1989 01 23CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 23, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Jim
Chaffee, Steve Hanson, Lori Sietsema and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda as amended: Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss having a
social get together of the council, citizens, and developers of the community;
Councilman Boyt wanted to restore item 10 to the agenda, Criteria for Selection
of Park and Rec Con~niss~_oners; Councilwoman Dimler wanted to discuss Eurasian
Water Milfoil and Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss a letter he had received from
Carver County in conjunction with Hennepin County regarding the Regional Rail
Authority. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
rec~Nnendations:
e. Approval of Accounts.
f. City Council Minutes dated January 12, 1989 Planning Conmaission Minutes dated January 4, 1989
Park and Rec Commission Minutes dated January 10, 1989
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
A. APPROVAL OF 5-YEAR STATE AID CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM.
Councilwoman Dimler: I wanted to pull this one because I had a question and
that's to Gary Warren. How were the streets chosen that were supposed to be
aided by this government money?
Gary Warren: How do we run our State Aid roadways itself?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, the roads that you were chosen that you had on the
map. Were they arbitrarily chosen or are they chosen for a specific reason?
Gary Warren: The roads that we're recommending on the 5 year program were
chosen because of I guess our evaluation that they are in need of some
modifications, repairs and also if we've had any complaints or input of that
nature.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, is it possible to add another road on there?
.... City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Gary Warren: ...your input.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess that I would like to request that we consider
adding Frontier Trail to that list.
Gary Warren: Okay, to address your question more directly. The State Aid roads
themselves, the ones that are on attachment %1 on the map, those roads have to
meet the State criteria as far as, for example continuity to connect to major
roadways. Highway 5, the country roads, the State restricts the use of funds
say on just a normal local roadway. They won't allow that. We have in the past
in fact tried to get Frontier Trail onto the State Aid road system but it's been
denied because it has too many geometric problems and it's not really conducive
to through traffic and major transportation so Frontier Trail has already been
denied.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, overlooked many years. Okay, then you are sayJ. ng
that all those roads that are on the maps are the actual ones that are slated to
be done within the next year, 2 years?
Gary Warren: Ail the roads that show on Attachment %1, that shows our total
State Aid designated roads today. Of those total roads, for example, we just
built Bluff Creek Drive. That won't be_ coming up for any work here maybe in the
next 2g years we hope. %ge have selected in the detailed maps that are attached,
those roads which we feel are the best use for our State Aid monies over the
next 5 year program. So the specific submittal that we're asking for approval
tonight is the 5 roads or so that we've got on the 5 year program. We also will
be getting back to the Council here probably in the next month with, the City
has about 3.6 miles yet that we can designate to come up with new roads to put
on State Aid mileage. We just met with the State today in fact to get their
preliminary approval so we will be adding some roads but for right now, this is
it.
Councilwoman Dimler: And is that just for one year? This is for the 1989 year
that you're asking for?
Gary Warren: The 5 year program is actually updated, typically every year
although this hasn't been requested from the State for the last...
Councilwoman Dimler: Do your roads change from year to year within that 5 year
plan?
Gary Warren: They can althought I wouldn't expect them to change a lot.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: I've got a comment. I can't help but be amused by the J, rony
of the City Engineer commenting about how Frontier Trail isn't a through street
when in fact the Council 2 years ago designated it as very much a through street
when they connected it to Kerber Blvd..
Gary Warren: I reference is how the State has looked at that as far as the
geometrics are concerned. Not the actual contact of that road with Kerber Blvd.
for example.
City Council Meeting January 23~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: It's just ironic~
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask a question also if I may. This is a 5 year
plan and as that goes, plans change I assume. I wasn't going to discuss it
because but as long as it's up. Can Minnewashta, even though we've given this
schedule, be moved up to 1990 if funds are available or something because that's
a road that I think has really been overlooked way too much. I would like to
see it worked on as soon as possible. I realize there's not a lot of money
available until 1991 but if there w~re someway we could start on that one next
year versus waiting until 1991, I think that some improvements there. This
isn't fixing it in concrete, that's my question. If this fixes it in
concrete...
Gary Warren: As I tried to point out in the staff report, this is to give the
State an idea that the City has projects lined up for our allocations because if
we do build up too much in reserve in our construction funds, we can lose them
to other needy cities if we pass their magic ratio. The reason that we've
looked at Audubon Road ahead here of Minnewashta is because of the work that
we'll be doing on Audubon here as a part of the industrial park work but that
flexibility, even with an adopted 5 year plan isn't to say that we couldn't come
in next week, and if the Council wishes, that we start working on Minnewashta
Parkway instead. There's no problem in doing that.
Councilman Johnson: Because I can see using more tax increment money on the,
that's the railroad bridge to Lyman, that's outside the tax increment. There's
not much you can do there. Okay, I have no other questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, hearing none, we'll move to the next item. Item (b).
Councilman Boyt: Shouldn't we vote on these as we go?
Mayor Chmiel: I was thinking we would probably do that after we discuss all of
them and then we can just adopt all of them rather than going through a vote on
each individual one.
B. AUTHORIZE UPDATING OF NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS FEASIBILITY STUDY,
PROJECT 87-17.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was just curious as to, maybe Gary you again can answer
this question or whoever has the answer. Why wasn't the work done within the
year after the first study and do you have any cost estimate as to what the new
study will cost?
Gary Warren: The work wasn't done because of the uncertainity as far as the
buildings that were proposed for this area. The parking lot typically is one of
the last things we do in an area like this so we don't damage the new surface.
So with the uncertainity as far as the medical arts building, at one time there
was a daycare, the Riviera expansion plans, the contamination issues as far as
the 76 gas station is concerned. It wasn't prudent in our judgment to push this
project forward. We had to let some things get established and now that we have
medical arts here on the agenda tonight and other things, a better handle on
those things, we're able to now push ahead with the project.
~ ~City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Councilwoman D].mler: I guess my point is, I'm saying, why did we do the study
in the first place when those plans weren't in order, do you understand? And
now it's going to cost us more to do another study. Is that correct?
Gary Warren: It's an updating of a cost basically and some minor modifications
to it. I, quite honestly, I don't have a cost estimate in mind but I don't
believe, a lot of the material will be reused from the original study. This is
strictly going to be an updating of the costs and any assessments issues that
would go wi_th it for the most part.
Councilman Johnson: At the time that we did approve this in the f].rst place,
things were more definite but then the medical arts started having the problem.
The investigation of the Union 76 site started to drag on. We thought we were
going to buy that a year ago and we still haven't purchased it because of the
cont~nination problems there. Negotiations for purchasing various pieces have
taken longer than they should have but we had a pretty solid plan at that time.
We thought we were going to go ahead and have this constructed last construction
season but not all plans work out.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are the plans pretty much in order now though so if we
approve this study that we'll move within a year?
Don Ashworth: Yes, I think so. You have before you again the medical arts
this evening. Loren Anderson is still a question although we have signed that
option agreement. HRA has acted to purchase the Mason property and they're
still in agreement. They still want to see the project go. Adjacent to Riviera
and the 2nd phase of the medical arts will not be included in the 1st phase work
but as long as the tst phase work is commenced within a year, we can then move
into the 2nd phase.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion on (b)? If not, we'll move to (c).
C. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL EXPANSION, CONFIRM EXPANSION REQUEST, CHANHASSEN
LIBRARY BOARD.
Councilman Johnson: I bring th].s up because I did not feel there w~s a clear
recommendation. I believe what is being recommended is that we approve the
library to have an interim expansion into the new downstairs area that's being
constructed but it was not clearly stated in our procedure. It says the
recon]nendat~.on must be clearly stated on a consent agenda item. That's my
recommended action on this one so that it's now publicly clearly stated.
D. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR PORTABLE BREATH TESTER.
Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled item (d) because I just wanted to make a comment
and again, the report presented it as if this was a free gift and I guess I'd
just like to say there aren't any free gifts. That somebody's paying for it and
if the State ].s providing it, that the taxpayers of Minnesota are paying for
I question why we need it when we don't have a police department. I've checked
with the Sheriff's Department who we are under contract with and he informs me
that Carver County has many of them and that if Chanhassen wants to use them,
that's fine with h].m. And since there is also a maintenance expense that has
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
not been budgeted for, I would move that w~ do not enter into this agreement at
this time.
Councilman Boyt: I think we should hear from Jim Chaffee because I don't think
the facts back that up.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, would you have some cc~ments on this?
Jim Chaffee: Yes, I would. I got a call today from Captain ?agelkopf from the
Carver County Sheriff's Department who asked if they couldn't in fact use this.
That they are providing another car for the City of Chanhassen which doesn't
have one of these. It is free from the State as Councilmember Dimler says. I
guess we all pay for it through our taxes but it has been purchased and they're
offering it to us free of charge. The maintenance part of it, there is no
maintenance agreement on the machine itself. The little white plastic pieces
that go on the top and it's a minimal cost. We certainly can use it and we
would put it to good use. It would help get the drunk drivers off the roads in
the City of Chanhassen. I think it's well worth the minimal cost. Very minimal
cost in this case.
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree that it's a good cause but I also, the Sheriff's
Department has th~ for us to use so at this time I don't know why we would need
our ow/q.
Mayor Chmiel: I believe what Jim has indicated here, he said that the
additional patrol car that would be offered to us by the Sheriff's Department,
does not have one in that particular car. I'm thinking that might be a direct
benefit to have it for the use within the Sheriff's Department car. In fact,
that was one of the questions that I was going to ask as well. Would or could
the Sheriff's Department who patrolled Chanhassen use this instrument?
Jim Chaffee: As I said, Captain Pagelkopt called me today and asked to use it.
I didn't just ask him. Yes, they will use it.
Councilwoman Dimler: But the information I got from Sheriff Wallin was that
they had plenty of th~m and that they were going to go the other way and let us
use theirs. That's why I brought it up.
Councilman Johnson: As I understand, they share the ones they have. You have
to go down to Chaska, pick it up to use it and this we would have permanently in
our squad car that the Sheriff drives around here so that we would at any time
that we see a drunk driver, we would be able to do that test. Not only at the
times that we have gone down to Chaska and picked it up and are specifically
doing drunk driver patrols. They don't have enough for every Carver County
police car as I understand the situation and that this one was not really
designated for Chanhassen police department or public safety but was going to be
used by the Chanhassen Carver County patrol that is currently assigned here. We
have quite a bit of equipment that we have purchased for that particular car.
We've probably got the best police car in Carver County. They have a modular
telephone that's been donated in there. They're getting more advanced radar
guns in that car. It's one of the best equipped Carver County cars because
we've helped support that car and this would just make it a little better.
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Councilman Workman: Jay, are you saying that we have no breathalyzers in any
cars in Chanhassen now?
Councilman Johnson: It's only when you pick them up?
Jim Chaffee: No. The car that is assigned to Chanhassen right now does have
one. The additional car that they are going to assign to Chanhassen starting
January 30th does not have one. That's why Captain Pagelkopf called me today
and asked if he could have it.
Councilman Workman: And they were going to use the used one, two weeks ago
there was going to be a used one moving into the new donated vehicle. Where's
that one coming from?
Councilman Johnson: That's radar.
Jim Chaffee. That was radar.
Councilman Workman: We were talking about radar then, okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: It was also my understanding that Carver County themselves
had applied for 10 of these units as well and are getting them.
Jim Chaffee: I don't know anything about that.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I brought it up.
Mayor Chniel: I think probably as you indicated Bill, we will work each one of
these individually being that there is some controversy on the item (d).
Councilwc~nan Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I did make a motion. We have to either move
it or...
Councilman Boyt: It didn't get a second.
Councilman Workman: I'll second Ursula's.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that the approval for a
portable breath tester be eliminated as to the reconmendation that's been made
by staff. Discussions are open.
Councilman Johnson: I'm just going to repeat what I said before. I think
anything we can do to keep the drunk drivers off the roads here, if the Carver
County Sheriff's department said they'd like it for their second car here so
they can help patrol with the rest of their cars, If they've got 10 of them,
they've got a lot of cars out there, I'm going to continue to support this one.
Mayor Chmiel: My concern was too, how many additional sheriff vehicles are
there? Any idea?
Jim Chaffee: There's a possibility we could have up to 6 sheriff's vehicles in
the city at a specific time periodically in a two week period. That's a lot of
poi ice vehicles.
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Outside of Chanhassen, being that Ursula mentioned that they're
talking about 10, how many total vehicles does the Sheriff's department have?
Any idea?
Jim Chaffee: That I couldn't tell you exactly.
Councilman Boyt: I'd just like to conment. Mr. Mayor, you were at the Public
Safety Commission meeting. This came up at the Public Safety Commission meeting
and correct me if I'm in error but I think this was unanimously approved by the
Public Safety ~ission.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it was.
Councilman Workman: If I could make a comment as far as what I see here. We've
got a lot of tension over a small item, although a valuable one. The City of
Chanhassen does not have a police department but we've added an addition to City
Hall which at times is referred to as an addition, a public safety addition.
We're getting our own police car. We're getting our own radar. We're getting
our own breath testers. We've got our own Public Safety Director. We've got a
Public Safety Assistant. We've got an awful lot of costs which are supposed to
be born by the County and as such, w~ are covering off some of those costs. It
just seems to me there's an awful lot we're, there's confusion out there and if
you were at the Public Safety meeting the other night, there's confusion as to
where even a complaint can go. Maybe that's what Councilwoman Dimler is getting
at in that do we have a police department or don't we. That's my comment.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we have a Public Safety Department. We do not have our
own police department. I for one, as I look at the overall, during campaigning,
people asking questions what position we would take, I indicated at that time
that we will not have our own police department until it becomes cost effective.
We will continue with the Sheriff's Department for as long as that time persists
and I've had that discussion with Jim. So I just wanted to make that
clarification.
Councilwoman Dimler: Again, I would like to go on the record as stating that
the reason that I'm doing this is because we do not have our own police
department and I remember as I was going around door knocking during the
campaign, the citizens were telling me to hold down spending and this was not a
budgeted item. Even the maintenance, we don't know really what that will be
even thought it might be minimal but a lot of little minimals add up to more and
more and more and so at some point somebody has to say no.
Councilman Boyt: I want to know if you're going to go on the record as saying
that you're not going to do everything possible to keep drunk drivers off the
road.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, that isn't my intention. I've already stated that
I've checked with the Sheriff's Department and I did that for that purpose. He
said we have more than plenty of them that we can share with Chanhassen so at
any time we need one, we could even get one on a permanent basis I'm sure.
Councilman Johnson: I believe that we pay something in the range of a quarter
million dollars a year to Carver County to provide us a police department and in
addition to that we have a Public Safety Department to help coordinate that
Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
police department. We have CSO's to do the duties that non-police officers, the
animal control, some patrol that does not require a licensed officer. As such
right now, I would say we do have a police department except for the patrol
officers are hired out from Carver County as our source to get them. They
provide the vehicles, patrol, dispatch, everything. Even if we did get, they
would still be our dispatcher even if we got our own police department because
that's base level protection that we pay for in our taxes everyday is some of
that Carver County. Anything we can do to help those men and women who are
patrolling our streets for us, we should do. This is such a minimum thing.
There's less expense here than the cost of the mobile phone which is an item
that has provided us more on the road police service. When they get the call to
come make a call, which is quite often for an officer, they would have to drive
back to City Hall, stop get out of their car and make that call. Now they can
pull over to the side of the road and make that phone call. These little things
make Chanhassen the premium spot for a Carver County officer to want to work so
we get the best out here. If this will help us continue to get the best out
here, we've got to do that so we get the best officers our money can buy.
Councilwoman Dimler: Councilman Johnson, I think you're still missing my point.
It's not that I'm not for the best but the Carver County has it already and they
are willing to share it with us. That's my point.
Mayor C%mniel: Let me make a point here. Being that we are not certain as to
the total numbers that the Sheriff's department is getting, as proposed by the
portable breath tester that we're suggesting, maybe I'd just like to throw
something out. Maybe we just table this particular item to find out what total
numbers are going to be acquired by the Sheriff's Department to see if this
additional one is even needed.
Councilwoman Dimler: That would be fine but we have to still move this motion
and then make a motion to table.
Councilman Johnson: Unless you withdraw your motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, I won't withdraw it.
Councilman Boyt: I have a point of information. Mr. Chaffee, how much does
this item cost?
Jim Chaffee: Nothing.
Councilman Boyt: No, I mean to the State since it seems to be a concern about
State money. Are we talking $10g.gg?
Jim Chaffee: Possibly. I don't know.
Councilman Boyt: I thJ.nk, in my opinion, we should deal with it. If you don't
want it, let's turn it down but I happen to want it and I can't see a point in
tabling this for 2 weeks. This is something the State is making available to
us. What's so difficult about making this decision?
Councilman Johnson: I'll pay for the maintenance if you like.
City Council Meeting ' January 23~ 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my point is that, I said we were going %o hold
down spending and we have to start somewhere and a lot of little items keep
getting bigger and bigger and bigger. It's just going to keep going.
Councilman Johnson: Well, if your motion fails, I'll move with me paying for
the maintenance of this item if the few bucks for maintenance is...
Mayor Chmiel: ...we ask the Sheriff's Department whether or not they would
approve this portable breath tester for the City of Chanhassen. If they would
concur with that idea, let them make that decision on this particular item.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm sure that they would have no problem with it. I've
already asked them that.
Councilman Johnson: They'd rather get 11 than 10 anyway. If they're getting
10, I'm sure they'd rather have 11.
Mayor Chmiel: So by making that specific request, I'm wondering whether you
would like to withdraw your position on that with your denial for the breath
tester for the City of Chanhassen?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, I think I'd like to go for a vote on it.
Councilman Workman: If it's assumed that because Councilwoman Dimler or Workman
wants to discuss this issue that we are for drunk driving as some of our fellow
councilmen have made us out to be, I think it's a little unfair. If it's a
matter of a couple of bucks for a couple of little plastic pieces, I think
there's more than one person missing the point here.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to deny the request for
the portable breath tester. Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman
Workman voted in favor; Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in
opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Chmiel: Now we'll cover items (a), (b) and (c). Does someone care to
make a motion for each of those?
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I move approval of the reconrnendations made by
staff in items (a) and (b). In item (c), I approved the interim utilization of
additional basement space of the new addition for the Carver County library
system.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recon~nendations:
a. Resolution #89-05: Approval of the 5-Year State Aid Construction Program.
b. Resolution #89-06: Authorize Updating of North Side Parking Lot
Improvements Feasibility Study, Project 87-17.
~ J'City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
c. Chanhassen City Hall Expansion, Confirm Expansion Request, Chanhassen
Library Board for Interim Utilization.
VISITORS PRESENTATION:
Brian Tichy: My name is Brian Tichy. I live at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. The
presentation is concerning the no parking signs on both sides of Lake Lucy Road.
I have a petition that I'd like to present to the Council from the residents of
Lake Lucy Road to try to reconfigure the street so that we are allowed to park
at least on one side of the street or during the winter months due to snow
problems, space problems when you have people over for company and that nature.
Right now, if you have more than 1 or 2 cars, friends of yours over, there's no
place for them to park. It becomes a problem particularly in the winter. In
the s~n~ner there are places ~nere you can put your visitor's cars but during the
winter there is no space.
