ tO gdei ci! A0 -i ADDRESS Sao C%461A- A4 67s3J g 4.46A?A. aii. ss ig Zip Code ' Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime )6/�-44 -7p z7 TELEPHONE /`)-44g-7123C REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit X PROJECT NAME OFE 7/c'_:/-97 S� /I U U ,�T/5/lV6 [/ / 6A) PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING Pr' USES PROPOSED a J t��r�s/�� S« 7 /(� ,�rT�� ,�%vas SIZE OF PROPERTY �ja _� )c oil " L' LOCATION 37C }-! 2 C` "j(1I`1 - /[.'' ' POik ��0 : L%N�� r7%MI 4f10 REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST tOE iVEE d f 75U.el' r 7-he jiv,¢V %G<27 - go.f? ,224J 1)L SS ALs ai ' ,5Z, ��'C4-T k/ //Gv41--9c CP-7arv/vo% 'N 772. 777e i, xve=Cctc 7: TG C c/zi ''S -�" LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . — FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . — Signed By /4 / . 9 -� Date e ' /2C% �� /�`gY The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been a• uthorized to make this application for the property herein described . Signed By Date Fee Owner i �- - - p5 — Date Application Received ' ' '"" = — Application Fee Paid t • City Receipt No. i ',, a'�"" — * This Application will be considered • Board of Adjustments and Appealsby the Planning Commission/ — meeting . at their l a_ • CHASKA Heritage'ta ge Inn Minnesota Motel .1. CMN.•w. • Heritage lea fferitagefnn Motel / J.......l...« Part ► T tamed �•�.7. at�ty M..1•e. ... MteL .u0 M �r� 212 u 141 4.....w.. IL, Chaska ....».. 4�1 + u, _ S..Y•..• NC.......a... Heritage inn RATES (Vary by season) Motel _ 1 BED 2 BEDS --== � -'-_- 1 person $27-$35 "1" mm I Img]1 I 1 ©�i', � �' 2 persons $32440 $35-$43 MI.. `:u9 ,- .e '- Each Additional Person--$4 Clean Quality Rooms Comfortable Prices (Children under 12 free) Follow the Yellow Brick Road Heritage Inn of Chaska — 2 Blks. off Hwy. 212 Motel offers guests — Minutes from Canterbury Downs, Valleyfair, •In room movie rental .Handicapped facilities Chanhassen Dinner Theater, Rennaisance •Free continental •Restaurants and Festival and Jonathan Industrial Park. breakfast lounge nearby •Color TV *Direct dial phones •Complimentary Coffee •Color TV •Air Conditioned •Winter plug ins •DD Phones •Air Conditioned •Handicapped Facilities •Free ice •Credit cards accepted •Vending area •Restaurant ec Lounge Nearby Donald and Phyllis Krueger Your Hosts 830 Yellow Brick Road — 830 Yellow Brick Road Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 (612) 448.7030 (612) 448-7030 A � 1 . \ �C co ua Y co a) ,D C \ \ v (J�� Z = M V 0 ` \ U Z 0 U 1\ \ 1, 1\ \ -- \ \ , I T99 06�- --`- \ \ 1\ • 1- a.m \ '1 Ai s\ \ _ v S \v I Z. \ La \ \ \1,.6) \ D 01 O am Q [D x 2 m a 1\,1 ON:13 0 4 c Cr \ w a \ 01 Ct ‘\ \ - --`' - - -- - — '. OS- - —---- . — 0b \ • L f LE,µ 0 %1\1 1\ I m _ <, u M 1-1 1S 1 \ j )\S 1 • cyi 1 `,,O \ _ j t � \ \ HAP! S\ a\ ' 2 \ 5: i i NN O , `m OC a 0 0 l C1.11 \ r \ .-.i''' /. 00 •. 01 -- 1 , y..., S• \ 9 \ e it G oN , 1 T \ oat 01 Z , MO r �\ 1\ �bLS I. i ^` - 11 \ 3g1•Ct5 eb2 �0 \ . , \ \ CO A Y ` \ • CLON ,NdO N'%IO , , \ o.0 0 0 2 `+qf\ \ 29 K� m m s W S�3 1 0 \ 1 -,C., tO ,\ OOL `.s\ \ \ 0 1 , \s u N \\ w L y \ pyL . N IV \ b \ \ \1 L % 01 % Lc yL 61-1- 1 \ \\ \-41r..... . \N 2 \ 1 y si 0 T 1 W - 0 m� \0 I o � 0 1 • /D 1 0 _1_ A r \ o1 ' \ Nib 61 fri �1 I \ 1 2 y o1 m z 1�' . m O \ r _ m ro = I\ \ \ N P V N O m \ O '• O, --1 hl `' rn Z • c �\ to , z N \ cyl a; _ 1 ' ri I \ C Q a. it: � PONO U 1� IONEER T AIL (Li I . . • 1i . , .0 0 ifyik::. -'G' Qv - 1 Qu1 •fF — ��CRFEKW000 _•Izcec FAaM RO LA Fr AK.�„�Fc I ,,3 ::; '- :: 2 /-F' -- _ ftzr " s• ‘69 pii,\ r: - 7 ) i Ai -s-ot.: *--ti : ...A- .. ,... i ..13'3‘) / _ low USED s(, d11 -Foe RET I c, 'D -,:; /7 R / C E /• 1 LAKE C. i 'S i 9�F ti, do CITY OF CHANHASSEN 'o, CITY OF SHAKOPEE - /' / 04 ,T ) 414- /7. . . ROr TEIC► e• Iz). p22• • I. 11&U ' , / / .. • . .t. •. • ► •. / i 1 ••••• :• • C•. *:. 1 • IR 122, •S S. — �: j — .I s V1LL OF CHANHASSEN a"\If E •E*f"C0ti I // ex. 91.V lea .� LANE d ' 1 90 • ' N •' I 4 'f `0! \21 S9. I n I - „ /. O�A . ..03 ` I M•N �, N• 1 2e Y Mj6• / O68 I 5 `_� ,,, LaP 1 4 I ,/1, . z I 3 • / 2m at I j ' �� / W . I . r _, . HAPPE ` � j- I 1641 V I I i VERNON H. TEICH — ,_�� 0.46/�� BKeT, P496 y � f � n M 061.10 156 t e — y r N tl• !� 2° `NO N N. L o. a Z ".• \� ° \= • I °\•oe• 139 w °K�� 3p0 1E5 J J 1lFl 44 •P 2 b 1 0 2 �U 1 _, �,MP C°01AN f2 G N,� 6� 26. E 6° OF0.•4.• =�� tvk `r • .�df 1►0w r ��JJJ n \ ,p • ��NO •°� r r \e 12 -+•• ` F (I1 . . rr 1 Vi+ '''f A 1`l dKla.' rf(j'r \ I •0 ' £ZSQ I__. I , �' _ •20E -ill ^r .S0 �SI L- ;� o • OO• i SS[►� fw •g,\\�9.•\S b. a25 0 u 51)�?5� fki J�1 q S / A — W✓ / ., .i, .1 t,. .. cors4;,..4,.„ . .......,.....,.,;,....1/4,.,,,...,.,:, ..,;:..t.._,.. J., ... ,,,e: .?,. 1 14 tt,;...,,, i 0.•...,!; •0•)•1 AO' ''•.2:' •••••• ' :•,,..kic.1,1•1_. '1%.•A,,,:..kilisk • "t• t•,..1 IA 111• •.'t• .tts. "" " ' • fy - ',.r .,,A; , tit 4 tro--,44-..' i.'• •':•• ,. •..r,i( , .ii"....tf.:,-.1 AO i "N •••- .*r • • 1 ' 1517 -.N I'''' -.41. '•.`..`„•..AL.;,...):•• R 4. ,4 • Illite 1 %ft t 4'1 I', '',' 1-. ...f.,...,,„Itkit" -, '!;„' '...• - 3 •',IL'?i • gr'. : .1 AA i • 4 le ti 1 W 4 n .i.e4v 1 t?4• 4.6<•,,-, t•., 1.....-.- lel/ v ••••••i"•'• 4•1••'•• ••••0 't ,,,;i•-.' -..'d. 1_iti„t),4,itzrAlilf ,- ' :i..4. . • - . - 1- , • • • • ,•, ,4 t• , C• N N. . .. . re L•. .# in, !•?-:;.1 ..r•diti.:i:SSS)1• ‘,..ie .1.fl.P Vt. :,‘", '...4 f•r• . . •‘••;.z. ..wttez...4.r.. . .; ., .. , ,.....„. , .,, ,,,.. •r.,„ • . .; . . . ,.., ••‘ '.)-k- .> .• t• 1 ' 4 ... 4 .' 4p.i-• •. - '` -A' ?gle...40.:74./AAV.t"....6,,520%.... \347te-ifiet. . t .- • Igit ;"--.•;••:.:A•••• . .y2,4 ' •4. , ,,,.. , /-11 y :. im., • I, •-r• ,. , . ;.. 41`.•• k•". v•s 7'- . fii, , Ti2,,,,..... ., ,..„61 el q•i611,14141 • '..• al 1.1.•‘., .-r g.,1.* /... II A• ' .' • .. . -f1,1ir/0;'" N4' ..016-tir.z.2.-'• 1. .• ,a. li: ...e• -, -#'•• At •, ft 7,.- to,: .oa :. -4ior' Ale,-4,,, „,,..(7:, e,i. ". II;' __•- .) . *,::,”..).= "*? .--T! - --- - '• 31.-..4 .. v. p 0,,,, jr7k •Pit . •• f ,"1" . 440. T.' ' • •i• l' •"" ' ' 71/-1;:r •Ire.)".2". • "•;,.1, ".' P1/14 • F11,1',./ ' •:' . .i• ...147.!it. •••••,•'. .•pf.'; ;• . •_,.•••amluep,r.i:-,r 4.1.. ' AtPrvt'.in. • •.: -.tg' -4., • A 7‘ ••At.. .--ik .• • • %. t. '. - ...S.- .Itt• :i ."•••: * • itsv-A •.'. c .' -ir,r. ii '.. .• .eit,.:C(; ....•.1: - *Alf' : I. tee • Ilic:_ .1. ...:,*. . ...",, ,,1 eig,„ . .• 0414!'). befi4 ',,• ,,,+-1.,t :, •'4;r• 1-.I. ...g . •i , " .• . ,g la p,-.t. ' . ' .-.c..,:bit,t 4...:v.- .• 1, . .• •1;„-. .• .,-• 4" -':•. ,:.',.',. ' r,.. ' ''''. • •Ai., • • ..,.....• ; -' 4-•''•-'1 -.1* :4;7.1%4 ;•'''' . I1' '.• • ‘-..,Pi - al. ).g.'.1 :-4 .; I 4.-4' ,..:C,41:., ;,„'• .:..t..r ',....*:# r•i:.• '-. • ''t I:4pr • ,.-- .3. .r..,. ,.:., .. ....- ,.,.. . ., .4*. , , .,. •..,., ,:, :,...,..,.. ,.r „- ••-.' •S-2:tt-....Int-.1f. . 141k155i: .• . ' P .- % It-16‘'-i ".\' .... - ''" •••,"••• -14.. r- ...-. .-T!..y,t,r^,, Ir..' .1 -.... !., c. lk.. 7:‘'''• 't;i4• , ',, ,. :fri..,,t?!.;:"..1,,.-4:16"-1?-'.••••••.i., 4 1. -,-;,,yi - ,..,,, , • :., ,,,,, ,, ., 1.:.•,., ,„21.%,..... ...... . ok Air- ... c, aiL,,,i II. -1.. • * 1../M. . "... , - \•. • Ott. .. Mer-a4C.et° '4:, .• . • •;,.. • • i.,, • ri '•!w •77. . .4-,ppt;e0f„.14, spr ir. • i : ,., .... ,.... ,, ,• , ....i c - ,,.- I , .,„4,7-44-ti_..c+e,i. .‘vre: 1.. • st. ••••• `• •'.'tv., *- t't •‘• - : t•)'1.4•Aitr•O'...,'4,- . , „,;454••.'"- kftwozg -„,. • ..-. -b•• It -10. li;r Ht. soli,1 i'.1ilwp,:illtry :-.,fir , '..t...•• • ...„•Ati„ -,:.-C.' ' .: ' •. 16,;,, -:tim. • IL, '•3•41•14,.....04 s l'• 4.• . ...t.. • • . . 4 •",1..- sr'• •`•41bir. . , "4 •tli' i •i••• 'S 4‘" • gj' ''.... . - i•J'‘J. ". ".... 41*• ,..t.fttAN. .-nL"...k• ..si..:;- 4"' "i'll• ro '41.4 . :*S.•.Z.7!4‘•NI ...144:44.'•7••••4'. '4.4.1t•St4tivki.:IF1V4.i -:',f. ‘. , ..;•.-?. ,..11. • •••k, ' .. Aj61:::: g"- , . - •,#•Ti,i- - Abur • f,ok : •. ',eV -'' ''. ''' . .. tell ijIt ,, •4t • ., :: • V48.14, -9‘.'. A...v...,,-, -, ,.1.,-0... Its, .1-.N -- -,--..,-- .-,- -,.t20--v• % ,...1-40-4/ .• 4.-4. • ....* v• 44.; .fl.site, ,- , . Ty , ,. t 1. ..- --,--.• .... - •,. Lt .41f; . .FII;0 • , '- ...1.,. 1 rc• • • •••r4:' .. 4 4 3'. . - .: •• ..4.• riitto rc . -1•1_ \ -1 • 1- •-, -,44itugwo .. ‘ . •a'. .. .„.,,.. ..:_. ii.__.„ .-*rm. .-.- ., ,1.... a, ‘•!'. Pt, ' •X.' ...,1,,• .. •••••V. I.; ' • 1,. V •% •..' ,I''•‘.. '' :''4,) .;-.1 - s t Al.'•••'mr..021,;\ ; •• ,,r• A . Sill -y 'Lk !19 1. Iftr" 47 f. -14.-i,,...4:oks tElti '1&'''Ai,VLiw • . . - :, ",t1-' •' )*• .ri '4:i i'' -" . . " t),‘ -,,, ..11 - .., ..t . 1,,,4,li.7..-.. •• ',.. .11,&Ps", , • .. -•••ts..: 4...,-;..fiz••:,.: . -.54(0:54,it klPt‘r..I.:-..: .; ,....ttii4..).•; .-..:.. 1)...s..S. , ...,•;•.E.4,1,-44w.- .....:1•.i;.!. . f\t::340 • :. • ,•g e.„. - .,;2,,,,,, ., .-.r. ..„. - 4 .• 16,44. ..--• '*#. -4 . • " • • .-4•,..' ••• /•"' ?(.1 m‘j.e.,•• ..;..• / • ' • • ti ..1.•t o•.. - . - • . • . - . • • • .::.•• v., •.• .. ••,, \- -°•••••:-.(...t.1c:;• 7•'t'ift•*-i'm..., . .3'AI! it. .•'• '. .., •••?' igi-• ' -- .1":•••- ---:•_ ,• c!,,iip. kg I-- - • • (1 '`. •ii".'lir ,',•,;411:: tit-';•%. -rr.- . .-14. 41%.L 0•4'4,. V .,••, r...-- -.At?. 4_. :,'-g;".1.. -' .t 5,:i... i • ' -': • , t i .e'...4 4.11 •'-. !..if ‘7164.' . .&7, tOthe 4t1 V' ..' •• •/ •t/f„.. 7:y4mi4tilb,A* • . et k• •-, `)•111r..14 i,,.'Y.. ••:..;.•.97-.. ,..• •A It'\ \ ••"`'. V .- -....• . • •' - •i f . • • 1...4,:.c...le, •.:•:•...;.‘:1''',_ il....F...;:v• "• • • ' ,l''' - '‘. ,V •y 1 . •I4-; • • ,..74,',414.4:, .4.'y•',I 14.4 - 1 •:%,..- • S,.., ' "V,:e. .14 1,1 ik. ; --v.:w-letAlif. • ... ...tvp. it -• ‘,.‘ . , ,zp.p.H• k_.„,,p i. ..k. . ....l' -, 4. i • ir, ' :- tis. "AP 4%1: ..1•• .. 'A• '•z i• , • ' fly; -4 A•-• it . ' \ N :''.. 3-. • •I. 1. ,".!.se, .i.',C. .-4.-fh:.:,:4- 14•:.;. . •i i" • .,•'i 4. • •••• ;:. - 406,011.,k,• ;b...,:et"•. '. •-•:31,*':.; .14,2A.4 -: .--ce ,,..4,,Pii..la,:• 4: ....4":44-444 ' ;. -4- , . i . .rc,,74, . .,.. .,,,,....,,,. ., rip f,...: E,,,.L 4,1 '!.- ,?".... 4,-••C' V.74t . t. ./.. •.a.." ' -• :'• T •' •*g g...-•:-,1...,.. A.0.0 - ..,- *OA ef .0.,„ ., . ,, ...,. . . • ii .:-.- ••••;:." ••,..P•• -I ei10.14.'- • te• ••• 410 .4t..N • ,!; ..;•:..": 4• r''.•13A.ks i "f• • fell';•3' ..r4 r. Cfiz.••?:,,...•- ; .. s'„me?...i...:4'1.- ...t ..- krel;•:...4,'•-.1.41 -'..A.4*. -. . _ .44 ---"11 • *.. -•‘,,,,I.Ipt_t.o .:(..:,7,-,,.. „.,... • f.lor_il,,,•-•..--:....). ."--!-; ,!0.1e.1, A, •,.‘... 1-AT ..• •.•..:ief„„••••;;•)4‘..1:4••••••;*.ff•-•f&if„it . 41 't 1" 4 '''nti...•4,04:tr.:*:-. 4`'N''. ,-,,es,;$?:::\-.1.4.';. P I.'.VI 371?"78* ... ? v''''Wlgt: -x.-tylst;`,1 .,•,P it,":%,:•-•• -, 14:14*.3)114. -ite• , '.- - ' • ' : ;Azje ,..• tg vf,44jetoo : *.,,,,........3.,"„ i La,..,•.1 . #e t.r.a. t, .1: 1..,V •••• . .- .,,,,,,,• . ....•.,..ri,r,,,• .,. ,•,,.„ 41- . • .....4,14,4.- 11,:.••5,./, ..:1•4-4. .:, .4:1,- $70: , • 1' 144 - •.• %:i• -1 • - !'.'.var`i.'.'-!''•!rPiP 1.0'••1 %.t•... -.?..t>,1 IV.ttAt., -$ • . • 0` . .. " ` •• •i.r. At ..-...1 j.•."Y• ,,...!•- • :?'......a...Z:..cleiet.A4 . t. .66 ,-....! ,, . . "„ 4,•. A. ...1: ...:•• ,J,0. •ll. 40•7" J', 1 7 .-•..;.1. '!.., :1•1'1"4-:t;'-i...3.311.41.ei...•,•ii:ii4:44.-‘•..;4414; :*•St ''..":', ... Arw..411 . tr"1. 1•!'tv ' .....0_, 44 , •'' -!;1',* f- 1; .,' f.40:f•• --- '.. . .!.. .. Y• - ' . .e•i 1:.:.t t ;.,41 4 .;•'4..i...7111111 .‘.. A_ e4s• .t;.t.y.iis..s,....4; • - • s ..,.,.0‘.?. . ,. ..,. .1.1„, ....:,._ • v... ts • 1? __- X..17.-:' 4.• . • • :411 • .. j :164N'T. -V:. •-... -.. ' - I:* 1!.1.-N.N.N. ,....,,t',2 Iy.tit••21 ••• P;' m .es: '`:trait': •:. • •"••••-•..f.•-e".• -4A)'C't's':.*C--. - • -"? 7-k -17-'•., - ' ' k•• • ..•• s‘• . 401;e " - '/ '',1% • ••- ..'. .;;F . .1- • • ' '' :2•••zi.'(;„.../•...: . --.4. ; ...r...,,,•.,.,..z.t-J, „:??.1),-,3 ,y. ..,;-.0,-,,k;;,I. 175.,Ler. -or r . i,I. . •. 1%4 k.i' A. 41;14: '`:• • ,^.:., *re ... '..'':{-4'):.... .-.." -... ---..:;..-**-4.„,.-4.;:•NN .;-.....,,-4:-,...h. • t i1/4*-N.- ./ vi..ii.v. ' :.. ,- ....„..,......:.,%. ••,,,i,....4.-...-.., i vi•••'';• l'•••-•,--Nirs_ . 0-;,_C_." ..',..4. vi• -; - SO:. •• • '• •..'t •.it'_.1.11,;• It 1 . . " ' 1 •; ....- S. • "`•4-`"r'••' ''1.0- .‘ .ik• 1 . T. t-e.'1',VigNial,t. -t, • %, . - : A ''.c`;:(,\ --. ,t;72 r",,{ , 1V•4: ' '. „. •••,.,,,, ., .41 . .. -...- 1%,0 . . .....•,4. ‘.... A. . .. 4*. • • •••••,-. ,....... •• - .,, )....,-;•„...-,:- ,• 1 .....,, ..• „,,cf-••• s.•;.;;..••„. , , .;-••••1.isrk‘.4.• ..,i ,•• ...ek.,:.• 4.....••1,,..„... .,:d5.4, ..---,---.,k,..,1."V „..4rr" •-•_,tft..• IV,\A.... •.-•%; .„ ...i!, .i..v..1., 1; . ' . . .X'D'i''''''I-,',.c.'If• t;,-s.11.&74.4:y,:,..fc••,••1. ' ',4A"Pi I ... i• . •_••••••1 ‘ .-,N-.•'\ 1.•,, i .. 4.-..ivst,.,(,..:v , , • ,! ,. i ‘, It Z. .4 .r•,;•1Lv't.- .•••• t . •;.'4 . 4 •-1 4 ••4--ttr\ '.1\v‘A'xi' •':'•• •V•4: ', •0"1-1r• '' •Z.i.• .m • • ,'.'•-•';1!',•:' •..4.;'. -•.' '47-1-4 ...4;t4 .b.Ztt •m-. -1 4.,•te.,•1,41ir-,.n.. 1,. •;,,,, ,,. "0"." - -.‘.•.1,..: ..ici,u,'N' •ye.., ,..,,,,k,;,.- .....vi. -. . .. ...t, •,--; ,„ ......7,.,-. • i 4.-p..s..,•...,--..2,. -:..t-i ,_4-,;.--,-.7.'6C •-vri; '•••#''.!-% 4 1/ ./ ". ' '''''..\\ Ii ' kel--. *7"• :1:e'S" .:' 'Y • 11;:?)..t:F .1-A • ....1,.•••'-'11 ,4.;1.:I.V...thY .... 1 i•A . - .4. l'I•61- ‘6. f ‘-51‘‘ I ...e .--'..A ''bV "14 '''''.4.•*s.-7,•‘',4041:t. \ =414- (;;;.4: . -it..:' i ••'.-re-:•5:-.:• '..‘4:.,c.ii.kis",..,1Y.7v...,,„••Nrtit., :.; "Pvtit.,.4%-:;.?,__.tvt A' i i . r •• • . ,,,..4 r•_. •,.• . „•••_. tAsi,...l. .- .- .,:v "114) "........)t.....:.:,-..0'....( ','.• Al k ...;..Z.2... --.14.".,,,(417,1:.."....e.'_;."S„4,14V14.1%•‘",,, 14.- ' .. '" ...-.1.1;41 !P•441...''' . • i xot, *•1,tt ...4-. 114 '7' s ?•)iftt:sli •,... . •.".t..„,. .....,.. . 1.4.11m,..7..; 44‘..:•..._' ••'):4"..-;., • mte!;•.,,!:447'::•;$ e..t.:1;yf• . V, . , - • _i• ,. taVat : •.A 141 i-. ......' 1?-1' rch,f. . _, ,0 •A'...%.i -tv r-'','...'.' . ;%,Lik•i?'krt.. -1-P ... ...i." ;$v,t,,,,1 i\hs 21, t t \ "• ' Ri,•%-x.arN4 .f. t .S.rsa•U.I. ,,,w . - /, ..-iikb,,p ..i.'.,,,.......;:,,.-. , ...v.:. ..11,„1.,i vw,1.4 -,,q...., 7,,N ..!0-tikv,,i •• 4:31. 4.. . .•.... A`,. . . .J...,r4-:iSt..:t6,`• :,,.1%. . it,l'N Vir ..iii• • i•I' 'r• v'Isk• i I.:.1;' .., '•',...-.1.,. ,41.- „..:10 t 4.t.1:. ,e :Ls,• , , :-. . t 42.4 . 14' •'.1)ir . • .•,Pillti• ;'...:._;:•.;$.-.1.-'04 , Al-%t. .-• ,,, if.r...4.5%,efit , ;1_3.,f:il \‘•, ....4\);ifiry",7,... k...:...‘t :1.. t i.l.',.51? ;' ,•k.S?NC:If Al ..442'; . 14.. .t..act.4..1".. .n<7.46.. .it•ii, ;:s.4'•!i .t-: -f.t.,4,•;?,.::...1,1%. .',1...i.4, .-4Pt„:,--;:.,,:i;.,;t-if6,- , :. e,',' . , 4. . ,' • :,:i.;: lipAttis,,to..s:, , -..t;:ii--',6-: ' ',-. ... , '!'•1';' .\A44.,. um,.-."ip'• A • --.- ...r..i.,..?,-....,0-`,.....t'i•-•-s1 tvti',.1::•.`..7,..., 4 ..:. Nk.,,,it,v,.5, ...,.,t, . ,Toi..„...-. ... ..-;•vle a. .., .11., . .\ it -, __-•0 i: A,.,„ • ' .. ' : •.• i,..4.-,,.... ...i.:.,1...1,,07,..1,:).14,1,....,..1.„.... ...;..f•i;, L.1)1 • • .,4,.. 1/4...4..,..? ts•..i. rt...\•1.3., ul i_strA.4, • -TA. /:-•••1 'ilk-- • - 1.114•••• -4.1...,44- . -w;:-*'"-,.; :-. ..::''•;-•.Q,‘: l'- ••-• .4 tr. '. - .1r' '''"‘VISA ii‘Vo ‘‘3(1\ 't ' ..N."4-1' . .....44.1. i 71 4. -1.1 : lik. i''•..- :"P', _.;..-ei-5.;1Z: e.-.4!:'.....Y.... '>.•VVAV '4• . i '114' '1^4‘,. .“;.'s 1 ' 3- • -. -- • -I- , A ?its 0..-• .-% ';',... 1-T,g :. • -‘....%• • t .'..•61:..-1 A..;,‘11..4.'4.t.4.. .:.,-";:')4.. •P'cileri:-:::Rtiq ' ; . .:-. -.*::•k.4.: .,\'.....,-N .-% '` 71.-•* \' '\Tto.''yr -71.;t -. 3 t . •\'' "/ ; ' ' .....t.--'.'•.. l-iti,..e;1;,:•"...Fiiiiri..\• \N..•••A„:.4i., 116•••• ..:4114 .. IPNIA10.I/, .'/ 'VP') . •-.% \ „'%%4,1;!.41....1.• 4;•.t)•• •44. -4,' t!..,•:. %NI( ..4- • ..11`'. •••,.;„ • :V.". 1..•t•-V.4t.--4i'li.i'..0(!t••,v;•• ‘....::-)m•IKv-Vir. '41 f- •fs:-.'„4-• .T '• - „ •; •:&•i' ... \••10,,;••,..4.• ..e•:,;,. -.NA .r.3-11-.. \ ..., ....,‘•ty. •v. , ....''il•!•(/:••4•:".•• c...•- :'‘.8-1 ‘..A..•:'.•: ...,4y ' l'. ' -t.4 4 '- 'I.. '..1:1- .4.4.1.:. ...‘1 • V.:"-;%"41.(1‘;;;7i• ii• • %-..)" . s't; k ...'" . 1 -. li t.i"*IIONV•V 1 - .• 1..-.1...,..'1 '11 t3.4.it..i;‘,.1'1 ,;tji!Iti. 1'4, t 4: ..P;"A JR., , 1,,,i,.....•..'-'',6,-.44',:•44;•••.:.. :if. 'T, I . . .•f • •":.•••••••.; :•'..." ..:• ,• N. ' • •. ti i •• ,441$ '.: - :74;•, 1,,,,v.t•-t \ • 4-.-..,T.7.1 :‘'., --A: • •--. •,- •.:. ••0.• • -1711' 4. it's.i...D.'31.4.-ir:-.1e1...•.1.I 4"..•&s,-ty :' 104 - t 4 J(1.. .,..... 1.1.4#9 I. ..1's:'..;.' %'..1,csa , 013:ta:j",.•- \ 'C i'..cr. ...,: , .i. so r_,....,s,,,,...-1/4,ks it 4.;.‘,.). 1‘716%,- .4......„.4.4._ .c., ., ' ,..4.,,,....fil,. fe 4., . • ,... .I.,,,,,„.. t \•• ‘ ...A... ,, -.`Wi,,tliti. . • •1. i'`i•••,a4 II.Ill. Aak,,,v •I icelit,!..;:-.-A;.::•.:j_.`'`.,SrlsitTi54.7"141• •r0.01 ir.. ' '‘. .4P;icAt•••,. 1, 4k ' I.ft V4,,,It 4.' it..A. - .• . a r'- *7.i./Y-ki \. .1. •<..1 - l•‘• - 'A• -. •• . ,-.,. .; Pc.,...•,,,rts"11.1,....,towt,,:t.,:_,?";r),:ti".•., - -.1.11tS - -•A ;41-. '4.,1%14‘; % i tr-.4. • •-4,416:1N5•••• .Ais...."1":•• • ..",',1,t,?-.1'.1,- !;•,r-..r.'..10.4•;•.4,,,VP:aft.t.;,41.34,V• y .34../.,kce: ,. ..,• .,...,,r_.;-1,..e.,kili,i,,\ . N.1)r . "'' - ". f•;•"/ :,1,m-•-• N-•.-., ,:-.,,-. ,.s. .-.._ --v::,,.: •t:A. :141::'-';'..tt:s I; *;b.4.4.414 '.1. :k.'ilei• ''..; • 4 7:'1. •A ' ...,.. .,01 vt.....1 .44.4;..41)1.1"•••‘7.....)'X, . :Ti. • ":-.44:...el`..NT Ai*,i›!6,,,4e tle*,: -..;'-..1.I'l ,t,;1,-4 ., :. 47 ';":4. • -4gi' 1..11:.41.i. .1‘, It. • 4-1-7---AeHnita 1-7- #3 i ... ...;!.....?.1,-,..„ti... 4_,,,..t),,c,....,.:;27-4,-„;14,•50.er 4'31/4.. T. ,--...r, ,,f.T.•;,;...71. .5:,4-1z-;yor",„..,1- ...;"‘411t"...r, .i,, 'to .. ,1,,-• ..:-sz.u..... .,..• .. • ,i•,..•.•-•.t..••TN.-.4°-•47Z11;ts:N..",y;7,A -1. ‘'- Artrbt•...I.AV.•\,e 1.1:* •" 'Z. , e ",\:sk,•-•,••Yilt.h..111)14-*1.:•-;•4‘n' •:Al I' ' '-'cilA 1 ''‘'‘ s'II; "‘k k i, / W-...._.-> ''.'• .rt., 44-P•‘. --.,•3Lt.., ; 1.!'-,•'1,. tr.....S-...54••,..-x,,,• •1•tk,Q.- 2 'ft...." ‘4010i*lii. •' 4,110% ltrilv I -.2e0 6 . .p., .A ,..\..,%•....t ..1.14 •VA..•,4., Ir.,..,.g,...1 7-‘,„,....A. -. " r'• )."";1 • • \I. ...iJ.•1 t". •s' " 7••• :•••1"" • ' . •,.1:. %•• ;;,: . : 1,.. ...- ..... ... _ ft*1 t ( 7'. I ( ..... . . 1,.. . k 1..1 i Pi .'•''' .."... 1 • % ' . * .:,1 t)- %. .• , C I IZI :1 • 1141 :1 .1- 1 i \!!). ---. 111111111111.\ :-I .' ',.. iklbe.m. ... -q i'l: X) .—. ••• ••• `... 1 171 '..•-••••.,1 ... ' k T"" ) i.- :`,-- , ., fi l L.;- ,.._. ........-4,. , k,-. , ..„, it- i ' lc' , , .--. -•.k. ',... t if-.,.. -....' --/ ....'"'" 1 y ....,./ 1•,.., t' • .'i I I..; '. --' .........I\. m.•,,.tl • ii a . ......\,---- .----- ......;.......,...2-.)-, - A:.:7• •• :j ... ,... 1 .. •••.t•( ....- , /- I.. • 7 .. ...e.•• ,. ., ., •,1 t .-2 1 -•-•;.-..f.;"•-.., • •• r --- ..... .. ilk, I •b. 1...N., ""t Ns —I-25i/0...- . .• 'A'••• .4.:'• - -7- .41 P Ft cE.L, _._.--• - ----C---",') 1 ' ,-' 'cr l':-.'-' , .._s....--zt,- /-*),1---!!1%•-•,-- I '4-d ').‘. -a i,k,tr..0-•-Alt - ...)34,':fa.; 1"7,--...<;10%•-7-"t-- i41.',1 •I --,, * •" tr-k ' • 4",k-r. • .-"L • • ' '',.• 1 11-., '-,r4'. N*. ri''..i,..7'7•••4 *----_.2.... t. •., n •••..:',;......".- Nu • " • •• . l'• t, N. •; ' .-.: ) il ri::.„.______./----('2: 7.......:i.• I t,f,?-. 4..jszt• V4 •• . •tc>:___._ _._ I 4. , 4-:-,r. - • .1.,.... .i. -,-.. ,1/4., • ,.,.." .!,/(77-.,..---- -„. //..,,, --•.,_ ..., ,.... z.\\„. ... ......, - _. 11. A,' 0 I •.%. I ..:- .. . TI4 01\ • •/‘• ii ‘, 4-. F I _ J . - 1 , -• •,...,. 0,.. N „II .. • ...... ///1, , .t ...... t !......... . .-..//), .i ' i??•• i (C...Z ; 1, • c I«' k .. *-• - :/// ''',/ I • . ' I I lirll ? ' ..- / 11 t ... 1 ‘.... • _.- .: II' '' I '• II-, ii: ...'..4;• ' 1 I 1%. \ I I Ir" ''' ,• • 1 : ' - - - •••• ` ..,_ I.-:.:4\ cl, '-r... . I --- ' I 1 'f•-I Id; 1 '-- II 1 1 1 \ \ , 8. . .. . •••• \ -. . (N. • I '... C.-- I 4 11. 11.,.. t.; 11113 1 \ r.. Q.1 L..., i ri frli ,i ; ••-I. 1 . o . i . -... (7-7\----C --Lp - ,....:. , •• -I t. /,.. i i // 1 ... ....„, -,. 1 7.,. ///I • i : / '''• I• t i ../ / I, '.• / - 1 ' CI I \ • • ,iiii- - • • / / I '... I --. I I • ":.. / ; ./ 1 ( •: — ; ; / / / .'•/ I ! I, \ , ..... 1 oe 1 - • / • 'i / .; i/,' / Li / ''' / , / A 2/ •'•: '/ / .'•,/ / / ; i , t .„ :...,... ..,e, , . „ , / .. .. , , 1 • ,..., ....., /, ..„ c, „ / _-,. /./ -.../ i 7 / , /I -, - - _. , _ : / „..,/. / . : ._ .• ,, / , , , ,, / / .,.. ...-....• , ,.. . • _, ........,.. . , . ,... / -- _. 4,... .., ., ,,, / ,/ / , \ , 7 N., / / . i •I tt,; --,...,„ ; t I +1•S '.. / , . - r ei - , ••• 2.1 !•I , 1 lAt . ----,. / /. •,, • • t 1 •:„•-- •-•`-`''";--- '1•''. • Lr- z -.: •i! ' .- `,„.. : 1 ;...... •I.. L . '- :.',. t:.- 'Z. '1111%. - e. (T) I it .r•••••• N, .S.... •••, •'...0 ...... ti) 1 • I ( • 1 1 .''. .—. C° I '. • 1 ' • I f • , ... •. _ . . / ;01 \ 1 .,,,_;- • / -6,k9 1 -i f) • -. 1 // :•-', . • / •f • / I 1-/;1.1 • - • 6--- . "---- __ / I I\ .. I • m; / 1 t , / r 0 t• I ... .. r rn / •• - - 4- N .... I ' : 1 . i • r'-:' q p .pl. ,\`. )1' \ I fi ." / t'.. q. L. --..............._!.................... . IL i! ' I -,..._0 t-- I \I Pi, / /1 i i ... .0 • 1' Pil, / it) 1 "• „ n r. , 2 I. 1 . Ir;11 i! i i 1 I ,.. , 0 .. n , 2 , 1 : V I,11.1' I / . I • .' '.1 .: a - — i t• Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 40 Ray Reottger : You create bad feelings with people . Emmings : But you have a choice of either living with it or creating a bad feeling so make your choice. Ray Roettger : Lord knows we' ve tried in our case and we live across the way also. It ' s not clear to me how many docks has this man got? — Conrad : One . Ray Roettger : You said two. Conrad : No , it ' s real clear . There ' s one dock. He' s got three boats which is in the ordinance. Ray Reottger : I would like to see that cast in iron . Conrad: It is . Mary Jo Moore : The residents of the lake don ' t want to be monitoring these all the time and that' s what it ' s turning out to be. Emmings : They' re impossible to police. They just are. That ' s why we should probably not have beachlots at all . Ray Reottger : Brian , so you know what we' re talking about , we ended up having 5 boats on one dock with like she said , 35 foot frontage. Right next to homes and they never clean it . They never cut the grass . They don' t do anything. So I 'm up to here. P PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE TO PLACE AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN FOR HERITAGE INN MOTEL, f \ DONALD KRUEGER. Public Present : Name Address Donald and Phyllis Krueger Applicants , Heritage Inn Motel Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Donald Krueger : I ' ve read the entire report, whoever wrote it and they say that there needs to be an economic hardship. Well , that ' s the only reason I want to put up a sign is because we are so located that we' re behind Super Value ' s buildings and property so any traffic coming can ' t see us until they' re past. We have one small sign at the entry of the Cline Brickyard development . That ' s the only sign we have outside of our road sign 30 miles west. We feel that we need a sign east of Chaska so Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 41 people know we ' re in town. We get a lot of comments , people coming in .They finally have found us and they say, why don ' t you have a sign, how can people find you? I cited in my little note that we need a sign to bring us some more business to help pay the taxes of our business . We' re — not asking for a sign to enhance our personal benefit. We just want the business to run and be a success . Phyllis Krueger : How many of you know where the Hertiage Inn is located? — Batzli : I think we were just told it was behind the Super Value buildings . — Phyllis Krueger : Have you driven TH 212 and TH 41 , any of you? Conrad : Yes . — Wildermuth : Yes . Phyllis Kruger : Do you know where it ' s located? Conrad: Yes . Phyllis Krueger : Do you agree that we are handicapped by our location? Ellson: As far as visibility from the road? Yes . — Phyllis Kruger : Very much so and we have customers that come in occasionally that have made comments like, my god I ' ve been driving this — road for a year and a half and I just noticed you ' re here . We feel it ' s a need. Conrad : Do you have any signs in Chaska? — Phyllis Krueger : Yes, we have a lighted sign , as Don said, the Brickyard Mall has a host of signs inbetween two pillars . We are in there. — Conrad : So it ' s close to your property? Donald Krueger : It ' s about three-quarters of a block away. Conrad : Any other property in Chaska that you can put a sign up on? Donald Krueger : No , because they have the same ordinances that you have. Conrad : Naegle has signs there don ' t they? — Phyllis Krueger : Yes , but I don ' t think a business like ours can afford Naegle. Naegle ' s, you have to be a cigarette company. — Conrad : There are other sign owners besides Naegle on that same stretch . Not just Naegle. They are more expensive but it is an alternative. Donald Krueger : But you can ' t get those signs because they' re taken . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 42 Conrad : No , you can get them. I get them all the time for advertising so they' re there. Your point is they' re more expensive than this but it' s not that you ' re restricted , you just chose to have a less expensive sign on a more permanent basis is what you' re asking but there are sign locations available all up and down . Even though the Flying Cloud Drive there are more and more restrictions applying to signage and billboards there, they still are there and you still have those alternatives . Phyllis Krueger : As we understand, that piece of property that we ' re looking at has been designated for signs . Is that not correct? Donald Kruger : No, it' s a little piece of ground that ' s there and I talked to the realtor that had it for sale and he says , sure if you want to put a sign, I ' ll work out a lease with you to construct a sign on that little piece of property. Headla moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad : Dave, we ' ll start at your end . Are you tempted to change the sign ordinance? . Headla : No . We' ve come up against different ones on the sign ordinance . I 'm in agreement with the sign ordinance . I still don' t have any arguments with staff' s recommendation. Wildermuth: Barbara, this means that if somebody like Naegle came in for an application, we would not grant a new billboard location? Dacy: That' s correct . Wildermuth : How many existing signs , do we keep a record of what we have allowed in Chanhassen along the TH 212 corridor? Dacy: Yes we do have a record . We do have a sign permit file. I think there is one existing billboard that is within Chanhassen city limits but I know that' s been there for a number of years . Wildermuth: It was probably grandfathered in before the sign ordinance. Dacy: Right . Wildermuth : I can certainly sympathize with the applicant . On the other hand I think there' s a real need for the ordinance and I would agree with the staff recommendation . Batzli : I was curious Barbara , the economic hardship thing , what is considered an economic hardship? Dacy: It ' s my understanding from the State Statute that an economic hardship would be that if the variance isn' t granted, that the applicant is claiming that there is either some type of monetary loss if it ' s Planning Commission Meeting April 20 , 1988 - Page 43 denied . What the Statute is saying , you can ' t grant a variance just for — monetary reasons . You have to look at the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance rather than the particular financial situation of the applicant. Batzli : So our variance ordinance of course applies and we' re looking at the same type of language where the variance has to be due to the lot and _ the unique nature of the lot and that there ' s no other similarly situated lots. I guess from that standpoint, I agree. I think it' s kind of a tough case for this applicant but I don ' t think a variance is appropriate in this case . Ellson: I would vote against it also. Same reasons . Emmings: Same thing . — Conrad : I don ' t have anything new to add . I appreciate your circumstance and being hidden. Obviously billboards are what you need . — Signage direction , signage whatever , that certainly would help. From a consistency standpoint, I think a claim could be made by almost every company in Chanhassen that their business would be improved if they had — TH 5 visibility and you 'd have to agree with them. I feel comfortable with our sign ordinance as it is . I feel that I 'm not persuaded that a variance needs to be granted here. I also think there are other alternatives signagewise that could help you out . Maybe not as — economical as this one but I know that in Chaska itself , you have some options . Even along the corridor coming along Flying Cloud Drive, there are other options so my recommendation is to turn this request down and — keep the ordinance as it is . Headla moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign Variance Request #88-2 to install an off-premise advertising sign on TH 212. All voted in favor and motion carried . NEW BUSINESS Headla : Did you notice where the Council approved that 5 lots on Minnewashta Parkway? I don ' t know how close you really looked at that property but the property drops off real fast on each side . We were uncomfortable with it . The Council appeared to be uncomfortable with it . — Their only rationale was , it met the 15 , 000 square feet . I don ' t know of anybody who is really comfortable with that wording but we all approved it and it makes me think that wording probably really isn ' t what we think — it should be . I wonder if we shouldn' t be looking at that to see if we could do something to make it say what we really want it to do . I 'm not ready to make a suggestion what it should say but when I see so many _ people feel uncomfortable but we all approve it . Wildermuth: Do we have criteria for a buildable lot? CITYOF k CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1ctMn by Ctty n:-crtor MEMORANDUM -' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager w;n FROM: Gary Warren , City Engineer 0140 . DATE: May 4 , 1988 S/1/82' _._.._-_. SUBJ: Reconstruction of Pioneer Trail, TH 101 to Hennepin County Line Carver County Project 10-614-02 File No. PW137 Attached are the final plans for reconstruction of Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14 ) from Trunk Highway 101 east to the Hennepin County line ,approximately 4 , 200 feet. This is a Carver County Public Works project with no City financial participation. The project basically involves the removal of the sharp bend in the curve located near the Lake Riley Woods subdivision and vertical pro- file improvements including superelevation. The County' s esti- - mated construction cost at this time is $330 ,000 . This does not include an anticipated $125 ,000 expense for lowering of Williams Pipeline which runs through this area. Staff has worked with the County as the Lake Riley Woods and Riley Lake Meadows subdivisions have abutted this project area. _ The plans appear in order and provide for the necessary roadway transitions into Foxford Road and Meadowlark Lane. In all likelihood , this project will be constructed in 1989. Much of this timing hinges around Williams Pipeline ' s lowering of their main and the impact of the gas tax on funding for these projects. It is possible that it could start late this season. Staff finds these plans in order and our only concern is the detouring of traffic and the provision of local access to local residents. These items are yet to be worked out and we will remain in close contact with the County to see that these con- - cerns are properly addressed. As noted in the attached letter from the County Engineer , the County is also asking the City to consider adoption of the attached no parking resolution for this roadway. The current average daily traffic for the roadway is 2900 vehicles with the future anticipated to be 4640 vehicles. In order to protect the minor arterial route status of this roadway, it is reasonable for the City to discourage parking along this roadway. Don Ashworth May 4, 1988 Page 2 It is therefore recommended that the City approve the attached construction plans for County Road 14 improvements by adopting the attached resolution . Further , it is recommended that the roadway be designated for no parking on both sides of Pioneer Trail from Trunk Highway 101 to the Hennepin County line at all times . Approval of the plans should be conditioned on the County — establishing and enforcing a reasonable detour plan for the pro- ject which emphasizes the southerly routing of traffic through Great Plains Boulevard and U. S. 169 and 212. Attachments 1 . Construction Plans 2 . Letter from Roger Gustafson dated April 14 , 1988 3 . No Parking Resolution 4 . Plan Approval Resolution AIR co/��l :!• :: CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE �1 J�PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / 600 EAST 4TH STREETCHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-3435 IT IIV E SO April 14, 1988 COUNTY OF CAK V E Mr. Gary Warren P. E. City Engineer P� ! -7 City of Chanhassen J 690 Coulter Drive, P.O.Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Reconstruction of Pioneer Trail from T.H. 101 to the Hennepin County Line SAP 10-614-02 Dear Mr. Warren: Previously we had given you the opportunity to review the preliminary plans for the reconstruction of CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail ) from T.H. 101 to the Hen- nepin County Line. Attached for your review and approval are the final plans for the reconstruc- tion. Also attached are proposed resolutions for City Council approval of the plans and parking restrictions on the roadway. Since this is a County State-Aid Project inside City limits, it is necessary to have a resolution from the City approving the plans. If your review of the plans is favorable, please schedule with the City Council for approval . Also included is a copy of a proposed resolution for parking restrictions on this road segment. It is our opinion that approval of these restrictions is appropriate along with the approval of the plans. Please review this information. If you have questions or concerns regarding this project, feel free to contact me. If you feel it is necessary for me to attend the City Council meeting when these resolutions are presented, let me know when it is scheduled on the agenda. Thank-you for your time in this matter. : 4stafso ,'P.E — County Engineer - - RMG/cjr A\PR 1. 5 1988 CITY OF CHAN-.ASS _4 Affirmatiue Action/Equal Opportunity Employer RESOLUTION Relating to Parking Restrictions on S .A.P. 10-614-02 from Trunk Highway No . 101 to Hennepin County Line in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. THIS RESOLUTION, passed this day of 19 , by the City of Chanhassen in Carver County, Minnesota. The Municipal corporation shall hereinafter be called the "City" , WITNESSETH: WHEREAS , Carver County has planned the improvement of CSAH 14 ( Pioneer Trail ) from Trunk Highway No . 101 to the Hennepin County _ Line , and WHEREAS , the "County" , will be expending County State Aid Funds _ on the improvement of this Highway, and WHEREAS , this improvement is located in an area with increasing residential development , and WHEREAS , the increased density of development will likely lead to '— motorists parking on the Pioneer Trail shoulders , and right of way, and WHEREAS , parking along the roadway may be hazardous to the motor- ing public using CSAH 14 ( Pioneer Trail ) , _ NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the "City" shall ban the park- ing of motor vehicles on both sides of CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail ) from _ T.H. 101 to the Hennepin County Line at all times. Dated this day of , 19 ATTEST : City of , Minnesota. BY City Clerk Mayor _ RESOLUTION WHEREAS, plans for Project No . SAP 10-614-02 showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades and cross-sections for the reconstruction of County State-Aid Highway No. 14 within the limits of the City as a State Aid Project have been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That said plans be in all things approved. Dated this , day of , 19 CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of City of I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen at a meeting thereof held in the City of Chanhassen , Minnesota, •- on the day of , 19 , as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession. ( Seal ) - C I TY O F G CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 - •l . ,.:h' ':ir^n str3tof MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager -- --FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: April 28 , 1988 y/z_c/et SUBJ: Park Dedication Fees ----- The Park and Recreation Commission has spent a considerable amount of time discussing the park dedication fee schedule. The Commission felt that the method of determining the fees be justi- fiable. They were uncomfortable basing the fee schedule simply on what other cities are charging ( see Attachment B) . Staff was directed to contact the City Attorney to determine the method of coming up with park dedication fees that would reflect the inten- tion of the state statute. Roger Knutson said the fees must be based on land values , den- sity, and our park acreage standard of 1 acre per 75 people. The County Assessor was contacted to verify land values and the method outlined in the attached memo ( see Attachment C) reflects what Roger feels comfortable with as the correct and legal means by which to determine fees . The Commission was concerned that the park acreage standard did not reflect the true needs of the City. Staff was directed to determine how many people are currently served by each park. It was felt that parks are currently being used to capacity and if there were less than 75 people per acre in each service area, then the standard should be changed. Staff found that we are right at the 75 people per acre in almost all cases and recom- mended that the standard remain at 1 per 75 (Attachment E) . The Commission inquired as to predicted land values over the next 12 to 18 month time frame and felt the fees should be based on that projection. Staff contacted the County Assessor who pre- dicted no change in land values . Other sources indicated that it is difficult to predict land value changes as most often it depends upon what happens to the economy. Mr . Don Ashworth April 28 , 1988 Page 2 At the April 26th Park and Recreation Commission meeting, the — Commission unanimously recommended the increased fee schedule below, based upon the method outlined in Attachment C: Single Family $425/unit Duplex $425/unit Multi-family $295/unit Industrial $1 ,050/acre Attachments — A. Staff Report dated December 30 , 1987 . B. Minutes dated January 26 , 1988 . C . Staff Report dated February 10 , 1988 . D . Minutes dated March 22 , 1983 . E. Staff Report dated April 7 , 1988 . F . Minutes dated April 12 , 1988 .G . Staff Report dated April 22 , 1988 . H . Minutes dated April 26 , 1988 . ..r CITY OF _ c CHANHASSEN I �' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: December 30 , 1987 SUBJ: Park Dedication Fee Requirements Existing cash park fees for the City of Chanhassen are as follows: Single Family Unit $ 415 Duplex 415 Multi-Family & Townhouse: Efficiency 110 • 1 bedroom 200 2 bedroom 330 3 bedroom 405 4 bedroom 425 Commercial/Industrial 1035 The Park and Recreation Commission is required to review the Park Dedication requirements on an annual basis and submit a recommen- dation to the City Council . The fee schedule above has not changed since 1982 . Enclosed is a copy of a report completed by Schilling Environment Consultants for the City of Vadnais Heights regarding park dedi- cation fees . This report compares the park fees of fourteen cities within the seven county metropolitan area, and points out several interesting facts . The most common method for charging cash park fees is a flat fee base for residential land use. For commercial/industrial land uses the most common method used by local governments appears to be based upon a percentage of the total site to be required in either land or cash equivalent . Chanhassen uses a flat fee for both residential and commercial , office and industrial . atkra6+ Park and Recreation Commission December 30 , 1987 Page 2 The comparison between cities that have flat cash dedication fees is as follows: 1 . White Bear Lake Single Family $375/unit Duplex $750 Multiple Family $250/unit + $75/ bed added above the 1st bedroom Commercial/Industrial $1,500/acre exclud- ing streets and roads 2 . Little Canada Single Family $300/unit Multiple Family $100/unit Commercial/Industrial 5% of the fair market value of — undeveloped land 3 . Eagan Single Family & Duplex $440/unit — Townhouse $365/unit Apartment & Condo $275 Commercial/Industrial Cash equivalent of _ $ . 04/s.f . of devel- opment less roads 4 . Woodbury Single Family $400/unit Duplex $300/unit Multiple Family $200/unit Commercial/Industrial Cash equivalent of — $1200/ac. - Indust. $1500/ac. - Commer. $1800/ac. - Office 5 . Lakeville Single Family $370/unit Duplex $750 Multiple Family $250/unit + $75 — above 1st bedroom 6 . Eden Prairie Single Family $420/unit _ All Other Residential $320/unit Off/Commercial/Industrial $2300/acre Table three of the report indicates a comparison of how much park fees would be raised from a typical single family residential subdivision in the various communities as well as a multi-family residential subdivision . Eden Prairie, whose fee structure is most similar to Chanhassen, is sixth out of fourteen in the amount of fees that would be generated from single family resi- dential and is number one in the amount of fees that would be generated from multi-family residential . The amount of money — that would be generated from commercial/office/industrial for the City of Eden Prairie indicates the largest degree of inequity in AIMMI comparing with other cities in the survey; however, when compared Park and Recreation Commission — December 30 ,1987 Page 3 - with other fast-growing cities such as Eagan and Woodbury, the City of Eden Prairie feels they actually generate more dollars — per amount of commercial/office and industrial developed. This survey points out that there is no totally fair and equitable method for comparing how cash park fees should be — generated from single family land, compared to multiple, or com- pared to commercial/office or industrial property. The bottom line test for a court of law must be whether or not a city can prove that the proposed development generates the same amount of need for additional parks or recreation facilities as is charged by the city. Obviously, the easiest category to prove a need is single family residential . Multiple family residential is also relatively easy, however; it is more difficult to prove what amount of need commercial/office and industrial users bring to a city. As long as cities such as Chanhassen allow individuals who "live or work" in the City to have equal access to facili- ties, leagues , etc. , it is much easier to prove the additional need for recreation facilities and parks with new commercial/office and industrial development. Another aspect to be considered in Chanhassen is the newly established trail fee of $138 applied to residential develop- - ments . Few cities have a trail fee, however , most other cities have trail construction requirements , i .e . developers are required to build trails identified on trail plans as construc- tion occurs . As our trail fee is new, and primarily affects residential developments , staff feels an increase in single and multiple family fees would be excessive at this time. In light of this , staff recommends no increase in park dedication fees for single family developments . Additionally, it is recom- mended that a flat fee be established for multiple family develop- - ments , rather than the variable rate ( this figure was determined by taking the average unit fee) . As commercial , industrial and office developments are not impacted by the trail fee, it is recommended that the fee for such be raised by 10% . The recom- - mended dedication fee schedule appears as follows : Single Family Residential $ 415/unit Multi-Family Residential 295/unit Commercial/Office/Industrial 1 ,140/acre —( Schilling Environmental Consultants 2785 White Bear Avenue, Suite 210 • Mcplewood, MN 55109 • (612) 777-6606 0 REPORT ON THE ANALYSIS OF PARK DEDICATION FEES OF SELECTED CITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA Joel G. Schilling, Principal October,1987 INTRODUCTION The following report presents an analysis of park dedication fees of fourteen (14) cities selected from within the Seven County Metropolitan Area. The cities included are as follows: Arden Hills Coon Rapids Eagan Eden Prairie —' Lakeville Little Canada Mahtomedi Oakdale — Roseville Shoreview White Bear Lake Woodbury Vadnais Heights White Bear Township The process of selection included in first priority those local governments immediately surrounding Vadnais Heights, second those cities in which a substantial amount of residential and/or commercial-industrial development is occurring (Eagen, Eden Prairie Woodbury) and finally some randomly scattered — cities (Coon Rapids, Oakdale, Lakeville, Mahtomedi) . The analysis included both the examination of schedules for land as well as cash dedication formulas or fees. LAND AND CASH DEDICATION Table I illustrates the land dedication formulas or fee percentage for eleven of the fourteen cities. Over half the local governments have a land dedication formula based upon a sliding scale depicting a percentage of the dwelling site — density versus the development area. r'. -2- Those cities which do not show a land dedication formula, rely instead upon cash dedications being adequate for the outright purchase of park property needed. Table II describes the formula or fee schedules used by all fourteen local governments for cash park dedications. In both Tables I and II the park dedication requirements are shown for both residential (single and multi-family) and commercial/industrial landuses . In contrast to the land dedication table, only four of the fourteen cities make use of a density based cash dedication formula for residential landuse. The more common method appears to be a flat fee base for residential landuse. For commercial/industrial landuses, the most common method used by local governments appears to be based upon a percentage of the total site to be required in either land or cash equivalent. A group of five cities use either a fee per acre basis (White Bear Lake, Woodbury, Eden Prairie) or fee based upon either square footage of the building or development site (Vadnais Heights, Eagen) . ANALYSIS Next an attempt was made to provide a perspective upon the various local government park dedication fees by using specific development examples. Table III presents three different examples of actual developments within the City of Vadnais Heights together with the actual or probable resultant park dedication. Example No.1 is a single family residential development of. 81 homes upon 42 .84 acres . The park dedication for the City of Vadnais Heights was $ 33,544 which falls in the upper half of the fourteen local governments surveyed. The amount of dedication by Vadnais Heights translates into $ 414 per home which is similar to the flat fee amounts used by a number of cities (Woodbury, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Coon Rapids) . Small residential developments (less than 5 acres, both single family and multi-family) in Vadnais Heights are not treated equitable as are larger similar developments which will be discussed later. The top half of the cities in Table III have cash dedication amounts which are nearly identical to the undeveloped land dedication amounts (equivalent cash values) . The lower half of cities, however, would find it particularily difficult to justify a taking of land instead of cash. A compounding problem for the upper half of cities is the value of the finished land in the above example. In this example, the land when finished with utilities and streets has sold for $ 55 - 75, 000 per acre (less the residence) and $ 150 - 300, 000 with the home! -3- Therefore, a city finds it very difficult to take a land dedication which is often worth less than half the value of the bare developable property. Instead a city often receives land which requires the expenditure of considerable funds to fill low areas, remove unstable soils or has steep undevelopable slopes. Example No. 2 is a multi-family residential development of 113 apartment units on 7.25 acres. It is apparent in this example that there is a much larger spread of park dedication cash amounts. Vadnais Heights is in the lower half of the fourteen cities with a cash dedication equal to $ 154 per unit. While initially this seems quite low, it should be stressed that the City may require an additional expenditure by the developer in the form of a small playlot. In nearly all the cities examined in this study,• multi-family developments _ contribute less cash on a per unit basis than single family residences. While this is certainly not equitable, the Vadnais Heights approach of sometimes requiring an additional play area to be built provides some logic in requiring less cash payment on a unit basis (Some local governments have a similar requirement] . — Example No. 3 is a commercial/industrial development consisting of a light — manufacturing building of 24, 644 S.F. on 1. 9 acres. Here is found the greatest disparity among cities in how cash dedication is handled. Two thirds of the cities require a percentage of the land in equivalent cash value on the order of 5 - 10 % . Other cities have required a fee based upon a per acre or square footage of development. The former example seems to be logical in that it equates the value of the dedication with the value of a similar amount of land which could be taken. In other words, in the case of Vadnais Heights it would — seem impossible to take a land dedication valued at $16, 553 when the required cash dedication is only $1,200 . Conversely, White Bear Township could take _ either land or cash as they would be equivalent. The requirement for any land or cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse arises occasionally and should be discussed. First, it would seem that many cities have been requiring a substantial cash dedication for some time with no problems with respect to development (Roseville, Arden Hills) . Second, clearly a commercial or industrial -' enterprize has no direct need for parks in contrast to police, fire and public works needs, but indirectly its workers may choose to relocate to a city whoose -- park system is adequate and well maintained. Therefore, the attractiveness of a city is dependent upon its ability to acquire the necessary park funds from all its residents . -4- Third, there is a need for a growing city to have a competitive edge in the —6( attraction of new development and therefore a lower percentage contribution of cash or land dedication for commercial/industrial development may be in order. RECOMrENDATIONS 1 . It is recommended that the complex density based system for cash dedication for residential properties be dropped and instead be replaced by a simple flat fee basis as follows: • Single Family - $ 400/unit Duplex - $ 300/unit Multi-Family - $ 200/unit 2 . The land dedication formula should remain as a desity based system as it seems to have functioned adequately. 3 . The cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse should be changed to a simple percentage fee based upon 2 to 5 percent of the undeveloped fair market value. mom mw -5- TABLE I PARK - LAND DEDICATION CITY j2ESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL Vadnais Heights 9 - 20% of site, density based* 10 % of the total site White Bear Lake 10 % of the total site. 5 % of the total site Shoreview 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site Little Canada 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site Roseville 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site — White Bear Twp. 10 - 15 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site Arden Hills 10 - 15 % of site, density based. 0 - 15 % of the total site Oakdale 5 - 17 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site Coon Rapids 5 - 18 % of site, density based. 3 - 5 % of the total site Plymouth 0 - 25 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site — Fridley 10 % of the site 3 % of the total site Mahtomedi 7 % of the total site. 7 % of the total site CITY DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE* LAND DEDICATION (%) — Vadnais Heights 0 - 2 units/acre 9 % 2 - 4 " 11 % 4 - 6 " 13 % 6 - 8 15 % 8 - 10 17 % 10+ " 17+ - 20 % — White Bear Twp. 0 - 3.5 units/acre 10 % 3.5 - 4.5 " 11 % _ 4.5 - 6.0 " 12 % 6.0 - 7 .0 " 13 % 7.0 - 8 .0 " 14 % 8.0 + " 15 % — Arden Hills 0 - 2 units/acre 10 % 2 - 3 11 % — 3 - 4 ft 12 % 4 + " 12 - 15 % -6- TABLE I (cont 'd) Oakdale 0 - 1 units/acre 5 % 1.1 - 3 10 % 3.1 - 4 " 11 % 4.1 - 5 " 12 % 5.1 - 6 13 % 6.1 - 7 " 14 % 7 .1 - 8 " 15 % _ 8.1 - 9 " 16 % 9.1 - 10 " 17 % 10.1 + 17+ % Coon Rapids 0 - 1 units/acre 5 % 2 - 3 " 10 % 4 - 5 " 12 % 6 - 7 " 13 % 8 - 12 " 14 % 13 - 16 " 18 % 16+ 18+ % Plymouth 0 - 2 units/acre 10 % 3 - 4 " 11 % 5 - 6 " 14 % 7 - 8 " 15.5 % 9 - 10 17.5 % 11 - 12 " 20 % -7- TABLE II PARK - CASH DEDICATION CITX DENSITY UNITS/ACRE CASH DEDICATION Vadnais Heights 0 - 3 units/acre $ 200/unit _ (Development sites 3 - 6 ^ $ 250/unit of 0 - 5 acres) 6 - 8 $ 300/unit DENSITY UNITS/ACB, % OF LAND VALUE (Development sites 0 - 2 units/acre 9 % * of 5 or more acres) 2 - 4 11 % 4 - 6 13 % 6 - 8 15 % 8 - 10 17 % 10 + 17 - 20 % * undeveloped land value without utilities. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL $ 200 per 4, 000 S.F. of building or 5 % of value of appraised undeveloped site White Bear Lake Single Family $ 375/unit _ Duplex $ 750 Apartments, townhouses,condos. $ 250/unit + $75/bed added above the first bedrm COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL $ 1,500 per acre, excluding streets and roads. Shoreview _ DENSITY UNITS/ACRE % OF LAND VALUE 0 - 2 units/acre 4 % * 2.1 - 3 5 % 3.1 - 4 6 % 4.1 - 5 7 % 5.1 + " 10 % * undeveloped land value with utilities included on or near the site. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 10 % of the fair market value of the land. White Bear Twp. Single Family $ 175 Multi Family $ 175/dwelling unit OR DENSITY UNITS/ACRE % OF LAND VALVE 0 - 3.5 units/acre 10 % * 3.5 - 4.5 " 11 % _ 4.5 - 6.0 " 12 % 6.1 - 7.0 " 13 % 7.1 - 8.0 " 14 % 8 .1 + " 15 % * undeveloped land value with utilities not included. -8- Table II (cont 'd) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 10 % of the fair market value of the land. Little Canada Single Family $ 300/unit Multi Family $ 100/unit COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 5 % of the fair market value of the undeveloped land. Roseville RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL The cash equivalent of the undeveloped fair market value of 10 % of gross site area. Arden Hills RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL The cash equivalent of the undeveloped land value using the same percentage as land dedication formula. Oakdale _ DENSITY UNITS/ACRE CASH DEDICATION 0 - 1 units/acre $ 275/unit 1.1 - 3 $ 275/unit 3.1 - 4 " $ 250/unit 4.1 - 5 " $ 250/unit 5.1 - 6 " $ 250/unit 6.1 - 7 " $ 220/unit 7.1 - 8 $ 220/unit 8.1 - 9 " $ 220/unit 9.1 - 10 " $ 220/unit 10.1 + $ 220/unit COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL The cash equivalent value of the 10 % land dedication required. Coon Rapids Single Family $ 384/unit Two Family $ 326/unit Townhouses $ 286/unit Mobile Homes $ 291/unit Multi $ 238/unit COMMERCIAL 3 % of the fair market value with a maximum of $1152 (3x Single Family) INDUSTRIAL 5 % of the fair market value with a maximum of $1152 (3x Single Family) _r Mahtomedi RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 10 % of the undeveloped fair market value or $ 200/lot whichever is greater. -9- TABLE II (cont 'd) Eagan Single Family or duplex $ 440/unit — Townhouse $ 365/unit Apartments & condominiums $ 275/unit COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL The cash equivalent of $ 0.04/S.F. of development less roadways. Woodbury — Single Family $ 400/unit Duplex $ 300/unit Multi Family $ 200/unit — COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL The cash equivalent of $ 1,200/acre - industrial, $ 1,500/acre - commercial, $ 1, 800/acre office. Eden Prairie Single Family $ 420/unit All other $ 320/unit COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL _ The cash equivalent of $ 2,300/acre. Lakeville Single Family $ 375/unit Duplex $ 750 Apartments/Townhouse/Condominium $ 250/unit + $ 75 above the first bedroom. Note: Information on the cities of Mahtomedi, Eagen, Woodbury, Eden Prairie, and _ Lakeville was acquired from a White Bear Township memorandum of September 15, 1987 from Jan Regan to the Town Board/Park Board. -10- TABLE III PROBABLE PARR DEDICATION SIIIwRY EXAMPLE No. 1 - Single Family Residential This example consists of a single family residential development in the City of Vadnais Heights. Site construction was begun in 1986 and consists of 81 homes on 42.84 acres (density: 1.89 units/acre) . The appraised undeveloped land value is $ 8,700/acre for a total value of $ 372,708. The following is a summary table listing each city's probable park - land or cash dedication based upon the information within tables I and II which would be required if the development took place within their corporate boundaries. CITY CASH DEDICATION LAND DEDICATIO} Arden Hills $ 37,271 4.28 acres* Mahtomedi $ 37,271 4.28 " Roseville $ 37,271 4.28 " White Bear Twp. $ 37,271 4.28 " _ Eagen $ 35,360 ---- Eden Prairie $ 34, 020 ---- Vadnais Heights $ 33, 544 (actual amount paid) 3.86 "** Woodbury $ 32, 400 ---- Coon Rapids $ 31, 104 4 .28 " r Lakeville $ 30, 375 ---- White Bear Lake $ 30,375 4.28 " Little Canada $ 24,300 4 .28 " Oakdale $ 22,275 4.28 " Shoreview $ 14, 908 4.28 " * Value of the dedicated land: 4.28 acres x $ 8,700 = $ 37,236 ** Value of the dedicated land: 3.86 acres x $ 8,700 = $ 33,582 Chanhassen $33,615 3.24 acres (Based on 1 acre/75 people) -11- TABLE III (cont 'd) _ 17 EXAMPLE No. 2 - Multi Family Residential This example consists of an apartment complex of 113 dwelling units upon 7.25 acres (density: 15. 6 units/acre) . The complex is in the City of Vadnais Heights and has begun construction in late 1987. The park dedication is an estimate — based upon an appraised undeveloped land value of $12,000/acre or a total land value of $87, 000. CITY CASH DEDICATIQIQ LAND DEDICATION Eden Prairie $ 36,160 — Lakeville $ 35, 000 White Bear Lake $ 35,000 0.72 acres Eagan $ 31, 075 Coon Rapids $ 26, 894 1.30 " Oakdale $ 24, 860 1.81 " Woodbury $ 22, 600 Mahtomedi $ 22, 600 0.50 " -' White Bear Twp. $ 19,775 1.09 " Vadnais Heights $ 17, 400 1.45 " Arden Hills $ 13,040 1.09 " Little Canada $ 11, 300 0.72 „ Roseville $ 8,700 0.72 " CShoreview $ 8,700 0.72 " — Chanhassen $33,335 3.01 acres (an average of the multi- family fee was used - $295 per unit) -12- TABLE III (cont 'd) EXAMPLE No. 3 - Commercial/Industrial This example consists of a light manufacturing building of 24, 644 S.F upon 1.9 acres. The complex is in the City of Vadnais Heights and was constructed in late 1986. The park dedication is an estimate based upon an undeveloped land value of $ 65,340/acre or a total land value of $ 124, 146. CITY CASH DEDICATION LAND DEDICATION Arden Hills $ 18,295 (probable maximum) 0.28 acres Mahtomedi $ 12, 415 0.19 " Oakdale $ 12, 415 0.19 " Roseville $ 12,415 0.19 " Shoreview $ 12, 415 0.19 " White Bear Twp. $ 12, 415 0.19 " Little Canada $ 6,207 0.19 " Coon Rapids $ 6,207 0.09 " Eden Prairie $ 4,370 Eagen $ 3,000 White Bear Lake $ 2,850 0.09 " Woodbury $ 2,280 Vadnais Heights $ 1,200 (actual amount) 0.19 " Chanhassen $ 1,966 0.19 acres CHANHASSEN MANAGER' S NOTE: The above example is not typical as : ° Building to land ratios for commercial/industrial range from 35% to 45% . Accordingly, a 1 acre to 1 . 