1993 01 11CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR HEETING
3ANUARY 11, 1993
Mayor Chmlel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Counciiman Mason, Councilman Wing, Counctiman
Senn and Councilwoman Oockendorf
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Paul Krauss, Kate Aanenson,
Sharmin Al-Jarl, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, and Scott Hark
OATHS OF OFFICE: Elliott Knetsch administered the Oaths of Office to Donald
Chmiel, Mayor; Colleen Dockendorf, Councilwoman; and Mark Senn, Councilman.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve
the agenda with additions under Council Presentations by Councilman Wing to
discuss a concern OVer an ordinance, and Councilman Senn wanted an update. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
ORGANiZATiONAL TTEMS:
Mayor Chmlel: Don, would you go through the organizational items?
Don Ashworth: Would you ltke me to take them one at a time or just briefly go
through the entlre 11st?
Mayor Chmlel: I think we can go through briefly with the entirety of the list.
I thlnk Council has all had an opportunity to at least review that·
Don Ashworth: Rules of Procedure are rules under which the Council conducts
their business. They basically have not changed from this past year. Official
Newspaper, we did get a request from the Villager, as they are the only
newspaper that maintains a known office of issuance in the city. Staff is
recommending the Villager. Under Official Depository, we have a request from
Chanhassen State Bank. They have been our depository for several years. The
City Attorney, we're recommending that Knutson-Campbell continue to act in that
capacity. Bond Consultant was actually approved at the end of the year.
Springsted contznues to be recommended. Acting Mayor is an item that the
Council needs to determine between themselves who they wish to see act in that
capacity. Staff does not make a recommendation. Weed Inspector. Under State
law the Mayor is the Weed Inspector.. Typically you have set one of our staff
members. Bob Zydowsky has offered to continue to stay in that capacity. The
Fire Chief. You're in the second year with Jim McMahon and accordinging the
Council does not need to act on that. Health Officer, Bay, McCollum has agreed
to continue to serve in that capacity. It pays a whopping $1.00 per year. City
Auditor's. The Council went through a decision process earlier this past spring
in selecting Deloitte for a 3 year period of time. And again, no action is
required on that one.
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. If I could go back up to item (f). I would 11ke to make
the motion that 0ick Wlng be Acting Mayor. Mike had it last year.
Councilman Mason: It was a tough job. I worked pretty hard at it.
Mayor Chmiel: And Z try to rotate it every year. So with that I would make
that motlon. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Hason seconded to appoint Richard Wing as Acting
Hayor for 1993. All voted in favor, except Councilman Wing who abstained, and
the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: So that pretty much takes care of these.
Don Ashworth: So the motion was (a) thru (3) then?
Mayor Chmiel: And I will make that motion now of having organizational items of
items (a) thru (3) for a motlon.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following
organizational items for 1993:
(a) Resolution $93-01: Rules of Procedure as presented.
(b) Official Newspaper - The Villager
(c) Official Depository - The Chanhassen Bank
(d) City Attorney - Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs
(e) Bond Consultant - Springsted
(f) Acting Mayor - Richard Wing
(g) Weed Inspector - Mayor Chmlel
Deputy Weed Inspector - Bob Zydowsky
(h) Fire Chlef -Jlm McMahon
(i) Health Offtcer- Dr. McCollum
(j) clty Audltors - Deloitte-Touche
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Senn: Don, if I could, just one question. Are these all basically
one year appointments?
Don Ashworth: Some of them. Official Newspaper ls i year, although agaln the
Vlllager is the only newspaper currently having an office in Chanhassen, which
lsa requirement. Official Depository ls i year. City Attorney is i year.
Bond Consultant is typically 1 year. It can be a 3 year designation. Acting
Mayor i year. Weed, I year. Fire Chief is a 2 year appointment and agaln we're
in the second half of that appointment process so next year you'd be acting on
that designation. Health Offlcer, I year. Clty Auditors. We entered into a 3
year contract wlth Oeloitte and although you could sever it, you probably would
end up with some problems if we did that. Potential damage claims.
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Councilman Senn: What year of that are we in?
Don Ashworth: This is the first of that 3 year contract.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to keep it at a yearly kind of thing and I think
we did expand with Oeloitte. Oeloitte has done real well by the City. We seem
to be, or at least I seem to be quite satisfied wlth him.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to keep an eye on that Bob Zydowsky in that Weed
Inspector position.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's really probably the most important one there.
VISITOR PRESENTATION: None.
Councilman Wing: Can I sneak in a welcome to our State Representative and our
County Commissioner, who are in the audience this evening.
Mayor Chmlel: Welcome on the outside.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Nason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Hanager's
recommendations:
e. Approve Standardization of Auxiliary Power Receptacle for Lift Statlon Nos.
3, 4, S, &, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17 and 18.
g. City Council Minutes dated December 9, 1992
City Council Minutes dated December 14, 1992
Planning Commission Mlnutes dated December 2, 1992
h. Approve Consultant Services Agreement for Radio Path Profiles (SCADA System)
for Lift Statlon Nos. 23, 24 and 25; Project Nos. 91-14, 91-17, and 92-5.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
A. AHENDpIIENT TO CXTY CODE REGf)RDING EX~HPTTON FROH PLATTIN6 RE:QUIREHENTS.
FIRST READING.
Mayor Chmiel: Item 3(a). I'd just like to go through this a little bit. I'm
not too exctted with thts subdivision ordinance. And I think that I'd like to
sort of, this goes back to Don. My concerns are a couple. One, If we go to do
what's being suggested, sometimes streets change names. Highway 101 changes
location. Things of that nature and then once someone moves into their
property, they feel very much as if they own that property and every foot of
that property. And sometimes with having new people move in, people get
possessive as well. They'd like to mow maybe another 2, 3, 4 feet over and I
guess my concerns are basically that everyone will want to have what's thetr's
and I don't want to see the arguments that could take place amongst neighbors.
And so maybe with that, Don I'll throw that back to you because you and I have
had some discussions.
City Council Meeting -- January 11, 1993
Don Ashworth: I've included various examples and metes and bounds descriptions
can really become very, very difficult to read, administer, try to keep track
of, etc. I thlnk that we have trled to make the process a 11ttle easier for
some individuals. However, I still have concerns anytime that we allow a
description to go through as metes and bounds. I should note that we do allow a
metes and bounds by what I call a simple subdivision process. For example, if
you needed 10 additional feel for a deck and your nelghbor was w1111ng to sell
and you both had a platted lot, we would allow the sale of that 10 feet. The
description then would be, I would own Lot i and the westerly 10 feet of Lot 2.
My nelghbor would end up with the resulting description of Lot 2, except for the
easterly 10 feet. A description like that is relatively easy to figure out
where you are. Kate, did you want to go through a 11ttle bit of the background
on how thls got up to where it got up to?
Kate Aanenson: I'd be happy to do that. This came about when we did the Oavid
Teich subdivision. I don't think the instances of thl$ would be pretty much in
the, what we call the urban service area. I thlnk the lnstance we had of this
was larger tract lots where I think some of these may exceed 25 feet. I thlnk
Don's suggestion that they do become cumbersom is true, especially in recording.
It's up to the County to declde whether or not they'll accept it. But we do
allow administrative lot splits, as Don explained, where they're pretty straight
forward and lt's pretty easy to record. But the instances where we've had these
tend to be larger lots where somebody wants to sell off maybe 20 acres and it
does become a burden when you've got that big of a property to hire a surveyor
and trying to do that. So we felt that, the County will accept them and if they
can be managed under, with the mlnlmal language, that we felt it's appropriate
to relieve them of that burden, when they're not maybe building even. It's
maybe just selltng off some property.
Mayor Chmiel: Metes and bounds, it sometimes means tied to the big oak tree and
it gets cut down, then what happens wlth situations as such.
Kate Aanenson: Well I don't think we would something like that but I think what
we're trylng to do ls respond to a burden that some people have approached the
city on that. It does become expensive when you've got a large piece of
property. To hire somebody to survey and it's more of trylng to be reactlve to
some of those concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: If they choose to put that into lots, that can be absorbed by the
cost of that lot as well.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: And how much total cost, just throw out a dollar figure. What
does it cost to plat?
Kate Aanenson: Maybe Charles would know better than I would, as far as
platting. I'm not hiring the surveyor.
Charles Folch: That depends on the size of the property.
Mayor Chmiel: A smaller one shouldn't be that much, is the point I'm trying to
make I guess.
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Todd Gerhardt: Just to change the lot line down where Americana Bank...
Kate Aanenson: So someone that's just splitting off.a lot that may not even be
buildable but trying to put it in an outlot, that becomes a big burden for them
and that's what we're trying to resolve.
Don Ashworth: Jo Ann had relayed to me like $500.00 versus $2,500.00. It was
not relayed to me that you were looking, this was only for larger lots.
Kate Aanenson: No, I'm saying that's where we've seem to have the most problems
is people that have larger lots but we do allow administrative subdivisions,
right.
Don Ashworth: My concern is that once it gets down into a single family lot,
it's going to stay in that description probably forever. I mean if we're really
talking about subdivisions where it's a guy splitting off 30 acres and 20 acres,
I don't have a problem with the thing being metes and bounds. But then we
should have a condition in here saying, this shall apply to larger subdivisions
where all lots are lO acres or more.
Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor? If I'm hearing it right, the concern is coming
from people who are in effect subdividing the land?
Kate Aanenson: No. You can't. There can't be any public streets involved.
It's more a straight forward. There's no dedication required and the only
instance I'm aware of since I've been here is when we did David Teich and that
was a larger lot he was trying to split off.
Paul Krauss: If I could add to that. We have had several that would have been
inside the MUSA area. We're basically talking about small divisions of
property. Again, no streets can be in there. It can't be very complicated.
Oftentimes we get the perverbial little old lady that's trying to split off the
lot, you know an individual homeowner and what we've found is that the cost
associated with the full platting, not our cost but the cost by the surveyor,
are extremely different. People have told us, you're talking about the
difference between $2,500.00 and $500.00. And if the thing is simple enough
that we're getting everything we need out of it, we're reviewing it the same way
we would as a plat. We're getting any kind of easements we need. We're making
sure that there's no variances and everything else, then the thought process was
why don't we try to work with the people a little bit and save them a few bucks
if it doesn't hurt anything. Oon's concerns though of not getting a real
complicated one in there are real valid. In Hennepin County, if you have a very
complex metes and bounds description, the County Surveyor will throw it out. In
Carver County they don't so we sort of need our own safeguard.
Councilman Senn: What I'm trying to get at though is the issue Paul then with a
situation where we're dealing just with land versus improvements? I mean is
that where the concern's coming from? Why should I have to pay to go through
the platting process when I'm Just breaking up a piece of land versus developing
a piece of land?
Kate Aanenson: Some of them may be buildable.
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Paul Krauss: The one that Don quoted, City Manager quoted where you can break
off 10 feet of your lot and give it to your neighbor, that's in ordinance right
now. That you can do that as a metes and bounds. That's the only metes and
bounds we have.
Councilman Senn: That's simple if it's a straight line but if you're taklng out
little squares somewhere in the middle.
Paul Krauss: It gets a little more complicated. You can still do it. It's in
the Code that you can do that. What we would envision I think.
Kate Aanenson: You can't create a new lot is what it says. If you're selling
it to another person, you can do that. If you're conveying it but if you're
trying to create a new lot, the ordinance doesn't allow for that. Okay. It's
only if you're conveying it to another party and not creating a new lot. You're
just changlng the 11nes. That's the only way the ordinance allows that now.
Paul Krauss: So this change would allow you to create a limited number of lots
with a slmple description that doesn't requlre any street. It may require
extension of water and sewer, in which case they'll have to glve us an easement,
but in other cases, we have all the controls that we have otherwise with the
subdivision. We're just trying to save them a 11ttle bit of money.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, if I could. I still have a problem when they're
creating 4 buildlng lots because those descriptions wtll stay in that longer
form forever. If again, if the prlmary concern is to hlt Kate's concern, these
larger tracts because the larger tracts will come back again. At a future point
in tlme somebody's golng to take that 10 or 20 acres and put ina 30-40 lot
subdivision and I can't see creating a real large expense for them when it's
primarily like a farmlng situation. One farmer selllng to another. Agaln, if
you had a condition, one additional one in there that basically stated, where
all the lots belng created are 10 acres or more, I wouldn't have a problem wlth
thls.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good point. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I have a lot of the same concerns you both do. Could we
accomplish something even better though by tying it to development of the
property? More or less if they have a 20-30 acre tract that they want to simply
split part off of, or put 20 here or 30 there, whatever they can do, metes and
bounds? But at the point that they move to develop the property, then it has to
go lnto a plattlng process?
Paul Krauss: That's almost the way it exists today. By state law, if they're
movlng more than 25 acres, I think it ls, there's no obligation to come in to
the Clty for any klnd of revlew. You know one thlng we may want us to do. I've
worked in some communities where thls ts just kind of taken as a matter of fact.
Some communities may have had problems with lt. The ones I'm famlllar with
haven't. It might be useful if we came back and just surveyed other communities
to flnd out who's doing what and we'll ask them if they had any problems and
we'll give you that information.
City council Meeting - January
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why don't we just then table this one at this time and
then bring it back to Council with that information, I would so move that,
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilman Wing: Just a comment. I think the City Manager's comments are well
taken and it cleans this thing up. It's kind of a sophisticated tight community
now where fence lines and is the wood on my property or yours, pretty close. I
had a piece of property in Wisconsin on metes and bounds and we wound up having
to move a house because of it. It looked obvious but it wasn't so Z favor, Z
think Don's approach is more conservative. Although we can ask these questions,
I think ue should look at the more conservative approach as maybe the way we
should go and I'd like to see Don take an active part with Paul on this.
Na¥or Chmiel moved, Councilman Nason seconded to table the amendment to City
Code regarding exemptions from platting requirements for future review. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
B. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, BLUFF CREEK ESTATES SECOND ADDITION.
Mayor Chmiel: In going through here, I saw regarding one outlot. I did not see
the size of that one outlot as opposed to the four slngle famtly lots. Sharmin,
could you?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Okay, it's in the second paragraph. It's 9.7 acres.
Mayor Chmiel: Of what page?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: First page.
Mayor Chmiel: First page? Okay.
Sharmtn Al-Jarl: First line of the second paragraph.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine and I don't have any. I passed right by that
probably twice. Okay. Then I would so recommend staff recommendation that the
City Councll approve final plat for Bluff Creek Second Addition, Subdivision
~92-5 as shown on plans stamped December 7, 1992 subject to the following
conditions. Those are conditions 1 thru 5. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Ming seconded to approve the final plat for Bluff
Creek Estates Second Addition as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
D. APPROVE ENVIRONHENTAL ASSESSHENT AND CONSULTANT DESIGN SERgICES WITH BARTON
ASCHHAN FOR TH 5 NORTH ACCESS BOULEVARD, PRO3ECT 90-17A.
Councilman Senn: I just had primarily a couple of questions, if I could Don.
Are we assured now of the funding to go ahead and accomplish this improvement?
City Council Meeting - January ll, 1993
Pending I should say the EIS, etc.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. The funding, if I remember correctly, will be coming
through MnOot.
Don Ashworth: Make sure I understand the question. Local funding can carry out
the local participation is proposed to be accomplished through our three tax
increment districts that basically would encompass that entire length. Yes, the
funds are available to meet the local share. If the question is, are we assured
of State participation. Part of thls is requiring that the State be the
applicant for thelr own funds and that they enter into a contract wlth us in
advance to insure that they in fact do fund thls project, or at least what would
be their share. John Mullah is here from Barton Aschman. John, dld you wish to
respond to that question?
John Mullan: I'm John Mullan from Barton Aschman and the question, Don is right
in what he sald. One thing ls there is Federal monies in that and beyond, MnOot
ls in the process of wrltlng a letter of agreement with the City statlng that
they're in agreement with the split of the work and to sponsor the project and
to request of Federal monies. You always get lnvolved wlth the Met Councll and
other people but we've met wlth the Met Council on the tralls and they seem to
be very conducive to this and I don't anticipate any problem. As long as it
goes ahead wlth the hlghway project. If it ever has to be spllt out as a
separate project, then I thlnk it would be more debateable. As it currently
stands, I talked to MnOot people today and 8ill Crawford ls Olvislon Englneer
for MnDot has passed Oon's letter off to Ron Erickson and due to the 35W
announcement coming up tomorrow, they weren't able to process that letter today
but they're basically, what I was told by Ron Erlckson, ls they're in agreement
with all of the requests that Oon had in his letter to 8ill Crawford.
Councilman Senn: Don, I guess additional question. Was this contract then bid
out then or?
Don Ashuorth: No. We went back through Barton Aschman. Barton Aschman had
been selected by MnDot to act as the consulting engineer for the Highway 5
project. My recollection is that several years earller MnDot had gone through a
bidding selection process for Highway 5. What we're doing at this point in time
ls we're amendlng the prevlous Hlghway 5 construction document to lnclude, or
add in the frontage roads. So we're not really changing that previous selection
process. We're just addlng to lt. I don't know if that makes sense. If you
follow me.
Councilman Senn: So rather than a separate contract, this is an addendum to an
existing contract?
Don Ashworth: That's correct. Is that the best way to describe it John?
John Mullah: We went through the selection process with Trunk Highway 5 and I
would guess this could be viewed as an addendum to that contract.
Don Ashworth: I know the State is doing.
City Council Heeting - January 11, 1993
3ohn Hullan: It's not presented in that format but that's the intention of the
contract is to keep them ail together.
Mayor Chmiel: What you're bringing up Hark was some of my concerns too at the
time. And in the way this fuIiy geIs together now, it makes all good sense for
us to go with this process. In having that boulevard section in and adjacent to
TH 5, with the accessibiiity aiso going into Lake Ann Park and having a
continuation all the way straight through rather than having those turns in and
off of Highway 5 as you Iook and see in the city of Eden Prairie. There's some
real problems there. So with this, this would alleviate some of those concerns
and provide additional safety for the residents within the city.
Councilman Senn: In that sense I guess I agree that it makes sense. Looking
through the contract and a few missed phone caIIs today so I unfortunateIy have
to ask the question tonight. But I have a iittIe probiem when I see assigning a
contract with an overhead rate of 179~ in it. I've never seen anything Iike
that before. Haybe that's in the prime contract and this is an addendum to it
but that causes me a great demi of concern.
Don Ashworth: 0o you wish to respond to that 3ohn?
John HuIIan: That is our audited overhead rate within HnOot and has been
accepted by MnDot. It's within their environmentaI area.
Councilman Senn: I understand that. So you're saying HnBot accept that?
3ohn Mullan: That's correct. That's their audited overhead rate. That's our
audited overhead rate is in fact a little bit higher than that but we've agreed
with MnOot to hold it down to that level. Part of the thing is, we've gone down
to 10% profit rather than a normal 15 which most firms request, to try and keep
that down.
Counciiman Senn: WeII I guess, you know I'm just going to repeat my concern. I
mean I see a contract here. I see a contract here essentially based on 6~ of
project cost. Nationally these are done at 3X to 6~, so this is top end of the
scale. ~nd then I turn around and see 179~ overhead rate. ~gatn, I think it
makes some sense, if this is the firm doing the overall Highway 5 study, but at
the same time I'm not sure we're staying competitive by us doing it that way.
Don Ashworth: I guess what I'd like to do is to have the opportunity to meet
with Councilman Senn to go through typical contracts. I'm not sure what costs
are lncluded in the, you're giving the range of like 3~ to 6~ but I can tell you
that all of the contracts that we have entered into with engineering services,
and thls goes for literally all of the flrms. All the way from Engelhardt to
BRW to Barton Aschman, etc. You're not going to get them under 7~. I mean it's
?~, 8~ ls typical. And again, there has to be a difference in the scope of
servlces between the type of contracts that you're referring to so I'd like to
kind of sit down, go through the servlces that are typically lncluded in many of
those contracts. And as John said, typically they look to a profit of 15~ and
this one, it had equated down to 10~ so I'm not, again I guess the best thlng
would be to just sit down and go through some of the contracts. See what
differences are in those contracts that you're typically familiar with versus
those that we have let let's say for the last 3, 4, 5 years.
City Council Meeting -- January il, 1993
Hayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Okay, would you like to make a motion?
Councilman Senn: Well again, I guess I made my concerns known. If nobody else
shares the concern, I guess that's up to them. I still have the same concerns
when I look at the rates.
Councilman Wing: Well I don't think it's a question of lacking concern. I just
think for me it's been discussed at length. Why they were chosen. The costs we
were going to pay them. Percentages. I mean I agree with you. I don't
disagree with your numbers but Mr. Ashworth in the past has been hit on this
pretty heavily and I think that the same comments he's going to give you, the
same ones that we've heard in the past and why they were chosen. The advantage
of taking Barton Aschman and moving with this project, and working with MnDot.
So I don't have any concerns at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to move that Mark?
Councilman Senn: Oh I'm sorry. OD we act on each one of these individually
then?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I'd call a question. You can just move it.
Councilman Se,n: In relationship to, well I guess the question is, if you're
looking for someone to move approval, I'm not willing to do so. If there's
somebody else who would like to do so.
Councilman Mason: I'd be happy to move approval for item 3(d) on the Consent
Agenda.
Councilman Wing: I second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Mark, in the process of investigating this item, if you should
be dissatisfied or find an error, I'd like to have a report back.
Councilman Mason: I think it would be nice to have a report one way or the
other. What I'm hearing from Don Ashworth here is that this is a pretty
competitive deal and if that pans out, I think we should know that as well as if
iL doesn't.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Environmental
Assessment and Consultant Design Services with Barton Aschman for TH 5 North
Access Boulevard, Project No. 90-17A. All voted in favor except Councilman Senn
who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to l.
F. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS.
Councilman Senn: I have I guess again, this is more a simple question than
anything else. Don, in relationship to the purposes, is there a reason why we
don't in effect detail out purposes for all the expenditures? I mean it's
pretty easy to follow but basically you go down the line and then you in effect
run into expenditures where there isn't one and it's real hard to explain. Is
10
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
there a reason for that? Again, this is a first time question. Don't get me
wrong. I'm just trying to learn.
