1988 12 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1988
Mayor Ham].lton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Steve Hanson, Larry Brown, Todd
Gerhardt and Lori Sietsema
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the agenda with the addition of a discussion under Council Presentations
by Counc].lman Johnson of Zon~_ng Ordinance Amendments. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
reconm]endations:
b. Final Plat Approval, Ralph Kant Addition.
c. Resolution #88-132: Resolution Approving Lyman Lumber Bond Issue.
d. Resolution #88-133: Accept Roadway Improvements for Saddlebrook
Subdivision.
e. Approval Development Contract for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Second
Addition, Alscor Investors Joint Venture No. 2 (Opus).
f. Resolution #88-134: Approve Resolution to Submit Final Application for Lake
Susan LAWCON Grant.
g. 1988 Audit Contract, Voto, Tautges, Redpath & Company.
h. Resolution #88-135: Approval of Resolution Reallocating 1989 Property Tax
Levies.
i. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement, Southwest Communities Coalition.
j. Resolution #88-136: Accept Streets in Chanhassen Hills First Addition.
k. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement, HRA.
1. Accounts Payable.
m. City CouncJ_l Minutes dated Nov~nber 9, 1988
CJ. ty Council Minutes dated November 28, 1988
Planning Con~ission Minutes dated November 16, 1988
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 22, 1988
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
~C~_'ty Council Meet].ng - December 12, 1988
VISITORS PRESENTATION
Bryan Pike: Bryan Pike from Westside Baptist. We have been before you for
approval of site plan and as we have gotten down to the final facts and figures,
we're deciding, the congregation, to hold off for a time until we can build a
building that's more adequate. We had to keep cutting and cutting and cutting
so that has been our decision. What we're hoping for is to get back into the
Business Park and come before the Council and ask you if that's a possibility.
I just discussed before the meeting that the Section VI, Article 4 that we used
to have and that we were hoping to go in under has been since, what's the word?
Mayor Hamilton: Repealled.
Bryan Pike: Repealled, so I'm looking for your help. We've been discussing a
possible place next to Fitness Master with Opus that they kind of got stuck with
that as Fitness Master backed out of and they've got an area that they will
lease to us. We have approval. I've asked Ron and Steve, I believe went over
there today and checked J.t out to see what it was like as far as fire codes and
what not. Basically the only question that I understand that he's got left is
there a 1 hour rated wall between an A and a B that runs above the ceiling all
the way up because he hasn't looked at that. He was checking on the possibility
of the need for a panic bars. Otherwise the place is fairly new...so it's
sprinkled right and that sort of thing.
Mayor Hamilton: I would think Bryan that we've been willing to work with leu in
the past and I would certaJ.nly hope that the future Council would be willing to
work with you also, We'd certainly like to keep you in the C].ty of Chanhassen,
Your congregation here, I would think that you may want to work with the staff
and go through whatever motions you need to to bring thJ. s back to the first
Council meeting in January,
Councilman Geving: Mr Mayor, could I ask Bryan? I believe your request J.s more
in the form of an emergency and that your request tonight is to get a
conditional approval so that you can make arrangements so that you can start the
first of January rather than waiting for the first meeting in January to make
your proposal. I guess what I'm hearJ, ng from you is that you'd really like to
get a nod of approval from this Council rather than waiting for the new Council
so that you can make those arrangements starting January of 1989. Is that
correct?
Bryan pike: Yes, that's correct.
Councilman Geving: You see Tom, the question J.s not whether or not we should
wait and I think the whole congregation is waiting at this ti.me when he has an
opportunJ, ty to get into the Business Park. I don't know what we could do as a
Council other than to move this along in the next couple of weeks here so that
that can happen for you. We' re all sympathetic to you because I know this J.s an
emergency. You had planned on building this year and it's not going to happen.
I don't see any reason why that can't happen. Personally, I would rather have
you at Old St. Hubert's church but you have different plans and you probably
already made some arrangements.
Bryan Pike: We've been talking with Opus and they would like to lease it as
soon as they could, It's been sitting there for a year, We came along and
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
they're willing to give us a good price. I would not like to lose it by no%
being able to get some kind of approval.
Councilman Boyt: Roger just brought up the point about, what about the old
City Hall for a month? Too small?
Councilman Geving: They're got too big a congregation.
Bryan Pike: The old City Hall?
Councilman Boyt: The white building at that crazy angle.
Bryan Pike: That'd be too small.
Councilman Boyt: What I would propose is that the Council direct staff to allow
the church to operate for a month.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's, while most of the formal conditional use
permit requirements that require the public hearing and all that stuff, I think
it's a good idea. They were there before. We approved them before. It's kind
of a reinstitute of what we approved once before. I'm not sure how you're going
to do it but I have no problem with them going back to the IOP district. It
seems like a logical place. They've got good street frontage and everything
else that they need. The parking situation is such that they're w~rking off
hours. Their traffic is working off hours. It seems to be a good match really.
Mayor Hamilton: Let me propose this then. I think Bill has a good idea.
However, often times things get bogged down and not accomplished as quickly as
we'd like. I would like to propose that we give Bryan and his church and the
congregation the 90 day temporary conditional use permit and work with the staff
to make sure that those things that need to be met are met. Let you come back
within that 90 day period to the City Council and review it then.
Counc i lman Boyt: Second.
Bryan Pike: I'm not sure if Opus will allow us to put a condition in there that
states if the City Council says no, that we're going to be able to get out of
it. That's I guess some of what I'm asking you what your feelings are and what
does this law strictly forbid us fr~m doing. I'm assuming it doesn't because
we've done it before. I guess I'll be putting my neck out on the line with Opus
if we come back in 90 days. I can't see that we would not meet the requirements
that they would ask.
Mayor Hamilton: Then I don't think you're going to have a problem. I think you
have 2 councilmembers who will be returning who have already stated that they
are in favor of your being there.
Larry Brown: At this point in time, I was hearing from the Building Inspection
Department that there may be problems with the building being able to meet the
necessary requirements for such a body such as safe fire exits, etc., etc.. I'm
not sure exactly what that amounts to at this time but I know there may be some
problems.
~CZ~ty Council Meeting - December 125 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I think there were some problems with that last time and I
think they were mostly unreasonable problems so I think we'll do the things we
need to work with. Just so the minimum requirements are met so there's not the
possibility of having someone injured in a fire or something.
Councilman Johnson: We're not giving an occupancy permit. They still have to
meet all the fire and safety regulations. They realize that. The panic bars on
the doors. The Fire Inspectors were over there today and checked it out.
Mayor Hamilton: You went through this previously Bryan so I think you know what
you're looking at.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to allow a 90 day temporary
conditional use permit for Westside Baptist Church and that they work with staff
to make sure the requirements outlined by staff are met. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD, MIKE LYNCH.
Mayor Hamilton: It's my pleasure to present to Mike Lynch the City of
Chanhassen's Maple Leaf Award. It says Maple Leaf Award, presented to Mike
Lynch, Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission in recognition of outstanding
volunteer service for the conxnunity, 1979-1988. Mike it's a pleasure for me to
present this to you. You did a heck of a lot of good work for the City in the 9
years that you were on the Park and Rec Con~nission and I along with everyone
else appreciate it.
Mike Lynch: Thanks Tom. It's great to have been able to work in a system.
Watch the system grow. Watch the citizentry become more aware of our parks and
to begin to use them. I think what I regret, probably as Tom does and everybody
involved in this process, is that more people in the City don't discover that
these opportunities are here for us to work in the city and that it's quite a
rewarding thing. Thanks again.
Mayor Hamilton: For those of you who may not know, the Maple Leaf Award was
established by the City Council about 7 years ago. We felt there needed to be
an award to be given to those people who had done an outstanding job of service
in their con~nunity and it is the highest service award that this con~nunity
recognizes to those people who have volunteered their time and effort so
diligently as Mike has. Thanks again.
UPDATE ON LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES CLEAN-UP PROJECT, CONRAD FISKNESS AND BOB
OBERMEYER.
Mayor Hamilton: I think prior to doing that, I wanted to just pass along some
information.
Bob Obermeyer: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I'm Bob Obermeyer with the
Barr Engineering Company. Conrad Fiskness, Chairman of the Board had an earlier
conflict and was on his way... I'm here this evening just to give the Council a
status update regarding the Lake Riley restoration project. As the Council may
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
recall, in March of this year we appeared before the Council and discussed the
status of the project which essentially outlined What we referred to as the
Phase I portion of the project which was the preparation of the work plan which
defined the project task and also the financial obligations of not only the
cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie but also the Watershed District. Again,
as the Council may recall, this is a 1 million dollar restoration project which
essentially, if everything went in accordance with the plans, is that the net
obligations to the 3 local sponsors of the project, again being the cities of
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and the District would be approximately $20,000.00.
We would have been here sooner to update the Council regarding the status.
However, until the last few weeks, there hasn't been a change in the status of
the project. After we met with this Council and also received the authorization
of the City of Eden Prairie and the Watershed District, we essentially sent a
draft substate agreement in May of this year to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency which essentially included language that the District prepared which
outlined the obligations of these local sponsors. The first part of November of
this year we received correspondence fr~m the Environmental Protection Agency,
having a copy of the correspondence, which indicated to the Pollution Control
Agency that due to the lack of progress on this project, that the Pollution
Control Agency consider reallocating funds for this project. Upon receipt of
that correspondence, a meeting was held with representatives of the Pollution
Control Agency, representatives of the cities of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and
also State Legislators were at that meeting. As a result of that meeting, we
received the con~nents from the Pollution Control Agency regarding the draft
substate agreement. The substate agreement has been executed by the Watershed
District and has been sent back to the State of MJ~nnesota. The substate
agreement is currently going through the review process of not only the State
but also the Environmental Protection Agency and our discussions with the
Pollution Control Agency in the first part of this week, the Attorney General
and the Pollution Control Agency have approved of the draft substate agreement.
The Environmental Protection Agency had some minor revisions to the language in
the substate agreement. However, has essentially approved that. So to make a
long story long, is that it looks like going through a laborious process with
the appropriate agencies, we're now in a position to start work on the work plan
and we anticipate formal approval of that sometime yet this week with an
anticipated completion date of about March 31st of 1989. As a part of that, we
will continue to work with the city staffs regarding key issues for the projects
specifically dealing with the public access not only on Lake Susan, which I'm
aware that the City has made considerable progress on, but also the public
access on Lake Lucy which is a major hurdle that has to be overcome as a part of
the overall project. But it looks like we will be starting work on the work
plan yet this year and we will again be continuing to work with the city staff.
We're here just again, to update the Council on this. Again, solicit your
support on the project. We do feel that it's a viable project and hopefully we
can have some net results in the next year. With that, I'll be happy to answer
any questions.
Councilman Johnson: I spent the better part of one day a week and a half ago
working with Bob and staff here and MPCA and EPA and about everybody I Could get
ahold of on this project to find out what was going on. I think one thing we're
going to want is staff update reports about monthly. And whenever you need any
political clout, whether it be from Senator Schmitz or whatever we need, we want
to be able to bring that about. If EPA gives you problems, we get Boschwitz or
whoever involved but this is too important of a project for the overall
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
environmental aspects of this town to let it go by the side. There is still
some dangers of losing some funds on this one. We're not over the hump yet.
