1991 01 07CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL HEETING
JANUARY 7, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL HEHBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler,
Councilman Wing and Councilman Mason
PLANNING COHHISSIONERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings, Tim Erhart, Annette
Ellson, Jim Wildermuth and Brian Batzli
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Todd Gerhardt, Gary Warren, Paul
Krauss and Mark Koegler
OATH OF OFFICE: Elliott Knetsch presented the Oath of Office to Mayor Don
Chmiel, Councilman Richard Wing and Councilman Hike Mason.
PRESENTATION OF HAPLE LEAF AWARDS:
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to, at this particular time, present an award to the
people who have served on the Planning Commission and some of the reasons behind
it, as well as the Council feels, you people have dedicated a lot of time, a lot
of their talents by providing the kind of considerations that have been glven
over the period of reviewing our Land Use Plan. Comprehensive Plan was
something that took a lot of time, a lot of patience, a lot of understanding and
I feel very strong that I wanted to have them receive an award for this. I'd
11ke to read you what the Maple Leaf Award says. Presented to and in
recognition of your efforts in preparing and analysing the City's Comprehensive
Plan for the 1990's whlch represents an examination of our history, our
accomplishments and failures in the past and a gutde for the next decade. This
is signed by each of the Council people as well as myself. Issued to them
on January 7th, 1991. What I'd like to do is present each of these awards to
each individual separately. The flrst one I have in my hand is Steve Emmlngs.
Ladd Conrad. Timothy Erhart. Annette Ellson. Joan Ahrens. I don't see Joan
here. We'll hold that for her and give that to her later. James Wlldermuth.
And Brian Batz11. Brian's not here either. Thank you. We really appreciate
your tlme and effort.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DRAFT COHPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Public Present:
Name Address
Peter Beck
Thomas Green
Mark Foster
Bill Hiller
Helen Loeb1
Mark Williams
7900 Xerxes Avenue So, Minneapolis
Mills Fleet Farm, 1952 Graydon Blvd.
8020 Acorn Lane
9121 Pinewood Circle
7197 Frontier Trail
1655 Lake Lucy Road
city council Meeling - January 7, i991
Eric Rivkin
Dale Carlson
D.J. Fretland
A1Klingelhutz
Gene Qulnn
Jim Curry
Larry VanDeVeire
Dennis Oirlum
Jerome Carlson
1695 Steller Court
6900 Utica Lane
1606 Black Oak Lane
8600 Great Plains Blvd.
532 Lyman Blvd.
Landowner in Southern Chanhassen
4980 Co. Rd. 10 E, Chaska
15241 Creekside Court, Eden Prairie
8280 Galpin Blvd.
Paul Krauss: Tonight's meeting has been set to give the City Council an
opportunity to revlew the draft Comprehensive Plan that's been prepared for the
community. The Planning Commission has been working diligently on the plan for
over 2 years and throughout the process there's been a considerable amount of
publlc input as a result of the large number of open work sesslons that were
held, neighborhood meetings, publlc hearings, the volume of written
correspondence that we've recelved and a number of individuals uho've come tn to
dlscuss the plan ulth me personally. The Plan itself has been in the process of
continual refinement. It's hoped that if this process hasn't resulted in a plan
that everybody flnes completely satisfactory, that at least everybody feels that
they've been heard and that changes have been made to move in the directions
that they had hoped. The process has been a lengthy one, not only due to the
need to gain public input but also due to the Plan's complexity. It's designed
to replace our orlglnal 1980 Comprehensive Plan that frankly became very dated
due to our growth and complex new issues that developed in the past 10 years.
The plan's deslgned to manage the Clty's growth in the coming decade and lt's
our belief that the 1990's have a very good potential for being an excitlng
decade for the clty. We find that in addltlon to our hlgh quallty residential
neighborhoods and natural environment, the City now has a large and growing
employment base and wlth a downtown that is flnally comlng together after a lot
of years of effort. We're in the process of gainlng excellent access with TH 5
being under construction and TH 212 hopefully under construction in the not too
dlstant future and also our neighboring communities are essentially filling up.
The Plannlng Commission's challenge has been to develop a plan that bullds upon
the strengths of the community and allows for reasonable growth while protecting
our quality of 11fe. To attaln thls goal the Plan ls far more than a land use
plan or land use map which has gotten most of the comment during our
discussions. The land use map itself ls the gulde that dlrects future growth.
It also contains detail, the plan also contains detailed guidelines for
protecting the natural environment, lnsuring provision of adequate
transportation and publlc facilities, expansion of recreational opportunities
and clty utilities to meet growlng demands and other matters necessary to meet
the goals that were established by the Plannlng Commission. In short the plan
Js a vlsion of what Chanhassen could become by the end of the lggO's. The Land
Use Plan has been the focus of much of the Planning Commission's efforts
concerning the comprehensive plan. In a minute I'll ask Mark Koegler who's been
our consultant who's worked ulth us throughout the process, to glve you an
overvlew of the land use plan but before dolng do I just wanted to outline the
remaining parts of the adoptlon process. As you're probably aware, the City
Counc11 has the ablllty to approve, deny or modlfy the plan that's belng
reviewed tonight. If lt's to be approved, it would have to be approved subject
to the Metropolitan Council's approval. After you've acted, the Metropolitan
City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991
Council will become the primary focus of our attentions since under State law
they have the option of also reviewing the plan and requiring changes to
Sections that have some metropolitan significance. As you're aware, staff has
been working with the Metro Council staff themselves for the past 1 1/2 years
and hopefully we've been able to smooth out that adoption process but that's by
no means assured. Although their staff amidst a serious failings in their data,
the Metro Council has yet to revise their year 2000 projections which contain
population employment forecasts for 10 years from now which we exceeded last
year. The Metro Council is frankly also a political body with an agenda of it's
own so that a diligent work effort on our part is going to be required to assure
adoption of the plan as approved by the Council. With that I'd like to pass the
meeting over to Mark Koegler to give you a brief overview of the land use plan
itself and how it was developed.
Mark Koegler: Thanks Paul. I'll pick up Mayor and Council, on Paul's term
brief and try to be just that. Z think a lot of the faces in the room tonight
are people who were at the public hearing and we'll allow plenty of time to
respond to questions. I'd like to highlight again that the land use section of
the plan is merely one component of the document itself and it bears
relationship to all of the other sections of the document. There's
transportation, recreation, housing and a number of others. To a certain degree
the land use chapter which always, I think gardners the most attention in
virtually any community because it's a graphic picture of what's likely to
occur. It is driven very much by the demographic information that's in the plan
itself and anybody that has a chance to review that will find that early on the
Planning Commission went through a process by which they looked at three
different sets of projections for population and community growth. One's we
labeled kind of a iow, a midrange and a high. Their decision was that the
midrange projections accurately reflected what Chanhassen was likely to
experience. Those projections were done approximately 2 years ago. They called
for a 1990 the City to have a household count of about 4,100 with a
corresponding population of about 11,105. That compared very favorable to the
early census data that came out late last year that showed the City's population
at about 11,700 with a household count of about 4,009 so again, very close.
That same set of midrange projections, if you carry it onto the year 2000
identifies that the City anticipates a household count of about 6,500 or about a
2,500 increase over the next 10 years and a population count of about 17,700, up
from approximately 12,000 at the present time. So again those numbers to a
large degree have driven the land use map that's behind me and specifically
correspond to the amount of land that's been allocated in the various
categories. So with that I will kind of bounce back to the map for a minute and
give you a quick overview of that and then touch upon some transportation
issues. Z don't know what's comfortable for everybody but feel free to shift
around so that you can see the best possible. The colors on this map I think
are pretty familiar to most of you. The yellows basically are the residential.
Yellow going into brown. The red color is commercial. The purple is the office
industrial. There's two green colors on here. One corresponds to parks. The
other corresponds to public open space. There's a couple of other categories
that I'll touch upon in a minute. What I'd like to do is give you a little bit
of background as to why the colors are on the map and the way they're configured
and then move into some other specific information. This plan is to a large
degree a continuation of the plan the city started with in 1980 and at that time
the city's predominant residential area was around Lotus Lake, carrying over
City Council Heeling ~ January 7, 1991
into Lake Hinnewasl',ta on the north side of the city. Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park down in this area was in it's infancy. Downtown was struggling with the
beginnings of tax increment beginning to take effect there. This plan then
basically builds upon what the 1980 plan called for which essentially was kind
of a pattern of infill throughout the northern community and kind of working
down towards the southwest. That's largely uhat has happened with the
residential. The leu density residential which is the yellow color, the
predominant category of land use on the map. That's a logical extension for the
most part of existing residential areas. The industrial that's in the purple
color is kind of a continuation again of this original business park. If you
cou].d see Chaska's land use overlayed on top of this map which would fit down in
this portion, you'd see a great deal of this purple color that abuts the
community down in the southwestern portion. What we begin to get is a linkage
between the existing business park kind of following the railroad tracks, coming
down towards the City of Chaska. The commercial is identified primarily in the
downtown area. This comprehensive plan, much like the last one, places it's
emphasize on downtown Chanhassen. It is in a unique position to have a downtown
...focus there from a planning perspective the last 10 years or so and they're
likely to remain there, at ].east in according to this plan as it sits right now.