Mayor Chmiel: You're asking the same question I've asked before.
Don Ashworth: You're using a standard classification of accounts under gaffer.
To the extent that we have learned what type of expenses might be of concern to
City Council, Jean goes back in and then adds in those descriptions after the
fact manually. Okay. That's the only reason. If [ know the type of ones that
you may have concern over, I think some of them such as flex plan payable, I
would hope is fairly obvious.. Again flex plan payable...
Mayor Chmiel: I think we pretty much try to say what's there. Every once in a
while, as you've done, I'll pull something out of these that doesn't look right
to me but normally it winds up where the explanations are correct with each of
those charges accordingly.
Councilman Senn: And when there's something like, I'm trying to find one here.
Like Ryan Contracting Inc., awarded construction contracts, Market Square.
mean that's something that's probably been previously approved contract or
something like that? I mean to me that's a $9,000.00 item that I don't have the
foggiest idea what it means but you're asking me to approve it.
Don Ashworth: Right. That is, wherever it says award of construction contract,
the Council has officially taken bids. They were the low bidder. That's a
payment in accordance with that award that was previously made by the City
Counc11.
Councilman Senn: On a public improvement portion of a project or that type of
thing?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions that you have on that?
Councilman Senn: Just some little ones but I'll ask Don afterwards. I was just
more interested in procedure than anything.
Mayor Chmiei: Okay. Would you like to move that one?
Councilman Senn: So moved.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Counc/1woman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Accounts'
Payable for December and 3anuary as presented. All voted tn favor and the
motion carried unan/mously.
Don Ashworth: Again, we can start building in more and more detall on these as
I learn what items are of more concern to Council members.
11
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
I. SET SALE DATE FOR 1993 TAX INCREMENT BONDS.
Councilman Senn: If I understand (i) correctly, what we're doing under (i) is
we're approving the sale of the bonds?
Don Ashworth: That's correct. Well, you're setting a sale date, but that's
making the assumption that when we get to the actual sale date, that if they
bring back a reasonable bid, that we'll award it. It does give an approximate
30 day period. I can't remember what we recommended in here for a date. The
first meeting in February. Sale date for February 8th. So you would have an
opportunity between now and February 8th to let's say, ask additional questions
in regards to what it is that's proposed to be bonded for in here. I would
prefer tabling the item to respond to those rather than to get into to actually
preparing a perspectus and telling people what it is we're bidding and then
change our mind. It would be more preferable to take 2 weeks and figure out,
no. I don't like some of these items or yeah, all of those are fine versus
again, putting out an official statement and then saying, you know we're not
really going to make this sale.
Councilman Senn: Rather than take the time or waste the time to discuss
specific items maybe tonight then I'd like to moue to table.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Is that what you're requesting?
Don Ashworth: Yes. If there are concerns by Council. We're not going to go
broke if ue walt an additional 2 week perlod of time to make sure that everyone
ls up to speed as to what it ls that's proposed to be bonded.
Mayor Chmiel: I would second that because I had some things here too that, my
concerns were what the rates of interest. What are we looking at? Where are we
going with this? And a few other things too.
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table setting the date for the
1993 Tax Increment Bonds until the next City Council meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
GOODYEAR TIRE FACILITY LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, AND
EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION CONTROL STATION:
A. REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE AN AUTO SERVICE RELATED USE IN THE BH,
BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,397 SQ. FT. GOODYEAR TIRE BUILDING.
Public Present:
Name Address
A1 Beisner Maple Grove
Chuck Beisner ,, ,,
Uernelle Wayton Chanhassen
12
City Council Heeting - January 11, 1993
Thomas N. Thompson
Tom Kotsonas
Chanhassen
Chanhassen Estates
Sharmin Al-Jaff: There are three applications before you. A site plan, a
conditional use permit and a subdivision. Approximately 3 acres are proposed to
be divided into three lots. Lot i will contain the Goodyear facility. Lot 2 is
proposed to contain the Abra facility and Lot 3 will be reserved for future
development. The proposal came before the Planning Commission on several
occasions. Planning Commission's primary concern revolved around the design of
the site relative to ongoing issues of urban design and the Highway 5 corridor.
The Abra design st£11 wasn't satisfactory. That's why we didn't bring it in
front of you today, but we kept the Goodyear on for you to vote on. The site
plan is reasonably well developed. Staff has been working with the applicant
for approximately 6 months now and the design has improved considerably. The
Goodyear building is a split face concrete block accented by a sandable
decorative texture finish structure that will have a series of service bays and
a pitched roof. All services will be conducted inside the building. Parking
for vehicles is located on the north and west side of the structure. This
location is ideal since it places these areas further away from residences south
of Lake Brive. The site landscaping is of high quality due to attention that
was paid to this issue by staff and the applicant. We regard the project as
reasonable, well developed and staff is recommending that the City Council
approve the site plan, the conditional use permit and the subdivision request
with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you.
Hayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is Goodyear here to make any formal presentation or
do you have something for us to vlew thls evening?
A1 Beisner: I'm A1 Beisner. I'm not Goodyear. I am the developer of the site.
A 11ttle history. We came to Chanhassen in Hay I think of last year. I have a
relationship with Goodyear. They wished to locate in your community. We looked
at several sltes. We originally had put money down on an option site further
west. That was a neighborhood zone and would require rezoning. When we came to
staff we were lnformed that rezoning in this particular area would be very
difficult because neighborhood business is neighborhood business. This
particular plece of property is highway business. I thlnk number 20 under the
proposed uses under highway business fits the Goodyear site and the Goodyear use
very well. Later on in the development of the project, because of some sort of
a glitch I guess, we fell into a conditional use permit requirement which we are
complying by. We have been through, as you probably heard, many, many meetings
and design changes with Goodyear, with Abra and the Goodyear store was never the
problem. It was the Abra store that seemed to be the problem and we are not
asking for approval of that building tonight. We're back doing probably, as we
refer to, our seventh redraw of the architectural in that. Even though
architect and the taste appeared to be a matter of the individual taste of the
Plannlng Commission, of myself and lt's very difficult for us all to agree on
what works. I have some boards, color boards I could put here and show you what
we've done to the site and how it's going to look. In sitting through several
of these meetings with the neighborhood group and hearing feedback from
residents, in reviewing this entire procedure, I'm very, I'm confident that what
we are proposing is a very, very good use for the site. Number one, we are
spending about 2 1/2 times as much on landscaping as the city does require
today. We're putting in some landscape features that are not in your
13
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
requirements at all. Number two, we have set back the buildings from the
freeway a good distance so that we don't have a building out on a freeway.
Basically we've also lowered each, or we've lowered the elevation of our slte
about 5 feet from the next door neighbor, which is the emisslon control
building. You'll see from one of the drawlngs that I have that we're not very
vlsible, much to the chagrin of 6oodyear and of Abra, from the freeway. We've
put in berming. 3-4 feet of berming in front so that cars that are parked in
the parklng lot will hardly be vlslble from Hlghuay 5 and/or from the Lake Drive
side. And in reviewing some of the neighbors concerns and what ls permitted in
a hlghway zone. I think fast food restaurants, which are 24 hours. And motels
which can operate 24 hours, that have thelr 11ghts on and have cars golng in and
out all the times of the day. We don't expect any trafflc problems. We're
hoping to have 32 cars a day as customers for the 6oodyear store. If Taco Bell,
which lsa permitted use in that zone, has 32 cars a day, they wouldn't be in
buslness there. So I thlnk that we've lost slght of some of the thlngs that
thls really is a better use because it's open during business hours. We aren't
open after 9:00 on any one nlght. We aren't open Sunday and I think that with
the extra attention that we've pald to the landscape details, that we've done,
we thlnk it wlll be a very good, compatible use. There wlll be no outslde
storage. There won't be cars parked outside. Those are all in ordinances that
the Clty of Chanhassen has currently and we expect that they would enforce
those. I'll try to show you a couple of things. This is basically the color
slte plan, landscaping plan of the two sltes. We're only considering the
6oodyear slte. We're not developing this other slte. Right now...pond in here,
existing stand of poplars that ls there. We are set back from Highway 5 further
than what your normal setback requirements are. The berm that we have along in
the northern border here, we're vlrtually...shleld cars. If you can see it
closely, this is the...car here and a car there. The berm is 3 1/2 to 4 feet.
A normal car helght is about 4 1/2 or 5 feet. You won't be seeing that from the
freeway where currently you...emlsslon control building and the McDonald's site,
there really lsn't a bermlng there to screen thelr parking lot from the hlghuay.
This is the building that we are proposing to have a pitched roof. We have some
gables on the ends. Wlth accent colors and strlpes of the 6oodyear colors.
This design...we had two gables here. On your handout, that shows... The same
buildlng wlth a couple of gables here to break up the long roofllne that we dld
have at one time. Architecturally speaking, we are not itl a historical zone.
We don't have sidewalks in front of us. There won't be pedestrian trafflc
walking through there that we can tell. There aren't sidewalks going in and we
think that we've come a long way and we have worked wlth the clty and the staff
in trylng to develop the plan, the landscape plan and those klnds of things so
that it would be a nlce use here. Unllke many of you perport developers to be,
some of us are very conscience of the community that we are in. We will be a
major taxpayer here. We do not want to develop a slum. It would only hurt our
values as it would hurt everybody elses values. And I know the problems that
people have with developers and deslgns along the freeway. I, at one time was
the original Commissioner of the Maple Grove Economic Development Commission and
we adapted a highway zone. And we have brlcks, glass or better and we aren't so
sure that's the rlght answer. Developing your hlghway corridor ls extremely
difficult and architecture ls extremely subjective. But we thlnk what we've
done and what we've put lnto thls far exceeds what any of the standards were and
we'll be pleased ulth thls once it's completed. If you have any questions,
here.
14
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions?
Councilman Mason: Do you have anything for the view from the back end? The
Lake Orive side?
A1 Belsner: Thls will be the back. This ls the south elevation.
Sharmin Al-Jarl: The residential area.
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
A1Beisner: This way?
Councilman Mason: No. I'm thinking of the south side. In terms of
landscaping. I know there's that outlot between the two but will their view be7
A1Beisner: Right now they won't be able to see through. I don't know what's
going on here. That uill be addressed when this lot ts developed.
Paul Krauss: Ultimately there's going to be an intervening buildlng wlth
additional landscaping but nobody knows what that is at this point.
Councilman Mason: On the southern lot?
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Senn: So that ls viewed as a temporary buffer rather than?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
A1Beisner: Originally we had inquiries by other auto related areas for thts
particular southerly site. We've had an inquiry, and I only take them as
inquiries belleve me, but from a doctor who wants to, or a dentist that would
like to build his clinic there. I don't know why he'd want to be in this area
as opposed to downtown but that's one lnquiry that we do have. But otherwise
there's nothing we have on the board. We do not have that property under
option. We are optioning this property from, I think it's the Mason family, who
coincidentally were the owners and developers I think of the.
Councilman Mason: No relation.
A1Beisner: No, but I think that they were the original developers of the
property. The residential area south of the site. And at that time they wanted
to develop all residential but there was some movement by the powers that be at
that tlme to create a buslness buffer zone between residential and a highway.
So that's how it came about.
Counciluoman Dockendorf: Where do you expect the traffic flow to come from
primarily?
A1 Beisner: Primarily from the McDonald's end of lt. Whatever that stop light
is there. The stop sign at TH 101. We, 6oodyear, would like to do 32 cars a
day. Abra probably, and we aren't talklng Abra now but Abra's probably 10 to 15
15
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
cars a day. It's not like it's a high traffic volume that's going to be created
as opposed to if we were to have a fast food or something like that. Then there
could be concern about traffic but we don't see that here.
Mayor Chmiel' What about noise?
A1 Beisner: They will, there is a condition in I believe the Minutes about we
will not exceed, Goodyear will not exceed the acceptable or the permitted noise
level. Goodyear is not noisey. They do everything indoors. Closed. Garage
doors down. It's not a noisey kind of business. It's not fixing auto wrecks at
Goodyear. It's you know, greasing, olling the car, alignments, tlres, that kind
of thing.
Councilman Senn: Two questions if I could. One's a clarification. In our
staff report, there's a section on the hours which leads me to believe that an
agreement was reached with the neighborhood that you'd be open 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Now I just heard you say a minute ago that they were going to be open
until 9:00 p.m.
A1 Beisner: I'm sorry. We do not have set hours yet. We have not reached
agreement with anybody. The hours that you have in your' Minutes are the typical
hours a 6oodyear store is open. And they vary from operator to operator. But
there isn't a Goodyear store in the Twin City area that's open past 9:00 so
that's why I threw out the 9:00. That was a mistake. Rlght now the proposed
hours are as stated in that staff report.
Councilman Senn: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.?
A1Beisner: Yes. Yes.
Councilman Senn: But there's no tie to that basically one way or the other?
A1 Beisner: No.
Councilman Senn: Second question is.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul had a.
Paul Krauss: He said as to the noise. I think there's an omission here. When
this was before the Planning Commission, in fact we were talking about it to the
Abra people and they indicated that they have a company requirement that the
doors be kept virtually shut. No more open than a foot or two off the ground.
And one of the things it does is cut down the nolse. That was to be a condition
on both sites that we were going to add. So that would help to keep the impact
wrench nolse down if lt's basically taklng place wlthln the building.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, because most of them leave the doors open in the
summertime.
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Senn: Second one is, where will you, and it may just be the plans
that Z have so I'd like to know, where ls your storage area in effect for your
16
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
trash and your discarded tires and that sort of thing? Especially your
discarded tires, which get to be quite a pile.
A1 Beisner: Right here. We're proposing to attach this, this is a 5,200 square
foot building. Square foot site...is enclosed part of the building. There is
outside, the door is that direction.
Councilman Senn: So it's not roofed? It's basically like a trash enclosure?
A1 Beisner: No, it is roofed too. Not like a trash enclosure. Trash enclosure
is not roofed. Here is that, it does have a roof...with a door that shuts and
it does lock.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Wing: Paul, it says they're going to use a split block. It sounds
like a cement block building. Is that right? It might have a fancy texture to
it but it's a cement block building?
Paul Krauss: That's true. The City prohibits unadorned block.
Councilman Wing: But it's a cement block building. Is the one in Eden Prairie,
near the Eden Prairie Center, is that not brick? Isn't the Goodyear store tn
Eden Pralrie brlck? It sure looked like brlck to me.
A1 Beisner: I don't think so. Block comes in so many different styles and
shapes. It may be the burnished block look that we are trying to achieve here
too.
Councilman Wing: But it matches ali their other brick buildings.
A1Beisner: Yes. Goodyear doesn't have as many brick buildings as you might
think.
Councilman Wing: I don't care if they've got any. But in regards to this city,
you're putting a building right in our gateway.
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, we do have a photograph of that one. It does
appear to be a brick.
Councilman Senn: It is brick.
Councilman Wing: It is brick.
Councilman Senn: It is brick. The one on Highway 7 is a combination burnished
block and block face block.
Councilman Wing: Just I guess my comment just on that one specific issue is
that, if we're going to place, if we're going to allow automotive use to expand
beyond the central business district, and start stripping down the highway into
our, the very essence of our gateway which has been a primary discussion for a
year now, the cart's ahead of the horse and I don't think we can do much about
it in this case. They're meeting the land use and like it says, it's
17
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
reasonable. It's not necessarily unacceptable but I don't think ue should be
looking at any concrete block if other cities are getting brick and it's
certainly a much higher quality building than the one we're looking at. 4nd I
went around and I looked at the different types of burnished block and split
face concrete block and it's still a cement block building and I'm not going to
buy it on this one. Cement block building, I don't care what you call it. It's
a cement block building. The one in Eden Prairie startled me because first of
all it's nicely landscaped, which I think this is the case here. With berms but
it was also a real quality building which I was surprised to see. If I go into
the, let me just take a quote here out of the Planning Commission meeting from
one of it's senior members. Typically with car care type structures you wind up
with a very minimum it takes to do the job. That's the type of light industrial
use that you often see with these types of buildings. This is the designer
saying this. It is not something that I think we would be in the interest of
good planning to be putting next to both the entrance to our city and single
family reside~ts and I agree with his statement. I don't think any type of
cement block is acceptable for this building. Not...I'd just like to, that's
the only comment I have on that issue. I'd like to stop right there for now.
Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor, is this time to ask Paul questions too or?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, yes.
Councilman Senn: Paul, in relationship to that hour issue then. That is not
something that, it was kind of a point of resolution with the neighbors?
Paul Krauss: I don't recall it as being one Mr. Senn but under the conditional
use permit standards, you can attach conditions that regulate hours of
operation. So it can certainly be resolved by you there.
Councilman Se~n: Is there, reading through your findings, I just wanted to
clarify a couple of them on page 12. If I'm readlng thls correctly, there w111
be a condition in the conditional use permit which says there w111 be no
unllcense or inoperable vehicles stored on the premises.
Paul Krauss: Yes, there should be. In fact it's one of the standard ones in
the ordinance. It should be repeated. Well, it ls. No damaged or inoperable
vehlcles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear site. It's condition number
4.
Councilman Senn: And there will be no outside repairs whatsoever?
Paul Krauss: Yes. Condition] 2. No outdoor repairs to be preformed or gas sold
at the slte. We should probably clarlfy the language so it more dlrectly
parallels with what's in the text but the conditions are in there.
Councilman Senn: I didn't see a condition at all relatlng to outside sales.
Flags, banners, all that sort of thing, whlch Goodyear ls famous for. Is it
I'm just not seelng it or ls that something?
Al~3aff: It's not in the report.
18
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
A1 Beisner: I believe that that was an issue that was brought up at one of the
Planning Commission meetings and we understood then that the City of Chanhassen
has a sign ordinance and what you can do and how you can do it. I'm assuming
that's what we are abiding by.
Paul Krauss: The sign ordinance would probably allow some of the situations to
exist that you're referring to so tt may be wise to, if you wanted to p.lace
limitations on it, put it in the conditions of the permit.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you see the development of the Goodyear store
precondit£oned on Abra going in?
A1 Beisner: No. No. It came about because I was doing the Goodyear store and
there was another developer that had an option on this site and was going to put
in an auto mai1 and he had Abra and they wanted to be there and I said, I just
want to build a free standing Goodyear store. And he said, well I'd like to put
an Abra store in there so we're making two separate legal descriptions. Two
separate loans. Two separate ownerships. The whole thing. So it's not one on
the other at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else like to address the
Council at this particular time? Yes str. State your name and your address
please.
Tom Kotsonas: My name is Tom Kotsonas and I live in Chanhassen Estates. I back
up to Lake Drive East. The gentleman has made some comments and maybe he met
with some other neighbors and not myself but I don't remember being informed or
asked to attend any meetings. I've gotten the implication that he's met with the
neighbors. I don't know. No? Okay, so I misread the statement on that. I
would just like to reinforce some of our concerns from the Chanhassen Estates
neighborhood and those of us who back up to that proposed development. Much of
it's been brought up. There seems to be, and rightly so, a great deal of
concern with the north side facing the highway. The berming and the trees and
so forth. They mentioned the parking on the west side. The west side affects
us more than parking on the east side of the building. That's the east side is
further away from the houses than the west side is..We have, obviously would
like to see as much berming on the south side and the west side as possible and
as much vegetation, trees that are of some size to start with. 3 and 4 and 5
foot trees, especially pine trees take many years and I'm a young man but if
they stage it, some of those trees grow in Minnesota, they'll be 20 or 30 years
from now before they get to a size that will be of any benefit to us and I would
like to stay in the neighborhood that I'm in. I've been there a long time and I
would like to continue residing there. And I mentioned to other people at times
that we have seen a number of, I have seen a number of my neighbors move out
because of development that's taken place along behind us. As long as.I've got
the stage here a little bit, we have McDonald's sitting there with spot lights
shining through at nighttime. We have the emissions control, or testing center
which we can watch cars coming in and out of there, checking stations, or they
can watch us you know from the same thing. We would like this not to become
similar to that. We would like, if it's going to be developed, whatever is
there we would like to be insured that we have plenty of privacy. We've been
19
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
there a long time paying taxes and we have a right as residents and as taxpayers
to protect our property, our neighborhood and our values as much as someone
coming in and making a profit. Thank you very much for the tlme.
Councilman Mason: Why wouldn't the parking lot be on the other side there? If
it would help that neighborhood out. Was that addressed at a11, do you know?
Paul Krauss: Not specifically. Mr. Besiner might have some considerations
about the parklng. This parklng ls falrly remote from the neighborhood. I mean
ultimately there's going to be quite a bit, and I'm not sure what, but there's
going to be something between there and the neighborhood.
A1 Beisner: This is the west side. This is the east side and this is
residential down here so... Also, a problem that came about wlth the
development of the emissions control slte. This site wlll be, it ls right now 4
1/2 feet higher than thls... Coming from the...natural drop. We have a 4 1/2
to 5 foot drop from thls elevation to this elevation. There wlll be no cars
vlsible from the west. It became more, originally we had the Goodyear bullding
over here but we couldn't put in the... I don't know what happened to that when
the emlsslon control bulldlng...lf the site was raised...
Paul Krauss: Now, in the duration, you do have that clump of willows over here
which are not great but in the summertime do offer...a 11ne of trees along what
wlll become the north property line there and at least that would glve them some
tlme to grow. But agaln, we're still uncertain as to what's golng to happen
there. I assume it will probably take access off the driveway here someplace,
klnd of rlght across from that and in that case those trees won't be in the way
and could be allowed to stay.
A1 Beisner: On our final plan, and...ue do not have any illuminated lighting
for Goodyear on this end of the building...
Councilman Mason: I did note that there are going to be some trees that are 16
feet in diameter on the report. That's great. I want to see them.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time?
