1988 10 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with
the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Johnson
and Acting Mayor Geving
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Hamilton
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Jo Ann
Olsen, Jim Chaffee and Todd Gerhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Boyt wanted to
discuss the Robert Pierce development; Councilman Horn wanted to get a status on
the form of government request to staff; Councilman Johnson wanted to put item 5
back on the agenda and to present the Council with some photos of the Assumption
Seminary. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, CounciLman Johnson seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recon~nendations:
a. Authorize Execution of Employee Right-to-Know Contract, Institute for
Environmental Assessment.
b. Resolution #88-105: Accept Plans and Specifications for Audubon Road
Improvements, Phase I.
d. Resolution #88-106: Approval of "Staff Approved" Layout No. lB for TH 5 to
Hennepin County, S.P. 2701-28.
g. Accept MJ~ke Lynch's resignation from the Park and Recreation Con~nission.
i. Final Plat Approval, Sun Ridge ADdition 2nd Addn, Rod Grams.
n. Approval of Accounts.
o. City Council Minutes dated September 26, 1988
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 27, 1988
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
(J) SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 25,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING,
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND PARK DRIVE, DOLPHIN CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see an addition made that asks them to replace
trees with an equal caliper inch so if they r~move trees that amount to 20
caliper inches, they'd have the option of putting in twenty 1 inch trees or five
4 inch trees. I think we have to take some action to protect some trees ~around
here.
City Council Meeting - October 1~, 1988
Councilman Johnson: In calculating this, you can get down to the extreme of a
1/Sth inch tree or whatever. At what point should we start that calculation?
Councilman Boyt: How about 3 or 4 inches? That's a tree that's been around
quite a while.
Councilman Johnson: That's a fairly significant to keep. I was even going 'to
suggest 2.
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe in ~nat you're saying Bill. You're request].ng
something that we've been after for a long time and that's whenever a developer
takes a tree, there should really be a way of replacing that tree. Even J.f it's
not of like caliper but certainly a like kind of tree_ and a starter. There are
times ~en you have to take a large tree and I couldn't expect us to replace
that with a 28 inch oak tree for example.
Councilman Boyt: No, but they would have the option to come in and put in 28 1
inch trees which would be considerably cheaper and it still says to them, you
can't pull a tree out without recognizing that it impacts on the community and
there's a cost involved.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to hear from Jo Ann. Jo Ann, we've had a lot of
these kinds of discussions in the past with developers. We really haven't got a
rule, we have not enforced a rule that I'm aware of.
01sen: We're working on an amencl~ent to the ordinance that will help clear up
what we expect from the developer. As far as this site, they really are
protecting all the trees on the site. They are installing a snow fence and
we'll .be going out and confirming what will be cut down...
Acting Mayor Geving: It's a heavily wooded site. I know that. Has the
forester looked at this?
01sen: They are not constructing in the area ~here it's heavily wooded.
Acting Mayor Geving: Are you saying then that the chance of them taking a
fairly large number of trees is not going to happen in this case?
Olsen: We have already discussed that with them.
Act~.ng Mayor Geving: All the more reason ~ny maybe in this case it would be a
good idea to put that condition in there because if they do affect any trees,
they certainly would have to replace them. If they stay away from the trees,
fine. That's really what we're asking. Let's see where that condition might
go. Do you have any problem with that counseler? Do you have any problem with
that kind of a condition being placed on a development?
Roger Knutson: Is the developer here? Do you have any problem with that?
Joe Hardy: No, I don't. As Jo Ann has said, we have already agreed to put a
snow fence up just outside the wooded gully, if you will, that's on the east end
of the property and our intent never was to get into that area and destroy or
take any trees anyhow, so I have no problem with it. It's very common in many
City Council Meeting - October 1~ 1988
communities though to have an ordinance like that that does require you to
replace the trees.
Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you very much. If you have no problem with that and
our Attorney agrees with it.
Roger Knutson: It looks fine.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to add then the condition 11 and Bill you
might want to restate your condition if you will for the record.
Councilman Boyt: We would like trees that are removed to let's say a 3 inch
diameter currently, to be replaced by trees that total out to the same caliper.
Councilman Horn: Does that have any affect on item 2? In other words, will
anything used in item 2 go to satisfy condition 117
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't believe so. I think they're entirely separate
issues.
Councilman Horn: We're telling him to add trees.
Councilman Johnson: I think we should add the disclaimer above and beyond
what's required because he's already required to add 1 tree per every 30 foot or
whatever.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think the issue is different though. I think in item 2
we're asking the applicant to provide evergreens for screening purposes.
Landscaping. Here we're talking about the potential for a clear cut of a tree
to put the site on. I think the two issues are entirely different.
Councilman Horn: I just don't want anything that's credited for 2 to be used
for item 11.
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't think it will be.
Councilman Boyt: We're all in agreement there that those are supposed to be
separate. I move approval as amended of item l(j) from the Consent Agenda.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'll second your motion.
Councilman Horn: I have a comment. My only reason for going along with this is
because the applicant has no problem with it. I don't believe that this is the
correct way to impose new rules on a developer. I don't like things coming at
this point in time. I think they should be done during the initial review
process and I think they should be handled through the normal ordinance review,
not on an individual case.
Acting Mayor Geving: I certainly agree with your statement but I would like to
direct staff to continue in that area to see if we could come up with a
provision in our ordinance to cover this for all developments. Good comment.
Councilman Johnson: I hope that the Planning Commission, before the ordinance
comes through, will consider this issue in the future. Where there are trees
City Council Meeti. ng - October lg, 1988
affected, to try and put that through. That provision[
Acting Mayor Geving: And I think you could take that back to the Planning
Con~nission Jo Arnn as a directive from the Council indicating that this is
something that we want to .include in the review process.
Councilman Horn: I think until it becomes an ordinance, that they can suggest
that but if a develo~cer doesn't agree with it, I believe our Attorney might have
trouble enforcing it.
Councilman Boyt moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve the site plan for
a 25,00g square foot office/warehouse building, on the southeast corner of TH 5
and Park Drive, Dolphin Construction, Inc. as amended to include a condition 11
which states that any trees currently over 3 inches in diameter removed from the
site to be replaced by trees that total out to the same caliper. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: (M) APPROVE REQUEST TO PHASE PARK AND DEDICATION FEES WITH THE
PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT, MCGLYNN BAKERIES.
Councilman Boyt: My comment here is based on a situation we had a few months
ago in the City. I want it to be clearly understood in our approval that the
fees that are being charged at the time of development, are the fees that will
be charged this one. That we're not establishing the park fee as fixed at this
point. If they want to pay it all today, it's fixed but if they wait 3 years to
pay it, then they pay whatever is being charged per unit at that time.
Acting Mayor Geving: I understand what you're saying. I think I have to ask
counsel though if that is a legitimate and binding agreement that we make with
the developer at the time that the development contract is made and the rates in
effect for park and trail dedication fees would carry over through that contract
regardless of when that next phase comes in.
Roger Knutson: I think you can specify that if they don't develop for 5 years
or 10 years, they pay the charge in effect at that time. My personal experience
is where developers have done preliminary plats and the city is not thinking
ahead and sign development contracts where they have said hard numbers and come
back in 10 to 15 years later. Before it was $100.g0 and now it's $500.0g to
$600.0g and the city gets the short end of it. Yes, I think you can.
Acting Mayor Geving: Very good. I like your provision Bill and compliment you
on bringing this up. Is there a way to take that back to the Park and Rec. I
don't know if Lori is here or someone from the Park and Rec but I do believe
that's a good provision and if you want to make the motion Bill.
Councilman Johnson: I think that should be in the development contract also
which Gary's got. Do we have that kind of stipulation now? The 5 year delay?
I've never thought of that before.
Gary Warren: We do have a condition already written as far as the park and
trail fees saying that they will pay the fee that is in effect when they come in
to pay it.
City Council Meeting - October 1~ 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: So you think we have already covered that? Regardless of
whether or not it's in there, and I hope that it is, I think for McGlynn's
purposes, they ought to know that this is in effect. Just for the record, I
think that we should still make the motion Bill.
Councilman Boyt: It was my understanding as well Gary that it is in effect but
the issue did come up and I wanted to be sure that we were very clear that it's
the fee that's in effect at the time of the building. I would move approval of
item l(m) with the attached statement that the fees that will be collected are
the fees that are applicable at the time of the building.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is there a representative here tonight of McGlynn's
Bakery?
Councilman Boyt moved, CounciLman Johnson seconded to approve the request to
phase park and trail dedication fees with the phases of development for McGlynn
Bakeries with the understanding that the fees that will be collected are the
fees that are applicable at the time of the building. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION: There were no visitor presentations at this meeting.
AWARD OF BIDS: DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, PHASE II.
Gary Warren: As mentioned in the staff report, the phase II bids were opened
and we had very competitive bids. The low bidder is Midwest Asphalt
Corporation. They've been working on our Bluff Creek project. His corrected
bid, almost all of the bids had some math complication there of one sort or
another, was $643,428.33. The Manager's co~nent, I don't know, Don do you want
to address that?
Don Ashworth: Just that there will have to be that stipulation. I wanted the
Council to be aware of the fact that that work is proposed to be completed and
the only way that work can be completed is for the property owners involved, and
there's really only two, would have to dedicate those land areas over to the
City. We did in the other areas, Riveria, the Mason property, w-as reserve a
disclaimer which would allow future Councils to make a decision, if they wish,
to turn that property back to those individuals. By signing that agreement,
they would agree to accept that at a future date.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to ask, who are the two property owners in
question and whether or not you have met with them and they're willing to file
the waiver so that there can't be a future claim that they did not and were not
aware of these assessments to the tune of $630,000.00.