I glossed over one category that I want to touch on now. These ~995 study areas
and there are two of them. One to the south and one to the west, are kind of
holding categories. The Planning Commission got into the plan, there were a
couple of areas that were determined to be pre-mature for land use designation
primarily due to either timing of transportation or the timing of utility
extensions. Both of those areas have been held in that category. ~hat that
means in reality is the plan says literally after it's adopted, begin to focus
on those and over the course of the next couple of years when more of the
transportation ,and utility information is in, to be able to identify the land
use patterns, particularly for that western...southern one as well. Park~ are
largely an extension of uh,zt is there at the present time. I think that...
pretty well in effect. The semi-public parcels such as the Arboretum, this plan
does not call for any new major areas. Those typically are outslde agencies.
There were a serles of lssues that the Plannlng Commission addressed at t helr
public hearing on October 24th and a number of those lssues really were taklng
place rlght up unt11 that meetlng. I guess I want to highlight those very
briefly for the Council's benefit and for those that are present this evenlng.
One of them was the Timberwood subdivision which ls this 11ghter color yellow.
That lighter color yellow is the residential large lot which means there's a
minlmum 2 1/2 acre lot and in that case, and in most others that were
established prior to 1987. This was a subject of considerable discussion.
Considerable land use alternatives by the commission. Ultimately they agreed
upon a pattern that set a residential buffer if you wi11, kind of around that
exlstlng residential area. There was a similar effort that took place to the
south wlth Sunridge ¢.our~ which ls ,~ smaller development here. Agaln, there
were some changes made in the plan to allocate some residential that would abut
that. Another issue that took place was the Lake Lucy Highlands area which ls
predominantly this portion of the community. There were some alternatives
looked at to call, I guess you gerrymandered the line around perhaps the HUSA
line to service some properties to take some properties out. What I should
probably do before I go further ls highlight the MUSA line which is this red
].1ne on t hls map. For anybody who somehow has missed that acronym for the last
20 years, it's Metropolitan Urban Service Area and it essentially ls simply a
line between whlch you can have utlllty service prior to the year 2000 and uhlch
City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991
by the Metropolitan Council's pol£cies you cannot. It doesn't mean it's there
but it means the ability ks there to extend it ~nto those areas. Other issues
that surfaced. There was a small commercial site in the plan at one time
designated down here at TH 5 and Galpin. The commission in some other later
deliberations decided to pull that out and put it back into a medium density
category. There was a concept derived when part of this plan became labeled as
buffer areas. An example is down in this area where you have residential
abutting office/industrial type environment. There's a line on this map that
identifies that there's a buffer area planned between those uses as well as
along the road right-of-way and there a number of other of those scattered
throughout the community. Essentially those are intended to be additional open
space buffer areas above and beyond what you would normally find under normal
zoning setbacks. Berming, landscaping, and those kinds of things in corridors
that would be an additional 50 to 100 feet in width. The final issue that
surfaced was addressed by the commission !thtnk literally at the hearing on the
24th was the proposal by Lundgren Brothers out on the western portion of the
community to take a piece of land that formerly was in the 1995 study area and
to identify that as low density residential. The commission did review that and
after deliberation found that that was probably a valid approach. It has been
added then to what is now being identified as the City's year 2000 land use
plan. One thing I want to give you is a very quick picture of what all of this
means. There is a small red line on here that's probably difficult to see.
That's the City's existing MUSA line. If you look at any area between that line
and the new MUSA line, that area inbetween becomes the area that's being added
to Chanhassen sewer service area by the year 2000. I want to give you just a
quick numbers as to how much area is actually represented by this map.
Excluding this piece which I would guess ts 80 to 90 acres probably in total
size, the City's MUSA line expansion proposed by this plan is approximately
2,700 acres. That's a very large number. ! think it's important also to break
that number down. Of that 2,700 acres, approximately 550 are in existing
developments such as Timberwood and some of the others as well as any existing
parks that fall within that expansion area. There, as you well kno~, in
Chanhassen there's a significant amount of wetlands. The wetlands factored out
of that number, take out about another 270 acres. There are a couple of parcels
in particularly this portion of the community that are owned by private
individuals who have expressed a desire and probably have the f£nancial
resources to hold that property out of development for a number of years. It
their intent not to develop. Those t~o parcels alone count for approximately
another 150 acres. There's parks in the area that are about 2~1 acres so what
it boils down to is the expansion in terms of a net of approximately 840 acres
of residential, single family. 1~5 acres of multi-family and approximately 540
acres of office/industrial. On this map is also overlayed transportation
information. That's the heavier blue lines and the dotted lines and some of the
double ~ines that you can see on the land use exhibit. I want to touch briefly
upon the expansions and the new alignments as they come out through the MUSA
line area. You'll notice on the north side of TH 5 stretching from CR ~7 or
Powers out to TH 41, there is a northern frontage road along TH 5. That's
consistent with the planning MnOot has been doing'for the upgrade of TH 5 for a
number of years now. Similarly along the south side there is another leg that
somewhat is a detached frontage road that comes across to the west, hits...and
then goes on over to TH 41 where it abuts Chaska here on the common border.
couple of other new collector street alignments. One is the extension of
Lake Lucy Road westward ultimately to TH 41. Another lies further to the south
City Council. Heeting - January 7, 1991
of that area. TH 212 J.s shown on this map in it's configuration that has been
officiaJ, ly mapped. HnOot is actually out now doing design for the first
segments that will go through Eden Prairie. So the next segment upon completion
of that is the segment down to Lyman Blvd. and over to Mitchell Road in
Eden Prairie so that's becoming a reality. That alignment is shown on this
plan. I think that touches upon all of the major application issues. With that
I'll call on Paul.
Paul Krauss: I tl~J. nk I'm done Mayor. It's back to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. Thank you. Being just sort of a brief
overview, it's well done. Thank you. I'd like to open this meeting up at this
particular time for anyone who has any specific comments they'd like to make at
this time. I'd ]Jke you to pi. ease state your name and your address when
addressing at the podium. So with that, if there's anyone at this particular
time that would like to come forth and indicate some of their concerns, please
do so now.
Peter Beck; Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Peter Beck, 7900
Xerxes Avenue South. I'm here tonight on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm. ~ith me
tonight is Tom 6reer, with Mills Fleet Farm. I have a letter which ue have, very
short letter, which ue have addressed to the Council that I'll ask Tom to take
one and pass on. Mills Fleet Farm guns approximately 50 acres in this area
right here as the Council may know. At the intersection of highways 5 and 4~.
They acquired that property itl ~987 for' the purpose of locating a Mills Fleet
Farm facility at that intersection of tug State highways. After some discussion
uJth city staff and the former mayor and councJlmembers, rather than proceed at
that time with the necessary approvals, they agreed to go along and make their
plans or their proposal known and part of the discussion of the overall
comprehensive plan review. So they have been working with staff, have been
participants in the long process that Paul described over the last 2 or 3 years.
The concern tha~ they have about the recommendation tonight is that in their
case it amounts to another 4 or 5 years of uncertainty if you will. Virtual
moratorium on any decision with respect to their facility at that location so
the position ue have tonight as set forth in the letter is just simply a request
that the Council make a decision with respect to this property a~ part of this
comprehensive pla~ amendment or adoption process. That is, not defer this any
longer. Or at ~ minimum ask that the Planning Commission, planning staff,
Planning Commission, immediately undertake to address their location in this
~995 study area in the western part of the city within the next few months so
they are not delayed another 4~5 years. Certainly this intersection some day
would presumably be an appropriate site to consider for a commercial uses at the
intersection of two state highways. When that might happen is one thing but
having at least some knowledge as to whether it will ever happen is something
else in terms of having a plan there and having it guided for eventual
commercial use. So that is the request. There is no objection to, as your
staff has pointed out, the bulk of what you're doing tonight is adopting a very
comprehensive document with a lot of text and we're not here to object to that.
Object to the adoption of that. We are here to request that the 1995 study area
be addressed in a shorter timeframe at a minimum, if not as part of this very
process. Mr. Green and I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are any
about that request.
City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any specific questions? I guess not.
Peter Beck: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Dennis Oirlum: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Dennis Dirlum. I
live at 15241Creekside Court in Eden Prairie. I'm one of the partners that
owns 137 acres on TH 5 that wraps around the Ttmberwood area and adjoins the
McGlynn industrial site to the west. We also have been working with the staff
and the Planning Commission since the beginning and are concerned about the
guide plan. The way it is and we voiced those concerns in the past but I want
to bring them up to you also. You look at the guide plan the way it is now, you
look at TH 5 and the commercial and industrial developments all the way along.
You see purples or reds all the way along it but when you come to our site it's
yellow, single family. As a developer of residential sites, it's very difficult
to sell single family homes that back up to a four lane highway and that is our
basic objection. That the city has done a good job of protecting the'existing
single family and I think we need to look to the future and do we want to put a
freeway in the backyard or put houses somewhere where there's a freeway in the
backyard. We would ask that you consider something other than that and
understand that this is a good location for a junior high school and we would
concur with that with the possibility of extending the industrial area over to
the green space with the second tree which gives it a natural break from the
industrial over to the school and the other negatives is the single family with
a... So we'd like you to consider that as an option in looking at this tonight.