25 acre parcel was needed; not 1 . 9 acres as shown; and ° A $65 , 340 per acre value appears high for an industrial site; i .e. our business park has a current value of $24, 000 to $28 , 000 per acre ( excludes improvements which double this figure. Chaska industrial office park lands are closer to $22 ,000 without improvements) . Using $20 ,000 to $25 , 000 per acre and 1 . 2. acres produces approxi- mately $2 , 400 to $3 ,000 for Mahtomedi versus the $12 ,415 shown. _ Chanhassen' s $1 , 300 to $2 ,000 cost is therefore closer than it looks. CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION l CGULAR MEETING JNUARY 26 , 1988 Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Carol Watson, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, Ji.m ,— toady, Larry Schroers and Ed Hasek STAFF PRESENT: Lori. Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Mady moved, Hasek seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 8 , 1988 .All voted in favor and motion carried . INTERVIEW COMMISSION APPLICANTS . Sietsema : Your options for the commission applications is to direct staff to readvertise for more applications or to appoint the ones that have applied . It ' s up to you . Watson moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission _ recommend reappointment of Jim Mady and Larry Schroers to the Park and Recreation Commission . All voted in favor and motion carried . PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE FEES . Sietsema : I don ' t know if you want to go over this in detail . — Basically what I did is I looked at the study that was done by Schilling Environment Consultants and took a good hard look at what other cities are doing. We seem to be right in the running with what other cities are doing . What I ' ve recommended is that the single family and duplex — remain the same. That we consolidate all of the multi-family instead of having the different ones for each kind of unit and what I did is basically I added them all up and divided by how ever many there are. So I took an average of all those which seemed to be an appropriate figure also. Then I ' ve recommended an increase of 10o for the commercial office and industrial . The reason that the 10o increase was recommended for the commercial/industrial was because the single family units will be filling an increase in dedication fees with the addition of the trail fee. Although that ' s a different fee and they are not really one in the same, I did not think the timing was right to increase the park fee and add a new fee as well . For the commercial/industrial isn ' t really effected by the trail fee , or is very minimumly so I ' ve recommended an increase in the industrial . Boyt : I think we should double the industrial . I that at 1, 000 homes , $140. 00 per acre , we ' re assuming that the maximum number of people we _ - ould have is 7 . 5 per acre. These people would then be treated the same , f they had 7 . 5 per acre as a single family unit . I think it would be more comparable to Eden Prairie in our commercial/industrial . The people who work in these facilities generate the same amount of need for — additional parks and recreational spaces . I think we ' re going to have - Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 2 more than 7 people per acre in the industrial facilities . — Lynch: You really think they do generate the same amount Sue? Boyt : Yes , like in Eden Prairie. Anyone who works in Eden Prairie is - eligible to belong to the Community Center . To use that facility. We ' re going to be having more facilities and you ' re going to be eligible to use those if they work in Chanhassen. — Lynch: I can ' t imagine , for instance, that they' re going in programs in Eden Prairie if they live in Bloomington. - Boyt : A lot of people who live in Chanhassen, have their kids in Eden Prairie. Lynch : I can understand that because we' re on the undeveloped fringe but it ' s a little hard. Maybe people from Victoria but it' s a pretty . . .on their folks to bring their kids all the way. We used to have that a little bit, even back in the old days because they just liked our — programs . Watson: What are demographics of the people who worked at United _ Mailing? That last article in the paper told alot about where these leople came from. There were quite a few from Carver . Most of them were within the County but there quite a few of the people were from west of here . Lynch : When I flew for Northwest , I played on their ballteam and the ballteam I played on was a classy thing in Bloomington but I was living in Hopkins and we took no other advantage of any park system except just that basketball league. Boyt : That ' s not where I see families who live next to a community that has nice facilities. Lynch : We' re not going to attract Eden Prairie people this way. Boyt: We do. We do attract Eden Prairie. The kids play on our baseball teams . They play on our soccer teams . They' re coming over - here. Lynch : Why? - Boyt : We' re developing a different sort of athletic program with all our coaches are required to be certified now and we ' re putting the emphasize of really being and giving your time rather than the league so — we evaluate our whole program and it ' s made a big difference . People are coming in. _ C,.ynch : To my knowledge , when I was coaching , never had , ever , an Eden Prairie kid . Like I said, we'd have some come from Victoria but never Chaska . Park and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 3 l — Boyt : We still have Victoria kids . We have Minnetonka kids . Chaska — kids and Eden Prairie kids. Some of the people coming from Eden Prairie are coming because we have smaller programs. They like the smaller programs . Lynch : Now are these people then that you know, work here or are they just showing up? Boyt : Some of the work here . Lynch: What if they don' t work here? — Boyt : They can play in our programs . They can participate . Sietsema :Sietsema : It ' s the adult leagues mostly that have the stipulation that you should live or work i.n Chanhassen . For the adult men ' s softball , if there' s a team from Chaska that wants to get into the league, the only way they can get into the league is if there ' s an opening . If the — league has not filled with Chanhassen teams . If it ' s filled, they' re last priority but because the youth programs are run by the Association , the City doesn ' t have any stipulation on who can play on those because we don ' t actually administer the programs . Their policy has been that anybody who wants to play, all they have to do is register and become a /: ember of CAA. — Lynch : This is getting kind off the subject but I 'm interested . What happens when the City takes a program over? Sietsema : At that point , I think what we would do , it would have a lot to do with the numbers. If we' re hurting for kids to make a good round robin league so they can play, there ' s more than two teams , i.f we ' re _ hurting for kids to be in the program, then we would invite other kids in . It would basically run the same way as the adults , as I would see it. The programs are all open to anybody who wants to play i.n them but Chanhassen residents live and work first . — Lynch: There ' s no legal liability reason that the City wouldn ' t want any? Sietsema : No , not that I 'm aware of . That ' s never been an issue that I ' ve ever heard of . Mady: I was curious when I read this , why commercial properties should be assessed the trail fee. Sietsema : They would be for their building permit . It ' s $138 . 00 for their building permit . Their building permit is just one where single family development has maybe 100. So a developer taking out one _ building permit for an industrial that has to pay $138 . 00 where a \,Developer with a single family has to pay $138 , 000 . 00. Mady: Shouldn ' t we be basing that, that $138. 00 is kind of based on the -' fact that per unit usually means it ' s going to benefit from the trail _ Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 4 — 4: system, they should be paying a proportion of the trail and it ' s based on how many units of development it ' s created. Sietsema: In dealing with the residential , it ' s really geared toward density but it wasn ' t applied that way to the commercial/industrial . Now you may want to re-evaluate that . The thing is , the trail fee is designed so that the trails are developed within the development . Along the streets within the development that abut the development , it ' s to make sure that if a developer comes in and has three streets that go — through, we' ve got a trail on those streets and they contribute toward the whole trail system whereas , there probably won ' t be as many trails or the trails will already be in place in the industrial park. Mady: I 'm just thinking of situations . McGlynn ' s Bakery bought the corner right across from Paisley Palace . They' re going , at some point i.n time, build a large bakery. They' ll pay $138 . 00 for trails . Our trail plan had trails running on both TH 5 and CR 117 . That $138 . 00 isn ' t going to buy us much more than about 10 feet of trail realisticly. We can ' t charge them a million dollars for it either . Sietsema: Perhaps you want to increase the trail fee to on an acre . Mady: One-third of the cost . ( ,ietsema : Equal to one-third of the park dedication fee . - Mady: That ' s where I 'm looking at. During the day, we see a lot of people, especially in the nicer weather . Now you don ' t see it so much but during the day there are people coming out from work who are - running , jogging during the noon hour . They probably using the trails more so than the residents are. Lynch : When you take an area such as the Washington Avenue , Eden Prairie Drive, bike and drive where I am. There must be a little lake behind the biking headquarters , there ' s a trail all the way around that now and a new segment north of that, for every one of those business complexes that ' s in there to have paid $138 . 00. . . Sietsema: Perhaps that ' s a better way to handle it. That would bring the fee to about $350 . 00 per acre for the industrial then . Mady: Eden Prairie the business complexes to build their trails when they put them in. There ' s a building like this going up on TH 169 and ` they put trails in there. Boyt : DataCorp. You always see people on the DataCorp trail and - there ' s nothing up there. They just want to get out and walk . CMady: That ' s where I would like to see i.t go. Something more in line ith what we ' re requiring the residential developers , should be required of the business developers also . Hasek : You ' re simply addressing now the trail fee? The $138 . 00? MOP Park and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 5 47 Sietsema : Yes . — Hasek : When I first went through this , I walked out of the office and talked to just about everybody there and the Court says there has to be an equity. If you really want to get down to it , if somebody wanted to come in and fight this thing. The Court says there has to be an equity between what is required or used by the person you' re exacting from and what is exacting from that person. It all gets to, I think the bottom — line is to people. Who uses it and who doesn ' t use it . The one thing I noticed in what we' ve got going here, single family $415. 00 per unit and duplexes is still $415 . 00 and that ' s actually two families . — Sietsema: Per unit . Hasek: Okay, that ' s per . I think the duplexes is a little bit high then where I think when we get down to some of these other things , they' re just a tad low. The bottom question I have is , how much use do we actually get out of commercial and industrial users and there ' s nothing in here that really tells us anything about how many people that work in those places , what percentage of those people actually use the system. I don ' t know if there ' s a study out there that ' s ever been done, that may suggest things like that but that ' s what I 'd be interested in seeing . Sietsema : I can tell you that the people that we have in the City, — almost everybody in the industrial park has at least one team on the industrial league and some of those play on more than one league. The Press has two teams . DataServ, next year , when they' re in operation ,will have six teams . Kiowa Corporation has a team. Instant Webb has at least a team. United Mailing has a team. They almost all , all the big ones anyway, have a team and I think it would be a reasonable thing to say that once we get the trails in and around Lake Susan Park, that — that will be used by those people quite a bit . Hasek: The other thing that I wanted to say, was that if you look at a — single family user , it ' s 3 people per household , whatever , a single family house has open space and they do recreate i.n the open space that they have. They' ve got spots for the kids to go out i.n the backyard , _ throw a ball , hit softballs and shoot golf balls i.n the front yard . When you get into an apartment complex , the demand on the park system, is higher per user because they don ' t have that open space available and a lot of times the places to recreate aren ' t there . It gets even more intense when you get into commercial uses because there ' s nothing there so they have just a direct demand on the system. I guess what I 'm thinking is that there must be someway of looking at this and saying , — single family area should have to contribute less than the industrial per user , even though the industrial may not have as many people using it directly. If you' ve got a single family house , chances are that mom and dad when they' re going to take the kids to somplace , there will be a fairly heavy use per user , for single family where when you get to the commercial/industrial uses , maybe the use isn ' t as heavy but there ' s more of a demand for the use by those users on the system. Do you — Park and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 6 — (7 understand what I 'm saying? It ' s confusingto look at but it seems 9like the single family here is almost being penalized for being a single family when they've got their own open space to begin with and it should be the industrial user that gets hit the heaviest. If you look at it that way, it can be defended , if it were ever to be challenged . When you start talking about, I know I just got done with a project in Champlin that paid $45 , 000. 00 for a 19 acre multi-use piece of ground . They paid $5. 000. 00 for their park dedication fee. They also have to put in a concrete sidewalk on two sides of the project . That was in addition to the fee. Incredible what they ask for out there. Nobody' s challenged it yet but it should be challenged out there . I think it ' s way out of focus . They simply say, commercial uses are going to have a higher demand and we' re going to charge them more than single family. It just goes up the scale. It ' s nuts and it ' s wrong. I think if we can find a way to make it tied to the user , it should be defendable , if anybody should challenge it and it certainly would be easier to exact more for commercial and industrial projects who do have the big teams like they' re talking about and do put up fairly heavy use on the big buck parts of the system. Sietsema : I hear what you' re saying and what I would contend is that it ' s hard, you can not measure how much each person is going to use. If you' re going to go by how much each person is going to use it, you ' ve got to wait until they move in and measure it. Some single family X: person may be out at Lake Ann Park every week and the other may never go out there. What you do is you have it available to everybody. You ' re offering these programs and they' re available to everybody. Whether they use them or not, they' re responsible for helping to foot the bill for it . That includes the industrial . They may not have their kids in the programs and they may not play on the softball league but it ' s available to them. Some of them do. Watson: As we add facilities , and they may use nothing now but we may offer something later on that they will be using . Sietsema: I think it ' s going to be impossible, and it 'd be impossible for any Court to prove, how much single family is going to use the park system compared to industrial because each industry varies and each neighborhood varies . The people that live in Minnewashta use a lot different parks services than the people who live in Carver Beach simply because of what' s available but that' s to be considered also . Everything in the City is available to everybody who lives or works here and as long as we keep it open to everybody who lives or works . . . Hasek: If that' s the case, if you really firmly believe that, then you can tie it directly to bodies . It should be able to be tied directly to bodies . Sietsema : It should be directly to density. Hasek: No, bodies. Bodies, not density because if you look at for example , a single family there ' s a statistic . There are 3 . 4 people on the average per family. If you ' re getting a 3 . 4 average family within Park and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 7 — 47. the City. If you get down to industrial uses and you can in fact , there — are numbers that will tell you how many for a certain type of use, certain type of industrial or commercial use , how many people typically that generates for business and you could tie it directly to bodies . Sietsema : How complicated do you want to make this? I think that a flat fee. . . — Hasek : If it comes down to bodies , then it ' s by the use and it ' s almost by the acre at that point. You can tie it to units where you've got a residential or you can tie it to acreage where you ' re got commercial and industrial uses . — Boyt : I worked with the figure 2. 5. — Sietsema: The City' s is 2. 8 . Boyt : And assume that the $415 . 00 per single family unit was for 2. 5 people and that we multiple that times 3, we get 7 . 5 people per acre in a commercial because you multiple $415 . 00 times 3 and you get what we ' re charging for commercial . So we' re assuming that there are 7 . 5 people — per acre in the commercial/industrial buildings in Chanhassen , if we ' re going per person. That ' s real low. We could double that and look at 15 eople per acre . . . asek : Look at a McDonalds. A McDonalds i.s roughly an acre site. How many people do they employ? How many people are eligible in that? There ' s almost a double indemnity. Assuming that those people are — outside the city and you ' re almost double charging , if those people all come from within the city which i.n the case of a McDonalds or something like that , they probably would . Sietsema : That is probably one reason why some of the cities that were in here charged by the square foot of the building. Some charged 4 cents per square foot of building space and that could maybe be tied in - more readily to how many people per square feet of building normally an industrial normally employs and I don ' t know what those figures are either . Hasek : I guess my feeling is , they have to be adjusted but I don ' t know that simply throwing out a bunch of stuff at us and asking us to make a decision on it is the right way to go. I don ' t know if this is even the — right study. All it does is tells us what other people have done. It doesn ' t tell us whether they' re right or wrong or not so that ' s left up to us to decide. I know I called Mark and talked to hi.m a little bit about it and he was , as much as I was by the time we got done talking about it what it really should be. If somebody in the business can ' t figure it out , how in the world if this commission supposed to try and understand what ' s fair and equitable. I don ' t know. I guess what I 'd — xke to do it take a little bit of time to see i.f I can ' t find a study Lhat somehow ties it to square foot and make some real logical sense out of it . I don ' t want to exact a ton of money for the amount of people. I — guess I 'd like it to be absolutely fair . I 'd like it to be on the high Park and Recreation Commission — January 26 , 1988 - Page 8 end but I 'd like it to be fair . It wouldn ' t hurt me a bit to try for $1, 000. 00 for single family unit if it was equitable all the way across the system and the park board had more money than anybody in the world . That would be great with me but I think it should be equitable and I don ' t know that I can make a decision as to an equitable way of doing it. Si.etsema : So what do you want to do? Hasek : I think if we had to vote right now, I 'd just have to abstain because I don ' t know that I could make a rational decision. You talked about discussion and the possibility of a motion, that would have to be my decision . Sietsema : So if you were to make a motion to table, what would you want? What would you direct staff or what you want to table it until? Hasek : I would like to direct staff and maybe particularly Mark, or yourself and Mark, just get a few people out there trying to see if there is a decent way of doing it . I guess I almost expected Mark to be here tonight just as kind of a second opinion on things. Maybe it ' s not that big of issue . I guess this is such a big deal to me is because I have to go through it day by day and you go through these different cities and look at their park fees and so forth , and sometimes you catch your head and wonder where in the world they' re coming from and fly they' re doing what they ' re doing . Boyt: I think one of the buildings in town , one of the printing places that is huge, only has like 7 people working in it . It wouldn ' t be fair for an acreage. Hasek : I can see at the same point , if you really think about it , you ' ve got a McDonalds that ' s right on the city limits between Eden — Prairie and the big population i.s just across the land to draw people from Eden Prairie to employ and you have a McDonalds . . . not even within the city, that would be actually 30 or 40 people per acre for that commercial use where another one might only have 2 or 3. Maybe it ' s done by employee. Sietsema : There' s not a lot of information on this . There really isn ' t — because I did call , I called almost all of these and more cities, to see what their formula was , how they go about it . Some of them have a flat fee. Some of them you have to take the raw land value times what the _ development costs could possibly be or the average development cost this year in the construction bulletin, or whatever . There are some really far out formulas and we used to have one . We' ve been trying to clean that up so it i.s a little bit cleaner and I think what we have is pretty consistent . I don' t think that we would have a hard time in Court right now. _ (—asek : I 'm not saying that it ' s not consistent but I don ' t know that it ' s necessarily equitable. I don' t know that the right people are paying for the the system is what I 'm saying . I don ' t know that it ' s Park and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 9 C necessarily wrong but I don ' t know that it ' s right and why change it if you don' t know and I don' t know. — Watson : Basically what you want is what other cities are doing . Whether it' s right or wrong . — Hasek : The right way to do it is the equitable way to do it . That ' s what the Courts will say. Watson : . . .what ' s equitable and we could possibly spend an awful lot of time thereby spend a lot of money because it ' s going to cost somebody time to figure out whether all these cities figured it out wrong and — there ' s a more accurate way of doing it. Basically we are doing it, if we want to take the time to figure this thing out , we could do that over the next few months but to hold this up to try and figure out something — that nobody else has figured out either . Hasek: I don' t know that anybody else has necessarily really tried . Watson : I can ' t believe that nobody has tried . I think there is only so much time and that ' s because time is money given to figuring this out . If we really thought that this was so wrong but I don ' t think that — we' re that wrong . cisek : As long as we ' re in line with everybody else. I 'm just wondering _ s the right people are paying . I would like to see industrial and commercial pay their fair share I guess is the bottom line but I don ' t want to pull a number out of the hat and say this is fair and then have all of those people in the commercial and industrial uses come through — this city and say, boy is this a ridiculous number . Where did you guys come up with this? — Sietsema : . . . it was to give 10% of the development or money equal to the raw land value and that ' s where this all originated . That ' s what the current numbers are based on . That goes back to 1984 when the last _ time this was changed. That was the old formula . It had to do with a lot of other things and development costs as well . So if it ' s safe to say that since 1984 land values have increased , then it would be safe to say that we could increase our fees by that much . — * A taping malfunction occurred at this point in the meeting . Hasek : . . .The reason why Eagan was approached , obviously was because there was some inequity in the system and that ' s why it was challeneged . Boyt : I think we need to find out how many people per square foot . In — other words , how many people are in our facilities in Chanhassen. We don ' t have that many industrial facilities . We could get an average number per acre per square foot . — Lasek : I would almost think that we could sit down and talk with the Planner, between the Planner and maybe Lori and the City Administrator _ and some of those and just get some opinions . Mark and his past Park and Recreation Commission — January 26 , 1988 - Page 10 — (7 experience . Met Council might have some generalized numbers for industrial uses and commercial uses . How many people are very typical . If we can tie it to something that someone has put together that at least looks half way decent and reasonable, it would be very easy to do. It ' s so stragith forward . Take commercial . You ' ve got x number of acres is this many dollars . Plain and simple. It ' s not tied to value — of the land , which flucuates , or anything like that . Simply if we could raise it based on cost of living or something like that. Or inflation rate or something . Lynch : I notice we are the lowest on the list as far as the dollars are concerned . Even if we raise the 10% that Lori suggests, we'd still be the lowest . Hasek : That indicates to me that the single family, the people that have the most open space, are the ones that are carrying the burden and — I don ' t think that ' s fair . Lynch : Ed , are they carrying a burden or is the commercial property not paying enough? Hasek : Either way. Like I said, I ' d like to see the single family and residential go up but I 'd like to be darn sure that the rest of the land — uses are carrying their fair share . I think doubling commercial and C 'dustrial , as was suggested by Sue , might not be out of line but I .in ' t know for sure. Lynch : One thing we have to be certain of , and again , these numbers are based on this 10% of the value of the property, current raw land . We want to be darn sure that we don' t exceed that in one of these categories because when we do, that' s where we base our flexibility on in the past . So if we still think in some manner , then we become undefensable. Then we ' re going to have a problem. Boyt : So , we need to find out how much an acre of land is selling for? It ' s more than $40, 000. 00 isn ' t it, in Chanhassen? Sietsema : It depends on where. Hasek: That ' s great. This City would be plum full if . . . Boyt : 10% would be $415 . 00 for $40 , 000 . 00 per acre . - Sietsema : That ' s raw land value is what you have to go by. Before any improvements . Hasek : Still , they' re selling for $12. 00-$15 . 00 per square foot along TH 12 and obviously that ' s a different situation. ,dy: We' re talking about the southern area and putting i.n a new park — wn there and talking to Al Klingelhutz, he says $3 , 000. 00 to $3 , 500. 00 an acre is low. Park and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 11 (7 Hasek : That ' s raw land . What would an acre across the street over here sell for? — Mady: A lot . Hasek : See , 10% of that is going to be considerably higher and I don ' t know that necessarily the location of the building, based on land values , is the way to go. I really don ' t. I think that ' s unfair . I — can ' t believe, in Minnetonka where they have land values of $12 . 00 a foot up here that they' re paying for a commercial site . Sietsema : The reason you have to do that though is because you can only demand park dedication for the area that the developer is creating the need for. The reason they go by the raw land value is because it ' s a different value in the rural area than it is for single family than it — i.s for industrial . You see what I mean? Hasek : Let ' s take that to a step under a logical conclusion , let ' s go — into central Minneapolis where there is no opportunity to do anything more . If somebody comes in and wants to do something there , they give park dedication based on their location there which is probably $25 . 00 a _ foot in the IDS Tower . $50. 00 or $150. 00 or whatever it was for a foot for that land . cetsema : The whole premise is that it ' s a park dedication . The only — eason you wouldn ' t take park land dedication is because you already have park in that area or it ' s undesirable land . You don ' t want it in that specific area so then you will take the fees equal to the land _ value in lieu of taking the land . So it ' s equal . You ' re either taking the value of the land or you' re taking the land. They both have the same value . If you ' re going to put a park in downtown Minneapolis , it ' s going to cost the City, if they were going to go out and buy it , it — would cost the City $25. 00 a square foot if they put it in that neighborhood and that ' s why it ' s based on the land value because you can ' t charge, I can ' t charge Instant Webb for a park I want to put out — in Minnewashta . That ' s not the way it ' s supposed to work. They' re not responsible for the park needs in the Minnewashta area . They' re responsible for the park needs that they are creating because of their _ development. And that ' s not related to community park needs, it ' s for neighborhood park needs. Hasek : Then what do you do? How is that exactly figure out? Is that — somehow tied back to the contractor who purchased the land? Sietsema : It ' s the raw land value before any improvements are made so whatever the developer bought the land for , before he many any improvements , that would be the land value . Not what he can sell it for but what he bought it for . 'nch : I guess what I ' d like to see , if there ' s some other system we an used , fine. I wonder we are right now. How these reduce so if you take the high and low, lot size and land value in the City and say, this — is the average lot. This is 10% of that now. What about the commercial Park and Recreation Commission - January 26, 1988 - Page 12 — (7 and office and the industrially zoned stuff over here? What ' s that going for an acre? Hasek : What happens in the case of a Gagne who bought the land 20 years ago . That ' s the purchased price of the land . - Sietsema : It would be the fair market value of that if you were to buy it currently. The assessor . It' s current land value and that ' s what it ' s tied to the land value . Hasek : It ' s the current market rate? Is that what they use? Sietsema: Whatever the assessor would assess it today in it ' s raw state. As it sits before the developer does anything to it . Hasek: Which only by law has to be 90% of what it ' s really worth . — You' re only required to assess it to 90% of it' s market value. The 10% right ' s there that we' re getting. Sietsema : You wouldn ' t necessarily use the County Assessor . A developer could bring his assessor in and if the City doesn ' t agree with that assessed value , we could have it assessed ourselves . — Robinson: Doesn ' t that say it ' s like $12, 000. 00 an acre? If $415 . 00 3 that ' s about a third of an acre , typical lot . - Sietsema: Usually 3 units per acre is what you can go . Robinson : So $415 . 00, that would be $1, 245 . 00 so that ' s close to what the industrial . Then if you ' re going to base it on the market value of the land , if that then is 10% , $1, 245 . 00 would be $450 . 00. Is that , I don' t know any idea , is that quite a bit for an acre of land undeveloped? Hasek : That ' s free . Like I said , if it was based on that , we could buy land like that, this city would be full of industrial . Lynch : There' s a range Curt . If you go down by the farming area , down there where we we' re looking for a park, yes , you could buy for just about a $100 . 00 an acre but you try to buy one of the lots by my place and you ' re talking . . . Hasek: There' s a lot in my neighborhood , a single family lot , a third — of an acre selling for $25 , 000. 00. It just sold . The utilities are in . The services are there . Robinson : but we ' re talking an average development . Lynch: You almost have to look at what ' s developing because there ' s re of the expensive lots being developed here . They' re expensive — cause they have municipal services and so forth closer to town than these larger lots and of course , what do we have for zoning down south of the MUSA? 5 acres? Park and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 13 (- 'i Sietsema : You can ' t be less than 2 1/2 and it can only be 1 unit per 10 acres. It ' s 1 unit per 10 acres and the lot size can not be less than 2 1/2 acres . Lynch : Okay, so let ' s use a for instance with Al ' s property down there at $3 , 500 . 00 an acre. There you ' re looking at about $9, 000. 00 for a lot , it ' s a 2 1/2 acre lot minimum. So $9 , 000. 00 for a lot and let ' s — say you buy an average over by Meadow Green Park, in that area , you buy one those less expensive homes on a very small lot and maybe you pay $12, 000. 00 to $15, 000. 00 so not too far off there but once you get _ south, most of those places are 5 acres at $3 , 500. 00 an acre. But again, since it' s a single dwelling they' re only getting a unit charge. Now you start talking this industrial land , anything that ' s industrially zoned , whether it ' s got improvements on it or not, you ' re talking — megabucks . Robinson : But if you ' re relating it , like Lori said , you can dedicate _ land or cash equivalent, then it ' s got to be back to so much an acre . With the average single family dwelling is a third of an acre , then the commercial just about has to be three times the single family. Lynch : Commercial land is worth more anyway. • 'idy: That' s where we ' re kind of hitting the hard spots . — Hasek : I ' ll tell you what , the Legion is sitting on a gold mine there . Absolutely a gold mine. If they don ' t move that thing pretty soon and sell it and build a new spot . Robinson : It doesn ' t have to be then related to the single family. Lynch: This is all related , very vaguely, to the general land values in the area . Sietsema : The Courts say that we can require 10% . They have historically said that 10% is a reasonable taking and that ' s what it all boils down to is what the Court ' s determine i.s a reasonable taking . Historically, 10% has been a reasonable taking so if you take 10% of the — raw land or you take 10% of the money equivalent to that , that ' s what your park dedication fees should be. Hasek : Then really you' re saying , by your understanding of the past cases , that it should be tied to the land values rather than to bodies . Sietsema : How it goes with density is that you can justify that 10% or how that varies is that our standard is 1 acre per 75 people. So if you ' re a single family development , it ' s generating 1, 000 people, you ' ve got to have 1 acre for every 75 of those 1, 000 people. — NT,asek : But you don ' t have to do it that way. If you do it , you can tie it directly to the density in single family or i.n any residential . You — can tie it directly to the density because that ' s really what it ' s _ Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 14 — (": selling for . Commercial is commercial and then everything else , it ' s zoning really is what it is . The zoning in this city i.s what , you 've - got like R-12 and R-3 or something . That must be for single family multiple. Sietsema : There ' s R-8 , R-12 , they' re behind you . Hasek : But still this land value, that ' s what it ' s being sold as and if somebody wants to build a single family residential area in a — commercially zoned district and pay the price for the land . . . Sietsema : If the Planning Commission lets them. Lynch: Where everybody else is a quarter and a half because he wants more land and 10% of the value of his operation was $415. 00 but he says hey, I ' ve only got one household there guys. So again, I don' t think -- you ' re looking for uniform fairness , you ' re looking for defenseability. The guy comes in and says this is BS, I 'm not paying it . Hasek : But at the same time, what makes it defensible is the fact that it ' s equitable. So if you shoot for equitable, it ' s going to be defensible . — Lynch : I don ' t think you ' re ever going to get equitable in all cases . Hsek: There ' s always the oddball , no question about it and somebody' s — ox is going to be gored but that ' s part of the system I guess . I don ' t know. I have a motion and I don ' t know if anybody wants to second it . I guess I 'd like the opportunity to look at it and one way or the other I will and whether we do something tonight or not, I guess doesn ' t matter . Sietsema : Let me just read the motion back. Ed has moved to direct —- staff to work with Mark and himself to research this further and to table this item until the next meeting . _. Lynch: Question Lori , is there anything that would make this some more immediate of a problem? Is there anything happening that would make this an immediate problem? -- Sietsema : No. The ordinance says that the Park and Recreation Commission will review this at their first meeting of every year and submit a recommendation to City Council . If you need more time to look —at it, I don ' t think that ' s unreasonable. Watson : And the current ordinance stays in effect until it ' s changed . Sietsema : Right , exactly. y: I guess I don ' t have any problems . What I ' ve been hearing is , it —a . ost sounds like the industrial should be at least a minimum of 3 times the residential plus some. Park and Recreation Commission January 26 , 1988 - Page 15 C Sietsema : I think what you want to do is you want to figure out a _ policy so it ' s clear in everybody' s mind that we ' re going to say that it ' s equal to this and therefore it breaks down to this and everybody knows. It ' s not some obscure number that it looks like staff just picked it out of the sky. — Hasek : Can I just read through real quickly what Champlin has done and I 'm not suggesting that this is the right one. It just happens to be a — very high one and I don ' t know that it ' s ever been challenged . Every thing is based on kind of the value of land out there. Single family is assessed this year , and each year they go to the assessor and say okay, _ what ' s single family land basically selling for in the city. $12, 000. 00 per acre and 10% of that is $1 , 200 . 00 per acre of dedication so that works out to about the $400. 00. Multiple family, $20, 000. 00 per acre, $2 , 000 . 00 per acre of dedication fee . Office and commercial , $45, 000. 00 — per acre, which is about . . . Robinson : $45 , 000 . 00 per acre? Mady: That ' s where land is hot . Hasek : That ' s what land is selling for , raw land . 10% of that would be — $4 , 500 . 00 and all streets are considered as single family so in other rds , if you ' ve got an industrial or PUD for example , and you ' ve got a ich of uses in there, the street is also charged on a single family — basis . PUD ' s or multiples are whatever the land value is times 15% . . . Land values would be given every year by the assessor so if you look at those types of things , that ' s where we were looking at before . We ' ve got a very open, loose commercial development putting in and it ' s — costing us a fortune to do it but if you consider the fact that we have in town, is this going to be on-line next year? We are offering those services and suggesting that all these poeple have the right to use all — those services in the city, then yes , I think if the use is there. Lynch : I ' d still be interested to see how the fees that we charge now _ reduce back or can be tracked to our original intent . Do these really reflect 10% of the average value of the average residential single home and commercial properties? You ' re looking in other ways or many ways and I 'd just be interested to really see if the way we ' re doing it now — seems right. Hasek moved , Robinson seconded to direct staff to work with Mark and Ed Hasek to research the park dedication ordinance fees further and to table this item until the next meeting . All voted in favor and motion carried. — REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT - LAKE SUSAN PLACE . — cletsema : That item has been deleted. The application was withdrawn. C I TY O F _( • CHANHASSEN 3 ..• '. r= 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: February 10 , 1988 SUBJ: Park Dedication Fees At the January Park and Recreation Commission meeting, this item was tabled and staff was directed to research further our basis for charging a fee. The Park Dedication Ordinance was written so that parkland would be available to meet the needs of the areas being developed. A 4' developer is not required to dedicate more than the need he is creating with the development. The State allows municipalities to require a "reasonable" dedica- tion of land for neighborhood park purposes . In lieu of parkland, the City may accept the equivalent in cash. The City has adopted 1 acre per 75 people in residential areas and 10% of the land in industrial areas as a "reasonable" standard. This standard was established in 1978 in the Comprehensive Plan and has proven to be a sound requirement. As dedication fees are collected at the time building permits are issued, it is necessary to have a park dedication fee that is uniform. The amount of the fee is determined by the City' s average raw land value. The last survey done by the County esti- mated the average raw land value to be approximately $10 , 500 . To illustrate how this translates , I have shown 3 examples: 1 . 100-acre single-family urban development: "- 100 acres x 2 . 5 units/acre = 250 units 250 units x 3 persons/unit = 750 people 750 - 75/acre = 10 acres of parkland required If cash is to be required in lieu of land: 10 acres x $10 , 600/acre = $106 , 000 $106 , 000 - 250 units = $424 per unit Park and Recreation Commission February 10 , 1988 Page 2 2 . 100-acre single-family rural development: 100 acres x 1 unit/10 acres = 10 units 10 units x 3 people/unit = 30 people 30 : 75/acre = . 40 acres of parkland required If cash is to be required in lieu of land: - . 40 acres x $10 ,500/acre = $4 ,200 $4 ,200 -:- 10 units = $420 per unit 3 . 100-acre industrial site: 100 acres x 10% requirement = 10 acres of parkland required If cash is to be required in lieu of land: 10 acres x $10 ,500/acre = $105 , 000 $105 , 000 r 100 acres = $1 , 050 per acre 4 . 100-acre multi-family (R-12 ) : - r 100 acres x 12 units per acre = 1 , 200 units i 1 , 200 units x 2 per unit = 2 ,400 people 2 , 400 - 75/acre = 32 acres of parkland required If cash is to be required in lieu of land: 32 acres x $10 , 500/acre = $336 ,000 $ 336 , 000 - 1 , 200 units = $280 per unit These examples illustrate that our current fee schedule is right on target. By including the park acreage standard of one acre per 75 people and basing the cash requirement on raw land values ,the City Attorney is confident that we are meeting the intent of the state statute. For future reference, these standards have been included in the park dedication ordinance, attached. 4 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22, 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order . MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Larry Schroers , Jim Mady, Mike Lynch, and Curt Robinson MEMBERS ARRIVED LATE: Ed Hasek and Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor Boyt moved , Mady seconded to move the Lake Ann Park Parking Fee Schedule to the end of the agenda per Ed Hasek ' s request. All voted in favor and motion carried . PARK DEDICATION FEES . Sietsema: This item was tabled after the January meeting . If you recall , the Park and Recreation Commission asked staff to research further what exactly we base our fee on instead of picking a number out of the air or simply being comparable to other cities . What I 've done is kind of outlined how we come to what our fee is based on what our park dedication ordinance outlines. If you read through this , it shows that it' s based on the average raw land value of the undeveloped land which , if you average out all the different areas, it comes to $10, 500. 00 per acre. I 've shown three different illustrations of what would be required of a developer with a 100 acre site. The examples illustrate that our current fee is pretty close to right on target . We could raise it somewhat but I think it is comparable to what other people are charging and if we do it in this manner , it ' s staying within the intent of the State Statute. If you wanted to raise the fee, it would be $425 . 00 for a single family residential from the $415. 00 and $1, 050. 00 for the industrial and it' s currently $1, 035.00. That would be up to you. Lynch : Lori , I ' ve been hearing that $10, 500 . 00 for a long time . The $10, 500.00 average land value. Wasn ' t that compiled . . . Sietsema : Where I got it was the County Assessor and I called hi.m up and this is based on the 1987 survey of what he did. It ' s an average of the all the different land values . It takes into account what the rural land value is in the industrial and the urban residential and averages that out and that ' s how it came to that number . Lynch: It just seems to me I ' ve been hearing that number for 10 years. Doesn ' t it seem odd that land values would stay that for 10 years . Mady: That' s my big concern. A question on how old that number is. Sietsema : He said that he did the survey in 1987 . Park and Rec Commission Meeting March 22 , 1988 - Page 2 Lynch : Look at it this way, if what we have now matches the $10, 000. 00 or whatever. In other words, we take the $424. 00 and work it backwards, does that justidy the $10, 500. 00? Sietsema: You lost me. — Lynch : Start out with the fee that we have and the percent of x that it equals. Run a standard algebraic equation on it and see what x equals. — What kind of percent of the land value now are we charging versus anybody else around the surrounding communities? Not so much dollar value. In other words, fine it' s a $424 .00 charge. What percent of the land value is that? — Sietsema : Every city does it different and nobody really knows how they come about it but I did include, I think the last time. . . — Lynch : I looked into it myself about 6 or 8 years when we were trying to figure out then what we had done and it wasn ' t at all clear then and I — found out that it isn ' t very clear in any city. It ' s just sort of well , we've always done it that way or we started doing it that way and it seems to work so we still do it that . We raise it when we feel we can get away with raising it . In other words , $424 . 00 is based on how many lots per acre? Sietsema : 2 1/2 . It should all be spelled out in the bottom of that — memo. 100 acre site, 2 1/2 units per acre. 250 units times 3 people per unit and our standard is 1 acre for 75 people. That would make a requirement of 10 acres of parkland. If we chose to take the cash in lieu of the parkland , it comes out to 10 acres times $10, 600. 00 equals $106,000. 00 divided by the 250 units is $424 . 00 per unit. What we want to do is be able to standardize this so that we don ' t have something different for each different subdivision or each different development. — Boyt : That' s what the courts have said . . . Sietsema: I know that the courts have upheld that . Lynch : Are we getting back to that 10% again? The magic number? Sietsema : But the courts won ' t uphold it if it 's just a straight 10% . It has to be based on density so in our industrial , because there isn ' t any density, that should hold up but in the residential , in the court — cases that we have reviewed, just because it ' s 10% for the sake of being any kind of percentage, is not a good reason. It has to be based on density which gets back to your 1 acre per 75 people and it happens to -- work out in our equation to be 10%. If we want to increase it, then we should go 1 acre per 50 people or something like that and change our density rather than. . . Boyt : Who would set the density? Could we set that? Sietsema: You set that with the update of the Park and Rec Section. Park and Rec Commission Meeting March 22, 1988 - Page 3 Mady: When you talked to the assessor , this $10, 500. 00 , was his estimate of the land in Chanhassen itself? That ' s not including like Waconia? Sietsema : No , that was Chanhassen . Mady: I 'm a little concerned , if the number is including , because the bulk of development is happening in the sewered area . That land is worth a heck of a lot more than the land that ' s being developed outside the sewered area . Sietsema : But he said that the land in the sewered area was appraised at like $7, 500. 00 per acre and he indicated that the developer couldn' t purchase land for more than that and still make a profit . Lynch: That sounds awful low. - Sietsema : It sounded low to me too but I didn' t know what else to do except call an appraiser . Lynch: Do you know what some of the lots have sold for in my immediate neighborhood? Sietsema : But that ' s developed . That ' s got utilities on it . ,That includes roads and utilities so you can ' t count that. It ' s got to be the raw land value without any improvements . Lynch: What I 'm saying is that the $7 , 500. 00 sounds low because this acreage is going for 6 or 7 times $7 , 500 . 00 which -certainly doesn ' t equal $7 , 500. 00 an acre plus assessments which is way over the top of that . That ' s why I think the $7 , 500 . 00 sounds so low. Sietsema : I thought that it did too but I called him twice and asked him to check his figures and that ' s what he came up with . I don ' t know who else to base it on other than the County Assessor . Lynch : Well , in the sewered area , I was under the same misunderstanding perhaps that Jim had . I thought the land in the sewered area in was more valuable than that in the rural area . Sietsema : The rural area was going for like $3 , 500. 00 an acre . Lynch: Then how do he come up with a $10, 500. 00 average? Sietsema : Our industrial is worth anywhere from $15 , 000 . 00 to $30 , 000 . 00 an acre. Lynch : And there ' s that much of it? Sietsema : I just took the figures and averaged them. Lynch : A per acre average? Robinson: It ' s not a weighted average? Park and Rec Commission Meeting March 22 , 1988 - Page 4 Sietsema : It would go down because there' s a lot more area in the rural area than there is in the urban. Schroers : Did the Assessor give you the figures for the tax base for that property that assessed? Sietsema : I asked him the fair market value . The raw land value. I asked him for the fair market value and that ' s what he told me. — Boyt : That ' s supposed to be real close to the assessed value . I think we should call a realtor . Public : I have just done some research because I was looking to purchase at $5,600. 00 an acre. Lake Susan Hills is $6, 700. 00 an acre and. . .$6 , 500. 00 an acre . — Sietsema : And what was Eckankar going to go for? Public : We ' re not going to talk about that . Sietsema : That ' s considerably higher . Public: Eckankar is selling his property for around $12, 000. 00 an acre. Robinson : Is that commercial? — Public : There is some commercial zoning in there . There ' s 173 acres of property and about 40 acres of that is commercial . Sietsema : The zoning map is right behind you. Part of that is residential and some of it 's business campus . Public : So that increases the value . Sietsema : That gets into the neighborhood of the industrial . — Boyt : It ' s also the assessor ' s we use . I think what we can look at though is the density. When we think about our neighborhood there are 50 families and if we looked at a 1 acre survey. Mady: I wondering if the 75 people per acre number, the density number , is enough. — Sietsema : It ' s not set in stone yet . It hasn ' t gone to Council for approval and if you ' re going to change that standard, it should be done now before it does get sent onto Met Council . Mady: That changes all of our numbers . Sietsema : I would recommend that we have justification for changing that. Park and Rec Commission Meeting March 22 , 1988 - Page 5 Mady: I almost think that this year go with what we' ve got then let ' s start taking a good hard look at the number . Sietsema : The Comp Plan won ' t be updated for another 5 years so whatever you put in that Comp Plan, you ' re stuck with for the next 5 years. What I 'm saying is , our policy is not to accept anything less than 5 acres so you have 5 acres of land for 375 people and given the mixed population and park users and non-park users . Boyt : We' ve seen that what we have in parkland is way over what we require we are barely meeting the needs for citizens in Chanhassen so I think shows us right there that are numbers are off for our population and density. Schroers : What were those figures you quoted before Lori on the single family? You just said something about $424 . 00 or $425. 00. Sietsema : What we currently charge is $415 . 00 for single family. If we went strictly by what I ' ve outlined in here, we could justify an increase to $425. 00 from $415. 00. And from $1, 035 . 00 in the industrial to $1 , 050. 00. Schroers : That doesn ' t seem like a lot of money. Sietsema : I don ' t think anybody would really balk at that slight increase . But if you make slight increases year by year as you evaluate what that assessed value of land is and change it little by little rather than every 5 years and change it by $100 . 00 , it ' s a lot less noticeable. Schroers: Is that why you ' re proposing? Is that what you 'd like to do? Sietsema : I didn ' t really make a recommendation because $10 . 00 isn ' t that big a deal . If you felt like it needed to be increased minimally, that would be reasonable but otherwise , if you don ' t think that it ' s enough money, then instead of raising the fee just at the end, we have to look at the density. That ' s where I 'm coming from. Boyt: I think we need to look at density and hold off on this until we decided on the density question . Mady: We have a real problem with density. I 'm thinking too that we' ve got the parkland and how it ' s being utilized, we' re short. We really truly are . Sietsema : But remember , another thing to consider is this is not the community park development . This fund is for neighborhood park acquisition and development. So if you look at our neighborhood parks , are we serving our existing communities with what we have? I would say at City Center Park, no we' re not but at Minnewashta Heights, yes we are. And at Meadow Green Park, I would think we' re right at . Mady: I really think we' re deficient and seriously deficient in any park. Chaparral might be close as it ' s exists right now but with the new a Park and Rec Commission Meeting March 22, 1988 - Page 6 stuff coming on board this year , that park ' s full . The density really something maybe we should be looking at . Sietsema : So what ' s your next step? Do you want to direct staff and see _ how many people are using the existing parks or are in the service areas of existing parks? If you table this , I would like some direction on how to proceed. Boyt : I think we should look at all the parks that we use now and have some sort of information on that . Sietsema : So you want to table this and find out how many people are in the service areas in each park now? Mady: Yes. _ Schroers : Then we also have to look at those plats for proposed developments. Take that into consideration. We ' ll have to look at the plats for the proposed developments and consider that also. Boyt : Like Lake Susan. Sietsema : That one is directly related to 1 per 75. Mady: We won ' t be changing anything. _ Sietsema : We can ' t . Boyt: No, but we need to look at it . Sietsema : No , but if we change the fee , they' ll be charged more because they' re at 50% so right now 50% is $207 . 50. If we change it to $500. 00 — for single family, it will be $250 . 00. Boyt: Isn ' t that only a small portion? The important thing is serving Chanhassen . — Robinson : When we tabled this before simply because I think we wanted _ more money and told Lori to go do this . She comes back and it looks the same. It sounds to me like we' re saying, by god we ' re going to justify this for money. Go look at density and if that doens ' t work out, we ' ll have you go look at something else until we ' ve got $500. 00-$600. 