Don Ashworth: They are Bloomberg Companies and at the current point in time, I
think it's Bloomberg on both but the sale of the old Instant Webb property to a
hotel developer is very en~ninent and they very well have transpired it just this
past week. I tried getting a hold of Clayton all of last Week and was
City Council Meeting - October lg~ 1988
unsuccessful in doing that. I don't have a problem with the Council setting
that as a condition, both on the waiver, the requirement to dedicate. I think
it was primarily those two.
Acting Mayor Geving: How does the Council feel about that issue of whether or
not to make this a waiver? The reason I question this, when we did the
downtown, when we got to the assessment stage, which is the final stage of
paying for the project, there were a few businessmen who came forward and said
that they weren't aware of the assessments. They hadn't been told and I don't
want that to happen in this case. ~e want to be up front with them so that they
know the total amount of this bid at $643,0~.0~ and when J.t comes time for the
assessments, they will either have waived their rights to appeal and we'll have
the signed letter in our hands to that effect or at that time, I just can't see
us going ahead with this unless we have that kind of assurance. Any other
council comments?
Councilman Boyt: I have a comment related to the plan Dale. I think the
proposal made by the City Manager, I certainly support that. A question I had
when I looked at the plan was, Bowling Alley Road. Can you tell me how we
arrived at that?
Don Ashworth: That's simply a way to signify the road. There's been no action
by the Council. There are no signs up. There is no action.
Councilman Boyt: You're assuring me that we're not going to go with Bowling
Alley Road?
Don Ashworth: That's a good point. How would the Council like to go about the
issue of addressing what the name of that road should be?
Acting Mayor Geving: I think this is very preliminary and let's get on with the
contract and the project which won't be done until late next summer anyway.
We've got a lot of time to determine what we're going to call that road. For
sketch purposes, I think that's fine.
Councilman Boyt: I feel reassured Dale.
Acting Mayor Geving: If Don said it, it's in the record. But I did want to do
it right on this assessment policy and I would like to put a condition upon this
whole project that before this project commences, that we have in our hands the
waiver agreements frem all of those who could potentially be assessed. With
that I would like to have a motion for the awarding of this bid.
Roger Knutson: To set the record straight, you also want the land transferred
to your ownership.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's correct.
CounciLman Horn: I would move award of the bid to Midwest Asphalt Corporation
with the waiver agre~nents for land transferred as stated this evening.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: Sure.
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Resolution #88-107: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award
the bid for the downtown redevelopment project, Phase II to Midwest Asphalt
Corporation in the amount of $643,428.33 conditioned upon the property owners
involved deeding the property to the City and upon their executing a special
assessment waiver which would provide them with no right to object to special
assessments or the completion of the project. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table item 3, TH 101
update, until Fred Hoisington arrives. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR GRANDVIEW ROAD SEWER AND WATER PROJECT.
Acting Mayor Geving: We had this it~n before us several weeks ago. We put it
in the hands of our Assistant City Engineer, I believe. Larry took this matter
and we do have an update on the Grandview Road sewer and water file #88-23. I
see residents here from that area. Could we have your report at this time Gary.
Gary Warren: As you referenced Dale, Larry has spent some time here trying to
refine the cost estimate as directed by the Council at the last meeting.
Subsequently then has met with the neighbors, those that he could make contact
with, which I think was a majority of them, to present them on our preliminary
estimate that we were looking at assessments of approximately $14,400.00 each
for sanitary sewer and watermain connections to the properties. The test that
Council had directed staff to apply to this then was if 60% of the property
owners were in favor of proceeding with the project with that cost in mind, that
it...feasibility. I guess maybe it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that
since that cost is more than the cost of replacing a septic and well, that the
residents were not in favor of proceeding with that. I believe all of them were
against that cost. I felt I wanted to get before the Council since I 'was out of
town for the last meeting. Very sensitive obviously to the cost here to the
neighborhood and I don't mean to underplay them. I feel however we also have an
obligation from a health standpoint to the neighborhood. We did a little
research on the age of the properties out there. They're are all from the 1958
to 1960 construction era. It's not to say that some of the residents maybe
haven't upgraded their septic systems. We don't have any records on that but in
my perspective, I think that we've got examples here of system are failing. The
area is within our Urban Service Area which are standard is to have public sewer
and water available to it. I really think that Council should seriously
consider looking at this to see if, it could be next week or it could be 10
years from now when the next system fails. I'm very concerned, I guess, the way
that the systems lay out out there, that we could get piecemeal requests for
connecting into the Hidden Valley system and then if you get further
subdivision, which there is a potential with the size of the lots up there,
we're going to have a real can of worms on our hands in trying to efficiently
run in a system for that area. My perspective, although it's not popular, I
really believe that we need to grapple with putting in the municipal sewer and
water and look at other alternates maybe. Nobody likes deferred assessments but
maybe stretching out the assessment amortization period. Things like that
possibly to help with the financial burden. I think we've got enough evidence
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
to say that this is the time that public sewer and water ought to be out there.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let me ask you, in your discussions and negotiations with
the homeowners, there's five of them apparently, they did indicate that if the
cost were approximately two-thirds of $14,g00.0g which is roughly $10,ggg.g0,
that they might go along with it. Now is there any possibility that this
project could be done for $10,g00.~0 per person which would be $5~,~g0.g~?
Gary Warren: I'd say we're applying our 30% overhead factor to the criteria
which is, some projects run 22%. Changes like that could be costs now plus the
full feasibility really you would be looking very hard to try to shorten up
lengths of sewer and water with the design.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let me ask you this question also because this was posed
at one time by a single homeowner in the area. Then it just kind of snowballed
to the Council and then it took on the era of a mini-feasibility study and so
forth. Had this homeowner not brought this to our attention and requested city
sewer and water because maybe if you have a failing system yourself we might not
have known about this?
Gary Warren: Well we knew about it from the Will property when we did that
connection out there. ~ did have it on our list as far as an area that we
wanted to get to. With other pressing matters, it didn't come to the forefront
until we had another system with problems. I would say that that accelerated
our interest.
Acting Mayor Geving: How does the Council feel about this item? Clark?
Councilman Horn: I have a couple of questions. If we went through a full blown
feasibility study, would we get more of a contingency out of this? Would we
arrive at a more accurate figure?
Acting Mayor Geving: I would say yes, we would feel more comfortable with a
full blown feasibility to know really what the system is that needs to be put in
out there.
Councilman Horn: I think last time we talked about this the Mayor estimated
that a new well and new septic system might in the range to $10,00~.gg if you
had to put it in yourself. Has anybody run through what it would be in real
dollar terms of spending $10,g00.0g today versus spending the $14,490.g0 over
say a 10 year period with the type of interest we would apply?
Gary Warren: I have no present worth analysis on it.
Councilman Horn: It would seem to me that that would be a feasibile thing to
try because I think that would make it much more in line. I think the other
thing to keep in mind is what making these changes at some later point would
cost. It might be $1g,ggg.gg today to upgrade but it might be $2g,gg0.g0 in
five years ~nen the system would actually fail. It seems without a full
feasibility study, we haven't gotten any further than we would have had we
started two weeks ago except we clouded the issue a little bit.
Gary Warren: I think that the financial aspects of it certainly are the one
factor. The other is potential for subdivision out there and while we don't
Ciey Council MeetJ. ng - October 1~ 1988
want to encourage subdivision, I believe people have a right to stay with their
existing properties. If you compare this on a per unit basis to say a Church
Road or North Lotus Lake unit assessments, are very reasonable what we're
showing here. Recognizing this does not include a permanent street surface.
Councilman Boyt: Since the mini-feasibility study was my reconmendation a few
weeks ago, I think it found exactly what I was looking for which was it gave
them a reasonably cost estimate and we got what I anticipated would be their
response. They don't want this. I think the question is one of corrmunity'
safety and their own personal safety. I think if they can find safe septic
system sites given the criteria that the City uses now for those, and they can
find a safe well site, that this is something that truly should be their
decision. We can't take decisions away from everybody in this town. Especially
not when, if they have the opportunity to have a safe septic and well situation,
then I think they're in the perfect position to make a decision. They can look
at the potential increased value of being attached to the City's water and sewer
system. Increase value to their property and weigh that against the cost, both
now and in the future of the system they choose. I don't think it's a decision
that the City has to make because they're the ones that are impacted by it and
unless you can show me otherwise Gary, they're not, if they can find safe
syst~ns, safe sites, they're not impacting on the City. So I think this
decision, we've got enough information to know that they don't want to pay this
kind of price and I don't think you're going to be able to sharpen your pencil
enough to make it significantly different. That's what the mini-feasibility
study was supposed to do. Show us what's the ballpark figure. I think they
ought to have the right to make that decision themselves.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think you have to understand another thing here too.
Those 5 homeowners sat there for many, many years with their own systems and it
was only because of the Hidden Valley development this all came to light that it
became available to them. Sewer and water is now available and certainly were
impacted and they might have said to themself, gee, it would be sure nice if we
could hook up to the system rather than replace it ourselves. Let's find out
what it would cost. Well, we did that. I've talked to several developers.
They're telling me that $14,000.00 is not unreasonable for city sewer and water
to be placed on a lot in a development. I think that the figures that we have
already got are about as good as we're going to get. I have to agree with you
on that Bill. Sure we could do the feasibility study, go through the expense of
doing that. I think the figures are going to hold out. The only problem I have
is that there could possibly be other areas within our city where service is
available and to suggest that Bill might have an idea here of going ahead with
service on their own when city water and sewer are available, and in fact I
talked to the Held's this evening and they did hook up to the city sewer.
They're already connected so the question they have is, do they have to connect
to water too? They're perfectly content with their water system. So we've got
a little bit of both. We've got some people who are not hooked up at all and
several people, at least the Held's are hooked up with City sewer. How about
the Will's, what are they hooked up to Gary?
Gary Warren: City sewer.
Larry Brown: And water.
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: They've got both so ~'ve got all three combinations here.