The rest of the plan, the star has been more than cordial in working with us and
the Planning Commission and thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions of Dennis on the
Council? Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address this?
Larry VanOeVeire: My name is Larry VanOeVeire, 4980 County Road 10 in Chaska. I
own the 13 acres at the intersection of Galpin Blvd. and TH 5. Originally in
the Comp Plan it was set aside as neighborhood commercial. That was changed at
some time this summer. I guess I'd like to have some reconsideration on that
being changed back to neighborhood commercial. I guess I felt it met the Comp
Plan. Fell into the Comp Plan's specs if you want to call it that. Again,
I guess I don't believe that, it's slated for a four lane highway with a lighted
intersection there. I guess I just don't feel that that's a place for
residential.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions of Larry?
Councilman Workman: I have a quick one. When did you buy the property?
Larry VanDeVeire: I think it was 1985. Is that right? 1985.
Councilman Workman: And what was it zoned then?
Larry VanDeVeire: It was zoned ag-residential. R-4.
Councilman Workman: And when was it then changed to neighborhood commercial?
City Council Meeting - Janu,~ry 7, 199J.
Larry VanOeVeire: Through the process of the comp plan.
Council. man Workman: Earlier this year-?
Larry VanDeVeire: The first time I'd seen it would have been early this spring.
Mayor Chmiel: Ma?or Paul can address that.
Paul Krauss: If I could clarify that. There's been a number of draft land use
plans developed over the last year starting probably I guess it was a year ago
November was the first. Through that process Mark and I at first took a first
shot at that ~nd then the Planning Commission started to massage it around and
it was changed. Olde of the earlier drafts I believe had a neighborhood
comme'rcial node on that. corner and it was largely untouched for' most of this
spring and into the summer and then I believe it was when we had the
neighborhood meeting, we had the north and the south side neighborhood meetings,
it drew some criticism from people who lived up on Galpin and as a result the
Planning Commission deleted that from consideration. $o it's been out of the
planning consideration for a good 6 months but it was only on a draft plan. It's
never been in zoning or anything else.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Larry VanDeVeire: Excuse me. Can I ask a question? How far can a resident
live to complain about land use? I guess I'm not aware of who was complaining
or how marly people were complaining. I'm at a standstill as far as you know why
it was changed. It fits with the comp plan. It was there for quite some time.
I guess I ~ust never got the input on why it was changed. To me it made a good
neighborhood commercial site. It met all of the guidelines. The buffer zone
was there. It was small. It fell right into the wording of the comp plan and
to put residential there to me, I guess we bought it for residential. We bought
it to live there and after being there, I planted 1,500 trees out on that
property and that was ~ years ago now. $ or 6 years ago. Spring of 1986 l
think it was. That traffic at that time was too bad. The trees in the
background actually act as a buffer to contain the noise from the highway. It's
very loud there compared to if it would be up on a hill or somewhere other than
the way it's situated and I didn't feel it was suited for residential at that
time and decided to hold onto it for speculation at that time. And right now I
guess I couldn't, and I had the opportunity in, was it 1~87, to subdivide at the
same time Timberwood was. Break it out into 2 1/2 acre parcels and chose not to
because at that time I still couldn't see it fit for residential.
Mayor Chmie].: Would you point out your location on that map?
Larry VanOeVeire: Right here. I guess I didn't feel it was fit for commercial
for me or for anyone else. At the time I could have subdivided it and I still
don't feel that way now that it does make good, or excuse me. Did I say
commercial? Good residential property.
Mayor Chmie]: I think some of the points that were brought up at that
particular time too, if ~ remember Paul and Larry. One of the factors were that
it's so close to downtown that a commercial kind of grocery store or something
of that particular nature wasn't really a good location for that. If I remember
City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991
that was part of the discussion back then. The revisional changes that went
back and kept it as residential was some of the thoughts that were there and
come back into that particular zoning. Maybe you can elaborate on that a little
bit more Paul.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, it's kind of tough to go back in your mind and figure,
you know try to remember exactly why all the changes were made that were made.
Initially at a staff level when we prepared a draft of the plan, we felt that
that was an acceptable neighborhood commercial site. It's 11mtted scope.
There's not a lot of acreage there and as you can see, there's a proposal for a
frontage road to come across the front of tt so that would take some of the
ground that already is there. That there probably ls golng to be some desire at
some point to have neighborhood commercial type services prior to turning into
your neighborhood area. I don't recall it being a major issue during the
consideration but it did receive some attention and some concerns wet raised by
residents in the meetlngs over the summer and it was one of those changes that
was made. I don't know what else I can offer unless the Planning Commissioners
that are here tonight can add to the rationale to it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, maybe we can have that. Steve?
Steve Emmings: ...recollect the change but I do know that when complaints were
voiced... On a more positive note, we also thought that the intersection of
TH 5 and TH 41 was almost certain to develop with some commercial uses that
would be the same type that would developer at that corner and we thought that
between the downtown and what would exist at TH 41 and TH 5 would probably be
adequate to serve the needs of the people in that area.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Larry VanDeVeire: Excuse me, if I might add. Even if it wasn't changed back to
a neighborhood commercial, I guess the main thing I have is I just don't feel
that it's sulted for residential. Like I say, I wouldn't live there. I dldn't
ask anyone else to live there and I'm still not asking that. I drive numerous
miles around the metro area and I can't recall any intersection, four lane
11ghted intersection with housing on the corner. New houslng. If there is
houslng there, it's old houslng. If lt's very old housing, a lot of that old
housing has been turned into a commercial establishment. An Insurance
establishment. Stuff 11ke that. If there are any old houses, what the maln
goal was to have Chanhassen look nice, what I've noticed is that you see privacy
fences up on those, you know stockade type fences up if there are older houses
there that haven't been converted to commercial use. I guess that's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else?
Jerome Carlson: Mr. Mayor. My name is Jerome Carlson. 6950 Chanhassen but if
you're golng to mail us something you'd better make it Excelsior. It will never
get there. But that's a different issue. I would like to start on a positive
note and congratulate the Zoning and Plannlng and the Council and anybody else
that has worked hard on this plan. I may or may not agree with it entirely but
I do respect the tremendous time and effort that has been put into this sort of
thing. Our particular property is right up here.. It runs through the north end
of Harrlson Lake and I thlnk some of you are perhaps famlliar with lt. I must
City Counc.il Meeting -- January ?, 1991
admit this was the first t~me Z noticed the green space, park and open space.
That would cut us rJ. ght ill half almost, T want to point that out and I must
object to that if it were to be something that would be seriously enacted during
~,l'~y time that ue live there, Zf we sold and subdivided or some such thing, Z
can appreciate at that time the desire to move in the direction of a trail
system but the way out' property currently lays out, that really does include
perhaps at least a quarter of a mile right through the heart of our property and
so Z must simply go oil record and object to that happening while ue own the
property or if we were to sell it in bulk. The other thing that Z really wanted
to comment on was the po~,ential for tax increases. Our concern, when we bought
the property originally, very briefly, it was checked with the city and our
ind£c.~tion was that J.t would be 2005 or sometime like that before there would be
any 'rezoning which we thought was a good idea and sounded like something we
wanted. This of course is happening subsequent to that and Z'm not opposed to
the f~ct that cl~anges occur. They happen in business all the time, ~hat I'm
concerned about J.s again while we live there, does the rezoning affect the rate
at which our taxes will increase or are they going to decrease Hr. Hayer? You
don't h~ve to answer that.
Mayor ChmJ. e]: I can't.
Jerome Carlson: The concern is that as a result of rezoning of property that we
I~ave no intention of developing at this time, does that affect the rate at which
our taxes will increase or are taxes to be based upon current use?
Don Ashworth: They're based upon current use.
3aroma Carlson: So if we live there and we have a few horses there and maybe
even some beef, J.f that's perm£ss~ble, we'll check with you. Zt's based upon
t hat use?
Don ~shworth: That's correct.
Jerome Carlson: And no matter what color they paint it, it isn't going to
presumably affect that?
Don Ashuorth: You could be influenced by other large lot rural values. If
rur,~l values increased, hypothetically you could see some increase. It's really
on the use. .T t hlnk Al, Commissioner K11ngelhutz u111 agree with that point.
And Paul, T. don't know if you have anything to add.
Al. Klinge].hutz: Actually we had Orin Shafer at one of the hearings and that was
a big discussion from a lot of the large lot areas. He said anything that was
in those areas, because of the rezonlng of the entlre area would not change the
taxes except as values go up in the entire rural area that you can expect to see
an lncrease there but overall the ldea of the zonlng alone would not change
that.
Paul Krauss: If I could expand on that a little bit. The land use plan is a
guide for future development. Your property Jerome, unless you want to make a
change or sell it to somebody that does, wlll remaln wlth lt's agricultural
designation. Also green acres and whatever other' tax provisions you oper'ate
ttnd¢r are wholly separate o'[ whatever we do here and there would be no
10
City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991
underminding of that. It should be stressed that this plan is not intended to
make anybody develop their property or to force that decision to come earlier of
raising property values. We've taken great efforts to try to make sure that
it's structured in such a way that those decisions are made by people when they
want to make them and that there's no hint of coersion or a schedule or anything
else. In fact case in point, Mr. Carlson, your property and Prince's property
were singled out as two exceptions that we want to teii the Metro Council about
specifically. Because of the unique ownership situations of the individuals
involved and the large amount of land that you both hold, we want to tell the
Metro Council that here are several hundred acres that are going to be within
the MUSA line but we don't expect them to develop in the next iO to i5 years and
here's why so we're asking that they be treated special. In fact there's a
dialogue to the Metro Council as to how exactly they're going to do that because
apparently nobody's ever asked them that before. But we've already made that
case to them.