Mayor Chmiel: Very fine, may I have that petition please. The petition that
we've received, is there any discussion from Council?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. Having seen Brian's driveway, he's got quite a problem
there. Anytime we get 2 or 3 inches of snow, he's going to have a hard time
getting up and down that driveway. Turning into it much less %fnat happens once
he's into it. I don't know exactly what the City can do because I think there's
some pretty clear State Statutes l~_miting what the City can do and I'm sure
Brian's aware of those. I'm not sure how many people ride their bicycles out
there after a 2 or 3 inch snowfall but somehow or another I'd sure like to see
the City work to come up with a solution for people who have no place to park.
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with that. I think that since the bike paths are
not being used during the winter months, the least we can do is to allow them to
park there during the winter months when the parking problem is compounded with
the snow. I'm sure that you'd like to see it to summer months as well.
Brian Tichy: We'd appreciate it if we could park there in the s~m~ner months. It
would help if you have more than 2 or 3 friends. We do use the bike lanes.
There's a problem obviously with the bike lane that goes to nowhere. There are
no bike lanes on CR 117 to the west and CR 17 to the east. People do use the
bike lanes although...stay within them. We use them ourselves. Again, if they
could be_ somehow moved to one side of the road, that may satisfy I guess the
bicycling problems. These are alternatives.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know that Larry, you've already written a letter to
Brian haven't you and in there it stated some of the State Statutes that you
found out and we appreciate the work you did on that. However, I still would
like to see if we can't get together and work out partial parking.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion?
Councilman Workman: There are bike lanes on both sides right now?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes there are.
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
Councilman Workman: Have the people who signed the petition decided which side
the bike lane would be on or does that not matter to the people?
Councilman Boyt: We can't put it on the same side. State Statute won't allow
us to put two bike lanes on the same side of the road.
Councilman Workman: We only need one bike lane on one side of the road don't
we?
Councilman Boyt: You can't have a one way bike lane. Or two way, one width
bike lane. It's very specific. It's sort of like, if you have a highway, you
have to meet limits. If you have a bike lane, you have to live with limits too.
That's what has created the problem.
Councilman Workman: I'm just asking the question. I'm not speaking as an
authority.
Councilman Johnson: We built this with State Aid money. Some of the 5 year
plan we're talking about several years ago, in fact it was before Bill and
I were on the Council that this State Aid money was approved. Again, once the
State's got their money involved in the project, we lose some control.
Larry Brown: ~ne City Attorney can verify this but from what I dragged out of
the State Statutes, State Statute was very specific in saying that all bicyclsts
shall ride as close as practical to the right hand side of the roadway and that
was the real reason why we're limited to putting a two-way bike lane. It was
very clear that it had to be to the right hand side with the direction of
traffic.
Councilman Workman: So do we even have to have them or not have them and can we
remove them? How are people going to park there then if we have to have it on
both sides?
Larry Brown: Sure, that would certainly be an option if you'd like to.
Councilman Workman: We could remove the bike lanes?
Larry Brown: Yes, you could.
Councilman Workman: Would Park and Rec have a problem with that?
Mayor Chmiel: They conceivably could.
Councilman Johnson: I think this should go to Park and Rec. Have they
considered this at this point?
Brian Tichy: I spoke with, I can't remember the gentleman's name with Park and
Rec and he had it go to Larry Brown.
Don Ashworth: Staff would reco~nend that the item be tabled this evening.
Allow us to advertise it. It would be on the next agenda. If there was any
reason it would not be on that agenda, we would contact Brian. A staff report
would be prepared and look at some alternatives. I know in the Carver Beach
area we have similiar problems and I think that we got around most of those.
11
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
The biggest probl~n was being able to clear snow out at the same time that
vehicles are parked out in the roadway itself. So in some of those instances,
we had to look at trying to work with the individual owners in finding some
other spot where they may be able to park, we could st].ll clear snow, etc..
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to suggest also that we get Park and
Rec's feedback on this because it's their trail. Not their trail, it's the
City's trails but they're the keeper of the trail so rather than bring it
immediately back to t/ne Council before Park and Rec has a chance to put their 2
cents in, I'd like to pass it through to the Park and Rec Commission on it's way
back here.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think Park and Rec meets tomorrow. Can we put it on
their agenda for tomorrow?
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not sure as to what their agenda would be.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure staff would be ready for it tomorrow.
Don Ashworth: I was just trying to look at their agenda here. They do have a
meeting tomorrow night. We can take and see if it could be verbally presented
and whether or not they would take action. They, like the Council, like to have
their information early. Get a chance to study it, etc.. Otherwise, that would
put the item to February 27th for City Council.
Lori Sietsema: It would be February 14th is our next meeting.
Don Ashworth: But the next City council following Park and Rec would be the
27th.
Mayor Chmiel: I suggest too that we table it and do as a recommendation by Mr.
Ashworth has indicated that this go to the Park and Rec at their February 14th
meeting and then back to the Council on February 27th.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, could I suggest that if staff can come up with
an interim solution before Park and Rec looks at it, that we consider that at
our next Council meeting because February 27th, that's a lot of wintertime so go
at a two-prong, interim solution right now. Right away. As quickly as possible
with the full review through Park and Rec also. Conceivably it could be the
13th or the 27th, The City will notify and let you know for sure.
Councilman Boyt: I'd just like to point out that it's probably unreasonable to
give this to the Park and Rec Commission with no notice. Expect them to make a
comment on it that means anything and get it back to us for our next meeting.
Councilman Johnson: That's not what I said. Here's a motion. I move that we
send this to the Park and Recreation Commission on February 14th and have it
back to us for February 27th, I believe is our last meeting in February unless
staff can come up with an interim solution to this, which will be interim until
Park and Rec has had time to review it. In which case, we'd like to see that
interim solution at our next Council meeting which I believe is February 13th.
That way, we may be able to get something going a little sooner for them. Staff
may come up and say, hey, we don't see an interim solution that we want to give
to Council without Park and Rec looking at it. In which case, then it delays it
12
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
another 2 weeks. That's my motion~
Councilwoman Dimler: I second that.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to direct the Park and
Recreation Conmission to review the bike lanes on Lake Lucy Road at their
February 14, 1989 meeting and make a recon~nendation to City Council. In the
interim, if staff can come up with a temporary solution to the no parking
problem on Lake Lucy Road, to present that to the City Council at their February
13, 1989 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT.
Gary Warren: Public Works, we have four vehicles that we had budgeted in the
1989 vehicle replacement fund. Three of the vehicles are replacement vehicles
for equipment that has many good years of service on it and one of the other
vehicles is a new vehicle to recognize the budgeted expansion in the Park and
Rec Department of a new employee this year. We also have included with the bids
here and the 1 ton vehicle, the equipment for snow plowing. R/ae plow box and
the sander since this vehicle will be utilized for plowing snow in the Carver
Beach area. We feel we've got some very good competitive bids and we've
attached the vehicle specifications to the packet here. Basically, as an
overview, including radios and sales tax, etc., we're looking at a total award
of $69,287.04. Our budget for these items was $75,200.00 so we're very pleased
with the bids that went on and it's equipment that I'm sure we'll be putting to
good use this year.
Resolution #89-07: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
award the Public Works Equipment bid to Superior Ford for the 1/2 ton pickup at
$11,187.00; the two 3/4 ton pickups from Waconia Ford at $14,070.00 each; the 1
ton cab and chassis from Bob Ryan Ford for $14.757.00; the box and sander from
Midland Equipment at $5,584.00 and $1,596.00; and the snowplow from Crysteel
Truck Equipment at $1,598.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT FOR CITY HALL/FIRE STATION.
Jim Chaffee: A few months ago we started looking at expanding our present
system, telephone system in the new addition to the City Hall. At the same time
we were looking at upgrading the system at the Fire Station. Recognizing that 8
years ago we purchased our present existing system in City Hall for a little
under $15,000.00, we also recognized that the present system is at it's capacity
right now and it is considered obsolete with the advances that are being made in
the high tech industry of telephone con~nunications. With that in mind, we set
out to look at either overhauling the entire system or expanding the present
system with it's outdated features. We did get together with many vendors, 18
as I've indicated in the memo, to seek bids for upgrading our present system to
include the addition to City Hall and the Fire Station. We did initially get
interest from 18 vendors. However, when it came time to bid, we only received 6
bids. Of those 6, as I've outlined in the memo, AT&T was the highest.
Executone was the lowest. Unfortunately, only one system met all our
13
~-~-~ity Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
specifications. Fortunately, that one system that met our specifications was
the secon~ to the lowest. The way we went about outlining the specifications,
we received a set of specs from two different agencies who were looking at new
phone systems and a third set of specs from the State of Minnesota. We combined
all three to meet the needs of what we thought were actually needed for
City Hall and came up with the present specifications that we let out for bid.
As I've indicated, we've received 6 bids out and the high was AT&T at
$4g,897.gg. The low was Executone at $21,g74.0g. However, the bidder that met
all our specs was Telephone Specialists at $22,911.gg with trade-in and
consequently, that's what we are recommending. Is we accept the bid from
Telephone Specialists at $22,911.0g to outfit both the existing City Hall, the
new addition to City Hall and the Fire Station.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there discussion on this?
Councilman Johnson: I spent a little time with Jim on this going over and
looking at s~me of the bids that came in and discussing them. How he put this
criteria together is an extremely technical. You know buying a telephone used
to be simple. The advances in technology and this system that he's recommending
has some very nice features on it that I think we can use in the future and
expand upon this system and I think they did an excellent job of puttin9
something as highly technical as this together. My company I work for, we have
a whole group of people who only do this and I don't think they would have done
any better of a job. I commend them for the good job on this.
Resolution #89-08: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to award the
bid to Telephone Specialists in the amount of $16.147.g0 for System A and
$7,814.gg for System B and to include a $1,050.gg trade-in price on the old
system. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE TH lgl INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION WITH TH 5; AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL TO
Gary Warren: If I could ask a question Mr. Mayor. For the benefit of the
Council, would you care for any history on this?
Mayor Chmiel: I think if we all took the ti.me out to read the information that
was provided to us, I think we should pretty much be up to date with what has
transpired. Although if there are any questions by Council, they could then ask
those questions at the time.
Gary Warren: I'll give a very brief overview then. We do have our consultant
team here with Fred Hoisington, Don Ringrose and Howard Preston form the design
team so if you do any specifics, we can get into that as warranted. As stated
in the staff report, the item was before the Council on November 28, 1988 and at
that time there was some concern and questions about the actual configuration
for the intersection at TH 5 of Dakota Avenue, Great Plains and the new Market
Blvd. intersection. Medians and laneage was a big concern, especially as it
restricted or altered access to the businesses along that area in particular.
We are on a very compressed schedule with MnDot and this is the last step here
in getting this final configuration into their plans. They're sort of waiting
on us I guess if I could put it bluntly. Barton Aschmann who is designing TH 5
14
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
needs this information to be able to proceed with the rest of their laneage
design. So what we've done is gone back, taken the input from the businesses
and we have modified areas where we could. And if I could ask Howard Preston
just to briefly sun~narize the key changes that he's done on here, I think that
will be the quickest way to sun~narize it for you,
Howard Preston: The layout that is shown on the board there is similar to what
was presented to the City at that earlier Council meeting as Gary has indicated.
There are really only two major changes that are shown on this document that
make it different from the earlier document. The first change is at the
intersection of the new north leg of TH 101 and West 78th Street. I'll try to
speak loud enough so you can hear me but I'll just indicate it here. It was
suggested at the earlier Council meeting that a free right turn condition for
the southbound to westbound right turn be added to make it easier to get onto
West 78th Street to get into the downtown area. We've added that. There are no
other changes at this location. At the intersection of TH 5 and Dakota.
Another suggestion was to change the south leg of Great Plains Blvd. on the
approach to TH 5. The original design from MnDot had a raised median extended
all the way down from TH 5 to Lake Drive which restricted the access to,
actually eliminated the access. MnDot had proposed no access for the Legion
Club. They had proposed...coming down Lake Drive and no access for the
convenience center, the intersection. We had revised that. We r~noved the
median and added what we would call a two island change lane so that there would
be full access restored at both of those intersections at both of those
driveways. It would require moving the driveway to the Legion Club slightly
south but it would give a greater separation between the driveway and TH 5 but
both of these accesses would provide full access. Right turns and left turns in
and out. There were no changes at the intersection of Market Blvd.. The
earlier layout only showed the geometrics right at the highway as suggested by
MnDot. This layout shows we would extend that section and then tie back into
the existing Market Blvd. north of the Soo Line railroad and then propose to
extend the provided roadway as suggested by MnDot for the new south lane for
TH 101. So everything else is the same. The exceptions again, the free right
turn to get into the downtown area from southbound TH 101 and West 78th Street
and then the modification of the access condition on the south leg of Great
Plains Blvd..
Gary Warren: So with that, we did hold our work session here last Thursday
night with members of the interested public and went through specifically
property issues as they were presented to us there. I see from the audience
here several of those people are here tonight to who may choose to comment at
your discretion. But the action that we're requesting of the Council is to
approve these final configurations and authorize staff to suh~it these to MnDot
for inclusion in their TH 5 improvement plans.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the
Counc i 1 ?
Pat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey with Blue Circle Investment Company. We're the
owners of the convenience center just south of TH 5 on the existing TH 101. A
couple of m~nbers of this Council have heard me on several occasions in the
past. I'm sorry I haven't had the opportunity to address all of you in the past
but I'm going to take a few minutes of your time, with your indulgence and share
some of my views with you regarding this whole situation. First of all, when we
15
~' ~City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
built our shopping center, and we've expressed this to prior Council, we felt
that we were given certain conditions and certain assurances that staff,
Planning Commission, City Council in power at that time regarding what was going
to happen with the road patterns in the City of Chanhassen. Those have not
come about. In fact, the Council just prior to you just ignored all of it and
moved a highway, which we were told was not going to be moved. I don't want to
beat that issue to death other than the fact that we did supply the City with
legal opinion stating that we had damages coming from the City if in fact the
City moved TH 101. I know that the City's counsel takes exception to that. At
that meeting, I clearly stated to the City Council that it was not our intention
or our desire to litigate the issue. In fact that we wanted to do all that we
possibly could to avoid litigation. It was my understanding as a result of that
City Council, that the City was going to instruct the staff to enter into some
type of negotiations with us. As a matter of fact, just within a couple days
after that Council meeting, I called a member of this Council and asked him who
it was I should be negotiating with. He gave me the name of a gentleman and
said that he'd call that gentleman on your city staff and have him get a hold of
me so we could start negotiations. Well, about that time you got into elections
and there was all kinds of things going on. About 45 days later, I called the
same councilmember back and he said, I've instructed that staff member to get a
hold of you. I got a hold of that staff member, and lo and behold, he admitted
that he was supposed to have done that about 30 days before. I asked that staff
member for some very specific information regarding what was happening with the
three major intersections along TH 5 for the City of Chanhassen. He sent me
two. Not the one that directly affects me the most. The reason he didn't send
it to me was he said it was an undefined plan that was subject to change. This
gentleman here, and I'm sorry I forgot your name, just told you folks tonight
that after working with the affected property owners, this plan was developed.
In spite of the fact that we're tyring to alleviate... We came down here last
Thursday evening to a public viewing of a plan, we were totally aghast. Every
single plan that had ever been presented to this Council, prior to the time that
you took action, showed Lake Drive East going approximately like this. That
just happens to coincide with exactly what your City Engineer told us was going
to happen at the time we built our shopping center. Tonight I've been given a
copy of a letter dated October 14th, just shortly before your prior Council
voted to move TH 101. Up until that point, every single plan with Lake Drive
East showed it extending approximately perpendicular to TH 5. This letter is
from the Attorney of the Ward family. The Ward family doesn't like that. The
Ward family likes that road in some kind of configuration like that. Not only
that but the Ward family doesn't want it built. At least not now. This is the
first time I've ever come to a meeting and seen that we've got a Phase 2 to this
whole development plan. Your City Engineer at the time we built our shopping
center told us that at the time the first development between the existing
TH 101/CR 17 took place, Lake Drive East would be extended to Great Plains. The
existing TH 101 to CR 17. We come here last Thursday night after not having had
any input, not having had anybody ask us even. We didn't even know there was a
consideration being made to change what everything had been gone up to that
point in time. We come and we find a change to the road configuration. We find
out that it isn't even going to be built now because one land owner decides he'd
rather have that done some other point in time. I don't really care how you
build that road. There are pluses and minuses to both this configuration and
this configuration. ~y point is, you' re taking a roadway from me that by your
own consultant's report, indicate that in the future would carry 20,g00 cars and
reducing that to 6,000 cars. Then you're putting a major development in here
16
City Council M~eting - January 23~ 1989
and you're not even giving me a chance to get to those people. I'm extremely
miffed with the process. I'm trying to avoid going to court with you people.
I'm just appalled. I'm shocked. I don't know what I can do. I guess if I had
my druthers, I'd rather see you go back and leave TH 101 right where it was and
upgrade it in it's present position. As an alternative to that, if you can't do
that, please build Lake Drive East so the people to the south of me and the new
people coming to this town have got a chance to get to my shopping center.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Are there any other persons wishing to address the
Council on this intersection?
Bill Davis: I'm with Sinclair. I came out last Thursday night to review the
plan up there and I guess maybe I 'ye been sleeping during the other meetings we
had out here but I didn't realize the median was going to extend from TH 5 all
the way down to Lake Drive, therefore, restricting the access to the Sinclair
gas station from somebody going north. They were talking about going back on
Lake Drive towards the west and cutting a road in at the back of the gas station
so that people can get in there that are heading north because they're going to
run the median from TH 5 all the way down. So somebody is going north, wants to
stop at our station, would have to turn west on Lake Drive, go down 100 feet or
whatever, make a right, go into the station, get their gas, make a U turn, come
back all the way around again, down to Lake Drive, take a left, go up to the
stop sign, take a left and go up to TH 5. We find this a real, real
inconvenience. Or by the same token, if somebody is heading east on TH 5 and
says ha, there's the dinosaur, let's go get some gas. So they turn in. They
get into the station off of Dakota but they can not get back out on Dakota
unless running around the back of the gas station. Not knowing what studies
have been made on this, ~my boss and I would like to suggest that this median,
instead of going all the way down to Lake Drive, maybe half the way instead of
all the way down to give our station a chance to survive so the customers can
get in and get out. Also, consideration would have to be made somehow for the
tanker, the delivery truck. The inconvenience of getting in and getting out of
there. Not knowing exactly what kind of cuts they' re going to give us but these
do require a little bit more room than a car to get in and get out. If he would
have to come in the back way, make a U turn or whatever, it can be a real
inconvenience so I'd like to have you take this under advisement.
Mayor Chmiel: Gary, can you address at least this gentleman?