Tom Thompson: My name is Tom Thompson, a Goodyear employee and perspective
owner of this facility. Flrst, some concerns about hours. Most of the stores
that are open until 9:00 are near malls. So this store more than 11kely will,
7:00 wlll be sufficient. Secondly, the flags and signs. Goodyear doesn't lean
towards the carnival effect. They work towards professionalism and looks of the
building, whlch it handles well. So as far as the flags and the carnlval
effects, would be on an annual, possibly a permit type thlng. Sales, such as
annlversay sale. Mlnlmal weekend thlngs. So I don't thlnk that would be,
shouldn't be a concern. As far as noise. 25 to 30 cars a day is the normal,
and less than 10~ of these vehl¢les are belng operated durlng repalr time. So
exhaust, revving engines or whatever you want to call it, they're sitting idol.
They're not running. The only equipment that would be maklng nolse are alt
too].s which probably more than 50 to 60 feet away you wouldn't hear them anyway.
They'd all be wlthln the building. So the nolse level's minlmal. The looks of
the building, someone had recommended or had mentioned £den Prairie. I managed
2O
City council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Eden Prairie for 7 years and this building far exceeds the looks and outlay of
the Eden Prairie building. It was set up very well. Thank you for your time.
Councilman Wing: I just have, one thing in Chanhassen we're certainly
interested in good corporate citizens and liquor stores who don't sell liquor to
minors and cigarettes to minors at the grocery stores, and Mr. Beisner I don't
want to put you on the spot here necessarily, but didn't Goodyear get a lot of
really negative media coverage recently on quota systems and, didn't they
recently get caught in a sting operation?
Tom Thompson: Yes, that was the corporate stores which was, it was one sided.
It was sensationalism in journalism. It was a one sided store. I work for a
corporate store right now and ! can honestly say the independents could be as
much a spot as a corporate but sensationalism in journalism. No one's going to
deal with one man. They want to go for the corporation. And my store, which I
work in Wayzata, we had been visited several times. Nothing was said. What
little highlighted segments you saw on the television were sensationaiized. They
panned out to be nothing and it fizzled out real quick.
Councilman Wing: So that problem, both between Sears and Goodyear, that's been
resolved? I can feel comfortable.
Tom Thompson: Sears was a much more complicated issue. The government was
involved with that and government also did come to Goodyear and ask for their
advice and their help and Goodyear declined because they didn't want to get into
mud slinging.
Councilman Wing: So there's no question I could come to your store in full
trust?
Tom Thompson: lOOt guaranteed. That's been Goodyear's warranty ail along.
100t customer satisfaction.
Councilman Wing: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Are you individually going to be owning and operating this
business?
Tom Thompson: Well, I don't know. It's a franchised store which means Goodyear
will hire on the owner, just like applying for a job. So whoever's best suited
for the position of owning this facility will be taken on. ~nd each individual
who applies for ownership has to meet certain requirements, so it's fairly
strict.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you still live in town Tom?
Tom Thompson: Yes, I'm a resident of Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions of Tom? Thank you.
Tom Thompson: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: You had some specific questions that you wanted to bring up.
21
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Councilman Wing: Whenever it's convenient. Are you looking for...
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Biesner, my comments tonight I want to make sure are not
directed at you, and this is the first time as a Councilmember I get a chance to
react to this. It goes through Planning Commission and ue have preliminaries
but all of a sudden here it is, and last time I showed some concerns I got a
letter from a corporation that kind of came after me. So I'd like to put my
comments out but necessarily be attacking you or your company whatsoever. And I
want to back up and just comment that these are really permanent installations.
Kind of one shot deals and we either do it right or we're stuck forever. The
real concern I've got is this is our gateway. I'm going to suggest that this is
our front door and we're kind of developing it using 15 year old standards and
ordinances that are just in the process of being updated and these lots on this
east end are sneaking by the program here and I'm going to suggest that in 6
months, or if this was to be held for a while, that this development might not
be occuring in my opinion. I was hoping ue could zone and limit fast food and
auto centers and kind of centralize their automotive centers and not spring them
up on a strip basis running out to our east end right down our gateway. So I
guess I'm recognizing that this is meeting our standards and maybe there's very
little to be said or done and my voting no would not even be a legal vote no if
they're meeting our ordinance guidelines. But on the north side of the street
we've just taken out a taco stand and a cement plant. Now we've turned around
and added an auto body shop and a Goodyear tire store, and I don't see those as
necessarily complimenting each other. It seems we're trying to clean up this
side but then we're letting kind of what I see as an inappropriate land use come
in for the south side now, and I have nothing against Goodyear. My last set of
tires came from them, but again we're talking land use and what's best for the
city. And I think if the Highway 5 corridor study were in line and if our
landscaping and our land use ordinance were up to par where I'd like it to be
tonight, that we probably wouldn't be addressing this. My concern is that
there's probably a few more lots out there in this area that are going to slip
through unless we do something really rapidly and that's what I want to discuss
under Council Presentations. I think we need to move to prevent additional
automotive or fast food uses at the entryuay to our city. Reasonably well
developed. Reasonably well developed for our gateway .... come to terms with
this in the staff report has been like trying to hit a moving target because ue
don't have any rules in place. Cement blocks I don't approve of. Reasonable if
on exceptional land use. You know none of this is making me feel real good
about this. Eden Prairie is brick. I'm going to suggest that we have brick
here. The building architecture meets the standards of the site plan ordinance
requirements. That's back from 1978. Not the new corridor study that's coming
through. Just quickly going back to where we're winding up here and why I'm
really afraid of approving this tonight without a lot more information. The
Planning Commission who has looked at this night after night and week after
week, said they're really worried about it. Senior Commissioners are, there's
one comment off of page 11. I think Ladd you hit it on the nose. We pass this
up to Council tonight and let them take a hack at it. Probably the best thing
to do. Five more opinions. Well I think we're less informed than the Planning
Commission and we're not designers either. So I really, I guess I don't know if
we've got any justification to say no to this but they slip through the crack
and what we're trying to do on Highway 5 and I'm really concerned about the
22
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
neighbors comments about the negative impact these businesses will have.
don't think they're positive quality business. Again, nothing to do with
Goodyear. I'm talking strictly land use and do we want our corridor, the
gateway to be auto body shops and tire shops and so on and so forth. I think
the neighbors comments about the degregation of their neighborhood and the type
of land use that's going in here is very pertinent and I really'am concerned for
the neighbors and I wish we had been a head of this by another 6 to 8 weeks.
months. This probably wouldn't have happened. I think the neighbors have very
valid points and I think that once again, staff and City Council are sitting
here with all our hoofs dug into the ground, pulling backwards but the carts got
all the developers going westbound and they've got more people than we've got.
They've done everything right. They're given and yielded. I think staff has
done an excellent job on this. I'm real disappointed that Planning is saying,
we don't like it and I'm saying I don't like it and I don't like the land use
and I wish we were ahead of this and I hope that no more of these are going to
slip through the cracks. I can't be any more negative than that. I'll turn it
over to somebody else. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for your positiveness. Colleen, do you have any?
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Yes. I think a reocurring theme that we're going to
see tonlght is the Highway 5 corridor task force and where they are and being a
freshman on the Councll I'm not completely certain where they are in the
development of the plan but I'm concerned that we are letting things come
through without an overall plan for what we want to do for Highway 5 and how
businesses will relate to that development. $o I'm concerned about allowing
businesses to build or do anythlng until we have that long range plan in focus
for Highway 5. Particularly, as Dick said, with tt being the gateway to our
city. I appreciate all the work that's been done by the Planning Commission and
by Goodyear but it sounds like nobody's completely thrilled with it and I have a
lot of faith in staff and in the Planning Commission. They're not thrilled. I'm
not particularly thrilled. As Dick said, it does meet our standards as they sit
today but as City Council we have the authority to put the brakes on this one
until we have more current standards to have it live up to so I guess right now
I'm uncomfortable wlth it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Being uncomfortable with it and which way we're going to vote
I think are two different things. I find myself being in kind of an unusual
posltlon here. I'm not sure at this polnt that we have much choice. I agree
with your comments about I wish this was coming 6 months later because I suspect
we'd be done with our Highway 5 overlay. Just out of curiousity Paul, how muoh
longer do you think we'll be going with that?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing asked me that this afternoon and I always hesitate
to give a date where you have citizens tnvolved because you're never sure which
way it's going to go. We have an intent to try to wrap it up in about 5-6
months, or at least get the ordinance out. In fact, there's a separate
subcommittee, well you're aware of that. A separate subcommittee has been
established to work on the ordinance aspect under an accelerated way and their
first meeting is Wednesday. So I'd give the 6 months as a reasonable timeframe.
23
City Council Meeti~lg - 3anuary 11, 1993
Councilman Mason: I guess my question would be, and maybe this is to the legal
end of this. Is there anyway, and also I want to share what Councilman Wing
said too. I think clearly there's been a lot of work done on this and I
appreciate that. That to me is not the issue at all, but we are talking about
what Chanhassen is going to look like for the next, as long as I'm going to be
here, and I'm curious if there's anything ue can do to hold this off until that
gets done. I mean what happens if we vote this down?
Elliott Knetsch: Well, part of this is a preliminary plat and you're obligated
to act on the preliminary plat but then I believe it's 120 days after it's
submitted to you from the Planning Commission so I don't think you could wait
until it's done to act on this. You're legally required to act in a certain
amount o[ time.
Councilman Wing: Mike, the other comment along that line, and I don't, you have
the floor but the central business district which this falls into, is not
necessarily anything that the task force is dealing with. They're primarily
dealing with the western two-thirds and so this is the eastern part which may or
may not have any reflection on that task force at all and their findings.
Excuse me.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Mike?
Councilman Mason: No. I guess we could drag our feet and see if ue could prod
the committee along but I don't see that. I guess we're asking Goodyear and
people to act in good faith and I thil~k we need to act in good faith too. So at
this point I don't have anything more to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess two different levels of comments. One is if ue do
proceed with this I would, I'm in real agreement with Olck that I'd like to see
some upgrading of the bulldlng materials. I'd also like to see some
stipulations that relate to hours and banners, flags and outside sales. And I
guess those are the klnd of, if it goes comments. I have I guess a real overall
concern just in relationship to the land use. You know I know this is highway
buslness but a lot of thlngs under it require conditional use permlt. You know
if you go out and drive, let's call it the eastern section of Highway 5. It's
klnd of amazing. I mean you see an emlssion center, 4 gas stations, i oll
change place, 2 auto service places, 2 carwashes, 1 auto parts place, and then
go on and on and on. I've seen thls happen before in other citles. I'll call a
wonderful example, Hopkins which 20 years ago became gasoline alley. 20 years
from then which ls now, they're still working to get rid of that reputation and
that image. You know I'm not sure I have as many problems with the Goodyear
bullding ltself if lt's done properly but agaln I have a real problem with
intensification of this type of uses on our maln corridor because it seems to me
the handwrltlng's on the wall. We're becomlng another gasollne alley and I
think that's not in the overall benefit of the City of Chanhassen. I don't know
I guess totally elther what the solutions are and agaln, I haven't been lnvolved
in the year's discussion on this, if that's what it's been. But I'd really
rather than see us proceed wlth approvals on thls, I'd really rather see us take
an action to do something like put a moratorium on it for 6 months so ue can sit
back and get where we want to get in relationship to land uses on that corridor.
24
City Council Meeting - January
Now I'm not sure that's expanding the study that's going on out west because I'm
not sure I want to take the efforts away from that that are going on but maybe
this becomes an east end study of the same thing. But ! get real concerned
because any time an area first opens for development, these are the pressures
that are put on it. The question is whether you're going to allow the pressures
to take over or whether you're going to sit back and take your time and get a
good balance. And I guess I underline that word balance of development.
Balanced uses in the area.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: Don, I'd just like the City Manager to address this. Don, in
laymen's terms, I agree with Councilman Senn. I think the land use has gotten
ahead of the, has gotten ahead of us here and we're stung. To put it bluntly,
isn't that a tough bounce. Have they not met our standards in our current
ordinances and ls there in fact, we have no choice? There is nothing to deny
here? They've gone the extra mile wlth staff and with our ordinance. There's
nothing to deny. There is no moratorium that he's put on here. Hasn't this
simply slipped through the cracks and it's a done deal?
Don Ashworth: I would request that the City Attorney respond to that.
Elliott Knetsch: Thank you Don. I would agree with what you're saying to a
certain degree. I thlnk the bottom line is, however, that the use that they're
considering here is a conditional use. If it was a permitted use and they met
all ordinance requirements, then you are, there really is no discretion. But
with the conditional use, you have discretion and the staff report contains the
factors to consider in looklng at a conditional use. The staff has made
recommendations on findings but the Council is not bound by those findings. If
you go through those and determine, in your opinion, that they don't meet those
standards, then you could deny the permit. Or you know, if you come up with
other standards that relate to the wording of these standards that you don't
think they meet, you could deny the permit. In other words, you're not totally
restricted to the speciflc language of the ordinance. If you have other traffic
concerns, other land use concerns that may impact adjoining properties or the
city in general, that could form the basis for denial of the conditional use
permit.
Councilman Senn: That addresses this specific action but I think Dick's
questlon was comlng back to more what mine is. Can we put a moratorium on
consideration even of projects in thls area until we have a chance to catch up
and get a new land use plan in effect in place?
Elliott Knetsch: The answer is yes. You're allowed to have what's called an
interim ordinance while you study the area tn question.
Councilman Wing: So you're saying we could deny the conditional use permit and
put an overlay, temporary overlay to get, we could get an ordinance on line real
fast that might make it undesireable to put thls type of business in or make it
so attractive that we wouldn't care what they put in. But we could deny the
conditional use permit?
25
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Elliott Knetsch: I think that if you consider an interim ordinance, you would
have to consider how the interim ordinance is going to effect pending
applications. Do you want the pending applications to go through or do you want
them put on hold until you, until you lift the ordinance and allow development
applications again?
Councilman Wing: Okay, we talked about moratoriums before and Woodbury got shot
down so we chose not to go that route.
Elliott Knetsch: Yeah, but Woodbury was upheld in Court within the last month.
Councilman bJing: Was upheld?
Councilman Senn: It was upheld a week ago as a matter of fact.
Don Ashworth: If you would consider denying it, what you previously have done
ls to act to have the Clty Attorney's offlce draft the, I guess you call them
Findings of Fact. Basically it provides the basis under whlch thls is being
denled. Zf you are golng to go with the moratorium, I would ask that you
similarly table the item to allow the City Attorney to draft those findlngs as
well.
Councilman Senn: Excuse me Don, if we table it though, doesn't it pass by, I
mean doesn't it just pass because of that time period you referenced earlier? If
t,e don't act by that date, it goes forward?
Elliott Knetsch: Right, but I don't believe that we're at the end of our time
11mlt on that date. I don't know when the application was flled or when the
Plannlng Commission acted on lt.
Sharmln Al-Jarl: The PI. arming Commission acted 2 weeks ago.
Paul Krauss: But the item was filed.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: In May.
Mayor Chmiel: I think everybody's concerns are establishing the Hihgway 5
corridor wlth the regulations that we're looklng for and I think some of the
thlngs that I had too ls something that were not addressed fully but we're
looking at now with that adoptlon for the Highway 5 corridor. The standards for
architecture as to the exterior of those buildings. What they're really golng
to look 11ke. I thlnk that's one of it. We could also go for that moratorium
on a 6 months basls and I thlnk wlthln that perlod of tlme we might have enough
gathered to put that ~hrough. I see a puzzled look on your face Paul. I'm
asking that question.
Paul Krauss: If it was just a matter of staff working with our consultants and
golng off and wrlting this thing, we could have it to you in 2 weeks. But the
fact of the matter is, we're worklng with a cltlzens task force and we need to
bring them along and then we need to go public wlth i~ and get feedback and then
we need to brlng it through the Plannlng Commission and then ultimately to you.
Now at the end of that process, what you have is a new development ordinance.
An overlay ordinance in all probability for the corridor. You haven't gotten to
26
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
uses at all. I mean that involves the City initiating rezonings and they're
probably going to be contested rezonings. A property owner isn't going to want
to concede it in a number of cases up and down the corridor. Changing land uses
also involves getting often rubber stamped but approval by the Metro Council,
which adds more time. That whole, you're going the whole 9 yards on that thing
probably takes the best part of a year.
Councilman Senn: But can't we undertake that process, separating the east end
from the west end and shorten that process back to what you were talking about
in the first place?
Mayor Chmiel: They're not addressing the east end.
Paul Krauss: That's not true. No. The corridor starts at Dell Road and ends
technically past the Arboretum. The work schedule in fact, when we've targeted
sites that needed special study, we started out with the area in front of Data
Serv and then we've got the next site we've targeted is the Ward property so
we've picked up parcels in and around, completely through the CBD. Also,
Richard you mentioned something that the CBD and the corridor are not
necessarily the same thlng and that's true except to the extent the CBD has
exposure on Highway 5. There was never an intent to look at anything
specifically. You know, is the CBD a different area? Yeah. I mean preferrably
we'll deal with that, with the Hlghway 5 study but you're not going to get
answers to land use questions on 78th Street from a Highway 5 corridor study.
That probably just adds confusion to the whole thing but I think you have to be,
one of the things about moratoriums is you need to know that you have a date
certain at which time the thing collapses or you're striving to attain that.
Again, I thlnk 6 months may be reasonable to establish an ordinance but lt's not
going to change the uses in that timeframe.
Councilman Senn: So you'd need a year is what you're saying?
Paul Krauss: I would think so.
Councilman Wing: But perhaps if we did have this delay, we would at least, if
Target was suggested to be our minimum standard, we did fairly well with Target.
If that was our new minimum standard, I'd 11kw to get that minimum standard in
the ordinance so that then applies to these lots that are sneaking in the east
side, which ls going to lncrease the landscaping a little bit and maybe setbacks
and building types, architecture standards and so on and so forth.
Architectural standards, that's so nebulous we can hardly touch that in the next
10 years maybe but the types of businesses, I guess we can't change but at least
what we did wlth Target, it ought to be in an ordinance form and on line before
we let anymore development on Highway 5 into our gateway. This Mr. Senn, he
sounds like this troublemaker Wing from 2 years ago. My first meeting I came
and I said, here's what Highway 5 looks like to me with umpteen filling stations
and this and that. It was a cement plant, a taco shop and a McDonald's and then
we've got this little building that's the American Legion and I made it clear
that Z didn't want that to continue to the west end so this corridor study got
started. Now you come in saying, you know it isn't a very pretty picture but
yet we're allowing more of it and we're expanding it. It just doesn't sound
right. I mean he's hitting it right on the head. I'm stunned that suddenly
we're expanding this automotive center out to the east end of our city. We're
27
City Counc:il HeeLing - January 11, 1993
trying to encourage Eden Prairie to do a good job at their west end and not cut
all those trees down so we can come barging in from the west and you know really
do kind of the opposite of what us're even talking about so. I don't want to
be, Z hope Z'm leavZng Goodyear out of this because Hr. Besiner Z have no axes
with. The issue is strictly to me is land use. Our gateway and permitted uses.
Councilman Senn: But the ordinance takes that now. I mean the ordinance allows
us to take the Target standard and make it the standard for this project or any
other use like this il~ the corridor, correct Paul? I mean by simply attaching
those conditions to the conditional use permit.
Paul Krauss: You do have a fair amount of latitude under the conditional use
permit to get better than normal development. So you could probably come up
with something similar to the Target. In fairness to Hr. Besiner and 6oodyear
though, one of the problems here is nobody has ever been able to, well thus far,
I mean we haven't been able to articulate consistently what will make everybody
happy. You know when the Planning Commission talked about architecture, we had
5 different opinions and you've got Hr. Besiner sitting there saying, I will do
what you want but tell me what it is.
Hayor Chmiel: That's right. Yeah, I agree.
Councilman Senn: Hr. Mayor, I don't consider the issue here to be architecture.
I meal', that is a sub-issue.
Mayor Chmiel: That is a portion of it.
Councilman Senn: That's a portion of it but I consider the major issue here in
· front of us is land use in relationship to that area.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, on the other hand you could put another taco shop or a Taco
3ohns in there and they would have 150 cars in a day or 200. Is that going to
better it? I don't think so from the neighborhood's standpoint, or from the
city's standpoint.
Councilman Senn: But delaying, doing a study, the moratorium would address
both. I mean I guess I'm not going to turn around and say that that's better
than a Goodyear because I thlnk the Goodyear's better than the Taco and I'm not
saying I wouldn't come back and say the Goodyear's fine. But my fear is, we
approve a Goodyear tonight, then Abra's golng to be in rlght next to lt. And
the third lot back there is going to be something else. Before you know it,
there's going to be 3 more automotive thlngs in here in front us. It seems to
me we ought to bite the bullet and get at the job we really want to get at,
which is get it straighten away.
Councilman Wing: Ouick question for Paul. Direct question. I'll apologize
later. The way things are happening, with our existing ordinances Paul, and
you've been struggling to get these things on 11ne and the things that are
happening and your available staff, could you use some breathing space right now
to get revamped and look at some of these issues and not have the pressure of
people coming in the door all the time? If we gave you a moratorium of x weeks
or months, would that give you some needed breathing room right now to really
look at these issues and attack some of these lssues we're concerned about?
28
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Paul Krauss: Yeah, it certainly wouldn't hurt. I mean having more time to sit
back and complete. If our only job was to push paper and bring permits to you,
I mean it would be pretty straight forward. ! mean the more interesting and
more complex part of our job is to work with you on a vision for what the city
should be and on planning. Fundamental planning. There's no question that
we've known all along on Highway 5 that we're under the gun. We told the task
force that when they were set up. That we're going to try and bring you along
as quickly as possible but there are going to be things that you may be able to
influence but not totally change. I think they were pleased when we explained
the Target process to them and a little bit concerned when ue showed them the
Abra plan. But that was a limitation they were willing to accept. I don't want
to dissuade you. You know if moratorium is the way you're going to go, I've
worked in a community where we did that. I think it was done effectively.
There were some outs built into the moratorium for some sites. For example, one
important site I think to the city may well be the corner of Target which is
part of that PUD and which had the standards that you spoke of already embodied
in it. That's also in the corridor. So you may want to be able to exempt some
sites if they meet some kind of criteria. There's a lot of things to think of
so how you exactly define the corridor, how you handle that, what's the duration
of this thing, it's not as black and white an issue as it might seem. I mean it
is one solution. It is effective but there's a lot that goes with a moratorium.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Go ahead.