We've gone 2 1/2 years on a 4 year project without spending a dollar or a year
and a half. Is it a year and a half or 2 1/27 About 2 1/2 years without
spending a dollar. Before w~ spend the entire million dollars on this project,
we' 11 have to request an extension so it's not quJ~te over with yet. I'm glad to
see we're starting to make some movement here. We w~ll be working very hard on
getting the Lake Lucy issue. One J_ssue that's unresolved yet is the definition
of public access. It appears that there are multiple definitions of public
access and we need to get what MPCA's version of it is and what EPA's version
is. Right now all we have is DNR's version. Yes, which one. The equal access
version that is causing some consternation. There are some ways that we can
deal with this as long as EPA and MPCA don't have the exact same definition of
public access as DNR. So hopefully you'll get those definitions for us pretty
soon.
Councilman Geving: The only statement that I want to make Bob is that you don't
have to look very far to get the kind of continuing support from the City of
Chanhassen or this Council because we've always been in favor of the project and
for $20,g0g.00 this is a tremendous buy for us. The only concern I have is the
potential for that Lake Lucy access which apparently is still up in the air. I
don't know if you can give us any status on it. Can you give us any more
information on where that is or if this is going to hang up the whole project?
Bob Obermeyer: As Councilman Johnson indicated, it is first of all, we do need
a clear definition from not only the Environmental Protection Agency but also
the Pollution Control Agency as far as what they're looking for and to date, we
have not yet received that. We anticipate to again be meeting with them at a
staff level and discuss that with them to determine exactly what they need.
What period of time so that we can proceed on with the project.
Counc]~lman Horn: I think Jay and Dale covered it pretty well. The main thing
is just don't hesitate to holler when you need help. This body has been...
Don't sit there and try to solve them all yourself.
Bob Obermeyer: We definitely will continue working with the city staff and
again, just to follow up on one of the comments that Councilman Johnson made,
that this project has been going on for 2 1/2 years and the reason why the delay
is again, a clear understanding as far as what was involved in the project and
potential financial obligatJ~ons not only to the cities but also the Watershed
District. And to date, we have just received that information from the State so
that there is a clear understanding of what project...
Councilman Boyt: My one comment is I'm disappointed that we let the Lake Lucy
access issue drag out almost all year long. I think we should have dealt with
that one. It's going to be tough to deal with. It sounds like we need a
definition but we also need to be making some progress in terms of finding out
what the residents of the lake want and what our options are so I'd like to see
us move on that immediately so that we're ready to go in March when this gets
finalized.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you can help us with the definition until that gets
resolved.
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
Bob Obermeyer: We' 11 be setting up meetings very shortly with the state agency
to make that determination and we' 11 be working with Lori to discuss that.
Mayor Hamilton: Thanks very much Bob. We appreciate your coming.
PUBLIC HEARING: TH 101 REAGLINMENT/LAKE DRIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY, AUTHORIZE
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Plowman
Gene Borg
Ernie Echols
Jan Coey
Bernie Hanson
Greg (2niterko
Bill Diem
J.C. Smith - Instant Webb
Brian Burdick
B.C. Jim Burdick
Rod Volk - LCLC
Jim Dauwalter - LCLC
Bob and Elizabeth Haak - LCLC
Norman Ruthenbeck - LCLC
Ken Pung
Harold Lund - LCLC
A1 K1 ingelhutz
Peter Held
Teunis DeJoode - LCLC
Ron Tonn - LCLC
Joleen Rents
Ralph and Carol Kant - LCLC
Julie Billison - LCLC
Dave and Jill Hartman - LCLC
Gerald W. Paulsen - LCLC
William J. Ward
Alex Krengel - LCLC
Larry Heuer - LCLC
Dean Burdick - LCLC
John H. Ward
3622 So. Hwy 101, Wayzata
6897 Chaparral Lane
8008 - 29th Avenue North, New Hope
Taco Shop
Chanhassen Lawn and Sports
8121 Hidden Court
1450 Park Court
6750 France Avenue South, Minneapolis
5205 Greenwood Circle, Excelsior
Excelsior
17141 Cedarwood Drive, Eden Prairie
3250 Julian Drive, Chaska
770 Pioneer Trail
7497 Saratoga Drive
620 West 96th Street
1091 Chaparral Court
8600 Great Plains Blvd.
8201 Grandview Road
810 Pioneer Trail
8300 West Lake Court
7621 Chanhassen Road
3820 Lone Cedar
811 Buckingwood Court
17766 Lorence Way, ~k~en Prairie
7305 Laredo Drive
1624 Harmon Place, Minneapolis
8009 Cheyenne
403 Santa Fe Trail
206 Chanview
5916 Hansen Road, Minneapolis
Gary Ehret: I know that the Council is real familiar with this. You've seen it
several times. A lot of the residents, the folks that are here have seen it at
lesat once. I don't know if you want the long version or maybe the little short
version but I guess what I'd like to do is, I'll go through a shorter version
and if you want me to go back and cover things, I'll do that.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps the shorter version and any questions may get back to
other issues.
~J~y Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
Gary Ehret: We've issued two reports on this project. The first one was the
preliminary feasibility study and primary feasibility study which the Council
accepted on the 28th, 2 weeks ago tonight. Subsequent to that meeting, there
were a number of meetings with staff. We had a public information meeting. We
met with representatives of the Church of the Living Christ, etc. and there were
a lot of ideas and subsequent issues that were generated. So we put together
what we call Supplemental Report No. 1 to the feasibility study in which we
tried to highlight those issues that have come up since the November 28th
meeting. The first board I have up here represents the watermain in the project
area. What I'd like to cover first is to go through the improvements real
quickly and talk briefly about phasing of the project. You've seen the project
before. We talked about this enormous project with very limited to any
conversation on what are we really attempting to build at this time. So maybe
first to just walk you briefly through the project. We have two codes on the
board, orange and green, color coding. In the report we talk about basically
two phases. Phase one which deals with utilities and improvements primarily
related to the Rosemount facility and TH 5. Phase 2 which primarily deals with
utilities and improvements that are on the Ward property. You can look at a
number of subphases to each phase but in particular what we looked at were Phase
1 improvements that consisted of watermain on Lake Drive. Watermain on the new
TH lgl down through the Lake Drive East intersection. A piece of watermain
underneath TH 5. Then a little stub off what would be the remaining parcel on
the Bongard property. Phase 2, that would be any watermain improvements
associated with the Ward property, Lake Drive East and TH 101 from Lake Drive
East to the south. Sanitary sewer, we talked about Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase
1, the improvements on Lake Drive to accorm]odate the developed lots on the north
side of Lake Drive and with the stub connection for the Church of the Living
Christ. This is sanitary sewer by the way, and sanitary sewer in this area that
would be to serve the Rosemount building. You could also look at this stub
juncture at West 78th Street and Dakota Avenue with the TH 5 improvements.
Phase 2 then would be the continuation of the sanitary sewer up to serve the
Ward property and this stuff in here. In the report, one of the things we
talked about that is a change on the sanitary sewer, the original feasibility
study included a lot of sanitary sewer to serve this Lot 3. We reviewed that
with staff to some degree and felt that that sewer could be eliminated so part
of Supplemental Report No. 1 is a reduction of approximately $5~,~0.g0 by
eliminat~.ng that sanitary sewer. That did affect the assessments also but
that's an important note. That is a change that occurred in Supplemental
Report No. 1. This board represents storm sewer. Phase 1 work would consist of
primarily all improvements on Lake Drive that would be necessary to accommodate
the development of the Rosemount parcel. Construction of the storm water
retention pond down on the city parks property, Lake Susan Park. The systems
associated with TH 5 and TH lgl. That would comprise Phase 1. Phase 2 then
could be a little stub here which goes up to serve runoff from the Instant Webb
property, the Burdick property, this little system for Lake Drive East and this
entire system on the future TH 101. So Phase 1 is primarily the Lake Drive
system with a retention basin and any improvements that would be associated with
TH 1~1 and TH 5. Those systems all tie into directly to the roadway
improvements. The roadway improvements would be a system. Lake Drive again
from Powers Blvd. to TH 1~1. TH lgl from TH 5 through Lake Drive East and the
improvements associated with TH igl and TH 5 be phased to the Lake Drive East
and TH lgl south... That's real quickly the phasing we talked about. We have
looked at some subphasing in that area but at this point we just split them out
into two phases. There may be some subphasing. For example, we know that to
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
keep up with the Rosemount schedule, the City must get installation of utilities
and the roadway in that area. These improvements are more closely tied to TH 5
but that's the key to that one. Improvements in what we call Phase 2 are
primarily dependent on the Ward property. We did meet with the Wards, Mr.
Hoisington and myself about a week ago. We've run through this scenario and
they're pretty much familiar with what we're proposing. That covers real
briefly the phasing that we're calling Phase 1 and Phase 2. There was a
breakdown in the report that dealt with costs associated with those
improvements. The project was about a 6.4 million total of which 5.2 roughly is
Phase 1. 1.2 roughly is Phase 2. I'll point out one other change that was
highlighted in the supplemental report. On the assessment of the sanitary
sewer, the assessment methodology that was in the feasibility study has been
revised. When we eliminated the sanitary sewer, we went back and looked at this
with the city staff. We felt that there was a more equitable procedure to
assess the sanitary sewer. We went back and looked at an assessment method that
took in a total area and that's what we're recorrmending as the assessment
approach for sanitary sewer. That is a change. I think with that, what I'd
like to talk about very briefly is some of the issues that we're aware of, some
of which we attempted to address in the supplemental report. Since the time the
Council approved the feasibility study, we held a public information meeting
Tuesday of last week, December 6th, which was a widely distributed invitation
list to a fairly large area. We got a summary of the report. Basically there
were approximately 20 people that attended. Roughly 15 from the Church of the
Living Christ and 4 other property owners. Mr. Burdick, Mr. Day who owns the
Chan Meadows Apar~ents. One property owner who lives in this home here. Mr.
Schneider. I think that pretty well was the attendance. The primary issue at
that meeting focused on the church. The majority of the people attending the
meeting were from the church and that's where the primary focus ended up. We
reviewed all of the concepts, improvements at the meeting with everyone. The
results primarily focused, like I say, on the church. The issues primarily
revolved around the church. The fact that they've been there for a number of
years. The assessments to the church and their viability. We went back since
the meeting, held a subsequent meeting with representatives from the church.
Staff went through a number of assessment scenarios. We pretty well summarized
those in the report. Came up with a revised assessment amount which we feel is
justifiable to the church property. Fair and equitable is always in the eye of
the beholder kind of issue but we tried to use assessment methods that were both
fair and just to the church and to assist what they would expect in another
setting. I know that they will speak to you tonight and express some of their
concerns. We tried to do what we could to make it a fair situation. One other
thing that was done, I want to make you aware of, Fred Hoisington asked Harvey
Swenson who the City has used for appraisals in the past, to take a look at this
scenario, specifically at the church property. Do a quick appraisal. Verbally
I was told by Harvey this afternoon that his appraisal was about $44,000.00 to
what the assessment to that property could be is approximately $44,000.00. I
think with that, it's probably easier to deal with specific assessment questions
as they come up through the public hearing rather than me trying to cover every
scenario so with that I would open it up to any questions that the Council may
have.
Mayor Hamilton: I think what we'd like to do, rather than the Council, I'd
rather hear the con~nents the public has to make and we .can ask our questions
after that. So what I'd like to do at this time is to open the public hearing.