Jerome Carlson: We have mentioned the front 13 on TH 417 We've talked about
that?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Jerome Carlson: Thank you very much. Those were my primary concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Just as a quick plug for the Council. We
have, as you well know in the past 2 years, lowered taxes for those that were
reassessed. I always like to bring that up because it's very difficult to try
to keep thlngs down and we have. Also agaln this year there's going to be a
slight reduction but we can't guarantee what either the County might do or the
School Oistrlct but at least we know where we're at.
A1Klingelhutz: ...we get too many mandated rules like building a new jail...
Mayor Chmiel: You're right and I understand that unfortunately.
Gary Warren: Relative to Mr. Carlson's comment on the park area on his
property. You mlght want to address that but that is the Lake Ann Interoeptor
easement area which the Lake Ann Interceptor was construction in 1987-88 so that
is a permanent easement area on the property. Z think the City, maybe Mark
wants to address it, is looking to take.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that a dual kind of easement?
Gary Warren: Dual in the fact that we could use it as a trail corridor and
such?
Paul Krauss: No.
Gary Warren: There's a specific use that was for the Interceptor alone.
Jerome Carlson: I guess Mr. Mayor, that was my point. When we were approached
about granting that easement, we were careful that it was a single use. We had
no idea what might come. We didn't give this any thought at all but there was
at that tlme a snowmobile trall that was utilizing that corrldor rlght through
11
City CouncJ.]. Meet~n~j -- January 7, 1991
ou'r property so that was our impetus at that time to make sure that it was
defined. That was why we raised the issue now.
Mayo,- ChmCe].: Okay, tha,k you. Is there anyone else?
Dale CaT'lson: Dale Carlson, 6900 Utica Lane Zn Chanhassen. Z'm representing
the. Lake Lucy Ilomeowners Association and I just wanted to point out something
that as I was reading the comprel~ensive plan, as it relates to Lake Lucy.
asking some. consideration be given to a particular section relating to Lake
I.ucy. ~ comment was made earlier that. this comprehensive plan is to be used
a guide for the next decade and someone else made a comment that it was more
than likely to occur and I'd like to point out that in the recreational section
of the comprehensive plan it states that the recommendation is that Lake Lucy
contin[te to be maintained as a natural environment lake. I believe that
cveryplace I re~d, not only in the comprehensive plan but also in the Lake Riley
restoration proj~)ct work plan that some of us know so well, that there is very
definite dJ. ffr;rence between an environmental lake and a recreational lake and
I request that some consideration bo given to including or rewording the plan so
Lake Lucy be considered a recreational lake, not an environmental lake. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiol: Okay, thank you Dale. Do you have any comments on that Paul?
Pau]. Krauss: I'm not sure there's a conflict really ill terms of intent.
Possibly Mark could get into that a little bit.
Mark Koegler: Yeah, I don't ~hink the classification as the City has used,
natural environment lake in the Comp Plan necessarily is parallel to like the
DNR ctCts.oific,'~tion of lakes. I think there's text, if I remember correctly that
just e.ludr;s to the I,O;'e natural habitat and the fact that that lake contains
].arge wetland areas around it. It's in that context that the term natural
¢.nvironment. The te..rm is not meant to be exclusive of recreational usage of the
lake itself. We can take a .took at that text but I think there's not really a
conflict. I think it's a difference of terms.
Dale Carlson: okay but I think that term is...because if we're going to be
makiT~g decisions later on for example, I noticed in the comprehensive plan under
the list natural, environment lakes, I see Rice Marsh Lake, Harrison, Lake St.
Joe and SJ].ver Lake and over under recreational development lakes I see... In
that one section you refer to Lake Lucy as an environmental lake.
Mark Koeg].er: ~ think the plan speaks more to the shoYeland development pattern
th~n it does the actual lake or the use of the surface w~ter itself. We can
take a look at that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Dick?
Councilman Wing: I was jt~st interested in Mr. Carlson's more specific concerns.
You obviously want ~t to be recreational. Can you define what some of your
concerns were? Environmental versus recreational.
Dale Carlson: Yeah we, you guys might even be able to talk about that more.
There's s:O,le of you people on the Council that were involved in the Rlley-
12.
City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991
Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed district work plan and there was a very definite
difference in that work plan between the different levels of lakes. Levels I,
II, III and IV. In the Comprehensive Plan that Lake Lucy becomes like a Level
IV lake and the kinds of funding that the City may go after. The types of
funding that we may be able to obtain and...association can be directiy affected
by what ue classify that lake in. And so that's why I thought that
ciassification was important' Our goai is a recreational...Lake Lucy as a lake
that ue can water ski on. That you can swim in. That we can do the kinds of
things that ue have been doing at least for the last 20 years that I've lived
there.
Eric Rivkin: I think I can help Richard point to a specific thing.
Mayor Chmiel: State your name.
Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin. I live on Lake Lucy and also I'm a Co-Chairperson
with Dale for the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. On page 50 of one of the
Sections, Recreational Sectlon I believe in the Comp Plan it says, the Clty
should maintain Lake Lucy as a natural environment lake suitable for passive
uses and may want to consider the prohibition of motors as has been enacted on
Lake Ann. That is what we're concerned about. That is not the same as on page
2 in another Sectlon of the Comp Plan which says, Lake Lucy should be designated
as a recreational lake. Recreational lake uses are things that if we want to be
able to pursue funding by ourselves or with government funds, whatever, over the
long term to improve the lake, water quality so that swimming, boating, fishing
and water skllng are not impaired anymore. That ls also commensurate wlth the
goals of the Watershed District and the State who Oale mentioned were in the
work plan that ls now klnd of sittlng dead in the water at the Watershed
District level. The programs that we've already instated to rehabilitate the
lake have been that we've engaged ourselves in a program to eliminate purple
loosestrife on the lake as a Lake Association and also to put up a temporary
carp barrier to prevent carp from swimmlng upstream to Lake Lucy. That is part
of a bigger plan that ue have had to restore the lake. Does that help answer
your question Dick?
Councilman Wing: I guess I wasn't aware that water skiing and power boating
going on at that level, that that was really an issue.
Eric Rivkin: There is. There ls today and we want to contlnue that.
Councilman Wing: I guess I've seen you take such strong environmental stands, I
was confused to see you defending that end of it versus maybe keeping it.
Eric Rivkin: Well there's very little amount of power boats on the lake. The
lake isn't blg enough that I think lt's a worry for lakeshore owners who want to
see it as a quiet lake because in spite of the fact that there are only 2
motorboats on the lake, even if it were fully developed, the lake just lsn't big
enough to accommodate more than like 2 powerboats anyway so uill always just
remaln just because of it's slze and outlay that it just can't handle that many.
So the intent of it being a quiet lake I think will still be maintained.
Councilman Wing: Except will that meet DNR standards for a public access and if
you have power boating from the neighborhoods, can you restrict power boating
13
City Counci.]. Heet. i~9 January 7, 1991
from the public? I mean
Eric R.i. vkin: The way it sits now, there'~ Greenwood Shores is owrled by the City
and i't. borders lake [.ucy and Lake Ann both and anybody who wants to portage a
canoe from Lake Ann can ~imply walk over and put it into t. ake Lucy so in effect
the'r~'s a community publ. lc access. It does not meet DNR standards because they
want ~ d~'ive in access and that's a whole separate issue.
Councilwomal~ Dimly. r: Eric would you, it says here for passive uses. Would you
explain ,.~ ].it L.l.o bSt whnt that means to you? It's on page 50, the last
paragraph.
Eric Rivkin: The City should maintaln Lake Lucy as a natural environment lake
Sl~itable for passive uses. Well, I didrl't come up with that statement so I
don't know.
Councilwoman Oimler: I know but what does it mean to you and are you in
agreement with that?
Eric Rivkin: Well as a Lake Association representative I guess I'd have to say
· that passJ, ve means no motors.
[:ou~ciluoman Oimler: Okay. Is that what the intent was Paul do you know or
Hark?
Mai'k Ko¢.:gle'r': I can't honestly speak to that. That's been in the text probably
even in the 1980 plan .I would guess and probably didn't get changed this time
around. There have been ~'[ public meetings over the years consideration
dJ. scussiorls aboLtt the ,.~pprop'r'iateness of mo(ors on Lake Lucy and particularly
whe~ the Lake Riley study was goJ. rlg on, there was a lot of discussion of the
Inotors and turbZtJ, ty and everything else. To the best of my knowledge
Councill~lan Wing's comment that if it has boats by private riparian owners, it
h~s the potential to helve bo~ts by the public dlSO. It doesn't work to exclude
one. ~oroup or another. So I think the intent was to maintain a low scale
recrr-'.abJ_on¢.l development pCttern ol~ that lake. Th~.; City to my knowledge h~s not
had ,~ny efforts to put a public access in there that womtld enhance that but ~
can't rea.l, ly spe&k to exactly what was meant and that may be something that you
want to c.l. arify.