We've got some with none. We've got several with sewer and we've got, obviously
some that don't have either sewer and water and that would be Mrs. Bernier. I
don't think we're going to get 5 people to agree on this subject. I do have a
question for the Attorney however. I understand Roger that when the Held's put
in the city sewer service, they were given a piece of paper that said that when
service was available to the entire area and was installed, that they would have
to pay their fair share of that assessraent. Would that be a proper stat~nent?
I can't believe that someone could tell them that because the City Council makes
those kinds of decisions on assessments.
Roger Knutson: As I understand the situation, you're saying they were not
assessed for the sewer they have right now so they have not paid anything.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not sure. Is that true Mr. Held?
Mr. Held: Yes, we did pay.
Gary Warren: They paid for their own connection into the city system and there
was an agreement, a letter of agreement drafted by the City Attorney's office
that said that, our concern here is that the more piecemeal that the system
gets, as we're already talking here, the more difficult it is to service a
property that is maybe further out and can't get into Hidden Valley. So we said
okay, because there was a problem there with a failing system and there was an
ownership transfer on the sale of the property and all, they needed to clear up
the septic problem. They entered into an agreement with the City that said that
they would agree to pay their appropriate lateral benefit if City sewer and
water were run into the property even though we were allowing them on an interim
basis to connect into our system.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, so they made a connection to the City system to hook
up to sewer.
Roger Knutson: And they weren't charged for the trunk and lateral costs.
Gary Warren: They were charged for the connection charge but not what we would
call the lateral benefit.
Roger Knutson: But not the regular lateral assessment.
Acting Mayor Geving: How do you feel about that Roger, now that you know the
facts?
Roger Knutson: That's not that unusual a situation...
Councilman Johnson: I think we've got a potential situation here that if we
continue piecemeal on it, it's going to be a disastrous situation. I see we've
got 30 year old systems. The next system is going to fail. The life expectancy
of septic systems are in the neighborhood of 30 years. Some of the property is
fairly heavily wooded from what I take it there. $14,00g.00 is not that bad if
we can spread the payments. It's kind of like the old commercial. Pay me now
or pay me later. The oil commercial. If this comes in later and the property,
his system fails and we've already done piecemeal on a couple other properties
and this one person may end up with a $30,000.00 or $40,000.00 to connect. It's
10
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
within our sewer area. They should be connected to the sewers. I think if
you're going to live within the urban service area, you should be on urban
services. It should not be completely optional. -Forcing of it, it's going to
have to happen in the future. I can't see putting another 30 years. If the
system fails, if they put in a new system and it fails another 30 years from
now, it's going to really be expensive to do this and we'll be saddling a future
council with even worse problems. I'm really leaning towards authorizing the
feasibility study. I'd also like to look into the possibility of any kind of
State or Federal monies to help th~m alleviate this problem. If we can review
the septic systems to see what condition they are in. If we have failing septic
systems, I think there's been other areas where we've been able to obtain some
federal or state money to help defray some costs of failing septic systems.
Acting Mayor Geving: We had the 201 on 96th Street. That's gone.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that's probably gone but there may be something out
there. It's amazing what's out there, it's just hard to find sometimes. People
make livings just finding that information. That's my basic position on it. I'd
like to find whatever help we can for these people to pay the $14,000.00. I'd
like to do, how much is the feasibility study going to cost us?
Gary Warren: $2,000.00. We've done some effort here on it. $1,500.00maybe.
Acting Mayor Geving: Would it be done in-house?
Gary Warren: We've got some basic information as far as the properties are
concerned but we'd want some cost estimates and some concepts as far as the
alignment of the sewer hook-ups. It's just a matter of refining some topography
and putting together some more numbers and financing opportunities.
Acting Mayor Geving: The problem that I have is placing something on the 5
homeowners without knowing exactly how long it's been since they upgraded their
system. There could be some systems out there that have been upgraded and are
virtually new and will last another 20 years. We don't know that because we
don't have the facts in front of us. I think the proper way to go with this,
rather than moving ahead to the project, charging each of these people
$14,400.00 without a lot of information, is to get the information we need. I
think we need the feasibility study. I think that's the onlyway we can defend
a position, if the City Council were to take it and go ahead with this project,
is that the feasibility said it's feasible. This is what it's going to cost. I
suspect we're not going to beat the price. I hope we do but we won't know that
unless we do the feasibility study. Do you agree with that Gary?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: We're dealing with nothing here at this time. We have no
intelligence. We do not have information as to how this project should proceed
and to be arbitrary and make the decision tonight I think would be false. I
think it'd be wrong because you've got to remember one thing. This all started
when one person came to the City Council and asked if there was some way that
they could get city service. Now there's 3 or 4 other people out there that
didn't want it and don't need it. I know the Held's don't need it. They've got
it. So let's do the intelligent thing here, the smart thing and move ahead with
the feasibility study. I agree with what you're saying Bill. I think there are
11
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
people out there who would probably do this job for less than $14,000.00 but I'm
not convinced of it.
Councilman Boyt: That's not what I said.
Acting Mayor Geving: Well say what you mean. What did you say?
Councilman Boyt: I'll try it again. What I said was, I think we have an
intelligent report here that says that the ballpark price on these is
$14,000.00. In going out there, it wasn't even close to what they wanted to
pay. To come back and say we're going to force them to take sewer and water, if
they can find an acceptable site for that well and septic system, I don't think
it's our responsibility to force them to pay to connect. Those lots have a
septic system now. It's failing. At least one of them. They want to come back
and do something about it. I think we give them the option and I don't think we
want to spend $2,000.00 or $1,500.00 more dollars of the City's money to find
out something that isn't going to move this any closer to the decision because
the decision is really are you going to force them to take it or not. Because
if you're not going to force them to take it, we're wasting our money and if
you're going to force them to take it, then let's deal with that right now and
tell them in the opinion of the majority of this Council, we're going to force
you to take it.
Acting Mnyor Geving: There is an indication in here from the City Engineer that
that price, $57,000.00 can be reduced. I asked him how and I suspect you do
have some answers to the how but more importantly, I think though that we have
to have the feasibility study in our hands. That doesn't take us away from the
decision point. It just gives us more information so at the next meeting we can
make the right decision.
Councilman Horn: I think we should all keep in mind too that this is not purely
an issue that the City does not have liability in. If it were purely the
liability of the residents, I might go along with Bill's thinking. However, in
the last few years we've found that cities do have a certain liability on all
systems. Whether they're city systems or whether they're individual systems. I
think maybe the Council needs to be reminded again what that liability is. The
other point I'd like to make is that when we have five individual people in this
type of situation, there's never been a time in the past when we've gotten
everyone to agree that they wanted the project. Many times these people don't
come back to us until 3 or 4 years later and say yes, that was the right
decision. I've never heard an assessment hearing yet that when the bill first
comes up, that people agreed with it. As far as taking the decision away from
people, there are certain things that are inevitable when a city grows. One of
them is that you're going to have city sewer and water. I think that's a risk
you take by living here and I think it's up to us to be responsible enough to
make sure that safety is brought about in these systems. Maybe they're not
politically expediate decisions but I think we have to make them.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make one final comment. At no time am
I suggesting that we compromise safety of the community or the people involved
here. We have a very good system of determining whether or not there's a septic
system and well site. That's all I'm saying we should be doing. Is giving the
people that option.
12
City Council Meeting October 10~ 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm ready to call the question-
Councilman Johnson: I move that we perform a feasibility study and that we
include a review of the existing systems and whether sites are available,
acceptable sites for new wells and septic systems are available on these
properties as part of that feasibility study.
Councilman Horn: I'll second that.
Resolution #88-108: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
authorize a feasibility study for Grandview Road sewer and water project. Also,
to review the existing systems and whether acceptable septic and well sites are
available on those properties. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who
voted in opposition and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to direct staff however, to get this back to
us as soon as possible. It's getting late in the year. Regardless of how the
feasibility study should come out, if there's any potential for building it this
year or as early as possible, we'd like to see this back to us in the next
couple of weeks.
Councilman Horn: I'd like to reinforce what Jay said. Explore all means you
can for support on it...
STOP SIGN REQUEST FOR NEAR MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD, JIM WEHRLE.
Acting Mayor Geving: This is an item that we brought back onto the agenda. It
had been deleted and it's a request, I don't know if we've got the staff report
on this however.
Councilman Johnson: There is none.
Councilman Horn: There's something in the back in the aclministrative section.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, maybe we could pull that from the administrative
section. There's a number of letters back and forth from Mr. Wehrle, the
president of the Homeowner's Association for Near Mountain and we have several
other comments from staff and from the manager so there's quite a bit of
discussion on this item. It all revolves around a subject, a stop sign request
at Near Mountain Boulevard. But it's more than that. We agreed to put that
back on the agenda. It is a new business item.