Councilman Wing: I'm only going to move tabling until the first meeting in
February to allow some time to look at these issues and clarify where we're
going. Especially with staff. I wouldn't want to act on a moratorium. I think
it's too severe and I'm not sure that this isn't the choice we want and they
haven't done the best job possible.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you have a question?
Paul Krauss: If a moratorium ordinance is to be brought back, it would be
reviewed I think directly by the City Counctl. It wouldn't necessarily, well
I'm not sure. Would it have to go to the Planning Commission?
Elliott Knetsch: No, it ~ould come back to the Council.
Paul Krauss: And for us to officially bring you an ordinance we have to publish
it 14 days. 10 days? 14 days in advance.
Elliott Knetsch: That's by your own rules of procedure. You can waive your own
rules of procedure.
Mayor Chmiel: I would just as soon not waive rules when it comes to doing
things as such. I'd like everybody to know exactly what's happening.
Elliott Knetsch: You would still provide, you know publish it and put it on the
agenda and so forth so the public would be aware of what's going on. I'm just
saylng if lt's a mat'ter of missing by a day in applying to the rules, you could
waive the day.
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Paul Krauss: You would also have an obligation to define the corridor and then
notify all the property owners who would be effected by the moratorium. So
we'll sure try to bring it back to you by February. That's February 8th?
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe that's what we're looking at is tabling it for a 30 days
period with to do what?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: To achieve what, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: To gather just what Paul had indicated.
Paul Krauss: We could bring you a moratorium ordinance and some guidelines for
how it might be effected. One of the questions I have though ls, should Mr.
8eisner be worklng to resolue. I mean ls the direction that you're to give Mr.
Beisner are the thlngs that he could do that would resolve your concerns in the
short term?
Councilman Mason: I think Councilman Wing has stated his distaste for concrete
block. That mlght be one thing to look at. But on the other hand, why should
they spend any more tlme on it if we're examining thls? Agaln, I'm findlng
myself in kind of an unusual posltion here tonight. Are we, by looking at a
moratorium, is this kind of de post facto? I mean why, and I'm not saying we
shouldn't do it. I'm just saying this has all been done in good faith with
everyone concerned and we accuse developers and the like of not actlng in good
faith. Are we doing that now? I think that's something, I'm not maklng a
judgment. I thlnk that's something we need to look at.
Councilman Senn: But this is the first time we've seen it and we're the only
body to conslder thls type of an action, lsn't that true?
Mayor Chmiel: True.
Councilman Wing: Well the Planning Commission has by their comments, every one
of them, sald we don't like it. They said, we're uncomfortable. Let's get rid
of it and glve it to the Counc11. So here it ls.
Mayor Chmiel: Get 5 more votes.
Councilman Wing: But I agree with Mike. I'm not supporting a moratorium. I
don't a moratorium ls necessarily the way to go but I think we have to decide
what we expect out of thls. On the other hand, Mike also polnted out that they
have complled with the existing ordinances and exceeded those limits. Sharmin
has wrung blood out of turnips if you want. I mean both sldes have worked hard
to do everything posslble to make this go. We can add brick to it. I mean I
don't thlnk we ought to have block in our gateway to the clty but that's a
standard that's simply got [o be met head on.
Councilman Mason: I hope it's vote time here pretty soon on this to tell you
the truth. I'm okay with tabling thls but I'd reaily, I'm not going to take a
moratorium 11ghtly because there's just too much golng on in thls city rlght
now. paul's mentioned Target. Paul's mentioned that area. That's something
that would really, I'm not saying I'm agalnst it but I certainly thlnk that that
would really need to be looked at very carefully.
3O
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Councilwoman Oockendorf: And I'm not sure what we could accomplish. Say we put
a moratorium for the next ~ months, what's our plan for that ~ months? The task
force certainly already has a full slate.
Paul Krauss: There are some of these sites that are going to be problematic. I
mean there's the second and thlrd site here. There is what is in front of Data
Serv. There's the site adjacent to the Press. Once you move out of that,
everything that's going to be done either requires a rezoning that gives you a
lot of latitude, or is in a TIF district which gives you a lot of latitude.
That's one of the, I mean really the zoning ls only one of the tools the city
has in the arsenol. Unfortunately it's the only one we have here really. I
don't want to tell you that without a moratorium everything will turn out just
hunky dory. You do have those $ or ~ sites where you're going to be posed with
simllar problems if somebody brings ina proposal. But for the balance of the
area, you can bring pretty much all the tools to bear that you did with Target.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, and ! think I'll entertain one more and I think we'll call
the question after that because I think we're just grinding here and coming to
no conclusion.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I think we're grinding too and I think part of it ls
because we don't have a good feel for what the moratorium and stuff would mean.
So I guess what I would like to move is that we direct, that we table this for
30 days and that we direct staff to come back in 30 days with a proposed
ordinance on moratorium. That's the only way we're going to get our hands on
it. Touch it. Feel it. Know what it means. Staff can provide the
professional expertise to doing that and at that point we can decide which way
we move from that point. It may not be to go ahead with the moratorium but at
least at that point we know what we're, I guess talking about.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. At the same time should we also, in that aspect have our
attorney go through and look at that moratorium with some draft findings?
Councilman Senn: That would make sense, yes.
Councilman Wing: Now was that a motion? Did you make a motion?
Councilman Senn: Yes, I dld make a motion.
Councilman Wing: I would second it just for discussion. Because the moratorium
I still don't feel comfortable with and I don't support.
Councilman Senn: Dick, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting a moratorium.
Councilman Wing: Well I know. First of all we're tabling this for 30 days. I
still don't think it effects Goodyear. They have a proposal on the table that
seems reasonable. It's gone beyond the norm. I think we almost have to act on
that. But then this moratorium is golng to effect the lot next to it and the
lot next to that one and subsequent things coming in so I don't think we're
going to see them slipplng through the crack here quite as easily and we'll get
an ordinance on 11ne fast with landscaping that meets the Target standards. Why
are we golng to delay it 30 days? We can't change the land use and what they've
done with Goodyear. I think this, your motion I can go along with but I still
City Council Meeting -- January 11, 1993
think we have to address Goodyear tonight and make a decision on denying it or
not denylng it.
Councilman Senn' Well Dick my motion was to delay it 30 days for the reason
[hat, okay here's the reason now. The reason that, at that point we can decide
whether thls property should or should not be lncluded ina moratorium. But
until we define the moratorium, I don't think that's fair to make that judgment.
Nor ls it falr to treat this property I think any differently at thls polnt than
we're going to look at surrounding ones.
Councilman Wing: Except this land use is established and it is meetlng
ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And it's of those standards but nonetheless you can still
table it for those 30 days.
Councilman Wing: Well, I can go with the 20 days tabling.
Hayor Chmiel: And to come along. My understanding of your motion, restate that
motlon as such.
Councilman Senn: The motoin is that we table this item for 30 days and in that
time period staff and City Attorney come back with a draft or proposed
moratorium ordinance for consideration and wlth all the definitions.
Mayor Chmiel: With the findings?
Councilman Senn: With the findings and definitions that we need.
Hayor Chmiel: Good. And you seconded it.
Paul Krauss: If I could clarify that. Should this be an ordinance that we get
together, publlsh it and do everything else so that if you wanted to, you could
take actlon on it that evening? Or did you just want to review lt.
Councilman Senn: If that's possible, that'd be nice to have as an option.
Mayor Chmiel: If it's possible. I don't know how you could do it but.
Councilman Senn' That's something you have to answer maybe more than us.
Paul Krauss: Well part of what you would have to do in creating the ordinance
is establish the corridor. Establish what it covers and I guess lt's difficult
[o notlfy people if we don't know exactly what it
Councilman Senn: Do we have time to wait? I mean do we have time if we wait 30
days, come back, get our hands on an ordinance and then do we have time then to
turn around and do that publication?
Paul Krauss: Then you're looking at probably another 15-20-25 days beyond that.
So Z guess we'd 11ke to shoot for lt. If ue take a shot at deflning a corridor
and notifying people, you can make it smaller at that polnt but you can't expand
it without going through a re-notification.
32
City Council Heeting - January 11, 1993
Councilman Wing: Can you make sure that an update is on the next agenda.
Hayor Chmiel: I'm going to call a question.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the Goodyear
Tire Facility for 30 days and direct staff to come back with a proposed draft
ordinance on a moratorium and findings. All voted in favor, except Councilman
Hason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL, GATEWAY BUSINESS CENTER, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND TH
41, OPUS CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Hichele Foster
John Uban
Paul & Carol Paulson
Henry Wrase
Rick Wrase
Peter Olin
Jim Andrews
Larry $chroers
3an Lash
Harry Adams
Opus Corporation
Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban
31GO West 82nd Street
Chaska
Chanhassen
Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
Park and Recreation Commission
Park and Recreation Commission
Park and Recreation Commission
115 West 82nd Street
Kate Aanenson: Opus Corporation is requesting PUD conceptual approval of 170
acres of property. This proposal includes 22 lots with approximately 950,000
square feet of building. The buildings would be an office/industrial mix. This
proposal also calls for some support or ancillary commercial lncluded in the
project. Lot 1, which is this lot right here, is being shown as being held out
for future development. This property is zoned A-2 but the Comp Plan guides it
for office/industrial type uses. This 1rem appeared before the Planning
Commission twlce. First in October and then in November and the Planning
Commission discussed it at length. They had numerous concerns with the project.
I thlnk what we're trylng again is the Highway 5 in a conceptual envision of
this development and where we're going with that. We have shook out a few
lssues I belleve. Paul Paulson's property here and the Wrase's property there
were both shown as exceptions. We're hoping now that they can be included and
it appears that they may, are working towards belng included lnto the
development project itself. One of the other issues is the park dedication.
This project does not reflect what the Park and Recreation Commission, their
recommendation. They are showing two lots. Lot 17 and 18, which would be these
two lots rlght here, as open space. These lots also lnclude the more
significantly wooded area and the wetlands, both of which would be required to
be preserved under the PUO anyway. So what the Park and Recreation Commission
ls looking for is more of a community park and that acreage does not meet their
needs. They're looking at something separate from that. At the time of the
Planning Commission, there were 4 proposals. It got tabled the first time. The
Plannlng Commission asked that they come back and show some alternatives for
that Lot 1. There was a great discomfort in what the possibility of that would
be. So they came back with 4 proposals. Those belng office institutional,
33
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1998
office industrial, institution, hotel and apartments and retail commercial. The
Planning Commission definitely ruled out any possibility of the retail
commercial on that site and wanted that known that they don't see that as a
possibility. They also recommended that natural topography be maintained as
much as possible. Also thew recommended that the uses adjacent to the Arboretum
be much more sensitive and a landscape buffer be included. Also there was
concerns 'From the residents over in this area here as to what the uses across
the street would be. There's just a large open space area with a trail and the
City of Chaska. And what they're proposing in these other two lots here would
be a daycare, maybe a gas station. But this use right here, as part of the PUD,
the staff would be recommending and I think it appears to be acceptable to the
residents, that that be a lower profile building. More limited hours. Typical
office hours with limited truck traffic and that would be some of the
development standards we would be designing into this issue. I'd like to talk a
little bit about the PUD itself. I think there was some of perception that they
had asked for, the applicants had asked for the PUO but I think the staff
certainly directed this project towards the PUD as far as the comprehensive
elements. Of course transportation, the combining at work, including mass
transit. The architectural designs we'll be developing as this project evolves
over the next, when you see it again next would be the development standards.
Similar to what we did to Target. Unifying the types of designs and piggy
backing those into what the Highway 5 corridor study is recommending. We'll
also be looking at gateway treatments. Unified gateway treatments and
landscaping, sig[, issues. Again, what they're doing in a PUD, we're getting a
comprehensive looking at the wetland issues. How those can be altered and
mitigated and we have a lot more property to work with. Which ones we'd want to
enhance the value and which ones we maw allow to be altered. In addition we're
getting the preservation of some of the natural features. Again, which are
predominantly located in this area here. The wetlands but again that doesn't
exclude the creation of some other elements throughout the park. The Planning
Commission, we got hung up on the concept issue itself and I just kind of want
to go through briefly what we're looking at as far as concept because I think
there was a discomfort level of how much should we show at this level. We kind
of went through that when we had the Lundgren proposal. Is that do we need to
show a lot of detail at this point but I just want to go through what's required
as faf as concept. As far as the PUD ordinance and that's the overall gross and
net density. Identification of each lot size and width. The general location
of major streets. The general location and extent of public and common open
space. Types of land uses and staging and timing development. I think that
this proposal shown here meets the concept but I think what we're having
problems with is, are we on line with the vision, which direction that we're
going in and that's where the staff is having some concerns. Again, holding out
on Lot 1. Not going forward with the Park and Recreation Commission's
recommending and then that whole, again the development standards for the
Highway 5 corridor and exactly what direction we're going with that. Having
said that, Paul previously spoke to you about that the Highway 5 task force had
set up a subcommittee to look at the development standards for the corridor and
one of the Planning Commission recommendations, and obviously the staff is too
that those standards be carried forth in this project. Again, I'll let the
applicant go through the specifics of the project itself but I'd like to
reiterate, this is a large scale project and before you see it again, if this
goes forward, there will be a lot of work to be done. It's going to require an
Environmental Impact Statement, traffic studies. There's a lot of work to be
34
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
done as far as the wetland issues. Plus there's the whole issue of sewer
timing. It may be up to Z years before we get the improvements out there to get
sewer and water. So there is a big timeframe before we would see this again.
think that was the reason that the staff felt comfortable going forward because
we feel like there's a lot of work to be done and we need some of these issues
addressed more specifically before ue can come back with some, you know they
need to raise some of the issues and let us find out what we need to do to
soften the impact or to make changes. But staff again is concerned that we're
on line with the same vision. It appears that there's some deviation as far as
what they envision the project and the direction ue see. We would recommend
approval if they agree to the conditions as we've outlined in the staff report.
We feel those reflect our concerns but if they are unwilling to, then at this
time we feel that it needs to be tabled.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. ODes the applicant wish to come forward and
provlde their presentation?
Michele Foster: Good evening. My name is Michele Foster and I'm Director of
Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation. I am the person from Opus
Corporation who is working with the land owners who have owned this property for
some period of time and who have now envisioned that it is appropriate to be
looking at this property for development. I think as many of you know, Opus
Corporation has been involved in the city of Chanhassen in developing office and
industrial property for a significant period of time in the Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park and with specific buildings such as the Rosemount Corporation
building that we designed and built in the city of Chanhassen. It was our
intent, upon the completion of development in that park that we wanted to
continue our relationship in the city of Chanhassen and that's what brought us
to develop a working relationship with the owners of this property. Opus
Corporation does not Dun the property but we are the exclusive development and
marketing agent for the owners and for all practical purposes will be acting, or
hope to be acting in any event, as the developer of the property. Our goal in
development Gateway West Business Park is to develop a quality office industrial
park in the city of Chanhassen. That has been our practice in Chanhassen and in
other suburban communities in the Twin Cities. Specifically Opus II in
Mlnnetonka and Bass Creek Business Park in Plymouth, whlch is in the early
development stages. We expect this park to be a continuation of that kind of
quality. Of quality development. Preservation of open space. Respect for the
land that is there and we don't anticipate to operate any differently in the
development of this park and we don't thlnk that we have to this stage in
working with our consultants in developing the master plan that's before you
this evening. We feel that the concept plan that we have proposed for this
business park is consistent with those levels of quality. In terms of coverage.
In terms of preservation of open space. In terms of preservation of wetlands.
In terms of respect for the topography of the land. This concept plan is very
consistent with the kind of business parks that we have developed in other
communities. We have not approached this property any differently and we feel
that it needs to exemplify the kind of quality that we want to develop and
continue. We understand that this property is a very visible piece of property.
Mr. Krauss in his comments in the staff report this evening indicated that we've
already been working on this property for a year. I checked my notes myself
today. Our first meeting wlth city staff was on January 22nd of last year. We
understand the importance of this property. We have been working with city
35
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
staff and with the Highway 5 group and we understand that that needs to
continue. What we are looking for this evening is, as Kate said, concept plan
approval. We would like the approval of this plan in it's current form so that
we can then proceed to the next phase of analysis and detail for the plan. We
do need to do an environmental impact statement. We have a number of other
reviews that me know we need to come back to you for consideration but we really
can't proceed in that direction until we have some basic understanding of how
the property can develop. And that's the kind of approval that we're looking
for this evening. As Kate mentioned, there are some issues that we are not
currently in agreement on. One is park dedication. With respect to that issue
and John Uban will address this in more detail, we are not in disagreement about
the City's desires for a park in this part of the city. And we are fully
prepared as we have shown on the current concept plan, to include park as part
of our property. We understand the goals for the city with respect to the park.
Our concern and our goal has been that there are other adjacent properties who
will benefit from this park and we would like to see a more global approach
taken to the planning for the park and include adjacent properties in the
planning for the park so that this goal can be met mutually by these adjacent
properties. We are showing a significant amount of property as park and we feel
that there is merit ill looking at this goal being met by adjacent properties as
well. The second issue has to do with utilities. When we first got involved
with the property, it was our hope and our expectation that if we went through
the governmental approval process, which we knew would be lengthy, that we would
be able to receive utilities to the property in order' for development to occur
J.n a timely basis. The next item on your agenda which deals with the
feasibility report for servicing part of our property from the City of Chaska
indicates that we may not be able to receive utility service for up to 6 years.
That's a big surprise to us and really puts us in a very difficult situation in
terms of proceeding with very expensive governmental approvals when we don't
know if we can get utility service to the property in a timely manner. And we'r
hopeful that we can work wlth the city in order to expedlte that process. We
know that there are adjacent property owners who are also interested in
receiving utlllty servlce faster than that and that's an lssue that really needs
to be addressed as part of this property. At this point I'd like to just close
my comments and turn over the presentation to John Uban, but I'd like to say
that it is certainly our goal to continue to cooperate with the city. To
cooperate with the adjacent property owners. With the Hlghway 5 task force. We
know that there is a great deal of detail work that still needs to be done on
the development of thls plan but as Kate sald, we're just at the concept plan
poir, t in the process and by approving tile plan this evening, it will allow us to
contlnue that process and address the concerns that have already been brought up
by the Plannlng Commission. So wlth that I'd like to turn.
Councilman Wing: Is it appropriate to ask a question at this time?
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can address that after once we've seen Mr. Uban.
Councilman Wing: Sure.
Michele Foster: Okay. At this point then I'd like to turn it over to
John Uban.
36
City Council Heeting - January 11, 1993
John Uban: My name is John Uban. I'm a planning consultant with Oahlgren,
Shardlow and Uban and I'd like to go over just a few points of our conceptual
plan. Share with you our vision that we have been developing with the plan and
hopefully get some information in front of you that can give you a little better
insight in the direction we're taking and how we view the property. If I could
have this on the overhead. This photograph has an overlay on it and if you can
see that, this is an aerial view of the property from Highway 41 and to your
right you'll see the industrial development in Chaska. The dark lines represent
the generally, schematically where roads are proposed and then we see an outline
of the property in black which surrounds all the wooded areas and other open
areas on the eastern portion of the site. This then is the proposed park area
and the black roads are the roads that would be the service road or frontage
road that connects onto the east. And the homesite is the Wrase site that also
is right on Highway 41 which we're trying to include in the planning for the
overall business park. This gives, when we first looked at the property we saw
the eastern edge with it's wetlands and wooded areas to really be a significant
asset to the property and a place where we can create open spaces that would be
a benefit, not only to the city but to the City of Chaska and the residents and
so forth. And so we initiated the idea of park in this area, and have always
included park on our eastern edge. Park all the way from Highway 5 down to the
82nd Street and connecting on through. And we want to do this and we've always
proposed to do this. I think we've had some conflict in how we view this with
the Parks Commission and maybe how much park should be parkland. We think the
city should be prudent. Should decide if they want to buy all the park up front
and buy it all from one property or if they want to look at properties that are
adjacent to each other and get through dedication all the parkland so you don't
have to expend the money up front. I think it's a little more reasonable to do
it that way. And also I could show you on our concept plan, we understand that
the properties, here's the park and once again Highway 5. The adjacent property
there has just been sold and there are interested people in development.
Residential is the land use on the comprehensive plan. And there's residential
to the south. To have this park continue through and incorporate those adjacent
parcels in some way would then combine these residential areas, the industrial
area and have a common park that would really serve all these areas quite
nicely. And maybe there was a lost opportunity that the City of Chaska was not
involved in this because they have some very nice wooded areas that are not
really incorporated in any public use. So that was sort of the heart.
Beginning of our concept and we had looked at the City's comprehensive plan. We
looked at how the land use was designated when this land was assembled and it
was industrial office. We looked at the,circulation patterns. The
transportation patterns and guidelines of the comprehensive plan and we have
followed those as best we can. We've looked at the road system and it's really
laid out to best miss wetlands and keep the environmental aspects of the site
intact. So we have developed a plan really with a curvalinear road system,.
straightening it where it has to be straighten to meet the requirements of the
City's engineer. Specific points have been worked out with HnBot for access
onto the road system. We have suggested a common feature at the intersection of
TH 5 and TH 41. Something that can be done by the cooperative land owners. This
plan includes only one quarter of that. Everything on the west is Arboretum and
Hills Fleet Farm is the owner of the land to the north. All of this can be
consolidated into a variety of plans that would create a gateway sort of feature
and we're quite supportive of that. We've suggested this circular pattern.
Sort of a round and focus for that intersection. Whether that is ever
37
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
considered strongly, we think it's a good one to start with. The real issues
then that we've found that we've been trying to deal with, with Planning
Commission and the task force, is how to develop the area adjacent to the
Arboretum and how to develop a common vision for how this will really develop.
We showed pictures of Opus. This was in Hinnetonka and they had looked at
similar things in Opus and had rated them very highly in their visual analysis.