Cou~cilwoman Oimlor: Yeah I do because I know sonic boat owners on that lake
I. hat spe. c£Flc~lly came forward zt that time and said that they would be opposed
to having J.t be a quiet lake.
Eric Rivkin: Right, and I'm representative of that.
councilwoman Oimler: So I'm surprised to see that in here. Maybe they weren't
aware thai. that was in there and since you're representing that homeowners
a::~sociat ion.
Er~c R~vkin: Right, because we had given the City our lake association
restoration objoct£ves whicl~ lncluded swimming, boating, fishing and water
::'.kilrlg as Lo improve and malnta~n those recreational uses and that should have
somehow mnnife:;ted .itself in here. Three other goals of ours was to improve
]4
City Council Heeting - January ?, 1991
biological health of the lake over the long term. Improve the aesthetics of the
lake and those are kind of passive thino~ and I ~hould just give you thls to
make sure that somebody's got something in writing. Should I glve it to you?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Thank you.
Eric Rivkin: Is there any more questions or discussion about the Lake Lucy
area?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think you can proceed now.
Eric Rivkin: Okay, because I've got a couple other comments here. Trails. I
think you've got 3 kind of classifications of trails. You've got a map here
that shows a large number of trails following what appears to be mostly highways
and byways and throughout Chanhassen. Readlng why you want to favor tralls
along streets makes me realize that well you want to keep the cost down of
puttlng these trails in but if all these trails are implemented and put in and
installed, I think once you step back and look at the whole thing, I think it
looks 11ke a lot of sidewalks rather than tralls. I think the purpose of tralls
as you have indicated in here is to enjoy the natural amenities of the city and
I thlnk that tralls should be, every effort should be made to recognize that
putting them wlthin parks or between lot lines so they don't cut across large
tracts of land would be preferred over street locations. I think to mltigate
the problems that you, the disadvantages that you've indicated here, that you
mlght have abutting property conflicts or perceived securlty problems.
Additional sidewalk system may be needed and high maintenance. I think those
problems can be mitigated pretty easlly. You could join the sidewalk system
with the trails. You don't necessarily have to have a trail maybe
interconnected throughout the entire clty but at least meet the goals in the,
the wording should be indicated here to meet the goals and to stress that they
should be withln parks and lot 11nes rather than along streets because of those
reasons. High maintenance, I think instead of recommending paving here,
woodchlps and gravel, whatever that klnd of maintenance could be low. Trails,
if they followed the natural features such as drainageways, I think there are a
lot more other natural features you could mention here such as existlng woodland
tralls throughout Chanhassen might be consideration. Policies about large lots
and the sewer. I appreciate the Planning Commission's efforts to try and get
the wording to accommodate the needs and wants of people who have large lots and
brand new sewer systems. However, I thlnk there mlght have been some small
point overlooked and for your consideration. It says that at such time as on
site systems begin to fall the city will work wlth residents to lnsta11
utilities to these subdivisions in a coordinated manner. I don't have any
problem with that but there are a lot of lots, particularly around the Lake Lucy
area that have very steep slopes, wetlands and so forth that make it impossible
to subdivide these 2 1/2 acre or larger properties and I thlnk we need the right
to use the alternate site that was designated, required by the city when we
built those homes and I think some consideration should be glven that we
maintain that right. Maybe attach a restriction onto it such as if they perc
out for lnstance because sometimes there may have been overgrowth over the next
20 years on these alternate sites and there may be need to have another one
located or if there was activlty on these sites they could be, should be perced
out at least tested to make sure that they're still viable for a drainfield
slte. I guess that's all I have.
15
City Council Meeting - 3anuary ?, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you, Anyone else?
Bill Miller: Good evening Hr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is
Bill Miller and I live at 8121 Pinewood Circle in Chanhassen. I'd like to make
a few comments regarding the comprehensive plan and the Planning Commission
efforts in that regard. Then a few other comments regarding something more
specific I have an interest in. I think certainly the members of the Planning
Commission need to be thanked for their effort. I can appreciate the fact that
they've worked many hours and had some very difficult and challenging and
frustrating $itL~ations to deal with. I've only participated in about 5~ of that
but it was very frustrating and they had a lot more. But there's something
about the Planning Commission I wanted to bring up which is the issue of
diversity. I don't even know where the members of the Planning Commission live
or what [heir backgrounds are but Chanhassen is a pretty large community and
there are areas of growth, such as where I live, that don't always feel
represented on the Planning Commission which has been an instrumental part of
what you see here. I think we'd like to be certain that all members, whether
they live in one certain area or an outlying area have some representation in
the process. As I watched tile Planning Commission go through this comprehensive
planning effort one thing I noticed, there seemed to be a, not just in the
Planning Commission's comprehensive plan but also in other things brough{ up
before the Planning Commission. Despite all these difficult issues and
challenges, there seemed to be very commonly a unanimity of opinion with regard
to the issues at hand and I found that amazing given the difficulty and the
complexity of the tasks and I think perhaps one of the reasons there is that
maybe there isn't enough diversity and enough difference in the members there.
I would hope that perhaps that might be looked at sometime just to make sure
that everyone is getting some people from different areas have some
representation on that. Another thing I noticed in the planning process uae
that several of the flash points in the planning process and in the
comprehensive plan were difficulties that were created by poor planning in the
past and past decisions that I have been told they wish they had never made or
people wish they had never made such as large lots vas one and sewage problems
now because of those large lots, etc.. Timberuood and Sunridge Court. And it's
not just landowners and speculators that use this plan as a guide but residents
do also. Residents move in and if the plan has been perhaps for large lots are
allowed. People move in. Buy a home and then find that well, ue wish we'd
never done that and because we wish we'd never done that, now we're going to
change everything else around you because you're really a problem and you're a
mistake. So the residents come to be adversely affected by the poor planning so
I hope that everyone here tonight takes it, I know you are, to realize that it's
important that we get it right I think so that people such as myself don't end
up feeling perhaps mistreated to some extent. The final thing regarding the
planning process I wanted to say was during this period, myself and several
residents some of which spoke tonight, have participated a fair amount over the
last few months at some of these meetings in the discussions of this plan and
there have been several changes back and forth in various places. In October
there was a meeting held where the changes were discussed and then the plan vas
discussed and the Planning Commission received a lot of praise for the certain
changes and what not and at the end of that meeting I felt a little bit betrayed
because a member of the Planning Commission stated that yeah, we've made some
changes here but you know, we wish we hadn't made them so those of you who think
these changes are going to hold, don't think that. You know, things are going
16
City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991
to change. And in my opinion that just totally throws the whole idea of
planning out the window number one. Number two, I feel a little bit deceived
and distressed by the fact that we've made these changes but we're telling you
right now that we're doing this for some reason but somewhere down the road you
can expect them to be changed. That bothers me a fair amount. Those are my
comments regarding the planning process. The final thing is regarding some of
the comments that were made to the area of land around the corner of Galpin and
TH 5. Myself and many of the residents surrounding that area believe that it is
not inevitable that industrial, commercial land has to string TH 5 from one end
to the other nor does it have to string TH 212 to the other. Nor does the fact
that there's some industrial, purple patches on the map mean that right next to
it has to be more purple patches in the same sense that we don't believe that
just because there's yellow has to have yellow right next to it. We would
prefer that Chanhassen maintain a little bit more residential and more of a
country atmosphere. A little more aesthetic and that a little bit more concern '
be given to the affect on the residents and things such as sight, sound and odor
pollution on those res/dents if all property near residential land is turned
into industrial property. The residents that are affected by some of these
changes oppose things such as some certain parts of industrial and commercial
land. Primarily the things that I've heard when people have stood up here and
talked about them have been emotional things related to lifestyle and the way
they want to live and why they live in Chanhassen. It's rarely what the value
of my land's going to do. On the other hand, there are landowners and other
speculators who have bought up pieces of land, probably at pretty good prices,
who want to make a lot of money on it and therefore they're arguing the other
side and I hope that people will consider that most of these people don't live
in Chanhassen nor do they probably care about Chanhassen very much. They want
zoning changes which many of which will be at the detriment of residents of this
city so they can make some money. I've got nothing against making money but I
have something against making money when it's going to hurt someone else.
Finally, regarding the intersection of Galpin and TH 5 where we talked about the
commercial zone. There were many people that got up at the meeting that
discussed that issue and those who live around there right now all felt that
we'd rather see a strong downtown. Given that we were told that we probably
should expect Highway 41 and 5 to be also a commercial area, we'd prefer that
that piece of land also be residential to try to maintain some continuity of
residential through that area. Rather than have commercial property at that
corner, we all felt that it doesn't bother us one bit to have to drive an extra
mile or two for a video or a can of pop and we'd just as soon keep it that way.
Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Anyone else? If not, I would ask for a
motion that we ciose the public portion of the meeting.
Council#oman Oimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the pubZic
portion of the meeting. ~ll voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, you look like you're getting pulled together.