00 it sounds like. Boyt : I don ' t think it ' s to get more money and I ' ve seen the figures saying Chanhassen needs this many acres of parkland to serve this number of people and we ' re way beyond that and we don ' t have room for our kids to play baseball . That our numbers are wrong. We need to deal with that . Mady: Ed was the one who pretty much wanted us to table it at that time and he was looking at how many people in his firm, he wanted that — information . Park and Rec Commission Meeting March 22 , 1988 - Page 7 Sietsema : I did work with him when I was putting this all together and he was comfortable with it. Lynch : One thing we have to keep in mind is that some of the old burden neighborhood facilities that exist now, the upper Carver playground facility and the old Chan Estates , these went in during the 50 ' s. People with one acre plus, they were pieces of property that happened to be there and were given to us or a developer put a park in there to sell houses and those are some of the low park facilities . Boyt : We know how many acres we have . Mady: One thing we find though, if we find out how many people we have in the service area , and the number of acres of parkland we have, then we have a pretty good feel for how each park is being utilized, we ' ll have a good idea of what our density should be. If it ' s too high or too low. Then we can proceed for future park development. Is it possible to get that information for our next meeting? Sietsema : Yes. Lynch : My memory is not good enough to recall why we picked the number that we did . Sietsema : Because that ' s what Lakeville did . Lynch: I couldn ' t remember if it was Lakeville or Metro Council . Hoffman : One thing to consider is the time lag we have between some of the new parks and some of the new development that is coming in. That will serve more people in some of those service areas that are a little over crowded now and once those facilities are available, it will spread out some of the people that are using certain overrun and rundown facilities . Some of those things are i.n the works . Boyt : We' re getting a lot of people into the City Center Park area that use the park. Mady moved , Lynch seconded to table the park dedication fees item until the next meeting pending information from staff concerning densities of existing park areas . All voted in favor except Robinson who opposed and motion carried . Hoffman : What type of specific answers or numbers can we come back with to you? We don ' t want to just come back with generalizations . Boyt : That service area 1 has 10 acres of park and 75, 000 people in it . Hoffman: And what type of organized programs takes place in those parks at this time? Lynch : We' re addressing neighborhood parks . {f f f r CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: April 7 , 1988 SUBJ: Park Acreage Standard The Park and Recreation Commission tabled action on the park — dedication fee schedule to review our current park acreage stan- dard of one acre per 75 people. Attached please find a list of each existing park, its acreage, the number of people in its ser- — vice area, and the calculated number of people per acre. At first glance it would appear that a few of our parks are serving more people then our standard allows . However, each of — these incidences show a park that shares a service area with another park. For instance, some residents within Minnewashta Heights developmentare served by Cathcart Park and Minnewashta — Heights Park. This reduces some of the pressure on Cathcart Park. It is staff ' s belief that the standard of one acre per 75 people is a fair and proven standard. It is therefore, the _ recommendation of this office to adopt the existing park acreage standard and to establish the 1988 Park Dedication fees as follows : Single family $425 per unit Duplex $425 per unit Multiple family $2 �` per unit Industrial $1O 0 per acre As shown in the illustration in my memo dated February 10 , 1988 , ( attached) this is a justifiable increase . — Acres Service Area People Per Acre Bandimere Heights Park 3 132 44 Carver Beach Playground 3 544 181 Carver Beach Park 8 381 48 _ Cathcart Park 2 163 81 City Center Park 3 489 163 ( School property not included) Curry Farm 6 260 43 Greenwood Shores Park 4 289 72 Herman Field 13 139 10 Meadow Green Park 18 714 40 North Lotus Lake Park 18 416 23 Rice Marsh Lake Park 30 266 9 Minnewashta Heights Park 2 150 75 Parks with Multiple Service Areas Carver Beach Playground Total 544 288 served by Meadow Green Park 190 served by Carver Beach Park 116 served by Greenwood Shores Park 87 served by Curry Farm Number not served by any other park - 89 Carver Beach Park Total 381 193 served by Meadow Green Park 190 served by Carver Beach Playground 57 served by North Lotus Lake Park* Number not served by any other park - 131 Cathcart Park Total 163 70 served by Minnewashta Heights Park Number not served by any other park - 93 City Center Park Total 489 105 served by Meadow Green Park Number not served by any other park - 334 Curry Farm Total 260 87 served by Carver Beach Playground 15 served by Greenwood Shores Park Number not served by any other park - 158 Greenwood Shores Park Total 289 255 served by Meadow Green Park 116 served by Carver Beach Playground 13 served by Curry Farm Number not served by any other park - 12 Meadow Green Park .— Total 714 288 served by Carver Beach Playground 255 served by Greenwood Shores Park — 193 served by Carver Beach Park 105 served by City Center Park Number not served by any other park - 77 North Lotus Lake Park Total 416 51 served by Carver Beach Park* Number not served by any other park - 359 Minnewashta Heights Park Total 150 70 served by Cathcart Park — Number not served by any other park - 80 * Denotes physical boundary barrier in park service area . ( Does nor take roadway barriers into consideration . ) Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 12, 1988 - Page 19 do their project to get their master gardener certificate . So that' s what it amounts to. They have to do a public project and they have to keep it for a year . It has to look neat . Schroers: Weren't you talking about something for your Brownies but after they initially put them in , then will they come back and maintain _ them and take care of them? Boyt : Hennepin did the daffodils or the crocuses along the creek. Thousands of them. They come up, crocuses come up, they bloom, and they wither . It was just beautiful last year . They planted it in amongst the grass . Schroers : I 'm just asking because I don ' t know a lot about it except that the few flower beds that we have around where I work take a lot of care. Sietsema: Sue , do you have to go out and water those or anything? Boyt: The tulips that my Brownies put in last year , we put them next to a sign. They' re going to come up year after year and you don' t have to worry about them. That ' s just it. You don ' t water them. Mady: It would be nice if every park sign in the City had a small bed or tulips or irises or something perennial that comes up early in the spring because those usually don ' t need a lot of water and maintenance or anything. They just come up. They' re there. They' re there for about two weeks and then they' re gone . Hasek : You can do those things in the grass area and they' re usually gone before the grass cutting season even starts . Schroers : And they' re not like bulbs that have to be dug up in the fall? Boyt: No, you just leave them in year after year . You don ' t get as many flower blossoms in the following years but you still get some. I talked to Dale about it last year before about seeing what we should plant . PARK DEDICATION FEES . Sietsema : I came up with some numbers for service areas for the park dedication and that' s what this map up here is. It shows each park and the black circle around each one of these parks represents the service area for each park. As you can see, we ' ve got some overlapping , especially in here and here , so it ' s difficult to measure how many people are actually be served by that park when they may be served by as many as three parks . Then when you count the service area for this park along here, you can not really count the people on this side of the lake because of the barrier so we didn ' t count those numbers but if you just take how many people are within each different service area, you can see that we are over the 1 acre per 75 people. in Carver Beach playground , City Center Park and Cathcart Park} All three of those have shared Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 12 , 1988 - Page 20 service areas so that decreases really that number because if you consider Cathcart Park and Minnewashta Park, all these people are being served by two parks . I don ' t know how you want to determine that . Hasek: I think the way that has to be done is that really has to be — closer looked at based on barriers . It ' s kind of like a fire response study. It ' s not a matter of drawing a circle and saying this is the area we serve because they have a time deal that figures out exactly what that is and looks at how far they can get and that kind of stuff. I really think that ' s what happens here . You have a projected population that you want to serve by each of those parks and just knowing that there ' s an industrial area within part of that , does that extend the role upon — another park? Is there time involved in their distance a little bit? Some judgment has to be made on some of that . For example Cathcart Park, the service area for Cathcart Park is probably all up in Shorewood . — Sietsema : It' s very questionable if any of these people over here are being served. That they' re going to cross TH 7 to get over to Cathcart . Hasek : The only reason that that park gets used is for like playground stuff like the ballfields and soccer and hockey. Sietsema : Organized play. Hasek: Then the parents are taking the kids across because TH 7, nobody in their right mind let ' s their kids cross that highway. That little one — in Minnewashta there , nobody goes skating there except for those people. They' re the only ones that use it . If you want to do something more recreational , you go across the street to the one that ' s in Shorewood . I — also think that maybe if there are any that abut our community, like that one in Shorewood , just north of TH 7 right across from Minnewashta Shores there, if there are any other in another city that actually serve a part of our area , we should know about those too . In other words , maybe what appears to be a hole in here really isn' t. Cathcart serves Shorewood. It ' s owned Shorewood . No , it ' s ownedby us but it ' s maintained by Shorewood . Sietsema : It ' s not owned by us , it ' s owned by Shorewood . Hasek: It is owned by Shorewood and maintained by Shorewood and it ' s in our city limits . Sietsema : Located within our city but owned by Shorewood . Hasek: These are just the city parks . Sietsema : Right . This is just neighborhood parks . It didn ' t inlcude Lake Ann or Lake Susan so basically you can see here that our populated area is being served . Except for these few holes that we' ve got in the — Eckankar property and Saddlebrook property is now being filled in, there ' s not a whole lot more development that ' s going to go on there . It ' s pretty much filled . We do have a hole right here in Pleasant Hills and that ' s already filled but we don ' t know what area in there that ' s Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 12 , 1988 - Page 21 going to become available for us . We do have a few small outlots within Pheasant Hills that may be conducive for a totlot, small totlot or something but nothing that if you could just put an ice rink on one of the ponds. Hasek : This is all brand new in here too isn ' t it? How come we don ' t have a park in there? Sietsema : The final plat was done before I was here so they' re just doing the last phases so by the time I got here it was too late to make a request . Hasek : Maybe what we should think about then , if we' re serious about it, there are still empty lots in there. Maybe we should think about buying a lot. Boyt : You said to maintain the ice . . . Sietsema : There ' s an outlot that has a holding pond. Mady: Can we get back on the subject . It sounds like we' re talking about the next item on the list . Sietsema : I ' ll start over . At the last meeting I was directed to find out how many people are being served by each park. How many people are within the service area of each park. So we went to each park and drew the service area around each one and that ' s what this represents. Each one of these , here ' s a park and the circle represents the service area . As you can see in a more populated area , we ' ve got people served by more than one park. I think the most within the service area is three parks at the same time . The only hole that I really see is up here in the Pheasant Hill area and again , we have two or three outlots that were dedicated to the City that would be big enough for perhaps a totlot . It ' s just that there is usually a holding pond on those outlots and so it would be up to the Commission to decide if they think totlots or something should be located that close to a body of water like that . I don ' t know what the liability or what those implications are. On one of those outlots where there ' s a holding pond , we do maintain it as an ice rink in the winter time so we are serving them to that extent . Otherwise , where our development is coming in , Saddlebrook is here so they' re covered . Chanhassen Hills is here and they' ve dedicated a park within that , it ' s just not developed yet . Lake Susan Hills West is over here and they've got three different park sites here so they' re covered . When we asked for parkland , we figured it to the 1 per 75 . So the people per acre is over the standard on Carver Beach Playground , Cathcart Park and City Center Park, but again , some of the people in those service areas are served by another park as well so it ' s difficult to figure out where we really are deficient . I don ' t think that our parks , where they are right now, are overused except for when we start talking about the league sports . I don' t think that we need to alter our standard so we require less parkland. I don ' t think that should happen at all but as far as neighborhood use I think we' re doing pretty good . I still firmly believe that we' re going to have to beef up our community park because Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 12 , 1988 - Page 22 right now, as Todd can testify, the youth programs are absolutely filled up every single space we have in every neighborhood park throughout the — City so we' re at capacity right now as far as our community use . Therefore, my recommendation is to raise the fee as shown. Did I include in your packets the old memo? — Mady: Yes. This one? Sietsema: That has the outlining? — Mady: Yes , with the calculations on it . Sietsema : Based on that memo and the calculations that that will justify, I 'm recommending that we raise it to that level and then concentrate on beefing up our community park as we are doing with the — Lake Ann expansion that ' s planned and the southern area . Hasek : What were the old numbers? Sietsema : The old numbers were $415 . 00 per unit for single family, $415 . 00 per unit for duplex and the multiple was varied. I just consolidated them and took an average . The industrial was $1, 035 . 00 per — acre so the biggest increase was $15 . 00 . Hasek : The only concern I have , I guess when we did this before and I think I talked to you about on the telephone a couple of times , is that — there was justifiable means for doing that . As long as that ' s down and we can defend it , that' s all I really care about . Sietsema : I think that our City Attorney would be very happy with the way we ' ve got this and he would have no problem taking it into court . Mady: I 'd personally like to see you go higher but I don ' t think there is anyway we can justify going higher without just being arbitrary and capricious . Since that doesn ' t stand up in court very well , we' re going to have to go with what ' s defensible. This is what it is . — A motion was made at this point with the following discussion . OEM Lynch : When these first came into being , they seemed to represent a much larger percentage of the value of the land than they do now because I ' ve been on the board long enough and was here through the years of 20% _ interest rates and the 15% and 20% and 25% per year increase in the land value and we did not take but 3% to 5% increases on this fee in that era . Not remember what those fees were in those days , it ' s obvious that the percent we have now versus what the land is, was not what it was in those — days . It was felt that it was a controversial thing to do when they were established and they got beyond that so I don ' t think that this is enough probably. The $15. 00 is not too much . I also think it ' s not enough . I think it could be more. Haesk : I felt exactly the same way. I think when this first came out , what concerned me was I guess I didn ' t want to , I spend my day working — Park and Recreation Commission Meeting — April 12 , 1988 - Page 23 for the developer and this is kind of on the other side of the fence for me but what can you do but when I looked at it I wanted it be fair from both sides . I see so many cities that we go into that are way out of line with the way that they calculate and the way that they figure it . They simply say, that ' s the way it is so that ' s the way it is . You know if you want your project you ' re going to pay the piper unless you ' ve got so much money and you ' re such a big developer that you want to contest it. That' s why when I talked to Lori the first time, I wanted to make sure that there was a way to calculate it and it had some rationale behind it and what she' s basing it on is land values. Lynch : Let ' s say for instance that a developer wanted to put in 25 units and we were to raise this $50. 00. On a 25 unit development , it' s $2, 500. 00 and that ' s not going to deter a builder . The builders are used to the fact now that they have to pay these things . I 'm sure if they were all sitting in a room and we said would you like us to raise these — $50. 00 fees , they'd say no but I think we could raise them $50. 00 apiece and I ' ll bet you we wouldn ' t have two people in the next year say, hey you raised that $50. 00. I don ' t think they'd ever see it . Sietsema : Probably not but do we want to do what you can get away with or do we want to do what we can justify? That ' s the bottom line . Lynch : You can justify what you can get away with . That' s a justification in itself . I 'm serious . I think we ' re bending too far to the side of conservatism here . Sietsema : I don ' t care one way or the other . My personal feeling , I don ' t think it makes that much difference but our fees are not out of line with what other communities are doing . We' re right in the — mainstream of what we' re doing and then you take into consideration that we have added a trail dedication fee so the park and trail dedication fee is now up over $600. 00. If you take that all into consideration, we ' re doing pretty good but again , Roger has no problem holding this up in Court and taking this to Court if anybody should contest it . He ' s comfortable with it . I 'm comfortable with it . Lynch: Where does Roger reach a problem though? Sietsema : He reaches a problem when it is not based on land values . It ' s got to all come back to density and land value. In dollars , I don ' t know. He doesn ' t care how much it is either . Lynch : Is approaching the limit $500. 00? Is it approaching $600. 00? When I go out and design and sell industrial systems , I decide what that customer can pay maximum for that system and my price is below that . Very close below that . Sietsema : Based on what our land , the County Assessor has said what our land values are, this is what his limit is . He hasn ' t picked out a number out and said I can ' t hold anything . I don ' t know what you want me to say Mike . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 12 , 1988 - Page 24 Lynch : I ' ll tell you what I 'm asking for . The County Assessor has come _ up with figures . Let ' s take a rough number . Let' s say he says $425. 00 is reasonable. Everything has a plus and minus . What ' s plus? Si.etsema : This is plus. I took it all high . — Lynch : I know but I mean , where do you reach the point where this is no longer "reasonable" . I don' t think, what I 'm asking , you don' t know that . I don ' t know that . The County Assessor doesn ' t know. Nobody sitting at this table knows it so if we ' ve got , it only costs a pickle to ask. If we ' ve got to establish a new number , we don ' t establish it , the Council establishes it. So instead of making it $425 . 00, let ' s make it — $450. 00. If they say no , we say okay, make it $425 . 00 then . Hasek : I think you ' re missing the point . — Boyt : Instead of that way, we could say, because we have to change the number or the cost per acre or the number of 75. Hasek : What you have to do is you have to go back to the County Assessor and get him to say that the value of the land is not worth $15 , 000 . 00 an acre , it ' s worth $20, 000 . 00 an acre which would justify coming down to a — $450 . 00 instead of $425. 00. What the City Attorney is saying is he approves of the process that we' ve gone through using the numbers that we have which makes it defendable for him. Now he doesn ' t care where that bottom number comes out as long as the process is correct and that ' s all I asked Lori to do . I wouldn ' t have cared if this came out where everybody paid , and I feel exactly the same way you do , I think that the developer is going to charge the person. You ' re going to see it. It — goes into a 30 year mortgage . Who cares? That ' s exactly the way I felt . The problem is that when you pick a number that this is based on, then at that point you are being arbitrary and capricious . Reasonableness — doesn ' t even come into it because they' ll hit you on arbitrary and capricious before you ever get to reasonableness . Lynch: During the year of 1988 and I was talking to a realtor the other day, the land prices are supposed to start going up . You ' re in the business . Now he was talking 5% to 12% depending on where you live and what kind of property you had . Why can ' t we say, I don ' t think it ' s — sneaky to say, we set this , this is good for all year . By the end of ' 88 , your property, we ' re not going to make that 10% anymore or whatever percent that is . We ' re going to be less than that so we ' re going to — shoot for a midrange. Hasek : That might be something that we could do. See I think that that would work. Boyt : That ' s legitimate? Sietsema : Sure. Hasek : Adjust it for inflation . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 12, 1988 - Page 25 Sietsema : So who' s word do we take that it ' s going to increase a certain percent? Do I go back to Scott Winters and say how much do you anticipate the land values to increase in 1988? He ' s the one I got the figures from in the first place. He ' s the one who does the actual survey. The Assessor . Hasek : Maybe what you could do is either ask him or ask the Attorney if it would be alright to take the word of like, there must be a State Realtor Association of some sort that would have sort of the land projected inflation rates on land that is a valid number . Maybe there ' s even a State agency that does that type of plan . Makes a projection based on state taxes or something like that. Mady: The State does it just from property tax . Hasek : Yes but Lori , this has got to be frustrating for you. I feel the way he does . I was hoping that there was some way that this number could come up higher and be justifiable. Really, because it disappears anyway but as far as I 'm concerned , it has to be justifiable . Sietsema : To be perfectly honest with you, the numbers that I got from Scott , I 'm pushing to the absolute limit for $425. 00. Boyt: Those are good numbers but if the land prices are going to go up 25% in 1988 , then we can ' t project . . . Lynch: When was this evaluation taken? Sietsema : In 1987 . Lynch: When in 1987? Sietsema : January of 1987 . Lynch : Alright , so we ' re talking January, 1987 . We ' re a year behind already. Mady: I have a feeling that what we' re looking at is , the realtor is going to say in the neighborhood of 10% and that ' s where we ' re going to end up . We' re just going to bump each fee 10%. I think what we' re trying to do is justify raising the fee. I think the inflation, that ' s what our job is really is to voice all this out and see where we can get to so we can make a recommendation that the City can stand behind in Court . Sietsema : I feel like saying , pick a number and I ' ll go back and justify it. I ' ll rearrange it to justify it . Mady: That ' s kind of how we started this whole process . Sietsema : Then you want me to say i.t ' s $425 . 00, that ' s what the fee should have been for 1987 . Based on the 1988 projected land values , that should be increased by such and such percent? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 12 , 1988 - Page 26 Hasek : Yes , if that can be done . If you can find a source for that . — Lynch: I 'd even like you to look at it on an 18 month basis . Say we ' d like to look at median 1988 values . That would be halfway through the year so January, 1987 to June-July, 1988 at whatever rate of increases that you can find to do with it. I really felt badly back in the days of the heavy duty inflation because those few years ate into our park equity _ money a great deal and we lost money and we weren ' t able to raise the rates . The philosophy at that time was that we wanted to wait. We wanted Chanhassen to develop and it was necessary to keep these rates low for the developer . I disagreed with it at that time, I guess I still do — but that ' s why we lost those increases . Mady: I 'm going to move to the vote on the motion. — Hasek : The motion is to accept it as suggested by staff and we' ve got some discussion that goes along with that. The suggestion would be that we simply let the motion fail and make a new motion . Hasek moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission — recommend to adopt the existing park acreage standard and to establish the 1988 Park Dedication fees as follows : Single family $425 . 00 per unit Duplex $425 . 00 per unit Multiple Family $280 . 00 per unit Industrial $1 , 050. 00 per acre — Hasek voted in favor , all the rest voted in opposition to the motion and the motion failed . Sietsema : I need a motion to direct staff . Hasek moved, Schroers seconded to direct staff to take one last look at the numbers that they' ve proposed in light of inflation over the next 12 to 18 months and see if they can ' t justify a slightly greater increase in the park dedication fees . All voted in favor and motion carried . REVIEW REQUEST TO PURCHASE PARK PROPERTY IN THE NORTH SECTION OF THE CITY. Sietsema : This item comes from homeowners in the Lake Lucy Highlands area . This is Lake Luch Highlands here , this is Lake Lucy Road. It goes right along here so they ' re on the north and south side . They feel that _ they are in a park deficient area and they are requesting that parkland be acquired in that area . The closest park to them is . . . (A tape break occured at this point in staff ' s presentation . ) CITYOF CHANHASSEN \ ik .• 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordintor - r.22i4 Z.Zr DATE: Park Dedication Fees This item was not acted on at the last meeting and staff was directed to check the projected increase in land values for the next 12-16 months . I have contacted a number of people that I felt would have an unbiased projection; however , no one made such pro- jections and directed to me to the County Assessor , Scott Winter . Mr. Winter foresees no increase in undeveloped land values . A par- - cel of undeveloped land that is subdivided and then sold off in lots would have an increased value, however, our projections must be based on undeveloped land values , which, again, are not expected to increase . Based on this information, staff maintains the recommendation of an increase as follows : 1987 Rate Recommended Rate Single Family 415/unit 425/unit Duplex 415/unit 425/unit Multiple family See below 295/unit Industrial 1035/acre 1050/acre 1987 Multiple Family Rate -- Efficiency 110/unit 1 bedroom 200/unit 2 bedrooms 330/unit 3 bedrooms 405/unit 4 bedrooms 425/unit • Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Page 14 I don ' t want to see too many signs out there obviously but I think there are a few that are needed and I think from a safety standpoint should be looked at by staff . Mady: One other comment I ' ve got , one thing in this accessibility discussion that we haven' t addressed and I think needs to be addressed is to make the park handicap accessible . I believe they should , no matter where we have our parking for anything, the number one closest spot should be the handicap spot . I don ' t think anymore than one but I think we should have one handicap spot set aside and if you don' t have proper tags for it . . . I think it ' S time to make a motion on this . Mady moved, Boyt seconded to direct staff to have Mark Koegler review the parking design for Greenwood Shores to address the safety situation to investigate whether or not parking can be put at the top of the hill to be safe . Further , the situation concerning safety signs along the street be reviewed by the Public Safety Commission. Mark Koegler to come back within a month with a new parking layout so there will be time to go _ forward with the plan before the beach season . All voted in favor and motion carried . PARK DEDICATION FEES. Sietsema : I contacted a number of people to ask them the question of what the projections for land values in the next 18 months were going to be and no one I knew did anything formally. Al Klingelhutz, well I think that where they' re going to change uses , it ' s going to go up and in the southern area it ' s going to go down and you ' re industrial ' s going to stay about the same. He said maybe you want to call the County Assessor who I called first and he projects that they won ' t change and has nothing formal as a formal projection either . Therefore , my recommendation stays the same as it was last week . To increase it based on the numbers that I gave you two or three meetings ago which would bring the single family rate to $425 . 00 from $415. 00 per unit . Duplex to $425 . 00. Multi-family to $295. 00 and industrial to $1 , 050 . 00 per acre. Hasek: I would like to see them higher but I can ' t see the justification for doing it. . . — Mady: Basically my comments are , I don ' t like what I see in total but we have no other way of defending it so we ' ve got to go with what ' s legal . Mady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation commission recommend to increase the Park Dedication Fees for 1988 as follows : _ Single Family $425.00/unit Duplex $425. 00/unit Multiple Family $295 . 00/unit Industrial $1, 050. 00/acre Trail dedication fee set at one-third of the park dedication fee . All voted in favor and motion carried . • L. 14h/frvuelr.Z`. // // . CITYOF G CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM . TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: May 4 , 1988 SUBJ: South Lotus Lake Boat Access On April 24 , 1988 , the City Council passed a resolution prohi- biting the parking of boat trailers on South Shore Drive, South Shore Court , and Hill Street . This was done in anticipation of parking problems due to DNR requirements concerning the boat access ( see attached memo) . During the Council discussion it was suggested that staff look into the feasibility of increased fines and/or towing. A first reading of the proposed ordinance establishing the fine and towing was conducted. The standard fine for a parking ticket under City ordinance is presently $10 . 00 . The feeling from the Council appeared to be that some people are willing to pay $10 . 00 to enjoy a day on the lake. It was thus suggested that a $50 .00 fine would effectively prevent people from parking in violation of the ordinance. In addition, making violators subject to being towed was suggested and both the fine and the tow have been included in the draft ordinance. Signs advising of the parking restrictions will be up at both entrances to South Shore Drive from Highway 101 . Signs also should be placed going down to and coming out of the boat access itself . Finally, signs should be posted at the entrance to both South Shore Court and Hill Street. These signs will be larger than normal and the ones at South Shore Drive and Highway 101 will read "No Boat Trailer Parking on Street" . The signs at the boat access and the entrances to South Shore Court and Hill Street will read "No Boat Trailer Parking on Street. Violators Subject to $50 . 00 Fine and Tow" . Consequently, if a trailer is found parked on the street in violation, it would have had to pass a sign three ( 3 ) times . This would appear to be reasonable warning. Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance ( 2nd reading) and the placement of signs as indicated in this report. r7 r � G City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 11- BOAT TRAILER PARKING ON SOUTH SHORE DRIVE. Jim Chaffee: Without belaboring the issue, I think everyone is aware of the — DNR move last year that effectively took control of the South Lotus Lake boat access away from this community. We believe because of that things are going to become a little chaotic at that access this summer especially in regards to — unreasonable parking. In that regard, we have come up with some ideas. One of then is a prophylactic measure when it comes to parking. We don't know as of yet just how far out the unreasonable parking will extend but we do believe that it will for sure extend to the South Shore Drive area. Because of that we are suggesting that we effectively adopt a resolution that would prevent the parking of empty boat trailers and vehicles attached to or vice versa, on the South Shore Drive area and the other streets connected and that's it. Councilman Horn: They were already out of hand this weekend. There were trailers parked all the way up both sides of the access and along the street. In fact, a fellow called the Sheriff on one because he parked up on the grass and one was ticketed. Mayor Hamilton: I still think, as I had said quite some time ago, that we ought to, along with having no parking, we should have a fine system set up and I wish we had it in place right now. $50.00 fine for parking where you shouldn't park and get towed immediately and it costs you $50.00 to get your — car back. It costs you $100.00 if you park where you don't belong. It's the same doggone thing that Minneapolis and St. Paul do for snowbirds and I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same thing here. I think it would solve the — problem real quick. They're not going to do it again. Councilman Geving: What happens now if you ticket a person? Jim Chaffee: It's a standard fine set down by the County. $5.00 to $10.00. I'm not sure what it is. Councilman Geving: They'll come back. For $5.00 to $10.00, they'll come back again. Mayor Hamilton: How can we accomplish that Pat? Do we have to have an ordinance? Pat Farrell: You would have to have a special ordinance to accomplish what — you're proposing. To accomplish what Jim was talking about, you would have to have a special ordinance. Councilman Horn: Do you think what you're proposing here is going to do the job? I don't like to sec no parking signs every 10 feet either but do you think if we just do what you're suggesting? Obviously you've check it and it _ is enforceable. Have you made it clearcut to the people who are going to be using it? Jim Chaffee: It may or may not be. We checked this out when we first found -' out what the DNR was proposing with Roger Knutson. He said that is enforceable. We settled on that idea because, as you stated, we don't like to see no parking signs posted up and down the roadway and as long as this is a — restricted access area, people have to go by those signs to get in. Roger 75 28 • City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 indicated that was good enough. Mayor Hamilton: We also talked about at the Public Safety Commission, putting 117 up no parking between signs so no parking from one sign to the next so then you don't have as many signs. It's just a way to eliminate having signs every 10 feet or whatever is required. I know a lot of people here fran the neighborhood about this issue and do you have any comments or questions or suggestions? Jack Melby: I think the idea is an excellent one. Obviously, there is no controls now and as I have witnessed it for about a year. .. Not only in the summertime but in the wintertime. Sunday as an example, I think there were probably 15 to 17 boats and trailers parked in that area up and down the hill and in the residential area and I don't know how you're going to put a stop to that other than putting up signs up that say no parking. I agree with you Tom, placing a fine on them. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, a significant enough fine so they won't do it again. That's the only way to stop them. Jack Melby: That's the only way it would work. A $5.00 fine is a good afternoon recreation. Mayor Hamilton: If it costs them $100.00 and they've got to walk a ways to get the car back, I think they're really going to think about it twice. $50.00 fine for the ticket and $50.00 for the towing, the contract for someone to tow them and they've got to find someway to get their car out. No different than what Minneapolis and St. Paul does and I think we should do the same thing. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, if you would like, we could table this issue for the moment. I think some of the Lotus Lake homeowners think that time is of the essence but if you wanted to table it, I could work with Roger or Pat to develop an ordinance along those guidelines. That certainly is a very good way of preventing a reoccurence. Mayor Hamilton: I think we ought to go ahead with what you're talking about. Put signs up right now and then we can continue doing other things as we go along. Don Ashworth: Could they not, Pat, put an ordinance on first reading this evening that basically violators would be towed? Pat Farrell: They could. Don Ashworth: Have it as a part of this issue. Pat Farrell: Go ahead with the resolution and post them. I'd like to spend a little time making sure that we've got an ordinance that's going to, because once you start towing and people start screaming, it's tough.. . Don Ashworth: We have two readings on ordinances so that's my point. Put it on first reading this evening. You draft it and it will be on second reading two weeks from now. 76 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Pat Farrell: First reading of an ordinance providing for the prohibition of Ir- parking of automobiles and boat trailers within certain defined areas i.n the City of Chanhassen and providing for the tagging and towing of the violation — thereof. Councilman Horn: I'd like to ask the homeowners, would you object on a temporary basis at least of having no parking signs of any type on that street until we get this in place because I don't think we have any no boat trailer parking signs but we may have some no parking signs that we could put up in the interim. I'd like to see something up tomorrow. The only thing we'd have to do then is, I'm sure would be just purely no parking signs until we get the other signs. Jim Chaffee: I checked tonight also with the developer, Herb Bloomberg and he's in favor of not having any cars parked on that South Shore Drive. Councilman Horn: And you people all have enough room in your driveways for cars don't you? Fred Oelschlager: What's temporary. What are we talking about for temporary? — Councilman Ceving: A month maybe. Two weeks. Don Ashworth: Can't we order signs and get them here right away? Mayor Hamilton: We could put up the no parking signs that says no parking. — That should be clear enough. No parking period. L_ Fred Oelschlager: And then what are we talking about on time on the fine, as far as when would that possibly be set up? Mayor Hamilton: Pat's going to review that and talk to Don and then they'll _ come back with a recommendation as to exactly what it should say. Councilman Ceving: It could be as early as May 9th. Fred Oelschlager: So in other words, we'll get something going by then? As far as the sign, you're going to make up a sign no parking now, it would be nice to have a large sign right at the entrance as you drive down to the lake if you're not going to put signs around the rest of it explaining the situation and the fining and the whole works. Don Ashworth: Just to clarify, I understand what you're saying Clark in terms of having signs up as soon as possible. Yes, we have signs on hand but before we can go out and put a sign into the ground, we have to get every one of the utility companies out to mark the location of their underground utilities in — that area. I would like to take and move ahead with whatever special order that would be required to get the right signs up at each of the neighborhoods or at each of the entrances. We may be adding to the time process when we're — trying to cut it down, is what I'm saying. Councilman Johnson: I think the signs that are being proposed by Jim here that _ say no boat trailer parking within this neighborhood could, if we ordered, I 77 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 guess there's two streets coming in, three signs. One that we need the utilities to place it to find out where they are at the two entrances and one as the boats are going down, we have some existing signs there that we could tack a sign on right now that we don't have to check utilities on because there are already utilities checked out. We've already got the post in the ground. Anybody that's going to empty a boat trailer by going down the boat ramp will have to pass by that sign that will say what's just been recommended. I don't know why we have to restrict it only to this neighborhood. Is there any reason to park boats with trailers anyplace on any public street? That's kind of dangerous in that it's a low visibility type thing. Easier to hit than a full car. I don't see any reason to have an empty trailer parked anywhere on a public street in Chanhassen. Mayor Hamilton: What if you went and bought a trailer for your boat and you wanted to park in front of your house before you went to put your boat in and the cop comes by and gives you a ticket? Would that make you feel good? Councilman Johnson: Can't you put it in your driveway? Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we can start doing that. Councilman Boyt: I think that although I'm sure that some of the people living on Lotus Lake won't be happy with this, we have to be reasonable when we put a penalty on somebody. I think given that you're going to have two signs up there, I can assure that some of the people are going to make a mistake and park there without realizing it's no parking. Anytime you don't have a no parking sign every 20-30 feet, you're going to have people who are just flat (__ out looking for an opportunity to park, they don't remember seeing a sign and they pull it over there because they're in a hurry to get back to their boat. I don't think towing is a decent way to treat people especially given the way cars are built today. You're taking a big risk when you pick the front end of a front end drive car up. Mayor Hamilton: That's in the contract with a tower. Councilman Boyt: Maybe it is but we let people park all over the place in Lake Ann and we don't even ticket them much less tow them. I recognize that this is in front of people's houses and we want them to have the opportunity to use their streets. I just think we need to use some other moderate force to enforce this ordinance. It certainly has to have teeth in it but we have to be reasonable. Councilman Horn: I think that comes out when we review the ordinance. We're not going to write the ordinance tonight. I think our direction tonight should be, let's put an ordinance in place that makes sense and let's direct staff to do something as quickly as possible to get the problem stopped. We're not going to tell you where to put the poles and all that. Whatever you can do the most quickly to alleviate the problem. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see progressive fines. Mayor Hamilton: Let's let Pat and Don work that out right now and let's see if we can't get some signage up. 78 _ City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 ir- Jim Chaffee: If I could ask Pat one question. If the Council passes the resolution tonight and we do not get signs up there by this weekend and from the weather reports this weekend is going to be a real nice weekend, — temperatures in the 70's, would my deputies still have enforcement powers to go and advise people at least that they can not park there without signs? Pat Farrell: Did you say without signs? Jim Chaffee: Right, without signs being in place. Jack Melby: Down at the access there are signs up saying no parking. Jim Chaffee: I'm talking about on South Shore. — Mayor Hamilton: Put them on saw horse until you can get, get a tripod thing and stand them out there. Fred Oelschlager: Bill, I have to disagree with you on a couple things here that you said about the Lake Ann. That's a different program out there. You _ don' t have homeowners around the area. You don't have the lake with the power boats on it. It's quite a bit different. Cars staying there don't bother anybody. Here they're infringing on a lot of different situations and you said the people who live on Lotus Lake may have some who care and some who may not — care. Councilman Boyt: No, I didn't say that. I said that I'm sure that the people who live there, many of them would like to have a house dropped on anybody who does anything to the lake. I'm saying that we need to be reasonable with these people. Just as we would expect to be reasonable on any other penalty that we put on. I guess I'm opposed to towing as an automatic first step. I think that's a real shock. Fred Oelschlager: The only thing is, the number we have coming in there, you want to have someone handing out warnings everyday. — Councilman Boyt: It's not a warning. I would see something that's got a penalty to it and as Tom has said, we'll get to that. Resolution #88-38: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the first reading of a resolution prohibiting street parking of boat trailers — on South Shore Drive, South Shore Court and Hill Street and to post signs indicating "NO BOAT TRAILER PARKING ON ROADWAY" at both entrances to South Shore Drive from Highway 101. Also, to have staff prepare an ordinance establishing penalties penalties for the no parking to be brought back for a second reading. All voted in favor and motion carried. Georgette Sosin: When are we planning to actually have someone there, as we discussed? Who's going to be monitoring the traffic situation and handing out papers to explain how the boats should go in the lake because even with the no — parking signs we're going to have problems. When are going to begin this _ because it's an early season. Lori Sietsema: Opening fishing. 79 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Geving: May 14th? Councilman Johnson: Can we get somebody earlier? Lori Sietsema: We've had applications, it's just a matter of when we can get them hired. That's what our goal is. If we hire them before that, I'll get them out there before that. Councilman Boyt: Last summer I didn't see it in terms of any kind of enforcement. I was on the lake enough to notice that there was a lot of things — not happening until we hit the high water period and I would like to see the deputy sheriff out there on a routine basis. Mayor Hamilton: That's been talked about at Public Safety Commission meetings and we're going to do everything possible to have the patrol boat out there as often as possible. Now that we have an access there I'm sure he'll be here more often. There was not an access for him previously. Councilman Boyt: He wasn't out here last summer verh much was he Tom? Mayor Hamilton: They cover such a wide area. They've got one boat and he covers the whole county. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we ought to buy him a boat. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconced to approve the following for the Public Safety Commission: That the City Council reappoint Richard Wing and Candy Takkunen to two (2) year terms on the Public Safety Commission with terms to expire in December, 1989. That the City Council appoint Wayne Wenzlaff and Craig Blechta to the two (2) newly created positions on the Public Safety Commission with terms to expire in December, 1990. The the City Council accept the resignation of Public Safety Commissioner Cliff Bohlmann and appoint Bill Bernhjelm to the Commission vacancy. This term is to expire in December, 1989. That the City Council appoint first alternate Barb Klick to replace Commissioner Jim vonLorenz should he resign prior to the expiration of his present term (December, 1988) or i.n the event he does not seek reappointment. All voted in favor and motion carried. [E7 Councilman Boyt: As a person who was involved in initiating the expansion of the Public Safety Commission, I want to say, and I tried to get a hold of Dick 80 - I ! - C I TY OF\\k/ 4..A., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 .'7� . . 1 MEMORANDUM - TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director = DATE: April 7, 1988 SUBJ: Boat Trailer Parking on South Shore Drive --6k Background — The controversy surrounding the South Lotus Lake boat access heated up at the end of last summer when the Minnesota DNR — decided that the City could not limit the amount of boats being launched at the facility. Even though all the parking slots were full , we could not close the access , thereby preventing a boat — from launching. This came as a great surprise to most all of the groups that had worked on the South Lotus Lake boat access . No less surprised — were members of City staff who were led to believe, at least ini- tially, that we could in fact control the boat launching at the access . The ruling by the DNR effectively took away what small — control the City exercised over the access . During the course of the winter, several meetings were held by City staff and Lotus Lake homeowners association members . — Several problem areas were discussed including the possibility of boat launchers who launch their boats then look about for a place to park. When the lot is full, it would appear logical that the — boat launchers with their empty boat trailers would then park wherever it is not prohibited. These areas would most likely be in close proximity to the public access and could include State Highway 101 , the Meadows apart- ments and South Shore Drive. It was suggested through these meetings that the most immediate problem from the City' s standpoint would be empty boat trailer parking on South Shore Drive. Since the State controlled Highway _ 101 and the Meadows was a private apartment complex, the City' s Cinitial response should be toward the potential problem parking on South Shore Drive. Don Ashworth April 7, 1988 Page 2 Public Safety Focus Although parking was a heavily discussed issue, so was the poten- tial for problem boaters on Lotus Lake due to increased usage. Speeding boats in no wake zones, boats travelling in the wrong direction and drinking while boating were issues of concern. To maintain control over these potential problems , we (Public Safe- ty) will be working closely with Deputy Roger Roatch of the Carver County Sheriff' s Department and newly appointed head of the Sheriff' s water patrol. A Lotus Lake Homeowner' s Association meeting has been scheduled for April 28 , 1988 where these issues will be discussed. Deputy Roger Roatch and I will be present to answer any questions that may come up. Recommendation While Public Safety will utilize whatever resources are available to keep a close eye on the South Lotus Lake boat access and the lake itself , we suggest that the Council consider making South Shore Drive, South Shore Court and Hill Street off limits to boat trailer parking. A "NO BOAT TRAILER PARKING" sign at each entrance to South Shore Drive from Highway 101 would be enough to enforce the restrictions. Action Recommended This office would recommend that the City Council adopt a resolu- tion prohibiting street parking of boat trailers on South Shore -- Drive, South Shore Court and Hill Street, and to post signs indi- cating "NO BOAT TRAILER PARKING ON ROADWAY" at both entrances to South Shore Drive from Highway 101. - E CITYOF CHANHASSEN .\ 1111v .,„ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: May 4 , 1988 SUBJ: South Lotus Lake Boat Access On April 24 , 1988, the City Council passed a resolution prohi- biting the parking of boat trailers on South Shore Drive, South Shore Court, and Hill Street. This was done in anticipation of parking problems due to DNR requirements concerning the boat access ( see attached memo) . During the Council discussion it was suggested that staff look into the feasibility of increased fines and/or towing. A first reading of the proposed ordinance establishing the fine and towing was conducted. The standard fine for a parking ticket under City ordinance is presently $10 .00 . The feeling from the Council appeared to be that some people are willing to pay $10. 00 to enjoy a day on the lake. It was thus suggested that a $50 . 00 fine would effectively prevent people from parking in violation of the ordinance. In addition, making violators subject to being towed was suggested and both the fine and the tow have been included in the draft ordinance. Signs advising of the parking restrictions will be up at both entrances to South Shore Drive from Highway 101 . Signs also should be placed going down to and coming out of the boat access itself . Finally, signs should be posted at the entrance to both South Shore Court and Hill Street. These signs will be larger than normal and the ones at South Shore Drive and Highway 101 will read "No Boat Trailer Parking on Street" . The signs at the boat access and the entrances to South Shore Court and Hill Street will read "No Boat Trailer Parking on Street. Violators Subject to $50 . 00 Fine and Tow" . Consequently, if a trailer is found parked on the street in violation, it would have had to pass a sign three ( 3 ) times . This would appear to be reasonable warning. Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance ( 2nd reading) and the placement of signs as indicated in this report. City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 JrBOAT TRAILER PARKING ON SOUTH SHORE DRIVE. Jim Chaffee: Without belaboring the issue, I think everyone is aware of the — DNR move last year that effectively took control of the South Lotus Lake boat access away from this community. We believe because of that things are going to become a little chaotic at that access this summer especially in regards to — unreasonable parking. In that regard, we have come up with some ideas. One of them is a prophylactic measure when it comes to parking. We don't know as of yet just how far out the unreasonable parking will extend but we do believe _ that it will for sure extend to the South Shore Drive area. Because of that we are suggesting that we effectively adopt a resolution that would prevent the parking of empty boat trailers and vehicles attached to or vice versa, on the South Shore Drive area and the other streets connected and that's it. — Councilman Horn: They were already out of hand this weekend. There were trailers parked all the way up both sides of the access and along the street. — In fact, a fellow called the Sheriff on one because he parked up on the grass and one was ticketed. Mayor Hamilton: I still think, as I had said quite some time ago, that we ought to, along with having no parking, we should have a fine system set up and I wish we had it in place right now. $50.00 fine for parking where you shouldn't park and get towed immediately and it costs you $50.00 to get your — car back. It costs you $100.00 if you park where you don't belong. It's the same doggone thing that Minneapolis and St. Paul do for snowbirds and I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same thing here. I think it would solve the problem real quick. They're not going to do it again. Councilman Geving: What happens now if you ticket a person? Jim Chaffcc: It's a standard fine set down by the County. $5.00 to $10.00. I'm not sure what it is. Councilman Geving: They'll come back. For $5.00 to $10.00, they'll come back again. Mayor Hamilton: How can we accomplish that Pat? Do we have to have an — ordinance? Pat Farrell: You would have to have a special ordinance to accomplish what — you're proposing. To accomplish what Jim was talking about, you would have to have a special ordinance. Councilman Horn: Do you think what you're proposing here is going to do the job? I don't like to see no parking signs every 10 feet either but do you think i.f we just do what you're suggesting? Obviously you've check it and it _ is enforceable. Have you made it clearcut to the people who are going to be using it? Jim Chaffee: It may or may not be. We checked this out when we first found — out what the DNR was proposing with Roger Knutson. He said that is i enforceable. We settled on that idea because, as you stated, we don't like to see no parking signs posted up and down the roadway and as long as this is a restricted access area, people have to go by those signs to get in. Roger 75 118 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 indicated that was good enough. Mayor Hamilton: We also talked about at the Public Safety Commission, putting up no parking between signs so no parking from one sign to the next so then you _ don't have as many signs. It's just a way to eliminate having signs every 10 feet or whatever is required. I know a lot of people here from the neighborhood about this issue and do you have any comments or questions or suggestions? Jack Melby: I think the idea is an excellent one. Obviously, there is no controls now and as I have witnessed it for about a year... Not only in the summertime but in the wintertime. Sunday as an example, I think there were probably 15 to 17 boats and trailers parked in that area up and down the hill and in the residential area and I don't know how you're going to put a stop to that other than putting up signs up that say no parking. I agree with you Tom, placing a fine on them. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, a significant enough fine so they won't do it again. That's the only way to stop them. Jack Melby: That's the only way it would work. A $5.00 fine is a good afternoon recreation. Mayor Hamilton: If it costs them $100.00 and they've got to walk a ways to get the car back, I think they're really going to think about it twice. $50.00 fine for the ticket and $50.00 for the towing, the contract for someone to tow them and they've got to find someway to get their car out. No different than what Minneapolis and St. Paul does and I think we should do the same thing. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, if you would like, we could table this issue for the moment. I think some of the Lotus Lake homeowners think that time is of the essence but if you wanted to table it, I could work with Roger or Pat to develop an ordinance along those guidelines. That certainly is a very good way of preventing a reoccurence. Mayor Hamilton: I think we ought to go ahead with what you're talking about. Put signs up right now and then we can continue doing other things as we go along. Don Ashworth: Could they not, Pat, put an ordinance on first reading this evening that basically violators would be towed? Pat Farrell: They could. Don Ashworth: Have it as a part of this issue. Pat Farrell: CO ahead with the resolution and post them. I'd like to spend a little time making sure that we've got an ordinance that's going to, because once you start towing and people start screaming, it's tough.. . Don Ashworth: We have two readings on ordinances so that's my point. Put it on first reading this evening. You draft it and it will be on second reading [E. two weeks from now. 76 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Pat Farrell: First reading of an ordinance providing for the prohibition of parking of automobiles and boat trailers within certain defined areas i.n the City of Chanhassen and providing for the tagging and towing of the violation — thereof. Councilman Horn: I'd like to ask the homeowners, would you object on a _ temporary basis at least of having no parking signs of any type on that street until we get this in place because I don't think we have any no boat trailer parking signs but we may have some no parking signs that we could put up in the interim. I'd like to see something up tomorrow. The only thing we'd have to — do then is, I'm sure would be just purely no parking signs until we get the other signs. Jim Chaffee: I checked tonight also with the developer, Herb Bloomberg and he's in favor of not having any cars parked on that South Shore Drive. Councilman Horn: And you people all have enough room in your driveways for cars don't you? Fred Oelschlager: What's temporary. What are we talking about for temporary? Councilman Geving: A month maybe. Two weeks. Don Ashworth: Can't we order signs and get them here right away? Mayor Hamilton: We could put up the no parking signs that says no parking.That should be clear enough. No parking period. Fred Oelschlager: And then what are we talking about on time on the fine, as far as when would that possibly be set up? Mayor Hamilton: Pat's going to review that and talk to Don and then they'll _ come back with a recommendation as to exactly what it should say. Councilman Geving: It could be as early as May 9th. Fred Oelschlager: So in other words, we'll get something going by then? As far as the sign, you're going to make up a sign no parking now, it would be nice to have a large sign right at the entrance as you drive down to the lake if you're not going to put signs around the rest of it explaining the situation and the fining and the whole works. Don Ashworth: Just to clarify, I understand what you're saying Clark in terms of having signs up as soon as possible. Yes, we have signs on hand but before we can go out and put a sign into the ground, we have to get every one of the utility companies out to mark the location of their underground utilities in that area. I would like to take and move ahead with whatever special order that would be required to get the right signs up at each of the neighborhoods or at each of the entrances. We may be adding to the time process when we're trying to cut it down, is what I'm saying. Councilman Johnson: I think the signs that are being proposed by Jim here that say no boat trailer parking within this neighborhood could, if we ordered, I — 77 City Council Mooting - April 25, 1988 guess there's two streets coming in, three signs. One that we need the utilities to place it to find out where they are at the two entrances and one as the boats are going down, we have sane existing signs there that we could tack a sign on right now that we don't have to check utilities on because there are already utilities checked out. We've already got the post in the ground. Anybody that's going to empty a boat trailer by going down the boat ramp will have to pass by that sign that will say what's just been recommended. I don't know why we have to restrict it only to this neighborhood. Is there any reason to park boats with trailers anyplace on any public street? That's kind of dangerous in that it's a low visibility type thing. Easier to hit than a full car. I don't see any reason to have an empty trailer parked anywhere on a public street in Chanhassen. Mayor Hamilton: What if you went and bought a trailer for your boat and you wanted to park in front of your house before you went to put your boat in and the cop comes by and gives you a ticket? Would that make you feel good? Councilman Johnson: Can't you put it in your driveway? • Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we can start doing that. Councilman Boyt: I think that although I'm sure that sane of the people living on Lotus Lake won't be happy with this, we have to be reasonable when we put a penalty on somebody. I think given that you're going to have two signs up there, I can assure that sane of the people are going to make a mistake and park there without realizing it's no parking. Anytime you don't have a no parking sign every 20-30 feet, you're going to have people who are just flat out looking for an opportunity to park, they don't remember seeing a sign and they pull it over there because they're in a hurry to get back to their boat. I don't think towing is a decent way to treat people especially given the way cars are built today. You're taking a big risk when you pick the front end of a front end drive car up. Mayor Hamilton: That's in the contract with a tower. Councilman Boyt: Maybe it is but we let people park all over the place in Lake Ann and we don't even ticket them much less tow them. I recognize that this is in front of people's houses and we want than to have the opportunity to use their streets. I lust think we need to use some other moderate force to enforce this ordinance. It certainly has to have teeth in it but we have to be reasonable. Councilman Horn: I think that comes out when we review the ordinance. We're not going to write the ordinance tonight. I think our direction tonight should be, let's put an ordinance in place that makes sense and let's direct staff to do something as quickly as possible to get the problem stopped. We're not going to tell you where to put the poles and all that. Whatever you can do the most quickly to alleviate the problem. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see progressive fines. Mayor Hamilton: Let's let Pat and Don work that out right now and let's see if we can't get some signage up. 78 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 ir- Jim Chaffee: If I could ask Pat one question. If the Council passes the resolution tonight and we do not get signs up there by this weekend and from the weather reports this weekend is going to be a real nice weekend, — temperatures in the 70's, would my deputies still have enforcement powers to go and advise people at least that they can not park there without signs? Pat Farrell: Did you say without signs? Jim Chaffcc: Right, without signs being in place. Jack Melby: Down at the access there are signs up saying no parking. Jim Chaffee: I'm talking about on South Shore. — Mayor Hamilton: Put them on saw horse until you can get, get a tripod thing and stand them out there. Fred Oelschlager: Bill, I have to disagree with you on a couple things here that you said about the Lake Ann. That's a different program out there. You don' t have homeowners around the area. You don't have the lake with the power boats on it. It's quite a bit different. Cars staying there don't bother anybody. Here they're infringing on a lot of different situations and you said the people who live on Lotus Lake may have some who care and some who may not — care. Councilman Boyt: No, I didn't say that. I said that I'm sure that the people who live there, many of them would like to have a house dropped on anybody who _ does anything to the lake. I'm saying that we need to be reasonable with these people. Just as we would expect to be reasonable on any other penalty that we put on. I guess I'm opposed to towing as an automatic first step. I think that's a real shock. — Fred Oelschlager: The only thing is, the number we have coming in there, you want to have someone handing out warnings everyday. — Councilman Boyt: It's not a warning. I would see something that's got a penalty to it and as Tom has said, we'll get to that. Resolution #88-38: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the first reading of a resolution prohibiting street parking of boat trailers — on South Shore Drive, South Shore Court and Hill Street and to post signs indicating "NO BOAT TRAILER PARKING ON ROADWAY" at both entrances to South Shore Drive from Highway 101. Also, to have staff prepare an ordinance establishing penalties for the no parking to be brought back for a second reading. All voted in favor and motion carried. Georgette Sosin: When are we planning to actually have someone there, as we discussed? Who's going to be monitoring the traffic situation and handing out papers to explain how the boats should go in the lake because even with the no — t parking signs we're going to have problems. When are going to begin this because it's an early season. Lori Sietsema: Opening fishing. — 79 3,2 City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Councilman Geving: May 14th? Councilman Johnson: Can we get somebody earlier? Lori Sietsema: We've had applications, it's just a matter of when we can get them hired. That's what our goal is. If we hire them before that, I'll get them out there before that. Councilman Boyt: Last summer I didn't see it in terms of any kind of enforcement. I was on the lake enough to notice that there was a lot of things not happening until we hit the high water period and I would like to see the deputy sheriff out there on a routine basis. Mayor Hamilton: That's been talked about at Public Safety Commission meetings and we're going to do everything possible to have the patrol boat out there as often as possible. Now that we have an access there I'm sure he'll be here more often. There was not an access for him previously. Councilman Boyt: He wasn't out here last summer verh much was he Tom? Mayor Hamilton: They cover such a wide area. They've got one boat and he covers the whole county. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we ought to buy him a boat. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconced to approve the following for the Public Safety Commission: That the City Council reappoint Richard Wing and Candy Takkunen to two (2) year terms on the Public Safety Commission with terms to expire in December, 1989. That the City Council appoint Wayne Wenzlaff and Craig Blechta to the two (2) newly created positions on the Public Safety Commission with terms to expire in December, 1990. The the City Council accept the resignation of Public Safety Commissioner Cliff Bohlmann and appoint Bill Bernhjelm to the Commission vacancy. This term is to expire in December, 1989. That the City Council appoint first alternate Barb Klick to replace Commissioner Jim vonLorenz should he resign prior to the expiration of his present term (December, 1988) or in the event he does not seek reappointment. All voted in favor and motion carried. [7:7 Councilman Boyt: As a person who was involved in initiating the expansion of the Public Safety Commission, I want to say, and I tried to get a hold of Dick 80 CITYOF cEANHAssEN C G 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM , TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director - - DATE: April 7 , 1988 SUBJ: Boat Trailer Parking on South Shore Drive 14- Background - The controversy surrounding the South Lotus Lake boat access heated up at the end of last summer when the Minnesota DNR _ decided that the City could not limit the amount of boats being launched at the facility. Even though all the parking slots were full, we could not close the access , thereby preventing a boat from launching. This came as a great surprise to most all of the groups that had worked on the South Lotus Lake boat access . No less surprised - were members of City staff who were led to believe, at least ini- tially, that we could in fact control the boat launching at the access . The ruling by the DNR effectively took away what small _ control the City exercised over the access . During the course of the winter, several meetings were held by City staff and Lotus Lake homeowners association members . - Several problem areas were discussed including the possibility of boat launchers who launch their boats then look about for a place to park. When the lot is full , it would appear logical that the _ boat launchers with their empty boat trailers would then park wherever it is not prohibited. These areas would most likely be in close proximity to the public - access and could include State Highway 101 , the Meadows apart- ments and South Shore Drive. It was suggested through these meetings that the most immediate problem from the City' s standpoint would be empty boat trailer parking on South Shore Drive. Since the State controlled Highway _ 101 and the Meadows was a private apartment complex, the City' s initial response should be toward the potential problem parking on South Shore Drive. Don Ashworth April 7 , 1988 Page 2 Public Safety Focus Although parking was a heavily discussed issue, so was the poten- tial for problem boaters on Lotus Lake due to increased usage . Speeding boats in no wake zones, boats travelling in the wrong direction and drinking while boating were issues of concern. To maintain control over these potential problems , we ( Public Safe- ty) will be working closely with Deputy Roger Roatch of the Carver County Sheriff ' s Department and newly appointed head of the Sheriff' s water patrol. A Lotus Lake Homeowner ' s Association meeting has been scheduled for April 28 , 1988 where these issues will be discussed. Deputy Roger Roatch and I will be present to answer any questions that may come up. Recommendation While Public Safety will utilize whatever resources are available to keep a close eye on the South Lotus Lake boat access and the lake itself , we suggest that the Council consider making South Shore Drive, South Shore Court and Hill Street off limits to boat trailer parking. A "NO BOAT TRAILER PARKING" sign at each entrance to South Shore Drive from Highway 101 would be enough to enforce the restrictions . Action Recommended This office would recommend that the City Council adopt a resolu- tion prohibiting street parking of boat trailers on South Shore Drive, South Shore Court and Hill Street, and to post signs indi- cating "NO BOAT TRAILER PARKING ON ROADWAY" at both entrances to South Shore Drive from Highway 101 . - E CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 12-17 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE PARKING OF UNLOADED BOAT TRAILERS ON SOUTH SHORE DRIVE, SOUTH SHORE COURT AND HILL STREET The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. 1. 01 The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: A. Empty Boat Trailer means any device used to transport any watercraft when pulled behind any motor vehicle which is not currently completely loaded with a watercraft. B. Watercraft means any contrivance used or designed for navigation on water other than a seaplane. SECTION 2 . RESTRICTIONS. 2 . 01 No person shall park an unloaded boat trailer on South Shore Drive, South Shore Court or Hill Street. The City Engineer shall mark by appropriate signs each aforementioned street. SECTION 3 . PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION. 3 . 01 The presence of any unloaded boat trailer parked on South Shore Drive, South Shore Court or Hill Street is prima facie evidence that the registered owner of the unloaded boat trailer committed or authorized the commission of the violation. SECTION 4. PENALTY. 4. 01 Any person violating this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The minimum penalty for violation of this Ordinance shall be a $50 fine. The maximum penalty for violation of this Ordinance shall be the maximum penalty as set by State Legislature for misdemeanors. SECTION 5. IMPOUNDMENT. 5. 01 Any police officer may remove or cause to be removed an empty boat trailer with or without the motor vehicle it is attached to from the street to a garage or other place of safety when a vehicle is parked in violation of this Ordinance. Such trailer and/or vehicle shall not be released until the fees for towing and storage are paid in addition to any fine imposed for violation of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. 6. 01 This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this day of , 1988. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Don Ashworth, City Manager l2_ CITY O F 1". CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Councilmen Johnson and Geving DATE: May 6 , 1988 SUBJ: Southwest Metro Transit Resolution The Regional Transit Board (RTB) is recommending the Southwest Metro Transit rebid the service contract . This action was requested by the Medicine Lake Line who is suing the RTB and Southwest Metro Transit over alleged irregularities in the original bid. The MTC contract expires December 31 , 1989 and will therefore be rebid during 1989. An early rebid of the contract could possibly cause unnecessary expense to the Southwest Metro Transit . An early change service could also cause rider confusion and decreased rider confidence at a criti- cal growth period for Southwest Metro Transit. Beverly Miller is preparing a draft resolution supporting Southwest Metro' s position on this issue. I hope the resolution can be included with the packet , but it will definitely be available Monday night . The RTB will consider this issue at their May 16 , 1988 , meeting . Council Action We recommend the City Council approve the draft resolution sup- - porting Southwest Metro Transit ' s position. CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: RESOLUTION NO: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CONTINUATION OF THE MTC CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTHWEST METRO FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE AND THE DIAL-A-RIDE CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen supports the continuation of the MTC contract for the Southwest Metro Fixed Route Transit Service and the City of Shakopee contract for Dial-a-Ride Service; and — WHEREAS, the Southwest Metro Transit Commission entered into a contract with MTC to provide a fixed route service in the South- west Metro Transit area from December 1 , 1986 through and including December 31 , 1989; and WHEREAS, the Southwest Metro Transit Comission entered into a contract with the City of Shakopee to provide Dial-a-Ride service in the Southwest Metro Transit service area from October 6 , 1987 through April 15 , 1989; and — WHEREAS , a rebid of the contract as recommended by the Regional Transit Board would disrupt the current service and _ would not promote continuity of operations; and WHEREAS, a rebid of the contract as recommended by the Regional Transit Board would increase the cost of the transit — service; and WHEREAS, the current service by MTC is resulting in over 85% — rider satisfaction and that the ridership has increased by 70% since implementation of the service in December of 1986 ; and WHEREAS, the contract with MTC was approved by the Regional Transit Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council nereby — supports continuation of the MTC contract for the Southwest Metro Fixed Route Transit Service and Dial-a-Ride. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1988 . ATTEST: Don Ashworth, City Manager Thomas L. Hamilton , Mayor YES NO ABSENT C I TY O F ..._ , \ 1 N.ft CHANHASSEN /". .....,L, , , . . . , ---. . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 — V MEMORANDUM — TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planne , ,,,........_ . _ : .... DATE: April 21, 1988 M-- S-SE SUBJ: Downtown Signage Concepts S' Z -,-f - ,e, The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their meeting of March 2 , 1988 . Please review the attached minutes and packet. — The Planning Commission agreed with the concept to create district area identification signs in specific locations in the downtown area and to prohibit future installation of pylon signs for individual businesses. However, they did suggest further study as to compare district pylon signs with and without indivi- dual business signs . Further, they wanted to evaluate enlarging the proposed area to the west to County Road 17 . The City Attorney has also prepared an opinion regarding the ordinance for these types of signs (also enclosed) . — RECOMMENDATION Staff feels it necessary to gain concurrence from the Council to proceed with the type of study requested by the Planning — Commission. Staff fully supports the Planning Commission recom- mendation on this issue; however, before additional study is con- ducted, Council direction is requested. Should the Council concur with this signage concept, the Chamber of Commerce will be contacted to provide input to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 9 f that a secondary access is not necessary. — All voted in favor and motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Emmings moved, Headla seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 17 , 1988 as — amended by Ladd Conrad on pages 6 and 37 . All voted in favor and motion carried. DOWNTOWN SIGNAGE CONCEPTS . Dacy: While Jim' s setting up I ' ll just start . For the three reasons that I stated on the first page of my memo , staff wanted to look a little closer at the issue of signage in the downtown area and for the reasons of the aesthetics issues for downtown redevelopment and — improving the streetscape of downtown and the visual image as well as trying to create a consistent form of signage in the downtown area we thought we ' d put this before the Planning Commission to see what your ideas were because you have in the past expressed opinions about — signage into the community and into the downtown area . As we began looking at the downtown and the redevelopment projects that were occurring , we noticed that the developments were taking shape into — smaller areas which we have labled on here as districts. Retail West right across from the new bank, the Kenny' s building over on the east side, the proposed Medical Arts Building Center , the whole area on the _ west side of Market Blvd . side . So these little nodes started appearing and we thought , what a good way to use that to our advantage and create what we' re calling district signs to focus traveling motorist into what that particular node or commercial development is — doing . The first part of our proposal is to create these district signs . They would not have any advertising or business names on them but they would just state a name . For example, Chanhassen Square or — Chanhassen Government Offices . Headla : That would be where the red stars are? Dacy: No. The district signs are those located and proposed as the small black dots to identify that node and what ' s occurring there but not necessarily saying Q-Suprette and Domi.noe ' s Pizza, etc . . What - thi.s means is that in creating district signs , what happens to the other signs by individual property owners so a couple of issues are there. One is , this means not allowing anymore new pylon signs . For example, not allowing Kenny ' s the ability to have an individual pylon sign of the Daycare center to have another pylon sign . It would mean solely that these signs would satisfy what we call street level identification of that node . There would be a lot of wall signage of — course and we ' re looking at some performance standards with that to act as a compliment to the district signage. Down on the West 79th Street area, that poses maybe as a bigger issue because we do have — Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 10 several free standing buildings , existing buildings . Do we want to go so far as to go back and remove those existing pylons or take the approach of when these uses leave or burn down to occupancy changes , do we want to request that they remove the pylon? Again, opt for a district sign, one sign denoting what this node is . So that ' s one issue, the district sign issue that we ' re asking your input on. The second issue is what Dave asked about , the red stars , the entry monuments . You talked a lot about this about a year ago when the Chamber came in and through some other development requests so we wanted to create another type of sign that would say "Welcome to Chanhassen, Dinner Theater this way" or whatever that type of message would be on the sign. We wanted to look at locating those in strategic points when you get into the downtown area . What we' re looking at initially is one located at the intersection of Market Blvd. and TH 5 and one up here on West 78th Street at the base of Kerber Blvd . . One as you cross the railroad tracks on Great Plains Blvd . in front of Klingelhutz ' office building and future entry signs at , the Chamber sign was allowed to be up for 5 years . The Council put a condition on that so after 5 years, that sign could come down and we could have an alternative form of signage at that location and another future sign at the new intersection here when we realign TH 101 into TH 5 at West 78th Street . The purpose tonight is to talk in general terms , from the Planning Commission ' s standpoint, if this should be pursued any further . Staff ' s recommendation is that we really feel stongly in the central core area of the downtown of the district signage and the entrance monument signage is a worthwhile project to pursue. We think it does compliment our overall effort to create an uncluttered and appealing streetscape when you get into the downtown area. That ' s our recommendation on that. So that ' s the first issue that we need your comment on . What do you think of all of this and then the second issue that we need your comment on is, do you think we should expand this concept to other commercial areas of the City? So if you say no to one, that answers two but if you do say yes , that does have some implications for other potential areas . Maybe I ' ll ask Jim maybe to just briefly describe the district sign approach with the complimenting wall signs . Jim Lasher : A couple of quick notes about signage. What a lot of communities are doing is going to a more performance oriented signage code and not the standards which is what most often really Chanhassen has now. You get so many square feet of signage for so many square feet of developable space or facade area . By going to a performance type signage ordinance you are encouraging a lot more creative look at how you ' re going to sign your building and it requires a little bit more aesthetic appeal from the people that work at staff to be able to look at these kind of issues but you ' re opening up a lot of opportunities for people to do some exciting things . You ' re also opening up an opportunity for somebody to do something really ugly so it ' s definitely a double edged sword . One of the things that has been used in the past and we ' re thinking about using in the downtown area --� is a signage band for a strip type of commercial establishment which we ' re getting a couple of them downtown. Usually it ' s a continuous Planning Commission Meeting March 2 , 1988 - Page 11 band along the face of a building . One of the statements is that _ these signs are generally based on a solid color that ' s continuous all the way along the building edge and the signs are separate layers that punctuate that color. What that does is allow the signs to be read but it doesn ' t interrupt the building movement all the way along the facade. It maintains it instead of having a box of one size that maybe you use backlight fluorescent and then a smaller box that ' s maybe a neon and it gets to be a little bit of a hodge podge so we — allow to have a continuous sign band . Generally the sign band is about two feet high. In this drawing and in a lot of performance type codes , they are allowing the sign bands to get larger when businesses are set off of the street, if in fact they meet the criteria for — height about the sign band . What that does , if you can picture what this building would look like flat with a 4 foot high sign band and then think of putting another 7 or 8 feet of roof above it in a 4 foot — high sign band, you ' re going to get a much better, cleaner looking building and the signs are not going to look out of scale. So that ' s what we propose. We' ve been working with the developers of both these — buildings, the Colonial Center and I ' ll call it Retail West because I haven ' t heard the new name yet, but work with them because they did want to get a larger sign bands. We worked with this roof structure to try and get that up a little higher to give a better proportion to — our sign area . What that also allows them to do is to put larger letters that are read from farther away. One of the standards is that for each 1 inch height of letter you have in a sign, it ' s legible from — 50 feet . So if you have a 12 inch or 1 foot high sign, you can read it from about 600 feet . That ' s a signage standard . So with a 4 foot high band , you can comfortably get 1 to 1 1/2 foot high letters still _ keeping some space above and below. They are legible from 500 or 600 feet and if they' re lit , it ' s even better . That ' s the ideas that we ' re working at for developing a new ordinance , is some kind of performance criteria for design . Back to the district situation where — once again as Barb described , we' re trying to make a cohesive development out of certain areas which break up either by grade or by just actual splitting of the railroad tracks . It just breaks into a — lot of scenarios . Right now it would good if we could take advantage of that and I think that ' s what we ' re here tonight for is to get some input from you about the general idea and whether you see it as what ' s bound together . Emmings : I think node is a funny word . That ' s one comment I have. I think this is an outstanding idea . I just love it. I think it ' s the — first thing that I ' ve seen for signing the whole downtown that made any read good sense. I think it ' s terrific. That ' s all I have to say about that . The other thing I noticed in the packet is the Mayor _ taking us to task for our comments to Gary on page 15 of the Council meeting Minutes of January 12 , 1987 . I thought that was kind of too bad. He was disturbed with the comments we made about the sign. It looked like an attempt to knock him down without giving him a chance — to say anything or having any respect for their wishes. I guess my view is different from the Mayor ' s so I don ' t know if we should Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 12 - C dedicate ourselves from not having opposing views or what but I just wanted to mention that. Ellson : I like the idea of the individual little district names . Sometimes I see these strip type things and it gives me the impression of generic . I can' t necessarily recognize a familiar store because a lot of times they' re not using the lettering that I ' ve seen B. Dalton ' s use and things like that . I 'm not sure if that type of thing had to change or not . I don ' t think I would want it so generic that it ' s one after the other . I 'm picturing the one by Southdale. It ' s like Yorktown or whatever and they' ve got that type of thing and I hate it. I can' t find the store because it ' s not lined up under it ' s thing and I can ' t read one from the other very well . I drive by there and it just bugs me. I know there are stores over there that could probably help me and I could buys things there but I don ' t like that and I wouldn' t want this to come away with that . If you have like Peck and Peck or whatever ' s there , I 'd like them to be able to use their letter style that they use in all their stores . Maybe even the colors that you ' re used to seeing Peck and Peck have in order to recognize them. I notice that ' s the problem I have when I go some of those other strip malls . It ' s not the B. Dalton' s I know. It ' s like McDonalds couldn ' t their arches or something . Jim Lasher : One of the things that a lot of buildings in the past have done, have set up a very strict guideline of you have to use a white letter against a brown background and it has to be this high and it can only be this long . That ' s a standard and they didn ' t allow any of the businesses to project any of their image at all and they didn ' t allow anyone any creativity. So just by having something that says you can have 40 square feet of signage if you have 3, 300 square feet of businesses . Those are good places to start but we have to allow the businesses to really be a lot more creative than just doing the standard old white sign on a brown background . I think if we can pursue something like this a little longer we can come up with a new ordinance that allows that to be done. One of the best cities in the nation that does that is Carmel in California . The best signage probably in the nation . The strongest and the best written performance guideline and really working with a copy of that to try and get a sense of how they will accomplish that. It ' s a wonderful place . I ' ve been there . The signs are great . There are a lot of overhanging signs and in fact, they try and get more of those to come about because they' ve used signage where you don ' t have any words . It ' s pure symbols . The signage manufacturers have started to realize that the days of the sign with the shoe on it meant shoemaker and it ' s still true today. For some reason, all the words you want to write in the world just doesn ' t get that point across . This guy makes shoes and it ' s coming back. That ' s the kind of thing we really would like to be able to work with in the new ordinance . Ellson: That ' s what I was more concerned that it would get to that generic look which I just hate . Like you said , some people have creativity and this is the way they market their building , their signs Planning Commission Meeting March 2 , 1988 - Page 13 r V are no big deal . I do like the idea of continuity. I don ' t like the _ Hardware Hank sticking out up there and he ' s the main guy in the Bloomington strip or something like that . I like the idea of each of the areas having a thing. Would one dot be enough? What if someone is coming in from the other direction? Sometimes that ' s the only — thing I think of. Like the one on 79th, you ' ve got it located in two places . Both entrances . Is that usually the way it would be? Jim Lasher : What we did is because this was one district and there were two entrances to that district , we gave them one on each side . This is such a large area that we gave one at most logical points _ here . The way we see this developing , which may or may not happen because we don ' t have a true site plan yet is, we see a main entrance to this development off of Market Blvd . . There could in fact be a curb cut and a full right intersection up in here which we may have to — take another look at that but with what we ' re working at right now, we have this development, the bowling alley and the bar which has one entrance at this point so that ' s kind of where we started off at . Is _ looking at the grade split here and knowing that these two will never adjoin unless there ' s a parking ramp/hotel which may or may not happen. The rest of these are more of a just get them where we think people are going to see them upon entry into the district . That ' s how — we picked it. It ' s a good point . This one just happens to need two because it has two main entrances . Emmings : I think too on that, if that ' s the only thing that ' s out there , instead of having a whole bunch of signs , if just that thing is out there, it ' s going to be that much more visible. It ' s the only _ thing there ' s going to be to look at that ' s different than a tree . Headla: I like the concept . I think it ' s very good . I 'd like to see it applied to all our business districts . The district nodes I like . — I really the question the information we ' re going to put on the red . If you ' ve got somebody tooling down TH 5, you don ' t want them reading a sign that says businesses here or there . I think you really have — got to stress what street you ' re on and in your notes you had something about the City Hall . A couple of civic places but I think that ' s all that should be there . People come and they know they' ve got to turn on Market Street or whatever , make that be the main focus . — Conrad : Some good comments . Mine may not be totally in sync with what you ' ve heard. I totally agree that the individual pylons should be kept off the street from different companies . There ' s just no doubt. I think that ' s critical . I totally agree with Annette ' s comment that individual shops have their own characteristic logo types _ or signage or color . Absolute. There ' s just no reason to standardize the names because we take something away from the individual companies . I do like the continuity of the stripe or of some way to fi.t the signage in on the store fronts . I think that ' s smart also . '— I 'm not convinced of the pylons in front of each shop. To say Retail West says nothing to me. We' re not designing a southdale here . The one shopping center has a daycare center in it and something else . — Planning Commission Meeting March 2 , 1988 - Page 14 r — ti I 'm not sure that we need a pylon to say something that really doesn' t have much meaning to me. If I were a retailer, I 'd be more interested in having my name out there . Very much like what the Chamber of Commerce has done out on TH 5. That is not an appropriate place for that type of signage. However , having a pylon in front of a shopping center to maybe help identify what ' s in it , may appeal to the retailers a little bit more . Somebody could possibly make a case two ways on this one and I 'd listen to them. One, we' re going to have too many shops in there and therefore we can ' t put everybody' s name out in that pylon. I could understand that . Two , if somebody could claim that Retail West or whatever has some meaning or will ever have meaning and therefore the kids at home say, dad let ' s go to Retail West, then I ' ll listen to that case but I ' ve got to be real critical of those . I think those are just things that I ' d have to mull over in my mind. If I were a retailer wanting to move into this community and I deal with them all the time, the names are key. The signage is key and we ' re taking away their pylons . Therefore, we' ve got to give them something on the storefronts and we also have to help traffic make decisions on whether to turn in or whether not to turn in. I think if there ' s a sign that says daycare this way out by the streets so I don' t have to be jerking around to look and see, that may be beneficial . I guess I ' d be real interested in pursuing both alternatives and staff making a recommendation, whichever they feel . I think we ' ve got to be sensitive to retailers who want to locate out here. Other comments relating to the big stars there. Whatever we ' re calling those things . The entry monuments . I think we were talking before about the major monument in Chanhassen being moved east so that people knew they were coming to Chanhassen before they got to Chanhassen and they just went by it . So that first monument, we' re going to replace the Chamber sign but I think when we talked about the Chamber sign, we were talking about before saying here it is. Get ready to turn . That ' s now what the sign would say but it might say Welcome to Chanhassen, Home of the Dinner Theater or whatever we ' re the home of . But I like the thought of that . I think that ' s real important. I also think there should be one on the west side of town close to CR 17 and TH 5 because if you ' re coming from the west , there ' s a good chance you ' re not going to loop back into Chan. You ' re going to by-pass or else we ' ve got to get them to turn before . Jim Lasher : That ' s a good point and maybe that ' s something we can pursue in that one of the things that affects all our signage i.n this entire corridor is that there will be an additional 50 feet of right-of-way needed and required for the expansion of TH 5. There ' s a lot of stuff on TH 5 right now that ' s not going to be there when this road is rebuilt . Some of the pylon signs . Certainly the Chamber sign is closer than 50 foot back from Kerber right now. I don' t know when that ' s going to happen but it certainly will at some point . We can pursue moving say this particular monument down the road as long as we can start looking at the future plans of this road and find out if there ' s any property for us to build on. It ' s tough up in here as far as who ' s land are we building this on . Do we have to get State Highway approval to build in that right-of-way? The same down in here Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 15 r C as well . It ' s not as critical because the bridge will not be _ expanded , at least to my knowledge it ' s not going to be expanded. So we probably have the same amount of right-of-way in this area . About 50 foot additional all the way along this side of the road so that ' s something we ' ll have to look at if you want to stretch out down a — little bit and we' ll look that way too. Buying land . It just so happens that now having a little piece that in 5 years the bulldozer would knock it down . — Conrad : Conceptually, think about what I just said in sort of making of the announcement that Chanhassen ' s coming up and I think that ' s _ what we want to do . Not just say it to them when they happen to be stopped at the stop light but say it to them before they actually get here so ah yes , maybe we should turn off . That ' s the idea . Jim Lasher : Plus with the expanding right turn lane, they' re going to have to make the decision to come up this road probably somewhere back in here and if they get up in this area they will not be able to negotiate that turn . Conrad : My other comment is on the Highway Business District and I guess people locate in highway business districts because they are — actually taking people off the highway and are funneling them right back on and they really don ' t want to go to Chanhassen to begin with. Pylons , and I really don ' t like them but pylons is a real important function of highway business district useage. If you can ' t tell somebody that there ' s a gas station , the Standard station from 300 to 500 feet away, they' re not going to turn so I guess my comments would _ be not to apply the same standards to the Highway Business District . They may be applicable to other districts but a Highway Business District , for all the clutter , it is essential for them to tell people that they ' re there and tell them from a distance away. If there ' s a — solution to that , I would sure pay attention but I don ' t think the average owner would feel there is a solution to that . Jim Lasher : Barbara , is this district presently split now from General Business to Highway Business? Isn ' t there a line? Dacy: Yes , it follows generally the Market Blvd . alignment and where — the pond would be too . Conrad : I ' d like standards for those pylons and I think we have some of those standards in effect right now so we don ' t have those pylons 150 feet in the air , rotating . I want to control that but I don ' t think taking them away is going to serve their needs or our needs and _ therefore I 'd like to apply the standards in other areas . At least that ' s my personal opinion. Anythi.ng else? Headla : I liked your comment about putting it out by CR 17 . You ' re — going to bring in that whole district then. Planning Commission Meeting March 2 , 1988 - Page 16 Jim Lasher : Maybe we can just discuss for a minute , we ' re going to have business running all the way down to CR 17 now, do you see any need to expand this concept out of the purer CBD area or do you feel that this is where it works best and let the rest of this deal with your signage as it ' s been dealt with in the past? Ellson: I would see continuing it. Especially i.f you have another small group of the same thing . Conrad : I think it should be out to where TH 101 intersects , the new intersection. It should go down to CR 17. I think a sign at CR 17 is real important or things in that area . Dacy: Okay, to summarize, the Commission liked the idea of the district signage and the entry signage but you would like us to look at a business directory sign option for the district signs and look at the option of having a little more detail on the types of uses . Conrad : I think you should give us a couple alternatives to look at . Dacy: Second of all to keep the ability on wall signage for individual enterprises to have their own unique color scheme and logo but keep a consistent size sign band or location on the shopping center. Moving the entry signs farther east and west. The last point that I heard was , look at eliminating the Business Highway District restrictions on pylons . Conrad : That ' s what I said . Emmings : That would be the only place you ' d be looking at pylon signs. Conrad : That ' s the only place I think they are needed . Emmings : Let me ask you something else about your notion. On this one on the right you ' ve got a thing out there that looks like a little house. A little bird house or something. That ' s going to say Retail West on it or whatever it says? When you say look at the business directory type of alternative, would it be again something in the same place , one sign that would have the names on it? Conrad : Right . Emmings : I guess my point would be this . Wouldn ' t it be easier for someone who ' s in that building to say I 'm in Retail West to a customer who wants to find them? Ellson : Once you get to know that that ' s where Retail West is , right . Emmings : Or even if they' re coming into Chanhassen for the first — time. All I ' ve got to do is find that thing that says Retail West on it to find the shop. Now if the name of the shop is out there on that a. Planning Commission Meeting March 2 , 1988 - Page 17 1' sign , they still have to look at the building to find the shop. Is it — easier to just to find something with a general name on it than to find it in a list of 15 or 20 names or however many there may be? It might be kind of a nice idea to just be able to identify yourself to an area of town and then they can find the shop because even if the person' s name is out there on the curb, unless it' s right in front of their store , they still have to scan the whole building to find the daycare or whatever it may be. -- Conrad : I 'd like to agree because it would be a nice way of doing it. Emmings: I think it ' s kind of a novel idea . Ellson : What about the drop-ins that were going by and say, oh there is a Hardware Hank there. I guess I 'd go pick up whatever , the — impulse type buyers and realize that because there ' s a drug store there then I will go to get something versus I ' ll look it up in the Yellow Pages and then try to find that person. — Conrad: Practically speaking , it breaks down. If a third of our traffic is from the Dinner Theater or whatever it is , Retail West _ doesn ' t mean anything because they' re not reading any ads . A sign that says Hardware Hank has meaning so from a retailers standpoint , they' re not going to be wild about this and our retailers right now are not real energetic advertising wise and I don ' t see them changing that posture a great deal and spending money saying we ' re over here . That ' s nothing that you really want to say. You really don ' t want to tell people where you ' re located . You want to tell them what ' s — beneficial about their product . Not where they ' re located . That ' s sort of a boring scenario of advertising . Emmings : Could this allow them to have a group identity that will allow them to share advertising? Could they advertise as a group? Ellson : Absolutely. A booklet of Retail West coupons . — Conrad : I agree with that Steve . It could . Emmings : Maybe if you set it up that way, maybe they ' ll use it that way. Jim Lasher : I think the easiest way to solve this is to do a design — of two or three different scenarios and take one and put a simple Retail West . I think there will be about eight separate stores in here or at least from the original plan that ' s what I recall , about — eight , and see what size lettering you could get . Where we could put the signs . Would they be legible from the street and just see if it makes sense. We can tell this just from a scale drawing and that should answer all our questions . Conrad : The other practical thing though is , I think on eight you can but there ' s going to be other parts of town where they' re going to be — Planning Commission Meeting March 2 , 1988 - Page 18 i 15 and it breaks down. We can ' t do 15 there . Jim Lasher : The comments about becoming a part of the whole is real important in retail . That is when you ' re in Southdale , you ' re in Southdale and you don ' t tell people you ' re on France Avenue. I 'm in Southdale and you like to be known as a part of the larger entity so that' s where this makes sense but from a pure small retailer , the only thing that makes sense to them is that people know where their business is. So we' re really working with two diametrically opposed type of systems. It would be great if they would advertise and become excited about their district or whatever name you end up having . That would be a wonderful scenario . Dacy: Just one more note on process . We had thought , depending on your reaction tonight which appears to be favorable, that we would go to the City Council also and present this and if a favorable action there, then we would have some type of informational meeting with the Chamber or the property owners to make them aware that this is a process that is being considered by the City and they become a part of the process . I think you all have a sense for how controversial this can grow into. As a part of that , we had been talking about doing some slides and doctoring some of the slides to take an existing picture of free standing buildings and pylons and airbrush those out and placing in a proposed sign . Would you like to see that type of presentation before we go to the property owners? We want to make sure that the Commission feels comfortable with what we ' re about to head into. We can do a lot of neat things graphically to help portray the pros and cons of these issues . Conrad : You will come back and show us some alternatives so we ' ll have another chance to take a look at this . Really what you ' re asking , after that it ' s a matter of selling the Chamber of Commerce in my mind and the local businesses and I know where their minds are . They' re not going to be real wild about restricting signage and therefore to sell is really what has to be done . Typically you can sell them on the fact that they ' re not spending 10, 000. 00 to $20, 000 . 00 on a pylon . That ' s what a pylon sign costs . If you can say that the competition is not going to be getting a jump on you , that you ' re going to be the equal of , you can save them money. What I 'm saying is you need a way to go to the Chamber and talk to them about the benefits . If that means airbrushing and showing pretty pictures or whatever i.s necessary, I think you have to do that but I think facts are as important as picture . I think you have to echo — some of the ways that it ' s not taking away but adding to . Emmings : Could you get pictures of this example in Carmel that you ' ve seen? Jim Lasher : I know I can get a copy of their document and I have a friend who works in Los Angeles that I may be able to coerce into — °— driving down there some afternoon and just taking a bunch of photos . Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 19 I Emmings : I think showing an example of where this has been done well and where it ' s worked . . . Ellson : Is a real good sales tool . Conrad: I don ' t know that Carmel is the area we want to use. Some non-descript place . . . MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ISSUES . Dacy: Metal Buildings . We found, I think an excellent example from the City of Lakeville that I thought really summarized the Commission ' s intent on the metal building issue and I included that so at minimum we ' re recommending that the ordinance be amended to state as printed there under (a) . Then second of all , I am proposing to the Commission whether or not they want to go a step farther and adopt (b) and (c) as a part of the Lakeville ordinance. (b) is just a general statement which I think can be included . (c) gets a little more detailed as far as the type of materials . That has some pros and cons . With a list of items you ' re really saying what you want to see . The con is , if something different comes along then it ' s not a part of — the list . I think at mini.mum, (a) gets at what the Commission had intended to do in the first place. Headla : What are you saying in (a) ? Unfinished steel? So if I paint it then it ' s permissible? Dacy: I think the key here is the galvanized steel or the aluminum. That type of construction, it ' s synomous with the term polebarn . Headla : I can put up a polebarn by this because that ' s baked on — enamel paint and that ' s finished steel . Dacy: No , it says no galvanized or unfinished steel , galvanized or — unfinished aluminum buildings . Headla : But baked enamel is finished steel . Baked enamel on your sheet metal , that ' s finished steel isn ' t it? — Emmings : If I had that same corregated metal that you put on a polebarn with a baked on paint finish, I ' ve seen it. — Dacy: When I spoke to the building inspector , he said that the term galvanized is what we want to prohibit because that ' s the material _ that polebarns are made out of . Headla : No , they aren ' t . I ' ve got a couple . I take it back . One of my polebarns is galvanized . The other one is baked enamel . Dacy: Maybe then what we need to do to solve your concern is add some language saying that you just don ' t want a galvanized building — r+ PLANNING 11ItW TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE BENNETT. RINGROSE. 1NOLSF£LD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIR^ STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 • PHONE 612'370-0700 April 11, 1988 Ms. Barbara Dacy City of Chanhassen Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Barb, This letter is to summarize our meeting of April 6, 1988, concerning the Chanhassen Signage Project A. City staff will prepare an information package concerning the Chanhassen Signage Project for the next City Council meeting. Staff will solicit com- ments and review them with BRW. No formal presentation will be made. B. BRW will proceed with preparation of Design Concepts for the District Identifier signs showing single sign and multiple sign concepts. C. Slides for existing signage will be done by City staff. The following sites are recommended for your review: 1. Downtown Wayzata (east end of Lake Street) 2. 50th and France District Identifier (corner of France Avenue South and West 491 Street 3. Kenwood Strip center (West 24th or 25th Street and Hennepin Avenue South) 4. Rainbow Foods Department on Highway 5. D. Presentation to the Planning Commission of Design Concepts is scheduled for May 5, 1988. Please call me with any questions or comments concerning these issues. Sincerely, BENNETT-RINGR E-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. James B. Lasher APR 1 ;3 1988 JBL/lp CITY OF CHANT-1AS�Lcv cc: Gary Ehret Don Ringrose File: 62-8730 DAV1D J BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS LAWRENCE J GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E HUNT MARK G.SWENSON JOHN 8 MGNAMARA DONALD L CRAIG RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX r maim w PLANNING tpityv TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE m. BENNETT RINGROSE. VVOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 March 7, 1988 ._ Ms. Barbara Dacy City of Chanhassen Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Dear Barb, This letter is in response to the Planning Commission meeting Wednesday, March 2, 1988, concerning Signage for downtown Chanhassen. The following items were discussed as methodologies for moving ahead with the overall signage program. 1. BRW will refine and present alternates for District Pylon Signs with and — without individual business signs. 2. BRW will proceed to enlarge the impacted area west to CR #17. — 3. BRW will prepare a slide show demonstrating effective signage in downtown environments similar to Chanhassen. 4. BRW and City Staff will work with Roger Knutson concerning legal implica- tions of this program. 5. BRW will look into Entry Monument siting along Highway 5, east of the Great Plains Boulevard intersection. I believe this is the entire list of work items which the Planning Commission asked us to pursue. Please contact me if you have any questions concerning these issues. Sincerely, BENNETT-RIN OSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. -`-� James B. Lasher — BJL/jkf MAR 81988 cc: Gary Ehret CITY OF CHANI-IASSEN File: 62-8730 DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS LAWRENCE J GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN ... DONALD E HUNT MARK G SWENSON JOHN B MCNAMARA DONALD L CRAIG RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX C I TY O F CHANHASSEN �\ I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ry k,,ty TO: Planning Commission __✓ _. _ FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner ►. DATE: February 25 , 1988 SUBJ: Downtown Signage Concepts BACKGROUND This item is brought to the Commission' s attention as a result of a series of events occurring over the last two years . The events are as follows : 1 . As the Commission is aware, the downtown redevelopment pro- ject includes installation of public improvements such as sewer , water, storm sewer and street improvements . A criti- cal part of the street improvement project was the aesthetic element. One of the objectives of the city was to improve Chanhassen' s visual image, i .e. removing overhead power lines along West 78th Street and Great Plains Boulevard, creating areas for median trees and boulevard trees and creating a consistent form of lighting materials , both street and pedestrian oriented. Another critical element of the aesthe- tic issue are signs , their number, their size and where they should be located. 