So we think we're on the same track. When we really sit down and say, we're
going to do a quality development, I think we see the same thing. At this
concept stage, it's very hard to illustrate that because it's hard to understand
in a planned view sometimes what is an attractive development. And so we
conceptually nov are just shoving the road pattern and more specifically what
lands are available to us with sewer from the extension of Chaska sewer, which
really is only a small stretch of land along 82nd Street and ue really thought
there would be a lot more. At this point it's very difficult for us to continue
with environmental review with such small amounts of land available for
development. So we would propose that that environmental review takes place
when the extension of utilities is also brought forth. So that those can be
combined and done together at one point. The 6ity might have an opportunity
here to help developers, not just ourselves, but the ad3acent landowners and the
task force and really how to implement your vision. I think you're struggling
with this. I've been listening to it tonight, and we've been witness to it as
we've been before the Planning 6ommission and other commissions, that everyone
has sort of a different view and how do we bring this together and how do we
articulate it? How do ue get everyone to agree to it? We were involved about 3
years ago in trying to organize the landowners along Highway 5 and we had them
organized. We did produce, at least the first idea of a concept but the vision
didn't come through. We weren't fully embraced with the city in making
decisions, and that's what we need to do. We somehow have to come together to
really share those visions and really start putting them together on paper. And
I think if the City and it's task force could also take on the additional
responsibility of environmental review, and do a combined EIS for the whole
corridor in a timely fashion, combined with the extension of utilities, this
would help everyone. Often times a traffic study on one parcel doesn't really
tell you that much how it's going to interact with another one. A couple years
hence down the road. This all could be done with one study. And this may be a
good way to help developers combine together with their planning a single vision
for the corridor. I think it's a cooperative idea. The City of Woodbury for
instance is doing it for about a 1,000 acre area that is just being expanded
with utilities. There they did all the environmental review. It's an alternate
review process with the Hetropolitan Council. We looked then in our various
meetings at some alternatives or ways we could best place our industrial type
development in the area west of TH 41. And this has been a strong issue. Peter
Olin is here and will I think strongly tell you his concerns about the Arboretum
and what we've tried to do. We initially took out some industrial development
that was on Lot 19 and put in a residential development. A multiple family.
Neither of those solutions seem to work well for the Arboretum but we had at the
same time promised, and still do, to cooperate with the Arboretum to combine
with their property whatever form it takes, a new entrance to the Arboretum from
Highway 41. And this then would also provide access to Lot 19. And this is so
we don't have to build this wetland for industrial development. For other
access and so forth. It allows in the most sensitive type of entrance and
treatment for Lot 19. Lot 19 then stays primarily as open space except for the
development to a portion of it against Highway 41. This way we're really trying
38
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
to separate ourselves from the Arboretum, yet at the same time giving the
wetlands an amenity value for that multlple famtly. Then on the southern edge
along 82nd Street, the neighbors from Chaska told us of their concerns.
Specifically right at the western corner. Here we worked out a plan. They did
mind office/industrial use as long as it was qulet and orlented ina fashlon
that kept the loading and parking off towards the east, screened from their area
and that we had a very attractive front facing 82nd Street and set back and
landscaped and so forth. So we've worked out at least a system of buffering at
least 50 feet from the property edge to the Arboretum, which will be landscaped.
It will be the quietest side of the building. Everything will be to the east
and have entrances off onto 88nd Street. And then we show some servlce
commercial, daycare, gas station. There's really no gas station within several
mlles of this particular slte and this is probably a good location, certainly
not right at the gateway intersection but at the first set of stop lig'hts that
would be possible in the future. We have found that all the land to the south
in Chaska is not built. It's the old Nordic Track site. All of that actually
accesses onto 82nd Street. So thls site, whlch is about 20 acres, has no access
to TH 41 or any other direction. So although this seems like a small gravel
road right now, it really is planned to be an industrial road to serve that site
in Chaska. The other parcels on the west side of TH 41, east side of TH 41, we
have a bank slte, water tower, industrial sites. Generally, what we're trylng
to put together is a road system. We said that we will produce along the edges
very attractive facade to the buildings common to what you see in other Opus
Parks. We understand the desire to screen parking, specifically from TH 41 and
TH 5 so what we're alming to do ls have a 50 foot setback, which is more than, I
think 40 foot is the required. Landscaped of course. In addition, 50~ of that
frontage be buildlng and the other be elther some parking or open space and no
loading. So that we try to get primarily the buildings up against the edge of
the highway so we don't have all parking lot visible from the highway system.
Thls will allow us to do some screening and very attractive building facades and
then all the buildings wlll really orient themselves towards the lnterlor road
system and toward the park that is shared to the east. I think thts has
explained to you a 11ttle blt about our concept. Our vlsion is for quality. We
have many examples we can show you. We are here to cooperate but we have been
frustrated, as staff has been frustrated with a sort of unknown vislon and how
does it really come about and many people thtnking and having ldeas in many
different directions. We're here to do a quality development. We're here to
make it work and be as an exciting, wonderful place as any other place in the
clty. And the corner that we have for Lot 1. It isn't that we're trying to
hold this lot away from the city. We are trying to hold it for the city. We
are really committed to holding it for the right time, the right development,
and the right place. And we think that is a service we can do to the city to
really commit to dolng the best thing possible. We really cannot predict what
that will be. And we just, we understand this is a PUO. You will have the
controls. We'll put them all ln, as we have in other industrial parks and what
happens there we hope will be a common vision for the city and it will be
something that all of us can agree to and it can't happen any other way. So
feel comfortable that I think we're on the right track and that we can develop
with clty staff a common vlslon. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this particular project
at this tlme? And if I could ask, tlme is fleeting thls evening. If we could
limit our statement to probably about 10 minutes. Or less.
City Council l~eeting - January 11, 1993
Peter Olin: I'll try. Peter Olin, Director of the Arboretum. I do want to
address the Council tonight, not only as Director of the Arboretum but as a
registered, professional landscape architect and land use planner in the State
of Minf~esota. And I want to give you just a brief background to let you know
that I do have training in this area. I started in 1963 in 6onnecticut as a
landscape architect where I learned with a firm that I was with, that housing
and commercial development layout done by planners could more effectively
destroy the land than the developers could. It was a great learning experience
but a poor job. Zn '67 in Massachussetts I did learn how good PUB's could be
designed while working on two very good ones in Amhurst. And one of them was a
seminole PUD development that set the pace for others, ge worked on housing,
commercial and recreational development there as well. In 1970 I worked on a
major regional plan for southeast New England. In '?1 Z worked for a planning
and research firm inventorying the scenic qualities of the State of Vermont.
~nalyzing the factors that made up those secenic qualities. '72 I worked on
det~elopments in Vermont, J. ncluding town plans and zoning ordinances, commercial
developments, housing developments and PUB's. '73 I worked on developments in
Boston. Commercial and school developments and since '74 have taught landscape
architecture at the University. PUD is a unique opportunity for the designer/
planner to work with the landform and native environment so that it isn't
destroyed. And for the developer, it's a way to preserve part of the site and
increase the amount of development that they may not be able to do under regular
development guidelines. For the City it's a wax to retain the character of the
land as called for specifically in the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and
provide amenities for it's citizens. The people who work and live there, it
provides a better setting. More environmentally compatible place in which to
work, reside, and recreate. The plan does not, as presented, this plan does not
address these issues. The roads rip across the landforms and will destroy them
entirely. The 1 and 2 acre buildings that are probably the kinds of buildings
again shown on these plans which are in this type of development, cannot be put
on those, most of those lots without either removing the entire hill or massive
retaining walls. The parking lots for the most part face the road, at least in
most of the plans that Z've seen. Z may have not seen the latest but they were
mostly all along the roadway making the drive through the site a tour of parking
lots. There is no respect for adjacent land uses, especially the Arboretum
which is a major regional and quickly becoming a national resource. ~e are now
known nationally. It needs major buffering considerations and appropriate land
uses. Those are things that we can't do as an Arboretum. A few rows of trees
doesn't begin to do the job to buffer potential machine shops, fast food
restaurants, gas station o~' some multi family housing. Further, the plan does
not respect the importance of entry into Chanhassen on Highway 41. The welcome
that's proposed will greet people with a gas station or a fast food restaurant,
or both. At Highway 5 there is only the most sketchy of ideas about industrial
office, commercial or what have you. There's not much to say Chanhassen is a
different community. One that respects the land. The only thing that has been
given respect iii this project was the wetland, and of course the ].aw won't allow
them to build there, or at least not without major costs. A PUD is a way to
creatively approach development. In this case we have major landforms,
wetlands, and two of Chanhassen's major entries. The site needs creative design
development. It needs to go beyond just 1 or 2 acre industrial buildings and
consider other land uses. Certainly the city entrance needs a major innovative
landscape treatment. The city needs to protect the rolling landscape that is
characteristic of Chanhassen. Zt's in your city plan. You deserve and you
40
City Council Heeting - January 11, 199H
should demand a creative development solution for this site. You have a
developer that's known to do creatlve land use planning, which respects the
landscapes they're developing. What ls needed is a good solution for this
particular piece of property. Several of these lots have 28 to 38 feet of drop
across them wlth a i to 2 acre building. Flat buildlng on lt. These then abut
a roadway wlth up to 30~ slopes in some cases. That's the way the land is now.
All of which has to be graded out appropriately with side slopes and drainage.
Thls plan does not work unless the entire landform is almost completely removed.
That means taking it off the top and dumping in the bottom, or haullng it off
slte. They are not minor adjustments that can be made after preliminary
approval. It slmply can't be done without removing the landform. I strongly
recommend that no approval be given to this plan until a plan is presented that
minimally, one, respects the rolllng landform of the slte for both roadway and
building location. Two, shows at least block grading, that's gross grading plan
to lndlcate how roads, parklng lots, and buildings can be placed on the site
without destroying the landform. Three, begins to develop some type of logical
and appropriate entry sequence to Chanhassen, both on Highway 41 and TH 5.
Four, makes appropriate land use considerations for the Arboretum, a major
botanioal and educational resource. And five, finally, the Arboretum, as part
of the University of Hinnesota, and the Hinnesota Landscape Arboretum Foundation
takes strong exception to any of the development proposed on the west side of
Hlghway 41. University officials, who I've talked with, are quite concerned
about development that negatively impacts the Arboretum. After much discussion
the Arboretum at this time opposes any land use change whatsoever on those 30
acres on the west slde of TH 41. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Paul Paulson: Mr. Mayor, Councll. My name is Paul Paulson. I'm a resident of
the city of Chanhassen. I live just north of Lot 20, which is in the
southwestern most part of the plan. I guess first of all I'd like to say that
I have attended the Planning Commission meetings, both in October 7th and
December 2nd, at whlch polnt I voiced my concerns and comments and they're on
record, and if you're interested, you can go back and refer to those. I won't
reiterate most of what I said before. But I would like to say that I do
continue to be concerned about development west of Highway 41 and the impact of
that plan on my property. There has been recognition and discussion of the
lssues I ralsed at the Planning Commission meetings but there has been no
resolution to those to thls point. So my concerns have been noted but not
resolved. The Planning Commission I believe does share some of the same
concerns that I have. Thls proposal coming before the Clty Councll tonlght does
not finalize any of these issues. Before the plan goes forward, issues
concerning my property need to be addressed. One of the main concerns I have is
that I would like my property included in the planned unit development. I'm
concerned that if it ls not, my property as a residential use would be severely
depreciated in the future if at some point I wish to move out of that property.
So my motivation for wantlng to be part of the planned unlt development is to
malntain the value of the property at some future date if I chose to get out of
lt. I guess one other concern that I feel fairly strongly about ls the buffering
on Lot 20. The plan shown on the overhead this evening, tonight is the first
time I've seen it and so I haven't had the opportunity to study it but from a
distance it looks like I might still have the concerns about buffering. Also,
one final comment. I would appreciate it if the City would keep me informed as
City Council Meeting -- January 11, 1993
new plans become available and staff reports and thai sort of thing. I did
write a letter lo the city in October requesting that and I have been kept
fairly well up to date with exception of this latest meeting. I just found out
about this meeting today. Early afternoon and I had no idea that there was a
new plan available for my review. So I'd like to publically request that I do
stay informed on this because I am directly impacted by the plan. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Jim Andrews: I'm 3im Andrews. I'm on the Chanhassen Park and Rec Board and I
wanted to speak a little bit about the park issues. First of all, as a Park
Board we have duties to the citizens. Not only today but into the future as to
what our needs are and what our opportunities are. This part of our city is
grossly park deficient and we need to look at larger parcels as our way of
acquiring a large enough piece of property to deal with the needs that we have.
Unfortunately too're not able at this time to impose our dedication process upon
property not before the Council or the Planning Commission so in spite of the
fact tl'lat Z agree with the developer that we should have a global way of dealing
with these problems, we currently do not, so we are forced to deal with the
reality which is this particular parcel. We are planning next year to identify
park areas and refer that to [he Comp Plan and have that included for the future
so I think that would be helpful. Also, in this park deficient area we are
definitely identifying some of our needs as being active use needs, not 3ust
passive use and wetlands. In the past we have not given credit for wetlands as
dedication. We have several examples of that in past City Council actions. One
I can recall is when Redmond was proposing a development. They also asked for
dedication forgiveness for wetland area and we did not offer that. It turned
out that that development never occurred but we were planning not to do that.
Also, as this being as a PUD, the City of Chanhassen has always taken the
attitude that we should require more than the minimum requirement. Not let the
developer come in just at the letter of the law. Z also feel that our land in
Chanhassen is a very high demand. Our city is an exceptionally good city for
development as well as residential uses, and I don't feel we need to make any
excuses as to what we ask for our future development of our city. The 1.5 acres
that we've identified in the park board as being helpful to our needs, cannot be
considered to be economically critical to the development. I think the park
board request is consistent with consideration given other industrial
developments and I find it interesting that the developers have stated that he's
holding his Lot number i for the benefit of the city. But at the same time they
don't adopt the same alturistic attitude toward the 1 1/2 acre parcel that we
asked them to include to give us a larger active use area. So I strongly
suggest to the Council that they follow the recommendations of the Park Board,
the Planning Commission and staff regarding this issue. Thank you.
14arry Adams: Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Harry Adams. I'm the
middle resident of three residences that are opposite Paul Paulson's property in
Chaska and I won't duplicate the lengthy speeches each of us gave at two prior
Planning Commission members meetings other than to say that they had an effect
on the Planning Commission members and I hope that that effect and our logic and
our pleas are somehow transmitted to your group in the verbatim Minutes of those
meetings that I think are in your kits. We endorse Peter Olin's eloquent
statement that some consideration be given to the west side of Highway 41 and
preserve the residential beauty and character of our three residences extending
42
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's the big question. That's ali part of the other
part.
John Uban: Alrlght. And then we'll work with the Task Force in the next 6
months and do what we can do during that time period, or 8 months and we still
don't know what it means to take the Arboretum lnto consideration. Does it
remain rural totally, which is much different anticipation? We would be kind of
upset if that's the direction.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we get the flavor of what you're saying.
Councilman Wing: One comment that John Uban made also was that maybe an entire
EI$ for the entire corridor because they all relate to each other. By doing
just this one sectlon, may really not, they impact each other and we may be
making a real mistake not to run them together. I thlnk that's really good
advice from John. Brlng that up on the 27th right.
RECEIVE FEASIBILITY REPORT ON UTiLITy ~MpROUEMENTS TO GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS
PARK, PHASE I; CALL PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 8, 1993, PROJECT 92-17.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I eluded to earlier, some
of the elements of this project. One thing I thlnk, given what's transpired
tonight that Z think we need to think about is, are we ready to, do we intend to
construct these improvements this year?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Charles Folch: If we don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Did I answer it?
Charles Folch: Basically, what I'm getting at basically is by law you have one
year from the time that you order the project. Ordering basically occurs at the
tlme that the public hearing is completed and you order the project plans and
specs be prepared. If you do not begin construction within one year of that
time perlod, we have to start back over again with updatlng a feasibility study,
going back through the public hearing process, la de da. That's one thing that
needs to be looked at now given the kinds of delays that we're talking here in
terms of getting some of the other background work associated around the project
done. One of the problems that we've experienced on projects slmilar to this is
that yes, a developer would like to see this type of improvement project track
move along but here agaln, ultimately it's the underlying fee owner of the
property who has not sold the property to the developer yet, who has to waive
thelr right to assessment appeal before we would go ahead and move wlth this
project. Some thlngs to keep in mind. I guess I'm a little concerned if we go
through thls publlc hearing process and don't move ahead with the project thls
year, everything we're doing this year ls for naught then.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Does everybody understand that? Any questions? Okay.
Thank you. Is there discussion?
Councilman Mason: I'll make the motion. I'd like to make a motion to receive
the feasibility report and utility improvements to Gateway West, Phase 1 and
59
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
call the public hearing for February 8, 1993, Project No. 92-17.
Mayor Chmlel: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: I'll second that.
Charles Folch: Maybe I'm not making my.
Mayor Chmlel' Get your polnts back across.
Charles Folch: I have reservations and I guess I would at this polnt, hearlng
the Council's feelings, I would resclnd my recommendatin to proceed at this
polnt in time. Unless we are intending to bulld and do the improvements this
year because we're just golng to go through the publlc hearing process.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the only reason why I said no at first.
Councilman Senn: I just seconded it to get discussion golng agaln.
Paul Krauss: There ls more than one thing you ought to... Charles, we've been
requested for utilities from 3 different landowners thus far?
Charles Folch: In relatlon to thls project?
Paul Krauss: Yeah.
Charles Folch: No, actually we just received one. One from Gateway is the only
petition that we've received, to my knowledge.
Mayor Chmiel: No one else has made that request.
Paul Krauss: Well we got that note tonight from Betty O'Shaughnessy which would
be.
Charles Folch: That would be a separate project. That's a different project
from this project here.
Mayor Chmiel: She owns the property adjacent to this property.
Paul Krauss: The 85 acres where the park was illustrated. We've also got the
buyer for Jerome Carlson's...is requesting it on that piece a6d you klnd of
incrementally get these pleces creeping up 6alpin.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, but those two have not been acted upon nor any feasibility
done on any of that to date, right? These are separate parcels that have not
come before us nor the Planning Commission.
Charles Folch: Those are separate projects. Those particular properties which
have just recently petitioned for improvements are not lnvolved in thls
particular project which is belng presented to you tonight.
Mayor Chmlel: That's my understanding. For what's here now and what we're
talking now is two separate lssues.
6O
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Todd Hoffman: TH 41 makes real good sense.
Councilman Wing: I'd specify that as a friendly amendment so it's on record.
Reword that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you reword what you said as a friendly amendment?
Councilman Senn: I make a friendly amendment that we accept the Parks and
Recreation recommendations wlth the exception that rather than a tra11 fee, the
developer be required to construct the trail on Highway 41.
Mayor Chmiel: Strictly related to Highway 417 Okay. Ooes the first and second
accept the friendly amendment? Okay. So that's all part of a motion. Any
other discussion? If not, I'm golng to call a question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to grant conceptual
approval to Gateway West Business Park PUD ~92-& as shown in site plans dated
September 8, 1992, subject to a bonding case study being performed and that no
further action be brought to Council prior to the Highway 5 Task Force study
completion and acceptance by Council within the next 8 month time period, and
subject to the following conditions:
1. There is a great discomfort with the plan that has been presented, but
based on the remarks made by Michele Foster (Opus Corporation), in that
they are not asking for anything that the plan shows specifically and their
willingness to work with the city to protect the topography and natural
features of this property, this w111 be considered as a PUD.
2. The Highway 5 Task Force is continuing to work out appropriate land uses
adjacent to the Arboretum and all along Highway 5 and at the intersection
of TH 5 and TH 41. Opus should continue to be part of that process and
take their recommendations seriously.
3. A future roadway alignment should be explored through the parcel east of
the proposed development to see if the proposed roadway is compatible with
adjacent topography.
The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standard and 100
year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the City's
subdivision code.
5. The applicant should coordinate with the City's engineering consultant,
8onestroo, for location of the water tower site.
6. Completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. The Applicant shall
reimburse the City for the cost of a traffic study for the project.
7. The applicant shall secure a Wetland Alteration Permit.
8. Dedication of parkland as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission
and the developer be required to construct the trail along Highway 41 in
lieu of trail fees.
57
City Council Heeting - January 11, 1993
9. Delete shopping center, or any other retail option from Lot 1.
10. Work to incorporate two exemptions (Wrase and Paulson properties) to the
site.
11. City Council and the Highway 5 Task Force, as well as the Planning
Commission, are looklng at the deslgn of the Highway 5 and 41 intersection
area and Opus should be part of that process and again, take into
consideration and take seriously any recommendations that are made and try
to work them into thelr plan.
12. With regard to development west of TH 41, any use on Lot 20 will have to be
very non-intrusive and non-intensive. They should design a buffer yard at
least on the north and west and probably also on the south slde of it to
keep any actlvlty on that lot and any lots to the east as separate as
possible from the residential and Arboretum uses that are around
13. With regard specifically to grading, it is the intention of the city to
protect tho natural topography of the site.
14. This project shall be designed with the highest standards, including
building materials, location and orientation, landscaping, traffic
management and preservation of natural features.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Mason: Quick question. What we just pass, does that include all of
these recommendations?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. It included all recommendations that are contained in.
Councilman Wing: What about the deletion of the residents in the PUO?
Councilman Mason: It's...I don't think we need to. I think John has a
question.
John Uban: Highway 41 is going to be reconstructed. In fact, because of the
steep slope, trucks can't get up there. It interferes with capacity on Highway
5 so it has to be lowered whlch really changes the grade on this site and that's
why the road system works because the grades will change because of Highway 41.
So the trall probably can be easlly worked lnto that construction but we don't
know when it's going to happen. I just wanted to make sure that .you weren't
expecting that 11ks wlth flrst phase of construction or something. Two other
things.
Councilman Senn: We'd like some future timing on that posslbly so we know what
it ls.
John Uban: To do these environmental studles and so forth, we can't do it
unless we thlnk the clty, or assurances that you're comfortable with bonding and
bringlng the sewer and stuff in at the same tlme.