Councilman Workman: I knew you were going to ask me that so that's why. I have
a cold again. I'm reminded of when I was talking to a new councilmember about
how important it was at this juncture to be on the City Council, Planning
Commission also, and how important these decisions are. I can tell by all the
17
City Council Meeting-- January 7, 1991
comments and everything I've read and watched and done, that is true. Eric
Rivkin brings up, poked a couple of sleeping tigers tonight. Lake Lucy public
access J. ssue. Lake plan. That was a lot of fun in the past couple of years and
then sidewalks, of all things which we've had an awful lot of fun. Late nights
right here talking about that stuff, and so I've got a lot of opinions about
each individual thing and I will not take time to answer each of them but maybe
I should suggest to the Mayor if we shouldn't handle it the way the Planning
Commission did and discuss individual issues and then have those issues, each
issue talked about and then move onto another issue or do you want to get my
idea...
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think Tom what I'd like to see it really boil down to, is
get the input from Council. There were a lot of good comments brought forth
this evening and at least in my opinion, I don't think ue should come up with a
conclusion this evening. I feel some of those and all the things that were
brought up tonight be addressed by staff. But yet I think ue should have
Council input so we know or staff knows at least where we're coming from and
then move in that particular direction.
Councilman Workman: Well really we didn't have a whole lot of speakers in
relationship to the amount the Planning Commission had so they took the zing out
of a lot of this I think. I think I was just talking to a member of the
Planning Commission about how dry their meetings are and uhat a bunch of stuffed
shirts they are and everything else but what a great job they really do for us.
Whether that's because they're lacking in diversity, I don't know. I think they
would argue that and say they're all pretty individualistic and get them in a
room separately and I think you'd find that out pretty quickly. So I'm going to
address it, number one some points that I had and then some of the quick things
that the people who stood up had. I'm concerned, when I look at an overall map
like this. When we sit here now and when we make decisions such as in the
previous two years and ue realize that the plan can never be perfect. Things
change and things change plans so they can't be perfect so ue do the best ue
can. We try to lay it all out and make it look 'the best we can. When I see
large areas like 1995 study area up against areas that are potentially being
designated, ~ get very worried that the Council in 1996 and 1995 is going to
have to wrestle with this concept of, we're going to have homes north of the
Mills Fleet Farm site. They're going to build. They're going to get it going
in the next 5 years presumably and then they're going to be told, much the way
Timberwood, that now we're going to look at a Mills Fleet Farm. It seems to me
the p£cture should be painted a little bit clearer on that area because we're
kind of leaving things in limbo much the uay there have been some complaints
that that's the way it is now. That doesn't make it poor planning. I think
there was a reason and I think I understand the reason why ue want to leave that
but it may be a decision that we should be making so that we can avoid before
those people move in, they know. I think Timberwood is a good example, and that
didn't have everything to do with us. It had to do with Met Council. That had
to do with the Interceptor. That had to do with everything. That had to do
with the farmer who wanted to get out of town and make some money. So we can
only restrict and do things that are within our power. I'd like to address the
school site very quickly. We did get together' with the school district. We
talked about what we could do to obtain school sites for possibly a middle
school or intermediate school. I like the idea. The parcel north of Timberuood
was selected. My questions earlier this evening to the City Manager were can we
18
City Council Heeting - January 7, 1991
obtain that? Do we have the money? Can we make it happen because if we can't,
why tie it up. He tells me we can. I think it's a good idea. I'm getting
mixed signals from the school district that maybe they're not ready to do it and
they're not so sure when they're going to be able to do it. I'm not sure what's
driving that but I think we need to preserve with all this property opening up
and potential houses and increased population, we need to be prepared and I
don't think we're doing it any too early. I'm not in favor of leaving the other
part of that parcel to industrial but rather for more of a buffer. That has
been one of the biggest issues. I think that's getting a little too close to
that caliber of a housing development but I do however think and hope that
neighborhood thinks a school is somewhat appropriate with some open spaces and
some ballfields, etc. that we'd probably use in that area. One of the very
simplest of criteria I used when looking at all of this, and I talked to a
fellow HRA member tonight and he concurred. How do you make these decisions?
I guess I ranked them in this fashion. Number one, what's good for the city as
a whole. What's good for the homeowners near there. And what is good for the
property owner. Carl Marx might like that, but that is why we were elected
I believe to make a decision based on everybody. Not my neck of the woods or
anybody else's neck of the woods but look at the whole picture and with that, in
our discussion I asked him what is long term? We've put so much money and
effort into our downtown to make it the downtown that we want, that we shouldn't
allow strip malls or anything anywhere else. I don't prefer strip malls, and
I'm speaking specifically to the Galpin/TH 5 northeast corner over there. In
that situation, and you take the criteria, what's good for the city. Maybe the
city doesn't matter if a strip mall's there. Secondly, what's good for the
homeowners. They probably don't care to see that there. Number 3, what is the
property owner's speculating and what do they want. I think it creates a
dilemma and I don't know that I want to get into whether or not that parcel can
be used any specific way because I think the zoning can be changed. But I do
remember when we had the north 5 and south 5 meetings and there were specific
discussion on not leaving Timberwood an island or rather bringing a finger of
residential down there. However, I don't believe people want to live on TH 5
and so while we've got to mix it all up, and we don't want it all industrial or
strip malls, I'm very leery that we're going to be able to get people to build
housing here unless somebody can come up with a specific concept for apartment
complexes or something else and presumably those people don't care if they live
next to a highway or not. We're not going to see quarter million dollar houses
on this highway and so somehow we have got, I still don't believe that we've
come to that balance and so why we're trying to protect an existing development
which to me is a high priority, we're still not making the decision
realistically as to how these corners can be used. And economically. Maybe
that statement leaves more confusion. As an HRA member myself, I think we do
however need to maintain our commitment to the downtown area. I think we spend
too much money and we're going to continue to do so in trying to keep it all
down there and I don't think there's any turning back on that. Are there
commercial retail uses that do not belong in downtown that should be allowed on
TH 5? Is a car dealership what we want on TH 5? Is it what we want on the one
downtown? Probably not. But my tendency is to lean towards leaving it downtown
and allowing for the decision perhaps to have the zoning a little bit later.
That's about all of my comments right now. If we're not going to make a
decision tonight, then if we are going to make a decision, then I'd probably
have some more.
City Coul,cil He~;f. ing -- January 7:1991
Mayor ChmieI: Oick?
Councilman Wing: Well I'm terribly new and I'm going to be very honest about
that, and aft~.r listening to Tom now I'm further confused because as everybody
talks here, there's ii,st ,,ore. issues coming up and more questions about this
plait. Where I ,,ay be dangerous is that my wife's a senior in architecture and
right r~ow she's doing urban planning and her class presently redesigning 494
strip. It's generally felt that that was kind of a mistake. Over developed and
not very attractive and so her class is redoing Bloomington and Richfield to see
if it couldn't have been done better'. So to quote my great grandfather, if
I may. You never hurt a piece of land letting it sit another year but woe be to
the person that rushes because then it's gone forever. .So I certainly support a
comprehe~sive plan and I would really like [o see it get into effect. I think
there's an absolute need here in Chanhassen. I'm very appreciative and support
the time and the studying and planning that the Planning Commission put into
this. It wouldn't be done otherwise. I think they're a talented group of
people and I think they are diversified. I think they're very honest. I think
they're very open. I think they're very concerned about the city at large so
the diversity comment I felt very comfortable that that had been met. I don't
want to delay implementation but also being brand new I'd feel terrible if
I made a decision that affected the city and future generations in the long term
by rushi~g such a decision. I guess I really Bon am going to need some time to
revJ. ew and just digest the comments from tonight so I'm somewhat pleased to hear
that maybe you're thinking about not making a decision tonight and allowing,
especially someone as new as I am, to really get serious about looking into
what's happening. But more important I see a real need for the City Council to,
and I don't mean just get it's act together because I can't say they haven't.
hsa member of the City Council Z see a real need for us to set some concrete
goals and directions that along with this comprehensive plan that would help
imp].ement it ~n a very successful way. Kind of our own vision in the long term.
Whether TH 5 is commercial or residential, I can't define that right nov but Z
could certainly see that TI4 5 could be developed commercially all the way out
and still be very attractive with enough green space and setbacks and the same
with residential. I live on TH 7. gery attractive. ~ll residential. Heavy
traffic. I don't go along with the noise and the pollution complaints because
as I drive through the city, I just see so much heavy residential going on in
existing highways that residential certainly could be maintained. ~gain it
would involve setbacks and greenways and berms and protection for tile homes so
I guess I see a real need for orderly development. ~nd we've discussed the
study area and I don't fully understand why that wasn't given a designation.
.T. realize all the if's and bur's that were mentioned tonight but as I listened,
to zone that commercial is maybe putting the cart before the horse. We haven't
even settled the downtown area yet. The downtown isn't intact and to move then
into a major rezoning that far vest does bother me. I guess I really favor
seeing that study area be set in a moratorium for the near future anyway and get
the rest of the city intact before we move out to that particular area. The use
of that land I wouldn't commer~t on but Z do know that that particular piece
should b~; in an orderly development and to zone it in the next year' or so
I think would be out of order prior to getting the downtown established. I think
Z'm sensitive to the landowner's rights and the developer's rights but my
responsibility here on the Council is certainly to the City and the use of it's
].and but what really troubles me is the word long term. I think that's my only
commer~ts. Thank you.