I'd like to call the public hearing to order. I would like to remind the public
~C~ity Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
that we certainly want to hear your con~nents. A public hearing is just that. A
hearing. We're not going to promise that we can answer or that we will respond
to your questions this evening since some of them may need to be further
researched. We may want to have additional information back brought to us prior
to any specific con]~ents being made. So we encourage your comments this
evening. We want to hear them but again realize that we may not answer your
question or respond specifically to questions you may raise this evening.
Jim Burdick: B.C. Jim Burdick from Excelsior. I stepped up first because the
only part of this that's alleged to affect me is the storm sewer. I feel that
this, I obviously should not be included. For one thing, I'm quite some
distance from the storm sewer on the north side of TH 5 which is going to bec~me
four lanes and all so it doesn't even come near me. I was just shocked I was
included. Secondly, this property was recently graded and with your engineer
Bill Engelhardt and engineer Gary Warren, they want to do a pond here. If
there's a 100 year pond here and the size of the pipe, of course the smaller the
pipe the bigger the pond would be, is 1~ year sized pipe. Of course I will be
contributing to the storm sewer general taxes understanding there's two-thirds
of this comes from the general tax. I'll be paying that just as I pay a general
tax to maintain the Minnesota River or for that matter the Mississippi. There's
a relatively very small amount of water flows into. I discussed this with Gary
Warren. Unfortunately he couldn't be here tonight because as you know he's in
the process of having his family enlarged. That's about it. Just one more
factor that came up Tuesday night. It said that those who are being assessed
who would...experience and increase the value of their property. I just can't
imagine what an appraisal of this property can afford. This storm sewer looks
like it's about 3 blocks away to the closest part if the appraisal before and
after for this property would not be the same. That was the criteria Gary
Tuesday night as to whether the Burdick would be assessed or not. Three things.
There's the remote location. The fact that I've already taken care of our own
water in accordance with the city's specifications, suggestions and plans.
Thirdly, I will not be benefitting in any matter whatsoever shown by this before
and after appraisal. I thank you.
Jules Smith: Since I'm downstream. I'm Jules Smith of 6750 France Avenue
South. I'm here representing Instant Webb on the same question. We are only
involved, Instant Webb is only involved in the storm sewer project. First off
let me say that we couldn't make the meeting of the 6th. Just was not possible
so that's ~ny we' re here tonight raising maybe some questions we should have
raised on the 6th. First of all, we really are for the general whole project of
Lake Drive and the improvements that are generally there. We do have some
questions however about the storm sewer system. First of all, the maps and the
study that was done does not show the system as it presently exists and because
there is in fact a pipe from here all the way over to here under TH 5 to serve
Burdick, you might recall that that pipe which flows through here which Burdick
has first buts on running out of here, out of this pond, then we can put our
pond under the railroad tracks. Our collection because we built a pond on our
property as well. We paid for that pipe, $52,g00.0g. We feel that this piece
of pipe which does not benefit us at all. It doesn't give us anymore flowage or
anything else, the fellas downstream should pay for it just like we pay for it
up here. Or in the alternative, to look at it equitably, if you look at the
whole system to service Burdick, including this pipe which is already in, figure
out what that cost is and then give us credit for the $52,00~.00 we already
paid. I think that would be far more equitable. The point is, we are for the
10
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
general development of the area and we'd like to sit down with staff and discuss
that because we don't think this truly represents the real system. What's
really in place and we get no additional flow-age through here. None. ~nere's
no benefit to us that we already don't have. We feel that if we had to put in
our piece of pipe across our property to handle this, this one should be handled
as well. Or in the alternative, figure out what the whole system would be to
serve this and then give us credit for the part we already built. That's
essentially our position. We'd like to meet with the staff or however you want
to proceed on it and discuss it.
Jim Dauwalter: My name is Jim Dauwalter. Earlier today I submitted a letter to
yourself as well as to the rest of the councilmen and to Mr. Ashworth. I don't
know if you've had time to review the letter. I believe it clearly states our
feelings as well as the progress that we've made this past week and do
appreciate the efforts of the two Garys. We do feel quite strongly with regards
to the points that I've outlined with regards to our presence there the past 18
years and that we in fact, when we purchased the property we were under the
assumption and led to believe at the time that we were in a residential area.
And much to our chagrin, found out some years ago that it was rezoned
industrial. Our sanctuary windows were now going to be able to benefit the view
of the industrial park. We're obviously quite concerned about that. We're
concerned about the sudden realignment of Lake Drive and that instead of it
being several hundred yards to the south of our property as it was proposed up
until recently, it's now abutting our property the full length east to west.
With this we are concerned with first of all, that it's happening but secondly
that we in fact helped support this through pending assessments. We are looking
for some additional consideration and relief in whatever form that might be and
to in fact, maybe better understand, for myself, address many of the people from
our church, why the realignment, other than to accommodate Rosemount. Being
responsible for the maintenance of the driveway the past 18 years, we can assure
you that going between two wetlands does not make for good engineering of a road
and I'm sure that the expense will be greatly exaggerated by going through
there. Wondered if there is an explanation as to the change in the road.
Mayor Hamilton: You're asking that question now?.
Jim Dauwalter: I guess I'm asking that question.
Mayor Hamilton: The last time the road was even proposed was, as you know, on a
proposal for a hotel and convention center there that did not get off the
ground. The road was aligned at that time the way they would like to have had
it done had they built their facility. Consequently nothing happened. Now that
Rosemount has purchased the land and is going to build there, naturally we're
going to listen to what they would like to have and how they would like to have
the road done to serve their needs. Consequently the reason for the change.
Jim Dauwalter: Okay.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think there was ever anything in concrete that said
this was the way Lake Drive East is going to be.
Jim Dauwaulter: That's right. It wasn't necessarily...
11
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Based on a proposal that we have before us that was never
carried through. Things change.
Jim Dauwalter: They surely do. We'd also like to submit that the driveway that
we have had, as I mentioned in the letter, has nicely served our needs as well
as our water and sewer system. The church is also not in a position to benefit
frc~n these improvements in that we're not a property developer. What we have
will continue to use and there's not that alternative for us to creatively come
up with revenues to offset these expenses and therefore we would ask your
consideration to further evaluate the $40,0~0.g0 assessment.
Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask you one question. Do you have a septic syste~n there
now and your own well?
Jim Dauwalter: We do.
Mayor Hamilton: Thank you. Anybody else have any comments or questions.
A1 Klingelhutz: I wasn't here last Tuesday night. Jack Barnes was up here last
and I don't know if the highway center islands were discussed as far as TH lgl
and the old TH 1~1 was concerned. I understand there's supposed to be a center
island coming in front of my property. The fact that my property and the normal
access to the property from the north except through the parking lot behind
Pauly's, I think that would create a hardship for the property and devalue by
considerably dollars and it won't think any other property. It has to be
accessed through someone elses parking lot to get onto their property and I hope
the Council takes that into consideration and take a look at that.
Mayor Hamilton: As a part of a plan, that divider is proposed south on TH 101
extending from TH 5 well down towards Total Superette. Also going north. I
don't recall if it went up as far on the north side of the tracks. The Council
endorsed that by a 4 to 1 vote and I'll tell you I'm the one that voted against
it. I don't want to see anything in there. I don't think it's right. I don't
think there should be any dividers in there.
A1Klingelhutz: I can't quite understand. Those proposals were made when TH
1~1 was supposed to be the main highway coming into Chanhassen. Now we're
looking at another major entrance into Chanhassen and I don't believe the center
islands are necessary in that area because it's going to reduce the traffic, not
increase it because you're promoting another entrance into town.
Councilman Geving: Al, I don't believe I remember seeing those barriers further
north than the railroad tracks. I'm sure of it in fact. If they are, we
certainly don't want them in.
A1 Klingelhutz: Even the markings on the highway right now. There are yellow
lines. I think it's probably illegal for me to cross from the north at the
present time. I don't think you can cross the line.
Mayor Hamilton: Oh yes, you can cross it.
A1 Klingelhutz: If you look at the highway and see these yellow lines going up
like this with little kind of hash marks across them, those are supposed to be
observed for something else in traffic.
12
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I think they were put in there merely to delineate the two
sides of the road at this time. That's all. It's not a driving area so you
can't turn across there.
Councilman Horn: My first question is, is the area that Al's referring to part
of this study?
Gary Ehret: I believe you're referring to your building right?
A1Klingelhutz: Right. Just north of the railroad tracks.
Gary Ehret: The answer w~uld be no.
Councilman Geving: Trunk Highway 5?
Gary Ehret: It would be part of the TH 5.
Councilman Horn: I believe that that can be totally under the control of this
Council. I think the only reason that that got put in here was the fact that
TH 101 was t~uporarily routed through there. I don't think that we will have to
be concerned about that once we get TH 101 rerouted. Put medians or take
medians out of there where we want to. The part that Dale was referring to is
the part to the south of the railroad track and we did approve that. We told
MnDot we approved the concept but we were still under the impression that those
would be changed and they need to work with our consultants and get input that
we got at the public meetings. The proposal that we got from BRW did show that
median coming out going into West 78th Street. The first proposal had that cut
off also. What we're still working with and yet to do is open the access to the
Legion property south of TH 5 because there's still a median proposed there and
it's still proposed in BRW's report. I believe, just as you stated, that once
we take TH 101 off of there, and we do the traffic studies based on that, none
of those medians will be necessary. That's what I hope the people that follow
along behind me on this Council push to make sure happens because I don't think
those will be necessary once we get the numbers. I don't endorse and I don't
believe the rest of the Council did the plan that was presented. Endorsing a
concept but we still expect to see changes in that plan.
A1 Klingelhutz: There was quite a little concern with me because I'm sure with
the size of the property and we've got a single lane road, virtually a single
lane road coming into it sometime in the future is going to be suitable for a
lot bigger business than what we've got there right now that will generate a lot
more traffic.
Mayor Hamilton: Just for clarification, the issue that A1 is raising is not a
part of the Lake Drive feasibility study. It's part of the downtown
redevelopment process so it's not even a part of this issue that we're
discussing but you've gotten some good input anyway.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
13
~~y Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, you have some questions to answer I think and some issues
to deal with. I guess I would like to ask the council if they have any
additional questions or con~nents to include with those that you have heard so as
this item comes back, there can be some clarification. Also, does this need to
be acted upon this evening? I would hope not since I think there are some
questions of benefitting property and assessment questions that perhaps can't be
answered this evening. That additional information can be presented on.
Don Ringrose: The primary issues were the ones of assessments. I think...the
issues that formally won't be answered until the assessment hearing but
traditionally most cities try to answer those questions now because people make
decisions about other things and assessments 2 years away. The church has to
plan so what I think is certainly...of the Council in terms of...what they think
their assessments will be next fall or a year from the fall...actually assessed,
that's technically a different questions. I would merely raise the issue for
Council action tonight to meet the schedules. I think it's clear to everybody
that Rosemount...and it seems to me that to take care of the TH lgl realignment,
the City wants to...TH 5... The schedule is pretty tight .... right now the
State is waiting on us. We're not waiting on them...
Councilman Johnson: I think some very good issues have come up. I do believe
we do have to go ahead tonight and approve the feasibility study, the supplement
and authorize the con~nencement of the plans and specifications for Phase 1.
Mayor Hamilton: Was that a motion?
Councilman Johnson: Sure, that's a motion.
Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion for discussion.