Pat Hallisey: I had one other question. The staff, the consultant brought
something in in their presentation tonight and that is that we would, rather
than having a right-in/right-out into our property under this plan, it would be
opened up into a two-way curb cut. I have no objection to that. I'm just
wondering if anybody knows how that's going to be paid for because when we built
our shopping center we were told, we originally asked for a two-way cut onto
that street so people could make lefts and rights in. We had to go to a lot of
extra expense in order to meet MnDot's standards because that was not allowed as
that was TH 101 and was going to be. We had originally engineered a right-in/
right-out after we were told we couldn't have a two-way curb cut. MnDot came
back with much more elaborate standards which cost us a whole lot more and if we
paid to put it in and now you people are going to take it out, I'm just
wondering if we're going to have to pay to take it out too.
Mayor Chmiel: Can we address those questions?
17
Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Gary Warren: I'll take the last one first. That aspect of the project, there
would be no special assessments considered. There's nothing proposed. The
dollars for that would be coming out of the tax incrament monies from the
project. It's correct. If we're going to modify something and it's at our
discretion, just like the rest of the median improvements out there, that would
be a project cost that would not be assessed to the property owner. I'd like,
if I could Mayor, to ask Howard to address the Sinclair station as far as the
length of the median and any options that might be there. We've taken a hard
look at all of these things as we've gone through and Howard can suranarize that
for you.
Howard Preston: The median at Dakota was originally proposed by MnDot on their
layout. I don't know what their reasons for doing that were exactly because I
don't know what went into the development of their layout. We've suggested that
the median is necessary on Dakota because looking at the forecast traffic
volumes for the entire area that were produced for the City by your other
traffic consultant, when we looked at those year 2005 volumes and looked at the
operation of the intersections, we looked at each and every one, and at this one
in particular, TH 5 and Dakota, the volumes of traffic that are expected to be
on that approach to TH 5 during peak hours are heavy enough so stacking back
from the intersection beyond the driveways to that gas station are expected. So
the median is a safety feature from the standpoint that if somebody would try to
make say a left turn out of the station to head back north on Dakota, there
would very likely during several hours of the day, be a line of standing
vehicles waiting for the signal at TH 5 to turn green. It's extremely dangerous
for another vehicle to try to pull out through that standing line of vehicles so
the primary reason was simply not to cut off the access to the Sinclair. It
wasn't something that wasn't thought about at all. It was the stacking or the
cueing analysis that was done during the design process for that intersection
indicated that the median would be a definite safety feature. So the idea is,
we're recommending this driveway out to Lake Drive so that somebody who was
trying to get back out onto Dakota, we would encourage them to come out to Lake
Drive first where it would be easier to get access because the traffic volumes
are much less on lake Drive than they would be out on Dakota. There would not
be the line of standing vehicles that those people would have to turn through
and then when they came out to Dakota, there would be, at Lake Drive, it would
be just a typical intersection kind of a situation and there wouldn't be people
turning in all different directions at these other driveways adjacent to them so
that was the rationale for the design of that median.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a quick question. As you indicate, there is problems as far
as the safety aspects are concerned by ren~oving a portion of that because of the
stacking coming in. Now I can understand this gentleman's concern of the
accessibility of in and out and making those swings around. Is there anyway
that that can be designed with maybe another driveway approach other than what
he has?
Howard Preston: I talked with him last week at our open house and the layout
indicates that we were going to close off one of the accesses to Dakota and when
he explained his situation with the trucks, I indicated I wouldn't have any
problem opening up that second access again so if the combination of the two
driveways onto Dakota and I still think the driveway, the new driveway down to
Lake Drive, that combination, we talked about it, it appeared to be acceptable
18
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
as far as getting the transports in and out yet there would still be some
circuity because they wouldn't be able to pull directly out onto Dakota as they
previously do to get back up to TH 5 but I guess I thought that was the best we
could do. To give them both driveways back onto Dakota that he has and then
construct this other driveway down to Lake Drive and give him something close to
the level of accessibility that he has now.
Mayor Chmiel: The total number of vehicles that you're indicating, that would
be the year 2000 and whatever.
Howard Preston: Year 2005, yes sir. It expects that there would be additional
traffic on all of the roads in the area due to development that is expected and
been documented in your Comprehensive Plans.
Don Ashworth: In regards to the first question, I am sure that there have been
businesses that would have liked greater information or maybe did not understand
a portion of it. For Council perspective, it may be well as a part of any
action that you take, to instruct staff to prepare a listing of all of the
meetings that occurred on this item, let's say in the last 4 to 5 months. Who
attended. The area of discussion. In other words, what subject occurred and a
listing of all of those businesses by date. We do have notes regarding all of
the meetings.
Councilman Boyt: May I ask the point of doing all that work?
Don Ashworth: Simply to insure that the Council is aware of, I think there was
a statement in the staff report that staff has met with businesses and again, I
do not question any individual business that they may feel they would have liked
to have greater amount of input but I think a lot of time has been put into
trying to get input into this process and the Council may wish to have that
information just in a surrmary form.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Council?
Councilman Workman: Where are we at with the apartment building on the north
side of Dakota?
Gary Warren: We're proposing one unit.
Councilman Workman: Are there any of those people here tonight? How have they
been notified? Where are they so far?
Gary Warren: We've notified them to the extreme of actually stuffing their
mailboxes because the owner, he gets a legal notice and then we've actually had
the CSO's carry individual notices to each of the apartment dwellers for both
the November 28th meetings and also the public hearing.
Councilman Workman: And there hasn't really been any response to that?
Gary Warren: Correct me if I'm wrong but they're kind of looking I think to
maybe selling off a building the way rentals are going these days.
Councilman Workman: Let me back up. Let me ask Roger where we are with the
TH 101, Great Plains Blvd. intersection.
19
'~'-~Gity Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Roger Knutson: As far as what?
Councilman Workman: As far as the Total. It's the Total right? We're talking
about the Total shopping center over there. I guess I'd need at least a legal
stm~nary as far as where we are.
Roger Knutson: Sure. We've advised the Council I think earlier on their legal
rights. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held on many occasions that it is not a
compensable loss if you take traffic away from an area or if you put medians in
or if you make one-way streets. That is simply not compensable. The only time
it is compensable is ~.f you take away access or you make access very circuitous
so it's impossible to get to them. But just because the amount of trafffic is
cut because medians are put in or because things are made one way or because no
parking signs are put up, that simply is not compensable in Minnesota right now.
The law is quite clear on that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Since we're talking about medians and Mr. Klingelhutz
isn't here to represent his concerns again, would this be the proper time for me
to address that?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you'd like to.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. A1 Klingelhutz has a business on Great Plains Blvd.
that's north of the railroad tracks. It's just south of the St. Hubert's
cemetery and east of the Dinner Theater exit there out of their parking lot.
And he has appeared before the Council many times in the past also expressing
his concern about the median that is proposed there. He looked at this on
Thursday I believe ~t was and then told me that he couldn't be here and asked if
I would address that again for him. Apparently he's not satisfied with what has
been done. Did you talk Al?
Mayor Chmiel: I haven't received any information.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, t guess I'd just like to remind the Council that I
was at the meeting here when he addressed the Council in December and they
assured him at that time that a median would be removed. Is that your
recollection of that? That we would not cut off his access from the north.
Councilman Johnson: I think we looked at it. I don't remember any guarantee
personally.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, but Mr. Hamilton did say that and he said I'm sure that
none of the members of this Council want to cut off your access. I remember hJ.m
saying that.
CounciLman Johnson: A statement like that I'm sure Tom probably made that none
of us want to cut off his access. I do not want to cut off his access.
Criteria for the traffic in the area may force us to though even though I do not
want to.
Gary Warren: That was at the December 12th meeting and Mr. Klingelhutz was at
our Thursday meeting and we talked at some length with him about that issue.
Just to clarify, the median that is being addressed shows up on, I think it's
20
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
our second attachment, Figure 2 here but it is not really a part of %his
intersection because that median is the same as what was approved in the
original construction plans for the downtown. It hasn't been constructed at
this time just simply because the railroad hasn't constructed their crossing.
So if there is a change to that median, it really is a change that should be
founded in the plans and specifications for the downtown improvement project.
The reason why that median is in there, Councilmember Johnson touched on it, is
the channelization of traffic as it comes from the downtown is controlled by the
medians ar~ the continuity is important. As you can see from this plan here as
we go from TH 5 up into the downtown which, you don't see the rest of it here
but we do have our medians that everybody is familiar with throughout town. To
have a gap in the medians here would I think be very confusing to the motorists
and could result in some real problems. Mr. Klingelhutz has access, southbound
access to the property via the city's parking lot so in our evaluation we
concluded that he did have southbound access and a good access when you look at
it because the majority of people coming to that property are parking in the
parking lot and not necessarily using his driveway in. Mr. Klingelhutz also
eluded that at some future date he expected a higher use to be on that property.
A new building of some sorts which I think when you look at the layout of the
downtown and that intersection across from the Bloomberg entrance, that's really
where the City should be looking to channelize and control the movements for
access and get them into our parking area. So his driveway, the 16 foot
driveway that is there right now and also the 16 foot opening that comes into
the parking area, I really believe has been our best interest and we'll try to
give h~m the access that he needs for that property and strikes the best
compromise between channelizing traffic in the downtown.
Mayor Chmiel: Any additional discussion from Council?
Councilman Johnson: I do. This is not the first time that this change to Lake
Drive East has been discussed. It's been discussed several times in conjunction
with the Rosemount project and discussion with the Lake Drive East public
improvement project and I don't think that we can force the Ward family to
configure the street through their property. We can't even force them to
develop at any time that we want. With this plan, I'm not sure that we would be
just about putting a road through their house. I'm not exactly sure where their
house is on this but I don't see that this should be a shock to somebody just
seeing it Thursday night because it was last year that this new configuration
was decided upon. It was not something real recent. The change puts the end of
Lake Drive East at one of the main entrances to Rosemount so there will be, for
this large development with a lot of employees, there will be good access to the
eastbound version of Lake Drive East because the main entrance is there. Also,
it would be a better intersection probably for some people coming the other way.
Even beyond being an amateur attorney at times, I don't think that anybody, lots
of threats of legal action and everything, I don't think we can be sued until
there actually is damages. If everybody could sue somebody because they think
they're going to have damages in the future, that their business is going to be
decreased in the future by some action taken in the future, we'd really have a
lot more lawyers around. We've got enough of thsm already.
Mayor Chmiel: No offense Roger.
21
~ity Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Councilman Johnson: As far as, did anybody address did it pay to take out? I
would think this is a public improvement project so the changes to that driveway
to make it a full turn, right-in and right-out and left-in and all that other
good stuff, would be a public improvement cost.
Gary Warren: I addressed that first on that that would be a cost of the
project. Not assessed to the property owner.
Councilman Johnson: In our approval of this, if we approve this tonight, I
would like to see us mention, if it's not mentioned in the recommended approval,
I have to review it again, because the drawings don't show two accesses to
Sinclair, I think that needs to be a condition of our approval that MnDot
consider having two accesses into Sinclair off of Dakota Avenue. The drawings
only show one. Our consultant says that he doesn't have a problem with two but
that doesn't mean MnDot doesn't have a problem with two. As far as Sinclair
goes ard their access, I look at SuperAmerica over there at TH 4 and TH 5, they
have pretty poor access. If you' re eastbound on TH 5, you can get in there but
to get in there if you're westbound, you've got to go over. That's a horrible
intersection. It's tough to get out and they're having a lot of business. That
place is always busy. t think this access as proposed...
Bill Davis: You've got to run around the back of the station and make a U turn
to get back out again.
Councilman Johnson: They most certainly do and it hasn't affected the~m.
They're always busy. You'll see 5, 6, 7, 8 cars in there. You can talk to the
neighbors up there. They'll tell you how busy they are and how much noise they
have.
Tim Erhart: I'm Tim Erhart. I live in south Chanhassen and number one,
regarding the issue of medians. One is that I think they're a nuisance for
people who have to get in and out and use the local retail businesses, which
I do. Secondly, in some degree there are safety hazards in that I find myself,
and I'm sure other people do it, is that people end up taking U turns to get to
a business because they can't get directly across to it because of the median.
Third, the businesses that are in the downtown area have to live on the business
that's in the city today. Not on the business that's in the year 2205 and I
think, you had mentioned that the traffic study was based on the year 2005?
Yes, that's 16 years from now. What I would suggest is that, look at the
possibility of putting the medians on the plans in some of these areas as a
future construction so as we're doing our downtown planning at this time, that
we incorporate the space for them but to review whether we need to put them in
now or perhaps hold them back until such time as we actually see the need for
stacking, which is the premise that the medians are based on anyway. If the
space is provided, certaJ_nly we've seen them in and I might be wrong, that a
median could be put in at that time and save myself and a lot of people the
hassle of doing U turns and not being able to get to business and more
importantly, to try to protect the businesses that we have in our downtown area
until such time as there's enough people that they can get into the business on
right turns only. Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: To sort of build on that issue. I've heard a lot of talk
about liability and whether or not the City has a liability but clearly there's
going to be a reduction in traffic if these changes go in as mentioned. And a
22
CJ. ty Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
reduction in traffic is bound to translate into loss in business but %he issue
isn't, is the City liable because the City may very well not be liable. The
issue is, just as I see it, just as Mr. Erhart mentioned, it's kind of an
obligation if you will. Maybe it's not a legal liability but it's an obligation
to do what we can to protect businesses in Chanhassen and that hasn't always
been easy given the changes that are going on in the city but it's why it's so
important for the City to communicate with businesses until they can't get away
from us. Not have the businesses chasing the City to see if they can get a hold
of us but having them try to get away from us because we're so aggressively
going after them to get their opinion and I don't think we've pushed it that
far. We're not going to change the TH 101 relocation. In my foggiest
imagination I can't see opening that issue back up but I think we certainly do
have to do our darnest to mitigate concerns that the business people have. I
like the recon~nendation that we not put, if it's possible for us to get MnDot to
accept not extending that curb more than half way down until traffic volume
justifies it, I think that would be a nice move for the Sinclair station. I
think the problem with TH 101 and Mr. Hallisey's development is going to be a
long t~me in coming, I believe. I don't think we're going to shut off that
roadway that's now TH 101 for quite a ~nile, if ever but we should certainly be
working with h~m and his development and the Legion on how to maintain traffic
which is the name of the game for their businesses so I would like to send this
back to the engineer with a request to change the median strip by the Sinclair
station and the directive to the City staff to work more closely with Mr.
Hallisey in the future.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that a motion Bill?
Councilman Boyt: I will so move.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that and may I add to it?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would like to also go on record as representing
the concerns of the citizens and I have had people ask me, when are we going to
get rid of the medians downtown rather than when are we going to add more. So I
would say with that, if we could also eliminate the median by Mr. Klingelhutz'
property and maybe even look at eliminating all the medians since they are such
a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second to the motions that's been made? It has been
moved and seconded has it not?
Councilman Boyt: The first motion.
Mayor Chmiel: For the first motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: At least the amendment to remove the median byMr.
Klingelhutz' property if not all of them.
Mayor Chmiel: To have engineering review those problems and indicate that
possibly at a later t~me those medians could be put in rather than at this
particular time in discussions with MnDot. I see some puzzled looks.
23
.~ ~-City council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Are you rephrasing her motion or making a different one
now?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I'm just indicating with what I'm seeing here on the faces.
Gary Warren: I'm just confused I guess. Maybe we need to take it more in
pieces here to clarify. Bill has a motion.
Mayor Chmiet: Bill's motion basically, Bill would you like to restate your
motion one more time?
Councilman Boyt: Okay. My motion has two parts. The first one, the gentleman
from the Sinclair station, Bill Davis, said that they could live with the median
extending ~halfway. The traffic study said the full median is needed by 2005. I
would make a motion that our engineer be directed or our consultants be directed
to move in that direction of reducing the median to half the distance with the
con~nitment to extending it fully as the traffic demands it. Then the second
part w-as a recommendation to City staff formally that they work with Mr.
Hallisey and other businesses more closely to be sure they're included in the
further development of these plans because we're not done even with our action
tonight.
CounciLman Johnson: Bill, would you like to also consider allowing two accesses
into the Sinclair as the consultant said that would be possible?
Councilman Boyt: Surely.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. So your motion is to approve these plans with the
conditions...
CounciLman Boyt: The conditions as stated plus that we move in the direction of
reducing that median strip and working closer with Mr. Hallisey.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, would you also like to include in that motion covering Mr.
Klingelhutz' area as well?
Councilwoman Dimler: Or I can do that if you like.
Councilman Boyt: To discuss that further. We discussed that issue in great
detail at some point. I don't mean we by the 5 of us but the issue has been
gone through and I know there was a struggle to get that out once before and it
didn't work. So from my part, I don't want that to be part of my motion. That
doesn't mean s~meone else can't make it.
Councilman Johnson: I believe that particular median, with the railroad
crossing there, is a very dangerous spot and removal of that, at that railroad
crossing may not be a wise idea. It may also delay everything out there because
the railroad is depending upon that median to be there for the size of their,
they're going to have to redesign. We're talking maintaining, without those
medians being put in there, maintaining that railroad the way it is because now
they're going to have an excuse to redesign. They've already delayed us a year
and a half or something on putting up the new signals there. Now, if we change
those medians, they're going to have to redesign their signals so we're talking,
knowing the railroad, another year and a half or if they can delay it longer,
24
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
I'm sure they will, to put even larger crossing stops in %here. That's why I'm
against making that change.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is there someway that w~ could give him access from the
north that doesn't have to go through the parking lot that's behind Pauly's?
Councilman Johnson: That's where most the people go anyways.
Councilwoman Dimler: With not jeopardizing their safety.
Councilman Johnson: I believe that parking lot was designed to service his
building, not just Pauly's, Pry~us and whatever building up there. It is
designed with spots towards his building and his customers are using that lot
versus his little lot out back as his primary lot. I think they're just asking
for...
Councilwoman Dimler: He's unhappy with the situation and therefore I think we
should take his concerns into consideration.
Councilman Johnson: They've been taken into consideration several times in this
project. Like I said, this was approved with the downtown redevelopment 2 years
ago and has gone through public hearings and a lot of consideration. This shows
it as part of this project but it's not actually part of this project and
probably shouldn't even have been involved in this project. They extended the
distance on their drawings further than they should have.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know it was approved Jay but that doesn't necessarily
mean it was right. I think that you've heard from the public that they don't
like the medians whatsoever downtown and to go and keep perpetuating a mistake,
to me is just ridiculous.
Councilman Johnson: To do it 90% one way and 10% another way is dangerous. Bad
engineering practice.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me pose a question.
Councilman Boyt: On which one?
Councilwoman Dimler: We should do Bill's motion first.
Councilman Johnson: Well, yours is an amendment to his.
Councilman Boyt: It can stand alone.
Resolution #89-09: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the interchanges for Dakota AVenue, Great Plains Boulevard and Market
Boulevard with Trunk Highway 5 for submittal to MnDot for inclusion in their
Trunk Highway 5 improvement plans with the reduction to the median strip by the
Sinclair station and including two accesses and the directive to the City staff
to work more closely with Mr. Hallisey and other businesses in the future. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
25
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: We'll bring it back to you Ursula in regard to the concern that
you've indicated that Mr. Klingelhutz' as his concerns regarding his
accessibility into that particular site. I guess I look at that too, the way
it's been designed for the accessibility of going in. Coming from the south
it's pretty difficult. Let me just throw something out in just discussion. Is
the accessibility problem for Mr. Klingelhutz or is it the availability to know
where his business is at and would signage help that?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'm not in a position to answer that. He didn't
indicate to me the real reason why he was so opposed to it.