Councilman Johnson: Dale, I suggested we put it back on the agenda. I do not
believe that at this time we have adequate information to make decisions on stop
signs and a few other things but I did want to air some opinions and have the
Council a chance to air their opinions and Jim and some of the homeowners to air
their opinions at this point in the process versus after the study. They have
put up the traffic counters today and they were counting traffic leaving the
subdivision. There will be more traffic counts going on over the next few
weeks. There is one item that I feel fairly strong about is the speed limit in
13
City Council Meeting - October lg~ 1988
the area of 3g mph is too high. I borrowed the City's radar gun over
weekend and went out and did some radaring in certain areas. Played cop for a
while. It's interesting how many people have radar detectors and really slow
down quick. And those people that went by twice and saw me the first time, went
by a lot slower the second time. But there was almost nobody going over 30 mph
in the three different times I was out there. It was very rare. I tried to
maintain 3g mph around a couple of those curves and I couldn't. If I had a
Porsche or something like that, I might have been able to but in my Plymouth
Horizon did not want to do it and stay in it's own lane. I would like to see us
reduce the speed limits in this area because I think with the curvature of the
streets and everything else in there, it's just impractical to have a speed
limit that is unsafe, in my opinion. I'd like staff to look at that a little
more but right now that's my biggest part of this after looking at what people
do drive in the area. In the very limited time I was there, I know it's just
like you take your car to the mechanic because it's going ping, ping, ping and
when it gets there it doesn't go ping, ping. I was told just after I left these
teenagers come driving through like a bat out of heck. Of course, I wasn't
there then. That's the way it always happens. I did go to several other areas
in the City where people are exceeding the speed limit where we're having
complaints. That was interesting also but I do agree with staff and some of
their comments on stop signs. Stop signs at some of these intersections, I
believe t~he stop signs would not create a problem and there are some of the
intersections that have been recommended were, I personally just looking at it
and watching the people drive in the area, and watching the people run the stop
signs. Today they were just sailing on through at Mountain Way and Near
Mountian Road. I could keep the speed on them as they went through the stop
sign that's already there. That's one that I think should go to 3-way. That
particular one. It's got good site visibility. The ones at the side of the
hill, at Castle Ridge, i don't think should go to a 3-way personally. I think
that after we look at it all, there are some that we may want to do and some
that we may not want to do. I don't think that putting stop signs nearly every
other block is a good deterrent to speeding. As much as I saw today, the people
are already, one car took that turn without hardly slowing down at all.
Nebraska plates of course, my home state. That's the main comments that I
wanted to...
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we have to recognize that Near Mountain is a
relatively new development in our community and there certainly could have been
more done at ~ne time that the development was put in place in terms of public
safety items. Also, the fact that we're not city engineers. I don't believe
other than Clark, are engineers. You're an engineer but I don't know if you're
a safety engineer.
Councilman Johnson: Civil engineer.
Acting Mayor Geving: And we're certainly probably don't have the indepth
knowledge that Jim Chaffee might have from a public safety standpoint so there's
a lot of issues here. In fact there's about a dozen issues. I want to give Jim
the chance to talk about those tonight but I think we want to keep this on a
high level Jim. There's been a number of comments. There's a number of letters
in our packet here. Let's not get down into those but let's hit the high spots
on what I consider to be the public safety issues. Street lights. The
pedestrian crossings. The things that are really important and should be
addressed tonight. Let's go to the Council members and maybe get an overview
14
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
from the Council from how they review this and how they see this particular
thing.
Councilman Horn: I agree, there's one report in here that's obviously missing,
as I see it, and that's the report from Public Safety. I understand that these
are engineering issues but I think in my mind, the way this process should work
is they should be evaluated purely fr~m an engineering standpoint. Then .they
should be evaluated from a public safety standpoint to see if there are any
other extenuating circumstances that preclude what the engineer data tells you.
I haven't seen that done. I was encouraged to see some of the information that
was given here and I think the article that somebody included in here about the
traffic information program series was excellent because it reinforces exactly
what I've said all along. Stupid rules are for stupid people and if you have
rules that don't make sense, nobody's going to follow them. Just having them on
the books doesn't make any sense so I was really glad to see this report. I
think we need more information from our Public Safety Con~ittee to see if there
are any other circumstances that would require deviating from standard
engineering practices.
Councilman Johnson: They will be meeting between now and the 24th.
Councilman Boyt: I went out and walked through part of the neighborhood and
talked to people and it's a small child factory out there. There is, I think
the neighborhood's frustrated. From the people that I talked to, I'd say there
are a few people out in the neighborhood who feel that the stop signs would be
an inconvenience but most of them would be happy to be inconvenienced if they
thought it made the neighborhood safer. As I talked to them, I don't know what
the answer is to the traffic problem. I'm reasonably convinced that this is a
move of desperation rather than a move that I have a lot of hope for but I feel
strongly that the neighborhood needs a chance to try this and whatever else we
can think of because the prospects of being able to do speed patrol, which might
be the most effective, are next to impossible. From my part, I agree with Jay.
I'm not sure that all these stop signs are needed but something's needed. I
could suggest that the, this will throw some fear into your heart Clark but I
think we ought to look at speed bumps myself. Regardless of what we do, we have
to do something. What we have now isn't acceptable. I think part of it
gentlemen is what gets built into a development. When we do 25 foot setbacks
and roads without trails built, we're asking to put children on the street. The
results are that that's just where they are, out on the street. I don't Want
parents to have to say that they can't let their child go out in the front yard
and I think the City should tackle this much as we did TH 101 and say, how are
we going to solve the problem? Not that the problem can't be solved. I think
we can solve it and I'd like to see public safety look at it. I'd like to have
us come up with a good solution but I think much as you want a speedy resolution
to the sewer problem, this is certainly of equal safety magnitude and we need to
do something quickly. We may have to take some of the signs down later but we
need to do something. KJ. ds are out there now.
Acting Mayor Geving: First of all, for the audience, we have about, I guess
there would be about an 1/8th of an inch of letters and correspondence on this
subject. I had a chance to also walk the area and drove around with Jim and we
tried to hit the highlights and the hot spots of this development. I think
there are some real crucial issues here. We have an area of about 175 homes
that were. developed very quickly. Over a few years and I think the developer
15
City Council Meeting - October lg~ 1988
didn't put in some of the very necessary safety items. For example, the main
entrance to the whole area doesn't have a street light. You can't tell when you
enter the Near Mountain development, where the road is. That's an issue that I
want to correct. When we put in the park on the north end of Lotus Lake, and
it's a natural pedestrian way, for these people to cross Pleasant View, which is
a busy road in itself, it's been striped but you can't see the stripes until you
get within 20 feet of it. We have to put some signage there so people know that
it's a pedestrian crossing. I fully understand that. Then to think that this
issue wasn't going to come before the Council until the 24th of October really
flabbergasted me because we had an opportunity tonight to move it up to this
agenda, to talk about it and resolve these issues, at least get the ball moving
2 weeks early. There's no guarantee that our action tonight is going to solve
the problem but at least it gets it on the surface and maybe gets some things
started. Maybe there will be a street light and some pedestrian crossings and
some stop signs that we can put in now. I just happened to notice when I was
out there that people are using Pleasant View Road, cutting through the
development, through Castle Ridge, and hitting Town Line Road and up to
Shorewood. They're going all the way to TH 7 I suspect. I watched several cars
and slick as it can be. It's a nice shortcut so if we could discourage some of
those people from using this, I think that would help in itself. Especially on
Castle Ridge. I know that there's a dozen issues here. Some of them we can
solve quickly. Some of them I just mentioned such as the pedestrian crossing.
The street lights. The street signs. But in all this correspondence, these
dozen pages here, I have not gotten one letter responding to the homeowner's
association from our public safety director. I think we need that. We need to
have J~m respond personally. To walk the site and give us your best shot Jim as
to what you see in this that we can correct. As far as what we can do in the
next couple weeks, I think there are some significant things. If, like Bill
said, we have to put up some stop signs that we realize later on we can pull, I
don't have any problem with that. We've had lots of stop signs but I definitely
want to see some lights out there at the entrance. There's another little
issue. It's not a big one but it could be in that there is a manhole cover that
I looked at that's open. It's partially filled with sand right now but I could
see where a child could crawl up in that 1 foot wide culvert. We ought to do
something there to protect that culvert from some child. I tell you, I've got a
4 year old grandson that definitely could crawl up it so I'd like to have public
safety and the engineer look at that as well. At this point, since we've heard
from all the councilmembers, and kind of given you an idea Jim, since you are
the president of Near Mountain Homeowners Association, would you please come
before the Council and from a highlight standpoint, tell us where we're at in
this whole process and how you would like to see the City persue this and what
we could do rather quickly. Do you want to take that opportunity?
Councilman Johnson: Dale, do you think before Jim gets started that we should
sunxnarize the letter from Don? At this point, a lot of the issues that you have
discussed are being put on the front burner and are high priority issues where
Don has now become personally involved.
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't think so Jay. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to
over rule you. We do have a 2 page memorandum from the Manager to Mr. Wehrle.
He has stated his case here but I think at this time I'd like to hear from Mr.
Wehrle and let's take it from there.
16
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Jim ~hrle: I have recently received a letter from Don. That is much
appreciated that a lot of this is being followed up on. Although it may not be
in your packets, I have no way of knowing what's in your packet, to support Jim
Chaffee, I have received 2 or 3 pieces of correspondence from him over the past
s~mer following up on some of this. I guess the best thing I can do, and maybe
some of the other members of the Homeowners from Near Mountain would like to...
Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to have you speak since you're representing them.
Jim Wehrle: I can recap the 12 items that we've got very, very quickly and
briefly. First item, and I'm following the circuit on page 3 of my 4 page
memorandum to Don. First item is we have a couple of pond owners who have been
trying to take the City Engineering Department's offer up for the last several
months. They have some silt collected around some intake pipes cleaned out. As
of this evening, neither of them have been contacted directly, although I
understand one had a message left with them this afternoon. Very graciously Mr.
Warren offered to help with this problem quite some time ago and I'm afraid
we've just had some con~nunication problems back and forth having it followed up
on. I guess at this point in time it will have to wait until spring but if both
those individuals who were offered the assistance and wanted to take the City up
on the assistance could be contacted soon, that would be much appreciated. The
second item, as you mentioned Dale, is the outflow pipe from our main pond which
comes out in a wetland. It is at least a 12 inch diameter open pipe when it's
not half full of mud which it is now. That brings up two concerns to us. One
being that when it's free and clear, a small child could potentially get up in
there. I guess after last year's disaster with the little girl falling down the
well hole or whatever, it's much in people's mind and there is a day care center
operating at that location right now. That's the first concern. The second
concern is now that it is half full of mud, which it wasn't just a few months
ago, we're greatly concerned about the fact that if that pond should flood at
this point in time, that we do not have half of the outflow capacity that we did
before. Our whole development was trapped back in there for 48 hours last July
in the great flood and we'd hate to see that happen again so perhaps something
could be done about the congestion in that pipe.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let me ask you at.this time Gary, is it possible that the
firemen could flush that pipe out in the street? There is quite a bit of slit
there.