2O
City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Ursula?
Councilwoman Oimler: Thank you. I guess I feel rather overwhelmed with all the
readlng that we've had to do and all the maps we've had to look at and all the.
letters we've had to read and to put it all together, but I'm going to try to
make an attempt at lt. I guess my baslc feellng ls that yes, we do need a
comprehensive plan. I'm not even sure, I think it maybe is mandated by the
State is it not? Yeah. So we do have to have one. I do see it as a guide and
not something that is intended to be set in concrete. I don't think there's any
body, whether it be a Planning Commission or a Council or many bodies even put
together can possibly foresee all of the details that any plan that we set into
motlon could result in and therefore there always has to be room for flexibility
and change in the future. I want to point out an example of a speculative
landowner and a homeowner for a long tlme in Chanhassen that have worked
together. I'd like to see more of that and I congratulate Mr. Curry and Hr.
Gene Quinn for gettlng together and working out what could have been a potential
problem. And as I said, I'd like to see that as an example for future when
non-residential landowners wlll work with the existing neighborhoods because
that is one of my concerns. Whether we agree with that neighborhood being there
or not, the fact ls that it is there and those homeowners need to be protected.
On the other hand, there are people that come in with very good and reasonable
plans that wlll extend our tax base, I'm certainly in favor of that as well
because we do need that and so to me seeing a balance there is what is the task
of the Counc11. More specifically I guess some of the specific concerns that
were addressed here tonight. Mr. Peter Beck representing Mllls Fleet Farm. I
would be ready at this polnt to move that we dlrect as a Council, that we dlrect
the Planning Commission to start studying that area right now in 1991 as one of
their goals for thls year. And that's not to say that they're going to come up
with anything prior to 1995 but I think they should start studying that area
rather than the one on TH 5, north of TH 5 I mean rather than the one south of
TH 5 because the one down there is not really in our hands as far as we don't
know when Hwy 212 is going to come. So as one of their goals I'd like to see
them start in on that. Then also the gentleman from Eden Prairie. Dennis and I
don't remember his last name but as far as his concerns. Paul wrote thls letter
and did all of you get a copy of it and happen to read this? I do agree with
what's in here and I would be wllllng to go along with that because that leaves
the wlndow open for some high office campus to come in. Something that I don't
thlnk the residents of Timberwood, if they actually saw a neat plan, would be
necessarily adverse to. It might even be nicer looking than hlgh density or
medium density residential. As far as Mr. Carlson's concern, Jerome Carlson, I
really don't know how to address that. It would seem rather funny to take your
sectlon out and leave the rest in so I thlnk we'd have to restudy that whole
area if we're going to have a trail there or something but certainly if you only
gave the easement for one particular purpose, I think we'd have to respect that.
Then also on the other concern that Dale Carlson had was the wording on Page 50
of the recreation. I thlnk we need to take a look at that. We need to make
sure that this plan does not at this tlme restrict motorboats because I don't
think that was the purpose of this and if we're going to do that, then I think
we need to have a public hearing. So we should look at some wording. What I
wrote real quickly and it doesn't have to be particularly this. It says that
the city should maintain Lake Lucy as a recreational lake suitable for uses that
compliment it's natural environment and in the future the City may wish to
21
City Council Hee. til~9 ..-Ja~luary 7, 1991
consider prohibiL.ton of motors on Lake [.uoy but this plan does not intend to do
thai: ,'.~t ti]is time. Those are Ifly general feelings.
Mayor Chmie]: Ti~ank you. Mike?
Councilman Masol~: Speaking of new. You know I've been looking at this plan
since before the election and Z continue to be amazed at the amount of time and
effort. T'm he;~r.[ng Council talking about delaying adopting this. Paul, as
cJ. ty Planner and what not and getting this to the Met Council, how does that
ii. ye with yo~t~' feelings o~, ,'tl]. of this? I mean Z'm not putting you on the spot.
T'm trying to see how all this fits together here so maybe I am putting you on
t he spo [.
Paul Krauss: It's certaJ, nly the Council's perogative to digest this and make
changes before passing .i.t on. The changes that Z'm hearing discussed tonight,
the additional information, Z guess z don't see any of that as radical
propositions for changing things. For ex~mpZe the study ~reas were ,z concern.
Over the summer in the course of the public hearings, the Planning Commission
real[zed that J.t would behoove the clty to have a planning effort underway for
those study areas as soon as thls effort's wrapped up to get into that so that
people, that wouldn't imply bringing it into the HUSA 11ne right away but at
least people movii~g lnto the area would know what the Clty's long range intent
W&G. OLtl' plan, Ottr existing 1980 plan and this plan sort of draw the line at
the MUSA line. ~t's very explicJ, t as to what's happening inside but outside is
somewhat of a mystery. That's a valid comment and it was something that the
Planning ConlnliSSJ. on has, in discussing their goals for 1991 has on there and it
certain].y wottJ, d be ~ppropri~te and consistent with th,at to request the Planning
Commission '[o do that if you want oil a tlmefranle that fits the Counc11. Tn
terms of the de.).ay itself, there's no magic d~,te to get it to the Metro 6ouncil.
Z guess you sort of chomp at the bit having been involved with this for such a
long tlme that you finaJ, ly see the light ~t the end of the tunnel and you'd like.
to jump for Jt but also Z should point ottt too that there are a number of
indJ. vlduals who oun p¥operties throughout the community who have come to us over
the course of the last few years and wanted to do whatever or consider whatever
for their property located outside the MUS~ line and we have put them off
telling that we don't want the City to deal with piecemeal MUSA line amendments.
That we felt the most appropriate way of doing i~ was this large scale effort
and having clone that, I guess Z have a desire not to protract that.
Additionally, Minnesota is somewhat unique in that we I~ave very limited
construction seasons. If a serious enough recession comes, sprlng coming isn't
going to make much difference but the Metro Council has a minimum gO day review
process. They can request extensions. If ue got thls to the Metro Council in
3anlzary, conce.i, veably, optimistically, this could be in place by Hay which would
aJlow sonle people to take actions on some property before the end of the year.
T_f we bring thls up at another' Council meeting in January, that's not going to
affect that really one way or tile other.
Councilman Mason; A couple of quick comments. A lot of concern has been voiced
about what's going on out on TH 5 and Z'm sensing some of the Council feels that
concern too. Maybe tl~nL is something that needs to be discussed a little
further. Z th~)-ik Z'm, even with all the reading T've been doing and studying
T.'ve been doing, quite honestly I'm more Ln the position to listen and ask
22
City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991
questions right nov than I am to state some personal feelings so at this point
I'm 9oing to quit there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Mike.
Councilman Workman: Don?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Tom.
Councilman Workman: Well I think Highway 5 is the issue on this thing and maybe
I feel, maybe I'm feeling what the rest of the Council's feeling in that I drive
down that thing rather frequently and so you kind of try and imagine in your
mind how that's going to look and what are my kids going to say. Did you do
that dad? And you know, we're trying to lay out the plan but the plan isn't
cast in concrete or anything and ue can do some moving around and some changing
so maybe we're building this up to be too much. I'm asking you to answer that
maybe. I'll pose it as a question. Are we building this up to be too much if
in fact we can modify it down the road if we see that we maybe have taken the
wrong course here?
Paul Krauss: I don't want to sound like I'm obscuring the issue but yeah, you
certainly do have the ability to modify this over time to deal with situations
that may arise. We're dealing, you know the Metro Council asks you to deal in a
10 year time horizon and then they even carry it an extra 5 years beyond that in
terms of land allocations. 15 years is an awfully long time. I mean all you've
got to do is look back 15 years ago and see the changes that have occurred. I
think it's reasonable to think that the changes that would occur in the next 15
years wouldn't be of such a magnitude as happened the last 15 years. It would
be more incremental but the plan itself is a guide. It's a guide that's out
there for the public to buy into. It's a guide that's out there for you to buy
into and for the Metro Council and for everybody else. The land planning act
provides a mechanism whereby you can change that from time to time. It requires
a public process to do that of course but you can do that and I would never want
to see a Council back themselves into a corner where you were stuck with
something that could not be changed and that's certainly not the case. On the
other hand, it's a document that's received a lot-of public scrutiny. A lot of
people have bought into it and if somebody truly has a better idea, the planning
process is kind of intended to place it in their court. They're going to have
to demonstrate that it's a better idea. You know we don't have to demonstrate
that. I think that puts the responsibility where it lies and you don't change
it lightly. If somebody comes along and requests a rezoning that's inconsistent
with the plan, you're going to have to change the plan. The Metro Council
probably won't, if we get this approved generally as it's outlined right now,
most of the changes that somebody could come along and request from you in the
future are not going to be major guide plan amendments and typically the Metro
Council doesn't get intensively involved in minor plan amendments so you do have
the latitude to look at that in the future.