Councilman Johnson: The other thing is, I agree with the church on several of
their issues. When you look at the but for doctrine. But for Rosemount coming
in there, they wouldn't have an assessment. I think that it was Rosemount who
decided and requested us to move the road. The road was platted. We had to
vacate a platted road in order to meet their requirements. I don't think two-
thirds of this project are being financed by public funds. Two-thirds may be
going from tax increment financing which is slightly different than saying metro
funds. Considerably different actually. For one conxnent. I would like to see
a reduction in the church's even more. I think we've done a pretty good start
but to say the church is benefitting because their property value is going to go
up $40,0~0.0~ would be fine if the church was in property speculation. If
that's what they planned on doing but I don't think there's any plans right now
to try to sell their church to another church. Westside Baptist is looking for
a facility right now.
Jim Dauwalter: Make us an offer.
Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to have staff get into some conversations
with Opus and Rosemount on this as to how they feel because really we have to
treat everybody, every property owner equal. We can't say we like the church so
we're not going to assess them at all and Rosemount you have to pay the full
assessment... You probably were notified of it because it was a public hearing
as any vacation is and everybody within 500 feet were notified. I'm pretty sure
that Pastor Ruthenbeck probably got a notice or somebody got notice at the
14
City Council Meeting - December 12 ~ 1988
church saying that we're having a public hearing on that. We held that about
September.
Jim Dauwalter: We might not because of the street.
Councilman Johnson: It's just everybody within the area is notified of those.
The other thing is, I think a very good point was made to take the entire
watershed district into account and credit back to the United Mailing and
Mr. Burdick to take the total cost of the watershed improvements and say what
would the assessment be if the entire watershed was put in. Credit back to them
what they have already paid in their assessment and have the remainder left
over. I think that's a very interesting calculation and was a good point to be
made. You are benefitting in that your water eventually goes to a new pond
that's being built and more sewers downstream from you. This benefits in more
nutrient stripping of your waste water after it's gone through your ponds. The
ponding areas you're putting in does very little nutrient stripping. Very
little removal of the pollution from the water. Hopefully the ponding that
we're going to be putting in further downstream will have more effect on this.
This will be almost like a storm water treatment system to a point. So there
will be some benefit to the pollution coming off your, well not benefit to the
pollution but some removal of the pollution coming off of your properties from
the cars, roofs, etc.. I would encourage the consultant to look at that part of
it and then I'd like to see another hearing on the assessment side of this
within the next, probably the second or third meeting of the next Council.
Don Ashworth: I agree with the motion and Mr. Ringrose's point. We do have, as
a certain of our citizens who do have concern. Staff worked very well with the
citizens and businesses in the downtown area. St. Hubert's church I think
you'll recall had some initial concerns. We resolved those. I feel very
confident that during the next 20 day period of time we can meet the church and
resolve some of these issues and have them back before the City Council for
final consideration. Again, I feel very comfortable that the Council moves
forward on this item, that we will be able to bring the item back. That we will
have resolution to a number of the issues that have been brought before us
tonight but not all of them.
Councilman Horn: It seems like everytime we talk about assessments, you hear a
misunderstanding of the term downstream assessment philosophy. I don't think
that was explained very well... The other thing that I don't think we do very
well is we don't let people know that they can fit this type of assessment into
their planning process because it doesn't hit them all at once. In other words,
why don't we let people know what their assessment is on a per year basis
because we typically finance these things on some extended payment period.
Especially I know when you get into an agency like the church where you fit it
into a yearly budgeting cycle. You're not looking at $40,000.00 next year out
of your budget. It's on a payment each year for 10 years it looks a lot
different... Typically I think we don't explain that well enough to people in
the hearing process. I don't think we have this evening. They probably weren't
aware of that. I think some of the things that Jay tried to describe on the how
the downstream assessment works should be made very clear because everytime
assesments come up we hear I'm not being benefitted by this project...the
downstream philosophy that we've been using...
15
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
Councilman Geving: I have a con~nent or two. Historically this project, the
extension of Lake Drive East w~s planned as a priority project over 5 years ago.
It was always our intention to connect TH 101 and CR 17. It was a priority
until Lake Lucy Drive came along and also Bluff Creek Drive. It was our
intention to put 80% of the funds from our State Aid, MSA funds into the project
costs which meant that we could fund nearly 80% of the road project by using our
State Aid funds. We used those funds pretty well up last year with Bluff Creek
Drive. I don't believe, even though we have met this past week, we have had an
open meeting with any of the members who wanted to attend and we had s~me very
good meetings with people that were here but I don't believe that yet we have
all the alternatives for the assessment issue resolved. I agree with what Don
said. I appreciate what Don said in fact because I know that he ~uld work very
hard, just like he did with our downtown assessment policy, to bring this down
to a more reasonable figure. My conm~ents tonight are purely for the record
because I will not be here when the assessments are finally written into the
record. But for tonight, I want to say that this road, had we done it 3 years
ago would have been fully funded, at least to an 80% degree by the city MSA
funds. The project would have been completed with very little impact on the
Lutheran Church or any other of the people who own properties in this area.
don't believe that all the cormnitments for 1989 MSA funds have been made. We
possibly could use those funds for part of this project to divert some of the,
as has been proposed, assessments. Nor does the church have the capability of
using our reduced assessment policy. Whereas Rosemount and any other business
are allowed a reduced assessment because of building in the Industrial Park. I
would like to ask that question of Don. Can the church take advantage of that
reduced assessment policy Don?
Don Ashworth: No because they have not created any form of taxes but I don't
think, I think there are some other options that are open for the city and
church to explore. Similar again to St. Hubert's church which will make the
assessment more tolerable for them.
Councilman Geving: What would you say to the statement that I made about the
potential committing 1989 MSA funds to this project?
Don Ashworth: The funding for Bluff Creek did go out and did consume the 1989
allocation and a part of 1990 but again, I think that we have some options open
to us in other forms of funding that again could provide help for the church.
Councilman Geving: Just a con~nent or two about benefits. One of the policies
in making an assessment is that there's assumed benefit. We can assume this
where you have a business and you can write it down. You can improve your
property and it increases in value assuming that you want to then turn around
and sell it. The church has no intention of increasing the value of their
property for that purpose so your needs are a little bit different here in terms
of what the real benefits are. When we moved the road to the north to
accon~nodate the Rosamount and Opus developer, we did so at their request. Now
the road lying approximately 900 feet directly along the entire length of the
church property and is attempting to be assessed on a per lineal foot basis is
really unfair. So I'd like to ask the engineer to consider the possibility of
making that road assessment also on an area basis because the church owns
approximately a little over 5 acres. Rosemount just bought nearly 60 acres and
there's other properties owned throughout that by the Wards and by the City so
consider that as input Gary in your potential for arriving at some alternatives.
16
City Council Meeting - December 12 ~ 1988
Then too, I think we need to get the other players into the act. I think we
need to bring in Opus and I believe that we need to bring Rosemount into the
picture because these tw~ are the beneficiaries of this entire scheme. We did
not plan on building this project in 1989. It really occurred just within the
last several months so w~ have some new requirements now and I believe that
sitting down, just as w~ did with the Lutheran church, sitting down with Opus
and Rosemount, they too can be brought into this entire scheme and there might
be some relief from them if we can show that there is a benefit, more direct
benefit to particularly Opus. I think the signed papers and closings happen
today and that is history but Opus is still available to us I think to bring
into this entire picture. I think that we're almost there. We have made a
significant reduction in the assessments and while Jules is not really pleased
yet, and Mr. Burdick is not totally pleased, but we have made some attempts
during this last week and I think that we should keep. While we should continue
the project and we want to close this project out tonight and move along so we
can continue with what we intend to do, we should keep the assessment action
open so we can meet again. I was hoping that we could even meet as a council
before the end of December but that's probably not going to be possible. Don
mentioned in the next 20 days and I will not personally be pleased until the
church's assessment is somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000.00. For that
reason I'd like to leave this discussion open for the assessment between now and
the time of the assessment hearing so that our consultants and our City Engineer
can work out the details. That's all I have.
Councilman Boyt: I'll make this brief. Just highlight a couple of points that
have already been made. I think it's a very good point that the church isn't a
profit center and that's probably a critical difference. They don't pay taxes
is another critical difference. I think we've already wrestled with this as Don
mentioned with St. Hubert's and I would like to see us follow whatever strategy
we followed there as much as possible. I am very relunctant to see us creating
situations that we're not willing to apply to everyone. Since we've got quite a
bit of history recently in asses~ents, I would think that we know what we can
do here. I think that fits into Clark's philosophy of what we've been using.
Everyone seems to have stated a good intent. I also believe that the church
should begin budgeting for a worse case scenario. One of the things that the
City needs to keep in mind is that the total cost for the project doesn't change
so what we' re doing when we try to help the church is that we're saying to Mr.
Burdick, you're going to pay more. Or to someone else in this project so it's
very important given that, that we're consistent with what we do here and I
think St. Hubert's is an excellent example of how we've been able to help
churches and I hope that we would continue to do that.
Mayor Hamilton: I would just like to make a couple of co~ents. I want
Mr. Dauwalter to realize that when I said things change, it wasn't a foot
comment. It wasn't intended to be. Things do change and we hope they change
for the better. I think that what we are attempting to do is a better change.
A couple of the items in your letter to the Council kind of struck me. One is,
you state that you presently have access to TH 5 and your driveway has nicely
served our needs for the past 18 years. That may be but everytime I go up
there, as I did today, I get a little nervous about taking a left off of TH 5 to
get into the facility and I would think that you would be nervous about your
parishioners and people who bring their children up there to go to the daycare
center. I think you'd be a little nervous about them making a left hand turn or
even a right hand turn off because as the traffic increases it becomes
17
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
increasingly dangerous. If one person were to be killed or injured seriously, I
would feel very badly about that and I think that what is being proposed would
be a tremendous improvement to that access that you have to TH 5. Also, you
state that the well and the septic system have served you well since you've been
there. I think that's true. However, is it serving the city the best that it
can? Wouldn't it be best to have that church connected to a sewer system? You
do have a daycare center that functions in there on a daily basis. It's a
rather large daycare center. You use the sewer continuously. At some point the
septic system is going to fail. I think you know that. Consequently, I think
the t~ne is probably best now so we don't have anymore pollution than necessary
to get you connected to the city sewer and water system and that would
definitely be a benefit to the church and to the entire city. So those two
things just struck me right off and seeing a couple of items that perhaps hadn't
been seen or thought of as assets and improvements to the system. I'm sure you
don't want to pay for them but I think that once you think about them, they
probably are worth paying for because they would be helpful to all of the people
who use your con~nunity there. Those are the only comments I have. I agree. I
understand that the church doesn't want to pay anymore than they have to and it
is difficult but sometimes it's to the best also.
Jim Dauwalter: I acknowledge those comments and I think they're fair comments.
It's also why the church has not requested that we freeload on this. We have
proposed the number within that letter that I submitted to you that we have
shared with both BRW as well as Gary Warren so we do acknowledge that there is
some benefit there...
Resolution #88-138: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to accept
the feasibility study, Supplemental Report No. 1 for TH lgl realignment/Lake
Drive and to authorize the firm of Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis and
Gardner to commence with plans and specifications for the design of Phase
I improvements as identified in Supplemental Report No. 1. Separate document
packages will be prepared for the north leg of TH lgl improvements and for the
south leg of TH 101 and Lake Drive improvements. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure this will be on an agenda item early in January. The
issues that have been raised will be dealt with again. If we could fit it in at
the end of Dec~mber, perhaps we can try to do that. Is anybody busy on
Chr i s tmas day?