Gary Warren: We have a hydraulic machine that is used for that. Normally these
pipes do silt in, storms and the normal velocity of the water does scour them
off.
Acting Mayor Geving: It seems like that would be an easy one to resolve. Go
ahead JJ~.
Councilman Horn: You're saying that the pipe wasn't clogged at the beginning of
this year and now it is partially clogged? I guess I'd like to see that whole
plan reviewed because it appears to me that if we have any kind of drainage
problem in a year like we've just gone through, we could have a real disaster if
we had...so I'd like to see a follow up on the accuracy of that whole system.
This year should not cause any type of water problems.
17
City Council Meeting - October lg, 1988
Gary Warren: A lot of the sedimentation will directly be responsible to the
kind of building activity that's going on in the watershed. There has been home
construction going on out there.
Councilman Horn: Are you saying that the measures have not been adequate to
retain the silt?
Gary Warren: I guess what I'm were saying now is we'll take a look at it.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's just leave it at that. It's something that Gary
can check on. Gary, I'm going to make a note, in my notes that Gary Warren is
going to check on that item and resolve it.
Councilman Johnson: On 1 and 2, kind of combined, there wasn't talk about Jim
we can't do this until spring and talk about whether this will hurt my yard to
go through. There's a lot of times when we'd say we'd rather do it in the
winter because the ground's frozen and we can get our equipment across the
ground without damaging and compressing the ground. Might that be the case that
removing the sediment could be a winter project and not damage the yards as
much?
Gary Warren: We've had a scheduling problem. The backhoe, the equipment that
we need to be able to clear the pond is the equipment that we rent from Merle
Volk basically. It's the large backhoe and that's a popular piece of equii~nent
during the construction season. We do have a schedule with him and now that
things are slowing down so unless we have some problem with the property owners
which it doesn't sound like we will, we hope to be in there in the next 2 weeks.
Acting Mayor Geving: I' 11 make a note. Here' s my note, Gary Warren to resolve
within the next 2 weeks. Gary, my note says that you're going to resolve item 1
in the next 2 weeks.
Councilman Boyt: On this finding some sort of barricade for this 12 inch pipe,
is that at conflict with trying to keep it open?
Acting Mayor Geving: It could be Bill. Did you see it? Did you look at it?
Councilman Boyt: Well, I'd really like to hear, because I think Mr. Warren...
Acting Mayor Geving: I looked at it and it's a concrete out valve that's about
12 inches across and at the opening it's probably as much as 16 to 18 inches
across. To stick a bar down through the middle of that probably would be
counter productive. It would catch everything that c~e down the pipe.
agree. But to put some kind of a grate over it, it certainly could work. Now
I'm not an engineer. Can you tell us?
Gary Warren: We would put on our normal trash grate which is normally reserved
for 18 inch di~neter or large because the larger trash grates do have larger
openings which allow the normal material that comes with run-off to pass through
the pipes so we don't have blocking the pipes so there's that trade-off. We
would put a normal trash grate on it.
Councilman Boyt: So you're saying it will work?
18
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Gary Warren: I'm saying it will keep kids out2
Councilman Boyt: But it has two functions. One of them is keeping kids out.
As we've just heard, the other function is keeping the neighborhood from being
marooned. Are these two in conflict with one another?
Gary Warren: They're mutually exclusive I guess to a certain extent. With a
grate on there you do trap debris which can, if it's the right debris, block
that pipe or plug those grates easier than it would a 12 inch diameter pipe
that's open.
Councilman Boyt: Do you supposed anybody like the day care center would be
interested in keeping the pipe open Jim if we put the grate across it?
Jim Wehrle: The house is currently up for sale. I can't speak for the future
owners.
Acting Mayor Geving: Anything else Bill? Let's proceed. Go ahead Jim and
we'll try to only hit those items that we think we can resolve tonight. We'll
have to direct staff...
Jim Wehrle: I'll touch on them briefly and if you think..., feel free. Our
third request is in keeping with the traffic studies that many of you have been
so kind as to come out and look into and help us with and that is to reduce the
speed limit there. In all honesty, if the speed limit stays at 30, it's almost
inevitable that some child is going to be seriously injured before too long. As
Jay determined with his radar detector and the others of you have come out and
seen for yourself, if you try to drive down some of those hills, around some of
those bends where we have no sidewalks and must walk in the street, it is
extremely dangerous at any street, let alone 30, you're out of control unless
you have Jay's Porsche but after that, I am led to believe by Mr. Chaffee that
if this area is designated a bike path area, that it can legally be made a 25
mph speed limit. We would certainly like to see the Council vote to do that in
as expeditious a fashion as possible.
Acting Mayor Geving: Does the Council wish to have Jim follow up on this? What
I'm leaning towards is a report that would come back to us at our very next
meeting on these items that we don't touch on tonight and need further review
and that on the 24th, all of these items would be resolved that we can't resolve
tonight. So with that, I would like to leave item 3 with Mr. Chaffee and he
will come back on the 24th. Go ahead with number 4.
Jim Wehrle: I might say in passing, the only reason that we're not asking for
anything lower than is I've already been told it's not possible unless it were a
school zone but that's the least we'd like to accomplish. Item 4 has to do
with, during the course of the sum~er we were told that "Slow, Children at Play"
signs weren't approvalable and most recently we've been told that these can be
approved and are there for the asking if we simply pay for th~m ourselves. The
only problem remaining is that, although of course we'd like to see the City
supply these free, I understand that that's not going to be realistic. If
they're reasonable, the homeowners association or the neighborhood in general
will certainly purchase these and support having them installed. The problem is
we've had prices quoted ranging from $12.65 to $35.25 plus shipping. It makes a
heck of a difference to us. Mr. Chaffeemost recently gave me an invoice for
19
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
four of them that he had just acquired at $12.65 plus $1.00 something for
shipping. If that's the cost to us, we would be very glad to proceed with it.
Acting Mayor Geving: How does the Council feel?
Councilman Boyt: I would like to think that everything that Jim is asking for
is available to any neighborhood that wants it. I would tike to think that
given that, if the City approves it, the City pays for it. But we're also
indicating a willingness to pay for it anyplace else when s~-neone comes in and
asks for it. We need to be consistent throughout the City.
Acting Mayor Gevin9: I agree.
Councilman Horn: I agree wi~ that totally and I also think that these should
come through recommendations from Public Safety and Engineering. These types of
requests. I think we'd be premature to decide on that tonight.
Acting Mayor Geving: This is another it~n for Jim Chaffee then on the 24th.
Councilman Johnson: Through the Public Safety Commission and I would agree that
to me $35.00 is nickte diming. Eight signs seems like a lot.
Jim Wehrle: Jay, if I may, you have to have them both directions in the same
spot really to accomplish something so it's really only in four locations
potentially we're talking about.
Councilman Johnson: It seems like at the entrances when you come into the
subdivision.
Jim Wehrle: Throughout the development there are some places, bends or
whatever. I'd be more than glad to x out on a map for Jim Chaffee in the next
couple of days where we'd like them and then he can take a look.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm going to make that assu~nption that you will meet with
Jim. Let's move ahead then with item 5 because item 5 is like 4. It's one that
Jim Chaffee will cover in his memorandum. So let's go to number 6.
Jim Wehrle: 5 is covered because it's stop signs that we talked about. Number
6 has to do with our bike paths. This has been planned for years. We were told
a year ago at ~%J.s time that it would be done this spring. This spring came and
went and this sumner has come and gone and what we have gotten so far is a
couple hundred feet of bituminous path to connect us up to the other side of
Pleasant View. We will get to it and as you have mentioned before, now we've
got a crosswalk problem there but what remains here is perhaps a couple tenths
of a mile of painted ped-bike path to be put on the designated sides of a couple
of our streets to tie into this bituminous outlot that's not been put in place
for us. I guess all we'd like to ask is that in the absence of sidewalks and
because as Jay puts it, we've got a baby factory, no Bill, sorry, we've got the
baby factory out there. The homeowners association and I think the neighborhood
in general have been long waiting. This being done, we don't understand why it
can't...
Acting Mayor Geving: So what you're asking for, a couple of posts on each end
of that bitmninous pedestrian way. Is that correct?
20
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Jim Wehrle: This is the on street path
Acting Mayor Geving: This can be painted by the City or how would you like to
do that?
Gary Warren: Park and Rec provided me with some information that I've been
waiting for. The development contract called for the path to be separate from
the paved surface out there. Unless there's been some change that I'm not aware
of, that development contract which said that it should be within the City's
right-of-way but not on the paved surface. Not an on-street path. Now you go
to an on-street path, we have a conflict that we have at Lake Lucy Road in that
you have to have one in each direction on each side and with the no parking
restrictions all along.
Councilman Johnson: Why do you have to have them on both sides?
Gary Warren: So you don't have conflicting traffic. Bikers going against the
traffic. I want to look at it further. I just got this last week.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's leave this one for Gary to see what he can come back
to us with a reconxnendation on 6.
Jim Wehrle: If I imposing on that issue simple say that more than a year ago I
spent time with Barb Dacy and Lori Sietsema to get the proposed approved plan
for what was supposed to be and what we've been informed for more than a year
now is that this painted aspect on the street is what was provided for and
that's why the street is 32 feet wide instead of 28 feet wide to allow for that.
All I'm doing is repeating what we've been expecting for the last year and what
we were told was approved to be done this year.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, number 7.
Jim Wehrle: Buried in number 6, by the way Dale, is the con~nent that you
brought up the fact that the bituminous part of the path having some posts put
in and that I think could be done before the next Council meeting, if there was
a will to do it.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to have Gary address that because that would take
some labor to go out and possibly put those posts in. Those barrels are not
going to stay there, I can tell you that. Somebody's going to come along and
grab thsm. They're either going to be down in Lotus Lake or they're going to be
stolen because they're just sitting there now. They're not nailed down.