Councilman Workman: I certainly don't have, I mean let's make some decisions
tonight so that next week we can use them as a base point for change. I don't
mean that. It used to look like a really long strip from CE 17 to TH 41. It's
looking littler and littler and those decisions are all kind of grinding each
other. I understand Mills Fleet Farm to be a very nice outfit. I don't like
23
Cj.i'y £ounci]. Heeting -.]anu~.Lry ?, 1991
what they ]ook llke al,d Z don't thlnk anybody, Z haven't heard really anybody
from chanl~assen say bevy, Z really like what they look like. Let's put one
I've heard '.an awful lot of people from westerly communities say boy, wouldn't it
be n£ce if you guys got a Fleet Farm. Well, th~nk you but you know so Z don't
know. It'~; all.
M~yor £hmiel: Yeah, I think I know what you're saying Tom. When you look at
Hil.l_s F.l. eet F:~rm, ~s you're mentioning, there's some pluses for the community I
thlnk. Blgger draw. Help the business people withln the community. Probably
totst number of 200.-300 more new people wilhin the city possibility because
that's.: what they employ. The slze of bullding that they have and I went through
a c~lcu.l, atiorl real q~tick, probabJ, y about a $250,000.00 tax base which I think
ali. t'h~. residential customers wlthln the community want to see thelr taxes go
down ratl~er th,'~n going up ,~nd that's what I see too as far ,~ some of these
other ~reas. To not have industrial witl~in our community would be a real burden
on the resi(lentia], people within the community taxuise and you just can't look
a[ Jt from that aspect. We have to look at what's good for the city. You
brought [hat poi. tit up and Z agree. That's something that we really have to look
;~t. What's the best location. Where things should be and why they should be
,-~nd the kind~ of services we ca~ provide for the community. Z guess I feel that
one of the reasserts tl~t I brought it up at first is the mere fact that being
we've had as much discussion again this evening, .T.'d like to get some responses
back before I come up with a conclusion. I'm not one for putting things off. ~
don't want to put this off much further because I think we're going to get into
the construction and building phase and Hay would be a good timeframe. I think
maybe by the end of this month we can possibly still look at that and come up
with a conclusion. ~. l. ook at just about everybody's questions and I think
Ursul,z covered Jt quite we].l and probably stole some of my thunder but that's
okay. But as Paul sald, you know we're looking at approximately 2,780 acres and
of that maybe we c,zn get 1,571 :~cres. From there Z also see that Met Council
wil~ have that ch~ncu oF 'r-evlewal for that 90 days. I thlnk once they have
looked at how our people h~ve worked ~t ~his to develop what they've got, I'm
sure th~:y're 9olng to .see [hat there's a lot of good ~udgment taken 1rite
cons£deFa~Lon. Out T_ thlnk that strip malls, I agree with. Z'm not too fond of
s~rlp nialls from one polnt to another. I thlnk what we have to do, and as Tom
indic,.~ted, being on ti~e HRA as well., Z w~nt to see the downtown succeed and grow
because ] really want to have truly a downtown Chanhassen. Z want it to be done
in :z quali~y that everybody's happy wlth and Z think we've gone that particular
d.irectlon at thls particular time. The diversity wlth the Plannlng Commission
that Bill M.i..1.1er mentioned, T see them being as diverse as they can possibly be
by coverlng what they did w.i. t hln all the particular mode of that comprehensive
plan ~nd each of them ].ocated in different areas of the community. We have two
to the northern portlon, one in the northwest and the other in the northeast.
~e ha~,e ,'~ few within the mai~ area of the city. We have them to the south and lT.
th.ink from seeing each of them and knowlng the ciLy as they do, just going out
,'Lnd reviewing every specific plan that has come in, they know the community
well. .T. guess there's many different thlngs that we st111 ~ think are looking
at but there's just. been ~ tremendous ~mount of study put in this. Time, effort
~s Z mentioned before and I just feel that we should probably just table thls at
tl~is particular tEmo and come up with those conclusions ~nd the answers to the
questions that we've had today and get those back to the Council as soon as we
can Lo [laVe another meeting. So wi~h that ~ guess I'd just as soon stop
cl',at tering.
City Council Meeting - January ?, 1991
Councilwoman Oimler: The one thing that we might act upon is, not adopt the
whole plan but could we act upon the moving of the study area? For the Planning
Commission to start studying that 1995 study area north of TH 5?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That I believe should be done this year and I think
they're in full agreement with that. That they're already looking at that.
Councilwoman Oimler: Shall we move that now or do you want to wait?
Councilman Workman: Are we talking about, we're not talking about including
that in the MUSA?
Councilwoman Dimler: No. Just that they start their studying.
Mayor Chmiel: No, no. That they start reviewing that now.
Councilwoman Dimler: At the last meeting they asked us for some, if we had
anything that we wanted them to put into their goals and that's just one of the
things.
Councilman Workman: You didn't think they were serious did you?
Councilwoman Oimler: I took them at their word.
Councilman Workman: But I guess I'm not sure exactly what that would do then.
Are we talking about designating this as something other than ag?
Councilwoman Dimler: That's up to them to start studying.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's for them to look and see.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess there's concern that they don't wait until 1995 to
start studying this.
Steve Emmings: If it would help, we did at our last meeting discuss our goals
for this year and made a list of them that is going to be forwarded to the
Council for comment. The 1995 study area that's on the corner of TH 5 and TH 41
was designated as one of the items that should be looked at this year. We
thought it would perhaps be appropriate to take it up once the Met Council has
approved our plan so we know exactly whether it flies. That's part of our
comprehensive plan. We know that by the middle of the year, then we should get
after it specifically...
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you're saying that you already have it as one of
your goals to do that?
Steve Emmings: And that's going to be forwarded to you for your comments to
arrange a priority for us.
Councilwoman Oimler: I guess we don't need a motion on that then.
Mayor Chmiel: No. What I'd like to do is see if I can get a motion with what I
had indicated previously to have Paul revlew each of those specific questions.
25
City Council Moetil~g --..lanL~ar>' 7, 19~1
Bring it back to Council for- the later' part of this month.
councilman Workma~l: This wouldn't be discussed at our next regular meeting? It
wou.ld be a separate meeting? Are we telling everybody in the room to come
back?
Mayor' Chmiel: Well we can do it one of two ways. Either at the, and I just
looked .'-tt Lhe agenda for- th~; 14th. If everybody does their homework on the
consent agenda, we might be able to get it in there.
eon Ashuorth: .Staff wouldn't be in a position to respond by that time.
Mayor' Chmiel: Well that would be awfully fast. Maybe by the 28th Council
mee. f. ing.
Councilman Workman: I guess my questions are, and with Paul and I know there's
some minor things and maybe we spent a little extra time. I guess I'm thinking
on the ]a'rger scale of, really are we looking at that much of a modification
from wh,.z~ the Plan~ir, g Commission proposed? hnd if we aren't, can ue narrow it
down to whatever exactly it Js and maybe ue can take care of it. ~ don't know
that we're that far off but that's uh~t I'm trying [o get that feeling. ~e all
haven't :-;pecifJcaJ. ly talked about ullat the exact rubs are and Z keep thinking
aboL[t 13 acre parcel on the northeast corne~' of TH 5 and Galpin. ~hat are we
going to ~1o with that? School site. Lur, dgren Brothers. Mills. Trail
easements. ~ do]~'~ know. Maybe the list's getting too long and maybe that's
ul,y we should table it but are we that far away I guess? ~re ue that?
Mayor' chmie].: Yeah, I think we really are Tom and that's why I want to get the
answers back From P~.~ul. It's not going to make that much of a difference in the
timeframe if we car, get it still, done and accomplished this month.
Council. man Workman: I'm just thinklng so that people don't have to keep coming
back.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I thlnk they're always welcome to. In fact I enjoy seeing
the council room full rather than talking to ourselves. Participation is really
neat but anyway, no I really do. You can make any klnd of motlon you'd like but
~ thirlk tha~ we should.
Counci]man Workman: Well I'll make the motion to table this for further review
based on go slow an~l s~eady.
Councilman Wing: Do we have a timeframe to that?
Mayor Chmicl: Well I think we're looking at the 20th of this month.
Councilman Workman: Will i'L be open to debate?
Mayor Chmie].: Sure. I don't know why not. I always try to keep an open
meeting to anybody who'd 11ks to say anything, they have that opportunity.
CottncJlWOl0all Oim.l. er: Is that correct, we're asking Paul to address just the
concerns that were mentioned here tonight?
26
City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Just the ones this evening.
Jim Curry: The public hearing part though, that's closed for good? Is that
right? You don't reopen that at the next meeting or do you?
Mayor Chmiel: Well we're tabling the entirity of the thing right now. This is
sort of, this is not really a public hearing. The public hearing has already
been held at the Planning Commission level. This is just response from the
residents from what's happening now. Is there a second?
Counciluoman Dialer: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the
Comprehensive Plan until January 28, 1991 for further staff review. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Steve Emmings: I'd like to just say. I don't plan to give my plaque back. I'd
like to say to the extent that there's praise or blame to be handed out for the
plan, these two gentlemen up here had the laboring...all the way through the
project.
Mayor Chaiel: Good, thank you. I noticed that one more member of the Planning
Commission has come in. Even though you're a little late, I'll tell you uhat
I said to them afteruards but I'd like to present this to you Brian. It's the
Maple Leaf Auard. $o uith that I'd ask for a motion for adjournment.
Councilaoman Dimler moved, Councilman ~orkman seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9=15
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
27