UPGRADE OF AUDIO EQUIPMENT, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Mayor Hamilton: Todd, this is your item and we had looked at this a couple of
weeks ago and you were requested to have somebody from the company who had the
lowest bid to come in. It was Southwest Audio visual.
Todd Gerhardt: At 7:~0 we did put on a demonstration. Some of the council
members were here. What was being proposed was a Shure system which would give
5 surface mics for the councilmembers. Three new mics for, one for each of the
staff tables and another individual microphone for the podium are more suited
for this council chambers. The presentation felt that...negatives use and it
18
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
would be a little more aware of the mics in front of you was another big point
that was brought out. I felt the presentation went well. I'll just open it up
to some of the other councilmembers for their con~ents and what they felt about
the system.
Mayor Hamilton: Was everybody there? I apologize for not being there. I was
in another meeting with Don.
Councilman Geving: We had 3 here.
Councilman Johnson: We tested it pretty extensively. Some of Todd's
pronouncements on what the system would and wouldn't do, didn't quite agree with
what the experts from Southwest said but the rattling of paper will turn on the
mics. One of the main differences, the flat mic they had up here was
considerably larger. I was able to come all the way back to the w-all, sit here,
talk in the same voice and the mic was picking it up just as well. Bill was in
the back of the room there. They're going to attach 4 speakers, 2 on either
side filling fr~m the front up here and they're even talking about maybe making
them white instead of black. The mics are not always on. Only when you start
talking do they activate. If they're set and you're making some minor little
noise over here, minor shuffling of papers, it w~n't turn them on. It's when
you take a full blueprint and start turning it and stuff with a big blueprint
that will still turn on the mics. It was a pretty successful demonstration. I
was fairly pleased with it. The picture on the front here shows what the mic is
like. It's about twice as big as the mic here. We set it to where, between
where Don and I would share a mic and it seemed to work quite well that way too.
It doesn't pick up sound from the back like these mics will so you can turn up
the ampliphier a little higher and not get as much feedback in it. Even with
just one speaker over there, it was better than what we have here at the present
time.
Todd Gerhardt: They are proposing 4 of those speakers. Two on the east side
and 2 on the north side.
Councilman Johnson: Also a separate audio channel would be running to our
camera right now. Right now we have an audio channel that runs to the camera
and to the tape recorder through a gerryrig system and I think that's probably
part of the problem with our cable. When we get a separate ampliphier going
directly to the camera, we should have a lot better sound on the cable,
theoretically.
Councilman Geving: Tom, these boxes are about, I would say 5 x 8. These
speaker boxes that will be placed in the four locations. I thought they worked.
I would recommend though that we proceed with some other ideas that the Council
had and that was to change the background here behind Jay and Bill to some kind
of a material that would give us some better acoustics. Either with like carpet
or some kind of wall covering possibly. Then we suggested maybe even the
possibility of a monitor like this with speaker out into that area out there.
In the waiting area where we could say, hey A1 Klingelhutz your item is up.
Please come on into the council chambers. Or gentlemen, would you please be
more quiet. We can hear you. But a monitor out there I thought would be good
because there are times when we overflow in the Council chambers and we could
open the doors and people could stand out there and listen to the proceedings of
the Council. So those are just some suggestions that we might want to take into
19
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
consideration.
Mayor Hamilton: I had thought they might suggest even putting something to the
ceiling to deflect the sound. To keep it down off of the ceiling because we
have a barrier. That thing is such a barr].er up there. It just stops the sound
from getting under it so you can put deflectors so it will carry it at least
somewhat. You can't do a lot because the lights are in the way but I think
there could be something done to improve. I think usually you see in the Opera
Hall or just a place where they play music to keep the sound moving in the right
directions. I don't know, if you guys are happy with it, I'd certainly be
happy.
Councilman Johnson: A lot of those actually are to absorb sound and keep it
frGm reflecting.
Councilman Horn: Does this bid include the optional fillibuster button?
Councilman Johnson: It's an option to give the Mayor some buttons to cut off
people.
Councilman Horn: It's so two microphones can not be activated at once. That's
not in our bid is it?
Councilman Johnson: The demo they gave us had two microphones going at once.
Councilman Horn: I think it's something that the Council might want to
consider.
Mayor Hamilton: If it's something that can benefit the mayor, we ought to get
it. He'll need all the help he can get.
Todd Gerhardt: If that's an option that you were interested in, it could be
added on but it is not included.
Councilman Horn: Can you add it on after you get the system?
Todd Gerhardt: Sure.
Councilman Horn: It's not something you'd have to order?
Todd Gerhardt: You'd have to order it.
Don Ashworth: But if you want to do it, why not order it?
Councilman Geving: Do it now. How much is it?
Todd Gerhardt: I'd have to go up...
Don Ashworth: I was going to say, if it's less than $100.~0 or $200.00, do yu
want to pursue it?
Councilman Geving: Would it affect the bid? I mean would Audio visual
Wholesalers have had a cheaper item?
20
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
Todd Gerhardt: No. There's such a difference with the additional add on to two
speakers and everything, you're looking at $2,000.00 difference right now.
Councilman Johnson: Bill, you were talking about the privacy button also.
Where they have a cough or a privacy button supposedly. That may not be on the
microphone. I'm not sure how that works.
Councilman Boyt: I'd be inclined to order it like it is. That's what our bid's
at and if we need it, let's change it later.
Mayor Hamilton: You can look at some things in the future if you think it's
required.
Todd Gerhardt: I'll look at it and get more information and send it back.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to award the bid for the City
Council Chambers sound system upgrade to Southwest Audio Visual in the amount of
$4,326.70. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: Before we go any further, I'm going to do something I should
have done a while ago and that's to introduce Steve Hanson who is here. He is
now our City Planner. He's taking Barb Dacy's, nobody can take Barb's place but
Steve is taking that position and we know that Steve will be doing an excellent
job and we welcome you to the City of Chanhassen.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS AND A CARWASH,
NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND 101, AMOCO OIL COMPANY.
Mayor Hamilton: I believe this is the same spot as Brown Standard is located
and I think before we get into any lengthy discussion of this, I received a
letter from the Browns requesting that they have additional opportunity to work
with Amoco Oil Company to reach some type of an agre~nent with them. I'm a
little distressed when I see someone who's been in business in this town for 18
years, as is Amoco's will to do, I guess they put people out of business as they
see fit. I don't like it and I think that they ought to try to work with the
Browns a little more carefully and see if they can't find some resolution to
having the Brown's continue in business at that location. Consequently, I'm
going to move that we table this matter to a future date.
Councilman Geving: I'm going to second your motion Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table action on the Site
Plan Review for a Convenience Store with Gas Pumps and Car Wash for Amoco Oil
Company until a future date. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Horn: In addition to that, I would like the staff to look into an
overall plan. We're getting convenience stores all over the place. I think we
should have some type of a limit on these things so we don't have a
proliferation of one particular type of development in our community. We don't
21
~O~ty Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
want to be known as the community that developed an area of convenience stores.
Mayor Hamilton: Along that line, I spoke with Bill about that this evening and
seeing how's Don is here, I would like to see and suggest that a moratorium be
placed on any type of, for a period of time until an ordinance can be developed
or something can be done to resolve this issue. Some type of moratorium placed
on any more convenience stores placed in the city period.
Councilman Johnson: I'd say at least the downtown area.
Mayor Hamilton: Anywhere. I think there are ways to handle them effectively.
Whether it's allowing only a certain number in a specific area, a radius. The
same type of thing as we've done with contractor's yards.
Councilman Geving: I think it's citywide. I think it's part of our whole
planning process. It's citywide and I agree with you Mr. Mayor. We ought to
take a look at the whole process.
SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST, METRO LAKES MINI-STORAGE, 7800 PARK DRIVE.
Steve Hanson: Again, I can't tell you exactly what was on the Planning
Corrmission, I wasn't there. The request for a sign variance was to allow a
pylon sign and as you'll notice in the packet, there was a fair amount of
discussion regarding ~nether there had been a prior con~nitment for a pylon sign
versus what's allowed in the present code. The staff has gone back through that
based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and gone back through
those Minutes referenced by them. Essentially came up with that there had been
one mention of a pylon sign at the time. At the time the applicants were doing
their site plan process, they had not gone ahead with that type of a sign
request. Based on that, the staff had determined that there w-as no reliance
essentially on those statements that had been made at that time. Really the
reliance is on the codes that you have before you now. The ordinance was.., and
that recon~mendation was then thought for denial of a sign variance. They would
want those...to the existing code.
Mark Senn: I'm at a little disadvantage. I haven't seen the staff report. I
don't want to be terribly repetitive. Just to I guess make a couple of brief
points. As it relates to the development of the project, as we went through
development phase and went through all the negotiations with both the Planning
Commission and Council and staff, a number of changes were made along the way in
the project to help accor~nodate what appears were in existence out there as it
relates to the lengthy wall along the mini-storage property. We sunk the
building down to eliminate the massiveness of that wall. A b~rm all along the
edge of it to also accomplish the same end. We also beefed up the landscaping
along that side again to accomplish the same end. The catch-22 we're in now is
given the fact that we've done that and the building has such a low point of
visibility we deemed it to be fairly impractical to rely on building signage or
signage that would be placed on the building itself. It would not be very
visible as far as the clientelle goes that are seeking out the mini-storage
project. We would like to ask the City's indulgence on that basis of the
earlier compromises we made in relationship to the structure to look favorably
on the pylon sign. It's kind of a trade-off basically to all of the
modifications were made in that exterior wall. The only other thing I guess we
22
City Council Meeting - December 12 ~ 1988
would like to comment on is, the last time we were before you, your staff jus%
referenced the Planning Con~nission and really couldn't find a lot of reference
to it one way or another as it relates to the stuff we had at the Planning
Commission but the last time we were before you, which is the September 8, 1986
meeting, I think the Minutes are very clear in that you had stated that the sign
ordinance would give us the right to install a wall sign or a pylon sign.
Whether you stick to that...or not, we did rely on that. We felt we had the
right to do that and we were a little bit surprised when we came in to apply for
the sign and be told that we could not build a pylon sign. I'm sorry, I don't
have your...ordinance but there seemed to be a lot of discussion at the Planning
Commission about when that sign ordinance changed the later part of 1986. Some
of the research...with that information and that may very well be the case...
Councilman Boyt: Somehow it strikes me that the City Council wanted to
previously, be careful that your building had a fairly low visibility. I'm not
sure they accomplished that but I am convinced that, you mentioned or in the
Planning Con~ission Minutes that a big part of your business came through
referral and Yellow Pages and not direct site of the building. I would be
inclined to think that even under the old sign ordinance where you couldn't go
above the coping on the top of the building, you were always going to be limited
in your ability to advertise to the highway .... the City's intent of giving you
low visibility to the highway. That was certainly not compatible with being
able to put a sign even under the existing ordinance that would give you that.
I'm inclined to think that the businesses in the office park should be of such a
nature that they don't have to advertise to attract business off the highway.
My opinion is that the Planning Con~ission saw this almost unanimously as not a
good justification to give a variance. One of the things that struck me when I
read the report is that we have 5 conditions for the granting of the variance
and there wasn't anything in the staff regards to any of those 5 conditions so
the report isn't properly prepared as I see it. So at this point, I would
either say table it and prepare a proper report or I would vote against it.