2 . The Planning Commission in response to the request by the Chamber of Commerce to install a large directional sign at the northeast corner of TH 5 and TH 101 discussed the viabi- lity of creating entry signage into Chanhassen and into the downtown area. 3 . The Planning Commission also discussed area signage when local developers submitted requests for off-premise signs providing direction to major subdivisions . Given these three events , staff initiated a closer look at com- munity signage as well as analyzing signage in the downtown area . Planning Commission February 25 , 1988 Page 2 — ANALYSIS — 1 . In order to achieve the objective of a clean and amenable streetscape appearance along West 78th Street, West 79th _ Street and Great Plains Boulevard, it appeared logical to restrict the number of signs and to limit their location to certain key areas . This idea developed into the creation of "district" signs that would give identification to a general area in the downtown . For example, signage would be located in the northeast corner of Laredo and West 78th Street. This sign would identify the "Chanhassen Square" development on — the north side of West 78th Street (previously known as Retail West) . While there would be no advertising or busi- ness name on the district sign, it would help focus attention to the commercial development. This would be supplemented by — attractive and consistent wall signage to be permitted on the proposed buildings . Another example would be a sign that would be located at the entrance north of West 78th Street between the old Chanhassen State Bank and the new bank. This sign would give iden- tification to the municipal and government offices (City Hall, Post Office, elementary school , fire station and City Center Park) . Other district signs could also be created and identifiers named after the particular type of development in — which they are located. The creation of district signs in the downtown area means — eliminating the ability of individual property owners to have individual pylon signs . This will be controversial; however, if adequate wall signage is permitted and if district signs _ are attractive and large enough to focus motorists attention, the overall result can lead to the objective of having an uncluttered streetscape. 2 . Coupled with the district sign approach would be the construction of "entrance monuments" . This sign was at the center of past discussions during recent Commission meetings , — i .e. the ability to direct motorists off Hwy. 5 and into the downtown area. Proposed are entrance monuments welcoming motorists to Chanhassen to be located at the connection of Market Boulevard to TH 5 , the southeast corner of Kerber — Boulevard and West 78th Street, the east side of TH 101 just north of the railroad tracks ( near the Klingelhutz office building) , and two future locations at TH 5 and TH 101 (when the Chamber sign is removed) and along West 78th Street near the new intersection on TH 101 and TH 5 . Planning Commission February 25 , 1988 Page 3 REQUESTED ACTION The Commission should discuss these concepts and determine the following: 1 . Should the city pursue the concept of constructing district signs at designated locations in the downtown area as well as constructing entrance monuments at strategic entrances into the city? 2 . Should this concept be expanded into other commercial districts and not limited solely to the downtown redevelop- _ ment area? It is staff' s recommendation that the Planning Commission seriously consider the district signage and entry monument con- cepts for downtown Chanhassen. We strongly believe it is a cri- tical component of the overall appearance of the redeveloped downtown. Jim Lasher from BRW will be at the meeting to help in staff' s presentation on this issue . We did not ask BRW to prepare speci- fic types of signs recognizing that the Commission ' s sole motive for this evening is to decide whether or not the signage concept itself should be pursued any further . The attached graphics pro- vide a preliminary look at where district signs would be located and also provide a street level perspective . If the Planning Commission acts affirmatively on these concepts, the city would contact the Chamber of Commerce for their input prior to any type — of ordinance revision or evaluation . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Proposed locations of District and Entry monument signs . 2 . Perspective drawings . 3 . City Council minutes dated January 12 , 1987 . 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated December 10 , 1986 . 5 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 19 , 1986 . 6 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 5 , 1986 . \ \ \ ' is- I I ----1 L___Jii.,(---i \ , \ , \ \ ._.i _._.fir 11.-- 1 1!IICC1-6 \ 14 r--.\ \ , , _ , CC I I , , ,., \ \ \ I '_- 1____ , _.___ t _ __._, ,,c, I ;-t__._._i 1 : 011 �I'= \ W Z� \,\,------.1 :Q\\. Q ,--1 \\ � : 'r1 il J I __ l _J �- W \ t ` F-n I i X iil+ a. 1 1 CI 11 _V; =;W ci i F. I r 1 \. I i I r. �,, 1)s 1 \, \\ i 1 I fl I Q 1 1 m 1 -� ` \ 0 i I I Id iiii AE 1,, vert= 1 -J -- - ----._ } 101 ON AMN UV1S OAl9 9i,Vld 1V313'� A� ` s , 0 ! \ \ 1 - , I l r r I P,° ,` l I ..,:_,.3. _,, co_ o. , _. \ ....• - --- 1 ii.-I I 7177,7' ii) 1 \ , \ . lc \ . , ... 7, , 1 ci ,) ‘ + \ m 1 -- - r _k I a I i Ili SI f \ 11 — rri 1 r2,..\\________---\ 1 4. \% ,_ r,,...\:\ L N ` Z lill ^ 0 0 \ \ o W �1111) r 1 I Ili \ ._._,__-.---' CC \ 1 . -1:311--- - „..)\ \I 0 ) --I W r aN I ` i /( = I I ) 0>z 1 ---( ( cc \I I\ i 1 I u � : 1‘ O�I lr < 3nwa 003ev1 1 S 1 1k i IT, -...,,_1 1,,, , aTTIT1 ; / ii/ ' n t l � !_L, I I sk I �- H r r\ 1 �-+ 1 JI !L / aI' ° icew p �c.�i=�_� 6 .. ��/� ,�m .m ..1�—� 1 1Z o t i w 1 1 O • f, W m - '-ate-; t �' J � o z A A_ • Q 1 mn »� r,'-i I IH N �� 1 IUIl a r4 1 W i wZ I r ` ` r� , w 1 u lI I in na \ 1 / / INI O0}C II I U� — cg y—i ' , ,z, / rn � wi QZ :I = nn \ / '' / t -- - % 1 -�uJ-JJ _ I I 0Q Q \ +t / / a [� - 7ny�830F17k _� I _ --1Z 1 / rl�' ---L----- --'--4 El Z 1 I N \/ ,1' 7 ~ ' 1 F-1 } '� I I / x � j / / C..) W - - u a • c imou w _Eao z n a as e • C7 o ever 10 ( C cns ,,.rm E-i ! j Z a��a; n ---�. C • I oo2La� Poi . A I U Z. o. n r, , • f a o 0 j rj .-L w ...411 :41-_ �si�y= ' II'1 .-.:...-.F7,-:7...,E.._..,E-i..1,'5.'•,&r,•.:_'( 'E �` • 44141, '% r;!psi g " J `. is II �, `fEr�= ' ..yi�c . _ . : \ ..,.. j -• 0811 .111 a-?..- "►ieca ►Qi•1 _'11- r„L. r t2 . ; - _ _ ,.•: �► �'L' ,gyp >, . z E.5. 44 , ,� fib.., 'If 6_ /S1 4 12 0 0 ✓ .1 ta. (9 --1- Nzike ."• t To .v?..;) ,1 • ,..,01 €(.....7 i ...,,......._ ... .,,.,..:-.:1-,., tilli ro • f • ,_-4•.. , -- - --;---..__,, .„,, :z*:-1-16 ;74.4wL('-' t.-‘.''. ' 1 .... ---.(s) / il :.... . _ . .' . 1 ok.*-:,i: "wL\ -6, 5.. - i _ ..__.„..... ,i ems, , 11 , I, _ _-]1 .-19111s.--_"•-,-..,' a. s -.c-,-i!,,,,- .2. 1' , • I • .4'4•11164 1.1)' . k . 1 �:T rr 1 y 1 c = 11 I _ k I 1 a '� ,. I '4 �iw: I i4Ck i .., .,.! oo 9c � Ii a R ‘ k eca. n/ :_-. .. 1(,. --; ., p, t —::St • • !-.4' ' 7'‘- ;444 illr ' 1! ' ' .. - of u• En! • ,g. - •-,..4.71-7'01-1.0 -'w.r t - z 3 4 2 3 'Ali> g c � �gg .. • ‘)54-Vf D w o mo o l . —I��qy } yq i IrT,I i --- 4 • , ,...._ .„:711._,,,,f, 1.,. \. . , ... ., '.-:- .- . Lu.....„...72_:.%._11. \‘+. p -, . , 2 :-A.,: , •. ii t \ 1 , . --., --,4--,_. . . . _...) c of_ — 1) - .. - ---, -:. • • .. c.) Ifte• ii. - e.. - 3 0,,,, '''‘`; * 5 NiN • l` �t- --- it��,- k ' `./� .•�) _ \ 4 :., L. • � vl j i r�k V H • i, ' U U) i E--,+ Ei Er; . _ R_ a • c ' t I, i �_rii: 0 .:; ::,.• , :k. . _, - -- .„__,_- . ...._ ..., ? _ 1,11" ‘,.7... --„, ,. 1 • 1 ii. . ,•:, itw. . ek, • \- _. „: I !i. ‘.11.-,, x ..... : - , • • . , . ,. ,-..• . , . ;Nei.: ___.... . ........._ _ ___,_•,_ c 1, Iasi 0 i'd. ! AL 16 . .--4 -- vy. -.„. - •-riejt, - ,itei , 1. ,i IF,-,' - , , ---- . t.., :7' 11:111;i Mali;-:-.i; -:ViP. , . 1 .6E iirs4, -,_ '''' - . ' ..am iii 11 '.'all,'z ii*I'T..! s s Mc/ . '..' �� __ 3 «_! Ali �_ \\ ( i _ ' i�. . ill ter a. • - I E 'I al • Li 1.e — • -7 9 - �it 'is ,i ig . . -_, , lit. , I , i ... , / = ii ' ....S. .. %... Ir. • ' tgag It ''' 44'11 % - ' ‘ = r. ._ ,,_,..3,__-_,; -,27;_,2, it, , 4 . y --- .s,__, -1.,-1.. ... . (‘ „,,,,, ; , _ \ - , -0-',x1-.. - (L-L\-?e-t - - t � it 'Ii lir, Y '% + lob. I I // •• .,.... a i .a.. • k „dr. . 11 i - I r tIt .,1ia11 I'== ill o II . r 0 . . r �'�� m NO a o7: P., 0 ,.. 0 0 \1.— / — � `a "ii �' 0,,„„....- ,I,Ii/S I- o 2"o 111{L/ vm .. T^ E•o o 1 ' if ! , s CJ` ON V :10 s1 = a,.p 1 II II p`:p 9 �` CC ( ' 1A-4 CID c ';j - r Z 0Z City Council Meeting - January 12, 1987 is that it be a Phase I project. I would like to delete that term and put no constraints on this committee so they have to hurry .:p and get the job done just so we can get something in the ground. I do not ecnsi der this a Phase I project. It will be done when the committee is ready to make their report and it shouldn't be carved out. The first thing that we do in the redevelopment of our downtown, if the group decides that it should be placed in the downtown, so that there is language to that effect in this document so I would like to, with that understanding, suggest that it not be a Phase I consideration. Brad Johnson: I think I agree with Dale and Clark about the location. I guess our concern is primarily that we put it in the downtown area because there was already space downtown for a center which we realize is still there and that's the only reason why we put it there. The urgency that we have on timing is simply that we will begin planning of that whole block area this summer. We would just like to have an indication of whether it will be there or not and we can plan around that. I think the same goes for the local traffic. A lot of things that will happen in the downtown area in the planning process, we will need to know about that time if that site is a good site or not but other than that I agree. I think we should look at all sites and decide where the best place is and I appreciate what you've done. It's exactly what we're looking for. Councilman Johnson: Do we need a motion to establish a community center advisory committee? We assigned Bill to it but we haven't had a motion yet to make the committee so I would like to make a motion to create the committee that we just assigned Bill to in terms of what Dale and Clark have been 111 talking about. It is a City wide search and review of the feasibility of having this community center. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to establish a Community Center Task Force. All voted in favor and motion carried. Greg: This is a minor problem but I think if you have three people at large, I think just as my own comments as a member of the C A or others, there are senior organizations, there are probably more spots to make up the committee. You're probably talking about five outside people that would have great interest in different things. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not sure if you get a person from every interest group on there, I think the larger the committee the more difficult it is to get anything accomplished so if you bring those people in an advisory capacity and ask for their opinions and ideas is probaby the best way to handle some of the others at least from my standpoint. Don Ashworth: Did that include authorization for Staff to advertise? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. DISCUSSION OF CHAMBER SIGN PROPOSAL. Mayor Hamilton: Gary Brown who is President of the Chamber is here with us 14 37 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1987 and I guess I would just like to preface any remarks that Gary might want to add just to say that the Chamber that I've been active in for quite a few — years has worked on this sign for maybe four years now and I was a little disturbed when they went to the Planning Commission to ice some of the comments, as Gary was, that were made about the sign. It isn't something that has been hidden in the closet for all these years. It has been brought up at — about every Chamber meeting for the last four years. I think they genuinely need a sign and I think they should have a sign and some of the comments that were made were being kind of futuristic to what is going to be happening to _ the City. I don't think they can predict that. We need to have a sign now to help the Chamber and most of all my biggest concern is that the City work with the Chamber. After all the Chamber of Commerce, the people who are members of the Chamber are the City. They are business people in the City to make things happen here who play a major role in this City. To zee the kind of things that were said previously at the Planning Commission meeting I guess were addressing the need, looked like an attempt to just knock them down without — giving a chance to say anything or to have any respect for what their wishes were. Councilman Horn: I was disturbed when I read the Planning Commission Minutes also. It occurred to me that there was quite a bit of confusion on the Planning Commission's part between what was really happening and what the activities of the Chamber were and the fact that there didn't seem to be any — coordination with that and the BRW and what they were doing downtown. I think that BRW had spoken with Gary and his group and some of that confusion was... Gary Brown: They got confused between what we were trying to sell an idea on, the sign that we wanted to put up, between that and BRW and they got such a mix-up there that they didn't understand really which sign they were talking _ about at any one time. The guy from BRW did say that night that he wanted to come back and talk to me later about this sign thing which was the first part of November maybe and he hasn't come back or answered any of my calls yet so I guess I'm not too excited about waiting for him any longer. — Barbara Dacy: Mr. Lasher was in Europe after that meeting on December 10th. He was supposed to return January 7th. _ Councilman Horn: Is he the only one at BRW that can work on this? Don't they designate someone else when they leave something hanging like this? Barbara Dacy: Actually, to be frank, Staff did not ask BRW to authorize the work function until we had your approval and this is part of the request tonight. The direction from the Planning Commission was mixed and Staff — didn't really feel comfortable authorizing BRW to expend those funds until you saw this proposal. Councilman Horn: I think the concern the Planning Commission had was valid in that there is such a vast difference between what the two signs were in terms of architectural, ink, materials and everything else that I can gee how they would have a problem trying to get things to blend together.15 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1987 Councilman Geving: I think this is the kind of issue where we've got too many players in the game. We've got the HRA involved, we've got the BRW, City Council, Chamber. It's the kind of issue where everybody is going to have an idea and opinion about how best to do this and my personal opinion is that we ought to assign Barb Dacy to this project. She can work directly with the Chamber. She can come back together with the City Council. We'll make the decision and be done with it. I know that we have to respect everybody else involved but we're not going to get this done if we get too many players still in the game. I would like to limit it to just the Chamber and City Council and be done with it and have Barb act as our go between. Would you agree to that Tom? That's the way I see this whole thing because we've been going on with this for two years now. I think it's been two years. I don't know how many years but let's get on with it and I think we can do it ourselves without having to get too many outside interests involved and I think whatever. I'm flexible and I think the Council is pretty flexible on these designs and if we can create and get this job done and get the signs up this spring. Mayor Hamilton: When the BRW thing came in was a total surprise to me. All the talking about signs with the Chamber has been going on and everybody has known about it who has had any interest in it and the Chamber has been wanting to put one up. Put up the darn sign. That's a totally different sign than the one that BRW suddenly is talking about and got thrown in there at the last minute and I think there is another proposal now that is going to muddy the waters even more and I don't think that has any effect on the Chamber sign and that may be a better proposal than the ones we've seen here with the BRW signs and that's down byRick Murray's office building. He's agreed to perhaps change his signage so that it says Welcome to Chanhassen. Gary Brown: He's got a real good idea there. Let's not throw this into this issue. Mayor Hamilton: The sign that the Chamber has proposed and is recommending is a sign that is going to serve their purposes. It's modular and will have the names of the companies that need to be on there, that want to be on there and are willing to pay the $1,000.00 or whatever it is going to cost. It's not a cheap sign to put up. It's going to be a nice looking sign. The back is going to say Welcome to Chanhassen. Councilman Johnson: I do believe that the Planning Commission did get, there was a lot of issues mixed in here. I think a lot of real good points were brought up and I agree with a lot of stuff the Planning Commission did. What I really like is towards the end they got into saying, hey wait a minute, you're asking for several years. You're not asking for the next 20 years that this will be the sign and when I'm looking at 3 to 4 years, put a time limit upon this sign a little ways down the road so we're not looking to put up the HRA's signs in the next 6 months or anything that I can tell. It's a ways off as of yet. I like their idea of putting this sign up and guaranteeing them a length of time for their investment and using the sign to add on signage to see how effective is this sign and what can we do to make it more effective, the locations and stuff like that. It would be worthwhile to the City for it's signing problems and I agree, let's keep the other signs out of this at this point. 16 r ^._. 9 - City Council Meeting - January 12, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I thought the Planning Commission did a pretty good job of identifying some issues here and one of them, you said it took a 3 year — period, you estimated as a payback. If you could have the sign up for 3 years you felt that was close to break even. I think that should figure in the plan. I think it would be worth the Council discussing because as the Planning Commission mentions, they recommend at the end that this is going to — come down to a City Council decision and they have pretty much said what they had to say and recommended that it quickly move to us for a speedy resolution. I would like to see something done. I thought there was a lot of discussion _ about the importance of having some consistency with our sign ideas. I know from what you've told me Mr. Mayor, you've been at this for quite a while, if a phone call or two here right now would help this, I think that would be time well spent. Gary Brown: I think what the Planning Commission was saying and what we talked about too was the fact that whatever type of letters get used on the — sign, everybody uses the same thing and I don't think anybody will have problems with that. If we're going to spend that much on a sign, we want it to look nice. Councilman Boyt: My other point that I thought was discussed pretty thoroughly here was the business about a slow down sign before they came to your sign. Something along the line that this is Chanhassen. Remember that — discussion? Gary Brown: No. — Councilman Boyt: It's in here where Ladd Conrad, whom I imagine has more experience than any of us sitting here on doing outdoor signs, said that — reading a sign was quite a challenge. That you had mentioned 20 inch letters which seem rather substantial to me until Conrad points out that 18 inches is the minimum letter height that Naegele will accept on their signs. A little different purpose but maybe they face the same kind of challenge of traffic — quickly going by. You also mentioned that this might slow it down more than we want so I think there is something to be said for a coordinated effort signwise and I think you all said that at this December 10th meeting. My last — point is that you mentioned there might be some justification, or you and the Planning Commission talked about the City's involvement in the cost of this sign to accomplish what the City wants to do. Gary Brown: That was simply because it was brought up there to have Welcome to Chanhassen on it and the slogan and Maple Leaf or whatever and I said if the City wish to partake in a piece of that sign we could probably take care of that but now seeing that BRW wants to put up Welcome to Chanhassen signs wherever they may be, I guess you wouldn't need that. Councilman Boyt: I think we're talking about I would like to have some sort of coordinated sign. I recognize that you have a time constraint. I also recognize that you are going to do something to work out as much as you can of a compromise with this thing. Looking at a minimum of a 3 year life on your — sign. I'm suggesting that another area, and I would like to know what the rest of the Council thinks about this, it might be worth discussing is would 17 TCity Council Meeting - January 12, 1987 T there be a benefit to all concerned if the City got involved in part of this sign? Gary Brown: My personal feeling would be no. Let's leave the City out of the sign business. Let's have Chanhassen Population 6,400 and leave it at that. The City has something to sell and it's the city. I don't think it is going to pay for then to be on a sign with the service station, restaurant and bar. Mayor Hamilton: I think it's really unfortunate that BRW got involved in this thing at all. That anything even came up about BRW because the only thing you should be considering is the sign that was proposed by the Chamber and we suddenly start saying that this sign has to be consistent with any sign that BRW might do—.they are unfamiliar with the Chamber and trying to have signs T that look alike. This sign is a sign that serves a purpose and that is to advertise the businesses that in the downtown area and give you some direction as to where you go. It is taking the place of the directional sign that was on the northwest corner of the intersection of TH 101 and TH 5 which really nobody could read. The letters were so small, you couldn't see them and by the time you saw the sign you were past the intersection to turn anyway so that was a Chamber sign and the reason. .. 1 Councilman Geving: That was a City sign. We paid $5,000.00. r Mayor Hamilton: It was serving a purpose for the Chamber but this one, we i wanted to take that one down and put this one in it's place prior to that intersection so people can see it before they turn off. Gary Brown: We realize it isn't perfect and nothing is going to be but let's put the thing up and then we know if we blow it, we know next time to try something different. Mayor Hamilton: There have been so many people involved in this thing. You talked to the sign people and if this is their recommendation. The Chamber has looked at it and it ocoms to serve it's purpose. I'm going to recommend approval of issuance of the sign permit for the Chamber of Commerce without conditions. These two things here, 1 and 2, they should probably be done but not as a part of this issuance. r Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to authorize issuance of the sign permit for the Chamber of Commerce with City Council review in five years. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: It would scour to me that you're probably not going to put this sign in the ground over the next two months. Gary Brown: Why? Councilman Boyt: I would suspect that the ground is going to freeze. Are you going to go ahead and put it in? 18 C Fir City Council Meeting - January 12, 1987 111 Gary Brown: I don't want to take a chance on somebody coming back in 6 weeks from now and saying we're going to change this so you can't. — Councilman Boyt: As it stands now, unless we can get some sort of agreement to commit to talking to BRW to at least get the letters and the exterior of _ the sign of common material, I vote against this but if I can get that kind of commitment, you've got my vote. Mayor Hamilton: The BRW should have nothing to do with this. — Councilman Johnson: I can't see how the BRW, at this point they have given us some basic signs with one type of lettering. I don't think they have really — looked into the sign problem too much. I haven't found anything too wild about their signage yet either. I personally agree with the Plan-::ng Commission when they call the BRW signage like a subdivision signage. It looks like we coming into the Chanhassen subdivision, not the City of Chanhassen so I'm not too terribly impressed with their signage either. Mayor Hamilton: I agree with you. I don't know if I've seen anything from BRW. Councilman Johnson: I think it would really delay it to try and get something out of BRW. Gary Brown: The picture that you're looking at doesn't really give you what it's made out of. I got to go along with you. It doesn't show you what — you're looking for but why don't you let Barb and I run through what the thing is going to be made of and present it back here at the next meeting and either give us the thumbs up and let's put it in the ground or let's forget the whole — thing. Councilman Geving: I don't think that was the motion. I think the motion _ said go with this thing. Work with our City Staff and do it. Gary Brown: That's better yet. Councilman Geving: That's the way I read the motion. Barbara Dacy: As proposed in there. — Councilman Boyt: It would help me if someone would read the motion because I didn't get that. Mayor Hamilton: The motion was, I moved to approve the issuance of a sign permit for the building of the Chamber sign without conditions as depicted here on Attachment 3. — Don Ashworth: Is there a timing associated with this 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? Mayor Hamilton: No. 19 6 (7 (- City Council Meeting - January 12, 1987 Councilman Johnson: I would like to see 4-5 years put on it. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'm not concerned about that because as the town grows they are going to want to change the signage anyway and I think it is going to be one of those things that's going to become automatically obsolete and they are going to either want to put a bigger one. Councilman Johnson: I would like to at least guarantee them 3 years because if we come in 2 years and say we want to change his signage then we have done a disservice to them. 1111 Mayor Hamilton: There's no time period on there so what I'm saying is they can put the sign up and the growth of the town can dictate when they want to change. They may come back in 2 years and say it's not big enough. We want to put in a bigger one. That would be great. Gary Brown: If we have to keep adding to it, it will be great for everybody. Councilman Boyt: I agree. We add to the sign, so much the better. I think that this looks to me like an attractive sign. When we put it up I think it is going to have impact on the rest of the signs that go up in Chanhassen so I don't take this lightly. If we're going to put other signs up that welcome people to Chanhassen, they are going to have to be consistent with what you put in the ground already. I think it is conceivable that BRW would come back with a very acceptable sign that would not be consistent with this and I think we should have some sort of an opportunity to ask to have this sign removed in the future and maybe that's 3 years, maybe that's 5 years. Mayor Hamilton: Pat, you've always been very active in signage, do you have any comments? Pat Swenson: The only thing that I am bothered with is the one that I've always had is that I would certainly like to see conformity. If you're thinking of investing a considerable amount of money, for the Chamber's benefit as well as the City's benefit, not to have things that are going to conflict with each other. That would be my own opinion. If in fact the streetscape comes in with something. I have no idea what the material is. I don't even know what we're talking about. I can't say at this particular IFtime but if those of you who have seen it, it's tasteful and it looks like something you would like the rest of the street signs to look like, I would have to leave that to your discretion. I would hate to put a sign up that IF would fit in with the streetscape that is being considered but having not seen it Tom I can't speak. Don Ashworth: I just talked to Roger. I think the Chamber is happy with a time limitation of 3, 4 or 5 years. Again, I would strongly recommend that. In 5 years they can come back, make a reapplication and if you decide to extend it that's fine. If, in contrast though, they would desire to leave it I and the City Council wanted it down, you would have to pay to get it down. Just so you realize that. We would literally end up condemning it and paying for it to have it removed if we did not put a time limit on it. I 20 1 (7 C f77 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1987 Councilman Geving: Kind of like a conditional use. Mayor Hamilton: I can put in the motion for review in 5 years. I think that would be fine. Councilman Johnson: Gary, do you have any better drawings as of this date then this sketch that is a couple months old now. Gary Brown: Yes, I do. That one's been passed around and recopied so many — times. Pat Swenson: Tom, may I ask what the proposed color is of the aluminum and the color of the lettering? Gary Brown: White and black. White background with black letters. Councilman Johnson: What about the back of the sign that is metal with the Welcome to Chanhassen on it? Is that going to be a piece of sheet metal with Welcome to Chanhassen in black letters on white? — Gary Brown: In the original go around, the last time we had any discussion about it, it was brought up about lighting the backside. Making that a lexan back or plastic back, whatever, and lighting that also. Councilman Johnson: Because the backs important too for people going eastbound. Barbara Dacy: A final point. I found out late Friday afternoon that you will have to apply for a MnDot permit as well. — Mayor Hamilton: I think that having the approval of the City is going to be just a matter of a formality for MnDot to get... Barbara Dacy: They have their supplement rules based on the Federal Beautification Acts for State Highways and so on. It didn't appear to be a problem when I talked to the guy at MnDot. - ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR ORDINANCE CODIFICATION PROCESS. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to set the dates of January 28, 1987 and February 2, 1987 at 5:30 p.m. as Worksession dates for codifica- tion of the Ordinance. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: A. NOMINATION FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DISTRICT 14 REPRESENTATIVE, COUNCILMAN — JOHNSON. Mayor Hamilton: Jay Johnson went to the meeting with the other communities and the attached memo here tells what took place. I guess your comment that Marcy will be more effective in getting other Metropolitan Council members to vote in favor of items which will help District 14. I think Ray has come 21 i Planning Commission Meeting December 10, 1986 - Page 10 Emmings: Yes , absolutely, I would separate them. Conrad : You take away all the grass I suppose. Jim Lasher: That's the problem. We're running into like a 10 foot maximum space that we have now and that's not a lot of space to put in trees. Now if we take 6 of that away, we've got 4. It doesn't kill it but it just changes the whole aspect of this thing. That's not in the design development. If indeed you want to pursue that avenue, we may have to change the median and road design. Conrad: I think the greenery on the street though is real important. I think that is priority. People traffic is second. Walking pedestrian — traffic is second priority and I would want to see ways for bicyclist to get into town. I'm not terribly concerned about how they move throughtout the the town as long as there are bike racks so they can park their bikes. They're not going to be biking from store to store. They may be walking so if you can get them, and I don't think it's in your design , but if we can get the bicyclist into town, then I think the bikeways is not a priority for them. Jim Lasher: It just kind of takes care of itself and I just hope that it doesn't happen that we would go through and construct a nice bikepath and do some compromising in plantings and then have everyone use the street ( flyway. I don't know if that would happen but I think it would be real mad . — Conrad : The last issue that I think we should talk about is signage. Any comments on what was presented in the presentation? - Wildermuth: I liked the size of these. I liked the accents of the clock tower . Conrad: Jerri , do you want to jump in or Gary, do you have any thoughts on? Gary Brown: When you're ready, I would like to make a couple of comments. — I guess I would like to back this thing up just a little bit to the November 19th meeting if I could for just a second . There were a few comments made there that were I guess a little confusing to us at the Chamber of Commerce. I guess I'll start with yours Ladd. I guess your feeling was, I don' t know if you folks were mucky-mucky around or I was mucky-mucky around on this thing but the 8 little signs , as far as being legible. I did a little study on this since I read this thing and we've got a capability of putting 22 inch letters in the sign we want to present on the corner. Your basic highway sign on the freeway that shows you where Chanhassen is is 9 inches . That ' s one feeling I had there. Emmings : What page are you on? Are you looking at the Minutes? _Lary Brown : Yes . On page 26 . I ' ll drop down to Mr . Noziska ' s . . . k Planning Commission Meeting December 10 , 1986 - Page 11 47 Conrad: Let's follow up on that. What do you think on some of my comments, as Chanhassen grows, eight signs obviously are not going to take — care of all the businesses so how do you see managing that? I think you are going to create hassles . Gary Brown: We ' re not worried about it . Conrad: Wait until it happens . Gary Brown: I guess we're going to have to take care of today's business today and when we get to a number of businesses that are going to require it, I guess we're going to have to jump that hurdle. It's not an easy — thing for you folks to decide on a sign as well as us. We've been going through this forever. I've been in town here for 16 years and I know a sign system is an ongoing battle which will be for the next 50 years. We _ had a couple other comments though that I wanted to bring up on this thing about Mr. Noziska's deal here on he wanted a nice sign that said a place to grow or something rather than Joe's Bar and Grill and Suzy's Sauna. We aren't going to have that. I'm just doing this in defense so we can come — back to it. Anyway, we drop down to Mr. Emming 's comments here as to he thinks everything is fine but limiting the number of spaces for businesses is just ridiculous. I can' t imagine why they want to do it. The reason we — want to do it is the fact that we don't feel that there is going to be more than eight businesses that are going to be concerned that are going to want •o put a sign up. If they are, it's going to be real surprising to us \'necause we've done some testing, lobbying, whatever on it and to get eight — is going to be about as much as you are going to go but the one thing that might passify you a little bit is on the top of that sign we will have Chanhassen in great big letters, Dinner Theater. Okay, it's going to — identify the City of Chanhassen and people identify the Dinner Theater as being Chanhassen wherever you go, no matter what you do. That's why that. I don't know this gentlement , I wish he was here so I could find out what _ was absolutely horrible about this sign. I guess we're not developers but we did spend some time on this . Emmings : I know I 'm here and I said I thought it looked awful and I still — think it looks awful but I don't know if we're talking about the same sign. Gary Brown: This is on the Chamber's part of this and I assume that this commentary stayed in line according to the Chamber because it mentions the Chamber all the way through this thing . Dacy: The copy of the Chamber sign was in your packet as well as some of the preliminary designs that . . . Emmings: I didn ' t like the BRW signs and like this one that was presented — tonight . Gary Brown : Maybe you guys had two signs going at one time here or Something . — Planning Commission Meeting December 10, 1986 - Page 12 - Conrad: We had several but I'm not sure that we're reacting to the right signs . — Emmings: Let's assume that the BRW sign was up. That's the one that I said that looks like it belongs on a subdivision. I didn't like it for the City and I don't mean to be discourteous or rude to you either but that was my reaction when I saw it and I don't think I could design a better one but I would try. Let's say that that is sitting out there where he just showed us it would be on Great Plains as you turn up from TH 5. Where would this sign with the business names that you are proposing in relation to that one? Gary Brown: Okay, if you are familiar with the corner. You'll see on TH 5 — we have a gas/carwash sign that faces the highway. Our idea is to take that down and move the sign towards the Hanus property, about as far as we can get it. That will give the people ample time to use their signal and get in the turning lane and get into town. The big problem was and the big hassle they had with the old sign that the City did tear down was that by the time the people saw the sign they were already through the town. — Emmings : If they were coming west on TH 5 , they would see the sign for the businesses before they would see the sign for the entrance to the City? — Gary Brown: I don't know where you want to put the entrance to the City ign . Jim Lasher : Is this where you are proposing for your sign? Jerri Martin: No, that ' s the west side. — Dacy: That was the former location of the City sign and the Chamber is talking about across the street. Jim Lasher : This is where the other entry is proposed . Gary Brown: On the other side. That's great then we'll have both sides of the road covered . Conrad: Sequentially stating you're right. The Chamber sign would be very close, right on TH 5 and after you pass that and you make your turn in and — get close to the railroad tracks, that's when you see Welcome to Chanhassen sign. It ' s a little bit backwards . — Emmings: It seems like it to me. You plan these things. Does it seem like it ought to be working that way? Jim Lasher : It just depends on what you want to accomplish. If you want — to make the main statement about announcing businesses then it doesn't make any sense. If you want to announce the City of Chanhassen, then where does the City of Chanhassen begin and if you want it at the beginning then we've —Licked the wrong place. I have chosen the point where I saw the most C ( - Planning Commission Meeting December 10, 1986 - Page 13 _ visibility and most aspect to look at upon entering into the downtown area. That was the rationale behind my choice. Emmings : Yes , but you ' re already in town by the time you see that sign . Gary Brown: Wouldn't you want to put the entrance to the City at the entrance to the City? Jim Lasher : I agree. You probably put the clutter and business point at this area right here would not make an entry statement like this. You just wouldn' t move down here well. This entry up in here was more a statement of entering into the downtown core and not entering into the aspect of the — City of Chanhassen which obviously includes portions on this side of the street as well. There is a secondary entry monument at this point right here that says City of Chanhassen as well and the main point of this one , because of the increase created at this point, the aspect of visual of this point right here is very strong. This is the reason why we chose this point plus the fact that we already own the land so there was some rationale behind that positioning. If you wanted to do another sign down here, I guess it's a moot point as far as how we want to announce the business at this point here when we do have an entry sign at this position here already proposed and one here and one here and one here. — Dacy: They were talking about a sign right here. This is the Ward Estate roperty so your introduction is right here. — Gary Brown : They are on the Legion Property right here correct? Dacy: No, they' re in front of the Holiday. — Gary Brown: Oh, that's where the old sign was so you're by town already when you see it. That was the problem with the old sign. That once you saw the sign, you're on your way to Victoria. We need to announce Chanhassen so you have time to do something about Chanhassen. Am I right? Emmings : I agree with you completely and that's as far as the traffic on TH 5 is concerned that is westbound. Now is the sign you are proposing going to have business names, are you going to have anything for people going eastbound on TH 5? — Gary Brown : No . Emmings: Because they can see Chanhassen, is that the idea? What about if TH 169 goes in and we're supposedly going to have a lot of traffic diverted off of TH 5 and onto TH 169 . Gary Brown : You talking about TH 212 maybe? Emmings: Yes, TH 212. So we divert it on TH 212, you're not going to — worry about that, that ' s too far away? - Planning Commission Meeting December 10, 1986 - Page 14 Gary Brown: We're not going to live that long. I think a beautiful sign is a great idea but I think you're putting it in absolutely the wrong place. Jim Lasher: i guess at this point we've got to be a little careful with property here because when TH 5 expands there is going to be a major right hand turn condition coming through here so we ' ll have to think about that . Gary Brown: I guess the idea of going in there was the fact that yes , we have some visibility, the people have something do with it, seeing we have the property already, we don ' t have to buy any property. Dacy: Maybe the recommendation from the Commission could be that they — recommend that the HRA and City Council authorize BRW to work with the Chamber and the Staff to see if some kind of combination between entrance and directional signage can be achieved. Jerri Martin : Ideally, people even stop at my office and say where is the Dinner Theater? — Emmings : I don ' t know where your office is located . Jerri Martin: Chanhassen Office Complex. That is right after you get into _ Chanhassen so that is the ideal spot to start welcoming them. The next not they stop is at Guy' s and believe me he gets the people. Emmings : Who is that? Jerri Martin: The Taco Shoppe. The next stop they make is at Gary's and I ' ve been there at 5 : 30-5 : 45 and you can just direct people. Emmings : Okay, if you have the sign with the business names on it, it doesn't tell them what to do to get there. If they are trying to find a certain business and they see the name on the sign, that doesn't help them find it. They are still going to have to stop and ask directions . Gary Brown: We ' re going to have arrows on every sign. Emmings: Won ' t they all be pointing the same way? — Gary Brown: A majority of them will , yes . Emmings: Well, what's the point? I think those are the kinds of problems that have to be addressed. If you just put your name up there and they are already looking for you, it doesn't help them a bit and all the arrows pointing to the right , that doens ' t help them either . Maybe it does . -- Jerri Martin: All the arrows from that old sign did the same thing anyway. , Conrad: Timewise, Gary, you are ready to jump into this thing. You've got —the approval of the Chamber and you are ready to go right? C Planning Commission Meeting December 10, 1986 - Page 15 _ 47 Gary Brown: Yes . Conrad : What life of your signage do you need to pay for it? How long does it need to be up to make it financially. . . Gary Brown: Three years minimum. Conrad : How long are we going to be until we really have some of the _ elements of the plan tonight? We area ways off from seeing some of these elements going to effect . Dacy: The City Council will be establishing a public hearing date about the feasibility study at their next Council meeting next Monday and that will probably occur in February or March. Council is on a fairly ambitious timeframe to get these improvements accomplished. Again, on the - streetscape, where we have the water and storm sewer objective to achieve also so I think we can work with the Chamber over the winter and try to achieve something so they can install a sign this spring or summer . Conrad: Their sign. The Chamber ' s sign . Jerri Martin: This has been something that some of these businesses have — needed desparately for a long, long time and it's continued to build and build and build. They don't know where the motel is. They need some type f of direction. They don ' t know where some of the restaurants are. Gary Brown: We don't think we've got the perfect answer here at all but it ' s a start. Conrad: I'm pretty sensitive to signage needs. I work with Naegle all the time and the smallest letter they will put on a billboard is 18 inches. You should not put more than six words on there. You don't have a 36 foot — sign so that's where my comments come from. I worry that we really haven' t said Chanhassen. That's my biggest concern. I think announcing Chanhassen once you are in it is nice from a community continuity but it hasn't helped any retailer or service establishment and what we need is signage down by — Jerri's office and we need signage before TH 101. We need reinforcement signage before right by Hanus property and then when we get into some of the detail signage as far as facilities, we've got to slow traffic down to — see your sign and if we don't slow them down, they don't have a chance to see our sign so that's my concern Barbara is that so far the needs that I see are kind of outside the study area. I think we have to incorporate signage requirements before you get to TH 101 and how we actually slow people down. I don' t know how we move them to TH 101 and how we tell they to keep going straight ahead to get into downtown but that has to happen and that should be coordinated with what I saw today. Personally, I don't — have a problem with the Chamber's signage because I think it may help the businesses but it doesn't accomplish the Chanhassen identity that I would like to see and they are kind of separate issues to me. I feel that the — Chamber should be assisted to get that signage up as long as I don't have to make an either or decision. Planning Commission Meeting December 10, 1986 - Page 16 GaryBrown:: Would you like us to incorporate the Welcome to Chanhassen in our sign and of course, if you would like to do that you would like to pick up part of the tab to do that I 'm sure. Conrad: I think it's worthwhile, yes. I think that's appropriate unless the City has another plan , I think that ' s real appropriate. Gary Brown: As long as you have your developer right here, maybe he can come up with an idea that will make us both happy but we don't want to wait three months to do it. Jim Lasher : I think if we are going to have any continuity in the whole sign scheme, we have to get back to the 2 or 3 simple basic materials. To have every sign made out of a different material doesn't make any sense because we need the image so if we've got something going with some stone and some brick and some lettering that I think we need to try and incorporate a little bit of that. Color, texture, form, the whole thing into a sign that you want to do maybe and if there is a lettering style that we looked at that we feel comfortable with, I think we should try and look at lettering style. Gary Brown : I think it looks better if we stay with the same type of lettering. I agree with that 100% . Jim Lasher: Three simple things and if we could do that it would probably work. Gary Brown: If you would like us to go over this thing and see if we can come to a compromise, we would be more than happy to do so. Conrad: I'm not sure I'm looking for a compromise. I personally am looking for a way that Chanhassen has to make a statement out on TH 5 and so far I haven't seen it until you get into town, which I like also but if I were a storeowner, you've got to slow the traffic down and I don't think your sign Gary is going to do it. Chanhassen has to come up with their own sign to slow the traffic down to say, Chanhassen Turn Right for downtown business. That ' s what important to me. Jim Lasher : If we step outside the project area and announce the City and then announce the businesses, it makes more sense that way. You alert people that there is a city up here , coming up, slow down, there might be something hot happening there and then you start introducing a series of signs with the same material, lettering, along there that, I don't know if the directional arrow thing makes any sense, maybe it does but just the continuity factor would be so much better coming along this area to just say Chanhassen and then do some directional things if that turned out the best way to do it. LIke you said, just a big announcment and then a couple of small signs or however big the signs should be. After we say this is { Planning Commission Meeting December 10, 1986 - Page 17 Chanhassen, this is not someone's retail district. This is the City of Chanhassen. I think you are correct in saying that this should happen first. It's too bad it's outside our study area. If we were to enlarge the area along TH 5 to start looking at some alternatives, we can do that. Conrad: Barbara , based on what you hear us talking about, and I'm not trying to raise the consultant's fees, I'm certainly sensitive to budgets and what have you, what would you recommend? I'm not sure that I 'm speaking for everybody here either but what do you recommend that we do? Dacy: I know the Mayor and I think the Council would agree with the discussion that we just had about going outside of the project area and — coming up with maybe a more complete identification plan. I think we can continue on a process to at least get you to a point where a sign could be installed that would work for us at this point. The City Council and HRA still need to review these plans in detail but it is kind of a broad brush stroke that the Planning Commission has had. I think that you may need to come to additional meetings before the Council and the HRA. I think they will agree with what has gone on but they need to hear that from you as — well . In the meantime you can still continue to do that. Gary Brown: In other words , don ' t dig the hole tomorrow. — Conrad: Are you ready to? ,ary Brown: I would say we are. I think we've got everything covered as far as costs and construction. Dacy: But you see the Council or the HRA hasn' t decided on a lettering — type, stone, illuminated, whatever. They haven't made those specific types of choices. The Chamber has but you have to go that extra step . Gary Brown: I think we should bear in mind also is the fact that we're working with what will amount for the simple fact of cost more than anything. Trying to hold the cost down to the businesses that are going to have to purchase this sign. Our sign isn't going to look anything as — elaborate as that but we don ' t have $40, 000. 00 to put into a sign either . Dacy: The cost issue , the HRA and Council may want to participate then. — Gary Brown: That would be great, sure. Emmings: This is just a suggestion maybe, why couldn't they put up the sign they want with some input. We' re all kind of wondering whether a sign is going to do what they hope it will do and how many people will want space and so forth, why couldn't we view it essentially as an experiment to — figure out whether it is a good location or whether it is having the desired impact with the thought that it would be replaced once we figure out what the sign will look like to announce the City or maybe incorporate — it. Maybe we will learn something from it that will help us put up a L =tter sign later. If we look it as just a temporary thing. I know if you Planning Commission Meeting December 10, 1986 - Page 18 areputtingmoneyit, you your into don't want to look but at that point, maybe the City would be willing to participate to clean the whole thing up. The other thing, it seems to me is the design of it, it ought to be done in some way so that a second sign could be put right along side of it that looks like the first one in case the demand for space is greater. It ought to be like a component that would be matched and still look good . Gary Brown : A modular . . . Emmings: A modular idea so that if you wind up having more interest than you think you do, it can be expanded and still look good. Those are the things that I think I would be interested in . Gary Brown: I would not be opposed to that . Dacy: That is another option that we can explore. Conrad: I don't see a real problem letting the Chamber go ahead as long as we're studying the need for Chanhassen announcement on TH 5. I guess I'm more sensitive timing wise. The Chamber has been working on this for a long time and it will help businesses. Emmings : But it seems to me it ought to be on the condition that if it - doesn ' t fit into the future plan , then it has to get out . fr Conrad: That condition really makes you feel kind of nervous. There may be some negatives to that . Gary Brown: It is going to be hard to go up to a guy and say, this section is going to cost you $1,000.00 for three years and he says great and then - you say, but , if the HRA comes back or the Planning Commission or whoever 3 months or 4 months from now and says they don't like it, it's going to come down and you ' re out $1 , 000 . 00. We ' ll have a hard time selling that . Emmings: I don't think 3 years isn't a problem. I think that is temporary. ` Gary Brown: I don't think it's going to be a problem either because this is kind of an on-going thing and it's been going on and it's going to go on. The sign is probably going to be pretty worn out by the time you get - into this street part . Conrad: I have that feeling but then again you never know what the Council and the HRA may do. I think you've got our input on that. I think my concern is that we let the Chamber know as quickly as we can and if we can expedite that and give them some. . . - Gary Brown: Yes, we're basically ready to go. All we need is your blessing . r , Planning Commission Meeting December 10, 1986 - Page 19 — C Conrad: You really don't need our blessing, to tell you the truth. All we ' re doing is providing some input to some other bodies. Gary Brown : And we appreciate your comments. We want you to like it as well as everybody else. To get your idea . — Conrad: Well , you got a few of them tonight and what's going to happen Barb? Dacy: What I was going to suggest is what we can do is schedule the item for the first meeting in January. It's too late to place the item on Monday' s agenda but we can send it . . . Gary Brown: Where does it go now, to Council? Dacy: Right, and if they allow you to install the sign temporary pending another review or maybe we could look at in the meantime, between now and the first of January. We ' ll figure out something . — Emmings : I think we ought to have a design competition for that sign. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a sign competition for the sign for Chanhassen . PUBLIC HEARING: )MPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN ERVICE AREA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE PARCELS IN MOLINE'S ADDITION AND PROPERTIES ABUTTING CRESTVIEW DRIVE. PUBLIC PRESENT: — Don Kelly 2081 65th Street West Terry Atherton 2082 65th Street West Dacy: The properties in question are located on 65th Street and Crestview Drive, west of Galpin Blvd. right on the border of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area line and what has happened, last spring the City became aware that there were septic system failures in some of the properties along the two streets. Originally, the City thought that extension of utility lines could not be achieved without a lift station and besides the fact that it was out of the Urban Service area . The City tried to work with the homeowners as to upgrading those systems. However, upon a petition of members of the neighborhood, a feasibility study was done and it was determined that a lift station was not necessary and that sewer lines could be extended from the east on Lake Lucy Road and serve the properties on 65th Street and Crestview Drive. The Council eventually did approve the extension of sewer lines from the Pheasant Hill Development from the east. We have to go through the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Amendment process to amend this MUSA line boundary so that it includes all of these r"roperties. Before the Metro Waste Control Commission will authorize ,i.ctension of sewer pipes, they need Metropolitan Council approval and Planning Commission Meeting November 19 , 1986 - Page 24 Conrad: Okay, then we don't need to bring it back but then we don't see it. We think Staff knows what they are doing. Jay Johnson : Does the public get excluded on that then? Emmings: There will be a public hearing on the ordinance. Jay Johnson : There will be a public hearing before Council . . . - Dacy: It is not "official public hearing" but we are notifying homeowners associations, everybody that was here in February and March will be notified again. Jay Johnson : I know a lot of people who put up fences and this is a major change to the fences going up. Dacy: I also stuck in an article in the Chamber News so that should be coming out the day after Thanksgiving. - Conrad : I just want to make sure that it is because fencing is very personal and people get involved in fencing . Dacy: Most people call up and ask what the rules are but there is always that one individual . Conrad: I was looking at the procedure here though Barb. As this goes up to City Council , it will be a public hearing? You said you were notifying but will it be a public hearing? -- Dacy: I'm sure the Mayor will recognize the people to comment. They are conducting a special meeting on December 3rd, Wednesday to go over it and yes, it will be a public meeting. They will have the opportunity to comment. Headla: If somebody calls up after seeing it in the paper, will you send them out the proposed ordinance? Dacy: Sure. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - COMMUNITY SIGN PROPOSAL. Dacy: I wanted to bring this item to your attention because some of you that have been involved with the Chamber are probably aware of it also but we talked last time about the community signage that our consultant for the downtown feasibility study is preparing. By the way, they will be here at our December 10th meeting to do a quick presentation on the improvements - that the HRA is looking at so the Planning Commission is up to date on that. Part of those improvements are the signs and I wanted to ask the Commission whether or not they wanted to participate in kind of a review process of the proposed signage and if so, we should ask the Chamber to come up with a design that is consistent with what the community is Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 25 thinking as part of the downtown improvement program. If not, if you want to shift that responsbility more on the HRA then we can take the Planning Commission out of it and redirect the Chamber to the HRA but I know that you guys were concerned about signage and so on so I wanted to have you at — least talk about it first and then go from there, yes or no. Conrad: What is our control on signage other then the ordinance? Dacy: The control, what would happen is I would send the Chamber's sign design to Jim Lasher over BRW who is responsible for the streetscape part of the feasibility improvements. He will look at what they have come up with here in your packet and make recommendations and is it compatible to what we are trying to plan for the downtown area or are there some suggestions included so that would be your guideline in making the recommendation to the HRA. Conrad : Who has control over what the Chamber puts up? Dacy: The City does. Ultimately the Council. They may be asking the HRA for cost participation so the HRA would in essence control as to whether or not they would contribute any money to the erection of the sign. — Headla : Barb , what can anybody can we do over what the HRA can do? Dacy: That is the decision that you folks have to make. That is the — question. If you feel that you want to be a part of the process, then this is your opportunity to say so. If not, then we just go ahead. Siegel : Is the HRA involved in this process? Dacy: Oh yes, because they are going to be seeing the downtown feasbility _ proposal and they are the ones that are going to determine what sewer goes where and what street is aligned . Siegel : I mean on the sign? — Dacy: Yes, as an advisory body you would be making a recommendation to that body. — Siegel : Would you make a recommendation to HRA? Dacy: And to City Council . — Noziska : Where are the signs going to go? Conrad: Right at the corner of TH 101 and TH 5. The Chamber has come up with on page 2 this design where they can promote individual facilities in Chanhassen. They can't promote them all but they will charge out part of their cost to individuals who would like to advertise. What they did was a '?ylon facing east of eight individual business and the opposite side will say Welcome to Chanhassen. That is what they recommended. There are some Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 26 failures in that sign proposal in that in the future Chanhassen may grow and eight people will have signage and many others won' t yet on the other — hand, the business community needs promotion and needs directional signage and this is one way they feel they can help at least eight Chamber members. I'm not sure that we want to mucky-muck around because I do believe that the HRA personally, I think we should be bringing people into Chanhassen at the entry point and I don't know that 8 little signs are legible. I'm just not real positive about this. I think there are benefits for the community to have a major sign out there with a Welcome to Chanhassen and a sign - pointing to the business district but I don ' t know. Noziska : Welcome to Chanhassen , Your Place to Grow or something . Conrad: That ' s my preference too. Something to be out there . Noziska: Rather then Joe's Bar and Grill , Suzie's Sauna and Ed's Barber - Shop. Siegel : Ladd , you said this was the preferred one from the Chamber of — Commerce? Conrad: The Chamber has been working on this for more then months. They - have got agreement from the Chamber body that this is it. (>iegel : That is one of the most original signs I have ever seen . — Conrad: They are open as to what to put on the back side but the front side with the businesses , they are trying to sell and help eight businesses . Dacy: Your initial direction already is you are saying that you prefer a more simple sign and not a directory type of sign at that particular location and if you want to leave it at that and leave the specifics to the HRA Council . Conrad : That ' s what I said . I don ' t know about everybody else . Emmings: I agree completely and these designs back here with brick and wood, this looks like maybe a subdivision. I think they are awful , just — awful. This one I don't mind where it says Welcome to Chanhassen. That seems kind of friendly and straight forward and I think that is fine but having a limited number of spaces for businesses is just ridiculous to me. I can ' t imagine why they want to do it . Noziska : Horrible, absolutely horrible . — Conrad : So am I hearing that we want to stay out of this but make a recommendationt to the HRA that a sign be constructed that promotes the community versus promotion of individual businesses . — -oiegel : Keep it simple. Planning Commission Meeting November 19 , 1986 - Page 27 — r Noziska: I don't see a single, solitary sign here that looks like anything but a mess even though I like the masonary. I think the wood that would be up there for 2-3 years will warp and crack, looks pretty great too. there has to be a better way of doing it. Something. None of those really do much for me . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - HOUSING CHAPTER. Koegler : Last time you recall we went through the existing housing section and indicated we would be back this meeting with at least the beginning of the draft changes for that portion and that is what has been submitted as — part of your packet for this evening. In going through this, every attempt was made to basically follow Metropolitan Council's outline as much as reasonably could be accommodated and at the same time to reflect some of the comments and the thinking that the members of the Commission expressed which not to try to sum that up but to maybe paraphrase generally, to keep things to some degree structured but unstructured, if that is possible. There were certain topics that you wished to avoid and I trust we have done that. Normal procedures has been just to run through this quickly and I guess I will begin doing that. Flag me at any point in time that you have anything. As we talked about last time, the first thing that we wanted to _ do was unclutter, basically the housing section and as a result of that there are a number of omissions that occur throughout this. The first one f is referenced on the first page, really got into the various types of • nousing that were described in some detail in the last plan and you agreed — last time that that was not really necessary and therefore that has been removed from this documents. The first addition that actually occurred is a very minor one which was on page 14 and simply referenced the preceding — criteria and indicated that the City Planning Comission and Council may apply that type of criteria in reviewing housing proposals. Obviously the ordinance criteria takes precedence but that is just kind of a general _ framework kind of thing. On page 21, we got into an update of Census Data. Obviously replaced the 1980 data with previous 1970 data and when possible, tried to provide a side by side comparison of the two figures where the categories would remain the same which was throughout most of that text — portion. We talked a little bit last time about the growth in housing that has occurred and the fact that the median rent has gone up about 99% over the 10 year period. Purchase price of the average residence was $84,000.00 which was up 121% from the $39,000.00 figure recorded in 1970. Those kinds of figures are reflected in the comparison numbers that are present in that particular chart. The previous plan had some language on neighborhoods and as was brought up this evening with regard to the Zoning Ordinance and so — forth. The neighborhood associations and neighborhoods in general are a good vehicle to promote to get the word out if you will. That has been left as a proponent of the plan and in fact, the various neighborhood areas have been updated to reflect some of the developments that have occurred in the last five years or so that were not a part of the previous plan so that information has simply been updated from city records. Page 26, there is a _ lead in there. In July of this year , Todd spent some time actually going 4 iround the community and rerecording by geographic area the types of units that are within those as well as the unit count. That information was Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 28 — Dacy: We can talk about this more maybe next time but the City is responsible for the public health, safety and welfare and if the septic tank systems are not properly maintained there could be a threat to public health so you also have to remember that in the rural area in Chanhassen sanitary sewer may not be available to that area for 20-25 or maybe even 50 years so we really have to take an active maintenance program. I understand your point. There is always a conflict in government. How far do we go in regulations of the individual property owner but Staff feels in this case since it is a public health issue that we feel that maybe we — should take a stronger stand. That is the rationale. Conrad: I think also, when I had a septic system, that was the last thing I wanted to pay attention to. I did not know how often to pump it. You just get rumors of when you should do it and I tell you, I'm not monitoring it. I never did. The only time I monitored it was when I had a backup so I don't know. I think we can relate to don't let government get into — telling you when to do everything but on the other hand, this issue it gives the people in the unsewered areas some alternatives to work with their land and put housing on it and to give them that liberty of doing - that , I think there has to be some kind of a system that we can put in there to make sure that we don ' t have septic problems. Erhart : I would like to see us work on this alternate system where we have some procedure for some developer or lot owner to come in and make a egitimate proposal based on some history or something so we don't end up intimidating people who have fresh ideas . Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to table to amend Ordinance 10-A, Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Ordinance for two weeks to allow Staff to take the Commission's comments along with the Building Inspector's and come back and present a revised ordinance through a public hearing format. All voted in favor of tabling and motion carried . — AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 36, SECTION 3.13 FOR OFF-PREMISE TEMPORARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS . Dacy: We brought this back to your attention. Maybe some of the new members were not here when we originally considered this but we brought it back under this item because you had tabled it this summer until you got a — full commission. As you recall, the Sign Ordinance request for Tom Klingelhutz has spurred us to think about maybe the community should be providing for off-premise signage for subdivisions in the community and so on and maybe for example at major intersections and we put together some — specific standards. Since that time I guess I wanted to update you with what is occurring in conjunction with our downtown work and streetscape proposals that BRW is responsible for doing the feasibility study for downtown and so on, has come up with some alternative sign proposals for major entry points into the community which could accommodate this type of use in a more consistent sign fashion so we don't have six different types ,lf signs pointing to Pheasant Hills and Hidden Valley and the other . C Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 29 — Conrad : Except Tom Klingelhutz ' proposal was turned down, right? — Dacy: No it wasn't. It was approved by the Council. You did recommend to deny it but you said Staff could go back and look at a possible ordinance amendment and we came back at that point and you didn't have a full commission and had some different views. I would just like to hand out what BRW is thinking of. This is not final. Even the HRA or City Council hasn't seen this. The idea is three types of entry signs into Chanhassen. — The first one of which could function as a directory for subdivisions. On the one that you have now it lists businesses and that obviously would be located as you enter into the downtown so Staff's point is that again, _ instead of maybe a sign ordinance amendment that Staff commented that we wanted to carry out a consistent sign program in the community and that maybe this proposal that will be under review by the HRA and the City Council should be used in amending the sign ordinance for individuals. — This would give the community more design control. I just want to bring this to your attention and see if you have any comments. See if you think we are off the wall , agree or . . . — Wildermuth: How would this replace the sign ordinance? Dacy: It is not that it would replace the sign ordinance. All I'm saying is that the sign ordinance amendment would not be necessary to allow for to have a sign saying Pheasant Hills subdivision, arrow, another subdivision, rrow and so on. This could be a city project. We would be installing these signs around various spots in the community. Wildermuth: Who is going to pay for it? The taxpayer? Dacy: Everything is related through the downtown development project which will be partially financed by tax increment financing which is the original intent of that district is to take the increments generated by the — development of the business park to pay for improvements in the downtown and a portion of those costs would be paid through special assessments and so on. Primarily we are paying for this through the tax increment, HRA — district so I think you can thank Instant Web , United Mailing and so on because they are providing . . . Wildermuth: It seems like the people whose businesses are being advertised ought to be paying for it. Dacy: We have had a lot of businesses come to us and a lot of developers — say, people don't know where to get to our subdivisions and this is just a way to provide that community function and provide signage to better acquaint people that go through to where these various places are in Chanhassen. It gets back to design control. The major thing is sign control . Conrad : When Klingelhutz came in, just history when you weren't around, he f 'basically had a development that he wanted directional signage and the N,ardinance says that you can not have a off-premise sign telling me how to Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 30 get to his new development and many developments have that need. This is a real one so at that time we, as a body, whoever was here and I don' t know who was anymore, but anyway Staff came up with a solution for his problem which would like totem pole the signs at an intersection of a development so you could have several developments. Instead of having chaotic signs at a corner off-premise, you have some kind of organization to them. We turned that spot down even though we understood the need, the City Council accepted that thought. Staff is back to say that maybe there is a way to orchestrate this for others. If that is a need in the community, maybe there is a way to orchestrate this through the ordinance. However, as I understand your proposal , you still do not like it. Dacy: What we are saying is that we do not recommend amending the sign ordinance. What the City is saying though is that we prefer to have a city designed consistent program of sign control for major entrances points instead of having a 24 square foot sign 10 feet down on Galpin Blvd. that - is green with black letters , 18 square feet. . . Conrad : What you are presenting will not solve Klingelhutz ' problem? Dacy: I'm saying it could. The community would have to decide whether or not to locate a sign at CR 17 and TH 41. We really have to look at that. How many signs do we want to have on TH 5? I can sympathize with some of — the locations. A lot of their work has to come through marketing too. ( 'hey are working with maps and so on. — Conrad : Chamber of Commerce by the way has this on the drawing board. The Chamber of Commerce wants something like that. I think it is going to fail . I think when you get down to it you have so many positions on a sign and we're going to have 500 people that want that and we're going to exclude 494 and 6 are going to be there. It just seems in the long run it is going to be a real hassle. In the short run probably not a problem becuase we don' t have that many businesses but in the long run how do you — determine which 6? The first ones in. There is some logic for coordinating this. There is some logic for having coordinated signs and there is nothing worse then having signage all over. That is just real — visual garbage and that forces nothing to work. Dacy: You don't necessarily have to take action on this. It was out there hanging on a table and we just wanted to bring it back to kind of wrap the file up so to speak. Conrad : Well , where do we go? Does anybody know where they want to go — with this thing? I don't. I see negatives. The intent is terrific because it is something that we should continue to play around with or get it off of Staff ' s desk. - Siegel : What are we waiting for Barbara? Are we waiting for the HRA and somebody else to take action on this? C Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 31 — C Dacy: Yes. The sign program, streetscape proposal will be considered by — the HRA through their consideration of the feasibility study which estimates the cost of providing the street, sewer, water, drainage and streetscape improvements for the downtown area. The HRA is about to embark on that whole public hearing process and these type of costs will be — incorporated into that overall project. Siegel : I could see that working for the downtown area if we are set on — having a central downtown district, it should be signed properly. I agree that a directory is probably the least effective way of going about it and these other ones are probably in contention to be winners or losers. I _ don't think we should take a standard like this and say we are going to advertise Tom Klingelhutz' property by building a brick monument out on CR 17 and TH 5 and say Pheasant Hill this direction. I just think we should probably. . . — Dacy: I thought the Commission' s intent was to have it on a permanent basis though. Was to have these directional signs permanently pointing — direction to . . . Emmings : It says the sign will be removed six months after it has been erected. Dacy: That was our recommendation. Emmings : Oh no. Erhart : I thought that was your idea . Emmings: We said six months. That's what I remember from our previous conversation . Dacy: Then what's the point of all this. I'm sorry I brought it up. Never mind . Erhart: I think it is an unfortunate situation here really. Staff got off on a tangent here and the way I always thought the discussion was going because I was in on all of these was that the developer's, at their own expense, as long as they made a nice looking sign, could put a sign out, one sign for six months directing people to their development. At the end of six months they take it down. We don't bear any expense other then we get to review the sign and it has to be in accordance with the ordinance. — I know we discussed sharing a sign and I never saw how that could work because as soon as you had six, a seventh guy would come along. We could make that real complicated here . Dacy: If that is the case, then you should amend the ordinance. What we are saying is that we felt that there was an alternative to doing it instead of amending the sign ordinance. What you are saying is, no Staff you blew it, we ' re only talking about temporary situations . 1(7 k Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 32 `A Emmings : You didn't blow it because the way you wrote your thing here in the materials you gave us, it seems to me exactly what we had in mind . The whole point seemed to me was when Klingelhutz was sitting here he said it is the initial phase of the subdivision to get people to us and by six months you have enough people in so that word of mouth, they know where we are and it' s not a problem anymore. That is what I recall . Dacy: Okay, if that is the case and if you feel strongly about it then you can direct us to advertise for a public hearing based on what you have — here. Emmings : I have a couple of points I would like to bring up about it but I don't know where we are. The signs are supposed to be designed so three developments can be displayed on any one sign and I would say, I think we should think about how many of these signs they can have. I think there should be a limit on the number they should have for each subdivision. Let — them have two of these. No more then two for each subdivision or something like that. I don't care what the number is but they shouldn't be putting up 100 of these things so I think it would be a good idea to have a limit - and I don't think there should be any more then one sign per intersection. The first three to get there get on the sign and when one of them gets off the next one can get on and I don't think that will really be a problem because I don't think there will be three subdivisions that will want the same intersection and if there are they will just have to wait their turn. Conrad: So you are in favor of the off-premise sign? Emmings: I wasn't, I thought the ordinance was fine very frankly but Tom Klingelhutz convinced me that it is a real problem initially getting people there. The way we're developing out here with these subdivisions, if we're going to let him build a subdivision we have to let him get people to him. I was persuaded by him in that regard . — Erhart: I just think you are making an emotional, complicated, potential problem by requiring that they have space for three developments on one sign. It is just a whole lot cleaner and simpler if each developer puts in - his own sign as long as they meet the ordinance and he takes his own sign down. Conrad : But do you agree with what Steve was saying? Erhart: About him? I agreed at the meeting with Tom. I wholeheartedly agree with what Steve had , I just think you ought to keep one sign per — developer and like Steve said , limit the total number of signs to two or one . - Siegel : I'm just going to go 180 or 360 degrees on this because I'm not for off-premise signing anymore. I just think we should be as strict as Eden Priaire, Minnetonka, Plymouth and many other communites have been and disallow that. I think if they have a development of any kind of substance, there are many, many marketing methods to achieve getting people Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 33 — to attend their development's promotion and whatever. They can put a map _ in the newspaper and pay for it. They can put any number of types of promotional pieces out to get Parade of Homes participation. If we're talking about residential development, I don't know of anybody in the building trade who has a problem utilizing the Parade of Homes promotion — every year to get people to find their locations. They put a detailed map in there with street intersections and if Tom Klingelhutz wants to participate in the Parade of Homes, let him. It is part of the — presidential marketing effort but I think we are getting too trashy and we have the potential of getting trashier on the highways and biways here. Wildermuth: I agree with Tim's comment. I don't see any reason to put a number three or at least three signs to be displayed. I want individual signs for their property and I like the attitude of having it expire in six months, the sign has to come down. — Headla: Any decision we make isn't forever. It can be changed. I think the problem has been identified and I like the idea of just the builder — putting up a sign off-premise and it has to be taken down in six months and let him advertise his own but only one of these signs on any arterial highway. If someone is coming on TH 5, point it one direction and then that is it. — Conrad: Chaska Development was in asking for a sign. What would this do o their request if this went through? Would they be granted a sign? — Dacy: No, this only applies to residential which reminds me that South Storage place in Chaska has installed another one at that same location so _ we have to go out and tell them to take it down. It seems to be a popular corner . Conrad : My feeling is generally I agree with you Bob, I think in this case if we put some limits on signage and because the signs really are fairly small , I think to help the developer for six months with the restrictions probably can be sold. I think we can help the developer a little bit in — funneling traffic around and I think in this case I am going to beg some of the philosophies that I have had in the past and swing with it. At least swing with it to vote for it and send it up to Council and see how they react to it. Is there a motion? — Emmings : Do we have to have a public hearing on this? Dacy: Right. Emmings : So what is the appropriate motion? Conrad: Maybe we don' t need a motion. Maybe we just instruct you to make the changes as you have heard. I think most of us, other then Bob agree with Steve's additions and deletions and if you could refine the changes — r For his comments and we' ll conduct a public hearing . - Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 34 Dacy: Also in 82, I don't think it is a real burning issue right at this point but if I take this report to the Council with a copy of your Minutes, let's say this month or next month and have them incorporate it into the Sign Ordinance which I think will be passed with the new Zoning Ordinance. We could eliminate a potential item on a future agenda. It is not that critical . Conrad: By incorporating it into the Sign Ordinance for a public hearing. When would the public have a chance to react to it? Dacy: In December . • Conrad: But they would have a chance. Okay, then don't schedule a public hearing but I think you should bring it back to us so we can vote on it. Erhart: Do you feel that you have direction on this number of signs per — sign? Dacy: Yes, I have the direction that we should not require that and instead require a number per subdivision and a number per intersection . BROADENED STUDY AREA UPDATE - DOWNTOWN ROAD SYSTEM. Dacy: I put this into a little more understandable language. I did Joof though. The one arrow on this one should have been pointing to Lack of Street Continuity. It is true in both cases but I had the arrow in the - wrong direction. In any case and I have to apologize the third paragraph, that second sentence doesn't make sense. Your original comment, Mr. Chairman was should we ease the severity of the angle coming into downtown. The consultant came back and said, yes this could split to the north and this is a conceptual design that Staff felt really had to be looked at in detail . — Conrad: What is going to be in that little triangle Barbara? There's not going to be a house right? - Dacy: No . Here? Conrad: Right here. Why don't we just slide a street going there because this way nothing can be here? Dacy: When you do that you are always looking at different trade-offs. If we move it to the north then you have to acquire one more. Conrad : I 'm adding a new road . Dacy: That ' s Schlenk ' s house. Conrad : Oh there is a house there? LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612) 455-2359 VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HAR MEY ER M. CECILIA RAY — VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH PATRICK A. FARRELL MICH AFL J. MAYER DAVID L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE: (612) 455-1661 -- November 24 , 1987 Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner — City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Pylon Signs Dear Barb: — You have asked me to review the legality of the City prohibiting pylon signs in a certain area of the City except for ( 1 ) City owned pylon signs, or (2 ) privately owned pylon signs on designated spots. If the City can demonstrate that the prohibition of pylon — signs "directly advances" a "substantial governmental interest" and "reaches no further than necessary to accomplish the given objective" , the prohibition should be upheld. See, Central Hudson — Gas v. Public Services Commission of New York, 447 US 557 ( 1980 ) . A good planning report should be put together to document that the ban promotes aesthetics in the community. "Aesthetics" is a legitimate governmental interest. Penn Central Transportation Co. — v. City of New York, 438 US 104 ( 1978 ) . I don' t see any legal obstacles to the City owning — "directory" pylon signs. I don ' t know, however, of any authority for the City to sell advertising space. The signs could be in street right-of-ways because giving direction is incidental to _ the transportation function of the street. McQuillan, Mun. Corp. ( 3rd ed. ) § 30. 44. There are several problems with picking a few spots in a — district and allowing private ownership of pylon signs only on those spots. First, Minn. Stat. § 462. 357 , subd. 1 provides " [ zoning] regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of — buildings, structures, or land for each class or kind of use throughout said district. " Allowing pylon signs at certain spots wouldn' t comply with the uniformity requirement. Second, you can' t force a private property owner to install a sign on private — property, you can' t force someone to advertise someone elses business, and you can' t tell someone what to charge for the advertisement. The owners of the chosen spots would have a — NOV 30 987 CI I Y Or CHANHASSEN Ms. Barbara Dacy - Pylon Signs November 24 , 1987 Page Two valuable monopoly that could be abused. If you want to allow a few private pylon signs, I suggest criteria be established for eligibility such as shopping centers, etc. Ve y truly you . , GR1 ► _ , ANNIS, FAR EL & , TSON, P.A. '.ger N. Knutson RNK: srn JOB DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHANHASSEN POSITION: City Manager DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: December, 1987 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE Plan and direct all City operations to ensure efficient municipal services and development are in accordance with objectives and general guidelines established by the City Council. To advise the Council regarding impact of policy decisions and to represent the interests of the City of Chanhassen in metropolitan and state activities as delegated by the City Council . RELATIONSHIPS Reports to: City Council Supervises : Department Heads and Support Staff Has indirect supervision over all employees of City — government through the supervisory department heads identified above. SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES 1 . Plans and directs the general administration of city services . 2 . Evaluates, on a continuing basis , the organization, admini- stration and services being rendered by the various depart- _ ments of City government to determine whether results are being achieved as planned. — a. Makes or recommends organization changes in staffing as well as other changes in administration as may be justified to assure a high standard of performance is maintained. b . Appoints , dismisses or otherwise disciplines city employees. 3 . Provides advice and/or recommendations , with supportive data, to the City Council as a guide to its policy-making role. (22) 4. Involves department heads in the identification of achieve- ment goals that will provide standards against which to measure their performance. a. Reviews periodically and confers with department mana- gers to assure that progress in each area is being achieved as planned. b. Oversees implementation of financial and fiscal planning in the City . 5 . Relieves the Council members of as much administrative — detail , inquiry , etc . as possible so they may devote more of their time to the policy making responsibilities of their position . a . Prepares agendas for Council meetings and provides sup- porting data. 6. Keeps the City Council informed on all important developments which may affect the administration of City government and which they will need to know to perform effectively as — Councilpersons . a . Also advises Council members on concerns of citizens . b. Answers citizen calls and complaints . 7. Follows through to assure that all City Council ordinances and directives are correctly interpreted and communicated with implementation as planned. 8 . Keeps informed on all aspects of municipal government and researches improved methods of administration for possible implementation in Chanhassen . REQUIREMENTS Education/Experience : Master ' s Degree in Public Administration , — Urban Studies or related field with a minimum of three ( 3) years related experience; or a Bachelor ' s Degree and five (5 ) years of related experience, including at least two ( 2) years in a super- visory position . (23) • - ADMINISTRATIVE-SUPERVISORY PERFCRMA::CE REVIEW Position Title f/1 � Name f (�',1 i1`7 rGeet l� d Division Date Due / Accountable To l alc.11f/ f / Date of Conferences Su--ary Evaluation of Overall Performance ,.- - V + 1 - IV + - Ili + 11 - II + Il New in position or Performance improving or Performance meets overall Superior performance, Outstanding has serious weakness has weakness to overcome position requirements consistently rendered performance - t/ /I; A. Major Areas of Accountability / • 1. I I IX I Pic�nc.7 c- /� 6 4 1 r�n�!/rkc, 6,77 a 4d`rty elf re, �� 2. 1 IX I 1 a. ` vatlat'� a-.,�aq- c h , hm1 sP.„., 4 c e- - 4_ 3. 1-7-1-1/ !�. (•n�-' ( 4- -(ier.. L `-3,,,,!/C l 4 al.if6I ./�.4O 74f tee 1? 2/21 11 ? iic//�,//4 -kg 1T1 92 C 61�rr/7•7 1i1d // " 4. I x' 3 /r`a ye, 5eall r M h.45 c337 d 5497-xy 5Z(071-}-,--6x? .44 5• - 111111E4 ( a. ^ N-4_ r V i keel a, �� ` 4:i/ave- --Z--- r. MIW 4 /�llnP I:C�►�- :rr k•i Ck` G - 6. 4./72. •' s z?7"..778 : ar-c ;el'^,, .a-E /f / // 7• JJ // / --- , Fj.,a a Lek) (d 6 G"Z�7-3ee � �er a o�/1. -mot a/ azc• ih2 C/ri�,0/4 i;7 i>r e ct in it1✓r`fit f�0e)Fn e • %P S La rxecid c t�tt i44,,a4.1,i 8. 1 1 1 x 1 & a, 4-,,g a eev,,,r, 1,..7) .",e/6, :2-,w.//4e- 75 na?/, e...4. /..< 9. K I 7 !C Y c i 2f'1 cy `I- a!G /Ji7 p fr- / c. /Y OW/ a / � �+ r�r�10. 1 ___-_� I xi 7: 44i of s l n514hill n c e,"a /k. 11 S t _ Via, j y� C ;q 61 7, 2 1 ca me - 6fi/ - 43 . .2 ./ — k -e-/J/ff is ,IYe5 (fin,,/ -%41/fr/ e CG71� c ,e c/ 12. L I 1 13. f 1 KEY 1 //)( - Deficient Meets Requirements Commendable q _ le • (80) Explicatory co.n,-tints are essential where performance is no:c•d to be deficient g. Personal Characteristics to be Considered (attributes or characteristics possessed by the person being reviewed) .which to a marked degree either add to or detract from overall performance. ' 4- Cal C ee-0, l cp-- Z (.4,-.?7? `7 e S -5. 2.;e_ w • c.B�F_ C r;- L %`I `e (j e. a •- _.._ , . . C. Other Factors tto be Considdsre which affect to a noticeable degre/ t performance in this position' -elr. -- V J 5( / i'7 ) A ti?�r�?/n% �c� �!:'G�� ; ' i,:c�'j '.G d/ ' ��r7 �3?� ��...e4,(-44,! AL1)1- 4e. do if'tu�c/ c-;- -44-ke, I /6;;rum, 87 ci „ cam, m 6,-)c_ ,6_c_ p4,77,fer)77 2.7,,_ic 4,-.., /,‘ ,,,- w,,,- MO 0. S7anificant Changes in performance which have been noted since last review. 4 4-977 e E. Identify key areas where performance can be impi ved. - - . ./r-ii rl. .1-j 4,7 e• / '' --(/6( c 6re— . CY6.'irra,--J P;--1-'--; .e,'>7/1R/ 'Zs:Vt—e‘,' -;. .. Were these areas discussed during the review conference? Yes L----' No A planned approach to attain improved performance was agreed on. Yes 1._1 No _ F. What education, training or experience would benefit this employee? ij,;').--.57;vii-- 7 Have you discussed this with him? �J G. Comment on differences of opinion concerning review. _ H. Was the Position Responsibility Write-Up reviewed during the conference? Position Responsibility Write-Up is current Needs revision x The appraisal covers performance for the previous onths. i This form was reviewed by • and '1 _ ___ (Enp e s initials) / (Apprai er's signature) (Date of Conference) �P ;� / / Ackno'.led;;ed by /: ' n / ( L (Appraiser's (81) i 7 Initials do not necessarily indicate employee's agreement or di;agreere nt. r�• Don Ashworth Employee Name City Manager Position Title 44,499.00 Current Salary 48 ,996.00 New Year Midpoint Performance Rating 90.8% Percentile (Current Salary to New Year Midpoint) 2,450.00 Proposed 1-1-88 Increase 46,949.00 Proposed 1-1-88 Salary Months until next evaluation Approved by: City Manager Date C I TY O F \ /. CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: January 8 , 1988 SUBJ: Approval of 1988 Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan Note: At our staff meeting in preparation for this agenda, I received a 100% staff vote that this item would not remain on the consent agenda. Despite their premonitions , I must move ahead as though this was a normal year. The proposed 1988 Position Classification Plan has one major modification - the inclusion of comparable worth standards as dictated by the state. Accordingly, this year differs from the typical pattern of solely updating position descriptions , completing evaluations , and carrying out the survey with our ten comparable cities . As noted above, the 1988 Position Classification Plan has been modified to include comparable worth. Almost every city in the Twin City area jointly participated in a cooperative review of posi- tions in a effort to meet comparable worth standards . The results of those studies were released this past spring and are being implemented in the cities throughout the state including the "Big Ten" . Chanhassen did not participate in the cooperative study believing that the people benefitting would be small in comparison to the estimated costs (approximately $8 ,000 ) . The primary factor for many cities was the recognition that, if they did not participate, they would be left to defend their actions with each of their union groups - such not being a factor for our city. The City' s prediction that comparable worth would not signifi- cantly affect clerical/technical personnel was relatively accurate. The steps taken during the past two years to make adjustments in these areas placed us into a position of being in conformance with the study that has just been released. There are no negative impacts on the approved 1988 budget as a result of comparable worth standards . Mayor and City Council January 8 , 1988 — Page 2 Ironically, one result of the study which had not been antici- pated by this office was in the area of management postions . In retrospect, I should have anticipated this . If the Council con- siders that most of the "Big Ten" represent cities with ASCME, — 49 ' er , and Local 320 contracts for their clerical/technical , public works , and police employees , respectively, it is not surprising that they are at the metropolitan union wage. By our _ making comparison to them we are in reality accomplishing equality between ourself and the metropolitan area in these areas . The recently negotiated 49 ' er contract bears out this _ fact. Taking the average of our public works employees [ Note: it makes no difference whether you use labor , light equipment, heavy equipment, mechanic, etc. ] you will be within pennies of the union cities for these positions [ Note: although the mid- point approaches the union salary, individual salaries will typi- cally vary between 85 and 105% of that midpoint recognizing experience/merit increases] . The only area where equality does _ not exist between the "Big Ten" and the remainder of the metropo- litan area is in the management area. Given the massive number of positions reviewed by the metropolitan area and by placing each of the responsibility areas in comparison to fixed point — centers , a more accurate depiction of management responsibilities was achieved. I would anticipate that the City Council will be reluctant to pass this item and may even wish to modify it. However , I truly believe that your ability to modify it is limited. The coopera- _ tive study completed was quite comprehensive , its results are definitely defendable, and it does comply with state law. Recommendation - This office would recommend that the City Council act to endorse the updated 1988 Position Classification Plan as submitted. Note: The Position Cllssification Plan requires that objectives/goals be established for all department heads . I have started that process and I am including a partial listing of _ these. I have not had an opportunity to finalize these with the department heads as work efforts to date have included the update of the plan, write-ups , and performance evaluations . Recognizing that the goal statements are not on this agenda and that we will be meeting in the near future to talk about overall goals of the City, I would propose that I be allowed to complete the goal- setting process with the department heads and to submit the _ entire package as a part of our session with Dr . Barrett. By approving the position classification plan and the recommen- dations being made by this office, the City Council is not taking any action on my salary. Typically, we complete all other — employee review processes/position updates before any review of my performance occurs . I anticipate placing this item onto the agenda for January 25 or the first meeting in February. 41" '�j vl LJ Volume XVII, Number 5 December 1987 _ C IP Ilt 111 reporter .• ..... PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, CENTER FOR URBAN AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS - Pay Equity in Minnesota: State and Local Wage Policy Innovation Sara M. Evans and Barbara J. Nelson x Comparable worth emerged in the 1970s as _ a controversial innovation for public em- - �N ployers. This new wage policy seeks to R �^ remedy the historically low salaries for jobsi traditionally associated with women and mi- norities. In Minnesota, the policy is called — _� • �• _ �` pay equity to emphasize its goal of wage ( I I I �� / fairness. With the passage of the 1982 State Employees Pay Equity Act, Minne- - • 1 .its , '1 I e ' ' �, .r sotton The fund became a ing and distr in ribution alone lofova- pay ,� � = t _Z ' I equity raises between 1983 and 1987 has •e: V Q,:` ' made Minnesota the first state to implement :,•� j�: I �� fully its pay equity policy. The passage of lr i L 9 1, - `�,1►l�'; �� r; �;, , .;_,;, �\� 1. 1 the Local Government Pay Equity Act in \l I 1 �• :. 1 :: + 1984 extended Minnesota's policy leader- ship. I Ln IS•f►1k•: 1 � _ Ir�' /�' _ai ,,' i 1J1,Ir��, Minnesota is the only state in the union to _ Ii 1 `•a require that all local jurisdictions use a corn- - IP '`' r 1!/�%• parable worth standard in assessingtheir �Rar .':: :-:`"••sIi `�► III h� _ �:=%•:. .�.: • 3 wage policies and that they develop plans •� to remedy any inequities they may find. — While numerous localities throughout the country have established comparable worth policies, either through local legisla- tion or through collective bargaining, the — scale of the effort in Minnesota is alto- gether different. Here 1,597 cities, coun- ties, school boards, and special purpose In This Issue jurisdictions are working to comply with a — state mandate. Pay Equity in Minnesota 1 The University of Minnesota Comparable Worth Research Project collected data on Opinion on Environment 5 the state of Minnesota, twenty-two Minne- Support for Child Care 6 sota localities,and other comparable states Open Enrollment and localities between 1984 and 1987. Most of the current research on comparable Elderly Patients and the Family 8 worth emphasizes the economic debate about how wage rates are set and what they reflect.Very little attention has been paid to the political and organizational results of The University orMinnesotaiscommitreatothepolicythatallper• adopting the policy. Our interest lies in ex- sons shall have equal access to its programs,tacitmes.and em lorin the concrete consequences,at both — ployment without regard to race,religion,color,sex,national ploring origin,handicap,age,veteran status,or sexual onentation. state and local levels, of implementing a comparable worth policy for public em- Figure 1.SALARIES FOR JOB CLASSES IN MINNESOTA STATE GOVERNMENT ployees. In order to discuss our key find- BEFORE PAY EQUITY • ings, however, it is important to define comparable worth clearly and place the is- 2.8 sue in its broadest historical and legal con- 2.7 - texts. 2.6 - 2.5 - How It Works 2.4 - Comparable worth is a wage policy that m 2.3 - requires equal pay for job classifications w 2.2 - valued equally in terms of skill, effort, re- .°c 2.1 - — sponsibility, and working conditions. In C 2 - practice, implementing this policy requires • applying a single job evaluation system to 1.9 - •* .. d 1.8 - • all job classifications within the same juris- ,, •• • F •-- diction or firm. Jobs are most often evalu- a- 1.7 - . ated and graded by a point system. Job o 1.6 - ,R • F • classifications that are graded as being of M 1.5 - • • F equal value are paid equivalently. All indi- E 1.4 - • . F• F -- viduals holding the same jobs within equal E F classifications are not paid the same 1'3 - •• '.• FF F F F wages, however, because seniority, merit, 2 1.2 - ff F F FF+ or quantity or quality of work done continue 1.1 - F FF FFFF'F to differentiate individual wages within such 1 F F _.. r r t r r 1 r r r r i r III classifications. 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 In theory, pay equity is more than pay for Job Evaluation Points(Hay point values) points, however.As the National Academy — of Science has reported, pay equity is a ' = Male-dominated job classes(over 80 percent male) remedy for the problem that "in many in- F = Female-dominated job classes(over 70 percent female) - stances...jobs held mainly by women and Balanced classes not shown minorities pay less at least in part because Source:Commission on the Economic Status of Women,Pay Equity.The Mrnnesota Experience.1985.p.12. they are held mainly by women and minori- ties." Pay for points denies the historic un- dervaluation of female and minority labor. by the value of a job to the firm or jurisdic- for the most part have the same kinds of A large number of studies have shown tion,but rather by what the market pays for jobs. Occupational segregation is the — that if two job classifications have the same each type of job. Comparable worth sup- watchword of most workers'job experi- value according to the job evaluation sys- porters respond, in the tradition of institu- ence. According to 1980 census data, tern, but one is held primarily by men and tional economics,that the market embodies women workers, regardless of race or eth- the other held primarily by women,or one is the customs and practices that encourage nicity, were likely to work in occupations held primarily by whites and the other by low wages for jobs filled by women and mi- that were two-thirds filled by women, and — people of color, the job held by men or norities.To supporters,the gender-, race-, men were likely to work in jobs where 69 to whites usually pays more.For example,the and ethnicity-based wage differences that 79 percent were also male,the variation de- state of Minnesota used the results of a job have been found for equally valued jobs are pending on color. The more an occupation evaluation system developed by Hay Asso- evidence that the market does not properly is filled by women or people of color, the — ciates to determine whether, at equivalent value the work traditionally done by women lower its wage rate. point levels, female-dominated and male- and minorities. How did occupational segregation arise? dominated jobs were paid equivalently.Hay Historically, women and people of color Associates, a commercial job evaluation Origins were only offered certain kinds of jobs. — company, rated state jobs on detailed The movement for comparable worth arose Laws and customs limited the jobs available scales measuring skill,effort,responsibility, in response to the persistence of wage dif- to people of color.Women faced legal bard- and working conditions. The sum of all the ferentials between women and men. It later ers to certain kinds of employment, were scales'scores equalled an overall score for addressed pay differentials between minor- expected to assume the burdens of domes- — each job.They documented that across the ities and whites as well. In 1984,figures for tic work and child care,and operated,as did board jobs categorized at equal Hay point full-time workers showed that white women men, in a culture supporting separate values that were dominated by women paid earned 64 cents, black women earned 58 spheres of action for women and men. less than those dominated by men (Figure cents, and Hispanic women earned 54 Within this framework,employers routinely -- 1). Minnesota's analysis did not extend to cents for every dollar earned by white men. hired women and people of color at lower comparisons of race and ethnicity because In the same year, black men earned 74 wages than white men or channeled the state of Minnesota's workforce had only cents and Hispanic men 71 cents for every women and minorities into occupations that 3.8 percent people of color, a percentage dollar earned by white men.While earnings paid less than those jobs held by white men — higher than the total minority population in differentials between minority and white though the level of skill required might be the state's population. Using a somewhat workers have become narrower since the same.Approximately half of the earning different methodology, the comparable World War II, earnings differentials be- differential between women and men may worth analysis undertaken for the state of tween women and men have remained be attributed to the residue of these social — New York's employees included race, eth- fairly stable until very recently. and economic arrangements. The other nicity, and gender comparisons and The Equal Pay Act of1963 and Title Vllof half stems from gender differences in edu- showed parallel findings. the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did little to re- cation, numbers of years worked, interrup- Opponents of comparable worth, relying duce the overall earnings differentials be- tions in work life, and extra hours worked — on a neoclassical view of economics, be- tween women and men. To a large extent, per week. lieve that wages should be established not this was because women and men do not The history of comparable worth began 2 soon after World War I when the newly cre- that the Court had not precluded further Comparable Worth in Minnesota — ated International Labour Organization consideration of comparable worth cases. called for "equal pay for work of equal More recent federal opinions, especially Numerous scholars have studied the eco- value." In the United States during World the Appeals Court decision against a corn- War and technical aspects of comparable War II the War Labor Board created a policy parable worth claim made by state of Wash worth,offering predictions about its feasibil Wash- of equal pay for equal work and very briefly ington employees American Federation of ity and long-run impact.Very few,however, supported a policy of equal pay for jobs of State, County, and Municipal Employees have followed the implementation process equal content, regardless of the sex of the [AFSCMEJ v.State of Washington,demon- itself to discover the practical conse worker. But sustained interest in equal pay strated that the weight of judicial opinion quences of a comparable worth policy. On . and comparable pay did not survive the war does not currently support a comparable the basis of our research in Minnesota,we — years. worth interpretation of Title VII. find that implementation raises new ques- tionsNot until 1963, when Congress passed Harvard legal scholar Paul Weiler su and highlights the complexity of tech- the Equal Pay Act, did the "equal pay for gests that the future of comparable worth nocratic reforms. equal work' standard become law, avoid- lies in the political process through legisla- • State Versus Local Implementation — ing the comparable worth standard pro- tion at the state and federal levels. In that Differences between state and local imple- posed in earlier versions of the bill. In 1964, regard, both the Gunther and AFSCME mentation in Minnesota are dramatic. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act created a opinions indicate the importance of local, state,which had a job evaluation system in general national prohibition against em- state, and national activism. Organized ef- place in 1979, conducted a comparable — ployment discrimination.Section(h)of Title forts for comparable worth are almost a worth analysis of its wage policy in 1981 to VII,referred to as the Bennett Amendment, decade old.Working from a base of several identify female-dominated job classes that reconciled the provisions of the Equal Pay years of grass roots efforts, public em- were below average male wages.Between Act and Title VII with regard to women's ployee unions, particularly AFSCME, 1983 and 1987, they negotiated the distri- - wage discrimination claims.Title VII has be- joined women's organizations, minority bution of a special "pay equity"appropria- come particularly important in implement- groups and others to form the National tion to these classes through the collective ing comparable worth because it has been Committee on Pay Equity in 1979. Oppo- bargaining process.Key leaders both in the interpreted as prohibiting not only inten- nents organized somewhat later, primarily state Department of Employee Relations — tional discrimination but also neutral poli- through business associations like the and in the dominant union of state em- cies that have an adverse impact on United States Chamber of Commerce and ployees,AFSCME,were also firm support- protected groups. the National Association of Manufacturers. ers of comparable worth,subscribing to the Litigation, legislation, and collective bar- belief that women's market wages reflect — Legal and Political Context gaining have been used to achieve corn- historic discrimination. Together they con- parable worth. Like many equity reforms, structed a"win-win"situation in which corn- One of the legal questions yet to be decided the early efforts have focused on the public parable worth raises were understood to about the incorporation of the Equal Pay Act sector.A growing number of state and local be an addition to ordinarily bargained in- _ into Title VII is whether Title VII accepts a governments use or plan to use pay equity creases.AFSCME undertook considerable comparable worth wage standard. In 1981, as the basis for compensation of public em- employee education among female-domi- in County of Washington v. Gunther, the ployees. As of April 1987, twenty-eight nated employee groups and played the is- Supreme Court ruled, albeit narrowly, on states had conducted job evaluation sue down among male employees. the relationship of the two acts,holding that studies for state workers, and seventeen em- Title VII was not restricted to the equal pay states had begun to make some kind ofp A survey of 493 state of Minnesota Min- for equal work standard of the Equal Pay comparable worth wage adjustments, us- nesota designed by theW Worth Project of and Act.Although the Court explicitly chose not inglegislative appropriations. dedComparable a en Project and to rule on the "controversial concept of g The cost has fielded by the Minnesota Center for Survey P generally been in the range of 2-5 percent of Research in June 1985 showed that state 'comparable worth,- advocates agreed total payroll. workers sup ported the concept of pay eq- uity and knew about the policy. In response _ to the question"If studies showed the work of delivery van drivers and clerk typists re- '�' ,p �r 1,.A .� - ,i':14i��-��+ /j,4��*. ST[,y� }L quired the same level of skill, training, re- ` . ,, yY. f�•.=. 6V`• tf/ N�" o sponsibility, and so forth, should an 4, to (� •k r s„y „� , _ Y. 1ro'Fnr -°�`', ' T �'e employer pay these types of positions the s+f� �, . .R%4 Y ,, t # '` • `, m y same?"81.2 percent answered yes.There ; � z. 't , Y' •• i i:••�r s y '�? L were some differences in level of support ' ,41 :. C •L{rr F s V".• k +f6 Y 11;� -.All '. � .�_„ „,t',�� ;s ; ,k �, for the concept: 75.8 percent of men com PAYOt�ry, y.?• �;�� :�: "' "'• -=,-; .'r•%�•: r�� 1 pared to 86.9 percent of women supported 60'0 _',� � ' �:•, '�" �'� "+ the policy. But even groups presumed to ENS • r . • �S ca ' ;' '1'^''%. 3 , ,g,, N' oppose pay equity largely gave it support: l' 79.9 percent of managers and 78.1 percent �+ ,{ . �., c i p �. __ t,� ..,r`:4.k ,r�i i `; of self defined conservatives believed that "O. „� _ = -:, `' _ .: drivers and clerk typists should be paid �� 4 rt� \'�_ s equally. ' •' r C.�.;,; !! -.� w., . , State employees "s� i; NIB w ,:,.. .� were knowledgeable 0 `•t'i �''•� . f„�db .- about pay equity;81.5 percent of the sam- A•• ' �,` — 1 ple had heard of the policy and most under s ��{;� .`: . • _ stood its content. Of those knowing about tr. ?-.*41 pay equity, 94.4 percent correctly reported •, c`- t = that men could get pay equity raises as well 1- -.