Councilman Johnson: We've got quite a few agenda items left and a motion on
this one would actually be a reconsideration of past Council action which would
then involve us considering this particular median in the future versus tonight
because it's not really on this Council's... I'm not sure if MnDot has to have
this north of the railroad tracks. That's not the purpose of this project and
it's part of the downtown redeveloument project so I would believe that what .you
would like to do is reconsider or make a motion or under Council presentations
or s~nething that we look at in the future and staff advises and we get a full
staff report and everything on what it would be like if we removed all and
what the cost implications are if we removed all the medians and this particular
median versus debating that tonight.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is the construction to be at the same time the rest of
this will be done?
Gary Warren: We're waiting strictly on the railroad. There was a letter of
mine in the adminstrative packet which sun~narized the latest jab, so to speak,
to get sc~ne action out of them. They're saying that their signal group is
planning on having the plans done so that construction would happen the second
quarter of this year. This has been a 2 1/2 year process of hearing things like
that so we will not do anything on that median until the railroad has expanded
the signals and completed their crossing work.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a date indicated by the railroad as to when that would
be done? Nothing at all?
Gary Warren: The only work we have is verbal and that's why I tried to document
it with our follow up letter and that was the second quarter of this year.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you telling me then that if we approve this tonight,
as amended, that we can still go ahead? That doesn't mean we've approved that
section for Mr. Klingelhutz? That we can still go back to that?
Gary Warren: That section has already been approved by the construction plans
and is not a part of this.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then why is it on here?
Gary Warren: For information purposes. The map just showed continuity with
existing plans.
Councilman Johnson: So in essence what you're saying is, the second quarter
this year, this median may be built and it's not dependant upon, the TH 5
26
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
intersection may be 1990 before it's built?
Gary Warren: We have a wear coarse, as most of us are aware, that has to go
down and finish things up on that section down there.
Councilman Johnson: The money's been approved. The construction plans have
been approved. It's ready to go.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then with that information I would move that,
I don't know the timeline. Our next meeting?
Mayor Chmiel: Whichever. Say February 13th.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, by the February 13th meeting, that we reconsider
Mr. Klingelhutz' situation with the median regarding access to his business.
Councilman Workman: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you understand the motion Gary?
Gary Warren: Yes I do. Time is going to be a problem, bringing agenda items
back immediately with our losing one day.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, move it to the next one?
Councilwoman Dimler: Sure, February 27th then.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reconsider
Mr. Klingelhutz' situation with the median regarding access to his business by
the February 27th City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS AND A CARWASH,
NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND TH 101, AMOCO OIL COMPANY.
Steve Hanson: You may recall that this item had been tabled towards the end of
the year and subsequently a moratorium was put into effect concerning
convenience stores. The applicants have requested that this item be brought
back up before Council for your consideration. I won't go through the whole
staff report. It was prepared for the end of the year but at that time, staff
had recc~ended approval of the site plan as sukmitted with several conditions
which are detailed in your memorandum. Staff is still recommending approval of
that recon~nendation that was made previously.
Mayor Chmiel: Is someone from Amoco going to make a presentation to the
Council?
Jim Fillipi: Thank you Mr. Mayor. My name is Jim Fillipi with North Star
Engineering Consultants and I'm representing Amoco Oil Company with the
application. The application which you have before you which we are presenting,
is one for the raising and rebuilding of the existing Amoco facility at the
corner of TH 5 and TH 101 northeast at the top of the map. It would involve in
27
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
the process removal of all the underground tanks and piping systems to cleaning
of the site and replacing it with a facility which would have 4 gas pumps on
either side of the small store covered by the canopy with a single stall roll
over drive thru car wash located along the north side of the property south of
the sanitary sewer that runs through there. Underground storage tanks would be
located here with two driveway accesses. The southerly one being an existing
access. The northerly one being the reconstructed access. Everything which is
in white here is shovzn as a future and it's been dropped from the plan and would
be included as landscaping in the proposal that you have before you and would
result in roughly, landscaping percentage of 57% over the entire site. We have
adequate distance both in the front and along TH 5 and have been in contact with
MnDot regarding any future plans which they may have. We have met several times
over the past several months with staff to work out the issues regarding this
site. Both in terms of driveway access and you will find a letter in your
packet consistent with staff recopanendation number 3 in which the letter has
been provided that should the median which goes in along TH lgl have the single
median cut here, these two driveways would be eliminated and the single driveway
just opposite the median cut opposite of 79th would be installed at Amoco's
expense by itself. We've also provided on the site plan in the location right
here, at the City's request, a waste oil facility as a public service to the
residents of the city. We would like to con~nent that this is being provided as
a service. It is for waste oil only. We would like to have the cooperation of
the residents of say gasoline, flanmables and paints don't get put in there.
Also, that as the oil is disposed of, that it be kept clean and neat around
there because we can't get into an environmental problem situation. We'd like
to maintain that as long as it is not a problem from that standpoint. This is a
waste oil depository. Other than that, I don't believe I've got anything else
to present unless there are any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
Randy Th~npson: My n~ne is Randy Thompson. I'm an attorney and I represent the
current operater of the Amoco Service Station, Gary Brown. Gary Brown has
operated that location for 18 years. He has 2g employees including 5 mechanics.
I have not had the opportunity to review the staff report that was prepared for
you and I apologize for that but my understanding is that a moratorium was
planced on the elimination of service bays back in December and we would ask
that the City Council continue that moratorium. There are presently, by my
understanding, 3 full service facilities in Chanhassen and one is already under,
has plans for elimination by spring. If Mr. Brown's facility is converted to
this convenience store, there will be only one full service gasoline facility in
the city of Chanhassen. I believe that, I think it likely at least, that there
is some information in the staff report indicating that the moratorium may be
defective in terms of it's Constitutionality but I wish to inform the Council
that I sent last week to the City Attorney, Roger Knutson, several cases
outlining decisions by State and Federal Courts upholding moratoriums of the
sort that are under consideration here because they're based upon reasons of
public health, safety and general welfare. For example, there was a recent
decision just in 1988 by the Village of Hoffman Estates. It happens to be in
Illinois, against Amoco Oil Company upholding a moratorium for there being the
elimination of service bays and they cited such matters as the fact of property
maintenance of motor vehicles is essential to the conservation of gasoline and
the control of pollution. That the residents of the Village rely upon
automobile service stations for the maintenance and care of their vehicles.
That full service operaters have faithfully for many years served the residents
of the Village and established good will with their clientele. That the Village
28
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
has high density use roads within it that generate heavy traffic requiring
services, full service stations. That these full service stations are one of
the only sources of road service and towing service for motor vehicles and
that's particularly pertinent in Minnesota, although the winter is somewhat
moderate at the present time. When cold weather strikes, getting your car
started is an important public service. Conversion of existing full service
stations, the self service will result in the loss of jobs. And they have
several other reasons listed. Another one that's very important is, that full
service stations meet the specific needs of the elderly and the handicapped. I
don't know how many of you are aware of it but there is a specific statute in
Minnesota that says if you're handicapped, you can pull up to a full service
station at the full service pumps, have it pumped in at self service prices.
This type of facility is not going to offer any of those things to the elderly
or the handicapped in the City of Chanhassen. There's another public safety
issue. I guess Jay Leno, the comedian has referred to these all night
convenience stores as one stop robbery shops and that masks a difficult truth
which is a reality that employees of these 24 hour convenience store, gas
stations have the fourth highest murder rate following policemen, taxi drivers
and security guards. There is a health and safety risk involved. We would
propose that the issue of the moratorium, if it's Constitutionality is of
question to the City Council member, be sent back to the City Attorney for
further study. I would suggest that Amoco and any other interested parties be
offered the opportunity to submit position papers to the City Attorney for his
consideration on the issue so that you can have an opinion based upon all of the
available cases. We would also request that there be public hearings on the
health, safety and welfare issues that affect the community by the elimination
of this facility. Finally, we would propose to the City Council that the
elimination of the service facility at this location is really unnecessary.
Amoco owns a piece of property and I think they pointed to it as landscaping,
that Mr. Brown has offered to buy from them and build a service facility to
operate in connection with the convenience store making in effect a super
service station. This isn't some wild proposal. Amoco has done it with other
operaters in other co~nunities here in the Twin Cities market so there are
alternatives to preserving automobile service and upgrading the facility if
Amoco wants to make that sort of investment. For that reason, we would ask the
Council to table the proposal at this time. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any discussion from Council or any questions that they
may have?
Councilman Boyt: If I could make a coherent. The moratorium was not stopping
gas stations from building without service bays. It was aimed at convenience
stores.
Randy Thompson: I think my co~ents would apply to that too.
Councilman Boyt: Well I think what you're saying is that it would be possible,
in your opinion, to pass a moratorium on service stations without service bays
or gas stations without service bays. My point Mr. Thompson is that that was
not the moratorium we passed. That's my only co~nent at this time.
Councilman Johnson: If we're at Council discussion on.~this one, then there is a
little history. Two actions taken. The first action was we tabled this and
then later that evening we passed a moratorium on convenience stores. It was
29
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
not one action. The moratorium was under a Council presentation presented by me
that wasn't a moratorium as I started but it ended up that way. There was
discussion of convenience stores and it ended up as a moratorium of convenience
stores. Whether this is a convenience store is another matter. Our ordinance
does not define convenience store as I can find anywhere so it is now up to us
to decide is Amoco a convenience store and what is a convenience store? What
should a convenience store be? Should a convenience store be someplace that
sells soup and crackers and all the convenient household items that attract
people to come from their home, run out to the convenience store versus going to
a supermarket? Or is a convenience store anyplace that sells convenient items?
That would mean that Gary Brown's is a convenience store because he sells gum
and a few other things in there. This particular proposal, which I think Amoco
is already latched unto and I was surprised it wasn't in their presentation, is
that their shop is not really a convenience store at all. What they have is a
small sales area, larger than what Gary does but a small sales area that's for
the traveler. It is not designed, Holiday sells a lot of milk and a lot of
other things. Fishing tackle and a lot of other things to attract you into
their store as a convenience store. They've got video tape rentals. That's a
convenience store. What I've seen at other Amoco sites like th].s, the one up by
Hwy 10 and 35W, up in New Brighton, it's candy and cookies and crackers. It's
the type of stuff a construction worker might stop in and grab as he's filling
up his cars. Impulse buying type stuff. Therefore, I think this Council needs
to decide what is the definition of a convenience store and whether this site
meets that definition. One of the reasons I voted for the tabling last time was
I believe this Council will give Amoco a fair hearing and I didn't particularly,
I thought it should be delayed until this year so we could hear this. Those are
two. Now I'd like to ask a question. You're talking about raising and
replacing it and completely cleaning the site. Replacing the tanks and
completely cleaning the site. What type of timeframe are you looking at to do
this work and how does that interface with your tardiness with the MPCA on the
site clean-up plans you were asked for in December of 1987 and have not yet, by
December of 1988 provided?
Jim Fillipi: I'm not aware of the specific clean-up plans you're asking for.
We don't believe, I've been informed by Amoco, that we are tardy on that. The
total timeframe here is approximately 65 to 90 days from the start of
construction to completely remove all underground tanks and piping and rebuild
the site and have it back in operation.
Councilman Johnson: Has Amoco told you ~nat MPCA wants to be done out there and
what they are going to require you, the type of consultants that are going to
have to be on site? The type of testing that's going to have to be done when
you remove those tanks?
Jim Fillipi: We've been through that a number of times in the past on various
sites. That type of monitoring and control and testing. Removal and testing on
site. There will be samples taken and we won't proceed until any problem is
completely taken out.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, did you meet your January 15th deadline?
Jim Fillipi: I'm not aware of a January 15th deadline.
30
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: It was in the letter you presented in December. It had a
January 15th deadline for providing the name of your consultants who's going to
develop your plans for a mediation at this site. It also wanted a wreckage
review that was asked for on December 4th of 1987 and at that time you were
given until January 27th of 1988 to provide that information. As of January
15th, well, actually it's the 13th, Mr. Byrose was informing me that you were
asking for an extension.
Jim Fillipi: My information is that an extension has been approved.
Councilman Johnson: He did approve the extension? Okay. One condition, that
when we do vote on this, that I would like to add is a 14th condition. I'm not
making the motion right now but when we get to that point in our discussion,
that all construction on the site is premised on staying in compliance with MPCA
schedules. That is you get behind the MPCA schedule, if they've approved
February 15th for this information and it's February 16th and no information is
there, there's no construction. This goes to a halt. And if they say you have
monitoring wells in by June 1st and there's no monitoring wells in by June 1st,
there's no construction. It just halts.
Jim Fillipi: We don't care. There's no problem with that.
Councilman Johnson: When I talked to MPCA, some of them were a little more
candid than they should have been on where they're going here. Amoco has a lot
of sites across the State they're working on and this is one that got obviously
lost in the cluster. This December 4th letter I keep referring to actually had,
from what they tell me, 15 to 20 sites on it that they were asking for
information on. Unfortunately at that time they weren't again informing the
cities involved in these 15 to 20 sites, what they were doing. At this point,
they are now informing the city. Gary Warren is being copied on all the
correspondence so we will be keeping a close eye on what's going on here. Up
until recently, we did not realize that MPCA was even concerned at this site and
they had been asking for information. Those are my main questions. I guess the
main thing is for us to decide, is this a convenience store or not?
Councilman Boyt: I have a couple points. One of them. I appauld your
agreement to have an oil recycling collection point. That's marvelous. My
problem that I don't think has been addressed is what's going to happen to the
gasoline that spills when we fill our cars with gasoline?
Jim Fillipi: That is normally an extremely small amount and it is generally
evaporated prior to it's running. The gasoline fueling area is covered by the
canopy w~.th the long concrete so it's not going to involve deteriorating...
Councilman Boyt: Okay, I'm glad it's falling on concrete but, that may even be
required, but I'm interested in that it doesn't all evaporate. This isn't a
problem unique to you but it is a problem that the City sort of ignores in that
the gasoline that doesn't evaporate, waits around for a rain and then it goes
into our lakes. It goes through a holding pond system. Maybe it settles into
the bottom of the holding pond but it's a problem that we just generally ignore
and where it may only be a cupful from one car, it adds up and I don't think
anybody addresses it.
31
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Jim Fillipi: There is also, part of this plan and we are bringing in trunk
sewer based on city comments, from a point here to the City's storm sewer system
along State Highway 101. The particular manholes and drainage on this
particular site runs approximately through the canopy at this point, turning to
the back and to the front. It is collected and taken via a catch basin to the
storm sewer system. A typical practice from the Watershed Districts for those
catch basins is that you provide a 3 foot sump below the...of the outside pipe
and that acts as a sediment trap and then additionally, the pipe outlet pipe has
a T with a cover on it which also skims disposable material prior to and
provides a primary water quality treatment prior to that entering the storm
sewer system and that is incorporated on the storm sewer plans so that will be
contained.
Councilman Boyt: It's nice to hear that you've got sort of a state of the art
system. A concern that was brought up by the Planning Con~ni ss ion was outside
display of merchandise. How was that resolved by them? I think they just
passed that onto us as I recall their Minutes.
Mayor Chmiel: I think there was one by Mr. fl~mings that had that specific
question addressed.
Councilman Boyt: What are your plans for outside storage of items to be sold?
Jim Fillipi: If there's any outside storage, it would be confined to the area
of the sidewalk underneath the canopy directly in front of the building. There
are two handicap ramps on the back of the building so that puts the sidewalk up
to the door must be clear at all times so there may be a few displays on the
catwalk here but none of the backside of that and nothing on the sides or around
the perimeter of the site.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, and the permit process for the BH district says outside
display of merchandise for sale is a conditional use. Is there an application
for a conditional use permit here?
Jim Fillipi: No there's not and we would hold that off.
Councilman Boyt: So then I assume that you're not going to store anything
outside on display?
Jim Fitlipi: Correct.
Councilman Boyt: Then I think we should add a condition along the lines of what
Jay was talking about indicating that quite clearly we are not giving approval
for anything that would be conceived as a convenience store. We haven't exactly
defined that, as Mr. Johnson pointed out but I think we all know what the gist
of it is.
Jim Fillipi: We do believe we are a motor fuel station. That's our primary
product.
Councilman Boyt: Those were my concerns.
Councilman Workman: I was a little confused as far as, we've got two basic
issues here. We've got a moratorium and we've got approval of a site plan. It
32
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
appears to me as though the moratorium either has to be left in place or removed
before we can really make a decision on the site plan. We're talking about
approval of this whole site but we have a moratorium on some potentially...
Councilman Johnson: But is this a convenience store? The moratorium is not on
gas stations. It's on convenience stores and this Council now has to, before we
can decide the point of the moratorium, that's the first issue. Is this a
convenience store? I'm ready to say they're not a convenience store personally.
Councilman Workman: We could sit here all night and try and decide that.
Obviously, I don't think we're going to decide that. I don't know what I have
to draw from to decide whether it's a convenience store or not. What can I draw
from? What does Webster's Dictionary say? I don't know. I would just as soon
see somebody that's been decided by the Court...
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to hear from our City Planner on what generally
the planning group, what did you get taught in college? I don't know, did you
take convenience store 1017
Steve Hanson: They didn't have convenience stores when I went to college.
That's something I think a lot of municipalities have looked at at various
stages. I've done some research on trying to get a handle on how people have
done that. The area that I've found that's done the most on it and I haven't
gotten a copy of their ordinance yet, is Los Angeles apparently recently went
through a long ordeal on doing that and I got that information from the St. Paul
planning office because they were looking at the issue at one point in time and
then dropped it and didn't go ahead with it. The thing that is difficult is
trying to define that use based on what someone is selling inside the business.
You're opening up a Pandora's box in trying to define it that way. One way is
looking at the size of the area that's devoted to that retail sales, if you
will. If you were to look at that and what they're proposing here, they have
approximately 1,000 square feet in that building. If you look at the
SuperAmerica station that the City has that's being constructed now, they've got
roughly 3,500 square feet and I think there is a difference from that standpoint
on looking at convenience. I think clearly the SuperAmerica store is closer to
a 7 11, that type of an outlet that's doing that and then also selling gas. I
think on this particular application, maybe the one thing that is a little
disturbing when you say that it's not a convenience, is some of the signage
which calls it a Food Store. So you can look at it a lot of different ways on
show somebody advertises it. What they stock in the store. I don't think
there's a clear, concise answer where I could say that this particular outlet is
a convenience store or it's a grocery store or it's a gas station. It's just
there's nothing that I've seen that's a clear cut definition and clearly nothing
in our ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: Tom, I would argue that all we have to do is just simply
indicate in the conditions that a convenience store operation is not allowed.
If they want to come back and apply for that once we get our moratorium off, I
think like any other business, they're welcome to do that.