58
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Councilman Mason: I don't have any trouble with that. That certainly is
reasonable.
Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor, just a minute ago you referenced TIF. I mean I
haven't seen any discussion at all of TIF relating to this parcel.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the other part of it. That's the other part of it. That's
why I said.
Councilman Senn: That has nothing to do with what we're considering here?
Mayor Chmiel: It's not as a nice ball to get rolling with.
Paul Krauss: That's true but in the normal course of events, you don't normally
get the TIF program at a concept stage.
Mayor Chmiel: No you don't, but it's all part of it.
Paul Krauss: Right. And that's where we feed back and get that extra level of
control by saying, well what are we buying for our dollars and the expectations
go up.
Mayor Chmiel: So we have discussion and I'd like to ask for your opinion there
but we have this on the floor. Okay, we did have a motion on the floor with a
second to table, until we know exactly what's happening with all these other
things. Now, there may be some valid points on the other side of this. I don't
want to appear to be wishy washy either but I'm trying to pull together this
thing as neatly as we can.
Councilman Wing: To the best of our ability.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to withdraw my motion and propose a second.
Mayor Chmiel: And will the second?
Councilman Wing: Well do you want to give me a chance here?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Wing: I'll move to approve case 92-6, conceptual development plans
to rezone 178 acres at TH 41 and TH 5, Gateway West Business Park. And make
sure I have the three cases. Number one, we need a bonding case study. No
further action to be brought to Council prlior tO task force study completion and
acceptance by Council. And the timeframe, I'm lacking. 6 months?
Councilman Mason: But do we even need a timeframe if we're saying?
Paul Krauss: For the task force we do. I'd defer to the City Attorney but it's
always trying to define. If the project folds and never completes itself, I
55
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
mean we have an obligation to complete it and defining it is something that
might not be completed...
Councilman Wing: Okay, but I'm looking for a timeframe for the task force. I'm
saying in 6 months we'd like to have it on line. That's pushing it.
Councilman Mason: We can do it.
Paul Krauss: I think 8 months would be a little safer.
Councilman Wing: Okay, then the timeframe of 8 months. And then also, the
recommendations of Park and Rec and Planning Commission to be included. They
spoke to that very directly tonight. And those motions are clear aren't they?
I mean they're on record.
Kate Aanenson: They're in the report, yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That I will second.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Question. Paul, if I understand the Parks and Rec
recommendation correctly, they are recommending a trail fee be paid? Is that
coming out of there?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Versus the developer constructing the trail along TH 417
Todd Hoffman: Constructing trail and again, the issue there was the
reconstruction of Highway 41 and at what time it would be appropriate to
construct that trail. I have no problem with the recommendation to require the
applicants to construct the Highway 41 trail at such time when that road
reconstruction is entered into. The applicant has voiced their opinion that
they believe that will happen as part of this development.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to see that done. Just a comment on my part. I
don't know if you want to lnclude it or not.
Todd Hoffman: The original recommendation was not to include trail construction
as part of thls.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But you feel that it should be?
Councilman Senn: I think it should be because, I mean nothing's set and I don't
know who ends up paylng for lt. Probably us but I mean if you look at the tra11
fee versus the trail, Z think we get a lot more bang for our buck if we get the
tra11. It would make more sense.
Todd Hoffman: The Highway 41 trall segment makes good sense. The Highway 5
segment uill be constructed north of Highway 5.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'm talking about TH
56
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
development. Well, we're not. They're beating us now. We thought we'd have
this in place before development hit.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And it may sound like we're being very wishy washy
tonight tabling items but I don't think there's any shame in saying, we're not
ready. We need to make some bigger decisions about what the City's going to
look like into the next century. And we're not ready.
Mayor Chmiel: No. No question in my mind.
Councilman Wing: I'll stand by my motion to table.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: A motion is on the floor with a second. Any discussion? Paul.
Paul Krauss: I have to get some legal advice on something. The last moratorium
I set up...the one in Minnetonka in the early 80's... At that time the City
Attorney said you're within your rights to do a moratorium for a defined period
of time but you're also better off and legally supportable if there is a
mechanism by which some development can proceed. In Minnetonka it was the PUD
vehicle. I don't know if that's good advice yet these days or not given the
recent cases but if it is, my guess is that the criteria that we would come back
to you with, for that out...continue, would probably fit the bill of this
project...
Councilman Mason: If I could kind of tag along on that. When is the absolute
soonest time, given environmental impact statements, blah, blah, blah has to be
done, that this is going to come back before us?
Kate Aanenson: That goes back to my point. We see these points tracking
together. What you're asking for is the next phase when they come back with the
preliminary plat. You want to see the development standards. What we're saying
at this point is that, they're looking at conceptual. They're not at that point
yet. We certainly aren't at that point yet.
Councilman Mason: And I wonder if we're not, I hate this word but I'm going to
use it anyway, over reacting a little bit to what's going on here. We're
talklng half a year minlmum?
Kate Aanenson: That's what Paul's saying. The sky isn't falling quite yet
because we feel like these two are tracking together falrly well. There is
obviously some concern but we don't see thls coming back before you. And you
may even want to make that your motion. That it doesn't come back for
preliminary, I don't know, until we've got that. But I don't see them comlng
back before you, before 6 months and it may be a year.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I guess I think there's enough that needs to be worked
out here yet that we can tweak, and I'm a member of that corridor study. Maybe
throw a few more meetings in there and get this rolllng. I know there's a
motion and a second on the floor. I don't think tabling this is dealing with
thls lssue rlght now.
53
City Council MeeLir,9 - January 11, 1993
Councilman Wing; Tt absolutely isn't. It's saying good-bye for a while.
Councilman Mason: And I'm saying, I don't think we need to do that.
Councilman Wing-'. ...I'm only trying to move it along because I think they're
gc, Jng to parallel each other anyway. We're going to get this done and they're
golf,9 to still develop and we know they're coming. Sewer and water's still
going to be running out there. I don't see it's going to make a difference one
way or the other. However, ~ am comfortable with your statement and Mr. Mayor,
I'm going to fail back and I'd be happy to withdraw that motion. If you're
comfortable that these things are in fact going to fall together.
Mayor ChmJ. el: There's so many things really...and there's a lot, even though
it's a concept plan, conceptual. To me there's too many unanswered to even go
along with what's being proposed. I think that we may of' may not be over
r~actin9 to this. I'm not sure. But there's so many, as I said before, loose
ends in regard to this, that how can we justifiably come up with a solution or
an answer to this with [hat there? ~nd what Paul is saying is maybe what you
can do is approve the PUB proposals as well as the TIF and let the rest of that
set.
Paul Krauss: If Z can clarify Mr. Mayor. I think that maybe Kate's suggestion
may be more appropo. That if the concept were to be approved, it gives the
developer the ability to proceed on environmental documentation and...and those
things don't need necessarily to get, you know you don't need to establish a
:setback or trip generations kind of thing. At the same time, the Highway 5
program is tracking ahead, and possibly you do want to make, you know if a
concept were to be approved and say that it not be brought back before you until
the Highway 5 corridor dJstrict is up and running or a date certain, so that if
you want to pick a date ~ months from now, 8 months from now at the outside,
that ue have an obliga[ion to complete it' by that time so that we're not putting
them on the back burner forever. Tha[ way, whatever's brought in is going to
have to track with the new Highway ,5 program, whatever that happens to be.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Go ahead.
Councilman Mason: This area is going to get developed, one way or the other.
Mayor Chmiel: No ques[ion.
Councilman Mason: And I have seen the work Opus does. I mean I think, I like
what I've seen them do and I have no reason to believe that once we get some
'things in place here and we all know what some guidelines are, that we can work
this out. And I thlnk, you know now I'm hearing that ue can go ahead and
approve a concept. Nothlng more. And I wouldn't have any trouble at a11, after
we've approved this, if ue don't 11ke the site plan, to pull it out. But if
we're now saying that we can somehow tle [his into the completion of the hlghway
task force, I think that maybe lends some more credance to approving it.
H~?or Chmiel: Okay, I would probably go along, with that if we also include the
bonding aspects of i~ because if we can't go that, we pull the plug
automatically on it.
54
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
necessary but maybe that comes down the line. I'm not sure. But right now I'm
not ready to even approve this concept because there are too many questions
unanswered.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael, anything more?
Councilman Mason: Well, I guess I would disagree with Councilwoman Dockendorf.
I'll go ahead and approve. With the list of recommendations that are here,
I think it will in fact give some sort of direction to where we want to go with
this. So I'm comfortable knowing that there are no strings attached to granting
the conceptual approval. I think if we do go that route, there are some items
here that we need to highlight. Work to incorporate two exemptions. Well,
Mr. Paulson says he's not sure we wants to be exempted. So that's an issue. A
couple other qulck comments, i agree about Lot i not being retail. I don't
think that helps the Arboretum. I don't think that helps the vtew of citizens
coming lnto Chanhassen. Basically I would 11ne up wlth most of Councilman
Wing's concerns. I think the Arboretum is the big issue. I think the west side
is the blg deal and I'm hearing things about things would have to be completely
graded to get buildings in. There's no imagination there and I know we've had
developers in thls clty before that have started out that way and reallzed we're
all working together and let's do it so everyone's happy, and so it looks nice
too. So I, well let's hear what the Mayor has to say.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I sort of threw out some of my concerns and thoughts on
this. There's a lot of loose ends on it. I don't like approving loose ends.
I really don't. I went through some of the areas here and I was combining both
the 6 and 7 of some of the concerns as I mentioned before with the additional
things that we have to approve.
Councilman Mason: Are your recommendations now?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I'm just talking from what I have discussed previously on my
own.
Councilman Mason: Oh, okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Regarding the bonding, the water tower, the additional costs that
are entailed by this and can we even really afford this, and that's all part of
the other concept plan as well. To me it's one in the same. 'Who's going to pay
for it? Will this effect our bonding rating as I said? I guess the concept
plan approval ls something I don't fully agree with. I want a commitment for
what Lot 1 is going to be. I don't want a maybe or we'll put in what's best for
the clty or what we think ls best for the city. What might be' best for the city
may not be best for us. And that's a large parcel that we have to contend with.
I thlnk in my own estimation, I feel right now that I'd almost table this
because of all the loose ends. Even wlth the recommendations that we had from
both Planning Commission as well as Park and Rec. And I don't disagree with any
of the recommendations that were put completely from each of those.
Councilman Wing: But the loose ends won't be tied up until that Task Force is
complete.
51
City Council. Meetin:l --.ianuary 11, 1993
Hayer Chmiel: There ag,~in, that's the problem. They're looking for a fast
t.r~c:k here and putting this in within a year. 6etting the utilities. We're
s-~ying ,~ years. Charles .lust got through saying possibly 2. We've got a 1 to 6
and maybe 2. So ~Jhere s. re ~.Je really? This ali fits i~ wi(h the proposals for
both, there's no question in my mind. ~nd even on item 7, I feel some real
concerns .¢.n gelling those utility improvements to there at this time as well.
And Highway 5 corridor is something that's important to all of us and we kno~
that. We put a lot of time into it. We know what direction it's going in.
I (hink it's going Lo in the proper direction, and I think we've got to protect
tidal part of it. So with that I'll open it up for floor discussion or for a
motion.
Councilman Wing: Well I'll offer a motion that this be tabled pending the
completion of the Task Force study and receipt of those recommendations by the
City Council. My conflict I have with that motion is the timeframe. Clearly
t. here's I tt~ink a Council desire to see that Task Force as the locomotive, not
the cabooze here.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I want to put a clarifier on it too. I don't want Opus
to say that ~e're against Opus coming in. We're not. It's just that there are a
lot o'f thlngs gc. lng on wlthin the clty. If we don't take a position now, we're
never going to be able to take a position to say thls is what we want within the
cit~' rather thai, have everyone come in and tell us what they're going to put
there. I think we have a right to do that because we do want to see what this
city's going to be and we want it to be something a little more exceptional than
what other people may have preceived it to be.
Councilman Wing' And Abra triggered off a posslble moratorium on the east end.
We're only looking for ~ 6 to 8, 9 month delay on the west end to get our task
force on 11ne.
Councilman M:,son: Well put.
Cou~cilman Senn: But in effect we're doing the same thing. I mean we're saying
leL's put a moratorium orl this for 6 months to a year. ~ust because the task
force is out 6 to 8 months, Z mean there are st111 considerations that are golng
to occur beyond (he task force. So Z mean different vehlcles here because we're
looking at this differently through a PUD but I'm golng to come right back to
[he same thing we were; talking about before. We're talklng about placing a
mor.~torlum on thls thing.
Councilman Mason: This may be semantics but I don't think we are. And it was
kind of cloudy to me untl]. Don made that comment about we have the right as a
clty to ask thls, and that's not saylng that we're putting down anybody that
wants to come in here. But we do have to ].lye here just like they would have to
live with the development. And Z thlnk by saylng we want some more vision, you
know Z think gohn was right. That vision isn't there yet and what I'm hearing
rlght now ls, that we want that vlsion in place before we go ahead and start
saying, come on down. And if that vision isn't in place yet, and we're working
on getting that vision in place, then so be it. Let's walt a while on thls.
Councilman Wing: We talked moratorium. Ursula Dimler brought up moratorium for
thls stretch and we decided not to because we thought we were golng to beat
52
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
reasons why we threw it on the Planning Commission, threw that retail commercial
out because it would have to be rezoned. And we felt that, based on the size of
thls property, it does merit some support commercial. But we felt that that
scale ls inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and it doesn't meet the pUO
either.
Councilman Senn: But why was the support commercial moved up to an area
probably more effecting the residential and the Arboretum's concerns rather than
on a, I thlnk what future wlse is golng to be probably one of the busiest
intersections in Chanhassen.
Kate Aanenson: That lssue was raised by the staff and the Plannlng Commission
as an issue of concern, yeah. I agree with your comments. Maybe it's
misplaced. The location.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I see that, from my own purvlew as I looked at the site
for the Lot number 1. I see that more as a headquarter site for a company. My
own opinlon, rather than any commercial or any strip mall that you're suggesting
or indicated. And I think it's true what you basically said. I want to see
that downtown developed first. I don't want to see these kinds of things wlthln
the city. I don't think we need it. We've got a site on TH 41 and TH 7 that
plcks up that sectlon of the area for those klnds of shopplng needs but as far
as what we have now, I want to see that downtown. Our downtown be as successful
as it can be without empty storefronts and that's one of my major concerns. Any
other discussion?
Councilman Wing: I'd like to put my priorities on the record. On the
Architectural Record of February, lgg2, the idea that commerce belongs in narrow
strlps along hlghways made sense in small cities and suburban zonlng ordinances
were first drawn up in the lg20's. By continuing to extend commercial strip
zoning along highways, communities have created a development pattern that no
longer makes sense, wastes valuable land, produces inconceiveable traffic
conflicts and it goes on and on. My first priorlty ls that the Arboretum, whlch
is a national, environmental jewel of our community, be protected first. It was
there first. Zt was developed. It was there and I thlnk that our comprehensive
plan failed to recognize it's importance and it's value to this community and
the State and the Country and the comprehensive plan klnd of just bumped rlght
up agalnst it and said, well. We'll go industrial commercial right up and then
there's Peter Olin and he's got his spats. So my first priority is to buffer
the Arboretum, and that might mean no commercial use west of Highway 5 and a
close look at anythlng east of TH 5, or east of TH 41 rather. Secondly is the
residential area and those residential areas may prevent commercial use west
of Hlghway 41 or we're going to wind up with something we've been flghtlng for
years and that's Timberland West. We're golng to wind up with a few residential
homes right in the mlddle of a massive commercial and lt's not going to be
compatible. We've been fighting that right along. Secondly, is the Lot 1. I
concur with the Mayor. I see a campus appearance on that corner. I would also
support the Planning Commission's removal of the retail to the ~$~, and I think
we should go ahead, at least if there was a majority on Counc11 that that ls not
an acceptable use, retail would not be an acceptable use and it might as well
come in ulth some ldeas for it because that's a premiere corner and to hold out
for better market or that Lot l's use should be based on future market needs
lsn't golng to sell wlth me. I think we have to know what's going to go on
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
right f'm"om the beginning. The bonding issue has certainly got to be looked at.
And a.s far as tile filling station and the retail on Hlghway 41, I guess I see
02nd Street as kind of out of the way and not visible and I guess I don't have a
lot of trouble with it shifting up in that direction. You can't see it from TH
41. You can't see it from TH 5 and it seems like it would be much better
managed there plus it ties into our service road and that's really where we're
trylng to put eve;'ythlng. Along the servlce road. It's not out on Hlghway 5.
The other question, so those are my priorities. Number one is buffering the
Arboretum ls top priority. Second ls the residents in that area and thlrdly ls
the Lot 1 and I concur with the Mayor's standing. The only other question I've
got, if anybody could handle lt, 1~ just a s11ght revlew of where the utilities
are goJ. ng to come from? Who's going to provide them? I mean we've got Chaska
down in the south end and we've got Chan comlng from the east slde and who's
golng to win the race? Mho in fact is going to run sewer and water into this
entire site? What's just a general?
Mayor Chmiel-'. That'd be us.
Councilman Wing: Just real quickly.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. In fact some of this will be
discussed with the next agenda 1rem but basically there lsa deflned area that
can be served or, this site by gravity back to Chaska. Now of that defined area
though, the limiting, the key 11mlting factor ls the available capaclty in the
Chaska system. Now based on that we've deflned in the feasibility study that
you have in your packets tonlght, how much land area wlthin Phase i can be
serYed through Cl'laska per the previous cooperative agreement that we've approved
~ith Chaska~ The remaining portlon of this development ls proposed to be served
vla future extensions of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement
Project. Currently the Phase i project whlch ls golng to be completed by the
summer of this year will provlde trunk utilities basically extending them to
Ga].pir, Boulevard abo~t, oh a half to three quarter mlle south of thls particular
project area. Now as of late last week and today we have received some
petitions from adjacent landowners along ~alpin Boulevard requesting the City
investigate the extension of utilities north along Galpin and it would only seem
to 'Fit that. It appears that area, that the area around this project are coming
together. That there is a demand to have these utilities extended. It's
probably only going to be a couple years before we would be able to provide
utilities all the way to serve this entire property. From a design and
construction standpoint, does it really look at the financial aspect of the
picture but at least from a physica], and construction standpoint, we could have
utilities there within just a couple years.
Councilman Wing: Thank you.
Mayor Chlniel: Colleen, do you have any?
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Well, I guess we're llot answering the question, what
direction should they go besides saylng it needs to be more imaginative, but
I haven't examples of what more imaginative is. We're in a difficult place
because it is just a concept and we have all very respectable partles on
different sides of tho issue. From Mr. 01in to Opus Corporation to definitely
the citizenz and it seems to me that we're not getting that cooperation that's
5O
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Kate Aanenson: Well again, we just talked about too, when the sewer will be
available. I mean that might be, even be a year before they have sewer. We're
looking at the inside, they may be able to respond better, 6 months at the
inside, and maybe up to a year before we see it again. I think what they want
to know is whether the commitment level's there before they spend more dollars
to proceed. And that's why ue felt comfortable with goinglahead with the
conceptual based on the fact that they concur on the outset what the conditions
should be put in there. That there be no retail. That be eliminated as a
possibility. That they agree with some of the other issues. The buffering
along the Arboretum. The uses that the Planning Commission looked lat. If
they're not willing to agree to those conditions, then we feel it shouldn't go
forward.
Mayor Chmiel: I have some of the concerns I have with bonding for some of this
and being that we'll have water and sewer within that particular area, in
addltion to that probably about a million dollar plus water tower that will
probably be required. Thls really concerns me, only because of our bond rattng
that we have presently. We're sort of at the end of our rope with bonding
without changing our bonding rating as well. And because of that bonding
rating, every tlme we turn around and go out to get dollars, every mlllion
dollars we save $50,000.00 automatically. And Oon, maybe you can give me a
11ttle more, or establish a little more my concerns regarding this.
Don Ashworth: I think that they are valid concerns. We'll need to have them
petltion for a feasibility study. I know we did some preliminary work and
they've done some preliminary work but I don't think we're in a position to
answer the questlon how much ls it golng to cost for that water tower. How
large is the area that's proposed to be assessed, costs associated with that?
What are the individual costs to each of the property owners coming up to that
site? And I know when we got into the slmilar discussion with Lundgren Bros, we
got 1nfo a discussion about whether or not the developer should be requlred to
put the dollars up front to insure that if we went ahead with this study and in
fact then the declsion was made, well this ls too hlgh of an assessment,
literally the city could be left holding the bag. I'm sure from the developer's
standpoint, that they are similarly concerned that if we did the study and
completed it, again I know that there are tentative plans that are out there
that potentially the city might pull the plug. But again, Z don't think we have
the full answers to a lot of those questions.
Councilman Mason: I heard things like latitude of the developer and I hope the
developer's understand the city also has that latitude. And it is a balancing
act. I agree with that 100% and what I've heard so far tonlght is that the
balance isn't even close between the city and the developer and I'm very
concerned about that rlght now. Well, enough of that. I'll walt.
Councilman Senn: If I'm understanding it right then, tonight with the concept
approval or concept review let's call it or whatever, you're just looklng for
feelings, indications, comments? Am I gauging that right Paul?
Paul Krauss: Yeah. I mean the concept stage is completely non-binding on both
parties. It's to get a sense of, are they on the right track? What more do
they need? Is the Clty generally supportive of the concept with refinements?
And that's why we've encouraged you to be as expliclt as possible. We've tried
47
City Council Meeting - January il, 1993
to articulate some of the things we've been hearing but it's fairly clear that
this is a project that obviously involves millions of dollars are on the line
and I mean we understand that they're looking for some sort of indication that
at least they can get pointed in the right direction before they spend a lot
more and they've already expended a considerable amour, t. It's a process that
we've gone through on many projects. It's an optional step, as a matter of
fact, and some have elected not to go through it. I think Target we did away
with it because it t~as on a fast track. They take more risks in essence just
diving into the plan.