Gary Warren: They were just temporary when we learned we had direct traffic
accessing into...
Acting Mayor Geving: Gary will cover that in his memorandum.
JimWehrle: You're telling me that can't be done before the next meeting?
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not saying that. I'm expecting that Gary will come
back and say it can be done. So let's go with 7.
21
City Council Meeting - October lg~ 1988
Jim Wehrle: Number 7, as you mentioned, the crosswalk's been painted and now
what we've got is a ped-bike path running between two hills and shooting out
across a road that's pretty well traveled and kids riding a bike shooting out of
that path are invisible until they get within 10 or 20 feet of the street. If
the car is going down there at any speed, which sometimes they do...
Councilman Johnson: I radared that one too. They do speed on that street quite
frequently.
Jim Wehrle: When we got in the situation where it's a painted path with no
crosswalk signs and we need those crosswalk signs before a kid gets killed and I
would hope that could be done before the next meeting.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm hoping, this is certainly one of the safety issues
that we have to address I think tonight. Does everybody agree on this one that
have seen that particular crossing?
Councilman Johnson: We have a trail crossing a road like that, you've got to
have warning signs prior to it and at it. Trail crossing ahead and trail
crossing here, whatever.
Acting Mayor Geving: My problem here is not knowing whether this is a public
safety issue or an engineering issue. I tend to think that it's a public safety
issue. Even though there's going to have to be some signs put up there.
Jim Chaffee: MnDot's pretty clear on the signage of a crosswalk at an
intersection...
Acting Mayor Geving: Are signs available Gary?
Gary ~{arren: Signs are being ordered.
Acting Mayor Geving: Can we speed that up?
Gary Warren: Yes, we can check on it tomorrow. The Council may, we need to
look at, there may be a necessity for flashing crosswalks.
Acting Mayor Geving: I sense that this is probably the most urgent of all the
items here because this is a very dangerous crossing.
Councilman Horn: Is the signage typically the City's responsibility or the
developer ' s?
Gary Warren: Within a development, it's the developer's.
Councilman Horn: Would this fall under the realm of what the developer should
have done?
Gary Warren: I think because the trail was an option that was, in the
development contract that I saw, it was at the City's expense.
Councilman Horn: I'm going to raise that question on several of these issues
because apparently there were some street lights and things that were left off.
22
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
I'd like to know what responsibility the developer has in clearing these things
up.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think it's one of the things that we missed somewhere
along the way. Either staff or the Council when this development went in that
we didn't see that there was... Let's mark this as Gary Warren is going to
follow up and we'll get some action on it as soon as possible at that ~=destrian
crossing. Go ahead with number 8.
Jim Wehrle: Okay, number 8, this is a simple request before any of these signs
are placed, we'd like to have thom coordinated first of all with the fact that
Lundgren Bros., Peter Pflaum in particular graciously agreed to supply us with
decorative posts. Discussed with Mr. Warren in the past and similar, I might
add to the posts that you're putting all up and down the redevelopment of
downtown here and we'd like to have these signs put on those posts which
Lundgren Bros. will be supplying. As to the location of any eventual Children
at Play signs, we'd like to have that coordinated with the Association.
Councilman Johnson: Does that include the trail crossing?
J~m Wehrle: No, I consider that a street sign that comes under MnDot.
Acting Mayor Geving: Taat's really outside the development.
Councilman Johnson: I just wanted to point that out so we don't delay that
trail crossing sign.
Jim Wehrle: I'm only referencing Children at Play, Stop Signs and Neighborhood
Watch signs and things like that.
Acting Mayor Geving: I leave that item 7 and 8 with Gary.
Jim Wehrle: Okay, number 9. This has been partially addressed. Of course it
refers you back up to B on page 1 of my momo. We've got an issue that was
before Council a few months back having to do with no turn signs. We have since
had no turn signs put up there supposed to indicate that cars can make that
right turn out or the left turn in. At first there were three signs. In one
place two and the other. In recent days it's down to two in each location.
They're still kind of contradictory or at best don't con~nunicate the proper
message. The two signs are, the symbol for no right turn or no left turn
depending on whether you're on Mountain Blvd. or Pleasant view and then beneath
it a sign that says no trucks or buses.
Councilman Johnson: It just says trucks or buses. It doesn't say no.
Jim Wehrle: It doesn't have the word no on it?
Councilman Johnson: No, it just says trucks or buses. So does that mean trucks
and buses can do it or trucks and buses can't do it?
Acting Mayor Geving: No, there's a symbol above it that says that you can.
Councilman Johnson: But it doesn't say no. The symbol is no right turn. It
says trucks and buses only below it. So when I see trucks and buses only,
23
City Council Meeting - October 1~, 1988
usually I think trucks and buses can make that movement. Nobody else can
because the other people are restricted from it.
Jim Wehrle: My suggestion or request is that there is the perfect sign in
everyday use in Chaska, not far from here which I'd like to refer you to. It's
a simple big white rectangle. All in one plate so there's no question that
there's two directions. One simple single direction. The top part of it is the
red circle with the diagonal slash with the turn symbol behind it. The bottom
half of it is painted with trucks and buses so all in that sign you can see that
it's referencing no turning for trucks and buses.
Acting Mayor Geving: Are you familiar with that Gary?
Gary Warren: Yes. That's basically what's on there now.
Acting Mayor Geving: No it's not. He described what's out there but he also
described the sign that's in Chaska that he'd like to see out there.
Gary Warren: The sign that's out there right now is a no turn sign and only to
trucks and buses.
Acting Mayor Geving: 7hat's what's out there now and it's confusing. Is there
a better signage syst~n for that road?
Jim Wehrle: What is there now is an improvement over what was there a week or
two ago. I guess our only request at this point is that it be made into one big
plate.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay. Let's move on.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question. J]m, are you saying the sign out there now
is not functional? Is not working?
Jim Wehrle: There are many people in the development who don't know what it
means. There are people who look at it and think they still can't make that
right turn when they leave.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with that. Yesterday, the people I talked to, I tried
to tell them you can turn. You get out literature regularly to your
association. It just seems to me if the two signs say what the one sign is
going to say.
Jim Wehrle: Well, we asked you to rebuild the intersection...
Acting Mayor Geving: We're not going to get into that.
Jim Wehrle: I don't know what the answer is.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's go on to number lg.
Jim Wehrle: I understand that Mr. Chaffee and Mr. Brown are both looking into
this but after TH lgl was resurfaced, there's quite a drop off. Whatever's
appropriate.
24
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: I'll ask Mr. Chaffee to give us that in his response2
Number 11.
Jim Wehrle: Street lights, there are at least two that have been overlooked.
One you've referenced at the entrance to the development. We' re probably the
only entrance to any development I've seen in Chanhassen in recent years that
hasn't got a street light there. Secondly, Trapper Pass and Near Mountain
Blvd., there is no light there and that's a four way intersection and soon to
become a very highly traveled intersection for a number of reasons. They just
put through the connecting road to Shorewood. Secondly, that's where the bike
path is supposed to make a turn around to two of the sides of that four way
intersection.
Acting Mayor Geving: What is the procedure, Gary, for installing new street
lights anywhere in the City? What do we have to do to get a street light put in
at that corner? It's not a question of doing it. We want to do it. How do we
do it?
Gary Warren: We contact the electrical utility, in this case NSP, and get them
a letter of request authorizing installation.
Acting Mayor Geving: Then that's the direction I think the Council wants to
move in.
Councilman Boyt: I'm sure we do but Jim, I would guess, I didn't pay any
attention to this specific but you probably have some sort of decorative light
fixture. Is that right?
Jim Wehrle: Fixtures are what I have seen to be standard throughout the new
developments in Chanhassen.
Acting Mayor Geving: Whatever our standard is, that's what we want to see. The
only question I have is the second one that's referenced here at Near Mountain
and Trapper's Pass. We looked at that and there is a little light there at
Peidmont Court but that doesn't help us. We really need something out at the
intersection there. Then what about up on Town Line Road? Is there an entrance
light there when you come in from the north? There's none there also?
Jim Wehrle: That one wasn't brought to my attention by any homeowners.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm bringing it to the Council's attention because I
didn't see one there either.
Jim Wehrle: Could we perhaps ask that somebody from engineering or safety do an
audit of the neighborhood for lights?
Acting Mayor Geving: We need to do that for the whole community. There's lots
of dark spots in our city. Let's address this issue. I would like to see the
City Engineer look at that at Town Line Road and at Pleasant view and the Near
Mountain entrance on Near Mountain Blvd.. I don't know about the third one.
This one at Peidmont Court but I do believe that there's a potential there for a
light.
25
City Council Meeting - October lg, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to add at the point that the trail crosses ·
Pleasant View. That there's no light within there. I'd like to see that
particular spot lit up because that's a pedestrian crossing.
CounciLman Horn: When Jim puts together this report, I think it would be a good
idea to canvas one or two of the other new developments or maybe some of the
older developments and find out how they measure up to the standards you're
going to be proposing for this one. I think we have to be consistent in this
and I don't think we want to, we want to know what we're getting into. If we
brought all of our areas up to this standard, what would it cost the City?
Gary Warren: We do have an inventory map from NSP...and we get that upgraded
every year. Subdivisions, at least since I've been here, we do receive a map
from NSP and Minnesota Valley Electric. They do have the regional staff that we
have asked them to follow through on that so we do have some guidelines which I
received. We have curves in the road and cul-de-sacs you have to modify. The
old areas might certainly be a little different.
CounciLman Horn: You're saying NSP reviews our street lights on new
developments?
Gary Warren: NSP supplies us a map with proposed lighting locations.
Councilman Horn: Did we follow that in Near Mountain? I would like that to be
checked also.
Acting ~V~yor Geving: l~nat's going to be a Gary Warren item by the way.