Councilman Johnson: I think further, if that goes as we say, build your gas
station, don't sell convenience items, I think we're under the responsibility to
define a convenience store in a reasonable manner and that would be a question
put to our Planning Con~nission. Say define convenience stores and bring it back
33
~. ~C~!-ty Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
to us and see what comes out as convenience stores.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to move approval of this item so that we move
along with the recommendations stated by staff. Striking item number 5. Since
there is no convenience store, we can't have an item related to a convenience
store and adding item 14 for clarity that there shall be no outside display or
storage of merchandise for sale. Striking 5 and adding 14 that there will be no
outside display or storage of merchandise for sale.
Councilman Workman: Didn't you have 14 already?
Councilman Boyt: Did you have 14 already Jay?
Councilman Johnson: Except it's your motion. I was looking to have a no
construction as long as you're in non-compliance with the MPCA schedules or any
permits issued by the MPCA.
Councilman Boyt: You're saying they have to have all necessary permits?
Councilman Johnson: They have to provide a remediation schedule for
investigation of the possible soil contamination at that site. If they are out
of compliance with that schedule, they have to stop whatever activities they're
doing. If they're under construction and the MPCA says you have to put in
ground water monitoring wells and they don't do it, then the City will say,
you're out of compliance with your site plan review, you stop construction.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe if we had item number 14 saying that the applicant will...
removal of tanks, have such reviewed by the Fire Marshall, inspection by MPCA of
any fuel spills causing contamination of soils.
Councilman Johnson: But the MPCA is asking for a lot more. They haven't been
given it after over a year of asking for it. They haven't been given it. I'm
trying to help the MPCA get it because right now, this is what Amoco wants.
We've got the candy that Amoco wants and we control that candy where MPCA
doesn ' t.
Councilman Boyt: You're simply saying, in compliance with the MPCA right?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I'll accept both of those points. Review by the Fire Marshall
and related city staff and in compliance with the MPCA. So we now have 16
points? No outside display. Compliance with the MPCA. Review by Fire Marshall
and related staff and it's probably adjusted back one because we struck 5. That
would be my motion.
Councilman Johnson: Bill? I'd like to say, instead of striking 5, just get rid
of the word convenience stores and say, only two wall signs shall be permitted.
Whether it's a convenience store or not, our sign ordinance only allows two wall
signs. I'll second his motion by the way.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess one of the things that I have a concern of, I wrote a
letter to Amoco Corporation, Mr. Richard Morrow who is the Chief Executive
Officer for Amoco. The letter was written on January 5th of this month and this
34
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
year and I have yet not received a response to that letter. In the letter we're
asking that, because of some of the concerns that we had with the automotive
service provided and needs within the City for the public health and safety of
the community, we feel that having this kind of a facility is indeed a direct
benefit to the con~nunity. Whether it be Mr. Brown or whoever, it's not the
concern of ours. Our main concern is the service availability that we can have
for this particular station. And none of these specifics yet have been
addressed by your company. Because of that, I feel too that some response
should be gotten before we proceed any further, even with this proposal.
Amoco Representative: If I might sir, I believe the letter was responded to
dated Friday of last week. My office provided your City Manager with sufficient
copies for the Council in response to your letter.
Mayor Chmiel: The only letter that we had received, or at least that I have
here, is one that was dated January 20th by Mr. G.L. Clark, District Manager.
Amoco Representative: That's the letter.
Mayor Chmiel: I was hoping I would get my response directly from your Officer
of your company rather than your District Manager. I think it would be very
apropos for your company to address the issues from your Chief Executive Officer
rather than coming in as it did.
Amoco Representative: If I might just take a couple minutes of your time.
Mr. Morrow is the Chairman of the Board of Amoco Corporation. Mr. Clark is the
Chief Executive Officer, if you will, and District Manager for the 5 state
marketing area... Mr. Morrow delegated the responsibility of responding to Mr.
Clark.
Mayor Chmiel: Also, the letter we had written to Mr. Larry Thomas, President of
the Company.
Amoco Representative: Same thing. Delegated down.
Councilman Johnson: I think we ought to thank the two, Mr. Morrow and what was
the other?
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Thomas.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Thomas for delegating his response down to Mr. Clark
and thank him for providing us no additional information.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion before us and it's been seconded.
Councilman Workman: Can I discuss just one more thing? I guess I'm not exactly
sure again, where we're at. I guess where is our moratorium at? It stands?
Councilman Johnson: We're saying no convenience store at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Our moratorium is against no convenience stores.
Randy Thompson: Our fin~ does a fair amount of work in this business and this
thing is going to be called an Amoco Food Shop. It's what is considered a C
35
....... dity Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
store, convenience store in the industry. I don't think you can approve this
type of facility and claim that it's not a convenience. In fact it is a
convenience store and I think the issue has to be addressed squarely. It may
differ in size from other convenience stores but it's clearly what the industry
considers a convenience store and that's what it's name suggests. Amoco Food
Shop.
Councilman Johnson: Food Shop? I just don't see how Food Shop is a convenience
store. I think that maybe we should, condition 17 would be, more specifically
say, it shall not be a convenience store. Basically, or was that your 147
Councilman Boyt: I think that's 14. That's one of them.
CounciLman Johnson: So it specifically says it can't be a convenience store and
we shall define what a convenience store is prior to thegn actually occupying
this site.
Councilman Boyt: I guess we don't have that. We have outside storage. There's
no condition about it.
Mayor Chmiel: No, that's not been made.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question at this point. Does that mean they
can't sell food or drink or any kind?
Councilman Boyt: I don't think so.
Councilman Job_nson: It depends upon how we define convenience store. It's
going to take them several months to build this. In that interim time, we're
going to be trying to define convenience store. I'm sure they're going to be
here helping us define convenience store and other people are going to be trying
to help us define convenience store. We get a lot of help on these types of
issues.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess at this POint I'd just like to make a comment that
we do a lot of traveling and we always stop at the Amoco and we really
appreciate, especially when you're traveling at night, that you can get gas and
stop and get some pop and potato chips or whatever it is that you want. It is
really convenient.
Councilman Johnson: If it wasn't convenient, they wouldn't be in business.
That doesn't make it a convenience store.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Thompson, you seem to have worked out a definition of
convenience stores.
Randy Thompson: I have not worked out a working definition but I could do so.
Councilman Boyt: I don't think we want to hire you to do that.
Randy Thompson: Within the industry this is...
Councilman Boyt: I think you raise a good point when you say, if they're
advertising as a food shop, that has implications. Was that the sign you had
36
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
planned to put up? Amoco Food Shop?
Jim Fillipi: That is typically a sign that appears on the facia. Again, that
may change depending on the convenience store. We certainly would think that we
could carry any item in there that the existing automotive service stations in
the conmunity do carry and probably until you really get that definition worked
out, nothing more than that. And since that would appear to occur before
occupancy, we don't see a proble~n at this point.
Councilman Boyt: It would be fairly typical for gas stations to have snack
items and pop but there is some sort of gray area here and identifying it as a
food shop to me sounds like we've not put a restaurant in the BH district that
happens to serve gasoline. That's not our intent. One of the things that goes
with any recon~nendation that we pass is our Minutes indicating intent. It
should be clear to Amoco and I suspect at some length to everyone in the room
that we intend that this service gasoline. My understanding is, given your nod,
that you also intend, that that's the main function of this. So you probably
won't mind not calling it a food shop?
Jim Fillipi: For the moment, until the definitions are worked out, that's
right.
Councilman Boyt: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion before us. It's been so long I almost forgot
what it is.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I just realized, we don't actually have the full
site plans before us. What happened to the drawings? All we got was the
report. We don't have the blueprints that show us the landscaping and
everything else.
Councilman Boyt: We did have those.
Steve Hanson: You received them previously.
Councilman Johnson: You and I did in December. Did the other members of the
Council see the full site plan?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Other than reading what's contained in the Minutes as to the
requirements on landscaping, lighting, signage and grading and drainage and so
on.
Councilman Johnson: There was a very large issue on the variance on the signs
and basically here we're denying that variance.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you restate that Bill, one more time.
Councilman Boyt: The motion as made, in case I slip up, let me know if we've
missed anything here. Where you changed item 5 so that it says, there will be
only two wall signs permitted. We then made no modifications to other
stipulations in this but we added several. 14, no outside display. I believe
it was 15 that said compliance with MPCA and 16 was review by Fire Marshall.
37
Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Councilman Johnson: And appropriate city staff.
Councilman Boyt: And 17 locked it up by saying there shall be no convenience
store.
Mayor Chmiel: In addition to that, it will be required by UBC to obtain a
permit from the City for demolition. I don't think that should be a condition.
That's part of it, but just so that's aware.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Site Plan Review
#88-11 with the following conditions:
1. The self service car wash will require site plan approval.
2. The two future gas pumps and extension of the gas canopy are approved as
part of this site plan.
3. The applicant shall furnish in writing a statement that Amoco Oil company
is willing to reduce the number of entrances and exits to the site to a
total number of one if MnDot grants the City a median cut for the proposed
island on State Trunk Highway 101. This entrance would fall directly in
line with the centerline of West 79th Street. The costs for the
reconsturction would be at Amoco's sole expense. This statement shall be
provided to the City prior to final site plan approval. Plans for the
central access shall be provided and approved by staff prior to its
construct ion.
4. The most southerly access shall not be located further south than the
existing southerly access and shall be designed for full traffic movement
(right-in and right-out).
5. Only two wall signs shall be permitted.
6. The gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage including the Amoco
stripe name.
7. The applicant shall provide the tank for used oil and shall allow it to be
open to the public.
8. The applicant shall remove the cars, trucks, etc., stored on the easterly
portion of the site.
9. The plans shall be revised to include the proper storm sewer facilities
which connect to the City's storm sewer system. The proposed curb cut near
State Highway 5 will not be accepted.
10. A revised erosion control plan shall be sutmitted to the City Engineer for
approval prior to final site plan approval.
11. Details for the construction of the curb radius for the northerly access
will be provided for approval by the City Engineer prior to final approval.
38
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
12. The proposed buildings shall be moved five feet to the south such that
adequate maintenance for the existing utilities may be provided.
13. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with details regarding the
inflan~nable waste separator prior to construction.
14. There shall be no outside display or storage of merchandise for sale.
15. Compliance with the MPCA.
16. Review by the Fire Marshall and other related City staff.
17. There shall be no convenience store on the premise.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CREATE A POND IN A CLASS B WETLAND, 1551 LYMAN
BLVD., GEORGE DORSEY.
Steve Hanson: This is a request for a Wetland Permit request to upgrade the
existing Class B wetland and create a pond in the area where the wetland
presently exists. The property is roughly 30 acres. The applicants have their
home located in this area. The Planning Commission reviewed this and looked at
the six typical conditions that we would look at as far as creating a pond as
fish and wildlife utilize it. At that time, there was a consideration on
whether this particular area is, whether the shrub should be included all around
the pond area. At that time, there was discussion on whether that should be
included. We did contact the Fish and Wildlife Service and they recommend that
the shrub area not be included on this particular application and the best way
to handle this would be without that shrub planting... Paul Burke from the Fish
and Wilflife confirmed that that planting is not really appropriate in this
particular case. With that, I would complete my comments unless you have some
specific questions.
Councilman Johnson: One thing that was discussed at the Planning Commission
was, what are they talking about planting and all. Did you check to see if this
is at the library next door?
Steve Hanson: I have not yet.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. Anyway, I happened to be at B. Dalton's the other
day and this is the book, $6.95 from our Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources that talks about this. I've been trying to find this publication and
it's right out there on the front sales counter as I walked by the other day.
Basically the plantings that we talk about is to provide a little food and
habitat and it can be done around. Now I have not gone out to this exact site.
You can't see it from the road and I didn't go out to the site. If Paul Burke
has reviewed this and says there is adequate cover in the area, adequate food in
the area, that it's not necessary to add some of these plantings. I've been
looking this over as a cheap and very good book. The Landscape Arboretum can
also assist in finding it. I would encourage you, if you're really concerned
about building a wildlife pond, invest $6.95 or go to the library and check this
book out and review it but I don't think we're going to put it as a condition
39
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
here. Like I say, I have not really reviewed this in person and there probably
is, in that area, enough foliage, enough cover. If this was out in the middle
of a farm field and there was no food or coverage, then we definitely would be
looking at this. I would have liked to have had some photographs.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have no cor~nents on this.
Councilman Workman: No conments.
Councilman Boyt: We generally approve improvements to wetlands so I support
this.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded that the City Council approve
Wetland Alteration Permit #88-16, subject to the plans stamped "Received
December 12, 1988". All voted in favor and the motion carried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DREDGE SILT ACCUMULATION FROM AN EXISTING CHANNEL
IN A CLASS A WETLAND LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTH OF THE LOTS FRONTING ON WASHTA BAY
ROAD, MINNESfASHTA MANOR CHANNEL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Steve Hanson: This also is a wetland permit. It's a lot different than the one
we just looked at. Essentially what the applicants are requesting, to dredge
out an existing channel. The channel that they're looking at dredging out
presently exists in this location. The area has silted in over the years and
they are asking that they be allowed to come in and dredge this particular area
here shown in yellow. The cross sections for that are attached on the next
sheet. They, in going through the process, had come in and we looked at several
different areas where they could dispose of the materials they had taken out of
the site. When we were going through those particular sites, the initial one
they had picked out to utilize was a Class A wetlands so we went through a fair
amount of education process on ~nere those materials could be deposited. What
we came up with was a site located in this area. To orient you, this particular
channel is shown up here in this location. Relatively close to w~nere the
dredging area will take place. Initially they looked at an area right up in
here before finally settling on this area. This particular area up here was
designated to have part of a wetland area. That area then tapers off and that
wetland that actually is higher than the area we' re looking at dt~nping on.
I shouldn't use the word dumping. That sounds terrible but where we're putting
that fill material. They will be doing erosion control around that area. There
is a swale that comes through this particular area that carries drainage from
the wetland area in this location and it drains through, helps the drainage from
TH 7. The access into this particular site, they will be working this winter.
They want to do it while the lake is still frozen...the edge of the lakeshore
here up onto this site to the location to dispose of the materials. We have
gone out to the property with the Fish and Wildlife Service and...to try and
find the right location and they, in looking at it, agreed that this was the
best location for that material. They also felt, when we were out in the field,
that actually that material may improve that area and not be a detriment to the
wetland areas. With that I would conclude my remarks unless you have any
questions.
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Does the applicant wish to address any of the issues that were
just previously discussed? Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: I think we have a unique opportunity with the extreme low
lake levels we have right now, this is the time to do it. If it's going to be
done, it's going to be an improvement. It's going to improve the fish habitat.
That's open water. It's a public channel that anybody can go back there and go
for the crappy. Right now you can' t, from what I understand, unless you' ve got
a long boat and a pole to push it through the mud, this last winter. So I think
this is a good needed project and should be approved.
Councilman Boyt: I've got a question about the dredging. The design of the
channel you're dredging. I notice the sides are vertical. Can you tell me why
you decided on vertical sides?
Harry Niemela: They just, when Minnetonka Dredging...actually have done. There
is a 2 foot horizontal slope to 1 foot of depth...
Councilman Boyt: 50% grade.
Harry Niemela: ...Basically it's just showing that that's generally how they...
Councilman Workman: What were the, it's kind a silt that's going to be left?
Right? They're going to be taking the silt out and depositing it on land.
Harry Niemela: Correct.
Councilman Workman: After this dries, what do we have? What would this
property be used for or could be used for?
Harry Niemela: You mean the disposal area?
Councilman Workman: The disposal area.
Harry Niemela: It would just be black dirt.
Councilman Workman: It's not currently being used but what could it be used for
in the future? Garden?
Larry Brown: One comment, we would expect that this area would be revegetated
with s~me sort of seeding. Obviously the erosion control is there on a
temporary measure until vegetative cover is established. This type of soil
being placed there certainly the homeowner or future homeowners would have a
very tough time in trying to locate a structure on that type of soil. It's for
garden uses or whatever.
Councilman Workman: So it might have to be moved out of there at a later date
again?
Larry Brown: If somebody chooses to build a structure on there and does soil
borings, yes I would say that.
Councilman Workman: But that's not our problem?
41
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Larry Brown: No. The applicant can ver]~fy this but we do have consent from the
owner of the lot. Yes, we have written consent from them.
Councilwoman Dimler: That was my question. It said you received a letter but
it didn't say what the letter said but they are in agreement with it. What's on
the property?
Steve Hanson: I think there's only one single family residence on it.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I feel that this is going to be a benefit for the
citizens within that area. I would strongly make that reconm~endation and
entertain a motion that the City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit
#88-17 based on a plan stamped "Received December 16, 1988 and December 29,
1988" subject to the following conditions. One, the erosion control shall be
reviewed to reflect the City's standards for the Type II erosion control, staked
hay bales and snow fence prior to the commencement of any construction. Two,
the applicant shall provide copies of the approved permits as may be required
fro~ DNR, Watershed District and Corps of Engineers for this project. Is there
a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: I' 11 second that.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask you to accept a third condition. That
reseeding with staff approved seed be completed within 7 days of the completion
of dredging.
Mayor Chmiel: If that's going to be done during the winter, I don't think
they're going to be able to seed in the winter.
Councilman Boyt: Well, as soon as the ground is unfrozen.
Harry Niemela: It has to dry.
Councilman Johnson: It's going to freeze during the winter. This deposit is
going to be very wet.
Harry Niemela: It has to dry out in the sunm~er.
Councilman Johnson: Compact.
Harry Niemela: Right. And then it's graded off, final graded off and then
reseeded down...
Councilman Boyt: I'd just like to have a time line. I want to see something
growing on this ground quickly.
Harry Niemela: As quickly as can be done, we intend to do that...because it
does have to dry out so we can get the machinery on it to level it off. It has
to be dry enough to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: How about if you just put spring of 1989 that this be seeded?
Larry Brown: Point of clarification if I may? I guess due to the logical
weather pattern, barring any unforeseen blizzards, we would hope that something
42
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
would be down by, say May 15th as a compromise~ Is that acceptable?
Councilman Boyt: Sure.
Councilman Johnson: I also have a suggestion that may work out. Is that
erosion control must be maintained until vegetative cover is established. A
vegetative cover shall be established during the 1989 growing season. Because
May 15th, we may still be too muddy. Too wet to do the final grade.
Councilman Boyt: I can live with that.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think you can put a date.
Harry Niemela: Our intentions are to seed it down and erosion control, contain
what is there. That's just our intentions.
Mayor Chmiel: The three conditions, you basically understand them?
Harry Niemela: We understand them.
Councilman Johnson: So would you like to modify your motion and second to
include the condition 3 that all erosion control be maintained until such time
as vegetative cover is established in 19897
Mayor Chmiel: Very good.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
Permit #88-17 based on the plans stamped "Received December 16, 1988 and
December 29, 1988" subject to the following conditions:
1. The erosion control shall be reviewed to reflect the City's standards for
the Type II erosion control (staked hay bales and snow fence) prior to the
con~nenc~ent of any construction.
2. The applicant shall provide copies of the approved permits as may be
required from DNR, Watershed District and Corps of Engineers for this
project.