\ as women and 82.7 percent correctly re- .., \ • - , T 1• sponded that pay equity meant better pen- sion benefits. "And guess which one's salary we're getting 60 percent of?" State employees had varying views of the consequences of adopting pay equity.Two 3 J thirds did not believe that pay equity caused associations(the Minnesota School Boards neapolis Councilmember Kathy O'Brien, a "` many problems in the workplace. Both the Association, the League of Minnesota Cit- strong supporter of the policy, recently re- unions and the Department of Employee ies, and the Association of Minnesota marked. From that perspective, one of the Relations reported very few complaints Counties) encouraged compliance and ways of evaluating comparable worth is to about the policy or its implementation.Feel- offered strong direction throughout the examine how it has changed wages. ings that pay equity did cause problems in process. The Minnesota School Boards The results at the state level are easy to the workplace were most prevalent among Association in particular hired a consultant, document and dramatic. Take the position those who thought that the women's move- Arthur Young Associates, to develop its of Clerk 1,for example.If comparable worth 'Y' ment had gone too far. This suggests that own model system and then provided train- had not been implemented the base pay of individuals fitted their evaluations of the pot- ing for local school districts.At every stage, an entry level Clerk 1 in contract year 1983- icy into their existing belief patterns. - school districts complied in higher propor- 84 would have been$11,922. If,four years About 60 percent of the sample feared tions than any other jurisdictional type. later, the position had received its general s., that salaries would be frozen as a result of In a different way,the League of Minne- pay raises of$1,753 but had not received pay equity,an action that did not occur and sota Cities made the technical assistance of pay equity raises,the base pay of an entry was never contemplated. This finding, the DOER available by inviting DOER per- level Clerk 1 would have increased to which was evident regardless of the social sonnet to present workshops at their re- $13,675. With comparable worth, entry groups or institutional groups to which em- gional meetings in the summer of 1984. level base pay for Clerk 1 position actually ployees belonged, indicated the unusual- These workshops constituted a first, and rose to$15,931 in contract year 1986-87, ness of a"win-win"salary situation as well very positive, introduction to comparable the year that comparable worth was fully im as employees'observations of local impie- worth for many small cities.And they were plemented. Of the$4,009 increase in base mentation, which was far more compli- coupled with assurances that the process of salary,$1,753 came from regularly negoti cated. compliance would be relatively simple. ated raises and $2,256 came from corn- Local implementation reveals a far more These small cities were the most likely to parable worth raises. complex story due to a number of key differ- use a process of job matching with the Another perspective on these raises can ences. In the first place, whereas a rela- state's Hay Associates job evaluation sys- be seen by comparing the entry level — tively small number of leaders at the state tem that was offered to them with the assis- salaries for the Clerk 1 position to the level initiated and lobbied for the original tance of DOER. poverty line fora family of four. In 1983,the legislation and then oversaw its implemen- By contrast, the Association of Minne- poverty line for a family of four was$10,178 tation, local governments faced a state sota Counties, which had lobbied against and the base salary for an entry level Clerk l — mandate to implement a policy that few the original bill,clearly opposed the concept before comparable worth increments were managers or employee representatives un- of comparable worth and anticipated that added was$11,922, or 117 percent of the derstood.Most local jurisdictions had no job the law could be changed or repealed.Nev- poverty line. If over the next four years this evaluation system either.As a result,com- ertheless, when such attempts failed, the position had only received the pay raises — parable worth became inextricably bound AMC also encouraged compliance and rec- negotiated between the union and the state, up with the technical processes of job eval- ommended the use of specialized consul- the base salary of $13,675 would have uation and.in some cases,reclassification. tants. Finally, one association, the been 122 percent of the poverty line(which Furthermore, the more fragmented and Metropolitan Area Management Associa- was$11,203 in 1987).The actual salary of _ diverse labor forces of local jurisdictions tion, composed of Twin Cities suburban $15,931—the salary which included the had no clear voice, such as AFSCME pro- municipalities, initiated a massive joint completed implementation of comparable vided at the state level. Male-and female- study and hired Control Data Corporation to raises—was rth raises is as well as generalof thepoverty salary e. _ dominated employee groups were easily conduct it. Of course,not 2 percentvery Clerk 1 hves in a family pitted against one another over what ap- • Managerial Revolution peared to be a redistribution of scarce re- The compliance rate, and the choice of of four,but the salary change indicates that sources. As a consequence of these most large jurisdictions to develop new job change in the capacity of people working as differences, comparable worth has gener- classification and job evaluation studies in Clerk 1 s to support or help to support their ated far more conflict within local govern- families. the process,resulted in a major unintended ments than it did with state government. It consequence,a kind of managerial revolu- has easily become embroiled in other bu- tion at the local level. The introduction of What Next? reaucratic agendas (such as rationalize- new managerial technologies into local At the local level it is really too early to tell — tions for antiquated classification and wage governments prompted a number of juris what all the economic consequences will systems). dictions to hire personnel directors for the be. Local policies—like comparing equally • Leadership and Local Compliance first time. Managers, in many cases, now valued jobs to the average salary for those Given this high level of conflict,and the lack have access to accurate job descriptions for jobs,or using wage corridors that establish — the first time. They know what their em percentage limitations on raising or tower of sanctions against non-compliance, the to ees actuallydo,so theyhave a new ba- notable thing about the Minnesota experi- p y ing wages to limit the increase or decrease ence has been the high level of compliance. sis for establishing wage policy and for of wages—indicate that economic changes allocating work. Unions find this a mixed at the local level will not be as great as they — By August 1987,80.5 percent of the coun- blessing. Some unions that had taken ad- ties, 76.3 percent of cities and towns, 93.1have been in state jobs. Nonetheless,pre- percent of school districts,and 93.7 percent vantage of irrationalities in the old system liminary figures from a suburban school dis- can no longer do so. When long-standing trict illustrate the very real impact that of special purpose districts had submitted traditions, such as parity between police comparable worth policies can have. In — reports to the Department of Employee Re- and firefighters, were disrupted, the re 1985 86,a Health Associate earned an en lotions(DOER),and most of those still out- s onse was highly emotional. On the other standing had comparable worth studies in p g y tering salary of$6.21 per hour. If the em- hand, female-dominated unions now have ployee worked full-time for the school progress. access to the information necessary to Several factors contributed to this suc- district(40 hours per week for 39 weeks), make their own case for higher wages much which many did not, the salary would be cess.In the first place the state,through the stronger. DOER,remained extremely accessible and $9,688 for the year or 86 percent of the ve willing to provide technical assistance using • Wage Justice poverty line. Following the guidelines of its its own experience as a model. The purpose of pay equity was to rethink evaluation and reclassification study, the — In addition,the leadership of professional what constituted wage justice, as Min- district proposed that the minimum salary 4 — for Health Associates in 1986-87 be$7.75 that involve significant issues of public Subsequent to CURA's funding, the per hour.This would raise a full-time associ- policy for the state and that include in- comparable worth project was extended • ate's yearly salary to$12,090 or 108 per- teraction with community groups,agen- for two additional years with funding cent of the poverty line. cies, or organizations in Minnesota. from the Northwest Area Foundation, Local unions supporting pay equity see These grants are available to regular fac- the Humphrey Institute,the University of — their task as improving the techniques and ulty members at the University of Minne- Minnesota Graduate School, the Na- monetary outcomes of the initial implemen- sota and are awarded annually on a tional Academy of Sciences, and the tation over time.Local unions opposing the competitive basis. Kellogg Foundation. policy are functioning in a new policy atmo- • — sphere.Management has more information than ever before for dealing with the ques- tion of the value and wages for their em- ployees. It is certain that the contest between managerial priorities, conflicting — union interests, and wage justice will con- tinue. Sara Evans is an associate professor of Citizen Opinion on t h e history at the University of Minnesota Environment — and director of the Center for Advanced Feminist Studies. She is the author of Personal Politics and Free Spaces(with Henry C. Boyte). Barbara Nelson is an by Thomas L. Anding and Christopher Klyza — associate professor of public affairs in the Humphrey Institute at the University and codirector of the Center on Women and Public Policy. She is the author of As part of CURA's ongoing interest in the question on the quality of drinking water — Making An Issue of Child Abuse and environment Minnesotans were polled in in Minnesota.Forty-nine percent feel that American Women and Politics. the summer of 1987 about a number of en- water quality is getting worse,46 percent The work of professors Evans and vironmental issues and about what environ- that the quality is about the same, and Nelson on the Minnesota Comparable mental problems they consider most only 5 percent that drinking water is im- Worth Research Project has resulted in important in Minnesota. proving in the state. a number of publications: "Comparable Respondents were asked specifically • Radon.When questioned about radon in Worth: A Brief Review of History, The- about five different environmental issues:a ory,and Practice"in the Minnesota Law mandatory beverage container deposit law, the sample environment,d aboonlyut t radon.9 percent Ofthis the4 Review(May 1985); "Initiating a Com- garbage burning plants, the use of agricul- percentpepercenhadhperabout r eis4 f parable Worth Wage Policy in Minne- tural chemicals, the quality of drinking wa- thosesu, a bli (or that2 percent of sota: Notes from the Field" in Policy ter,and the health threats of radon. those surveyed) believed Minnesota.radon is a Studies Review(May 1986);"The Impact serious health threat in St Pay Equity on Public ); The pa • Mandatory Can and Bottle Deposit. A aMinnesotans' view acid rain and water report the on Pay Re- large majority of Minnesotans favor mak- pollution as the two most important environ- reporttothe Panel on Pay Equity u yil of ing all cans and bottles returnable for a mental problems facing the state in the next the search, National Academy of SciencesCu in deposit. The results showed 86 percent five years. favoring such a law and 14 percent 1987; "Mandating Local Change in Min- The question about ranking environmen easel""a in Comparable Worth: opposing it. Similar legislation has tal problems was an open-ended one in An from chapter the (Ronniel Worth: already been made law in Connecticut, which people were encouraged to state berg,View editor, Temple States Press,n Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, what they considered to be the two most forthcoming 1988); "Comparable Worth Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Ver- pressing environmental problems.The first for Public Employees"a chapter in Com- meet. five named issues in order of importance, parable Worth, Pay Equity, and Public • Garbage Plants. The vast majority of were: Policy(Rita Mae Kelly and Jane Bayes, those polled also believe landfills should acid rain 23 percent editors,Greenwood Press,forthcoming be replaced with garbage burning plants. water pollution 19 percent 1988); and "Comparable Worth" in Eighty-two percent favor such a move Women's Studies Encyclopedia (Helen while 18 percent oppose it. These re- waste disposal 10 percent Tierney,editor,Greenwood Press,forth- sponses reflect the growing public utter groundwater 9 percent coming 1988).In addition Evans and Nel- tainty over waste disposal in landfills. A air pollution 7 percent — son have recently completed a book number of garbage burning facilities are being developed in Minnesota. It is clear that Minnesotans continue to based on the project: Wage Justice: be most worried about pollution in general, Comparable Worth and the Paradox of • Agricultural Chemicals. The use of since four of the top five concerns(58 per- - Technocratic Reform. agricultural chemicals is thought to be a cent)deal directly with water or air pollution. The Minnesota Comparable Worth Re- problem by most Minnesotans.Forty-five The next five problems mentioned were: search Project began in 1984 with an in- percent of those surveyed saw it as a ma- hazardous waste disposal, surface water, teractive research grant from CURA and jor problem, and 46 percent as a minor nuclear waste disposal, landfills, and re- the Office of the Vice President for Aca- problem.Their attitudes may be tied to a source depletion. Consolidating the re- - demic Affairs at the University of Minne- growing and strong public concern with sponses shows Minnesotans' concern sota. Interactive research grants have water pollution. about water (water resources and water been created to encourage University • Drinking Water.The concern with water quality, including acid rain) is high (58 per- - faculty to carry out research projects pollution is also reflected in the survey cent), followed by general waste disposal 5 CITYOF\ , , _ 690 COULTER DRIVE P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer — DATE: January 7 , 1988 SUBJ: 1988 Engineering Department Goals and Objectives In my lower left-hand file drawer I have a file titled '- Goals/Ideas/"Brainstorms" . This file has served as somewhat of a outlet for frustrations on occasion as I jot down thoughts for improving certain methods of operations or reminders to me of — objectives and goals which need to be kept in mind. Quite honestly, this has been the only opportunity to review these scraps of papers and notes . As your are aware, 1987 has gone by — in a flurry of activity to the point that meeting the daily cri- ses has been the only thing we have been able to keep up with. I sincerely hope that 1988 will be different in this regard in that I strongly believe that a reasonable amount of department head time needs to be devoted to long-range planning and overall policy and goal setting and achieving. The only way to make this — happen and as such one of my primary goals for 1988 is to ade- quately staff the engineering department to meet the demands of the City on a day-to-day basis while also relieving myself on a more consistent basis for administering the needs of the department. With proper staffing, other goals which I believe are important can be addresseed such as : 1 . Timely response to council and citizen concerns/complaints . 2 . More proactive involvement in the monitoring and control of private developments design and inspection aspects . — 3 . Timely updating of City records such as base maps and as- built drawings and easement records . — Don Ashworth January 7 , 1988 Page 2 A couple of key items come to mind which are high on my list for undertaking in 1988 . These include: 1 . Stormwater drainage - The City needs to continue with storm- water management planning similar to the report which was prepared as part of the downtown redevelopment project. The Chapter 409 watershed requirements dictate that the City should be developing its own watershed management plan for the entire community in accordance with the respective watershed districts plans . A separate funding vehicle needs to be considered by the City for accomplishing this and also for providing appropriate funds for acquisition of stormwater ponding areas such as is proposed for the Ekankar property and other areas which would be identified as a result of these plans for preservation for stormwater drainage . 2 . Infiltration/Inflow - With the recent completion of the tele- vising of 30 ,000 feet of sanitary sewer this fall and with the current televising that the MWCC is doing of our existing Lake Ann Interceptor (an additional 10 , 000 feet) , sewer reha- bilitation will become a reality in 1988 . This is in accor- dance with our commitments to the Metropolitan Council in our comprehensive planning process . In addition to the sewer rehabilitation, a clear water removal program needs to be established for identifying and ultimately eliminating the private property contributions to our I/I problem which appears to be a fairly significant portion of our I/I problem. 3 . Comprehensive Planning - Updating of the City' s comprehensive plans , especially as it relates to transportation, sanitary sewer and watermain is an important goal for 1988 . Major road projects anticipated for 1988 will include the upgrade of Kerber Boulevard, the detachment of West 78th Street at Powers Boulevard and the reconstruction and bituminous sur- - facing of Bluff Creek Drive. Regarding our water system, in addition to putting our new 31 million gallon resevoir on-line by July of 1988 , our existing two elevated tanks should be inspected and painted . These items are pretty much givens as they have already been budgeted for and/or are under construction. A key challenge , however , and important link to the water system which needs to become a reality is the completion of the Lake Lucy Road watermain from Powers Boulevard to Galpin Boulevard and County Road 117 . This will add the pumping capacity of well #3 to the low service area and put to rest our sprinkling ban issue. 4 . Infrastructure Management - This item in itself could occupy an entire staff for several years, but I list it here in that Don Ashworth January 7 , 1988 — Page 3 the City needs to begin to consider establishing management controls for dealing with the timely maintenance of the existing systems . In 1988 I would hope that we could perhaps isolate on the City' s existing road system and begin research — for establishing a method for evaluating and prioritizing our road maintenance such as Frontier Trail , for example. This fits nicely with the repair work which will be planned for _ sewer maintenance. 5 . Computerization - Lastly, to maximize the productivity of our staff and to increase our capabilities , I believe it very important that the engineering department personnel be trained and strongly committed to utilizing our computer facilities and acquiring appropriate software for doing the — necessary engineering calculations and tasks which we fre- quently deal with. This also has a fit with facilitating infrastructure maintenance. — This shopping list has gotten longer than I had originally anti- cipated and perhaps is more general than I would like, however, I believe it at least presents some of the key areas and "soft — spots" which I intend to deal with in 1988 . Your and the Council' s input is obviously invited and welcome . C I TY O F - /- CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager •_. — t FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner `) \ ) DATE: January 6 , 1988 SUBJ: Review of 1987 Activities and 1988 Goals and Objectives Attached for your review are the Planning Department Goals for 1988 as well as the Department' s evaluation of goal achievement for 1987 . Also provided is a summary work tasks completed by the Planning Department and a computation of planning cases processed in 1987 compared to previous years . In reviewing 1987 work tasks , the following items stand out: 1 . Completion of all requirements of the Lake Ann Sewer Facility Agreement. 2 . Administration of 134 planning cases , a significant portion of which were rural subdivision as well as major urban sub- divisions ( Lake Susan Hills West , Saddlebrook, Kurvers Point , Shadowmere) . 3 . Adoption and implementation of the revised septic system ordinance. 4 . Continuation of the Comprehensive Plan update process which now includes a proposed trail plan . 5 . Continued participation in the Coalition of the Southwest Communities regarding the Metropolitan Council' s preparation of the water quality policy plan and the transportation policy plan. 6 . Continued participation in transportation studies such as the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition for the improve- - ment of TH 5 and TH 212 and the initiation and execution of the Joint Powers Agreement for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement and Design Study Report for TH 212 . 7 . Concept alignment review of the TH 212 corridor . Mr. Don Ashworth January 6 , 1988 _ Page 2 The Comprehensive Plan revision process is approximately 50% complete. The revised Land Use and Housing Chapters have been reviewed by the Planning Commission . A delay in the update pro- cess occurred because the Park and Recreation Commission ini- tiated the park needs survey and a comprehensive trail plan for the city. Since this effort is completed, the Planning Commission is about to begin the final review stages of the plan update. The Transportation Chapter which will undoubtedly be the most controversial as major changes are being proposed. The public hearing process that will occur this year will focus on _ the proposed new intersection of TH 101 and TH 5 just west of Dakota Avenue. Also to be discussed is the rejuvenated process for the construction of TH 212 with proposed interchanges at TH 101 and the extension of County Road 17 . While conducting the Comprehensive Plan update process , the City did meet with the Metropolitan Council several times to resolve — issues regarding the Lake Ann Sewer Facility Agreement. At this time, the City is in full compliance with that agreement. In administering the 134 cases this year ( the most cases pro- cessed since 1984 ) a number of road improvement issues surfaced. As of this date , several road improvement feasibility studies are in process : Woodduck Lane, Tanadoona Drive, Teton Lane, and the realignment of West 78th Street. These projects signify the con- tinuing infill development in the older areas of Chanhassen and also represent a positive step toward proper transportation planning. The one goal in 1987 that was not achieved was the computerization of Planning Department data. Major objectives are to develop a "land parcel based" information system as well as to develop planning case, septic system and socio-economic information retrieval . Because there now exists a coordinated effort in house to achieve this goal department wide, this goal can be achieved in 1988 . Attached are status reports of the Southwest Metro Transit Program and the Solid Waste Program. The Assistant Planner has established a smooth working program for spring and fall leaf pick-up in conjunction with the Public Works Department; however, — more work looms on the horizon as local governments are respon- sible for developing programs consistent with county and regional solid waste plans . A Solid Waste Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan will be developed by the Planning Staff for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan update process . The Southwest Metro Transit operation will reach a significant milestone in 1988 . The 18 month demonstration program will expire in June of 1988 . The Southwest Metro Board will be evaluating whether or not the decision to opt-out from the MTC Mr . Don Ashworth January 6 , 1988 Page 3 service was appropriate. As the Assistant Planner details , the Southwest Metro service has learned alot in the past year and is building on success . It appears at this point that the service will continue. The remaining goals of the Planning Department are ongoing acti- vities which are administered on a day to day basis . It should be noted that while these goals seem very general in description, these activities take up a significant portion of the Planning Department Staff' s time during the day. The Planning Commission was equally busy in 1987 . Besides the Comprehensive Plan review process , the Planning Commission was involved in the TH 212 concept alignment review process and was obviously busy with the significant amount of case load this year. Three commissioners will be appointed by the City Council in January. 1/1 - J , (D ' 7 np H. 1 (D Do n ° o i a n — a H- • n rt n os a a I- Hrt H- y�' m n c- 11 LC LC) o':, r ,I. .. , ,, '0 o — `i- ° H <cr "0 a. n il p '1. 0 0 u, < ... CD Q LQ - P , �u�ioDa R o a ~ H§ _ c1QHo n 0 o-� 0 ci CD �. (• D � n En Cn F — P- N O n c• Wn C n Cn rr O ro ( �, _ a s¢ a rt a c• �' > (-D n — H G] '-3 < H H ° n z o < o n 3 n H (D K ''' 0' ° 0 — B 0 CD rn 0 n a > rt H I n' c COcn _ 3 H H Iv z O °, CD o � — al �• c� n 9 0D 0 0 c G (D I--, rt N N — a tr rt rt'C ro O H 0H - 0 o o ron rt Cl1 m 0 — IJ rt • CD t (D ri (D rt an n ° . CD . w o Cn n • F--•(D — G (D n (D G r- ao n — rt C .~a. 0x G 2 Sp rt n I rt — -07-- o rn v, O r- aI-'� rt ¢ ro O rob rr o 1- CQn H. 0 Q, a I-- H- Oct f �J Fes• Oaj. 2, 5 p y _ -'ti n c n (D n o � H 1 m n o � `H• H• urti n N• n rt-W ri 2 2 gi art O D < 1--, n N O A) n R. it ((DD t• in W rr rrr a (D� — O u o• `gym ' '< o 0 al 1. Wr OHi ¢ N rr O CO • O n rt n H- rt Sx � hh 5o >� In LQ 0 n H — C1 1;7 n ? H ff 0 O O (D IIIn LI Z — W L La LR (D hi cn O y o 0 0 0 a O OII a' r' O 0 w L k.Q k (Ti0 rn 0 — a r rr C+ cr. }-' 1 o a bi 1-3 cn H > O PO 0 n rh (D U (al ll . (D O O C n ¢ N rr fi _ rr kC tU ro 0 o n o n F•+ 0 rf• to Pi rr F-'• " Ii • CD n' w (D FI (D cr O. O n O (D . Co 0 — tnng - 01 'II "G (moo 1-'(D O n Al N • • :-,- O H4-4 - O.O (: rt < CD ~' 0) 3 a)— rr 0 co L. I R -Qf_- `J 0 — co Iv tri r- � Cr 0 00h (D n 0 - , me 0 n r I- F 3LC i , o 0 F t to 't7 n OIL M > CD hi L8 H. rt-� O m �4 r- H- 0 'va � m ooHi 9 CD 'Li — 8a � • 0 (`�ONpQ., o a ~ N• n �' r• n ` . - 4 m a (D � �, ta N - H Om c• aH• 0 � m CD rt- cn cn ,pzi a) p0 p P.ri- H - a � cL Q., ¢ 1< 0' n H H N t� n1-1 Z .. - •0 ' CD r1 CI urt 0 C O 0 1-3 LQ n CD CD rn 0 O 0. > r rr t- rr 1-, 1 O c a C Cr) - • II I3 l0 0 ' ' H op r-' 1-` Dl Z corn o - in 1:u • r• o co r o n i b - c\O CO M dP 11 C] rt . a a r Gin 0o0 • D - • (D H (r CR 0 0 iz uw rt rt.kC • b n r• 0 :] CD ron 1� 0 ~ Ct (A b - D Di O- r Z CD F1 CD rr O. 0 1-1 (D - CD Au O • U1 I-S 'a <• `< 3 F--,(D r� - • 0 n (D r- - O. O C �, — rr < vct O co Pi 2 v rr O 1 rr _0( _ 17 , �1 01 Ul 0 • VI H- At H"0 Y O b ro rt O W to H• 0 rh G. H- G., A C `� L4 rr a) n n g (D n 1-1 • • ,° 2C ° n n nN "ro � n H. H n- H F • Oct cn r0 rrn N A ) rr o it) (D (Drt.- pi I-' U P. 'rJ ar n S. a . o H Eg hi rh n - H. OmH. mcn cnrrr� rt G� d `" •� � • - o ° A, °, a H rhmg ct 0 o rr M O R, HCn - G n `a (D > O �0 �0 (D Hi . kG I U:0 OOHL.G kG4 ° (D tri • 0 HI cJ En A I- n me H• G� n (D o cD • .. (D N rr Cl) H. Sa. n O- M-'-C ro i- n ~'0 o - ° n H [D r• co G At rr- H- ti G (D n' A) (D hi n rr f.2. (D n O (D A) O (n hi It — C-4 . I--•(D G (D G n > f N.: 0 n CJ H• .r• s✓O n Cr C H, () _ AJ D co rr 0 --.I I G ,, rr PLANNING CASES 1984 1985 1986 1987 — Appeals 0 1 0 0 Conditional Use Permits 20 14 4 19 Land Use Plan Amend. 5 3 2 4 Litigations 0 2 1 1 Planned Unit Developments 3 6 1 3 — Rezoning 4 5 2 3 Sign Permits 8 22 14 10 Site Plan Reviews 5 12 4 7 — Subdivisions 26 24 31 38 Vacations 5 5 6 9 — Variances 19 28 18 16 — Wetland Alteration 0 2 3 16 Zoning Ordinance Amend . 0 2 6 8 — 95 126 92 134 SUMMARY OF WORK TASKS - 1987 CITY PLANNER - Supervise Development Review Process - Comprehensive Plan Update Process - Community Development Block Grant Administration - Southwestern Metropolitan Communities Liason between staff group with J. Boland and elected officials - TH 212 Concept Alignment Review Process - TH 5 and 212 Corridor Coalition Meeting - Transportation Advisory Committee to Met Council ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER - Board of Adjustments and Appeals - Solid Waste Committee/Recycling - Administer Development Review Process - Day to day building permit review - MTC Opt-Out Liason SECRETARY - Report preparation ( PC, CC, HRA, BOA) - Public hearing and referral mailings - Minutes (BRA and BOA) - Building reports (monthly) - Day to day correspondence - Flood plain/zoning requests - Reproduction of zoning maps - Building and plumbing permits - Mail and phones C I TY O F \ , . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager _ FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: December 14 , 1987 SUBJ: Park and Recreation Job Descriptions and Goal Statements Attached please find a review of the goals set for the Park and Recreation Department in 1987 . I have reviewed and evaluated _ each of the goals and I believe we had a successful year . Also attached, I have prepared job descriptions for the Park and Recreation Assistant and Coordinator. I have prepared them as I envision them appearing in the Position Classification Plan. Along with the job descriptions I have prepared a rough draft of what the 1988 goals would be for each of us . _ I would like to schedule a time to discuss these items in more detail . Please review the attached material and let me know when would be a convenient time for you. Attachments 1 . 1987 Goal Evaluation. 2 . Coordinator Job Description. 3 . Assitant Job Description. 4 . Coordinator 1988 Goals . 5 . Assistant 1988 Goals . CITYOF G CHANHASSEN \ , k _ f 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: November 19 , 1987 SUBJ: Review of 1987 Goals Last December we discussed and agreed upon the 1987 goals for the Park and Recreation Department ( attached) . I would like to take this time to review those goals before I begin planning 1988 . 1 . Updating the Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Park and Recreation Commission has gone through a number of steps to reach this goal . They have conducted a park needs sur- vey to determine what facilities are considered most important and are most needed by the city' s residents . They have developed a comprehensive trail plan as a result of that survey, which includes three different phases of development. The Commission has also looked at new ways to implement this plan by recom- mending the adoption of a new trail dedication fee. Currently the Commission is in the process of reviewing a final draft of the plan, making last minute refinements . It is expected that the finished product will be ready for Council review by the first of the year. 2 . Develop goals , objectives and philosophy for the department. Although I have not formally written up a philosophy statement, I feel that the goals and objectives as well as the general philo- sophy of this department are reflected in the revised Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan. 3 . Develop 5 Year Capital Improvement Program. — I have made a lot of progress on this project and will go to the Park and Recreation Commission with a preliminary draft in January. The Commission will make any changes they deem necessary and include it in the Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan . Mr. Don Ashworth Review of 1987 Goals _ Page 2 The development of the 5 Year CIP was quite an achievement for me as I first had to master the techniques of Symphony. In doing so I have been able to put everything on the computer, thus enabling me to update it easily and extract specific information as — needed. 4 . Coordinate community events . The Park and Recreation Department 1987 community events were very successful . All of the programs were well received by the community as we had record attendance at all of the events . — The Easter Egg Hunt went off without a hitch . We had entertain- ment this year, a new activity for this program. The children participating enjoyed Hannah Hare and Penelope the Pink Pobble, made Easter baskets , entered the coloring contest, and hunted for hidden Easter candy. The Fourth of July Celebration was a two day event this year and was combined with the ground breaking ceremony for the downtown redevelopment. Activities, including a fishing contest, family — games, softball tournaments, canoe races , and innertube races were held at Lake Ann Park on the July 3rd. A street dance with free hotdogs was held at City Center Park on the July 4th, with fireworks following. We had a great turn out for the dance this year as it was free. 5 . Assemble Park and Recreation Brochure Seasonally. — The brochure has been distributed through the South Shore Weekly News on a seasonal basis . Each brochure has offered new programs as well as traditional programs that continue to be popular . The brochure is designed to list all of the recreational , leisure and athletic opportunities offered in Chanhassen, including Community Education classes, CAA activi- ties, as well as those offered by this department. This year we experimented with using the Chamber Post as a — distributor . The cost was somewhat less, but the number of registrations received from each ( South Shore and Post) were the same. We have discussed more ways in which to market programs and events for 1988, such as working with District 112 in a com- bined brochure. 6 . Establish new adult recreational sports leagues . — This item goes hand-in-hand with marketing, as we have found that people must hear about programs at least three or four times — before they take action. Adults continue to seek recreational opportunities and we are researching new ways to get information to the potential participants . Mr. Don Ashworth Review of 1987 Goals Page 3 This year we have started a fall softball league, which was very successful . Planned for the upcoming winter are broomball, hockey, basketball , and volleyball leagues . 7 . Direct the operation of the indoor ice facility. This proved to be a difficult task in the 1986/87 season as we had such warm temperatures. We were unable to keep ice on a regular basis , which was not only frustrating for me, but also for the people booking ice time. Although it may seem that the quality of ice was due to the lack of good maintenance and opera- tions , it was simply impossible to maintain ice with temperatures consistently above freezing. The 1987/88 season may be difficult as well , as we have not been able to flood as of yet. However , once ice is made, the purchase of the zamboni should improve the quality of ice drastically. 8 . Continue to keep the Park and Recreation Commission updated. I have made every effort to have as much information available to the Commission as they review park and recreation related items . — I have also made a conscious effort to report back to the Com- mission as to what the City Council action on these items has been . I believe the Commission would say that they are kept abreast of Council activity on a timely basis . 9 . Oversee and complete the ballfield lighting project at Lake Ann Park. This project, I am happy to report, is completed and all refunds to the City from the state grant office have been made . We were able to use the lights all summer and into the fall for baseball and softball games . 10 . Continue to serve on the CAA board as the City liaison. This function of my job has been turned over to the new Park and Recreation Assistant as of June of this year . The CAA has made some drastic changes on it' s board of directors and, in doing so, has required a great deal more assistance from the City than I think was originally intended. This will have to be re-evaluated in the upcoming year. 11 . Work out the details for park entrance to Herman Field. This was just recently accomplished at the Council level , in that approval was given to actively pursue the Forest Avenue access route . Our next step in this process will be to have the park plan revised and look into the development cost changes that this will represent . This has been a much slower process than I had Mr. Don Ashworth Review of 1987 Goals _ Page 4 anticipated, however there is a neighborhood group that is awa- kening and they are not in favor of park development. I will continue to work on this project throughout the winter so as to be able start development in the spring. — 12 . Hire and Supervise an intern . I am very pleased that not only did this goal get accomplished, — but Todd' s position was made permanent in the 1988 budgetary pro- cess . Todd has worked out remarkably well in the area of programming and special events . He is a "take charge" type of — person who can anticipate what needs to be done and proceed accordingly. Todd was very much a part of the planning team for the Fourth of July Celebration, Golf Tournament and Halloween — Party. He has started new adult leagues in fall softball , volleyball, and basketball, and done a terrific job in the seasonal brochures distributed through the South Shore Weekly News . 13 . Assist schools in integrating the school with the community. Although I have been available to Gayla and Mac, this program has — not been pursued as originally planned. 14 . Other objectives: _ - Attend computer workshops - I was able to attend the workshop introducing Symphony. This was very beneficial as it enabled me to work in Symphony to set up the 5 Year CIP with little assistance. — - Attend professional meetings - I have become more active in the MRPA and attend their spring and fall conferences . These conferences have been very helpful in keeping me up to date with the Park and Recreation field. It also enables me to do some networking with other recreational professionals to gleen practical information and methods . - Monitor issues in other communities - This has been possible through the conferences I have attended as well as — reading monthly publications published by the MRPA. Park and Recreation Coordinator' s 1988 Goals The following are the goals and objectives that I have for the Park and Recreation Department in 1988 : 1 . Provide the Community Center Task Force and the Park and Recreation Commission with support they will need to dissemi- nate information to the community regarding the referendum issues , i .e. community center , Lake Ann Park development, — trail plan, and park acquisition in southern Chanhassen. 2 . Finalize and have adopted the Recreation Section of the — Comprehensive Plan, including the City-wide trail plan. 3 . Now that direction has been given as to which access point to pursue , finalize park plan and work out details so as to enable development of Herman Field in 1988 . 4 . Once the referendum is passed, work on the details to pursue timely construction of the Community Center, trails, and park development . 5 . Provide direct supervision to the Recreation Supervisor to enable the completion of the goals established for that posi- tion. 6 . Continue to keep the Park and Recreation Commission updated, and provide supportive data and sound recommendations . — 7 . Work more closely with the Planning and Engineering staff to ensure a comprehensive review of all development plans, enabling better communication, not only between departments , but also to developers . 8 . Oversee the completion of projects outlined in the 1988 Capi- tal Improvement Program. 10 . Oversee the completion of the development at North Lotus Lake Park. 11 . Other Objectives : -Attend computer workshops as necessary to continue the com- - puterization of park and recreation activities and files . -Attend professional meetings to keep updated on current recreational trends , legislation, and maintain an involve- ment in the networking process . -Monitor park and recreation issues in other communities . -Monitor and remain current on park and recreation issues that effect Chanhassen . -Continue educational growth. CITYOF _ \ 1 , GCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator FROM: Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor //V DATE: December 8 , 1987 SUBJ: 1988 Goals The following is a list of my 1988 goals : 1 . Establish regular staff meetings between the Par and Recreation Coordinator, Park Maintenance staff , and the _ Recreation Supervisor to promote a team philosophy enabling staff to maintain a high level of quality throughout Chanhassen recreational facilities providing opportunity for positive recreational experiences . 2 . Maintain a high level of communication with the Park and Recreation Coordinator and the Park and Recreation Commission by submitting a monthly written report concerning recreational programs and issues . 3 . Compile a recreation index, to be updated quarterly, listing all the recreation programs, classes , special events and other related opportunities available to area residents . 4 . Work with District 112 Community Education and the Chaska Park and Recreation Department to combine programs or leagues which cannot be supported separately in each community. 5 . Identify specific areas of deficiency in recreation programs for all age groups in Chanhassen and work to fulfill those _ needs . 6 . Actively pursue continued education in the recreation field by attending the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association Annual Conference, becoming an active member of the National Recreation and Parks Association, enrolling in classes and workshops, and obtaining certification in identified areas of _ need. Ms . Lori Sietsema December 8 , 1987 Page 2 7 . Continue development of Chanhassen ' s special events, including the 4th of July Celebration, the Easter Egg Hunt, the Chanhassen Invitational Golf Tournament, and the Halloween Party. 8 . Develop new special events of interest to the community such as a winter festival or invitational softball tournament. 9 . Continue involvement with the Chanhassen Athletic Association as City Liaison to their board to help coordinate a quality comprehensive youth sports program in Chanhassen. 10 . Continue to promote and develop adult recreation oppor- tunities such as winter volleyball, winter basketball, broom- - ball, summer and fall softball , sand court volleyball, tennis, horse shoes, etc. 11 . Supervise daily operation of the ice skating and hockey facili- ties at both the Indoor Ice Arena and City Center Park. Develop a comprehensive ice skating program and in cooperation with the Chaska/Chanhassen Hockey Association, a quality hockey program. 12 . Gain increased awareness of the Lake Ann Beach program and other aquatic program offerings in the area to determine if they are meeting the need for aquatic programs in Chanhassen. Re-evaluate the contract with Minnetonka Community Services for providing the Lake Ann Beach Program to determine if it best meets our needs . 13 . Supervise a quality summer and winter seasonal employment program by holding employee orientation meetings , establishing employee guidelines and procedures , and by main- taining a schedule of periodic evaluations . 14 . Assemble information about park facilities , recreational leagues , class offerings , and programs for seasonal publica- tion in the Chanhassen section of the newspaper . CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee , Public Safety Director, 1 DATE: January 7 , 1988 SUBJ: 1988 Goals The following goals and objectives have been derived from input from all levels of the department. They are consistent with the ever changing and growing needs of the community. Public Safety Goals To plan, organize , direct and control the various functions per- formed by departmental employees toward the prevention of crime, enforcement of laws , ordinances , and codes , and the protection of life and property. Objectives 1 . Public Safety Administration: a . Begin computer utilization consistent with data demands placed on public safety to include, fire, building , police contract, code enforcement, inspections , licenses/permits , budget, revenue, etc. b . A constant budget review process will be established to maintain firmer control of all Public Safety budgets . c . License and permit procedures to be reviewed by the Assistant Public Safety Director for incorporation into his division. d. Implementation of Public Safety contacts with the public at homeowners association meetings , etc. to discuss problem areas in zoning, code enforcement, crime preven- tion, fire safety/education , and general safety concepts . Mr . Don Ashworth January 7 , 1988 Page 2 — e. Regular meetings , quarterly, monthly, weekly, etc. with various support agencies : — 1 ) Waconia Ridgeview Hospital - John Devins , twice a year 2 ) Wallin/Castleberry - once a month — 3 ) Pagelkopf - twice a month 4 ) Fire Chief - regularly 5 ) Building Inspectors - twice a month — 6 ) City Manager - Weekly 7 ) County Civil Defense Director - quarterly 8 ) Public Safety Commission - monthly — 2 . Building/Code Enforcement Division a. Assist contractors , builders , and homeowners with — construction questions and concerns . Several methods to accomplish this will be reviewed, i .e. regular monthly meetings , newsletters , and articles in local newspaper . — b . Assist other city departments with planning for code/zoning and life/fire/safety issues . Twice monthly meetings will be scheduled with all departments invited. — c . Integreate with other departments ' goals to achieve city wide goals . — d . Establish effective procedures to document complaints received, follow through and final resolution. — e . Work toward cohesive effort of plan review between Fire Inspector and Building Inspector. f . Continually review desired service levels as dicated by Council and personnel modification to accomplish same . 3 . Animal Control a . Re-evaluate levels of service and methods/resources available to meet the needs . b . Implement impound and licensing procedures that compli- ment each other . — 4 . Fire Department a . Enhance recruitment efforts to maintain and upgrade pre- sent manpower levels . b. Work on voter approval of Fire Department referendum. c . Coordinate referendum results if approved by voters . d . Purchase and outfit new fire chief/grass rig. Mr. Don Ashworth January 7 , 1988 Page 3 S . Civil Defense a. Establish E.O.C. procedures (emergency operations center) . b . Obtain Civil Defense Director State Certification . c . Appoint Assistant Civil Defense Director . — d . Complete study of outdoor warning device system. iPD JQD in D ku >� Q - /� • • VI■ • [n • ILD .o u C W. • w >. E C .1 0 m • 4 7 ro O•. . U > C u m 4 . >C • F oaqg w1n 4 * a • > H o a * Z O W • .. 4 F • Op CO -I a m m •. ZwC P. sH liPalirh C a .4 .]O w 4 • m 0 0 ..1 * •.. o 0, a a w U CO' a .. • H • W.. C 4.1 C C • • w O u-.1 m E • •. tr.` W-.1 m Y • .0 w`Y■ m ai m AI u L I • (• 4�, O • y1 _ a B E .a • >. >. E * 1 m 4 C. 4 ac♦ F / DV443 •-+ v 7 0 C H wa . u U) • •.+ C w0044 4 C C a w H 0 ro C a r• � J • ro 4 CD cr. •• Fl IN V• CO N CO CO ••WI M.a 0 s 4) O 1. U c m * IC • • CO N • ..N N h Ol 1•1 N 10 / ■A •.1 m 0 m 4 U • V)1. 4 m • w Z •• CO 1� I� co h Vl.0 e0 h N 411) uluro > e C : go 2 • 41•0 •o Nu1 O N N CO 464) 0, tIl • E C O ° U • V E ♦ WO 4 Ul m Ml h r1 N Ul Ul U1 P P .0 U1 u O-.1 A m 0 C • >C • •. V u U A m W • C 7 4 C C a u 4 •• • .7 • H Z G ZZZZZ H H Z �_� u ° vv m o a E. .a1fa. E CC £ ao 0-1 EqXXqXXq aaaaaaaaa qA V 000000000 00 00000 C ..44 C .J 4) • E « Goa QHO 44a4 1 EEXEEEEXE m 0 O m C 1., m • • E U O u .1 4 C CUua .+ .. ONE. ... ZZZ ZZZ ZZZ2Z ZZZZZZZZZ 1. 7 a Q a a • m 0 m )4-1C > Uro 'fl mw 0 • * / 0 7 C .0 a •.. F 14 -- -.-4 a u a 4, UV • 1, C •4 O 4) U p0, 4 z . U U a 0 a 0 0 0 0 V cJ U Alli4 .mi o-. 0 C 7 U) + a s Sa 3. m a )°ca �°caaoZa ro • o • sw \ \\z \s \\w x \s \ C \x =a: o a CO 0 0w m • .7 • I ZN oo I P I r•1 CO Z I •11 10a' 10 I I a m m 0 01,4> 0 C • •* O N U1 U1 P INV' ... 00 P N P Ill 4 P O P P 4 4 X Y-.1 4 C C • E 4 * N Z N .1.-I N .N •M Z N M N N V N N N N 04,40 u u 7 4 m 0 a • 0- O >.G d L CD . 0 › . U1 0 0 CO C,o U1 0 CO O IA 0) C)C) P h U1 CO ..0 Ms a a • a.O O 100o h 0 .-1 U1 h 0 mr.01 N0104410 ^� '0 >• A 4 v. 4 -.4> •• x V1 • N N 0 U1 0. WS 01 O N N P .-.N N N.. N .-. N / .- a 1J '0 u) 0, -Y L •O C m In u) N a a 4 7 •.Cm - ID-.. 4 • W • 0 N C �, m C 4, . •W • . 0 `t 4• W W • Q O Q 4 >, V .. •.. m C-.+ v) I>r • • 4 a o InQ4 CO • a. aZZ4 h • 44U) a • a4al. C - A 7ro V) ro c • ca . Eam .1 gZ03 co EXZZZ CO OZZMZgZZ ; 7 >. a A 7 7 a ..1 • G ♦ h .0 .o O u 1., A A E • / a V •. w ut u ro • 0 + .. m - -I u C 10 • • • r.l M .•1 a • CO a a 0, 0 y 0 m..m. • Z N • 4 •.1 m -.. C E U HI • 0H h •• O U •.1.. C C••+ a E. U1 • J-, -N U a a 4 W •.1 • O 0. CO P E C •. O. m W 1. D. Ca N ♦ / 4 .'� ..•.. m > m m H .0 ♦ 01 co U1 +1 a o u c o b a o .o 0 0.•.. u 0,w a E. o * - ... C C 0 C .ti ., •OW -C. L E C C +� E * N G ,on •♦ IN 0. ..... .. •-; .� . E 4 u •e• •.1 C CO CO CO ro 0 4 O. C m u) * >. ,11 . 4 u u O O we m U • . H .. 0,.-OW ...4.1 .. .1 .- .. O .. -- a 7 .•. m tv 4 h •• 0 G c C 4 O VI CD > •.. •• Ca r•. • .1 .. ..i 17 0 :9 vl >. m 0 4 O, ".4 m u 'O U C. m • COw 0 • .O C 0 .D V1 m a C .1 C E a x .n .. a a .. .. c1, C •.. 4 7 - U .. L. r44, a e 4 0 . a a.1 .1 01 a a+ Z ro a 0 +1 H m • C C C a U CAL In •• • CO m m >›, m m 7 u C * T. • 0 �� u 0. I A E O. 0 • • • CO o P o . m u co P V• 01 N Ul 0 Ul P U1 P O a,1 o 0 o ... 0 4) 4, 4 -.1 w IO • VI U F u1 4 m 0 a.1-.4 • w • .4 v1 O, co 7 co 7 co Ill 0l h h 01 N- P.-)N u1 0 7 h N M m w a .0 w a c >.• E 4 : h 10 10 •0 V.0 •'b 10 ,0 ,0 10 U1 P .D N h h ,0 N 'n Ul N f0 1 ..1 0 O.0 U 7 .-. • TE / IIP u m u) .. .. • • 4 4 4 > C C ro o c •4 .. a • `Z H 00 .10 •.1 a C • w ..1 . H H4 .. v1 h ..h U) U) .. .... .. .. h .. .. .. •• .'4.4 .1 .•444 C . ON . U 0 0 U U m Jana w w .-1 1 a C 4.1 a C C • H a .4 H > 4 -..-.1 'O OE .1 N in H m VI u U 41 C C '0 • 11 /.I 14 E 44 asv. ... a m e 4 m ♦ E. E. E • .. -. C 6 E 70 u ♦ • Z 4 >• 4 >. CO .1 O.C 7 4 E E > o . • 0 F F E 0 HE -•1 e O o ..• 0 7 • • .-7 1.) 4) Z D. V) >. 'y >. N 4) Y h '.1 a e u. U C b, a• Z . X H ME. E. >. V >. E aa gat AO- a 2or..YirtC . *v ... � a u O . 0044 a VZ0 O 02U a V0H 0 F H2 O Z Z 2 0 O On. G 4 W W m • H ♦ 7 F 0 0 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. H v1 X 44 0 >4 A * U . UI O Z CO ZOO Z U 0 H O V CO OZ 0 H Z a x a F V U 0 H 0. 0 U00 0 Z >• 400H1• w / w n •4 a . COow w4471,4 4 2 CO Ha OF » H F .{ H F W Z 4 4 4 W 4 O w - -1 • H ♦ NWH ZU) Z O = E > OOZZ Zz XZ 4 • CO * w Wa w H XZO Oar� 00 0 • ZCY >. 0 Alia • h .4Z 3 x E 043inu wwwouwZmaa / D er ar OF or sr _ or • «a �, • N •+S• f ~ •••. E • W > f ar • >. m • - • * F U 0. f v. M Z • H u O o a * • > W • er • W 0 a F • m • 4 O. avl • 0 • 0 4 + ~ • 0f Off • w ° M In _ N • u1 mr N F • Ui M aE ' • •• (4 >+ • H (a. VI 4. Air • > O a f M M • 00 W W 0• F • Z au] . fir M N o •• a 0 r M r m m Mva IA. . LAf r In r .0 In aNAA M .•. In N • w Z • N r In In 00000 In 0 a a H • 417- 4 O Z . 0. 0 . N . o W of W 0 • a g H rl Z . m w 4-4 m A .-1 In m W A • U + N 0 0 a M a M M M M Irr • >4 • • « W Wf Z Z ZalZ Z Z Z OZ ZZZZ Z 2v12 • 0 . H H H a H H H H a H H H H H H M 4 M �s • N • qEq 0 0 0 0 0 17 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 Eq 0 0 qEq o qEq 0 0 0 0 0 qEq 0 qEq a a Eq o o Eq a Eq v 1 • H . 4 E Z 4 Z Z E E E E Z Z Z E 4 V 4 E E 4 Z Z 4 Z 4 4 0 4 E 4 4 4 4 E E 4 E E 4 H 4 • 0 \E + Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z >. Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z + • • •• • • F. W • ° � .7 rr a �. {� �ay so�ft' .LL.44 /K� µ4,, W W H `�J, . O U .Z . U U U V ..77 cJ U U O V a a 0 U V 3 04 a4 . 000 00 00 HO 00 a >• O HOOa H0000O ►4 > • In • EZZ N a \E E E E x a s E E E E E E E 4 • o * \\\ x \\xm \\x \\xx \\ x xO \ \\N. xa \\\\\\N IMF a • 000 100 I 100 1 .11n I 101n 1 4 10041noo v14 I I NOo00004 • r In o V M Ina a.n A a N O a V M N d• Oqj\a .O In \N.n O N a a N O N N O In H (.. M N N N N N N N M N N . M N N N.•. N V E N M H Z. • H N m Z N N • M .. M .-1 N • • 0 › .. O o0 N N N 0 I VI 0 0 0 A l0 O M A.4 a N O N N m a 0 O N In a A O N O NW a of N IO of O lag . M .-1 O ..m a .I r O r ul m a N m .-4 r N m r r A l0 r a l0 l0 of'.O N .-I N m M M N N a In M • z 0 • .. ...1 .. N .. v1.-1 H .. .-1 M .. .-. .-1 .. • m • • 4.. .- w emr 44444 4444 44 4 4 a 4 44 4 a • a a a a a 4 4 U• Z a a a 0 4 4 4 a a 4 4 4 4 0. m m o m 4 4 O U a a 440. 0. 40. 4 C *• m .• E E E E E E E m Z E E E E E m m E E E m E E E m m m Z m E Z m E m E E E E E E m o • 0 • '0 A.) • .. • O •• elak • Z In • a O r • o H Y • F N • a s. • 0 1. . >. m N « Y H .O • O I 0 • 4 a • el Oa. - •.+ rl F O + C • 40 . • H •.1 • N H 0 • N 6 • a sn • a y� 0 4 • >. u1 • u . • .4 to.. HHHHH .. H .....-1H 0•H 0•0•.. .1.1.1. H 0• H .-4 0•0• >, • Z Na C C C C C N C C _ ..I ...... .. •.1•.+ C • 0 M • .O •o so Ts Ti -. •o 'O Sao 0 0 • C C C C C vt CC o W m o • • • .. .. .... ..A.-. m • u• • a V1 . a a a s a .-. am a N • ,. • ... 4.4 Y Y Y a Y Y 614. • C C C C C C C y + • • • • 0 • m m - 00 I • .6 y • .7.� • L A M N VI .D N h A r M A O O L m *+ Y�h .. a m M.-. �J C. m A O Vl 10 r r Y Y N 1n O M h 1n Q. a4 f M y y y y y M y • W .] • H 7 to m l0 H 0 N 0 N .-1 UI H A H 7.n 7 7 N Y1 m lD.n m 7 N l0 N H A t0 A N 611 a 1n r .. 0 Y * , 4 • IONS.)'.!n l0 .D 1D IO r .n,r Vl In 10 In'n/n'n'n ul In a N l0 In a M y a u1 •n•N a a a a a a •,y. •• � + 4 4 44 4 44 OVE C • • - .. • 1.. a « .-1 r .. .-1 H H .4 H H .. .. .....-1.-I h .-I r r . .. . ..N H H H H .. ...4 VI r r 0• • O a • m m m m m V m m A A A A H A A rri .` • St W •Z . A M H .-. H .. E. .-. .. M • m . a a W E. 4 N er .t E E. 10 A . i H >. w s F .] O N Z a C • z z w z w > xO 4 ,y • 0 • W W H 0 .70 .7 W 04 W 3a a H W E H • > U a E K. a a 0 > x a a a W 0 w w Z z er H . w 0 OH x 3 4040 W 4 wt. . 0 x� x W0 >. • U . 0 aZ O 0W W W > aa4 • a >• O v1E > HZ w a Y • H • .] 0 >• >• O4 ..7H m a H W t7HF .-I Uav) W04 IAH a W 0 4 Hz S ... • 0 • H W aw3a4a O > ZU • mUH Z ] Z .aZv1 .> >• wo. OaF OZE4 CJ - ' V • 0 + Z > Z WWW W E ' ( ZW W 4HaE > !4HmH4H .70Ea W > O 0x • H . 4 W H a 0 0 a Z u1 F a O F O w O H W �W ( 0 m O F ..I Z F E vI 0 4 ZOO $ Z 1-1 W • a • 0 VI �t a 0 E a O .7 H .7 U x O a O m ��yy N H 0 a O 4 0 .12 .x4 • O a of ] • 40 .74aag0aw w �� f120 000 �C < H00X x Oa W Faa ° �e • '1 * wam mt.. wu2 , Hu3 ...1a = a0xor •. UI E0EUI1OIna - I�jYs anal* a ab • 4 ei. • . • in a 4 r • a o • 10 •• Cal >. H • — • a • • ? m Sk (Ai O Hu 4. N • OW • L « 1I Qw a E * `co • a ae • Z 11.4 a 04 • •• AH • • • V) x • �'/ 1', • ao4 « v �^ W ...All • a, ? E • 9 0 (p A • ErH 4. In • « > o a • T • w DIw « M o 0 a iso Inc 0 y• 11. O. W O • a a 0 N o in M 1.1 xQ • 4. Z M a HI In O'sT M v• N VD NI „•I • H H • Q • g z # co M 0 O M ul O • IILG a H • CO N VI 0 I", m VD N O. ' • U # N en VI • en I", N ry w • w « Z 2 2 Z 2 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 H 0 2 2 2 2 k * a « H H H H H H H H H H H H FI H H H N a H H H H ' • E • £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ a £ £ Z £ £ £ x a O £ £ £ £ ••• H . ❑ 44444q4444qZ4q4q4444UZt) 4q4 ❑ ❑ • -( H . QQQQ .S �¢ QQ4 •C £ .S .CQQQQU £ UQQQQ �rt • O \E x z z Z Z Z Z z z z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z 2 Z Z z 2 Z Z z 7- * 4 1 W F w « ''' • C U x w 41 w t • a. .4 0 OHOH as u H E Haan Y F- la __is • LA3 * £ £ £ £ £ ZZNza Z £ ozzEz * z, o • N NN.NN.wNN.0N w \£ £ N. £ £ Q .n 5a 00111 \�� V • .aj . O N CO N 20 n 00 I Z 1 OO n0001 OoN V .nv ON NInr NNN >� • H 4 « rvZo .. .H • z .-1 . N .-Iry oz • •• « ,2 J a > « O m A CO 0 1 0 C M CO 0 0 CO N CO r IN ! eT r M M N a a a « U1 N H N .-1 O'M.-I O' '0 N H .1 H ,1 r -� . 2 • wIn • • •w « Q S •• a « as is ¢ �n• aa• a ¢ In• izza, zzza ¢ Inza • v, m r4/1 ..... ,� • ,., • o • G * £ W m £ m tq m £ £ £ m £ 2 2 £ 2 2 2 m £ m 2 £ m o 0 • •• O Z u'1 • en O I. 0 r « Coa o • H •h • I1 «• O E. N # wZl ui >, La * ,11 cory * O; 0 4, • a H N 0 ♦ Q x c' ••'1 '� • .] H o • M U C • Q C) HI •• V1 H O • " 10 M n E •• ❑ In # a N 0 • « Q • •>+ In • • U • * 01 171 0' tr1 • Z r1 •• .Ci .r'I a ..CI con W + • w C • '0 '0 .0 .0 0n 7 • d o • C C C C N >4 O • 14 • x H .-I H H .-I .-I 0 .-I III .-I 0 H1 HI H.••I . H .-1 H .-I .-I .1 .y .4 .-1 $d :`. U « r4. Ni •• a a a a .•I •••1 s• .-, YI .A QI c c c c al OAS m E E a 0 • �" 9 E 6 B 46 ornInrM .ti ., va, In ., D,rNIn uInu10oMrnoo In .-i II • w • lD 01 CO r M O' 7 U1 7 .1 7 r M 0 0 7 10 01 N 10 O.CO m CO In (0 =.•Aill .. 4 £ 4 • el el M M O''I--.M M'!1 en en M O' N N en N en Cl N N en .�• InIA # * 4 4 4 4 C • « ••I • 4. a • .1 .-• I .1 .-I H H r .-1 N H r H.-I .-I .I r .-I .1 .I H .-1 .-I H HI U1 .r (li =amir ,d •• O a • CO CO COU r CO Q • ac c£a . ... HI HI O1i E. x H it1. • * H E m • • H E or, • 4. InE. Q '6 • Z E. N a.) • ' 1 xz Q � u x a E. Hz Z a�j > O OQO ca . . N La an z a'I • U * .]] HZyaOaO 0. 003QaQO ..# aZt3 43 40Zc4H00 * 431iHL4w £ ZF4QHZL ( 40 ( 0 a.)U • A * 0 IAHoawa00 SOwaZ 4 0aa1:40Z44. '+ * Qww � u ZUEHn4az O ❑ 0LwLHn-. L4-1 • a > xa a • oa > >+ 2xuaa ❑ uHuazu O • 1 < I4. UUIHZH 4QwH44. OQZx4H0. 00 n * 3 z s o n m H w > a H a Z Ink ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Correspondence to and from Halla Nursery. Letter to property owners on Bluff Creek Drive dated April 26, 1988. Letter to Roger Gustafson dated April 25 , 1988 . Letter to Ron Harnack, DNR, dated May 4 , 1988 . Letter from MnDOT dated May 3 , 1988 . Memo from Jim Chaffee dated April 19, 1988 . Memo from Gary Warren dated May 4 , 1988 . Memo from Harold Brose dated May 3 , 1988 . Memo from Barbara Dacy dated May 5 , 1988. Letter from BRW dated April 22, 1988 . Public Safety Statistics for March. Letter to Bernie Hamilton dated May 6 , 1988 . Letter to Corey Johnson dated May 2 , 1988 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated May 6 , 1988. HRA Accounts Payable. • CITY o f i .� frs:,�� V" CHANHASSEN - � G _ 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 May 4 , 1988 Halla Nursery Attn: Mr. Don Halla 10000 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Halla: I am in receipt of your letter of April 20 , 1988 regarding a donation of trees in commemoration of Selmer E. and LaVina M. Halla. I have discussed this issue with our engineers and we believe the form of commemoration you have asked for can be achieved. By this letter, I am asking Jim Lasher (BRW) to contact you regarding details of the commemoration as well as type of stock/ location for such. Thank you again for your letter. Sincerely, Don Ashworth City Manager — DA:k cc: Jim Lasher, BRW ` , L, r A4A II 1 27.