J~n Wehrle: The last one is not a priority or safety related issue. It just
has to do with possible corrections.
Acting Mayor Geving: This is a Park and Rec issue don't you think?
Gary Warren: It' s done.
Acting Mayor Geving: And it's finished? Hey, we've got one that's done. And
the painting of the crosswalk which was done. Jim, the only thing I can tell
you is that staff will be directed to make whatever recommendations back to us.
This item will be on the 24th agenda, early in the agenda so the homeowners can
be here to hear the deliberation. We should have two reports. Certainly one
from Jim Chaffee and one from Gary Warren. I know we've put a lot of items on
here tonight Gary and Jim but these are hot issues and they're certainly safety
issues and we want to follow up and we will do so. One other comment, is that
it then Jim?
Jim Wehrle: No, I guess it was just a degree of discouragement in that, and
I guess I want to take the opportunity to apologize to anyone I drug down here
from Near Mountain tonight thinking there was going to be action taken but I
think a few of us here realize that there's been some changing of plans back and
forth and the City's just not prepared to act on a lot of this tonight as had
initially been indicated and hopefully we will see real action from the 24th.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think you're seeing action tonight. I think you're
seeing that the direction from the Council. We can't run out and put a street
26
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
light up for you tonight but we understand your concerns and the safety and
we'll resolve those issues for you, I guarantee ~ou.
Councilman Johnson: Dale, I have one last con~nent. On the right turn sign, as
I remember the Council direction on that sign was there's no money in the 1988
budget to do anything with that intersection during 1988. We would sign it in
1988 and we'd look in 1989 as to the possibility of making some changes to that
intersection. So that sign, that confusing little sign, the two piece sign,
may not be the complete end of that intersection. That's how I remember that
motion going down.
Acting Mayor Geving: The motion arose around $20,000.00 that we didn't have in
the 1988 budget and we're not going to let that pass. We're going to look at it
again. Our 1989 budget is also tight, I can tell you, but we'll try to do
whatever we can to resolve that for you. I appreciate all the homeowners that
showed up tonight.
Pete McKay: In a matter of safety related issues and feasibility studies and
taking quick action, a corrment was made that there were ample stop signs
available and that you could possibly put some stop signs in now. Have them in
for the two weeks before the next meeting or longer and then get some feedback
from the residents as to how the stop signs at the intersections affected the
traffic. If it's not affected the traffic, they can be taken down very easily.
If it's cutting down the speed and alleviating the problem, you solve things two
weeks earlier.
Councilman Johnson: That's Pete McKay back there, for the record. I'm taking
some of, I think the public safety's part here. I believe when you start to put
up a stop sign, that there has to be some prior warning and stuff. Otherwise
you get the problem of the first, like the stop sign that's right outside City
Hall that went up without anybody knowing it. I ran it for two weeks before I
even noticed it. I talked to the Sheriff, he ran it for a week before he
noticed it. I'm not sure how we do that. I'd like to find out, when you throw
up a new stop sign in a road that's been there for 5 years and people have been
driving it, they're not even looking for a stop sign. They run by there and
they're gone. They're pass that stop sign and I think that's really dangerous
to me.
Gary Warren: Normally we'd put a flag out...we put an amber flag or warning
flag out so there's something waving to catch your attention. We have a
practical issue, in all seriousness, with the State converting to a one call
system for locations, we have had ungodly problems trying to get locations for
putting anything in the ground. If Council wants us to do that, we're going to
be limited just by how quickly we can get locations.
Councilman Horn: I think a better move would be to instruct Public Safety to
make an extra effort to patrol that area in the next two weeks. The con~nent was
made, it isn't going to make any difference what you do to speed limits because
it won't be enforced. Well I think that's a misrepresentation. I think we need
patrolling in that area and I don't think that you solve speed problem, s with
stop signs. Your report very vividly pointed that out here and I totally agree
with that. You solve it by enforcement so instead of plastering up a bunch of
stop signs in what may be inappropriate places, I think it would be better just
27
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
to put extra enforcement out in that area over the next two weeks so we get some
visibility.
Acting Mayor Geving: I appreciate the neighborhood's concerns and con~nents.
Just before I leave this, I think one thing that the neighborhood can do, since
you're fairly cohesive in this effort and you're certainly very interested in
resolving the issues, I think that you possibly could take action as a group.
Maybe a neighborhood watch type group, for the time being at least, until we can
resolve the issue of the speeding. I saw the people moving through your
development there and they were obviously coming from other areas. Down
Pleasant View and trying to get quickly up to Town Line Road.
Pete McKay: We've had to do that. As a matter of fact, some neig_hbors have
actually had to pull their cars out in front of some van that had been going
through at 40 and 50 mph. The cost of installing 5 or 6 signs for maybe a
couple hundred dollars is going to be a heck of a lot cheaper than some kid's
life because there's an awful lot of times w~hen there are cars parked out on the
street and even somebody going 30 mph, especially when you come in down there
on Near Mountain Blvd., would never have a chance to stop. But if they have to
stop and get going again and get to another stop sign, it's going to keep the
speed down and you're going to get the best report and feedback from people in
the area because public safety is not going to be able to get out there at the
times of the day when the traffic is the worst. They're just not there. They
haven't been and even when Jay was out, ...it's unusual and it just takes that
one car, that one time that hits one kid that makes the cost of the signs and
labor of installing them very...
Mary McGlynnen: At this time I'm the current editor of the Mountaineer
Newspaper for that new development. There was a question of getting the
notification out to the public. We have an issue going to press this week. We
could put that in there that the signs were going up.
Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you very much. I'd like to have Bill and then we'll
either move on that issue or we'll decide one way or another something tonight.
Councilman Boyt: With your work list there Gary, I think you should add that
there needs to be a dead end sign on Castle Ridge Court, the entrance to that.
This points out the impact a neighborhood can have. It's nice that they took
the time to do this. I think it also points out though a citywide problem which
is in the last 40 minutes we generated probably a weeks worth of work for
several people. We don't have the staff. We may have the staff to be able to
respond to Near Mountain, and I hope we do, but we don't have the staff to do
this for the City. That's one of the frustrations. Jim talked about being
frustrated that it took a long time to get things that you broke through. I
haven't seen anything that indicates to me that staff isn't working. It's
frustrating to have that kind of constraint and inability to meet needs. It's
also frustrating when the City responds out of emergency and that's really what
we're doing here. I think we'd all like to think that in some way or another
the City could get on top of this problem but not just here but that, as Clark
and several of you have mentioned, it becomes an effort across the City to make
some changes.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think the big thing is the fact that we don't know if
the problems exist anywhere in our developments. We currently have almost 70
28
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
construction projects going on in Chanhassen on any given day so we don't know
what's happening in Near Mountain. We don't know what's happening in Hidden
Valley and Lotus Lake Estates and some of these areas unless the people tell us.
That's what we appreciate. We're confident that the reports that we're going to
get from Gary and Jim will resolve hopefully all of the 12 issues that were
brought to us this evening. I don't know if we want to react tonight to the
stop sign issues. It's a Council call. Do any of the Council members want to
make that kind of motion? You're certainly capable of doing that and we' 11
listen to it, but I do believe that we have given staff good direction and you
will be on the October 24th agenda and I guarantee everybody that's in the
audience from Near Mountain, that action will be taken to resolve those items.
Councilman Boyt: I will make a motion that we install stop signs as quickly as
we can. Even if it's only to pull them out later.
Acting Mayor Geving: In what locations Bill? The locations as indicated here
on this?
Councilman Boyt: I don't know how many we have or how many we can get
installed.
Acting Mayor Geving: We would need 9 as I understand it. About 9 or 10.
Councilman Johnson: From what I've seen out there when I was looking at it,
I put the priority at the point at the point that trail intersects at Mountain
Way and Mountain Blvd.. That would be the first stop sign I would put in. If
we only have a few stop signs, right there where that trail, concentration of
kids and it's also a point where the streets are fairly straightening out to
where it's a place, it's a place where that guy ended up on Pete's yard and he
had to be going fairly quick when he went through that location to get airborn
as far as he did when he landed in Pete's yard a couple weeks ago. If we're
going to do it, that's the one particular. I don't like Olympic Circle because
I never saw anybody over 25 mph at that point because of the curvature in the
road.
Acting Mayor Geving: I just heard a motion from Bill. Is there a second to do
stop signs in the area on a tsmporary basis until we can have a further study
and then resolve exactly where these are going to be placed?
Councilman Johnson: Ail of them?
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't even know how many signs Gary's got.
Gary Warren: We don't have any in inventory but we can probably scramble to get
some warning lights or something.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm going to leave that to Gary's discretion in working
with Jim Wehrle, the President of the Association. Between you two, you can
work this out. Now if you have 3 stop signs or 5, put them where they're most
needed. I heard a motion. Is there a second? I will second it. Any further
discussion?
Councilman Horn: Yes. I would like a coherent from Public Safety on the
recorm~endedmove.
29
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Jim Chaffee: A couple things come to mind. One is I think it causes mass
confusion when you put up stop signs only to be taking them down at some other
time later on. Secondly, I have to agree with Gary that it's going to be a real
problem getting the stop signs up any time within the two week period. I would
like a chance to do some roadway research and then present it to the Public
Safety Con~nission for their c~ments also. Certainly stop signs, their argument
would slow people down but it poses other problems along with that. Namely
enforcement. If you can't enforce the speed limit, we certainly won't be able
to enforce the stop sign violations. You're just replacing one problem with
another. It's a good idea. It will slow people down but I would like to work
on the research.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we should make an effort to put some signs out
Jim. I agree with what you've said and in the long run we need to do all that.
We need to put some signs out. This is no different than the sign you put up
here on the edge of the City entrance lot and you took that down and we all
managed to get through it. I think the neighborhood is saying, we want some
stop signs. If Gary can put s~_ne stop signs out there, we ought to put them
out.