3. Erosion control must be maintained until vegetative cover is established
during the 1989 growing season.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
HERITAGE SQUARE APARTMENTS, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN
APPROVAL TO BE MET PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
Steve Hanson: This particular request is a follow up of essentially a previous
site plan that was approved by Planning Con~nission and the City Council with 11
conditions on that particular site plan. Three of which required th~n to suh~it
plans and bring them back before the Planning Conm~ission and City Council
concerning three different issues. The three issues being, facia and signage
plans, detailed lighting plans and detailed sound proofing standards for the
43
~ --~City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
structure. The plan that I've put up here now is the plan that's been revised
since the planning Con~nission based on some copanents that were raised at that
particular meeting. I'd like to point a couple of those out. First of all, the
lighting standards shown on here, the specific locations were changed somewhat
based on reduced height for those lighting standards...and those have been
brought down to a 12 foot height with down directed lighting standards on the
poles. The other things shown on here, and this has really come up with
discussions with the next item on the agenda, that has to do with the sidewalks
being proposed. We have changed that and amended that sidewalk it is now
running down in this location. Previously it wrapped around here. The thought
being that this particular location provided a better access. It also provides
the means where we can go through the parking lot on the next project to get
access into that facility rather than bringing the people out into an area where
it's principle access into that commercial medical facility. The other plans
that I'd like to briefly go over. The first one we want to put up, it gives you
an idea of the type of sign that's going to be located on the property. On this
plan it's shown here, part of the reco~nmendation of the Planning Con~nission was
that a sign be set back further from Chan View as well as from this access drive
and the change has been made on this particular plan...Planning Commission
meeting. Lastly, this particular plan shows the exterior materials being used
on the building. It's proposed to have lap siding on these first two floors.
Cedar shake on the third floor. Asphalt shingles. Cedar tr~m areas and then a
round faced block base on the building. Also there was a discussion at the
Planning Corrmission about the use of brick on the side. The applicant indicated
they may want to add some of that. They're still in the process of determing
whether that had been budgeted...other than if they can work it into their
nt~-nbers, they would like to be able to do that. The last thing on here has to
do with sound proofing requirements and that was a concern, I believe made by
City Council during the site plan process. They have suhnitted information on
the types of sound grading assemblies that they will be using which are, for the
most part, typical sound gradings that you use in an apartment building. The
architect is here and probably can address that a little better. The
reccnxnendations on the particular application are for approval of the
information sutmitted. That is that the lighting be directed down on the
property so it is not glaring on the adjacent property. Number 2, that the
applicant work with staff to minimize the sound transmission and there are some
techniques that have been identified by the building department to minimize some
of the sounds beyond what is shown in the standards and that has to do with
where you locate electrical boxes and how many utilities and closests and that
type of thing and adding extra sheets of sheet rock on the walls. Then thirdly,
is a continuation of the design...that have been used in the downtown area
relative to sidewalk design, lighting design and signage. That concludes my
presentation at this time. The applicant is here and may wish to make a
presentation also.
Tom Zumwalde: My name is Tom Zumwalde, the architect on the project and I
really don't have anything to add. I might mention that we' re about 3 days away
from completing construction drawings on this project...
Mayor Chmiel: I have one question. Have all the adjacent property owners
informed or did you meet with these people?
Brad Johnson: On this particular project, we had, a number of meetings with all
the neighborhood folks. In other words, we invited them over. Most of the
44
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
neighbors that relate to this project are apartment dwellers directly across the
street... We have addressed, I think the Planning Corrmission, s~mewhere back in
the Minutes, there was a concern by one of the residents that...concern about
the landscaping... Concern about the traffic generation from that particular
site... I think we've had a lot of public... A lot in the two years. It's
been very well received by most of the people.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions?
Councilman Boyt: Brad, how would this be different is Bernie Hanson's wasn't
there?
Brad Johnson: No different.
Councilman Boyt: It wouldn't change it although you changed it because he was
there?
Brad Johnson: No, that's the next one. The clinic.
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me for being too far out there in front. I do have a
question about the amount of HRA money that's in this project. Don, were you
able to research that?
Don Ashworth: The question was passed along and I didn't. What it amounted to
is approximately 3 years of tax increment basically goes to the developers in
terms of helping making the project. Three years of increment where we've used
and set aside directly for subsidy to the individual renters. In other words,
they did not receive that money and approximate, I believe it's $200.00 per
month.
Brad Johnson: The subsidy is in the land right now. In fact, the building will
pay taxes of $5,000.00 and $9,000.00. With use of the increment...3 years of
increment for land right down and then we are also giving additionally, let's
say the 4 years increment to subsidize the rent primarily for the elderly.
Should we not have applicants over 55 that want to come in here... We then pay
that back. In other words, it's a loan to us so that we can subsidize the rent
and then later on...we turn around and give that back to the City. That's paid
back out of operating funds. The restriction on this project that the income to
the investors is about six hundred... That makes the whole thing feasible.
That allows them to...7 or 7 1/2 rate. This is kind of a unique particular
project because it fits into Chanhassen. We have some elderly residents that
are interested in having the security place and there will be about 24 units set
aside for that purpose. Now should they not go to the elderly...
Councilman Boyt: The architect for this project has worked with the City and
will continue to work with the City to make this a very quiet apartment building
by the placement of closests.
Tom Zumwalde: We've already, on the drawings, indicated how we plan to treat
the party walls and floor separators and so forth and all of the things that are
being done to exceed the minimal standards. It's good quality construction. In
addition to that, Steve mentioned some other things that don't show up on the
drawings and will be in the specifications. These are items like off-setting
the electrical boxes and party walls and...
45
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Very good. That was an important point of mine. The reason I
asked you the question Brad is I think the Council needs to recognize that we're
talking, people ask the question of where does the money go that the HRA raises
through tax increment? Well here's $500, 00g. 00 to $600,ggg.g0 of it. I think
we need this building but I think people need to understand that when the
Council and the HRA approve something like this, that we are investing the tax
dollars that that district generates.
Councilman Johnson: I just want to make sure that we do a follow through on
specifications. I've seen a lot of electricians work and they don't always
follow the drawings. They're going to run that wire and I think we want to
follow through that those boxes are located in accordance with your
specification. Now, the electrician on site does not have your specification.
He's got a little drawing that shows him to put a box in the room and a box to
the light and it's real convenient to put boxes back to back and that's not ~nat
we want. I want to make sure that we have direction to staff to review that,
the specifications. The building inspectors to do a little extra on this one
because I think everybody at one time has lived in an apartment and did not like
listening to his next door neighbor.
Tom Zumwalde: We've seen that happen as well. For wlqat it's worth, we wii1
have our own...on the site as well...
Councilman Johnson: I think this will be a welcome addition. After going
through those various aparhnents in that area, which I'm sure all of you all
have in the last year, you know there are quite a few elderly folks across the
street from here and this would be an improved situation for a lot of them as
far as the security type apartment versus an apartment that's a mix of elderly
and folks just out of school that may party a little more. Maybe a little more
compatible use. I'm really looking forward to this. I move we approve the
revised plans dated "Received January 18, 1989" subject to the following
conditions. Nllmber 1, lighting of the sign shall be permanently directed only
on the sign. 2, the applicant shall work with staff to minimize sound
transmission between apartments. And 3, continue the sidewalk design, sidewalk
lighting and signage theme used in the downtown throughout the site.
Counc i lman Boyt: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the detailed
submittal plans stamped "Received January 18, 1989" and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Lighting for sign shall be permanently directed only on the sign.
2. Applicant shall work with staff to minimize sound transmission between
apartments.
3. Continue the sidewalk design, sidewalk lighting and signage theme used in
the downtown throughout the site.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
46
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 21,600 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING, LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480
WEST 78TH STREET, CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, PHASE I, ARVID ELNESS
ARCHITECTS, INC.
Steve Hanson: This is the site plan for the first phase in the area. As you
recall earlier on the agenda...the feasibility for the parking of this
Particular area. Phase I area is shown on this overall plan. It's an area of
buidling that's entirely colored in on this particular plan. Phase 2 goes here.
It's a one story. Phase I I should mention is a two story facility shown here.
Phase 3 is proposed to be a cover. It's not an inhabitable space. It's a cover
over the main drive into the facility and then there's also, as noted as Phase
4, this outline. We'll talk about that a little bit later. I wanted to use
this particular graphic which is different from the one you have in your packet.
The one you have in your packet really just shows this particular area but I
wanted to talk about the entire site because this whole thing does tie together.
Also, to explain the process that we're going through. At this particular time
we're looking at approving the site plan just for this first building and that
building site. You will be seeing plans fr~m the back based on the feasibility
as you go through it to cover the entire parking area for this particular site
so we layout that circulation in greater detail to accomodate this first phase.
Those plans you'll be seeing in the following few weeks. It sounds real
confusing, in fact the Planning Con~ission is not a typical situation to look...
It has to do with different owners and the time schedules that we're trying to
meet to accomodate the doctor for building the site. The plan that you have in
your packet was a revision that was done after the Planning Commission and
really has got, one of the issues that was brought up at that particular time
and cc~ments that were brought up prior to that meeting. One of those relating
to the setback along West 78th Street so that the 10 foot setback to accomodate
the improv~ents... That also allows us to maintain the landscaping in that
area should at some point in time we need to widened West 78th Street to
accomodate right turns in and out for these accesses along here. That's just
giving us that flexibility as well as maintaining the landscaping and what we're
trying to create in that downtown area. Also, another thing we discussed
relative to the plan that I wanted to point out. The Planning Con~nission has
recommended that when they come in with Phase 2, that Phase 2 and Phase 3 be
combined as one feature. Part of that is that Phase 3, not being a leaseable
area...potential that that doesn't happen. It's an element that's really tends
to tie the whole project together. Consequently, we'd like to see those two
happen concurrently and finish off the two phases. I mentioned a fourth phase.
Initially they proposed a 6,000 square foot addition on the end. They have
since said what they really need is to allow for a 3,000 foot expansion on that
and that has to do with the leasing arrangements that they have with the doctor.
In this particular plan, it does not, although it might be accommodated but I
think we've had an agreement between th~m and staff as far as what we want to
accomplish in this area at the time that that phase 4 happens to come back in
and resubmit plans for that. What we're trying to accomplish is identifying and
keeping the identity for the clock tower. That's where it becomes the focal
point... Our fear is that if you extend the building across and directly behind
the clock tower, the clock tower starts to get lost. You start to lose that
landmark in the downtown area. What we're suggesting is that when this addition
does happen, if it happens, that the building be held back a little bit to
maintain essentially a park like...that leaves that clock tower sitting out so
it retains it's status as a monument. Also, I want to point out, on the
previous one I mentioned the sidewalk running through this particular area as it
47
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
comes down. What we would suggest when we do the parking layout for this area,
that we take a few of those parking stalls in this end where we do have a
surplus of parking space on the entire site, and utilize those for pedestrian
connections and make a workable connection through and end these sidewalks,
either this way or out to the property...to allow that pedestrian circulation
through the site rather than down in this particular location. Also, one other
comment regarding the conditions that were presented and one of them had to do
with the height restriction in this particular area where they need to maintain
14 feet for emergency traffic and that one is now not needed to maintain that
for fire access. With the access this way and around this way, will be adequate
to serve the site so what was happening, since this area is a bit lower and
would not allow a fire truck to pass through. Initially the Fire Department
thought they would need that for access. That's not going to be required so
that can be lowered down. One thing they have done to accommodate one of the
concerns in this area with the potential for congestion, these areas being used
as a logical place to drop off and pick up pedestrians, that this wasn't wide
enough for two cars to pass and that's been widened out to the left. That
concludes my remarks at this time unless there are any questions.
Councilwoman Dimler: Steve, could you just show me how close the Riv is to the
westerly side there?
Steve Hanson: Their property is located here. The one question about the Riv
and circulation, as they want to maintain a drop off area in this particular
area. Our concern for them to do that, you lose valuable parking space for that
particular business and with the businesses that will be in this building, you
have medium businesses for these parking spaces here and the applicants on this
have made a shift, they've shifted the building this way to accommodate some
parking in here to help alleviate that shortage in that particular area. As we
get into the design on the specific parking lot, that is something we need to
address is how to handle that parking.
Councilwoman Dimler: How many feet about is it?
Steve Hanson: From the face of this building here?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Steve Hanson: About 8g feet. I don't know, Tom do you have it?
Tom Zumwalde: It's 86 feet...
Mayor Chmiel: I had one question. Somebody coming west extending east on 78th
Street, what's the accessibility into that specific area? How do we get across
there?
Tom Zumwalde: A break in the median. There is not one here now.
Councilman Workman: There is going to be a sidewalk to the clock?
Steve Hanson: There is not one shown on here. We talked about that and whether
it should be or not. The problem is, if we do an addition on here, we're not
going to have the space for that connection through. I know some of the
discussions we had with the applicant, if we did make the connections through
48
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
and they raised a valid point, what do you do when you get there?
Councilman Johnson: See what time it is.
Steve Hanson: But I think they raise a valid point that if you cc~e down to
this location, you would w~lk this way or this way. You're reallywalking
across the face of those buildings and there's probably a better place, safer
place for you to be walking. I don't know if there's a lot of people who are
going to walk to the clock tower. It's going to be open space but not really to
make that an active open space. Again, it's to set that off to make that as a
statement.
Councilman Workman: Like an awful lot of older towns and stuff with alleys and
stuff. Chaska has a few. Chanhassen doesn't really have these kind of downtown
central business district alley kind of things that people are peaking out and
trying to get out. Of course the first line of defense is the sidewalk where
people might be walking by and they have to kind of peak down, Northfield comes
to mind. A real big problem. Is that creating kind of this? Are people going
to be kind of peaking out at the traffic? Are people going to be coming under
here tooting their horns to make sure nobody is coming? Are we creating a
potential scenario?
Tom Zumwalde: I don't think so because you've got a lot more visibility here
than you would in an alley. An alley in a typical downtown area, the buildings
are right up to the right-of-way. The width of that sidewalk is 6 to 8 feet in
width there. We have 10 feet back here and there's roughly another 12 feet I
believe out in the right-of-way which is a car length. Plus it's a lot wider
than what you have on alleys. It's 72 feet. So that width is like a regular
street.
Councilman Workman: I'm going to refer to this pretty artwork here as an alley.
Tom Zumwalde: I think from a visibility standpoint, you're going to have almost
the visibility that you would of a normal intersection.
Councilman Workman: That's all I have.
Councilman Johnson: To follow up on your last con~nent, I'd like to make sure
that the plantings do not interfere with the sight of the vehicles. We do have
some planting problems, which I think are, as people are-saying, the problems
with the medians, some of them are overplanting. I know I've said this for two
years and I will continue saying it but put about twice as many trees, bushes
and stuff in there as we need to. 78th and Laredo, there's a tree right where
you can't see who's coming. You've really got to pull out too far. This spring
I'm going to really recon~nend we dig up a tree and move it and there's a couple
other places we need to move some trees and I don't want to have that situation
here. Make sure those plantings at that corner aren't going to be something
that's going to obstruct the driver's view. Otherwise it looks pretty good. To
inform the Council of what used to be here, when we approved it the last time we
were looking at this, we had an L shaped building set on this site that the
parking lot went around and then when we couldn't get Bernie Hanson's building,
we couldn't do the L shaped so now we're having to do it in two phases. This is
pretty interesting. Hopefully we can fill this up. Get some good firms in
here.
49
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Before we discuss this, as I see, I'd like to make a correction,
once we go to a motion. On item number 2, it goes a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h. I
would suggest we change it i, j, k rather than c, d, e.
Councilman Boyt: My question now Brad is, would this be any different if
Bernie's was gone?
Brad Johnson: Possibly. We've had a number of plans for this particular site
and our time table has adjusted over the last year frankly. It was hoped to be
under construction and ready for occupancy about 3 months from now and because
we could not get the land, we kind of drifted along up to the point we talked
about.o.and at that point we went back and got together with the City and said,
well we're going to have to do a fast run. Rather than a bad or quick one,
let's make sure that everybody agrees that that site plan is for this site. So
what you see before you is the site plan that was basf_cally done by all of us.
The City Staff, the planners. Everybody. Developed in the core, unity and this
was the best answer. We all kJ. nd of like it right now because it kind of gives
you a interesting entrance. I have one that spreads the whole building out.
It's hanging in my office but this is a color, that's sort of what the look
would be. This is brick and then if you add the other end, which is Phase 2,
that goes about right there. It is a different elevation than the one story
building. And then that would be kind of the look of the building when it's all
done. I think from the very beginning of planning, when we were working on the
downtown, at that point we pulled things forward rather than having these big
parking lots in front. It works real well with the apartment building because
if we were to shove the building further back, that would not work so we're kind
of happy with this. It's going to be a real interesting entrance to the
conmunity. It's going to be long. Probably about 460 feet long. About a
ballfield and a half. You're going to have a main street. A lot of people I
can remember...Excelsior, our very first presentation two years ago and they
said, well you can't do that. You've got to pull the buildings up close. We
said we couldn't do that because we had to have parking in front... It may end
up to be flowers or something in there but the primary, the way it's set up,
convenience is for the video store. I have a definition. I think it will be
kind of nice. That last building, this one is really kind of colorful because
you'll notice it's got separate entrances and each one is identified with brick
see so even though it will have multiple stores, they're all double doored and
it's kind of exciting. We've had a lot of interest from local tenants.
Dr. McCollum and other people so our primary concern is to move as fast as we
can. Planning Staff has been real cooperative. To answer your question, the
day after this period of time, I think we'd take this. I like it. I think it
will have more character. We know we could not build a one phase L building
anyway. We don' t have enough tenants to occupy, you've got to have 15,000
square feet pre-rented. This allows us to have approximately 9,000 or 10,000
pre-rented to start the project. We're also fitting into the land acquisition
costs for downtown and all that. I think it works kind of nice. There's some
design work that has to be done around the Riveria. The parking for them and
that's not done yet and the first phase of this has nothing to do with that.
All those kinds of little issues. We can build while Bernie is still there and
it allows us some flexibility. I think you'll end up with a nice project when
it's all done and it will take approximately 3 years of increments...
50
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: Now what you've said then to me is that if Bernie was gone
today, you wouldn't change this plan?
Brad Johnson: Yes. Because we can't do more than 30,000 square feet on the
site and it will probably end up being a little less than that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I have an unpdate on the negotiations with Mr. Hanson?
Don Ashworth: As you're aware, the HRAdid meet with him. They presented a
proposal to the HRA. We went into a closed session. They authorized this
office to present a counter-proposal to him. We met upstairs and at about 1:30
came to agreement and shook on it. It was within the authorization given to me
by the HRA so I'm assuming that in putting it into writing and presenting it to
him, that he doesn't change his mind, I think we have a willing seller and a
willing buyer.
Councilman Workman: Heritage Park and the apartments are going to be done right
away in the spring and they're going to be going on at the same time and
completed hopefully in the fall for both?
Brad Johnson: Yes. It turns out that construction on those will be
approximately simultaneously. Within 30 days. We're in the financing. The
drag on the apartment building has been financing and using all the gimicks that
we can...construction loan. So probably the most difficult part from the
architect's stand is to get it through the planning process and get a site plan.