///4&t4e o �y5 ..y.. ~ "LANDSCAPE DESIGNERS, CONTRACTORS, GROWERS" INC. 1 ! so▪ 4' ti't•t,i�E' MAILING ADDRESS 100010Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, Minnesota 55318 100 Acre Growing Range- 3 Miles South of Chanhassen on HWY 101 (612) 445-6555 April 20, 1988 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive — Chanhassen, MN 55317 ATTN: Barb Dacy Dear Barb; Halla Nursery would like to donate three 6"-10" trees for use on the expansion of city hall or for use in the center of mall area which is being developed for Chanhassen. These varieties could be Pin Oak, Ash, Linden or Sunburst Locust. The only thing that we would ask for in return would be a plaque put up for these trees in commemoration of Selmer E. Halla and LaVina M. Halla. I will be back in my office Thursday, April 28Lh if there is any further information you may need. — Sincerely, AIL 6' 7 C fCCezL_ — -. Don E. Halla, President Halla Nursery, Inc. — APR 2 2 1988 CITY OF CHANf-,ASSLAI DEH/skj "THE PLACE TO GO FOR PLANTS THAT CROW" YOUR "NATIONAL LANDSCAPE AWARD"WINNING NURSERY FOR DESIGNING & PLANTING SHADE TREES • EVERGREENS • FLOWERING CRABS • FRUIT TREES • FLOWERING SHRUBSHEDGING • GROUND COVERS • FERTILIZERS S LANDSCAPE CONSULTATION • INSECTICIDES • PRUNING • LARGE TREE MOVING • INSURANCE CLAIMS • DESIGNING , .r CITYOF CHANHASSEN - � G _ 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 April 26 , 1988 Re: Bluff Creek Drive Roadway Improvements Project No. 80-5 Dear Property Owner: Construction season is once again upon us and I know from telephone conversations I have received from a number of you that you are interested in the status of our Bluff Creek Drive roadway improvements. With a State Aid project such as this , there are a number of reviewal steps to be passed , however , as things stand as of today, the City Council has approved the plans and specifi- - cations for the project and we are anticipating to receive final State Aid Office approval of the project shortly. The City Council at its April 25 , 1988 meeting approved the required no parking resolution which prohibits parking on either side of Bluff Creek Drive. This is one of the last steps that was required by the State Aid Office prior to approval of the plans and specifications. We therefore anticipate being able to proceed with advertising the project the first part of May and are still anticipating awarding a construction contract and work to commence by late June , 1988 . We are presently in the process of obtaining the necessary right- of-way and/or slope easements for construction of the project. A number of you have already been contacted in this regard. This is obviously a very important step in allowing us to proceed with the construction and we hope that we can continue receiving the fine cooperation we have received to date. Mr . Bill Engelhardt — of Engelhardt & Associates , who many of you have met, is the design engineer on this project for the City. We are very optimistic that although construction always comes with its interruptions and inconveniences , that you all will be patient in realizing that the improvement will be well worth the inconvenience. City Council , staff and our consultants are com- - mitted to seeing this project completed this year and will do everything in our power to accomplish this goal. In the mean- time , if you have any questions , please feel free to call me at City Hall or Bill Engelhardt at 448-8838 . i April 26, 1988 Page 2 Sincerely, — CITY OF CHANHASSEN 0-4/1 :ry G. Warren , P. E. — • ' ty En. ineer GGW:ktm — cc: Bill Engelhardt 5/9/88 City Council Administrative Packet ZJ-»UUULU Zi-JJUUILU LJ-iLDUUJU Eileen N. Grant Paul & M. Molinari Nicholas & Mary Waritz -c/o Harold Hesse 1101 Hesse Farm Rd. 1271 Bluff Creek Drive 1425 Bluff Creek Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 — Chaska, MN 55318 25-3300020 25-3300130 25-3250040 Robt. & J. Steffes Robert & S. Perry Dennis & L. Smith 1350 Hesse Farm Rd. 10726 James Circle 1251 Bluff Creek Drive Chaska, MN 55318 Bloomington, MN 55420 Chaska, MN 55318 25-3300030 25-3300140 25-3250050 Eugene & M. Junker L. Richard & K. Dec Duane Bicek 1250 Hesse Farm Rd. 1201 Hesse Farm Circle 1231 Bluff Creek Drive Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 — 25-3300040 25-3300150 Roger & V. Broun James & S. Hough Mr. Harold & M. Hesse 1200 Hesse Farm Rd. 1225 Hesse Farm Circle 1425 Bluff Creek Drive — Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 25-3300050 25-3300160 25-3320110 Bruce B. Rech Edward Mueller WM. & J. Meyer - 1180 Hesse Farm Rd. 1251 Hesse Farm Road 3660 Independence Av. S. #73 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 25-3300060 25-3300170 25-3320120 — Hcward & M. Noziska David Grant Jerry & M. Cronable 1120 Hesse Farm Rd. 10350 Balsan Lane 10320 Heidi Lane Chaska, MN 55318 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chaska, MN 55318 25-3300070 25-3300180 25-3320140 Frayne & D. Johnsen Nicholas & F. Evanoff F. Patrick & M. Prendergast — 1237 431 Av. NE 1401 Hesse Farm Road 10642 Rich Rd. Minneapolis, MN 55421 Chaska, MN 55318 Bloomington, MN 55437 - 25-3300080 25-3350010 25-3320160 Richard E. Olson Paul & S. Allen James & S. Lutzweiler 277 Highland Drive 1002 Hesse Farm Road 10377 Heidi Lane — Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 — 25-3300090 25-3350030 25-3320170 Daniel & K. Smith John & B. Force Richard & M. Bue 1020 Hesse Farm Road 1001 Hesse Farm Road 10361 Heidi Lane Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 25-3300100 & 25-3350020 25-3250010 25-3320180 — Roger O'Shaughnessy Richard & C. Maloney Raman & P. Roos 1023 Hesse Farm Rd. 1315 Bluff Creek Drive 10341 Heidi Lane Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 25-3300110 25-3250020 25-3320200 Steven & M. Berg Leonard & C. Takkunen Curtis & C. Bardel — 1075 Hesse Farm Rd. 1291 Bluff Creek Drive 631 Broken Arrow Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I ; 25-3320220 25-0330700 ,Kirk"A. MacKenzie Ervin Remmich 10420 Bluff Circle 71 Valley Green Park — Chaska, MN 55318 Jordan, MN 55352 25-3320230 25-0261800 Lowell M. Campbell III Mr. John Skraba 9724 Millcreek Drive 1530 Bluff Creek Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chanhassen, MN 55317 25-3320250 25-0261700 — Donald C. Schlosser Paul & A. Symanitz 10441 Bluff Circle 1505 Bluff Creek Drive Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 25-3320260 25-0260100 Joseph & M. Elmgren James Jacobs — 1221 Bluff Creek Dr. 1545 Bluff Creek Drive Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 25-3320270 25-0270200 Joseph & G. Kandiko Albert Dorweiler 10421 Bluff Circle 1565 Bluff Creek Drive '- Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 25-3320300 25-0262100 Nicholas & M. Waritz Bluff Creek Investment 1271 Bluff Creek Dr. c/o Richard J. Olson _ Chaska, MN 55318 4015 West 65th St. Edina, MN 55435 25-3320290 25-3320150 — Hesse Farm Homeowner Assn. Michael Redmond c/o Georgia Kandiko 4205 N. Lancaster Lane 10421 Bluff Circle Plymouth, MN 55441 — Chaska, MN 55318 25-3320310 25-3320010, 25-3320020, Hesse Farm Homeowner Assn. 25-3320030, 25-3320040, — c/o Peggy Roos 25-3320050, 25-3320060, 10341 Heidi Lane 25-3320070, 25-3320080, Chaska, MN 55318 25-3320090, 25,3320130 — 25-0350800 Marjorie Bush 25-3320140, 25-3320190, _ 1161 Bluff Creek Drive 25-3320210, 25-3320240, Chaska, MN 55318 25-3320280, 25-0350500, 25-3300190 - 25-3300200 Mr. Harold Hesse Hesse Farm Homeowner Assn. 1425 Bluff Creek Drive 1425 Bluff Creek Drive Chaska, MN 55318 — Chaska, MN 55318 25-0350100 25-3320100 — Chanhassen Springs Co. Charles & S. Kullmann c/o Bob Kucera 11625 Wilder Dr. 9100 West Bloomington Men Prairie, MN 55344 — Bloomington, MN 55431 C I TY OF __ \ G CHANHASSEN' Q,.' ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 April 25, 1988 Carver County Public Works Dept. Attn: Mr. Roger M. Gustafson County Engineer Carver County Courthouse 600 East Fourth Street — Chaska, MN 55318 Re: Haak Drainage Complaint File No. PW052K Dear Roger: — I know from our previous conversations that you are very familiar with the drainage complaints surrounding the Haak and DeJoode properties west of State Highway 101 and north of County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) . As you are also no doubt aware, Larry Brown from my staff has been doing seine recent site investi- gations into this drainage issue at the request of the Chanhassen City Council. Our findings to date indicate that the improvements to County Road 14 which were done in 1981 have partially resulted in the drainage difficulty. We are interested in resolving this issue once and for all. As such, I would seek the County's cooperation. We believe that the drainage complaint can be — addressed to the east by changing the elevation of the DeJoode culverts. I would appreciate your review of this information and an indication from you as to the County's willingness to resolve this matter. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 eern, P.E. neer GGW:ktm — cc: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer City Council Administrative Packet •- - c1 C I TY O F CHANHASSEN - � G 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 May 4 , 1988 Mr. Ron Harnack Permits and Land Use Section Administration Division of Waters Central Office DNR 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul , MN 55155 Dear Mr . Harnack: This to confirm my interest in being notified of when the commit- tee directed by the Association of the Minnesota Counties is formed to review the recodification of state water laws . The City of Chanhassen is interested in being involved in the committee to provide input on jurisdiction within public waters _ in relationship to existing city ordinances , i .e. wetland ordi- nance. It is my understanding that this committee will be formed sometime during the summer of 1988 . — Please contact me when you hear any news as to the formation of this committee. I appreciate your help in this matter . Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner — JO:v cc: Judy Boudreau MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF STATE AID TRANSPORTATION BUILDING ST. PAUL, MN 55155 — May 3 , 1988 PHONE: 296-9875 Gary Warren Chanhassen City Engr. — 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 In reply refer to: S.A.P. 194-104-01 Q3 G+ z. J (two. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Dear Mr. Warren: We are sending under separate cover a set of reduced sized prints and the original plan for the above referenced project. This plan has been approved and you are now authorized to advance the status of this project. Final approval is contingent upon receipt of a resolution prohibiting parking on both sides of the street. Sincerely, _ s ) (6L-L kkaM. Julie Skallman State Aid Plans and Spec. Engineer cc: W.M. Crawford-C.E. Weichselbaum, Dist. 5 File-420 MAY 1988 CITY OF CHANHASSEN J c c c - N"f C I TY O F /„. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager �- FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: April 19 , 1988 SUBJ: CSO Positions i h/� �._. _ On Saturday and Sunday, April 16 and 17 , 1988 , we ran the attached ad in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune . After discussing the merits of part-time versus full-time with the Public Safety Commission and with Scott Harr, we are leaning toward two ( 2 ) part-time positions at 30 hours a week each. In effect, this would give us a total of 60 hours a week for CSO duties versus 40 hours a week for a full-time CSO. The cost associated with two ( 2 ) part-time CSO' s would be $13 , 440 . 00 for the remainder of 1988 . The estimated cost for one ( 1) full-time CSO for the remainder of 1988 to include benefits would be $11, 200 . 00. As we move into the summer months we are seeing an increased — demand for CSO-related activities . We have discussed these acti- vities which included park patrol, emergency medical response, traffic control , crime prevention, code enforcement details , nuisance complaints and most importantly, animal control . One priority associated with animal control is the revising and upgrading of the administrative duties of animal control. Licensing procedures, reporting, filing and "in-house" paperwork all need to be looked at and brought up to date. Recommendation To hire two ( 2 ) part-time CSO' s totalling 60 hours a week ( 30 hours each) . • ( 4 _. \ Police COMMUNITY SERVICE - OFFICERS Chanhassen Public Safety • Dept.Seeking to fill 2 PT non- ` sworn positions. Duties In- dude:crime prevention,:on- _ ing/code enforcement,animal — • Control, assist law enforce- .. - ment officers, emergency medical response, etc. NOT I ‘.:.. INTENDED TO LEAD TO ' ; - SWORN OFFICER POSI- -- TON.Un to 30 hrsiwk,S6.00- $7.00/hr. Send-resume attn: Scott Harr,City of Chanhas- sen,690 Coulter Drive,Chan- • hassen,MN 55317 r -AXE -•t 4- + � __ E.•r _ yam r. ,..... map -- .•.. • . •. • 2: .„. , , . ,- - • A.ix.t� - .... _. ,...7,...,.,`,•.,., ...-_ ___________ Jirf/i�1.l+M+�•PN,Ir-f•.>-..i... l+ ... ..- ..._._. .. j 5- 9- Ec° C I TY 0 F CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager II FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer C-W, L — DATE: May 4, 1988 SUBJ: Wetland Alteration Permit for Chanhassen Pond Area Councilman Boyt at the April 25 , 1988 City Council meeting questioned staff concerning why a wetland alteration permit had not been processed for the fill material which had been placed along the east slope of Kerber Boulevard in the Chanhassen Pond area. I have verbally discussed this with Councilman Boyt , but for the record need to clarify that the City in late December was faced with an urgent need to dispose of fill material from the Phase I excavation of the downtown retention pond located off of West 79th Street . Due to the time of the year and the urgency of this matter , it was decided to dispose of this material along the Kerber Boulevard road alignment for two reasons: 1 . The severe side slope along this roadbed has been a concern of public works for some time in that we were seeing increasing erosion of the roadbed which could ultimately lead to a road failure along this area. 2 . With the City Council ' s interest in establishing a trail system along the eastern side of Kerber Boulevard, the only way that this could be accomplished was to fill in a portion of this side slope area. As such , I exercised Section 20-421 ( 2 ) of the City Code (attached) which allows emergency public works to be conducted without a wetland alteration permit. Contrary to what had been _ indicated at the meeting , staff took special precautions to have hay bales placed at the toe of this fill slope area and we have maintained this erosion control throughout . The present status is that we have directed that all further dumping shall be cur- - tailed on this site. I have requested that Mr. Jim Leech visit this wetland area and give us the benefit of his review con- cerning the quality of the wetland and the extent of the wetland. Don Ashworth May 4, 1988 Page 2 It is my understanding that at one time in the past , perhaps with the Chanhassen Vista First Addition, that an upland ponding area was considered for this lowland area to help protect Chanhassen Pond. However , because the ownership of the western portion of this property was out of the control of the City , improvements for — this area were not pursued. Perhaps at this time, since the City now has control of this entire area , it would be appropriate to consider , if the Council desires , that staff re-look at this — general area for improvements in line with the park and trail setting which we are establishing with the Kerber Boulevard improvement project . I recognize and hasten to point out that funds are not budgeted for this improvement in the 1988 budget , however , perhaps this could be factored into the 1989 budgetary process. Attachment : Section 20-421 of the Chanhassen City Code ZONING § 20-422 DIVISION 2. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Part A. General Provisions Sec. 20-421. Required. The following activities are prohibited in the wetland area indicated unless the city council issues a wetland alteration permit allowing the activity: (1) Scientific research projects in a class A or class B wetland which alter the wetland. (2) Public works in a class A or class B wetland except for emergency public works which shall not require a wetland alteration permit. (3) Creation of ponds or dams and alterations of the natural drainageways or water courses of a class A or class B wetland. (4) Removal from class A wetland of trees or vegetation except hay, crops and diseased and storm damaged trees and vegetation which shall not require a wetland alteration permit. (5) Docks, walkways and boardwalks, within class A or B wetland. (6) Installing or replacing drain tile or ditches in a class A wetland. Repairing existing drain tile, in a class A wetland if the property has not been in active agricultural use during the twelve(12)months preceding February 19, 1987. (7) Development in any class A wetland or within two hundred (200) feet of a class A wetland that is within the wetland's watershed. (8) Septic or soil absorption systems in a class B wetland. (9) Sedimentation basins in a class B wetland. (10) Any structure in a class A or B wetland except for minor expansion and additions to single-family detached dwellings existing February 19, 1987 that do not require a wetland alteration permit. (11) Digging, dredging, filling in a class A or B wetland. (12) Advertising signs in a class A or B wetland. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-7), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-422. Application,issuance,etc. The applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall furnish the information required by the city including but not limited to, a site plan, topographic data and hydrological data for the review of a wetland alteration permit application. A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued without having been first reviewed by the planning commission and approved by the council following the review procedures set forth for conditional use permits. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the proposed use or activity complies with the purposes, intent and other provisions of this article. A permit must be approved by a three-fifths vote of 1191 - _ C ITY 0 F CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (812) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Warren , Public Works Director FROM: Harold Brose, Shop Foreman DATE: May 3 , 1988 SUBJ: Purchase of Used 20 ,000 Pound Trailer I have received three price quotes for a 20 ,000 pound trailer . Novack Enterprises has a 1979 trailer in excellent condition for $3 ,000 . Lano Equipment has a 1987 trailer in good condition for $5 ,500 . Itasca Equipment has a 1986 new trailer for $7 ,825 . I am recommending purchasing the trailer from Novack Enterprises for $3 ,000 . This amount is well under the $5 ,000 amount in the Equipment Replacement Fund and will provide the City with use for years to come. This trailer will allow us to haul a tractor backhoe which we presently rent and hope to purchase in the near future. This trailer will also be able to haul smaller and mid-size dozers when we rent and need to haul them. The City will have many other uses for this trailer such as hauling a tractor, sweeper , culverts , etc. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMENT: Don - Harold, as usual , has done some good hunting and found an excellent trailer . This will save us the trailer/pick-up charge we presently are charged from Volk Trucking and will greatly facilitate utilization of our own equipment between departments as well . I therefore have directed Harold to proceed with the purchase. 14 i cc : Harold Brose l)3 1$% 5/9/88 City Council Administrative Packet 1 C I TY O F CHANHASSEN - � G 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ADMIN. SECTION TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner IWO DATE: May 5 , 1988 SUBJ: Update on Bluffe Creek Point Subdivision I attended the Chaska City Council meeting on May 2 , 1988 , regarding the above referenced subdivision . As recommended by the Chaska Planning Commission, the Council only considered the first phase of development within the southwest corner of the site. The remainder of the property will remain in its current zoning designation. The Council tabled action on the first phase of the proposal for more information regarding tree removal. The Council did not discuss the realigned TH 41 issue or other related traffic issues . ec arvt 10 scf►o-4.., 5-6 _._._____----. 12 - ;LT : .3 ' . .,--.. •,s 7 PLANNING --=� TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING _____:L_. ARCHITECTURE BENNETT, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER, INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 April 22, 1988 Shafer Contracting Shafer, Minnesota 55074 — Attn: Mr. George Mattson RE: Downtown Redevelopment Project Heritage Park - CP 86-11 Dear George, On April 5, 1988, we wrote you requesting that all work on Heritage Park, and related areas be put on hold, pending review of the plans by the Chanhassen City Council and Housing Redevelopment Authority. On Thursday evening, April 21, 1988, the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority met to review this issue. After reviewing and discussing the Heritage Park issues, the HRA on a vote of 3 in favor and 1 opposed, voted to proceed with the park as originally designed and no changes . were made. — Therefore, we are hereby formally requesting that you once again proceed with the construction of this park per the plans and specifications as bid, and proceed with due haste to complete this construction. Thank you. Sincerely, BETT RINGROSE- L ARVIS-GARDNER, INC. y A. Eh t, PE Project Engineer cc: Mr. Don Ashworth Mr. Todd Garhardt — Mr. Gary Warren Mr. Don Ringrose Mr. Greg Roy Mr. Jim Lasher APR I� GAE/mr CITY OF CHAiir,„:::,3EN DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS LAWRENCE J GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E HUNT MARK G SWENSON JOHN 8 MCNAMARA RICHARD D.PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF - MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX CITYOF G CHANHASSEN _ 1 �� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: May 6 , 1988 SUBJ: Public Safety Statistics - March Building During March, the Building Department issued 31 single family — permits with a total valuation of $3 ,147 ,000 . As you can see, we are still maintaining our $100 , 000 or better average valuation per home. Also during March, a combination heating/plumbing inspector was hired with a starting date of May 2 , 1988 . We are presently in the process of purchasing a support vehicle for the additional inspector. — The Building Official, Ron Julkowski , is anticipating a near record summer for number of permits issued. All the inspectors are extremely busy and most likely will be working many hours overtime during the warm weather season . Police During March, the Sheriff' s Department handled 323 calls for ser- vice. This compares with 306 for the month of March, 1987 . The Chanhassen deputies have responded to approximately 100 more calls this year than the same period last year. There have been no major criminal violations for the first quarter of 1988 . We are continuing to work with the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force toward drug enforcement in Chanhassen . The negotiations concerning contract police service has begun with the Sheriff indicating a 4% to 5% increase over 1988 costs . Also, costs for 1987 were approximately $1. 00/hour more than estimated, which would require the City to pay an additional $7 ,665 for 1987 police services . Fire There were no major fires during the month of March and I have included the quarterly training report for the Fire Department members . New member recruitment is continuing and we are seeing a response from the flyers that have been sent out. i=..L FORM: C5711 '73E4r5TDMB NO. G607-•"094: *PPRCVAL EXPIRES 6/89 — FORM C-404 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE la-e aei BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Period In which permits Issued I MARCH )cus (Please correct any errors in name and address including ZIP Code) 553 REPORT OF BUILDING OR ZONING PERMITS ISSUED AND LOCAL PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION C408C0 27 8 51 2 C C19 1 C 26 9999 _J BLDG OFFICIAL #1248 If your building permit system has changed, FOR CITY OF CHANHASSEN mark(X)appropriate box below and explain 690 C O U L TE R DR J In comments. CHANHASSEN M h 55317 J ❑Discontinued issuing permits ❑Merged with another system ❑Split into two or more systems ❑Annexed land areas I J - PLEASE COMPLETE AND MAIL ❑Had other changes THIS FORM ON OR BEFORE A P R 4 988 If no permits were issued during MAIL THIS« Bureau of the Census Instructions are included.For this period,mark(X)in the box 1201 East Tenth Street further assistance,call collect COPY TCV and return this form Jeffersonville,IN 47132 (3011 763-7244. SectionI - NEW RESIDENTIAL PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED HOUSEKEEPING Item Number of Valuation of Number of Valuation of BUILDINGS No. Housing construction Housing construction Buildings units Omit cents Buildings units Omit cents i (al (b) lc) Idl (e) If) (g1 Single-family houses,detached 3 1) Exclude mobile homes. 101 3,)LI7)OGL3 Single-family houses,attached • -Separated by ground to roof wall, -No units above or below,and -Separate heating systems and utility meters. (Count each unit as a separate building) 102 // Two-family buildings 103 3 IP ,27 C1(�'j J Three-and four-family buildings 104 Five-or-more family buildings 105 TOTAL—Sum of 101-105 ► 109 J Seitiop II NEW RESIDENTIAL PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED NONHOUSEKEEPING Item Number of Valuation of Number of Valuation of BUILDINGS No. construction construction Buildings Rooms Omit cents Buildings Rooms Omit cents (al (bl lc) id) (el (f) (g) Hotels,motels,and tourist cabins (transient accommodations only) 213 1 Other nonhousekeeping shelter 214 Section,III' NEW PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED NONRESIDENTIAL Item Number Valuation of Number Valuation of BUILDINGS No. of construction of construction buildings Omit cents buildings Omit cents la) Ibl (Cl (d) lei Amusement,social,and recreational 318 Churches and other religious 319 `: Industrial 320 Parking garages(buildings and open decked) 321 Service stations and repair garages 322 Hospitals and institutional 323 Offices,banks,and professional 324 Public works and utilities 325 Schools and other educational 326 Stores and customer services 327 Other nonresidential buildings 328 3 1�., ?0 Structures other than buildings 329 '. L}- 000 Section IV- ADDITIONS, PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED ALTERATIONS,AND Item Number Valuation of Number Valuation of CONVERSIONS No. of construction of construction buildings Omit cents buildings Omit cents (al (bl lc) (di Is) Residential—Classify additions of p`�� garages and carports in item 438. 434 /5 5O Nonresidential and nonhousekeeping 437 ' q 3, 0 co Additions of residential garages and carports (attached and detached) 438 PLEASE CONTINUE ON REVERSE SIDE i 1 I `a o op co n0% Q N N M O F rn O lD Lill .-/ U1 N r Ln .I N V' M O O O c M �.] I I I-7 a O W N .-1 .ZQ I r ES+Y 0 N L.D Ln I v lO a) M 00 L7 .1. N r w .-I N N r LO U H 0 O .0 O U) H .--1 — U)U) cn Z cm D N N N �T aJ N 0 \D CO.4 CO en IU g xH L n ..1 LO GIG. a .--I .-1 Mr- 1 lg )-Ir v ��y to .1 N N Q O 50. O v Ln rn U) .--1 r ,..0v 0 en N Lc) 3 O m .-1a. N CO .-1 N CO' N — -1 Mto I CO O, LO r I M i N CO in > 0 .--1 0 .--i 1 O VI M Ln N 1 CZ in rn CO M [il m M co LD o m L ' 01 Q n M ‘,0Ca. O� .-1 in 03 1 Llcn 0) .--1 O U) N co N LA N H I ad r O Ln 1.1 CJ 1--1 M .--I r I N m en r1 N a} I CO .0r] O Ln Lp 6 .1 aZN — Z H Cal 6 CU C En Q C O ›, I I E., p El W � . L p, V I 0c4Cil 'CI ro Q r C y'pal a• 3 H C) I Ep I CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AREA REPORT CCS02 PERIOD ENDING: 3-31-88 FOR: Chanhassen City PAGE: 1 Description This Year Last Year _ Current YTO Current YTD Month Month Assault 2 4 3 6 — Burglary 0 5 3 8 Drug Violation 1 2 0 0 Disturbing Peace 8 25 10 26 — Traffic/Alcohol Related 4 10 unk unk Misc. Criminal 4 11 unk unk Property Damage/Vandalism 12 23 10 25 — Robbery 0 0 0 1 Sex Crime 0 1 2 3 Theft 30 62 16 46 Uttering/Bad Check 0 1 3 7 Vehicle Theft 2 3 1 3 TOTAL CRIMINAL 63 147 unk unk — ******************************************************************************* Abuse/Neglect 1 4 0 5 Domestic 5 12 4 7 — Missing Person 5 16 5 11 Prowler 2 4 1 3 Suspicious Activity 11 38 unk unk — Alarm 16 47 6 27 Open Door 0 3 2 9 — Fire 5 20 10 19 Medical 11 32 10 36 Business/Residential Check 9 22 10 29 — Animal 32 84 7 31 Boat & Water 0 0 unk unk Civil Process Service 0 0 unk unk — Warrant Service 0 1 unk unk Transports 1 2 unk unk Assist Other Agency 1 6 unx unk Unlock Vehicle/Building 27 81 unk unk Motorist Assist 19 63 9 24 PD Accident 26 85 20 50 -- PI Accident 3 11 2 10 Fatal Accident 0 0 unk unk Traffic Misc 28 98 56 164 _ Misc. Non-Crim 58 176 91 250 TOTAL NON-CRIM 260 805 unk unk ******************************************************************************* TOTAL REPORTED 323 952 306 858 Description January February March April Assault 0 2 2 Burglary 0 5 0 — Drug Violation 0 1 1 Disturbing Peace 9 8 8 Traffic/Alcohol Related 6 0 4 — Misc. Criminal 2 5 4 Property Damage/Vandalism 6 5 12 Robbery 0 0 0 — Sex Crime 0 1 0 Theft 15 17 30 Uttering/Bad Check 1 0 0 Vehicle Theft 1 0 2 TOTAL CRIMINAL 40 44 63 *************************************************************** Abuse/Neglect 0 3 1 Domestic 5 2 5 Missing Person 2 9 5 Prowler 0 2 2 Suspicious Activity 11 16 11 Alarm 11 20 16 Open Door 0 3 0 Fire 6 9 5 — Medical 18 3 11 Business/Residential Check 5 8 9 Animal 22 30 32 Boat & Water 0 0 0 Civil Process Service 0 0 0 Warrant Service 1 0 0 — Transports 1 0 1 Assist Other Agency 3 2 1 — Unlock Vehicle/Building 23 31 27 Motorist Assist 32 12 19 PD Accident 36 23 26 PI Accident 5 3 3 Fatal Accident 0 0 0 Traffic Misc 30 40 28 Misc. Non-Crim 66 52 58 TOTAL NON-CRIM 277 268 260 *************************************************************** TOTAL REPORTED 317 312 323 CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF ' S DEPARTMENT MONTHLY TIME CHART MONTH :MARCH MUNICIPALITY: CHANHASSEN - TIME # OF CALLS FOR SERVICE - 12 : 00-01 : 00 AM 12 01 : 00-02 : 00 13 _ 02 : 00-03 : 00 7 03 : 00-04 : 00 2 04 : 00-05 : 00 2 05 : 00-06 : 00 1 - 06 :00-07 : 00 9 07 : 00-08 : 00 8 08 : 00-09 : 00 22 - 09 :00-10 : 00 14 10 :00-11 : 00 15 11 : 00-12 : 00 4 - 12 : 00- 1 :00 PM 12 1 :00- 2 : 00 7 2 : 00- 3 : 00 9 3 : 00- 4 : 00 30 - 4 : 00- 5 : 00 20 5 :00- 6 : 00 17 6 : 00- 7 : 00 18 _ 7 : 00- 8 : 00 17 8: 00- 9 : 00 25 9 : 00-10 : 00 25 - 10 : 00-11 :00 16 11 :00-12 :00 18 TOTAL CALLS 323 - i DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC, CRIMINAL AND PARKING FINES FOR THE MONTH OF <. 198, Vendor 4 Amount Included $ ///•(.« for Parking Carver City 156 � ;j `/ %.r .$ • Ch. nh.:ssen City 151 1 �'9 n, $ -?�' ,,C-' O Chaska. City 170 / / 47/. :e. S -Rc • c c Cologne City 171 A.16. /e . o O Hamburg City f07 , Norwood City 745 , ' 2 ., • O $ 2e • r C Victoria City 990 � r Waconia City 958 93 z 176 Watertown City 991 7 / ?. 62, I $ ' r. C' C7 - Your.` America City 992 New Germany City 743 ?layer. City F.eS — $ _ Hollywood Twp. 404 j $ Lake ton, Twp• 560 San Francisco Twp. 986 Watertown Twp. 988 ( $ Berton Twp. 56 Dahlgren Two. 238 Emden Twp. 150 $ Hancock Twp . ln2 $ — Chaska Twp. 154 $ tv'aconia ..:p. . 987 S 1'oun.; =.,;.mica Twp. 989 • , k • yc9lA. V tr yll, 41 �/ ('ni,rt A.1m4ni. $ rofrnr• ar• ,.fr • . • . , . • • . . t . . ,..., ; • . . . CO 1.-• • . I , . as z • ., w • • . • . • Nca • • . • ., • • .4 OA • . N. 0 • I 1 I • . • .Ir I..) • •. ! I I • : 1 • • . . I ! 06 1 1 • I ! ili • t'w-1 : ,4 M CO I'' 0. '''' I.1 rl,I IN. r• r- r- -r• cs. i a- a. -4 i 1.. i C e.,'" . .0 4-4 c.;t") re; CZ C•i C11 Ci ill In ri r-4 Pi c-4 m m ci c•1 .41 ri r•-i m m m .,:s; ri m. r•-i rc --..,.•••., (.1 rn 1.1 ... 1 a4 - ' "c• a: CO e"` 0 CO ca aa ca CI aa CO C.1 cc ca 0 CC CO CO co 0 CO ..CC :4: CO CO 0 M 0 :a co 03 co 0) iXi • i 1 i . i 1 . • . •• 1 •. . I ; • . • ! i ; . 1 . • .04 • ' 0000 ^ 000000000000000 () 09OPPC !4,O. Ll •0 0 •0 0 11 0 0 4l •' •n 41 VI lil 0 iil n n n ;11 O. Ll 0 0 0 1 x ' ,--4 1.N1 74 C.4 C" -4 '' '4 CI C4 C•4 C4 ri N ci ri al ci ::-; "‘i C.:CI iN CI CI:7s: CA (-.1 Al r.i . ., . - -• • . ••, , • i . . • . • I ,.: . . . 1 I • 1..0 ! Z LI. • " • • I I • ' Z !,! Z '. ! ,..I ..! ',i ‘..! Z . Z• • ,- I II : 7;../. •.• c :•,. 1: C '. lc' '.! 1,'er. -..,.. . .t• 1-- •, ."." ,`,.- ---: tr- "5: 010 • 4 t •-. . -• '11 . Z .1.. :,.. '. •:C C am 2i• -;••• : , i ; .... L „,„. . .., 71 7.. .. 1:- A. ... . . -, ,- Ct `L. --.!...{ -.4 H 7 .... .•. •••' ''''' H H H Lj 'n '•, H 1.' ' ' ' ...: H Lij LL: LI: La . .....: Iji • • .Lr' ''' : 7 4.! .. ...•:. 17.- , , , ,,_., :-.• •-. , 7- Tt .- =•• i - : -.:: •--i ••• ,-.! •• i.- • ::La ..,t...., 1 : :t .., i.i Z:i ili Li.;a. H 0 .. H LL H !..s -La ..L! La L. LL L• '.7:0 6'', OD W •,a' Xi a.::4: :ef 0 tri ol, co 0 If .- UI If ...i: If a: '.•: ".. '.0 ..,1 LC ...:1 ..: .-i • ' 14- : • I '• c ... .., • 1 I • I 1.3J • „.. -:, , f.r. ,, !..1 •.e.1.4 7, fn '"f: m ,-, -, N. ':,-; fn rs- 3:. n- !-- -,:', CI wl ').- r.,.- '..,!- ::), -.! re; .,;! *4 1 C:' • '-' ''' ''.7:^1 ;'r, :'-'7 ::'.1 C' -- i'' '-‘1 : 33 :7:.,-;" '.1 ,L N ql -, !.., ,.: ?:' :i N :-: re: ,? i.."; -., !-: c.4 m 1.1 ! CD •; ;-:. ':...! .1..!i.,,.; .,.4 :.:- -- •-•, -...g ;..--. ,": :-.:. -L =-;-!:, .,,- fn fn CC -4 CO ;-. ',4 cc CO •''' C.... T. CC ai ca m m 0) 1 L.. .. k': ..:.; ,... - 4.6 • ' I ''.CD r...: '' CO CC 11 '70 ,4 1,•• 4, ,% 4 CD C CC CS CO CO CD 'a CC CC 1: DI T 1.7, f...7 T ., •CO ..-CO CO : 1=1 •1 :-.7::•r: - -::: .:,. rr fr: ,'", 0 ff: fr, :33 fn f:3 n't fn a; i-j3 C1 X 0 0 ., 0 ... ,.,. .3 .3-• ...! j-- 1...: ::1.: CO al cn ., ":. N. %! '-'7, '', N s, N., •-•. --, N N,:.. N, "--, `, ', N. .N Ns , ', ..s. ", N .,. N :.-.., 'N '• •\N, CS.: • . _,.. ,. ,i ?..:': N•i. :-- 7,, ..-7 s's n, .;:::-, ..7.; ..2.; 0-.. ..,- !::::: 3. ss. ,.., a. ,-, r4 .'1. '; .. ' '• ri • ....: ......... ....-; .•-• ...:. .•••• ::, -7 4 7-; .0 .:‘, ,i .,., .4. ,-; -.4 -: -i ... .4 -4 -4 .• C.; 7 i f`i :. , • '; •‘ :, ''j CI tll il ••:''':., N '':. K .N... :::: ', °. S. S. ,.. N. N., 1 N.N. , •- N. `, N N s. s, . .N . > N. 'is N. ' r n '''', '1: '''';') ;.- ff: 7.,; rr: m PO :-‘1 ;',1 ?I •.:. N.:, n N:, i': .; I41 ic• i•-.,:,i !-I 7' '1 I'.:' I:: r-s • : •-• . am . • . • • . • , ; • : • s- .- • .. C CO i t • m. • >- X - - - 4....-. --....-.4...-„,......... ..,,....4%-;,-.,-,•-•.•„..41.",c; ,,:-....e.':i.-',.:.t'k.• ,1?-^.. --V.---Ch.,..,...4. .., :-_-1-,,,,,, ,,_.-34-..4.c.....xi...1-....-....._,--,....,,,,.--.....44, - •1,,,...,.4..1...,-.,,,..4„..,,x,„,..,,,,,_,,Tho- ,,' ,-..., L . Ca' Zi N. ! • '...•4,L7taftirF..? •7P41;4•74q4..: 44---174' Oft;'17594-71-Ve."Itl....-‘ ;P :. -.-.;' . ••4 ' • Ar-!:44.. .i.)"..L4:-.pr,.0:, -1,r1t.,;4 : --c.L.H---...........1.0„..: .,..c. .6,..p:ori.40.,,,,,,, ,,' ......„..."..,‘I,Lg...*.c.x.z.,4 .•: .. ..........111/44i, ' _ 0 t.-.1 n J.-. • !:::''..ett."Witr- - --0.• '-•-..r."% -4-,.i.--•-i-ot•••,.4. -.. ..4..---":' "•''''Irzett'; •:',.'-. • •. '••:-.4%,,b.;.ifs' ' ••• ill N. .- • -%.,-......:-P1-•.---'- li. "le-s•"6-0. ',.-.4.c.jr•s;...-.A. -A.s.#..-t..... ."--e".a, •-...-0-• ......7.4., . ,..... ...r,ak F. L.. i,•-• !I - • ...4,474-, • I. - /:.-• t-ve7..,,• . •-4,-r.L...,.....,,:. 4.-1 ,.....*Tr....,-..,,te....I.,_.....,,,,,,f40.4.-,,,,,,,,,,, E ••:::.. --;',it,f,--.7. . • :::;',--1.7-.0,".444.2‘0:1:1,47.*-4:--ze.---,frmi,i.1.,.tirett, .. ,t-,_-.--,_,-s.,..,... :). 11- Cf. ' ' ' 7.-,-.Y....:*....'..: -'44:ti,k7.AINA.:;:s,,W.:41%,4..gr.:.....,...ZP4r-'-.. .42,..-VP - • :• a: 0 Ca Li ,,, ‘: • .",.. .;.iI•54-el, --'-....... -7--"?'::.:??M..4,1 -,,,,..--s*-41;:r4 .r.7• z•-rvl..-4.1,i----,,ar.„-z--it74,:;., f,..„. _- .. .- ..,, ...,.- --...k.„....,. . '...1 ra H I.. - • ''.. • .1-''':' -:**121A4t*,,,,,..;:r"..,:...1..;..-..."....`"."4•4*"": ..". "a4. '`-r,i47-7:'"v'W!"-i-t•- - . ,._--• • _- ..1::',- -:-.4)1;':.'. . !. irWl•''''' '1..0'.41 .''''.•"'''''Te-i'X' Ifr i's."-:-... . - ' .,- FL, .. . ' ." . : ..."-: -...,.1s4:04;44;.:,- _ : -.,..,_:..‘,- *-444,-;..,_.;::,,v . I'Dkvi...;".447. - 1.-....,4*.,,,S•zz..., . : - ' . ' ," . -' - l.•IC•,,`"4• - - %4: - .,0 ..f1.-.. ....---.. ,.. ..-=c-t-r,,-,A,... .4 ..-: _ ,-- z , 4- • ':.:, •-- ,•_----t18,1-••gr.:-. .---•_-, ..,,•esilk--•"=.1'.-iitzi. ---- z cvl -,1 m • _-, . ,.-'..7....;:3424'.... .,.--...,-.:?.:...4.;;;;p1,..:.1..,Ler";:...,","••••=.!...A...Var. - '''..,1 't-V!,sw: • - f t '., : •I •4f: ;':,1 ' ,'A47.-,46••',•-•!.:.; • --.1 .:14i-l; '!' ,ae-PRII-* '' '41. 1..-" a},,.:1- '' ' '' ..%.1. ' .4 • . Y.,..r....• ,,,‘-!--.27,Y.C.-4-'74... • . -._ '.',-.:';...tora: "..,....ea,3.S,-1,-1014g... . ..1._••-,1. .,,..,;04,, -,..__ ._.;*. „ -.- .:- . W '.,`,..... -.:.':'(! ... ,?.."":: -".--,f,7,':,;,:r:?-7-... . 7-4-tr.r.,f24‘.....V.P•41-.1" .. - .....„...m.:41 '-ii Z , r • ,,....:"- ...4,-,-.,:-....:-.2,,a.-- ,• ,o•-et,..... ..-9.-..t.,:e... -%,"`-'--,f•-.••*- " -,-4.2.• .. ..-.... c • :.-..:::i:,;-....rts-e.1.7-7,-,,-,.-... ..- •-:r-• -., -.-: .....),:- 4,„-...0,.;;$...7.,.... c - ...., . ..---, --.. •:-.‘,4,•44, • . . -,;..•-• ,...7--k14...... -.1 - .- - .,..---....--'.- .,.....i'mat •••tw..0.4-•",s4 rs.: • 47- f C Z < -7: -.1- 4. .ii7 4. (7. ,..:: , . 41 al i- 1 • ..,, i i i rai::: ..j C -• 'O -j i tii -1 4. '-- .. 7" 7• " = ..:: = •' i-1 1-1 ,--! 1 ; . L. -....: .,:• .. . L i 1 ' • , • H H :. ,.., .-. H H H .:7 ..1 Hi ,- r= (: `-- --' !..^ ' -- i i I i .''' . '...r'" , -, •- ' ,'. '' ::". j'; Z :T: -• _1 -:-.; D: , .,1 X 7.> a'. .> :s -. -.> ::• -:,.. ...': 0 0 • i:-: .;., 7r. :V. .. -. :7•7 := ::': , :-.: u• ,-.:, - ,-, ca ,- ..: Lii t..: 2 ---: . ta T -7.. . ! - - - L' - ',!!!. •••• !-.; ... :-..: !,:!!. :'• ..,..• -t '.• "....• e, -.- - ':' -r •,, - '''. :•- ; -f -!. 7 - - 1 - . • i 7 I • . -4 ... r 1- ; . . 1 -' :r. ;_, i. 7 -.: ...4 ; - •••• ;' - • ' •"'" .-- :: --' !'.:' - -' ;:. -.! Z !:.1 C.: . ... , -4 I i • Cr: D• i 11 i 7 I i C -1. Ca ,I.. - •-' ' - , :-• ..1. t•• ! 1 • ..: ._ .., cl. t,-_ :.-_- . ,--..... T.: i„; •-:. 0 .:. ,. •,. til -_-: ...i. ....,.: ..- -. - .,.• - -2 . . . ' a. --, i r, --; ! Z '. .1 , , • , 1 n ,,-. . 7 .5.! ::_'; 1 i ' I : rf : • ; ' ,L .4 .:j: i i : I ' 1 • '.-• : ; . - Le • ..• -• •• 7, 7-•: •• •- • •• •• ._ .': ..' .: ,..i • ,. C.: r.2. Lr .2 -' 0 iri 4-.; I 1 ., ..:. -.... - -' ,-.c • .1 -..., ,:-. ...-. :. ....., ,_ -7.. .._, ,., _ _ - !...., +.. .., - ,, <: 0 .- . ,- ..;.' -. .-, .- .-zr • ..- 7': - , • :. - , - .:1 -- 'A': CL: • . .-I- .;:. ""' ,-: i 17-: ti" li• •'.- ....,. - :••• -.. 7- 7 '-- '• '• J. .. -- LL !• T.• H • ..:. '..t.. 4: . ,,% i.i. - LL .=, ...: .i. L.•,... •.1.., -.- ..i• ''. ,; ,t• ..7. - 1 , , 7- '. 7.- '',: LI) ma 1- E ,r .L 1, .: '_ij .: .1; 7 L. . ..., .• Ul 4: . -_ : ... '... - -- ' •-. , .- • ,- -- i 1.i • ' • i- I- ..- ;-. '- L- H H . H , L. , I- .-- H H H ", •- ; H ... H ''. H '.. H ' H : 67 I.4 1 i • i I ! • I 0 0 0 MM I I • • ,-", 'N ,"'s "•• .... '-" '- ., (I '!. C• .... 7-' :' ::-. 4:' 0 47, '...: -•• --. ':' ,!.' '', : •:,.. C .:. ,: :- 0 . 1 " • M, ;,.., .:' .:-, ;..7; ;1'.; ..: :•,., .:!. r`, ,. ,-. ..-, •• --• ri r :-: ,.,-- .-: :-, •::: ,-.. ;• cl• :: :_. : : .:. ::' !:- •.: 0 !II 41 11 I Lil ' . :.-, Li; 2.. ,..:, ,t. ,.; i .:, :, ..., ,:, 4 C4 • %; 1. 4; r.,:. ;._, -:. - d', •,- r- -« - i-": r..i , -. 4: !., -7: ., "s 7 NI a. tirl 0 ; . :..I.. : t • , ',- • -- 4- ',. - - - " - " - -- . " . 0 zzc " -.. ' '-' --g -4 N "*.1 --€ •-, •-• •-t ..., --, 7.... -, -, -.., ,-. --, 7 7. .-. ,4 C,1•-• mft l• I • ., , .., .., e, ,- .-. ,- 0 el CI ,. C, c., C, -% e, ,:, 0 0 ::' •-• ,.. ,-: 0 CI 0 0 C.. :) c - 1 . 1 ' 1 11j1i1li .! ! t1 . 1 • . ! . : , .. . . 0cl •••:-. •:- 1.- ,.. :-.. -- c 1 ri o :-,: a L-' -, C, -r. r r• ,-,- ••:• 4:- r, f,1 CC •••:. CL, i3. r- r*- .- 0 --' 1' r- 7: r-.. C: N.! 0. C: 44'. - Ll 17, I'1- • O I ' • • ; ...F- .. ::: - 1.4 i r•• ,-. r, -• r- •-• ': (4 tql !"1 CO MM. U I 0 C. • N.! C. 0 0 !.; 0 0 0 re1 ri r, , •• c: L. -,: r. : ,; ,: ,: .... ., :. ... " • '' C.' ,-. C. C '''" :. ''' .' CCC C: ;.:- CCO 0 'D 0 0 0 C '...^: C 0 C= C: C q b L? C)i5 ..- c:: c 0 C: C, ,... 0 C) C, C C C. 0 C: CP C) (:: CI 0 C. Cs C. 0 C• 0 0 C' C , C- %. COO c: - ..- 1 , , I : : i . liii ! ,' 1 : , 1 : . 1 , 1i ..:.. ...... : III -,-, a. .-'• m m - r7., 1: m c--: a: cc ,•:- cc M m ca m a: cc. 0 a: c r...- ..t- m 0 I :.... -,. .. 0 0 0 I c: cr- :1 „ ..... - ,• - - -, - I . . • . ..'1 • .. -;;;-;• •1---• ; ; i.; ..' *:_...-.' . -1_4_,.. . -.. •....7._.... •.. •.__. • • '' • ' ... U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington.D.C. 20535 FOR RELEASE 6 P.M. , EDT, SATURDAY APRIL 30, 1988 Seventy-two law enforcement officers were killed feloniously in the line of duty during 1987, according to preliminary national figures released today by FBI Director William S. Sessions. Firearms continued to be the weapons most used- in the slayings of officers in 1987. Handguns were used in 50 of the murders, rifles in 8, and shotguns in 9. Of the remaining 5 victim officers, 3 were killed with knives and 2 were "- intentionally struck with vehicles. Geographically, 28 officers were killed in the Southern States, 17 in the Midwestern States, 15 in the Western States, 11 in Northeastern States, and 1 in Puerto Rico. Forty-two of the victims were city police, 17 were county officers, 12 were employed by state law enforcement agencies, and 1 was a Federal officer. Twenty-six officers were attempting to apprehend or arrest suspects when slain. Among those 26, 6 were involved in drug-related situations, 5 were responding to burglaries, 3 were attempting to thwart robberies or were in pursuit of robbery suspects, and 12 were attempting arrests for other crimes. Twenty-two victims were killed upon answer. .ig disturbance calls, 10 while enforcing traffic laws, and 6 while handling or transporting prisoners. Five officers were murdered while investigating suspicious persons or circumstances, 2 were ambushed, and 1 was slain while dealing with a mentally deranged individual. Law enforcement agencies have cleared 65 of the 72 slayings. FBI/DOJ "7 :(.-''\J H H 3 n )\U ) ► LE:45 8861 g 7 'ddy v11S3VNI4 `N3SSdH4V1-1) `1r1 N31111) 061 31133VS 13nd N3SSVHV1/1-47 31V1l I A N3SSV-14 VH1 'nvpa ssVzO ZSUI4 ac►enr uone8nsanul)o neaina leupad pled saaj pue a8nsod OO($mil..••.d�J lm!d sns I!JJo irow^s.n uocteensanu>jo neaing IEjaPad 339sop jo wawu'dad•s•n • rt 1 STEVE MADDEN Monthly Activity Report FOR : March , 19 88 1 . FIRE INSPECTIONS : 1330 Lyman — Daycare 2. FIRE INSPECTION FOLLOW UPS : Prairie House, Dinner Theatre 3. FIRE/MEDICAL/RESCUE CALLS : See attached Exhibit A Total 6 4. BURNING PERMITS ISSUED : 5. FIRE RELATED CONSULTATIONS : 6. PLAN REVIEWS : 6 7. CRIME PREVENTION ACTIVITY : 8. ANIMAL CONTROL ACTIVITY : See attached Exhibit B Total 19 9 . ASSIST CCSO : See attached Exhibit c Total 14 10 . MISC . PR : ( over) 11 . OTHER ACTIVITY : 12. MISC : Officer Calls: 3/8/88 Vandalism-Cemetery 2600 3/23/88 Stolen Hydrant 3345 Zoning: O'Learys 3800 Lone Cedar 8016 Dakota p EXHIBIT A FIRE/MEDICAL/RESCUE CALLS: Date Type Address ICR 3/2/88 F Mutual Aid Excelsior 2364 3/4/88 M 1450 Chaska Road 956 3/18/88 M Minnewashta & Hwy. 7 2973 3/23/88 M 3901 Maple 3130 3/28/88 M 790 Carver Beach 3221 3/30/88 M School - Hwy. 5 3397 EXHIBIT B ANIMAL CONTROL ACTIVITY: Date Location ICR 3/1/88 Chanhassen Elementary-DAL/Impd 2335 3/7/88 449 Pleasant View-Dog Impd ? 3/8/88 7200 Frontier-Barking 2593 — 3/8/88 Hopi Road-DAL 3594 3/9/88 62nd & Church-Impd 2640 — 3/10/88 3800 Leslee-DAL 2664 3/11/88 7610 Laredo-Impd 2703 3/11/88 1200 Lake Lucy Road-Imod 2708 _ 3/16/38 6740 Powers-Impd 2901 3/17/88 101 & Lake Drive East-Impd 2935 — 3/18/88 Kenyon Kennels-Dog Bite 2374 3/18/88 3821 Glendal-DAL 2966 3/21/88 Melody Hill Circle 3043 _ 3/24/88 3800 Leslee Curve-DAL 2764 3/23/88 3600 Bik. Red Cedar Pt . -DAL 3132 — 3/25/88 3600 Blk. Red Cedar Pt. -DAL 3174 3/28/38 6900 Bik Chaparral 3319 3/29/88 6323 Grey Fox-DAL 3349 3/31/88 6300 Blk. Fir Tree-DAL 3426 EXHIBIT C ASSIST CCSO: Date Squad Address ICR 3/1/88 837 Hwy. 5-funeral 2333 3/4/88 831 8041 Cheyenne-found item 2444 3/7/88 250 8840 Lake Riley-arrest 2549 3/8/88 823 Possible P.D.-Cancelled 2607 3/9/88 828 & 1450 Chaska-Medical 2645 3/16/88 West 78th & Powers-vehicle assist 2900 3/17/88 1450 Chaska-Medical 1204 3/21/88 831 8669 Chan Hills 3049 3/21/88 831 Prairie House-lockout 3046 3/22/88 828 Meadows Apartments N/A 3/23/88 831 Pleasant View Ridge Road 3093 3/25/88 828 7250 Hwy. 41-traffic assist 3210 3/29/88 828 3354 3/29/88 831 �PssEN qq�, + Off, CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT -13 7610 LAREDO DRIVE P.O BOX 97 L=i4.111111A 71 I CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ! BUS. PHONE 934 9191 fl MINNEWASHTA STATION NO. 2 PHONE 474.7094 MARCH TRAINING 1988 March 5 Burn Gagne Farm• 50.5 Use of piercing nozzle March 7 EMS Review 9.5 Kevin Williams March 14 FFII Review and Written test 36 Don Beckering _ March 21 SARA, NFPA 1500 & SCBA Standards 45.5 • March 26 Cold Water Rescue 16 Todd Alcott March 28 EMS 1st Responder 38 Total hours 195.5 Fritz coulter Training Offcier 411;===r • EN F�R CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT � SS F JP P.O. BOX 97 7610 LAREDO DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ,` O� BUS. PHONE 934.9191 MINNEWASHTA STATION NO. 2 PHONE 474-7094 Zr "O V - 0 QUARTERLY TRAINING REPORT JANUARY TO MARCH 1988 _ NAME # of sessions In-station Out-station attended training training — Todd Alcott 7 23 Duane Auseth 7 20 _ Brian Beniek 5 21.25 Craig Blechta 5 15.25 Fritz Coulter 6 20 33 Dave Dressler 5 12.25 — Greg Eidam 7 22 Dale Gregory 4 14.5 Bob Halverson 6 17. 75 — Joel Hedtke 2 3.5 12 Tom Kelly 7 . 20.5 15 Art Kerber - 6 15.5 — Mike Kerber 7 17 Steve Kerber 4 16.25 12 Roy Leach 7 18.5 Mark Littfin 2 5.5 — Steve Madden 4 11 - Tom McFarlane 4 11 Jim McMahon 7 18 — Bob Moore 7 23. 5 5 Ron Payne 4 16. 75 Ray Peitz 6 17.5 Rick Rice 4 15 Steve Sauter 7 21.5 Jeff Slater 1 1. 5 Don Stafford 4 11.25 — Steve Undis 5 12 Dick Wing 6 18.5 36 John Wolff 4 15. 75 — Steve Prokosh 1 4 Scott Franzen 1 4 Total hours 464 128 We had a total of 7 scheduled trainingsessions during this quarter. If you attended — all 7 sessions you would have received 16 hours of training. We had 4 extra sessions whichresulted in 10 hours of training. And we had 1 in-service with Kevin Williams for .5 hours. — We will be offering 54 hours of scheduled training this year you will be required to have attended a total of 43 hour's of training this year. These hours can be made up o in-station and out-station combined. Fritz oulter Training Officer CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 May 6, 1988 Commander Bernie Hamilton American Legion Post 580 7995 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Commander Hamilton: On behalf of Sheriff Al Wallin and myself, I would like to thank you and your organization for your kind contribution towards the Chanhassen Sheriff's squad car phone. One of the benefits realized by installing a car phone is more con- tinuity in patrol. There are many times that a deputy receives a radio message to make a phone call. Without a car phone, the deputy would be required to leave his patrol area to find a phone. Most often the deputy responds to city hall to make the telphone call. With the car phone installed, the deputy may continue his/her preventative patrol making the call from the squad. There are many other benefits to the mobile phone including emergency com- munications at a disaster scene or, as happened today at city hall, the telphone system could malfunction. (Actually, the phone lines to city hall were cut by construction crews which caused us to be without phone service for a few hours.) We at least had one phone line due to the mobile phone. There are five (5) deputies that serve the Chanhassen area that are also appre- - ciative of your contribution. With the proper resources, these deputies do an outstanding job with sometimes little reward. Deputy Mike Douglas should be commended for his work in achieving the goal of the squad car phone. His dedi- cation to service and to the Chanhassen area is indicative of the quality of deputies that Sheriff Al Wallin has assigned us. Once again, thank you for supporting the law enforcement efforts of the City of Chanhassen and County Sheriff. Please do not hesitate to call if I can be of service to you. Sincerely, 6,'L 044-- im Chaffee Public Safety Director cc: Al Wallin, County Sheriff Mike Douglas, Deputy C I TY O F N CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 y (612) 937-1900 — MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: May 9 , 1988 SUBJ: Finalize Position Classification Plan Reviews — Lengthy agendas and lack of time have delayed finalizing the 1988 reviews (my review only remaining item) . Attached please find the comments as prepared by Mayor Hamilton . Unless the Council acts to establish a separate process , this office will proceed with filing the review and effectuating the salary adjustment in accordance with the cube. The actual adjustment will be made by Mayor Hamilton, i .e. the form will require his signature before becoming effective. • .1 AS JOB DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHANHASSEN POSITION: City Manager DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: December , 1987 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE Plan and direct all City operations to ensure efficient municipal services and development are in accordance with objectives and general guidelines established by the City Council . To advise the Council regarding impact of policy decisions and to represent the interests of the City of Chanhassen in metropolitan and state activities as delegated by the City Council . RELATIONSHIPS Reports to: City Council Supervises : Department Heads and Support Staff Has indirect supervision over all employees of City government through the supervisory department heads identified above. SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES 1 . Plans and directs the general administration of city services . 2 . Evaluates , on a continuing basis , the organization, admini- stration and services being rendered by the various depart- - ments of City government to determine whether results are being achieved as planned. — a . Mazes or recommends organization changes in staffing as well as other changes in administration as may be justified to assure a high standard of performance is maintained. b. Appoints , dismisses or otherwise disciplines city employees . 3 . Provides advice and/or recommendations , with supportive data , to the City Council as a guide to its policy-making role. (22) 4. Involves department heads in the identification of achieve- ment goals that will provide standards against which to — measure their performance. a. Reviews periodically and confers with department mana- gers to assure that progress in each area is being achieved as planned. b. Oversees implementation of financial and fiscal planning — in the City . 5 . Relieves the Council members of as much administrative — detail , inquiry , etc . as possible so they may devote more of their time to the policy making responsibilities of their position . a . Prepares agendas for Council meetings and provides sup- porting data . 6 . Keeps the City Council informed on all important developments — which may affect the administration of City government and which they will need to know to perform effectively as — Councilpersons . a . Also advises Council members on concerns of citizens . b. Answers citizen calls and complaints . 7. Follows through to assure that all City Council ordinances — and directives are correctly interpreted and communicated with implementation as planned. 8 . Keeps informed on all aspects of municipal government and researches improved methods of administration for possible implementation in Chanhassen . REQUIREMENTS Education/Experience: Master ' s Degree in Public Administration , — Urban Studies or related field with a minimum of three ( 3) years related experience; or a Bachelor ' s Degree and five (5 ) years of related experience, including at least two ( 2) years in a super- visory position . — (23) ADMINISTRATIVE-SUPERVISORY PERFCRMA::CE REVIE:+ - . ,.� ))• /� Position Title ( ' +ter !/1� jl/ Plane 1/!vi't '"G .'7V- '/ Division Date Due / / ercountable To ( ale:? /( Date of Conferences Su-^ary Evaluation of Overall Perfor."ance - V + I - IV + II - III + [1 - II + i[ - I + • i !I X flew in position or Performance improving or Performance meets overall Superior performance, Outstanding — has serioua weakness has weakness to overcome position requirements consistently rendered performance ii; A. Major Areas of Accountability • 1. ! 1 IX( 1 P/ ,, 6,x., 7/ & C-Oil /1 1 frh, 6`7a ct 4a �'„ ,r ,-� �.4 2. I /X I I VI a. eve l a ilso, ©r, a q- 076e, l?m1 Ceig-,,, 4 &xcc.%7- 4 &> C 9,n{r, 1t'cei6eCI 3. nr-r/ I la 4.cfr..-g-,e, 4.. , 4, 1 4::.,z77 0 I I C 14 (-V,is.4 (1-7 /4 .4ci en� 1, U/ 4. I I_ X 3 IlLars ` /mtd /2°lzyrme3-,d87ZE -S a,i ell 51 , -31 --h' </R- i 5. ` - •• X 7 G. i�?f c' _ 49 Ir1!/eie Q GG% !�' /:/rJ' ' fij `lit. f' /(7.- , , /- /.h JY' '., , J fl 0 ''=„ „.., ` C /IC.-ai 4 C� /� ci Oc7; / safe, _ 6. , 1 x 1 4/4.• `:^e'/� Ct " ,elfy ` , . -e-vi 9'0 C • 147�'ay 5 •4 '7 `1 /� -m 8 T' .3i-fci R.'Y/ ✓a 7'�-e.. /i 0 S J 7• ►'C. 1 _c. //1!5 j<.!x✓4 , -QrSe re/15 a�Z cam,JG=-1/1� 1 c/0 .,. l'(zc- aim c//". >'),4.v4e ci !r1 4iir;`>l/i ,n�7� . *O,, - ,lc /it i7e.ifje l /its in 'n e-, , 8. I I I c I & 0, 4k14 a eep,",r, 1,?)-5te,.e35 (1:2-,wi/42e4-;e0,5 Ze?'474 C4/. 9. K I (D 4 k4 C c7l/r7;A 4..... Gy,Ctf,'�7• 7e'CL da.,71 fj i 7,e ce? O �`7 � ��I A/ ?Ll`., 1.l!cf `�/i7 /�p1 /'CCC' - &' a!/l�r /� KL�1 j"`e!/i`J"�� io. I l / . &JaE s l sl - ci 1��a / . /1 S 4.,� ea 1 11. I v I . 5.. 4;, • '/ .- it ,l L .c; /:(4 . mac- (,,,„, / . „-,,,Lt a,,, sa,,,-, „. - / k/i/friC h fi+!.77f4 7S 1f7/ 5 ( I 5/7Ge+ ,-46ePa/ 12. [ 1 L 13. I • KEY A /X: Deficient Meets Requirement; Cunwendible ( 8n) Explanatory comments are essential `here cer=or.-arse is noied to be deficient 8. Personal Ch'reeteristics to he Considered (attributes or characteristics possessed by the person being reviewed) which t-s warted degree either add to or, detract from overall performance. ...0 �-1-: CYO 4-d--(0,-• Z.-,-.; C�:�`-, /bv. c-, i6,,-,_• �-9_ ,7S --/-Z,k... c(9,74/ 4-- -:----),./iie k -(4- ifri --(‘ C e- a ./CW-k_ c( C. --/---Z t.ly .) ), 1_4_ (-p-",,,,,,/,,,,; y 5 17,a5f_ ,/il I!. ,//75-"/L-,i.e-c/., -ei,v . e,T,, 7 Other Factors to be Considere which affect to a noticeab e degre/ t performance in this position .-02e,i-aripi 4.7zzi‘--6 4e, lietveli "4-;i1 /4 kg ( 1'ev I ecc.i al I"w, 7�' rt 015— ,(( ( pc74.7,-)77 a-4-e -----4c‘e /,,i my/7,-c_ . , . 0. significant Changes in performance which have been noted since last review. - - • E. Identify key areas where performance can be impr ved. - / I r2 7i ;,/c / ru c u� , 5r- . ,--7 -I �!� `� I 17 c�/ `(' 1 ees (}s Were these areas discussed during the review conference? Yes L--" No A planned approach to attain improved performance was agreed on. Yes No F. What education, training or experience would ben fit this employee? dna Have you discussed this with him? - G. Comment on differences of opinion concerning review. - . H. Was the Position Responsibility Write-Up reviewed during the conference? Position Responsibility Write-Up is current Needs revision x .... The appraisal covers performance for the previous onths. This form .+ac reviewed by and n f1 11(g (Emp e's initials)' (Appraiser's signature) (Data of Conference) �� / ,/ Acknowleded by l G;/Cr�f i (--�-1 ` L`—' — (Aporiiser's Supervisor} (81) Initial: do not necessarily indicate enployee's agreement or disagreement. CITYOF CHANHASSEN - G 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 May 2 , 1988 Mr . Corey Johnson c/o Chanhassen Elementary School 7600 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Corey: I have received your letter on behalf of the kids who must cross Laredo Drive and I have forwarded it to our City Engineer who takes care of city crosswalks . I am sure that he will have his street maintenance people repaint the crosswalks . He will also look at the possibility of putting in crosswalks on West 76th Street. Thank you for your letter about these problems and if you have any more questions , please write or call . Sincerely, im Chaf Public Safety Director JC:k cc: Gary Warren, City Engineer /. t24-6,1_ 4 / 62 zhv4r 0/z,- ;64,2 /6- cAelvt4 deo- Z . L4eA,0-vA.,euol1u tek-i apt- zeizza Cizev 49 14 2/1V --0$6,422.0"6. 1J,evrile6 _,Z4e) • i aeite-cIA Ctia/Led6r-/DA-. cold 7 6-t.11 t / -P-4-Ar_41 c6 (!if 60-1i4.441121-1t• 074-67 L-G 7/2 -4J - --na -4141a A PR 1 9 1988 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITYOF - CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Lori Sietsema , Park and Recreation Coordinator(„ DATE: May 6 , 1988 SUBJ: Status of Tennis Courts at Meadow Green and North Lotus Parks As I have received a number of calls recently , I have contacted VanDoren Hazard Stallings regarding the completion status of the tennis courts at North Lotus Lake Park and Meadow Green Park. The courts are nearly finished with only the color surface , nets and restoration work left . Bob Sellers said that the crews were planning to do the work the week of May 9th. He indicated that the courts would be ready for play. zi • W � a Q H U z W co U 0 c0 (J) H 0 ) C cc F o w c) P. U) U) a o U) _ U) w W w W Z 0.4 W .7 U) U) N N H Q A z a w F. — x U) Z F 6 a z £ • 6 U U] H Z U) W O Q U w U a 3 z aC0 U U W N h F c� • — Uci U) • V a x z - w zs U c) U ch T W .ti Z x M - < U O x U --, • O T -"I T -1 7 • O 1 1 1 -1 l a • • (V - W 0 0 0 0 6 Z Z Z A A 1-, A • z z z Cr) t, W H Cu r-, m 6 U 6 0 6 — ao N a F. a I-I a i F > F > F 0) 0 a a G + Cu + Cr) + I A cn u) al a a a G a Cu) Cu) Cu) > co > Ui > G 6 Cu) 6 W 6 Cu) a Cu) a Cu) a A E-- Csn F A E. a a 6 0 P. 0 CA 6 U) O < 2 a) A Cu) F S H F V. — F a E. (7) CO Z a E. E-F r-+ v' O A cn a - F 6 3 a a [..13 • z £ COz • z Cr) a u) < 0 a Z r-+ pC A— G H Z Cr) G Cr) U 0 6 A ., C7 Cu)• r 6 A A U U U a Z 3 A 6 a O a 0 0 6 0 0 A A E. a 7 F O — 6 F a) ., U) F Cr: N C- G O • N CO CD c') G cO 0 Z • CO W LA .•, .r CD LC) a) Z _ G c') C- N N N U U] CV •I • 0 CO 6 • E Z • 6 T W - 0 Z Cu) ix a co C- co a) G ., 6 co X co CO U) a) a) F 6 U -, ., .-+ .-+ 0 A Cu)_ G O G G G F Z (.) C'J CO C') CO — 6 U G O 0 0 0 T U --Y 1 t \ ` ♦ 1 • f • a a L 1 : I 1 3 ) 2 CITYOF cEANHAs sEN s, . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 May 6 , 1988 Mr. Jack Melby 40 Hill Street Chanhassen , MN 55317 Dear Mr. Melby: Thank you for your letter of May 2 , 1988 . A copy has been distributed to all Council members . Approximately two weeks ago, the Park and Recreation Coordinator completed a field review of the South Lotus Lake Park area in conjunction with our consulting engineers . Completion of the check list was required knowing that many work items had not been completed. Additionally, completing items has been extended as a result of private underground utility trenchings, boulevard/ ditch destruction by their vehicles , continued dirt removal from the upper area, etc. Again, I will forward your letter to both Lori Sietsema and Mark Koegler to insure that the items noted by you become a part of the work items yet to be completed. On a separate front, public safety and public works are both attempting to meet the standards suggested by yourself regarding parking and enforcement. I will not suggest that we are going to be able to solve all problems; but, with your help, we can reduce them to a more tolerable level. Thank you again. Sincerely, Don Ashworth City Manager DA:k May 2 , 1988 Tom Hamilton - Mayor Dale Geving - Councilman Clark Horn - Councilman Bill Boyt - Councilman Jay Johnson - Councilman Barbara Dacy - City Planner Lori Sietsema - Park and Recreation Don Ashworth - City Manager Lotus Lake Home Owners Assoc . The purpose of this letter is to inform you of several important issues that council needs to address relative to the South Lotus Lake Park and Public access and the major drainage ditches that enter into Lotus Lake. In it ' s current state, the park and access are incomplete and in need of repair. - The grass seed planted last year has not taken leaving the park unsightly and open to severe erosion and a threat to Lotus Lake. - The holding pond is over grown with weeds and is unsightly. It contains stagnant water and will be a breeding site for mosquitoes. - The portable bathroom is unsighlty and when the wind is right changes the quality of the air in a dramatic fashion. That facility should be set back further into the park (South) where it can be hidden by trees and the odor contained. Much to my disappointment the DNR has changed its mind in mid stream and left the City and the Park neighbors holding the "Bag" relative to control , use and safety issues for boat access and the lake. At this stage all I can offer is what was discussed at the Council Meeting on 4/25/88 . - Put "No Parking" signs along residential streets - Have Public Safety officers patrol both the park and the lake to enforce . Park hours . Park rules . Parking rules . Prevent Park, boat access and lake abuse and danger to neighbors and users . So far this year we have not had heavy rains and the strength and quality of the South end drainage facilities have not been tested. My experience has been that during heavy rains large amounts of DEBRIS are entering into Lotus Lake from all drainage areas and large amounts of silt are entering from: - the Public access ditch - The Eden Prairie Hwy. 101 ditch