Councilman Horn: I would tend to agree with Bill on the visibility. It might
be a low wall but it does block out the view of the industrial park. You can't
see beyond that wall so obviously we tried to get as low as possible but the way
the lay of the land was, it was totally impossible not to...actually dig in.
The other thing I'd like to comment on was that, I think the Council when they
act on something, acts on what they have today. The Council did not delay that
project to the point where the ordinance has changed against the sign. That was
totally under Council's... Things do change. Future Councils are going to make
changes more than the ones we made in certain areas. I think when you delay a
project as this one was delayed, you have to go along and live with the rules
that are in place at the time that you finally get the project off the ground
and that's what I see happening. To think that a condition is going to stay in
effect from 1986 to where we are now, almost into 1989, is really expecting a
little much when you consider the type of growth that Chanhassen is
experiencing. If you'll also recall, I think the Council at that time expressed
concern with that type of facility at that site anyway. I think had we had the
chance to look at the possibilities for that site, you probably wouldn't have a
project on that site so I think to come along at this point and ask for
something that doesn't meet the current requirements is going a little beyond
what I would reconm]end.
23
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
Councilman Geving: I think that a pylon sign of any size such as being proposed
here would be completely out of order in the Industrial Park. I have to agree
totally with the Planning Conxnission in their recc~mendation to us in this
respect. When we designed the Industrial Park, that certainly was part of our
overall intent that we wouldn't have a number of signs out there on the highway
trying to bring people in off the road. I think that there is a high degree of
people that use the industrial park, do so through the Yellow Pages. Know it
exists, whatever but you've not going to convince me as a councilmember that you
need a pylon sign in the industrial park to attract business. I am totally
against it. I don't see the hardship and even if there were, I don't see how
you could have a 20 foot sign above the roof line and still be the intent of
what you're trying to do. It just wouldn't match so it would have to be at the
very most maybe an 8 foot pylon. I don't know how big that berm is but I'm
against the pylon and I would vote against it. That's all.
Councilman Johnson: Well I don't think our sign ordinance is perfect and I hope
that we'll make some modifications, I don't think we should modify it enough to
allow this pylon sign. It's not the right place. I think that the plantings
that are going on in there can be made such that the sign is still visible.
That low profile ground sign will be visible there. It's not going to be as
visible as a pylon sign but that's the nature of the park you decided to locate
in.
Mayor Hamilton: Since the Council decided to allow that business to be there,
to be located in that area, they ought to be allowed to have a sign that would
attract business, even if it's a temporary sign. I think if you're going to
have a business, you should encourage that business to do as well as they can
possibly do. On the other hand, I voted against this project initially because
I don't think it's the correct place to have it so I would probably vote against
the signage change. I'm kind of torn here because we have a business here. It's
here now. It's a functioning business and I'm all in favor of anytime you have
a business in your conm~unity, you should do all you can to help them keep that
business going and thriving as best as possible. Even if it means a temporary
sign to get you rolling. Say an 18 month period of time. Put up a sign that
would attract the business that you need to get you going and at such time as,
say after 18 months or 12 months or whatever the period of time might be, then
the signage changes back to conform with the ordinance or whatever is required
at that t Ln~e.
Councilman Geving: I would make the motion to deny the sign variance request
#88-18 for a 50 square foot pylon sign in the IOP district.
Councilman Horn: For a permanent sign?
Councilman Geving: For a permanent sign.
Councilman Horn: Second.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the Sign Variance
Request #88-18. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
24
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
ACCEPT LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN FEASIBILITY STUDY AND CALL FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING.
Larry Brown: I'm starting to lose my voice so I'll turn over it to our
consultant Dick who has a brief presentation.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'm not sure that the Council needs a presentation.
We're calling for a feasibility study and a public hearing. We're going to
accept the feasibility study and call for a public hearing. Unless there's some
really glaring things we need to discuss about the report, it seems to be a good
and complete report. It's a project that's certainly been needed for years. I
wish we had done it a while back so I'd like to see us move ahead with it. In
fact I'll move approval of the Lake Lucy Road watermain feasibility study and
call for a public hearing to be held on January 23, 1989.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Councilman Geving: Did you include all of these conditions and reconm~endations?
Mayor Hamil ton: Yes.
Councilman Horn: I agree, this is a needed project. I think this is going to
be a tough one for the new council because there's a lot of people in here that
we're going to put in, while maybe not a legal hardship, we're certainly going
to put thom in a hardship situation so this is going to be a tough one to deal
with. Obviously it's a project that has to happen at some point.
Mayor Hamilton: They just got their yards back in order and now we'll tear th~m
up again.
Councilman Geving: Not only that Tom. This was a very hot item last sunnier and
the Lake Lucy people were pretty upset about all of the assessments and I think
we' re going to have to be very careful. I agree with what Clark said about the
new council. It's going to be something we're going to have to advertise fully.
Let people know what's happening. Be full and open about this whole process and
do it in a slow procedural method because this is going to hit them like a ton
of bricks let me tell you.
Mayor Hamilton: I see this project as one that really is a citywide benefit
because you're tying our whole water system together. It benefits everybody in
the con~nunity have this project so I don't believe that one person benefits
anymore than another in this con~nunity when we do this project. It could
probably be one of those rare instances when you look at an area or citywide
assessment rather than just a location. It could probably be paid for out of
water bills to everybody and let people know why it's going up. Why the water
rates will be increased to pay for this. That seems to be a more reasonable way
to do it than to start assessing someone.
Councilman Geving: I think that's the message though that we've got to get
across early. That it is a citywide project.
Councilman Johnson: There is also in this project some people who currently do
not have any access to any watermain who now have very large pieces of property
that eventually will be developable when they have sewer in the area that it
25
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
will be a benefit to them. So there should be some assessment. There's also
some benefit citywide.
Mayor Hamilton: Once they develop, then they can be assessed.
Councilman Johnson: That's what I think Alternate #3 is all about.
Don Ashworth: That' s staff' s recon~nendation.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that we assess them when they develop.
Councilman Boyt: A huge portion of this is already being paid for by the City
as a whole. One of the things, Larry you can nod if this is true but my
understanding is that we are not touching the existing road surface or ~ike
path.
Larry Brown: There were two options .... one of them involved using a clamshell
or sheeting to keep that watermain outside of the roadway surface. The other
option however did involve disturbance of the roadway and replacement...
Dick: The option that we're recon~nending would be the trenching method using
the trench box. And it just so happens, as we estimated that alternative, it
did come in at the low assessment so we think we can do the project without
damaging the roadway at all. There are a couple of locations on the road where
walls have been built right up along the road and they would have to be dealt
with specially.
Councilman Boyt: Do you think that in that alternative, someone, whoever put
the report together, acknowledged that one of our biggest challenges is going to
be the assessment process and that we may well get challenged in court and that
will add to cost in t~me. I would suggest to you that, as the others have
mentioned, look at some means of not assessing this except where we have a very
strong case to prove benefit. The other thing is, we better get it done fast
because unless it snows a great deal in the next few months, we have last summer
looking at us a year from now.
Mayor Hamilton: Even worse. It's going to be another year on top of us.
Resolution #88-139: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the following:
1. The attached feasibility study for the Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain
Project No. 88-25 be accepted.
2. Construction Alternative 3, which includes the booster pumping station
improvements, be designed as the chosen alternative.
3. Plans and specifications be ordered to be prepared by Westwood Professional
Services.
4. The City Council resolve that the excess proceeds from the general
obligation bonds of 1986 for trunk water system improvements be pledged to
finance this project.
26
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
5. A public hearing be called for January 23, 1989.
6. Staff be directed to develop the assessment policy for this area for review
prior to the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPOINTMENT TO SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to appoint Councilman Jay Johnson to this without
any further discussion.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move that we table until the next Council has a
chance to make their appointments.
Councilman Boyt: I'll second that.
Councilman Geving: If that's what you prefer. It's your term that's being
expired.
Councilman Johnson: It's not that I wanted to continue to service, I will.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table the appointment to
the Southwest Metro Transit Commission until the next Council meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to amend the agenda to discuss
itsm 13.5 at this point and discuss item 13 when Mark Koegler arrives. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
WEST 78TH STREET/LAREDO DRIVE STOP SIGN/SIGNAL, COUNCILMAN BOYT.
Councilman Boyt: I think Don's m~mo sun~narizes it very well. My point is
simply, I don't think this has to be a decision that we put a tremendous amount
of thought into. I think what we need to do is take some action while we're
doing some of our more detailed work and get a stop sign up there. It's
dangerous and difficult to get across that intersection.
Mayor Hamilton: Why wouldn't it be better to have a stop sign at Kerber and
78th? Or both.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe both. I don't have a big problem with putting them
other places. I think that's one place that given the bank and the Brooke
Superette and just the flow of traffic from the residential area onto West 78th
Street. We've had a year now and there's definitely a need. I think Don makes
an awfully good point. Before we do anything very permanent, we need a study.
I agree with that but on a short te~m basis, I think we need a stop sign.
27
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
Mayor Hamilton: If we're going to do that, if you're going to do a study, than
we should look at our end of town also. Frontier and 78th. It's just as
dangerous as it down on Laredo.
Councilman Boyt: But in that one, we run into the State problem. I'm not
opposed to having stop signs at all those locations. I'd just like, if it's
easy to put one in in a particular place and there's a clear need, let's go
ahead and put it in.
Mayor Hamilton: I mentioned Kerber because I know people are cutting across to
avoid the stop signs on TH 5 so I wouldn't be opposed to putting two on there.
One at Laredo and one at Kerber. It seems like if you're stopping at Kerber
first, then it certainly gives the people at Laredo a chance to get on. It's
going to stagger the traffic hopefully. Even at Market. Market's going to be a
real busy street one of these days.
Councilman Geving: I think that's something that we don't know yet. I kind of
like what Bill is saying. I've been bothered by that West 78th and Laredo for a
long time. You just can not get across there. I counted 16 or 17 cars one
morning when I tried to get across from Laredo onto 78th.
Mayor Hamilton: Just so we stop traffic on 78th someplace.
Councilman Johnson: There was one action that we did suggest to staff to pursue
with MnDot when we gave them our final choice of 2A that we're going to reroute
TH 101 to TH 5 is to pursue rerouting that now. Take it to the present Dakota
and switch those signs now. Take that action at this point. This way we get
that street back and we can again put the 3 way stops up there in front of
Kenny's there which is another very important place to stop the traffic always
with the two churches and all there.
Councilman Geving: I don't even go that way anymore.
CounciLman Horn: ...come out of that clock tower area because you're got the
traffic going high speed down TH 101 right at that short stacking.
Mayor Hamilton: Plus you have traffic parked along the curb so you get to the
corner and you can't see. Especially on a Sunday morning. They park right up
to the corner. You're halfway in, or all the way in before you can see if
there's anybody coming. They're going to hit you before you see them. I think
you're suggesting then Bill a study to figure out where we should have these
stop signs or are you just saying to do it now and then have them...
Councilman Boyt: What I would like to see, and maybe there's a more reasonable
approach. I think it's obvious that a sign would improve things at 78th and
Laredo and I would like to see appropriate signage put in there as soon as we
can.
Mayor Hamilton: Three way stop.