For fast tracking this particular. Leases are in place. The other major tenant
is Occupational Health facility for Waconia Hospital.
Mayor Chmiel: Anymore discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion.
Councilman Johnson: I'll move the City Council approve Site Plan Review #88-17
for Phase I of the Chanhassen Professional Building based on the plans stamped
"Received January 18, 1989" and subject to the following conditions. And
there's a condition 1. Condition 2 with (a) through (k), renumbering the minor
typographical error at the end there.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Steve Hanson: In your motion, would you include on what would be item 2(i), to
delete the minimum height clearance of 14 feet?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I would like to include that. That was a very
interesting discussion at the Planning Con~ission. I guess I'd like to modify
my motion to include only the first sentence of item (i).
Councilman Workman: What will the minimum be then?
Councilman Johnson: The site plan show it as 10 foot.
Larry Brown: Jay, did you want to inlcude,, if I understood you correctly, that
plantings shall not obstruct view or pedestrian traffic?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. That was my idea wasn't it? Thanks, you're keeping
track of me Larry. Item (1), I'd like to modify that plantings shall be such
51
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
that 'they do not obstruct traffic sight distances. Is that okay with your
second?
Councilman Workman: Yes.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Site Plan
Review %88-17 for Phase I of the Chanhassen Professional Building based on the
plans stamped "Received January 18, 1989" and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any permits for construction, detailed plans need to be
approved by Planning Conxnission and City Council for the entire aea from
Town Square to Great Plains Boulevard in accordance with Section 20-107,
Application Site Plan Review of the City Code.
2. Revised overall plan needs to address the following specifications:
a. Revised parking to address circulation for Riveria and Colonial Shopping
Center areas.
b. If parking space sizes are to be reduced from normal standards,
information needs to be suhnitted to justify reduced standards.
c. Phase III to occur as part of Phase II.
d. A 10 foot setback from West 78th Street right-of-way to be maintained
for all structural elements of buildings on all phases.
e. If a Phase IV is to be constructed it needs to provide an open area
around the clock tower that is large enough to maintain the clock tower
as a focal point.
f. Pedestrian access is to be provided through the parking area from the
Heritage Park Apartments, generally in line with the clock tower.
g. Detailed facia plans including signage, lighting, landscaping, and
building materials need to be included in the review of the parking lot
site plan.
h. All mechanical to be_ inside building and any service/utility boxes to be
identified on site plan and screened.
i. Revise main access to accomnedate traffic flow if area is to function as
a drop off.
j. Satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector.
k. Overall circulation needs to be redesigned to flow properly through all
properties. If parking space sizes are to be reduced from normal
standard, information needs to be suhnitted to justify reduced standards
and address posssible impacts.
52
City Council M~eting - January 23, 1989
1. Plantings shall not obstruct view or pedestrian traffic
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE 1989 LAKE ANN PARKING FEE SCHEDULE.
Don Ashworth: Todd had written this up. He is present i~ the Con~nission
members do have questions. This was really stimulated by City Council action a
year ago wherein staff was directed to start looking at reducing the amount of
the park fees. It's my belief that the idea was that eventually they would get
down to questions that we should, I think the specific fee schedule for 1989 is
within the budget ar~ it is an itu that we can live with and again, the
recon~nendation being made is reasonable. I would think that during the course
of 1989, at s~me time we're going to get an opportunity to have some type of a
work session where we can discuss this type of an issue and make a determination
of whether or not Council wishes to continue that type of direction as a goal.
Do we want to eventually eliminate them entirely or do we want to maintain
enough in terms of a fee schedule to recoup a portion of our maintenance costs.
I don't think that question needs to be answered tonight. The fee schedule
again recon~nended for 1989, staff's recon~endation is within the budget and is
recommended.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'm in favor of keeping the fees. However, I
would like to see some sort of a plan that the parents that are just dropping
their children off for like lessons of some sort or for a ball game and they're
just going in and coming out, that they not be required to purchase either a
seasonal permit or a daily as they're going in and out. Is there someway we can
provide for that?
Don Ashworth: Todd, could you respond to that question?
Todd Hoffman: The Con~nission, the Park and Recreation Con~ission entertained
that question as well. They didn't make a recommendation on what method would
be used to do that but they would like to see some method put into action that
would allow that. In the past, there's been things such as your ticket stub
from swimming lessons allows you to get in and drop your child out and get back
out without paying.
Mayor Chmiel: What about with being in uniform. Kids have uniforms and they
play ball or whatever. I assume that would be another way.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that was a real controversy this last year. I
happened to actually be there one day, stopped by City Hall one evening when the
Little Leaguers were charged from the visiting team got charged to come in and
our 15 year old gate attendant, who fortunately that day he's a 15 year old that
looked 18, he was given a whole lot of trouble that evening. Todd and I went
over and Todd got in a lot of trouble from a lot of people. It is true, we play
Little League softball with other towns and we go to their parks and play and
there's no charge. We come here, and they get charged. The Board of the
Athletic Association would also request that there be some means for making sure
that the youth that are visitors which we've invited to come play at our fields,
are not charged.
53
-City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: That could be something that could be carried out adminstratively
here. I think that could probably be addressed. Any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: I think that I'm willing to accept the fees as recommended for
1989. I think when we consider this in more detail, this is a pretty spirited
decision when the previous Council approached this topic and I would take issue
with what I heard _Mr. Ashworth say. I don't think there was a resolution that
we would reduce the fees to zero. As I understood it, and I haven't read last
year's Minutes, but I think it was more along the line of let's consider the
issues. I know there were some members of the Council that thought there
shouldn't be a fee but there were also a few, one I'm sure of, that felt that
this was irresponsible. The majority of the Park and Rec Commission supported
the idea of fees. User fees are con]mon in parks. We don't have th~n in our
other parks for a good reason but this is, as Mr. Geving referred to it a number
of times, the jewel of Chanhassen. It's certainly worth a $1g.00 season pass if
you're not a resident, and a $5.00 if you are a resident, to be able to use a
park that has the quality that park hopefully will always maintain. We
regularly give away hundreds of these passes to employers in town. We routinely
allow everyone in a softball tournament to come in without paying a fee. I
think that we have gone out of our way to make this accessable and I agree with
Ursula that we should and with the Park and Rec Commission, that we certainly
should make it accessable to people who are taking lessons and participating as
a few others of you have mentioned. But I feel we should always charge a fee to
help us cover the cost reflected by the use that that park receives but it's
certainly a good topic for a work session.
Councilman Johnson: What did our survey show 2 years ago? I remember one of
the questions on the survey was in reference to how would you like to pay for
the services, user fees, increases taxes, etc., etc.. Does anybody remember how
that particular answer came out?
Lori Sietsema: The majority of the people we talked to were that user fees were
the most popular answer. I don't have the statistics but that was the most
con~on one.
Councilman Johnson: I think what the Council action was last year was, let's
look at the pros and cons. Let's not jump into it. I don't think we said we
want to reduce it to zero. We want to look at it and study the issue and come
back. I think this is a good first step here. Like I say, it's something that
we don't want to, it kind of fell through the cracks a little last year. It
wasn't one of the most important issues. A lot of issues have to get put on the
back burner due to staff restraints and I'd like to not see this one as far back
this year. Maybe in a joint session with the Park and Rec we could have some
discussions on this one.
Councilman Workman: It just seems that in reading, this just seems so contrary
to the way government usually operates. It seems so reverse from the way things
usually, fees are increasing. We're adding sprinkler fees. Trying to do that
ar~ everything else. The outrage must be incredible for us to back that up. Is
that what we're saying? That it's just, people are just adamantly...
Councilman Johnson: I wouldn't say, that one night, the Little Leaguers and
that was, the President of the South Tonka Little League, they've brought that
54
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
up every time they attend our CAA meetings. This is brough% up again. He now
lives down, the new President is down on Frontier...
Councilman Workman: We talk about when we go to their fields and we're not
charged. What kind of a field, what kind of park are we playing in? Which
parks are you playing in over there?
Councilman Johnson: They're nothing of this caliber. We're not going to those
fields out on TH 101. I don't know. My son doesn't play Little League. He
plays sun, her soccer. Hung up his baseball glove when Little League started and
went to soccer so I don't know. I don't think that these fees are too bad. A
lot of places do charge fees. Not a lot of city parks. 5here's a lot of city
parks out there. Eden Prairie doesn't charge any fees at any of their parks
that I know of. Carver County charges at every one, or Hennepin County park
system. I think it's something that we should have more discussion on during
the year at this point.
Councilman Workman: I know for a fact that playing on a softball team out
there, the City champion, Merlin's Rental, that people who don't quite live in
the City or are just out there to play softball, are irritated slightly about
that. By the fact that they had to slap a sticker on the car but they're big
kids. I don't know. I think it's a beautiful park and I think we' re kind of
heading in the wrong direction. I did like the comments from the Park and Rec
Commission about it's a little bit of a deterrent in the front door to say let's
not let some of these people in. We've all been down there. We've all seen
what happens down there as the sun dips below the forest there and I think they
used to all sit up by St. Hubert's and now I think they've all kind of moved
down there. If I remember way back long ago. I don't know, if they're all down
there, maybe the sticker isn't doing a thing. Maybe that's what that's proving.
Councilman Johnson: The only time we go late at night there is when there is
softball going on. I think if there's no the softball season, we only go to
like 6:00 at night or something for our gate attendant.
Councilman Workman: Is the gate closed at 10:00 every night?
Lori Sietsema: Or as late as the last softball game. Sometimes the last
softball game goes later.
Councilman Johnson: The Sheriff closes that for us?
Councilman Workman: Are they snooping around out there?
Councilman Johnson: Oh yes. I ' ve met them out there before.
Mayor Chmiel: In fact I can hear thsm at my house.
Councilman Workman: I guess that's one of my biggest points. I can understand
where people are getting irritated being from out of town or something but I
like the measure of control that the front fence and the fee probably provides.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think we need to get rid of the front fence even if
we get rid of the fees. But I have also heard a lot of compliments on that park
as far as people liking to come to play softball there.
55
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Counci]~nan Boyt: I think that the daily fee was set up to discourage people
from using the daily fee and encouraging them to take the season pass. A $2.00
daily fee to me seems maybe even a little bit high but I think that we need to
be careful that we don't just cut the bottom out of our fee structure. I would
move that we accept the recon~nended fees for 1989 of $10.00 for a seasonal, non-
resident; $5.00 for a seasonal resident; and $2.00 for a daily. I would add to
my motion that I think the staff should pursue ways to provide passes as part of
the fee structure in the softball and Little League and other park related
activities to be included as part of the fee.
Councilman Johnson: I' 11 second that.
CounciLman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to accept the recommended
fees for Lake Ann Park for 1989 of $10.00 for a seasonal, non-resident; $5.00
for a seasonal resident; and $2.00 for a daily. Also, staff should pursue ways
to provide passes as part of the fee structure in the softball and Little League
and other park related activities to be included as part of the fee. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEMBERS.
Councilman Boyt: I passed out for you earlier the criteria for Commission
selection. They're about to make some recommendations to us. I think it's worth
a few minutes of our time here to look at their criteria. The criteria on the
first page are really pretty vague as far as I'm concerned. I'm suggesting that
to number 3, that if people who are currently on the Co;nmission seek to be
reappointed, that one of the criteria should be prior attendance of 75%. I
think on all our Commission directives, we indicate that's the minimum accepted
level of attendance. I think that should people who want reappointment should
have demonstrated they can meet that minimum. I think their questions reflect
the other criteria that I've indicated down at the bottom. Experience with Park
and Recreation issues. A willingness to assist in Park and Recreation events.
The Park and Recreation Commission, unlike the others we have, actually carries
on events in the City and expects their participants to show up and help with
those. Of course the ability to meet that attendance standard and I think that
whoever we have on the Park and Rec Con~nission should certainly come there with
a strong commitment to that system. Improving it, upgrading it and so on. I'd
like to hear other reactions to those criteria. I think it's very important
that the Park and Recreation people know what the Council considers to be
important when they make recommendations to us.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion on this?
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to address the whole issue of
selection of commission members. It is my strong feeling that the Commission
should not be interviewing or choosing their members. That should be the
repsonsibility of the Council. The reason being that they tend to choose people
that have like ideas to them and that doesn't give a very diversified view or a
total picture of the issues. So I don't really think it should only be the Park
and Rec, but all the Commissions I know we're going to be looking at Planning
Commission members and I think the only fair thing to do is that we interview
56
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
th~n ourselves and the Council make the selection~
Councilman Boyt: I have pushed for 2 years to have the Council interview the
candidates. I think that's a good idea. I don't think we want to get into the
position of interviewing 20 candidates for the Planning Commission or as it was
sc~etime in the last year, I think there were 21 candidates for Park and Rec.
19 or 21, something like that. I just don't think we have the time to sort that
down to 1 or 2 people. I'd like to see the Commissions sort of whittle that
number down to something that if there's 2 openings, they send us 4 people. If
there's 1 opening, they send us 2 people.
Councilwoman Dimler: That we see at least 4 or 5 of them. If there's 20,
that's too many.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we should also have the opportunity to at least review
who of those other people who were making those applications as well.
Councilman Boyt: We can see all the applications certainly. I'd like to have
th~m screen down the pool.
Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to see what Council thinks about, we have
Council representation on Public Safety Commission as part of the ordinance
there. I'd like to hear what other people think about having Council
representation on the other Co~missions.
Mayor Chmiel: I've been seriously looking at that and I've had discussions on
that. I think that's something we're going to have to address because I think
we should have representation on each of those commissions by the Council. At
least that's my opinion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree.
Councilman Workman: As a sitting member?
Counc i lwoman Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Workman: Bill, are you a sitting member on the Public Safety? A
voting member?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. But I think that's something too that we can discuss at a
later time rather than discussing it now.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is there a set number of people on each con~nission so then
that would be really relevant because you don't want to choose and fill all the
slots and then have...
Councilman Johnson: We can change that number at any time by passing a
resolution. We establish the numbers.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it would be a distinct advantage for the Council to be
aware and have a council person representing them. I know I've been sitting in
on every commission meeting that's come up. It's beneficial to be aware as to
what's really going to be happening.
57
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I agree with you. I would propose that we move in the other
direction. I'd go so far as to say that I don't need to be a sitting member of
the Public Safety Con~nission. The reason I would say that is because as we've
demonstrated tonight, we all have the ability to get our two words in during a
Council meeting. I think there's a great advantage to, as you have done so
frequently in the last couple of months Don, sit in the back of the room and
listen. I've learned a great deal sitting in the back of the Con~nission
meetings ar)d letting them carry the discussion and not having to get involved.
If any one of us wants to ask a question, I've never been told I couldn't ask a
question at a Con~nission meeting. It's really a chance for other residents in
the City to flush out the issues in probably a more informal setting than we
tend to be. So I would rather give up my seat on the Public Safety Corrmission
than see us move to strictly a sitting in and maybe we orchestrate that so it's
more formal.
Councilman Johnson: Either a non-voting sitting in or a back of the room
sitting in.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's something we can think about but right now I think
what we should do is probably continue on with the agenda. Time is fleeting and
I'd like to get this thing all accomplished. The criteria for the Con~nission
selection, I don't know whether we need a motion on this. I think we're
probably in agreement to what's here and therefore, we'll have that opportunity
to review the balance of new people who are proposing their choice for selection
to be on the comnission for the Park and Rec.
Councilman Johnson: What we're going to be saying to Park and Rec, before we
meet again, they're going to be doing the initial interviews. We're saying we'd
like them to reduce the number down to a reasonable handful, depending upon how
many seats are available, and then we want to interview those folks.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And I'd like to see the entire list of candidates as
well.
Councilman Workman: Let me ask a con~nent. Approve the questions, etc.? Is
that what we' re being asked?
Lori Sietsama: It's more of an information to let you know and if you have any
changes or something that you want to add, let us know.
Councilman Workman: I guess interview question number 2. At least the first
part of it. What do you feel is the future of parks and trails in Chanhassen?
Mayor Chmiel: I thought that was going to be eliminated because some of the
people who were going to be interviewed for that job really don't know what the
job consists of.
Councilman Workman: I guess my feeling on it is, I picture people coming in and
interviewing for this and I see 2 as kind of a backdoor way of saying, did you
vote on the referendum yes or no. That's half the population. We've got a
pretty even split by 4 or 8 or whatever it is. I don't know. Is that kind of a
requirement? Is it basically a requirement? If I voted yes for the referendum
I have a better chance than if I voted no?
58
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Let me ask you a question Tom. This is the group that we've
charged with helping us gain focus on Park and Recreation issues. Would you
support the candidancy of somebody who came in and said I don't think we ought
to have any parks?
Councilman Workman: I would appreciate any other angle. I don't think we
should have just one angle.
Councilman Boyt: Well, that would be different. I think asking people have you
thought about the park and trail issue is an important one to have an answer to.
We get the Minutes of those meetings. It's certainly a question that I will ask
of the 4 people who come in front of us.
Councilman Workman: Okay, but what I'm saying is, if I come in to be
interviewed and I don't think that the approval of those 27 miles of trails on
the referendum, am I going to be illegible simply because I don't believe in the
whole thing. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the trails, I do. Very
strongly.
Councilman Johnson: Then that's what you say. That's the answer to your
question. Yes, I believe in trails. This doesn't say anything about the
referendum. I think 2 could be eliminated just as easily and 3 ask almost the
same question except for it gives the person more room to improvise. What do
you think our current park and recreation system and what do you think can be
added? There, the answer to 2 should come out during the answer to 3.
Councilman Workman: What I'm stating is, as proof positive by two referendums
which have, I mean by skin of the teeth, you can't get much closer. What I'm
saying is, there are many different opinions as to how far we should go with
developing trails. So there's many different levels of opinion as far as that
goes. From maybe Lori's view that we should have them all to somebody elses
view that we need th~ in a spot here and there. That's all I'm getting at.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to add to that, that I think the question
should be general enough and not so specific because the applicant may not have
particular knowledge and yet be a very, after they learn the facts, be a very
valuable member to the Co~mission so I'd like to see questions like do you feel
like, do you feel you have the time commitment and personal things like that
without getting too specific about the issues.
Lori Sietsema: They did plan on that one specifically. They did plan on
elaborating on what the time con~nitment was because they wanted to make sure
that the people that are applying know, the Park and Recreation Con~nission
sometimes meets 3 and 4 and 5 times a month during the summer. That they go out
to different sites and they do a lot of touring around the City and looking at
things so it's not, what used to be 1 meeting a month is now at least 2 and
sometimes 3 and 4 a month. They wanted to make sure of that and then once
they' re made aware of that time...
Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's a good question. I have no problem with
that. I think we shouldn't get so specific that they wouldn't know the facts to
answer the question. Do you understand what I mean?
Councilman Boyt: Okay, are we ready to move on?
59
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
ESTABLISH PERMIT PROCESS AND FEE FOR SPRINKLER PERMITS]
Jim Chaffee: For the sake of brievity, I'll just briefly summarize that this
fee structure and permit alteration was developed by all of us in Public Safety
by recent issues. It's quite simply a user fee as Councilman Workman talked
about the park fees. What it does is spreads the burden or limits the burden on
the user fees to the user of the service rather than spreading it over the
general public and that's basically what we're asking for.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion on th~.s?