Councilman Senn: Well let me try to do that I guess just briefly. Again, not
having a large knowledge base to go from, it seems to me we ought to be looking
wes'[ of Th 41 to the issue of park space given the huge wetland there. Enough
area for active and...all the concerns of the neighbors. Whereas on the east
side, at least if I'm understanding it right, isn't this industrial development
to the east side too?
Paul Krauss: No. East of this site is all residential.
Councilman Senn: Is all residential? What, single family? Multi?
Paul Krauss: It's a mix. There's medium density up towards the.
Kate Aanenson: This area up in here is multi family and south of that would ail
be single family residential.
Councilman Senn: Alright. Was that issue looked at ail west of?
Paul Krauss: I'd defer to the Park Director on that. No, it really hasn't and
it's kind of away from the population centers.
Todd Hoffman: Correct, away from population centers and then difficulty
crossing Hlghway 41 to galn access to Zt for the main population of this
development and then other residents of Chanhassen.
Councilman Senn: I guess sencondly I'd like to really, as far as Lot 1 goes,
I guess I'm not sure conceptually that I would oppose all retail development
on Lot l. It may very well be a good location for retail development but I
think more critical, at least in my mind is how that retail development, I'm
goi~g to say effects downtown. Z mean Chanhassen's made a decision to establish
the CBD, central commercial district. There can outlying retail without
effecling downtown but if you're talking about a power center or a large strip
center or something which is going to turn around and compete with downtown, I
don't, I just saying personally I don't see that in the cards. If you're
talking about a retail type of use which isn't appropriate to downtown, and
would not detract from downtown, I think that's something that at least could be
open for consideration there because that's going to be a pretty heavily let's
call it traveled or concentrated corner. I mean that's going to be a pretty
heavy intersection right there.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just give some clarification to that? It's guided for
offlce industrial so it had to be rezoned. The PUD ordinance does allow for, at
the Council's discretion, up to 25~ support commercial, which ls one of the
48
City Council Heeting - January 11, 1993
it's going to take a real long time to put it together. It's also a PUD, or
will be a PUD, which gives you a great deal of latitude. It's also, in all
likelihood, we've talked about setting up a TIF distrlct to cover the thing
which gives us another layer of latitude. The reason lt's before you here
tonlght with a lot of half baked things ls (a), we don't know exactly what to
do. And (b), we had that moving target syndrome. That's why, when we brought
this to you tonight, we suggested that you know, we've been talking to them for
a year. The Planning Commission's been talking to them for 3-4 months, that we
need to be real expllclt and tell them exactly, if we can, what it ls that we're
looking for. You will have time to refine these things. I mean I dare say this
ls not going to come back before you for real firm approvals before that Highway
5 district is set up. It takes that long to put something like this together.
So this is not, unllke the Abra/Goodyear, you do have a lot of controls. Levels
of control over this and it is a much more lengthy process. So I guess the sky
isn't falllng on this one.
3ohn Uban: I'll respond.
Councilman Wing: Please.
John Uban: The concept plan ls really derlved from several things. One, we
have to look at what the city does have as guidelines, and that is your existing
comprehensive plan, whlch we follow. And your exlsting ordinance, whlch we
followed. We also looked at the marketplace and what the developer and so
forth, what is golng to be done. How is it usually developed. Industrial
buslness park. And this plan follows what those parks really demand. The size
of lots. The klnds of buildings that wlll be placed there. The configurations
and so forth and at the same time we thought at least in the beginning when we
took a step forward by proposing a park, which wasn't really designated in your
comprehensive plan as this should be the place for a park. We really thought we
were klnd of leading the charge on this and in fact, by brlnging thls before the
Clty, actually tried to help the city visualize or realize what is happening.
What the task force means. What this corrldor means. We tried that several
years ago and did not have success. Hopefully this is our second time around in
a way wlth more detail. But trylng to follow your comprehensive plan. We also
have some market driven concerns. We see that in Chaska for instance they're
really runnlng out of industrial land, except for the Nordic Track slte dlrectly
to the south. And that site is being sold for $1.00. Now it's very hard, we
can't compete against that. I mean we can't offer ours for $1.00 and I don't
think the city can participate at this point in a buy down program that would
allow the marketing of sites for $1.00. It would be nlce if we could. The more
that sort of thing happens, the way Chaska is aggressively put together
industrial development, glves more latitude to a developer to put in blgger
setbacks, more landscaping, more expensive buildings and so forth. And that's
the kind of partnership we thlnk a city really can join lnto with a developer,
especially one 11ke Opus. What do both sides really need to make this vision
happen. Thls quallty of development. These kinds of setbacks. This kind of
circulation system. All these things. And so far part of this confusion maybe
has been, we haven't heard the back and forth. And it was asked at the Planning
Commission of Kate I believe, why is the developer going through a PUD7 What is
he gettlng? And the answer is really nothing. At this point very little. And
it keeps gettlng more and more and I think some of our frustration and maybe it
happened at the Park Commission, we just kept being asked for more and more.
City Council Meeting -- January 11, 1993
We're 9iving, at least our park designation's over 30 acres at this point. We
have enlarged it several times here and we thought we had it worked out at one
point but it came back again and another acre and a half now is being requested.
Obviously when this is all done, perhaps this acre and a half is not, it's not a
killer but we just don't see the end of this and we need [o see the balance of
what we're going to have to pay for utilities to come in. When do they come in?
Do we get them? What is that assessment per acre? But if there isn't the
development kind of scenario available to support those kinds of costs, it
becomes very difficult for the development to go on a high quality level. And
so as we have more setbacks and more infrastructure to support, per developable
square foot, the cost keeps going up and then we have less money to put in for
buildings, quality and other things. And it's a balancing act. We don't know
where [hat balance is yet. But it's something we have to sit down and really
work out with the city so that we really have a cooperative vision and a
cooperative set of tools and regulations that we can all agree to. And our
concept really is, we're not trying to jump ahead of the gun. We thought we
were trying to lead, and I know we have some strong differences of opinion with
the Arboretum and other people and depending on what the 6ity really wants to
see here. Different things, you just can't keep restricting and restricting and
restricting and thinking it's going to become more and more and more wonderful.
There is a partnership to it and a balance and we really need to spell that out
so tl~at both tl~e developer and the city sees that very clearly and we are here
'Lo cooperate and participate fully in that process.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Mark.
Councilman Sellll: Can I just ask a preliminary question so I can first gain an
understanding? Paul, on this. I followed that down untll I get to the bottom
and I klnd of get lost in trying to relate that to the plan that we have here.
Like Lot 22 here, it shows as 13.4 acres in a 50,000 square foot building. Yet
I look on the plan and there's a small parcel rlght on the corner of TH 41 and
OZnd.
Kate Aanenson: This plan was submitted the middle of last week, after the
report had pretty much been put together. I thlnk it was, you have a copy of
the other slte plan in your packet that reflects thls. I thlnk what they try to
do, and what we got hung up in the Planning Commission ls they showed buildings
on all these. Agaln, we talked about what you requlre for conceptual and we
kept gettlng bogged down. When I say we, the Planning Commission, in looking at
how do these individual buildings flt on these lots and what we're trylng to
look at is the overall, is there merits for the PUO. How we feel about the
number of lots .... out of the development standards. That is a big project to
try to do the PUB standards like we did for Target, for this whole industrial
park. That lsa blg project and that, we need to have the EI$ and all that
information before we can do that. And the wetlands. Then we'll come out and
talk about what should be those setbacks. What should be the architecture.
Right now we're just trying to look at some of the peripheral lssues.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Given the fact that we do have, we need the ElS, we
need to find out when utilities uill be available, what timeframe are we talking
for any of thls development given?
46
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
further to include four additional Chaska residences. We've had good
cooperation w~th Kate. The developer and thelr planning representatives have
been sllent other than to promise a low keying of the one commercial buildlng
they plan to put rlght across the street from us, and that building will be
about 100 feet from Dr. David Oungey. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Larry Schroers: Good evening. I'm Larry Schroers, Chairman of the Park and Rec
Commission for the city of Chanhassen. I just want to take a second to express
my concern that the Council take time to read the motlon that the Park and Rec
Commission worked so long and hard on. We think that we looked at all the
issues and needs of that developing area. There are four of us in attendance at
this meeting tonight to show how strongly we feel about it, and we sincerely
hope that you'll take our motlon lnto slncere consideration. Thanks a lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Jan Lash: Excuse me. I have a cold so I don't know how long my voice is going
to last tonight, but I'm Jan Lash. I'm also on the Park and Rec Commission and
I want to support what the earlier commissioners have mentioned and I want to
say in the 4 years that I've been on the Park and Rec Commission, I have not
felt as frustrated wlth a developer coming with a proposal and being as
uncooperative as we have had to, the cooperation level was very low. We started
in September. Made a recommendation of what we wanted to see. They came back
with it. It didn't come close to complying wlth what we had asked for. Tried
to come up with a compromise that we thought was workable. At that point in
time the compromise was not even something that I was willing to make. I didn't
thlnk it was golng to fill our needs, but at that time the developer made it
clear that they were not willing to make that compromise either. So we went
back to our original recommendation and the proposal that they came in, I was
shocked to see the second time they came through was a very nice park layout.
I loved the plan until I reallzed that the boundary for the majority of the
parkland was not wlthin this development. And I thought it was, actually it was
the funniest thing I had seen come through our Commission because for someone to
lay out the park on someone else's property I thought was pretty presumptuous on
their part. As Chairman Andrews sald earlier, we don't have control right now.
We don't have a plan before us on the adjoining property so we cannot ask for
dedication of that property. And also we don't always have the power to
designate a specific site so the proposal that this developer brought through
would entitle us to have enough flat space to have a parking lot and a
volleyball court. I think that was about it. And I really don't feel like
that's fllllng the need of what we asked for in our recommendation. So I would
appreciate your consideration of our recommendation and requiring that the
developer at least come back to us and we need to review thls and there needs to
be a lot more work done on this proposal to meet our Park and Rec needs for this
clty. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, any questions? Hichael, you've
got a smile on your face.
Councilman Mason: Well, first of a11, being involved in many bike races in the
Opus in Minnetonka, I do know the job that Opus can do. All of thts surprises
City Cou~cil Meeting - January 11, 1993
me. I think 1.5 acres of flat land for a park, I'm not quite sure what's
holding up the developers. We don't know what's going to happen in that
adjacent land and quite honestly, with what I'm hearing about park deficiency at
that end of tow,,, my guess is we're going to want 1.5 acres from them too.
Clearly something needs to happen here. I guess I do have the question, what's
the hold up with the park plan the Park and Rec Commission wants? I share the
concerns that the residents in Chaska and Mr. Olin and I'm also, it certainly
sounds al~uristic what the developers are doing on Lot 1 and that could be. I'm
very concerned about Lot 1 so I guess other than the 1.5 acre park that seems to
be a hang-up, I don't have any specific questions right now but a whole lot of
major concerns that we need to discuss before this gets passed.
Councilman Wing: I have a real preliminary question I'd just like to ask Mr.
Uban. And it's how, even in a conceptual discussion, unless you know our rules,
how can you even conceive a plan or concept? We've got a task force that's
going to be looking at development, design, roads, architectural standards,
landscape requirements, setbacks, and those are going to be within the next 6 to
8 months. Hopefully. Or sooner. In other words, that's a priority. You say
we don't have our act together'. You're right. That's why we have a task force.
You're saying we don't have our act together and a vision. You're 100~ right.
That's why we have this PUD coming in with this task force, with the Council
supporting it. So we've got a set of rules coming in here that we don't know
what they are but we know they're going to be relatively restrictive. So how
can you even think of designing this when you don't have any idea what the rules
are going to be? And how can we approve something when we know the rules are
going to be there shortly. It'd be like this thing tonight with Goodyear
saying, well. I guess they've done it, what do we do now? Well we're telling
it that the rules are coming in and even on Lot 1, you say you can't predict
it's use. Well we can predict a lot of it's use and I think we've predicted, at
least from the Planning Commission level that it's not going to be any kind of
retail. So that really limits your options and I guess it's time to start
talking what the other options, excluding that one might be. But Lot 1 is maybe
irrelevant. Knowing that we're going to be coming in with a set of rules and
you talk about a 50 foot setback, I'm on the task force and I'm going to ask
them for a 100 foot setback. I think we should have nothing closer to Highway 5
than 100 feet with a buffer greenway in there. And I may get nowhere with that
but these assumptions you're making, have no impact whatsoever on this task
force other than as a landowner with your input, which are certainly welcome.
Especially with your background and your company. I mean you have a lot of
things to offer here so it's not to put barbs at you, but conceptually, how can
you or even would you want to spend the time or money when we don't have our
rules in place yet and we're telling you that and they won't be here for another
6 to 8 months.
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, if I could just put into perspective a couple
things. When we started to Opus a year- ago, that was 6 months before the City
Council committed to doing a Highway 5 study. I think everybody's worked over
the last year you know ir, what we all perceive to be good faith efforts to
resolve the many issues in front of us and again, you have the same kind of
issues. I mean there's a moving target. What do we want to do? And we have
been a little frustrated and they probably have been equally frustrated with us.
On the other- hand, this is what be can be termed as a mega project for' our
community. I mean they don't come much bigger than this anywhere really. And
city council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Charles Foich: Right. And I guess my concern is that we don't go through a dog
and pony show this spring and end up doing it again next spring.
Phil Gravel: I'd just like to make a point that if you look at the schedule in
the report, we need about 6 months from the time we...to complete construction
so there wouldn't be a problem in just not calling for the hearing at this time.
And at such time as you saw the need to get cracking...call for the hearing and
we could still easily facilitate any...
Mayor Chmiel: [ think you're right. You get the dog and pony show and the cart
before the horse at this particular time. So your recommendation at this time
would be to table the or deny?
Charles Folch: Basically, well I guess maybe I'd defer to the Attorney but
maybe tabling would be better so that we would bring it back at such time that
things are movlng along as the appropriate time. I think if you deny, do we
have to start back over again?
Elliott Knetsch= We'd want to table it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would then look for a motion to table item number 7 as
per staff.
Councilman Mason: I think I need to withdraw my motion.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry.
Councilman Senn: I'll withdraw my second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to table?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move to table item number 7, which is the receive
feasibility report on utillty improvements to Gateway West Business Park, Phase
1.
Councilman Wing: Second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion.
Councilman Mason: Quick discussion. Why are we tabling this now? I'm sorry,
but it's getting late and I'm confused.
Mayor Chmiel: A little reiteration. Because of the dog and pony show, we're
putting it before the horse and at this time, it would not be logical for us to
proceed wlth it because 6 months down.
Charles Folch: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. If we're looking at really not, I mean taking
the next 6 to 7 months to get some of this background ground work done before we
actually move ahead with this thtng, we have one year from the time that the
publlc hearlng ls held and the project is ordered. Ordered meaning orderlng
preparation of plans and specifications. From that date you have one year to
begln construction. Let's say we hold the publlc hearing the first meeting in
February. Maybe the second meeting we would order plans and specs on the 25th.
61
City Council Meeting - January ll, 1993
That means we should, we need to start breaking ground by February of next year
which isn't going to happen. Obviously we're golng to lose this construction
season and it doesn't appear at this time that it's golng to happen.
Councilman Mason: I need to make it clear in my own mind that we're not tabling
this indefinitely to put somebody off. We're tabllng it untll lt's, some other
pieces are in place and it's prudent to move ahead?
Charles Folch: That's right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the
feasibility report on utility improvements to Gateway West Business Park, Phase
1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1993 APPOINTMENTS:
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Mayor Chmiel: We just had pass before you one of the applicants who have
applied for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Gary B. Boyle. Because of
Tom Workman no longer ls eliglble to serve on the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. Statutes similarly state that nominations for vacancy for HRA must
be made by the Mayor with concurrence by City Council. And Z would like to so
move that Gary Boyle be appointed to the HRA. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason; I'll second that.
Mayor Chmlel: Any discussion?
Councilman Senn: I guess I have a comment. One is, this wasn't in our packet.
I feel a little uncomfortable approving it since I haven't had time to really
look at it or you know, talk to other people or whatever about lt. So in that
sense I'm uncomfortable with it. Second issue that I feel strongly about is it
relates to the HRA i5, I would really 11ke to see the Clty move towards making
the City COUrlcil the HRA given the large amount of funds that has been built up
in the HRA and most citles in the metropolitan area have now already done that.
I guess I'm not quite sure I understand why we're still not doing that. So for
those two reasons I guess, one for I'd like to learn more about the applicant
and (b), investigate the other alternatives. I'd like to see us wait on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. My position on that is, I don't feel Council should be the
controllng Factor. The HRA as well as Council. I feel that having citizens
involvement glves us a 11ttle more input, a 11ttle more insight and gives a
better opportunity to be a 11ttle more successful in the way we use the HRA
withln the clty. Gary Boyle, we've had thls before Councll before. Probably
about lasL month or prior to that with his application and is fully famlliar
wlth the clty. Llved here for 18 years and has got a good buslness background
as well. My position was that, that's the reason I'm recommended that he be
appointed to the HRA. We do have a motlon on the floor with a second and I
would call a questlon on this.
Resolutin ~93-02: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Gary
B. Boyle to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. All voted in favor, except
62
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councilman Wing: Before we drop that, I think it's important that Mark know
that that's been discussed at length at this Council. That we're concerned
about those funds and we did go to a 2 member Council on that from none prior to
that, Mayor Chmiel. And that I think if you have an opportunity to talk to Mr.
Ashworth and get the political ramifications of the Council taking over, it's
got some...of not taking it over. I was very pro being on that commission until
I had an opportunity to really look at all the ramifications. So before you
jump to any real harsh conclusions, I'd ask you to come up to the City Manager
to clarify the positions. But you're right, they've got a lot of money. It's
something to be kept an eye on.
Mayor Chmiel: And continuing to do as a Council member.
PLANNING COMMISSION.
Mayor Chmiel: Appointments to the Planning Commission. We had three
commissioners choose to leave the Commission after serving it quite well and we
dld present them with their awards at our last Councll meeting. And I asked
that they show the ranking of the people who have come through with the
information on each of those people as well. I sat down at that interview, and
Councilman Mason was there as well and Councilman Wing. There are the 7 who had
applied, I think are all excellent candidates. I'd hate to try to choose 3 from
the 7 but I think we more or less have to. As I viewed it, and I'd just like to
glve my opinlon. I thought that Diane Harberts was one who I thought was well
rounded in this, even though being in the community for a short pertod of time.
I always like to see time with us on someone's slde applylng for these, but she
has worked quite readily for the past number of years with the Planning
Commission in establishing different things for Southwest Metro...very well
handle discussions with people. The other one that I looked at was also Joe
Scott, and you can each make your own comments here. I'm just givlng mine. Joe
comes from the business community. Has a business within town. He is also
presently President of the Chamber and I think to get that kind of lnput back
into the Planning Commission is good because I think we've been sort of
neglecting the business community. But at least get a feel on the concept as to
what their thoughts are. My other one was Greg Blaufuss who is an architect.
He's lived in the community a number of years. Has a good handle on things that
the Planning Commission does and the needs for the Planning Commission. By the
way, each of these three all have the time to be dedicated to the Planning
Commission and are willing to basically serve, as the balance of them are as
well. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Can I pass?
Mayor Chmlel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: Good. I'd like to see what Dockendorf's going to do.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I can't speak to many of the people listed here
because I did not get the opportunity to interview them. However, I do know Joe
Scott and I know that he has put considerable commitment into serving the city
anyway he can, and obviously wants to be part of the decisions that are made in
63
City Council Heetir, g -. January il, 1993
this town. And I would recommend that he be appointed to this Commission. I
would defer to the Commission's recommendations on the other two.
Councilman Mason: I too was with the Mayor for these. We agree on two out of
(hree. Clearly I've worked with Diane. I was in Southwest Metro until I was
appointed to HRA. I have no trouble with her. Joe Scott, clearly has the
desire to serve the community and I agree with the Mayor about the business end
of it but also, he stated very clearly at the time that Chamber was an
apolitical organization and he felt he had the energy and commitment for the
job. The one, the area we disagree, I'd like to see Nancy Mancino would be my
choice. I thi~k it would be, I like the idea of having two women on the
Planning Commission. I don't think we can go wrong with either Nancy or Greg.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess a couple questions. When were the interviews?
Mayor Chmie].: At the last Planning Commission meeting. What date was that
Paul? It's in here I know.
Paul Krauss: It was last Wednesday.
Mayor Chmiel: The Commission reviewed them on January 6th.
Councilman Senn: Okay. What is, I mean I don't, I guess I'm at a loss because
having participated in the past application process, I thought there was an
interview before the Planning Commission and then all interview before the City
Council. That is why I did not attend the Planning Commission meeting to do the
in(erviews. So obviously that procedure has been changed and the Council will
not have the opportunity to interview these people?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, my understanding is, I thought everyone had the opportunity
to come to the interview that was belng done by the Plannlng Commission to
eliminate that part of lt.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I would just hope in the future that's more clear
because that hasn't been the past practlce I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: That's true.
Councilman Wing: What year? It hasn't been since I've been here, and I don't
wsn( Lo interview them twice.
Mayor Chmiel: No, and that's what we normally have done. Is that we've looked
at it and then we've come up with our conclusions as to the appointments.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: There have been different processes used over the years. At one
point I know like, Mayor Hamilton just did them himself and he reported to the
Council what his findings were. And there was another point where the Council
64
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
did interview the candidates twice. I don't think we've done that for several
years and I think the reason it kind of fell out of place was, it became a very
lengthy process and people just kind of got disinterested in it.
Councilman Senn: Well I'm not, again that may be ali well and fine. Twice
slnce Mayor Chmiel has been in office, Z have interviewed with the Plannlng
Commission and wlth the City Councll following that so I mean I don't consider
it to be an old practice. Z consider it to be a recent practice.
Councilman Mason: I believe the reason for that was, is there was a fair amount
of dissent as to who the candidates should be and we decided to pull ln. Well I
was elect, not in but as I recall, because I was there at that second interview,
that we couldn't make a decision. Or the then Council couldn't make a decision
and called those 2 or 3 people in.