Councilman Boyt: Three way stop. We already have a one-way so finishing it
off. I think that we should definitely do a study on all the signs on West 78th
Street as soon as we can and make traffic flow the way we want it to flow there
instead of having a short cut which I don't think anyone envisioned that West
28
City Council Meeting ' December 12~ 1988
78th Street was going to be a shortcut for around TH 5
Councilman Horn: I would also like to suggest that, obviously this is part of
our overall downtown ringroad traffic. I believe this is something that the
HRA should be involved in and we should ask BRW, since they came up with the
downtown plan, what their plan is for that. This shouldn't be a surprise at
this point. That should have been taken into account in that ringroad plan.
I'd like to know what their response is to it.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to move that w~ follow Bill's suggestion and put a
sign in~nediately at Laredo and 78th. Make it a 3 way stop and then institute a
study for stop signs on 78th all the way from Powers to TH 101 as it goes north
and just see what else can be done. That's my motion.
Councilman Boyt: Second.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to install a 3 way stop sign at
the intersection of Laredo and West 78th Street irm~ediately and institute a
study for stop signs all along West 78th Street from Powers Blvd. to TH 101
going north. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn and Councilman Johnson
who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Johnson: I just wanted to point out, I'm opposed only to the
ir~nediate signs. I think we definitely have to have that study but I'm not for
putting up traffic signs without the traffic study to justify those signs.
Mayor Hamilton: We need to slow traffic down. That sign can always be changed
after the study.
Councilman Geving: The only point that I'd like to make Mr. Mayor, since we
passed this, that the study be done swiftly. Now that we've agreed with the
signs, let's get the study done in the next 30 days or whatever. Whatever is
reasonable.
Councilman Horn: I think we've already proven that once we put them in, even
though they're ill advised, we don't take them out. The one on Frontier is a
prime example of that.
Councilman Boyt: Which one is that?
Councilman Horn: The one on Frontier that we put in. The last stop sign we put
in that nobody stops at.
Mayor Hamilton: That's another point Clark. I think if we're going to put this
sign in, then we'd better monitor it as soon as it gets in so people stop there
or come reasonably close to stopping. Just driving through it doesn't do it for
me.
Councilman Horn: I totally disagree with putting up a knee slap reactions to
stop signs. I think you get into trouble by doing that. I think this is
something that deserves study. I think this takes expert advice. I don't think
we're experts in traffic flow to justify doing that and I don't think that
that's the highest priority intersection that we can address. There are far
29
City Council Meeting December 12~ 1988
more dangerous intersections than that.
UPDATE ON CONTRACTORS YARDS IN THE A-2 DISTRICT, MARK KOEGLER.
Mayor Hamilton: We have your report Mark. Is there anything over and above
what we have seen in here that we ought to be aware of that you may want to
relay to us?
Mark Koegler: Mr. Mayor, I think the report is fairly self explanatory and I
won't duplicate that. I'd only offer, I think the substance behind the Planning
Commission's position to date was the fact that they think that the nature of
the southern area of the city has changed substantially over the last 10 years.
Reflected in that, apparently it is their feeling now that contractors yards are
no longer appropriate land uses outside the industrial area. I'm sure you're
aware that the point this is at tonight is simply to bring it to you for your
concurrence that they should continue to pursue the investigation of this
change. They will then go through the public hearing process but there were
people on the Planning Commission who felt it wise to check with the Council to
make sure you had s~mewhat the same thinking before they go through that
process. So it's in that regard that it's brought to you this evening for your
review.
Councilman Johnson: I like the definition that you gave to modify the
definition to where it was an accessory to the principle residential use and
that it is, while maybe not solely the members of the family but like a home
occupation use. Have a restricted number of employees. If you've got 20
employees coming in there, that should be in the IOP. If you've got 20
employees coming to work at your place of business, you should be in the
industrial park. If you've got 1 or 2 employees coming in, you're more like a
Buck Excavating. He has a couple of employees I believe that come in there but
it's not 10 or 15. That's what I would see as a contractors yard. Is a
slightly larger than occupational or home occupation as defined elsewhere in the
ordinance. The place where Gardeneer and all those where they have quite a few
employees, I don't think that's too terribly appropriate now. As we expand and
become more rural residential out there and less really agricultural. That's my
feeling on it.
Councilman Geving: I think there's always going to be a need for small
operations that have 4 or 5 to 10 employees somewhere in this city. A lot of
them aren't big enough to go into an industrial park. They're just small
operations. They're mom and pop. They're making crafts or whatever they're
doing in their garage or in their basement. I think there should be a
limitation on the size. I think that would be a good recon~nendation and I do
believe and agree with the Planning Con~nission that the uses south of TH 5 has
changed a lot over just, you said 10 years. I think it's changed a lot just in
the last 2 or 3 years when we were forced to go to 2 1/2 acres. I see that
developing very quickly south of TH 5. Almost to the exclusion of contractors
yards. I think it's going to be filled up pretty much with single family homes.
But, I believe we need to control that and recognize that even those contractors
yards that pop up aren't very temporary in nature. They're not long term.
They're there because it's convenient. In most cases it's cheap. They can
operate out of their home and they don't have to go into an industrial park and
buy a very expensive piece of land. We've got to recognize that and I think I
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
would agree that the contractors yards should be in the industrial park. That's
all I have.
Councilman Horn: Many times I've made the statement that if you find a lot of
people violating a rule or an ordinance, it's time to take a look at the
ordinance and see if it makes sense and that was exactly the reason we did that
in terms of contractors yards. The primary purpose was to allow mom and pop
type businesses that resided in Chanhassen to legitimatize their useage and keep
those small businesses here. The original intent was not to provide an
incentive for other businesses like that to come in or even bigger businesses to
come in. I think it's a legitimate question to ask if we should allow outside
businesses to come in and develop that way. I think that's something that
should be considered. I think what we've had to allow in lately has totally
gotten out of hand with what the original intent of this thing. As one of the
people who pushed hard to get contractors yards opened up so we could use some
of that area, both for contractors yards and houses I might add, I find that the
intent of what I had in mind in at least initiating this has gotten out of hand.
I think it's time to take some control again. I think this is a good step in
doing that. The only consideration I would have is should we use this as an
incentive for other businesses outside the cc~munity to come in or should we
just grandfather in the existing businesses in Chanhassen as the original intent
was?
Councilman Boyt: Two points in Mark's report caught my eye. You went through a
list of communities, Maple Grove, Chaska, F~en Prairie, and the only one that
had contractors yards was Chaska and they had a minimum lot size of 40 acres. I
don't want Chanhassen to become the home of contractors yards and we are. We' re
going to continue to be unless we change our ordinance because there's certainly
a demand for that type of business and we're the only place within a reasonable
driving distance that allows it. If you look at what we've approved in
contractors yards, the two most recent ones, we had one that came in. A person
from outside of town has an operation that includes 5 tractor trailers and in my
opinion is completely incompatible with the long term interest we have for that
part of town. We have another fellow who came in and because the bank forced
him to split his property off and economic conditions, even though I voted
against it, I could understand why there might be room in the city for that sort
of contractors yard. So we certainly don't want to become a collecting point
and we don't want to be known, in my opinion, as the only city in the
metropolitan area that allows them. I think that Mark's recon~endation that
says they are largely inconsistent with the long term growth in Chanhassen is
exactly right. If we want to set something in place that says the existing
people can say, we've already got that. Right now what we' re looking at
basically is do we want to be an attracting point for future contractors yards
and I would say we sure don't. I'd like to see an ordinance written that would
make us a suitable place for the people who are currently operating but
definitely not attract anymore.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm just looking at the first sentence of the recommendation in
Mark's report and it says, contractors yards are largely inconsistent with the
long term growth of Chanhassen. I think that's probably one of the worse
statements I ever heard. I think contractors yards are an important part of the
growth and development of a conxnunity. When I grew up as a kid in Hopkins there
were contractors yards all over the place. They help your con~nunity develop.
You can go to Hopkins today and you can't find a contractors yard because the
31
-~-'~ _
". ity Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
ground was developed and they move on. They moved out to Eden Prairie. They
moved to Minnetonka. You probably would be hard pressed to find any in those
com~unites today because they've moved onto Chanhassen. They've moved to
Victoria. As areas develop, the small businessman, the contractors as we call
them here, they move on because the land becomes too valuable for them to stay
there. It just happens that some of the contractors in this corrmunity, small
contractors are of a great help to the city of Chanhassen. They have supplied
us with services and materials over the years that have saved us untold
thousands of dollars. I agree with Bill that I don't think we ought to be a
melting pot and a resting place for every contractors yard to come along. I
don't think that's what we are but I think they're a valuable and needed asset.
They're a small business. They're a guy or a couple of guys ~no have gotten
together and started a business and are trying to make it work and the only way
they can make it work is by either leasing some inexpensive property or
inexpensive building or being in an area that doesn't cost th~n a great deal of
money. They can't afford to start a small business and be in an industrial
park. Small business in my opinion, is the backbone of this country. More
people are involved in small business than they are in anything else. Certainly
all these people are not going to generate all the tax dollars that Rosemount
Engineering does or that Instant Webb or United Mailing or others do, but in my
opinion they're very important. Those people are out there working theirs butts
off to make a buck and what they make they spend and they spend it in your
c~unity and I think they're very important and they're an asset to the
cc~munity. Tot that reason I would prefer not to see any change in the
contractors yard ordinance at this time.
Councilman Johnson: Since they're asking for future use, the Planning
Commission as to what's going to happen in the future, I'd like to hear from
Don, Tom and Ursula on this, if they've had a chance to look at this, if they
can express their opinion.
Mayor Hamilton: They' 11 have plenty of time to express their opinion. Not that
I don't want to hear from them but I don't think it's fair to put them on the
spot this evening. They're going to be dealing with this issue.
Councilman Johnson: Only if they want.
Mayor Hamilton: They'll be dealing with this issue from here on. I think
they've heard our comments. They can formulate their own opinions along with
the two that will be here, why they'll be the ones to vote on this.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure if the Planning Commission should go ahead and
continue action...
.Mayor Hamilton: It sounds to me like there's a clear indication that they
should. There's 4 people saying they should and 1 that's saying they shouldn't.
I mean how clear of a message do you want to send?
Councilman Johnson: In 3 weeks there might be 2 saying there should and 3
saying they shouldn't.
Mayor Hamilton: Then they can deal with that at that time.
32
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
Councilman Geving: I think they ought to continue. I think you heard it f~0m
the Council tonight.
Mayor Hamilton: I think I'm hearing correctly. Four in favor, 1 opposed to
doing something with the ordinance. Is there anybody who didn't hear that?
Good, then I guess we're all listening then.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Hamilton: Jay, you wanted to talk about zoning ordinance amendment?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I'd like to talk about two and we'll reverse the order
of th~m. The first one I want to talk about is temporary uses. We had a
section in our ordinance which allowed temporary uses if you gave thsm a
conditional use permit. Very astutely our City Attorney has informed us that if
you get a conditional use permit, it can't be temporary so we struck out the
entire section of the ordinance. We need something for like when the church,
Westside Baptist was here that gives us a little more flexibility in doing what
we actually did today but in accordance with the ordinance. I would like to see
that the Planning Con~nission, City Attorney's office look at reinstituting a
temporary use provision to our zoning ordinance to where it is contingent upon,
it would be the continued use contingent upon obtaining a conditional use permit
type deal.