Councilwoman Dimler: I have one question and that is, why isn't this included
in the plumbing permits?
Jim Chaffee: Probably because it's very specific to the fire inspection and
fire marshall rather than the plumbing inspector. The Fire Inspector, Mark
Littfin goes out there and does the inspection. Right now he's doing it in
conjunction with the Fire Marshall from Eden Prairie who charges anywhere from
$30.00 to $60.00 an hour depending on the complexity of the project. We are
facing a Rosemount situation where...
Councilwoman Dimler: And that was just to cover his fee of ~.nspection?
Jim Chaffee: Right now it would cover, if we implemented this fee structure
schedule today, it would cover the services we are getting from the Eden Prairie
Fire Marshall because Mark Littfin is quite simply not up to speed yet... He
will get there eventually.
Councilwoman Dimler: But what I'm asking is that his salary is not enough to
cover the time that he has to spend on inspections? You need extra money to
cover that?
Jim Chaffee: Right now Phil Mathiowitz, the Fire Marshall for Eden Prairie is
doing this on a contract basis. In other words, we're paying him so it has
nothing to do with Mark Littfin's salary right now.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it will eventually.
Jim Chaffee: Eventually it would help offset and help pay for Mark Littfin,
yes.
Councilman Johnson: Which is the s~me that we do for the plumber and other
building inspectors we charge a fee to cover the project.
Councilwoman Dimler: And what you're saying is it isn't part of the plumbing
inspection?
Jim Chaffee: No.
Councilman Johnson: Totally different profession.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that the $15.00 fee proposed is too low and I
don't do that lightly. I do that after conversation with Mark Littfin and
I guess I'd take issue with Jim Chaffee that $15.00 will not pay Phil Mathiowitz
60
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
to cc~e out here and inspect less than 10 sprinkler heads. I found it
interesting that Edina, who was just reported in the paper as having the lowest
tax rate, has the highest fee. Maybe that's part of it. They make people pay
for the services that they use. We have an opportunity here when we start this
to pick a reasonable fee and I'm not proposing that we choose the, I see $30.00
is highlighted there. I wrote $40.00 down. I'm not proposing that we charge a
$40.00 fee but I think $15.00, which is what Eden Prairie charges, is too low.
I base that on the length of inspections. As Chaffee just mentioned, the price
of outside consultants is $30.00 to $60.00 an hour. I think if we're talking
about the time involved and Mark Littfin told me that it takes two trips to the
site to do this inspection, and then when we start talking about reviewing the
plans for them and the trips to site, I think we should be talking more along
the lines of $25.00 or $30.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, if you would look at he second sheet in, on the back side
of that sheet, it shows the sprinkler permit application with the amounts shown
there. The number of heads, 1-5, 6-25, 26-50.
Councilman Boyt: Is this ours?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. This is what's being proposed.
Councilman Boyt: My apology. I'm off base. I had $15.00 because in the
notes...
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's what Eden Prairie's is.
Councilman Boyt: Well, right on.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd just like to put in my two cents for again
increased government, we're going to offset something here and it all looks very
nice but again, the cost of doing business in the City is increasing and I'd
like to note that. Continued and deeper control of everything can sometimes be
good on a safety standpoint but I don't like it as a trend. That's my comment.
Councilman Johnson: We're moving from a village to a city.
Mayor Chmiel: We've been a city.
Councilman Johnson: When I first joined this Council, we had council members
who continued to call this the Village of chanhassen. We are a city and we have
to bring our rules and everything up to the suburban city standards and this is
one of those.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have one more question and that is, back to the money on
this. How has this been paid for in the past?
Jim Chaffee: It comes right out of the general fund. As far as Phil
Mathiowetz?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, just the general inspections. If it wasn't under
plumbing, who did it and how was it paid for?
Councilman Johnson: United Mailing, how did we do that?
61
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Jim Chaffee: It was contracted out. We just had a Fire Marshall to do that on
their own time.
Mayor Chmiel: Ail the cities that I basically deal with do have this kind of a
fee schedule. Some may be higher. Some may be lower but you still have to have
it to offset those costs.
Resolution #89-10: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the establishment of the fire sprinkler and fee structure as recorrmended
in the memorandum from Jim Chaffee dated January 18, 1989. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
APPOINTMENTS: SOUTHWEST TRANSIT COMMISSION - COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE.
Mayor Chmiel: The Southwest Transit Commission, to have a Council
representative on there.
Councilman Johnson: You don't have to. That was our City Council's
recon~nendation that we fill it with Council members. In general, the other
cities have filled the spots with Council members. Chaska currently has three
con~nissioners. We will in 1991 is it, be the city with 3 commissioners. They
currently have two Council, their Mayor, one council member and a citizen
representative doing it. At this point, if we don't put a council member on, we
won't have any council members on. It is very helpful, I've found, it has been
helpful having council members on when working with the cities because this is a
real city function.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded that Jay Johnson be appointed
to that position for the Southwest Metro Transit Con~nission. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS - COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE.
Don Ashworth: Two members have asked if they can be considered, Willard and
Carol. I'm assuming from this ma~orandum that Dale was asked and did not wish
to be reconsidered. I was a little surprised with that.
Councilman Johnson: I discussed it with him also and he wants to stay with the
bus.
Mayor Ckmiel: We have before us, on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals be
appointed. Ms. Carol Watson and Willard Johnson. The third person that I think
I'd like to appoint to that would be Ursula Dimler as a motion.
Councilman Johnson: I was about to second that.
Councilman Boyt: I have a con~nent. We have just talked about and we are about
to go through this twice. Interviewing candidates for these positions. I don't
know if you want to start this the next time we have people come in front of us.
62
City Council M~eting - January 23~ 1989
It is a little awkward to start it now but it gets at the point. If you're
going to have a relationship with these people, I think you'd want to know where
they're coming from.
Councilman Johnson: At this point we're only moving on 1 out of 3. Nobody has
nominated Carol or Willard yet.
Mayor Chmiel: A motion is still on the floor with a motion and second to
appoint Ursula on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to appoint Councilwoman Ursula
Dimler to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: As for discussion, what Bill just said, what's the Council's
pleasure in having Carol and Willard come before the Council?
Councilman Johnson: Did we advertise this?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe it has been.
Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to nominate Mayor Chmiel as the alternate
following on the great traditions of Tom Hamilton as our previous alternate.
Councilwoman Dimler: If that's acceptable to you, I will second that.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to appoint Mayor Don
Chmiel as the alternate to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, let us proceed with advertising for this and informing
Carol Watson and Willard Johnson of the procedure we're going through.
Councilman Johnson: And it's no reflection upon them. It is procedure that we
want to establish. All other con~nissions are advertised.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we have a specific date for this to advertise and get back to
the Council?
Don Ashworth: My only question is in terms of when the thing can get in the
newspaper. If it was turned in this Friday, it could appear next Wednesday.
What do you want to give people, a two week period?
Mayor Chmiel: I would say at least a two week period. Preferably through the
17th.
Don Ashworth: So we would be then the second meeting in February which would be
the 27th. So it would be brought back on the 27th.
Mayor Chmiel: Does that require a motion on that one Roger?
63
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Roger Knutson: Not really.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to know, what is the status of our current
board. This board is a little different than other boards. The Planning
Commission we say hey guys, stay on a ~nile until we decide what we're going to
do. That's fine. This board is controlled by State Law. Can we say that to
Willard and Carol to them to stay on and act as our board of adjust~ment and
appeals until we continue on. That may take a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: We have to know how often they meet and when they meet.
Councilman Johnson: Whenever there's a variance request.
Mayor Chmiel: The meeting comes up prior to the Council meeting.
Roger Knutson: Just to point out, under Section 2-46 of your City Code, they
continue in office until their successor has been appointed so they remain your
board until you replace th~m.
APPOINTMENTS: PLANNING COMMISSION M~MBERS.
Steve Hanson: The Planning Con~nission at their meeting, interviewed the two new
applicants who had submitted. The Planning Commission did not formally
interview the four existing members who are all applied to be reappointed.
Also, the Planning Comnission, after interviewing the two applicants, they
essentially wanted to forward on their feeling that all 6 were qualified
applicants to serve on t/ne Planning Commission and they did not feel that they
were in a position to make a reco~mendation to the City Council on any of the 6
but to just simply forward all 6 names for your consideration as appointment to
the Planning Commission.
Mayor Ch~iel: I would like to make the suggestion that we table this portion of
this, on the Planning Con~nission appointments and work this in with the Park and
Recreation.
Don Ashworth: The special meeting that we'll have on probably, we just talked
about the 2gth, February 2gth is going to be open or we could look to February
6th. The Park Commission interviews which are to occur...
Lori Sietsema: January 3gth.
Don Ashworth: January 3gth so they could go to February 6th.
Mayor Chmiel: So put it on February 6th? Is that alright with Council?
February 6th so that would be on the first Monday of the month. Not on our
regular schedule.
Don Ashworth: That's a special meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: it would take too much of our regular time. I think we'd almost
have to have a separate meeting. Is everyone in agreement?
64
City Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I would like to make a statement of total support for
Ladd Conrad at this time. He is probably the single best cor~nissioner amongst
all the con~nissions I 'ye seen. ~ne way he runs a meeting is a good example of
how to run a meeting. He would be an extrsmely valuable asset to maintain. In
fact I would like to move to reappoint Ladd at this point and hold off the rest
of them.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think if we would wait for the balance of them.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that'd be okay too.
Councilman Boyt: I think we could easily say that all 4 of the existing
Planning Con~nission members have done an excellent job and I think it would be
faulting the other 3 to appoint anyone at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the position I was taking.
Councilman Johnson: I would not be saying anything other than, Ladd has more
experience than the other 3 put together in this position. He's been there a
long t~.me. The other 3, this is their first term. Actually this was brought up
to me by the other 3.
Mayor Chmiel: We've got this set for February 6th at 7:30. Interview Park and
Rec as well as the Planning Con~nission.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: I'm going to go over this rather quickly. I'll read it quick and
then I'll give everybody a copy when you get one made here. Carver County has
arranged to have the staff of Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority present an
updated development of Light Rail Transit in Hennepin County and the
M~tropolitan area. We're inviting city officials to attend the County Board
meeting at 1:00 p.m. on Monday, January 30th in the Commissioner's Room at the
Courthouse for this presentation. That is in Chaska. Ken Stevens of Hennepin
County Public Service Office will lead this 1 hour presentation on light rail
transit. Please let the other elected officials and appropriate city staff know
that they are most welcome to attend. If anyone can attend that specific
meeting, I'm planning on being there myself.
Councilman Johnson: I think from what I've read on light rail transit out here,
we have the majority of the line will be running through Chanhassen. They're
talking about a line running basically, at this point, the primary route would
be that fine little route that runs across TH 101 there and down to Gedney
Pickle which 90% or something of it is going to be in Chanhassen. I think we
should be involved, as I suggested when they formed their Light Rail Transit
Con~nission and asked us some informal opinions. One of my opinions is that
somebody from Chanhassen as a representative of the City of Chanhassen should be
on that con~ission. Of course, the County Board appointed themselves as the
Light Rail Transit Con~nission for this County. Hopefully if there's any
openings or if they see it differently, I'd still like to try to get one of us
or somebody from the City as a representative of that.
65
Council Meeting - January 23, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Real quickly here, in the interest of time. The January
23rd issue of the Sailor had an article in it, as a matter of fact it was the
headline about the Eurasian Water Milfoil. It's a weed that has a great
potential hazard to our lakes. Last fall it was detected in Lake Minnetonka. It
reproduces rapidly and it grows upward towards the surface at the rate of up to
2 inches a day. Today Pat Swenson who is a former councilwoman and present
Planning Commission member, called me with your concerns over this. She said
that the spread of it is by boats and trailers as they interchange from lake to
lake and she's very concerned that our lakes will be contaminated. I think we
need to address this now before the boating season starts and I think education
to the public is of utmost importance. Perhaps, she suggested, that we draft a
letter to the DNR to get more information, to get their solutions along with
representing our ideas to them. So with that, I'd just like to open it up for
discussion.
Councilman Boyt: I can add a couple points Ursula. This is probably the second
or third t~me this has come up in front of the Council. The person to contact
is a Jean Strothman with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The DNR is
really kind of just watching to see what's happening. This Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District is trying to pull together funding to set up a weed
harvesting program in Lake Minnetonka. They think that there is a natural
predator to this that will eventually be cultured and released and the weed will
be in control. This weed has been around I guess for quite a long time and we
may well already have it in the lakes in Chanhassen. It takes a while for it to
sort of make it's presence known even though it grows very quickly. But it
basically grows in anything that's 14 feet deep and shallower, depending upon
water clarity and that's Chanhassen lakes. There's going to be a lot of
lakeshore property that's going to lose tremendous value if we don't move on
this. This problem, as I say, British Columbia has had this problem for an
awfully long time. There's over by Madison, Wisconsin, they have a regular
ha~zesting progr&m and I forget the big lake in that part of the state.
Gary Warren: Mendota.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, but what's typically been done up until now is that if
you get it at an early stage, you basically apply chemicals and kill it. If you
don't get it at an early stage, you invest in a harvester and harvest it.
Councilman Johnson: We need to survey our lakes and find out if we've got any
infestation so we can kill it at an early stage.
Councilwoman Dimler: We have a job for our weed inspector now.
Councilman Boyt: One other point on this is that it's fairly easy to control
before it gets into the lake in that if the weed dries out on your boat or in
your motor, it dies. But if you have moisture, and boats tend to have moisture,
the weed can do quite a nice job of living in that moisture for a couple of
weeks. Once it's transferred, it's in. I would like to see us move to have the
boat attendant at the public launches, .we need to develop a program for those
folks to in some way or another, clean off boats before they enter the lake.
Mayor Chmiel: How can we educate the people?
66
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: One of the things Don with education, I think we could always
contribute to Minnetonka's effort because that's the source of it. If they
could control it there, that would be great but people aren't going to be
inconvenienced. People will flat out tell you, I haven't been there if it's an
inconvenience so I think we kind of have to hit every boat that goes in. Then
there's no promise that we've got it because there are all sorts of private boat
launches on the lake. It's a problem.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is it the weed that gets transferred itself or is it the
seed that gets...
Councilman Boyt: No, as I understand it, this w~ed can regenerate from itself.
It doesn't have to have, it's kind of like the stuff that grows in your
aquarium.
Councilwoman Dimler: So if you saw it on your boat though, you would be able to
see it?
Councilman Boyt: You can see it. You can wash it off and as long as you wash
it off to where it's not going to run into another lake, it dies and that's the
end of it. What they do in Minnetonka is they harvest it, haul it to a landfill
somewhere and let it dry out.
Councilman Johnson: Can they put it in a composting facility?
Mayor Chmiel: How about if we were to request Don to send a letter directly to
the DNR indicating our concerns. Tell them that we do have some real close
concerns with all of our lakes within Chanhassen but those lakes also adjoin
into other con~nunities and I think we should involve like Eden Prairie,
Shorewood with Christmas Lake and so on and the other lakes that are affecting
us. Maybe even request that if they're going to be going to some kind of a kill
of that weed, that they draw a moratorium for a year of boats going on our
specific lakes within our city.
Councilman Boyt: Well, this is a long way in the future in a sense but are you
proposing then that we not have boats on the lakes in Chanhassen this next
sunnier?
Mayor Chmiel: If that's what it's going to take to eliminate the problem.
There are going to be a lot of people that may be upset with it but if that's
one way of eliminating the problem, maybe that's something we should think
about.
Councilman Johnson: But Lake Minnetonka is going to have it ad infinitim. All
they can do at this point is harvest it so it's going to be this year, next
year, whatever year, it's still going to be out there on Lake Minnetonka so
stopping it one year here doesn't mean the next year it can't. Plus, we don't
have that much control over. We can't do that for one because DNR controls the
lakes.
Mayor Chmiel: They do, that's why I'm saying we should write that to the
Con~nissioner indicating our concerns and that it should somehow be addressed.
67
City Council Meeting January 23, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Is this an issue that maybe we could reinitiate our
enviroinmental committee that used to be here many, many years ago that did our
Shoreland Ordinance and a few other things? The lakes con~nittee. When I look
at an environmental conxnittee, look at wetland alteration permits and EAW's and
a lot of the environmental stuff that comes through here and have somebody who
specializes in that and who could work on these particular type of problems.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's going to be basically an opinion from DNR as to what
they're going to do.
Councilman Boyt: I can tell you from talking to them, that they don't have the
slightest idea.
Mayor Chmiel: That's why I'm saying, maybe we should start putting some of the
seed into their heads and maybe it will grow.
Councilman Boyt: But this Jean Strothman with Lake Minnetonka is so far kind of
the expert.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have her number?
Councilman Boyt: I've got the number.
Councilman Johnson: I think we should have her come talk to us one day.
Councilman Boyt: Roger was just talking about Forest Lake's efforts. My guess
is that if the Council makes thJ. s a priority item, staff could help us identify
a lot of good information.
Don Ashworth: Since we' re going to have a workshop February 6th, maybe we could
have Ursula provide an update at that point in time. Before I would send out a
letter, maybe we could kind of find out really what we have. I'm not trying to
avoid the issue. If you're going to be calling them, maybe just updating in
that fashion.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's fine with me.
Lori Sietsema: Staff has talked to the Minnetonka District and also DNR and we
have information on file on ~Jne pamphlets and the flyers that they have sent out
about this problem. I'll make copies of them and send th~n to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Because I think it would be a real concern of all the residents
within the City of Chanhassen in utlizing their own boats. If they do go out,
making them at least aware of the situation. Maybe we can eliminate some of it.
I doubt it but at least we can try.
Councilman Boyt: A related weed, purple loosestrife can now be controlled.
Maybe the City should look at funding that for next year. The DNR has a system
where they can do it now. They don't have the money to do it but they have the
technology to do it.
Councilman Johnson: That was the last one that was impossible to control.
68
City Council Meeting - January 23~ 1989
ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Don Ashworth: I just wanted to note that you have distributed a copy of Larry
Brown's resignation that will occur in two weeks. In all liklihood he will not
be here for our next City Council meeting. We've really enjoyed having Larry as
a member of our staff. He's found an excellent offer that he really can not
turn down so we really wish him the very best.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, the best of luck. I didn't think I was that hard on you
Larry.
Larry Brown: I've enjoyed my time here and wish Chanhassen the very best.
Mayor Chmiel: The last time, rather quickly. Social get together.
Councilman Johnson: I'm looking at kind of an open house type of deal, city
open house. As far as invite the general public, developers, consultants to the
City and everything to get together. To meet the new councilmembers. Meet the
older councilmembers. Also, to advertise to meet staff. Here's our Park and
Rec people. Here's Larry who won't be here anymore. I think it will be good to
introduce everybody in the public and that kind of thing. Is anybody interested
in doing it?
Councilman Boyt: Sure.
Councilman Johnson: We could have staff look at it.
Councilman Boyt: Would you guys be interested in reconsidering the portable
breathalyzer?
Councilwoman Dimler: No.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55
p.m..
Sukmitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
69