Councilman Senn: I'm just asking in the future that the City Manager make that
clear so people understand. Other than tha{, I've done my own checking from
there. If we're statlng preferences or what we found out. Again, we're looking
at what 3 positions basically?
Mayor Chmiel: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Nancy Mancino seems to be particularly qualified.. John Luce,
I like him. Diane Harberts, I have some questions on. Not that she's qualified
but as you stated Mr. Mayor, she's had a lot of work, she works with the
Planning Commission a lot and deals with them. I just have questions. I mean
ls there a potential conflict there?
Mayor Chmiel: The question was asked and it was determined there was none.
Councilman Senn: But I like Sreg Blaufuss for the other one.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Wing: It looks like a long night, because I agree with you on 2 out
of the 3 Mr. Mayor. Joe Scott is a prtorlty and Diane Harberts also. She's
really a worker and I just am so impressed with Nancy Manclno, I can't rule her
out. She's just a real worker and very dedicated to planning and the direction
the city ls going so. I'm afrald I'm with Mike on those 3.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You were with?
Councilman Wing: Mancino, Scott and Harberts.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And we have, I had the 3, Diane, Joe and 6reg. I think
we're coming very close. We need your votes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Only because they are ranked in order of preference
and my own personal preference for Joe Scott, I'd say Joe, Nancy and Diane.
Mayor Chmiel: Joe, Nancy and Diane. Okay. That would mean that we would have
then, Nancy, Dlane and Joe.
65
City Council. MeeliI~9 - JanLtary 11, 1993
Councilman Wing: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? I would
like to make sur'e that we send letters to all the candidates and thank them for
thelr participation. I'd also like you to put in there that just because they
were turned down at this particular time, they still have qualifications as far
as I'm concerned and would like to see them make that application at the next
vacancy on the Commission.
Councilman Mason: Absolutely. It was a luxury almost. It was a difficult
luxury this time.
Councilman Wing: By the way, having served on Public Safety for 10 years, I
think it's really J. mportant that the Commission has a large significant input in
who gets chosen and the priorities. Because they have to work with them and
tl~e)"ve talked ~o them and they've interviewed them. It's nice for the Councll
to be able to plck and choose but that could get political. But these people
are saying, we've got to work wi~h them. We've got to talk to them and I really
did w~l)t that control as a commlssloner~
Hayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Nancy Mancino, Diane
Harberts and Joe Scott to the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
Mayor' Chmiel~ We have four members of the Commission eligible to, three. How
many do we have?
Todd Hoffman: Four.
Mayor Chmiel: Four, okay.
Councilman Senn: Don if I could, a question again. I have no information on
Andrews or Lash at all in my packet.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay, they are exlsting and on the Commission presently.
Councilman Senn'. I understarld that.
Mayor' Chmiel: Both doing a good job. I think you saw Jan Lash this evening.
And Jlm Andrews both made presentations on behalf of the Park and Rec
Comlnlsslon. Upon conclusion, the Park and Recreation Commission unanimously
reCOnlmended Commissioner Lash and Andrews be reappointed to thelr positions and
that Ron Roeser, 222 Chan View and James Manders, Chaparral Lane be appointed to
Fill the two vaccl~t positions. Witl~ Mr. Robert Smithburg of Chanhassen Hllls as
an alternate cholce.
CoUl-lc.llman Mason' So moved.
66
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to re-appoint Jan Lash and Jim
Andrews and to appoint Ron Roeser and James Manders to the Park and Recreation
Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS.
Mayor Chmlel: I've already put the squeeze on Mark for that one.
Councilman Senn: With a conditional yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Wlth the condition that in the event he's not able to do lt, that
someone else can fill in and I said I'd be ullling to do that as well.
Councilman Senn: Whlch means he's got it every Monday night for the next couple
of months.
Mayor Chmlel: Until February.
Councilman Senn: End of February.
Mayor Chmlel: I'd 11ko to make that motlon.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to reappoint Carol
Watson and Willard Johnson; and to appoint Hark Senn to the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Wlng: That means i'm off it rlght?
Mayor Chmlel: You're right. You're off of it.
Councilman Senn: That was understood that that was the desire. If you would
like to keep it, you're more than welcomed to keep it.
Mayor Chmlel: No, we keep rotating that. Keep rotating that.
Councilman Wing: No, I can't make the meetings so thank you.
SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT.
Mayor Chmlel: Richard has been on thls and just filled that position untll the
end of '92. However, I would like to, this is a 3 year term and it expire~ in
'95 and the meeting dates on those are?
Councilman Mason: Third Thursday.
Ha/or Chmiel: Yeah, thlrd Thursday has a conflict wlth HRA.
City Council Meeting - January !1, 1993
Councilwoman Docker, doff'. Ask, I'd be thrilled.
Mayor- Chmiel: So moved. Is thore a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Ha¥or Chmiel moved, Councilman Hason seconded to appoint Colleen Dockendorf to
the Southwest Metro Transit Board. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
INSTALLATION OF FOUR-WAY STOP SIGNS, WEST 78TH STREET~ COUNCILMAN SENN.
Don Ashuorth: I'm not sure Mark, if you wish to present this? If you wish me
to? Hark did stop in. In his campaigning, the number one concern that he
heard, at least from my neighborhood was the inability of those people to get
out onto ?Bth Street. I don't disagree with that at all. 4 lot of good things
could happen with stop signs. I sincerely believe you would reduce speeding,
reduce cut throughs. You would reduce, you'd allow the side streets to get off.
My only concern is if we make a mistake, and the hang up time on ?8th Street gets
so long that we have to pull them. Well you really can't pull them. You're
only other chance then is to put an officer out there. I would like to see this
go to the Public Safety Commission just to make sure that we've got all of the
input we can get before we would make this [ype of decision.
Councilman Senn: Don, let me just add to that if I could. I don't have a big
problem with [hat except I question if there's any other way to answer that
question. Right ~ow the amount of cars that cut through because there's
absolutely no stops, in effect taking ?8tl~ rather than 5 stop lights on Highway
5 is enormous. And I'm not sure how we're going to find out what portion of
that traffic's going to move back to where it really be].ongs. You know that's
not something lhat we can sit around and theorize about or say that oh, well my
guess is this and your guess is that. I mean that seems to be about the only
way you're going to get there. I guess I feel strongly that basically the
traffic congestion we have there is being created by people using it as a cut
through. That's obvious to see. I'd invite any one of you to go out and watch
J.t and I strongly urge you to act on this. The citizens back in that
neighborhood have been waiting a long, long time for this already. I sympathize
with lhem because every time I go over there, I run into the same thing they're
running into.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. What's our timeframe with our stop and go light?
Councilman Mason: That was just exactly what I was going to ask. Where are the
stop and go lights at?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. This is something we've discussed and talked about.
Councilnlan Senn: I understand and that's a ways out but go ahead.
Don ~shworth: I think we're trying to accelerate that. We're trying to get it
~head of the TH 101 realignment so it's, I thought it was summer/spring.
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Charles Folch: We are trying to acclerate it as much as we can. We may have
to, I know there was some primary concern, as Don mentioned, to try and get that
slgnal up at Great Plains to serve as the detour for the TH 101 project.
Whether we meet that or whether we have to go with some temporary alterantive
type signals, I guess is not known at this point in time. My best guess is
based on manufacturing. Getting the equipment. Getting everything set up. It's
probably not golng to be until mid-summer before we have those signals
operational.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree.
Councilman Senn: I guess I don't want to say it's...but the signal's coming
anyway. So stop lights to me, or I mean stop slgns to me are not going to be a
mistake because they're a lead in to the stop 11ght. If the stop slgn lsa
mlstake, undoing the mlstake is the stop 11ght which is already planned.
Councilman Mason: True. I don't know. You know I do drive on that street
every day and I come on Kerber and sometimes I am stacked 7 deep waiting to get
on. To ?8th. However, if now all of a sudden I'm golng to be stacked not'only
7 deep there but 7 deep down 4 or 5 blocks, I'm going to be even angrier than I
am now about it. But that's only my oplnion and I, Western Hllls certainly has
a gripe, as does Carver Beach, as does Saddlebrook. But I don't want to, I mean
I'm stacked up once. If I'm going to be stacked up 5 or ~ more times, I don't
like it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it's that old story, patience is a virtue and you have very
few virtues.
Councilman Mason: Boy, at that time of day and at that spot, you're right. So
I don't know about that one. That's a tough one.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Part of the problem is that the Highway 5 stops are
tlmed so terribly. If they were, I've called MnOot-at least 3 times on this
lssue and it seems to me if those were in sequence better, it would...the need
to fix the problem on 78th because people are cutting through.
Mayor Chmiel: Although, I just came through on, and I've done this a couple,
2-3 different times. This is coming from the east going west on Highway 5.
I've made every 11ght all the way through. This is at, between 4:30 and 5:00.
Councilman Mason: You know, I don't know what it is but east to west I can go
wlth them but west to east in the morning I can't do it. I go out on Powers,
I've got to stop 2 times. I go out on Market, I've got to stop 2 times.
Because you're rlght, coming home I go through them. Now I don't know whether
it's time of day or how they're timed or what.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's part of the cross traffic going through but they're
not using the left turn signal on CR 17 and TH 5 going from north/south, if
you're going to go east on TH 5 coming off of CR 17. There's a light up there
but the arrow isn't shown. It's just a green light. And to me that's a real
problem.
~9
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Councilman Senn: Yeah, right now TH 101 dumps onto 78th going west and then
hits Highway 5 at CR 17 where there's not even a stop movement. You just merge
in and you go.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, I thlnk that maybe we could talk to them a 11ttle bit more
to see what they can do wlth that synchronization that can be put in. Maybe
they don't have that tied in yet.
Don Ashuorth: I think that that may be the case because here's maybe a fact
that's not known a whole lot and that ls that we, as the clty paid like
$00,000.00 to put in the controler devices to insure that the synchronization
capability was in place.
Councilman Wing: So why am I stopped at Market Boulevard at 3:00 in the morning
at a red 11ght?
Councilman Senn: It's terrlble at off hours. Don, I mean that's...but my
concern then becomes is, how long is it golng to take us to re-educate all the
people that we've now made a phone call to MnDot and accomplished that? They
aren't going to start going down TH 5 thinking they're going to make it through
all 5 11ghts. The only way they're golng to start going down TH 5 ls if you
make it harder for them to go on the route that they want to go on.
Councilman Wlng: Yeah, but that's my route Mark.
Mayor Chmlel: But if you stop and thlnk about it, going through Eden Prairie, I
don't make all those 11ghts elther.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's not as bad.
Mayor Chmlel: No, because there's not quite as many 11ghts. You have one at
Dell. You have one at Eden Pralrie Road. You have one then up at Mltche11 and
then you have one up at the turn to the shopping center and then after that it's
done. Those are 4 of them.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thlnk the issue here is that we don't know what's
going to be necessary with TH 101 and with perhaps changing the timing on the
11ghts. I'm not ready to say let's throw up stop slgns yet.
Councilman Wing: This is really old business. I mean we've hashed this over.
The flremen were saying we can't get out on thls darn, we've gone over thls a
thru z and we've had all the traffic engineers statlng what those stop signs
wlll mean and what it will do and lt's golng to further complicate it. My lssue
would be ls that I just pull out. I just go. You get so fed up with it. Plus
you can't see left or right to even pull out with all the bushes there. So we
know we've got big troubles downtown. Big troubles but stop signs I thought, I
thought, getting back to your concern, were going to complicate the lssue more.
Is that what you decided?
Charles Folch: Stop 11ghts or stop slgns?
Councilman Wing: Stop signs.
7O
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Charles Folch: Yeah. Basically I think it was during our time when we had
those public informational meetings in August and September and that issue did
come up. I can't recall if it was a resident or one of the Council members that
suggested it but staff and the traffic consultants, Strgar took a look at that
issue and we felt based on the current traffic volumes that we're seeing on 78th
Street, the spacing between the primary minor feed intersections and then also
the intermediate access points to parking lots, that you put a stop sign at one
intersection and you may allow that particular minor street to be able to get
out more conveniently but what you're then golng to do is eliminate those bigger
gaps that you might have for like Kerber, Market, and the other areas. Because
what you're going to end up dolng ls having cars heading in one direction,
spaced at 150 feet and then nobody's going to get out at any other street. So
then the only option to deal with that ls to put stop signs at every
intersection and then you're going to have gridlock. Because you're going to
have traffic backed up at every single stop sign.
Councilman Wing: We're also starting to rack them up pretty good at Market
Square and West 78th Street. Scott, I don't know what the investigations are
showing but we're starting to get some pretty good bumpers there. On a regular
basls.
Councilman Senn: Again, there's no traffic control. There's no way to stop it
and you're just going to have people buzzing through.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, just for your information. I hope the people viewing this
tonight are going to understand that ?8th Street is now going to be ticketed for
anyone exceeding the speed limit on there. We have sat there. I've sat there
with the radar gun and I've picked them at 45 and 50 mph. There aren't that
many but there's enough of them and my concerns are the safety of the people
downtown and crossing those streets. And I'm not an advocate for providing
tlckets to anybody because if you've ever seen my car insurance, with the boys
that I had at home, it was absolutely atrocious. Especially wlth accidents. Not
so much tlckets but those all count against you and that really raised the
price. But we're going to have to start doing something. We're going to start
ticketing. It's a necessity. I've talked to several different buslness people
too and they say that they have a hard time getting across that.
Councilman Senn: When I knocked that neighborhood, every single house, number
one issue in all of Chanhassen. I went to three coffee parties out there. I'll
go back and tell them that's not what everybody wants to do but I mean to me I
just think that's really a bad way to approach it as far as those people go.
They need attention and something needs to be done.
Councilman Mason: You know I agree but however, something I have said a number
of tlmes in thls Council and I'm golng to say it a number more tlmes. It's just
like negotiations for teachers. What's good for a small pocket of the city
might not be good for the whole city. And I'm speaklng from one of those
pockets that uses that road as much as they do. So while I hear what Western
Hills is saylng, ls that the best thlng for the city? I personally don't feel
that it
Councilman Wing: Where do you want the stop signs? Which street? 78th and
what?
71
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Councilman Senn: Let's see here. The comments I think I heard more often were
at, I think Kerber and Laredo.
Councilman Wing: Laredo's the one I'm getting hit on all the time.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Well I mean Laredo was very concentrated and very nasty
so to speak. The next big one that came through was Kerber though because that
was hitting the whole neighborhood to the north there.
Hayor Chmiel: I find leaving Laredo, if you want to make a left hand turn,
you're better off to make a right hand turn, go down to...
Councilman Senn: Hey Don, that's what I do.
Councilman Wing: Don and our engineer, based on the past discussion on this
just several months ago, and the decisions made and the studies made, do we want
to even address this issue again or is it a dead issue pending the completion of
that roadway?
Don Ashworth: Well I don't know that Hark, or whoever else may want to. I
think it would be good to take and listen to what Strgar has to say. Charles.
The Sheriff so that if Hark is going back to some of these neighborhoods, at
least he has the information from some of these professionals and has an
opportunity to debate it with them and say, no. I think you're wrong. If we do
this, traffic has a way of moving back over and hear what they have to say. That
was the reason I recommended it going to Public Safety so this issue potentially
could be redebated and maybe there's some new issues on the table that we should
be aware of.
Councilman Hason: Sounds good.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we do that. Why don't we refer this back to Public
Safety and have discussions and get that information back to us. Okay. I don't
think we need a motlon on that do we?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Wing~ I have one item on Council Presentations very quickly. Target
is in and if Target was, there was an agreement on this Council, that become our
mlnlmum standard for landscaping. A lot of thought and effort went 1nrc the
parking lot~ The trees and landscaping and types of trees, etc. I'd like to
formalize that mlnlmum standard into the ordinance as rapldly as posslble so
that if Abra or anybody else comes in, that that ordinance is elevated and
lmpacts the next eastern plat that might come in. That's golng to lnclude
parking lot standards, shade percentage, tree coverage, types of trees, the
amount of space they need to grow. This puttlng ina i foot strlp with a tree,
that's .just a planter and trees won't grow. We know that. There's enough
parklng lot information out to know what will grow and what won't. What's salt
resistent and what isn't. Boulevards. Number of over story trees per square
foot. Whatever the case ls but let's use the, basically what we dld at Target
as a minimum standard as Kate suggested and apply that to our landscape
ordinance right now so that if another one sneaks in, that's what they deal wlth
right off the bat and we don't have to crate1 up to this level. I'm asking for
72
City Council Heeting - January
Council recommendation to staff for such purpose.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: If staff is going to pursue that, I guess as a new Council
member I'd appreciate being brought up to speed on it and getting what you're
talking about. So when it does come back, we're aware of what it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Mason: These packets usually have more than enough background
information.
Councilman Senn: It pays to read it.
Don Ashworth: Dick and I have talked in this area. I had anticipated that
belng an item for like your goal work session where we're maklng that as one of
the goals you'd like to achieve. But as this is a Council Presentation section,
you could not act on it tonight. Z could put it onto a future, the next agenda
wlth some outlines as to what we mlght do.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you bring thls up on the 23rd.
Councilman Wing: If you promise to make it a goal.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Hark, did you have something?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I've been talking to Oon and to Todd and asked that we
set up a few meetings and examlne the potential or possibility of extending a
trail up TH 101 at the same time that we do the TH 101 intersection
improvements. That likewlse was a big, big lssue durlng campaign because most of
our citizens who live up in that area feel that they're totally cut off, other
than motorized vehicles from utilizing downtown Chanhassen. So most of them go
to other commercial centers. Using other means. I think there's an opportunity
here, because of the TIF and the intersection improvements. Zt's gone so far as
a lot of citizens are even volunteering to put together the easements and the
right-of-ways.
Mayor Chmiel: Point to point, where are you talking exactly on TH 1017
Councilman Senn: It'd be as far as I guess feasibly north as we can go.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That was something that we discussed a long time ago too
and it's another issue that they brought up as well. And the only problem is,
even with easements on that side, there's no enough room in several locations on
several of those parcels that we could even put a trail along TH 101. And if
we're talking on the west side of TH 101, it becomes a problem. One of the
things I suggested at the time was to see if we could work something with the
Clty of Eden Prairle, which ls just across the road. In conjunction wlth them
and puttlng a trail on that side. Because of the inabilities to continue that
trail. It breaks off. And once you break that off, you're back in the road
easement. That's not a place for anybody to walk, believe me. So maybe that's
Ciiy Council Meeting-- January 11, 1993
something that we can look at to see if we can work something out with the City
of Ede~ Prairie.
Councilman Senn: If there have been past discussions on it, I guess I wasn't
made aware of ~hem but you know, if there are spots where there isn't enough
· room, I guess I'd appreciate knowing where those are.
Hayer Chmiel' Just right as you come around that turn before you're coming in
to TI,I 101 and 78th Street. Off, or just prior tO.
Councilman Senn: Where the guardrail is there?
Mayor Chmiel'. Yeah. That's an area there that, I mean it's as steep as you can
get it. It's not a logical location for it.
Councilman Senn: I know it's sleep but a walkway could be put across there
couldn't it?
Mayor Chmiel: A lot of cost involved with that.
Councilman Senn: I mean again, that's all we're looking at so to speak.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. But I like to watch the dollars we spend, even though
they're needed and in that particular location...
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that and I appreciate that too Don and I
likewise do but again, we have TIF dollars here that have to be spent in a
certain area and also tied to that intersection improvement. Now I mean if we
don't have the funds, then that's part of determining the feasibility.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There's so far you can only go with that within the TIF
district. You can't go outside of it.
Councilman Senn: That's right. I understand that.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. In fact I had an opportunity this morning to talk
wiLh the consultants. ~e have a lot of the ~nformation and Z'm having them put
together like three different scenarios as to the loca~io, of a trail. What if
you went on the inside oF the berm? ~hat if you actually cut into the side of
the berm? And what if we brought up kind of what ~'11 call a full section. And
~hey'l~ look at ~he section all the way from where we're upgrading it which is
rigl~t at the curve. Just south of the curve. We're going up to that point
Fight now. All the way up to Pleasant Uiew. And right now I don't know what
~he answers are but I do know there's some difficult tasks in there. I also
know that Eden Prairie doesn't really care to take and participate at all.
mean their position is, is hey.
Councilman Mason: So what?
Don Ashworth: That's the eastern portion of our community. Western portion.
bJe ir~lprove it, where are the people logically going? They're going to
Chanl)assen. ~.dhy would we want to send them there?
7~
City Council Meeting - January Il, lg93
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, unfortunately that was the answer they came back with.
Don Ashworth: And I also got some disturbing news in that MnDot might also
flght us on lt, and I just don't totally understand the logic of that but.
Councilman Senn: Especially since they say they never want to do anything to TH
101.
Don Ashuorth: Yeah but I mean, even if we come up with the money to pay for it,
they may still end up fighting us on it. I just don't understand it.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
SET SPECIAL HEETING DATE, 1993 GOALS.
Mayor Chmiel: Set special meeting date for 1993 goals for January 23rd or the
30th at 8:00 a.m. at the fire station. Hopefully we start at 8:00 and we're
done by 11:00-12:00. Does anyone, Don will not be able to make the 23rd date.
Councilman Wing: I'm gone.
Councilman Senn: What's the dates, Z'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: 23rd or the 30th of January.
Councilman Mason: I unfortunately cannot make the 30th.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Nor can I.
Councilman Mason: Here we go again.
Don Ashworth: How about February 6th?
Councilman Mason: February ~th is fine with the exception that I, was not going
to share this with anyone here tonight, but I'm getting sinus surgery on
Thursday so if you want to put up with, I have no idea what shape I'll be in on
Saturday.
Mayor Chmiel: Black eyes.
Councilman Mason: Hopefully that will be it.
Councilman Wing: February 6th?
Don Ashworth: I think that's the first Saturday in February.
Mayor Chmlel: February ~th. Does that sound alright with everybody?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: At what time?
Mayor Chmiel: 8:00 a.m.. Fire station.
75
City Council Heetino - January 11, 1993
Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
Subn~itted by Don 6shworth
City Har, ager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
76