Councilman Geving: Would there be any difference Jay if there were an ~mergency
power granted to the Council in ordinance form? For example, let's say Pastor
Bryan Pike came before us tonight and said their church just burned down. A
little different situation but pretty much the same kind of scenario but they
say, we need a temporary use for the next 6 months to get our act together and
build a church. The Council needs to have that provision in it's ordinance to
be able to say, go ahead and do it. We know it violates all the ordinance
regulation rules but it is an emergency situation. That's really all you're
talking about.
Councilman Johnson: Exactly, or if anybody's business burns down and he has to
relocate and the only place to relocate temporarily he's not permitted there.
We don't have, like you say, the capability to do it other than as we did it
earlier.
Mayor Hamilton: We can do anything we want.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, we can do anything we want but is it defensible? What
I want to do is have an ordinance that makes it defensible.
Mayor Hamilton: To who? Defensible to whom? To ourselves? If a disaster
occurs and we need to move somebody into a building on a temporary basis, who's
going to tell us we can't? We're the ones who can make that decision. That's
just like the church tonight. There's no reason that we can't do that.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, that was that one. The other one we touched on
tonight too which was convenience stores and free standing auto service centers.
I discussed this with some people with other cities and how some other people
have taken care of this issue of having too many, what people will fear are too
33
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
many convenience stores. One way is if you're going to have a free standing
structure that is only a convenience store with gas pumps, which is what Amoco
is proposing, is that you require them also to have service bays. That's one
thing I'm afraid we're losing here. Eventually if Loren for some reason has to
leave, we' re getting down to very few service. As we're growing we need more
and more service, automobile service. That' s something we' re hurting here and I
don't want to see us have to go to a strict service center. There's already
been one proposed for town but I like the home town service station. I've
gotten very good service from both Gary Brown and Ivan and...the three I've gone
to here. Everyone of them did a good job for me.
Mayor Hamilton: If I could follow up on that for a second. There's an Amoco
station in Buffalo that has a convenience food thing. They have videos, they
have coffee, donuts, the whole works there. They also have service. It's a big
station and it's really nice. They're out towing and starting and doing all
this stuff. I see no reason why we can't have the same thing here. No reason
at all.
Councilman Geving: There's a need for Gary Brown's type operations in our city.
We need the towing facilities. If there's a car wrecked on the highway, the
State Patrol has to have a place to bring it to. You need to have a place where
you can get your muffler fixed and fan belt fixed. I don't want to have to go
to 'Excelsior to get that done. I want to be able to do it in Chanhassen. I
don't know what you're leading up to here Jay by your bringing this up to the
Council for discussion but I think it's healthy to discuss this because that's
what we're becoming. If we develop, let's say the Chanhassen Legion club
decides to sell and vacates that corner. You could have that same type thing
there. Or the Ward's property. You could have one on each one of those
corners. We don't want convenience stores all over this cc~munity. We don't
need them.
Councilman Johnson: We could have 5 total there.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we talked about the possibility of having a moratorium.
I think that's a good idea. Until such time as something can be developed.
Let's give ourselves a chance. That's all it does is to allow us the
opportunity.
Councilman Johnson: If we go with the moratorium, Charlie James' property, we
did a site plan review that included a convenience store with pumps. It's been
so long ago, nothing's happened there. Is that one already been approved?
Don Ashworth: I don't think it's valid at this point. It's over a year old.
CounciLman Geving: I think you might be in Roger's bay...here though because he
could have proceeded to a point where it might have gone beyond the point where
we could stop it.
Mayor Hamilton: But he never came in with a specific plan.
Councilman Geving: Do we have any plan? There's no plan?
Mayor Hamilton: He had a building but he didn't say I'm going to put a PDQ in
here and this is the gas pumps.
34
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
Councilman Geving: Is it built?
Councilman Johnson: No. It hasn't been started. We did a site plan review I
believe about a year ago.
Roger Knutson: You do not get a vested right to proceed unless you've got
sticks in the ground.
Councilman Geving: Okay, so we could prevent that from happening if we went
with a moratorium. Is that what you're saying?
Roger Knutson: Yes. I'll remind you tonight you had one, for example you had
one you approved.
Mayor Hamilton: Which one?
Roger Knutson: That sign, before that one.
Councilman Boyt: We tabled it.
Roger Knutson: 7 was?
Councilman Geving: We tabled that.
Roger Knutson: There are tw~ ways of handling it. You could say, what
applications that are in process right now or you could say no.
Councilman Johnson: What does it take to do a moratorium?
Roger Knutson: An ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: Is it a zoning ordinance or is a public hearing?
Roger Knutson: It's...
Don Ashworth: But if you were going to do that Roger, is the Council not better
served in simply instructing your office to have an ordinance ready for their
next meeting where they could pass it rather than, then again, maybe further
study it. Let's talk about the service bay idea than to put a moratorium into
effect. This is where you get into the takings and the whole Constitutional
issues that were out 2 to 3 months ago. Can you honestly recc~mend a
moratorium?
Roger Knutson: The only time you're supposed to have a moratorium, it can be
for a limited duration, not to exceed 12 months or 6 months. It's to allow you
to do a study and it has to be by ordinance. To pass an ordinance you got to
have it in writing and you got to see what you're signing. Yes, I could bring
back the moratorium to your next meeting.
Councilman Johnson: Could we call a special meeting for next Monday night for
the ordinance for that?
Roger Knutson: If you want.
35
--~?City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
Councilman Geving: Is it that urgent?
Councilman Boyt: Yes, I think so.
Roger Knutson: I'll remind you of one thing. Convenient stores with gas pumps
a conditional use?
Councilman Geving: No, they're permitted uses.
Roger Knutson: I'll make a guess and I don't this to be a fact, between now and
the first of the year, you're probably not going to see many people start
construction.
Councilman Johnson: Especially since we just tabled them they won't.
Councilman Boyt: To me I think it would be nice if we could act on this before
the Amoco station came up. If we want to kill something temporarily, the way to
do it is to meet a week frc~n tonight and do just that.
Councilman Horn: I think it could be the first item on the agenda in the first
meeting in January. That would be before anything else is considered after this
meeting.
Councilman Geving: See there's no other council meetings between now. Nothing
can happen in this city between now and the first council meeting in January.
Roger Knutson: They're going to need site plan review anyway. Nothing can get
away from you.
Councilman Geving: We would be safe in holding this until the first meeting
in January.
Councilman Boyt: What do we gain by doing that?
Councilman Horn: We get the people who are going to have to live with this
decision to be able to make it.
Councilman Boyt: That's a good point.
Councilman Geving: I think that's an excellent point. Nothing's going to
happen between now and then anyway.
Councilman Johnson: Except for Charlie James starting construction.
Mayor Hamilton: He's not going to do that.
Councilman Horn: I think we should instruct Roger to come back with an
ordinance for discussion at the first meeting in the year and you can take
action at that point. That should be the first agenda item.
Roger Knutson: So I understand this, there will be a moratorium on convenience
stores with gas pumps? Is that right?
36
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Right. Without serviCe~
Councilman Boyt: The ordinance doesn't go into effect until it's printed in the
paper.
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Councilman Boyt: So even if it's the first item on the agenda Clark, it
wouldn't go into effect during the rest of that meeting. It wouldn't be until 2
weeks later.
Councilman Horn: You don ' t need to act...
Councilman Geving: Your agenda on the first meeting in January wouldn't have
anything on it that would affect this moratorium.
Councilman Boyt: What about Amoco? Can you deny them access to the agenda? I
doubt it.
Mayor Hamilton: They'll request to be on the agenda the first meeting in
January.
Councilman Boyt: You bet they will.
Councilman Johnson: But if it gets passed, we can table it.
Councilman Boyt: You kind of have to have a reason for tabling it.
Councilman Johnson: Sure, we have a reason. We just passed a moratorium about
5 minutes earlier.
Councilman Geving: I think we'd have a pretty legitimate reason wouldn't you
Roger to table an issue like this? You're studying it. You're absolutely
studying it. It's a legitimate reason.
Councilman Boyt: You mean you're establishing a moratorium before your
moratorium takes effect?
Roger Knutson: That's in effect what you're doing. Again, as far as remedies
go, assuming your moratorium is valid and you table it, there's nothing they can
do about it.
Mayor Hamilton: Of course, staff doesn't have to allow it on the agenda either.
If they came in and said they wanted to be on the agenda the first meeting in
January, you don't have to allow them on the agenda either.
Don Ashworth: We'd have to have a pretty good reason not to.
Mayor Hamilton: Because we're studying the issue. We're not ready to deal with
it at this time. You can put them off for a while.
Don Ashworth: I will work with Roger.
Mayor Hamilton: I imagine Amoco's Attorney will be calling you in the morning.
37
~'~[ty Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
Councilman Horn: Let's ask Roger. Would you feel, any ordinance we pass can
obviously be changed. Would we be in a better position? We can't pass
something without seeing it can we?
Roger Knutson: No. So if you want to have a special meeting, you certainly
can.
Mayor Hamilton: What is your recommendation Roger? I think you understand what
we're trying to accomplish and I want to know what your recommendation is for us
to do.
Roger Knutson: There's no disadvantage from a legal point of view in having a
special meeting. There's a potential slight, very modest disadvantage to
holding off until the first of the year but as long as it's close.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, we need to be put into the strongest legal position that
I think we can be put in to deal with this.
Roger Knutson: A special meeting would be a stronger position.
Mayor Hamilton: Even if we had a special meeting, I don't think it's going to
have an adverse affect on the new council members. I don't think we're creating
anything they can't live with.
Roger Knutson: They can repeal the ordinance at the first meeting.
Don Ashworth: Would you like to meet like at 5:00 then? I'd like to get this
into the newspapers so people are aware of it.
Councilman Geving: They're here.
Don Ashworth: If we take action, it would be in this week's edition of the
newspaper?
Councilman Johnson: Not as a public notice but it would be a report.
Councilman Geving: We could meet on the 19th. Next Monday night.
Mayor Hamilton: The 19th at 5:3g.
Councilman Horn: I would like to suggest that the future councilmembers consult
with us on this issue.
1989 POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN UPDATE AND 1988 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, CITY
MANAGER.
Mayor Hamilton: As has been the case for the past 8 years, the City Manager and
I have met. I've written a performance evaluation on himself which I have here
which you're ~lcome to review. I am suggesting as a part of the review that
his position classification needs updating and revision. Don and I have
reviewed that and I think, there's a lot of rewriting that needs to be done as a
job description.
38
City Council Meeting - December 12~ 1988
Councilman Geving: Did you give him your appraisal then Tom?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Councilman Geving: It's been the policy or at least it's been the custom, let's
put it that way, that the mayor performs this and we look at it as a council.
In the past we've each been asked to even fill out our own performance appraisal
but for my own purposes, I would go with whatever the mayor decides. He works
closer with the manager than anybody on the Council.
Mayor Hamilton: I was pretty tough on him this year.
Councilman Geving: You generally are.
I'm satisfied.
I think you're very frank and direct.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, it is here if anyone wants to review it.
Councilman Boyt: I'd make a couple of suggestions. The first one would be that
when we talk about reevaluating or reclassifying the job, I'd like to see the
job, go back through the job and determine it's size. Let's get some outside
frame of references, hopefully in the business co~unity, not just public
government, similar size jobs and determine if we're in the right salary
classification or not. There are some real systematic ways to do that that's
appropriate.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what we did when we established where we're at right now
but it needs to be done again. That's what I'm saying.
Councilman Boyt: I have a few other things but I think they're easily discussed
one on one.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m..
Subm~.tted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
39