Acting Mayor Geving: Here's how I feel. When we did our downtown redevelopment
and we had to divert traffic down here on 77th Street, I know the City c~me up
with a half a dozen temporary signs with sandbags on them even knowing they were
going to be taken down in a few weeks. We could do the same thing. Now you
must have c~me up with those from somewhere.
Gary Warren: Those are warnings lights.
Acting Mayor Geving: Even if it's that. It's something more than what we've got
now. One more comment.
Councilman Johnson: I don't want the public safety to look exclusively at the
locations suggested by the H~neowner's Association. To me there are other
locations in here. Versus Olympic Circle, I would have put a sign at Cascade
Pass and Castle Ridge. Two of those because that's the place you slow those
people down or further up on Chasta where you've got the 4 way there, but I
don't think that's needed. Or put it at the bottom on the hill there at Castle
Ridge and Cascade Pass. So don't restrict yourself to only, in the review of
this, only those recommended. Find the ones that are needed for traffic flow
and for safety in the neighborhood.
Councilman Boyt moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to install stop signs in the
Near Mountain Subdivision as soon as possible on a temporary basis. Councilman
Boyt and Acting Mayor Geving voted in favor. Councilman Horn and Councilman
Johnson voted against the motion and the motion failed with a -tie vote of 2-2.
Acting Mayor Geving: The motion fails. However, staff is still directed to
proceed. It's exactly what we talked about. I know we've taken a lot of time
on this issue tonight, 45 minutes, but it's very, very worthwhile time. We'll
see you on the 24th.
3~
City Council Meeting - October 101 1988
Jim Wehrle: Is there anything in particular that preempted tonight from voting
on authorizing that it be declared the bike path area as a 25 mph speed limit?
Councilman Horn: His report.
Jim Wehrle: Who's? Mr. Chaffee? He's the one who's indicating that that's an
acceptable alternative.
Councilman Horn: He hasn't told us that.
Jim Chaffee: I have to check with Roger.
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't think so Jim. Not tonight.
TH 101 UPDATE, FRED HOISINGTON.
Fred Hoisington: Your honor, m~m~bers of the City Council, you have a memo in
your packet indicating that our intent to carry the TH 101 analysis to the next
level of detail. As you will recall, we believe based on what we've heard at
the last City Council meeting, that alternatives 2 and 2A were selected for
further evaluation and we're in the process currently of looking at costs in
more detail and we're simply doing a comparative analysis. We're doing some of
the survey work necessary to establish the, especially the north leg because the
north leg is critical as to ~nere it goes and how much land it takes. Doing
some staking, looking at geometrics of that north location as it relates to
taking. We're also dealing with the owners of the lands, especially the Ward
and Rosemount people to see where the preferences are and we're also talking to
MnDot in some further detail about the preferences they have for those
alternatives. We think we know probably where their preferences are in that
case but we felt that since we're dealing on a rather broad brush basis before,
we needed to get more specific and bring something back to you that represented
kind of the outside influences that now must come to bear on this and will
ultimately make a decision. Unless you'd direct us otherwise. Now where we
will be coming on the 24th is with a recon~endation, a final recommendation and
we'll be looking at official mapping. Asking for the official mapping
designation that we talked about before to be moved slightly to accomodate that
aligr~ent. And we'll be asking for the approval of one alignment or alternative
at that 24thmeeting. So with that, I would just answer any questions that you
might have.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, let's start with Bill. You're at the point now
where Council input during the next two weeks will determine which direction
we're going to take so if there's something new that the Councilmen decide
tonight to direct you in a new area or to emphasize an area, this would be the
opportunity for that so you can come back with it on the 24th. Go ahead Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Fred, you asked about possible objectives to consider. I
think we should certainly look at impact on existing businesses. I think we
considered that earlier. It should stay in there. I had a question following
up on Brad Johnson's letter that we have. I was probably pursuing this in the
wrong direction two weeks ago Don when I asked you about taxes and taxes we were
going to lose. When I see a potential loss of 1.8 million dollars for the
building, that certainly se~s to make this an expensive option. I kind of
31
City Council Meeting -October 10, 1988
wonder how far we are down the trail. Maybe we're too far down the trail to
back up and maybe the Council wouldn't want -to back up anyway but I think there
are some serious concerns with 2 and 2A. As Jay mentioned last week, moving 40
units of reasonable priced housing out of the con~nunity and spending 1.8 million
dollars to do it, is a little scary.
Acting Mayor Geving: Those are considerations that we made several weeks ago.
All of those were thrown into the bargain and we did arrive at two alternatives,
2 and 2A and I would hope now that we don't go back and consider Alternate 4 or
7 or some other alternative because our consultants have been working feverishly
trying to narrow this down to the last alternative. Maybe you're right. Maybe
there is some other items out there that will give us a new wrinkle but I think
it's kind of late in the baltgame.
Fred Hoisington: Bill, we are also struggling with that though and hopefully it
won't be as much as that. We're very cognizant of the concerns over that
estimated loss.
Councilman Boyt: Keep working Fred.
Acting Mayor Geving: So Bill's items are impacts on existing businesses and...
Councilman Boyt: Costs and cost recovery would be very high on my list.
CounciLman Horn: I think, as I interpret what you're doing here, you're going
to still keep all the old criteria intact.
Fred Hoisington: ~o. What we're going to do is we are now narrowing that to
those things that are of a more technical nature than we were in the past. We
were dealing in a more broad brush fashion then and this time we're going to
deal with things that are more engineering and cost based.
Councilman Horn: So what you're saying is basically with all the other criteria
in place, it came out as a wash between these two items?
Fred Hoisington: Exactly.
CounciLman Horn: So why would we want to include one of the old factors in this
time?
Fred Hoisington: I think there are a num~ber of the old factors that need 'to be
carried in the next level of detail because what we did was for the roadways is
a per lineal foot cost and we do some extraordinary costs in where we felt there
was extra earth work or something of that nature. We did not get down to the
specific alignment and cost that out. We have to go a little bit further with
land costs, building costs. So yes, some of those could be duplicated. Or
really not duplication. Just greater details of the same factors.
Councilman Horn: Maybe I missed your point here. Could you briefly describe to
me what criteria you used to determine what should stay in to come up with this
list? And for instance, why you would have dropped out impact on business?
Fred Hoisington: While we talked about impact on business, we're kind of
embracing that on n~ber 5 Clark. Those developnent plans and so forth. I have
32
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
to say that when I put these down, I had not set down, as I had the first time,
the first list, and gone through them in that level of detail. We still have to
do that and what we're looking for is input from you tonight.
Councihnan Horn: So ~nat you're saying is the one Bill recon~nended is included
in 5?
Fred Hoisington: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Really? Can I ask a question about that?
Acting Mayor Geving: Clark, are you finished?
Councilman Horn: On that issue. I have others.
Acting Mayor Geving: Go ahead Clark because he's just finishing one item.
Councilman Horn: The other question I had was, it seems to me that you already
included these numbers in the last study.
Fred Hoisington: Which numbers are you referring?
Councilman Horn: The dollar values for replacing the building.
Fred Hoisington: We did have costs in there for that, yes.
Councilman Horn: Did your costs agree with the ones that Brad Johnson is
proposing?
Fred Hoisington: No.
Councilman Horn: So I guess my concern is, if we have an unsubstantiated value
assigned to these units that's not at all what our consultant is telling us, it
seems to me we need his response to this before we take much of an issue.
Fred Hoisington: I agree. And the only way we can do that is to carry it to
the next level of detail. There are a couple things we can do in that respect.
One of which is to take, let's say 1 instead of 2 and I think that can be done
geometrically. Which means there would be a substantial reduction. If that
isn't possible, than we're faced with 2 but there are still quite a bit of
latitude in what we can do there.
Councilman Horn: That's why I would agree with Dale. We can't, just because we
get some numbers thrown at us that aren't substantiated doesn't mean that we go
back and re-review the whole process we've gone up to until this point.
Fred Hoisington: Exactly. And we're not going to go back and re-review the
process either. As far as we're concerned, we've carried it to this point, now
it's a matter of just carrying it to the next level of detail.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think item 5 is ~]e right place to put those the
proposed development plans. I think we also have to have existing development
and effect on existing development versus only proposed development. I think
it's two totally separate issues and should not be lumped together. Much as I
33
City Council Meeting - October lg, 1988
thought that the removal of those apartments last t]~e should not have been
placed under effects on development. I thought that was an effect on
residences.
Acting Mayor Geving: So do you want to create a new item?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I'm saying, like what Bill said...
Acting Mayor Geving: Impact on existing businesses or existing structures such
as the apartment building?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Fred Hoisington: We can do that.
Acting Mayor Geving: Break that out as a separate item.
Councilman Johnson: And I'd like to see you push the geometrics as far as
possible to make that one apartment building. To the bare limits that the State
will allow us to push the geometrics on this thing because that was the worse
part of the entire ~%ing ~s to ever make that decision. That was one of the
toughest decisions I ever made when I voted for 2 or 2A. I personally believe
that in the long run 2A will be the best option for the City and if there's
something that we can do in there to, I can't believe that in 1989 or 1990 we're
going to need two separate left turn lanes for TH 1~1 right now. It just is not
feasible. It does not set with me. Now in the Year 2gg5, yes. We may need two
left turn lanes but can we design these roads where we can have the roads
designed with extra wide medians at Karket Blvd. where the change to make two
left turn lanes in the Year 2ggg at Market Blvd , or when 2A gets implemented,
or whenever 2A gets implemented, is not to have change the entire highway but to
change the median where we go from a very wide median to a narrow median that
now has two turn lanes in it. I think that we could accomplish 2 today and 2A
in the future without, what you say in here about it's got to have two left turn
lanes right now. I can't believe that TH lgl is that busy that we have to have
two left turn lanes coming in.
Fred Hoisington: It's not Jay and I asked that same question of our technical
consultants. That's something we're continuing to explore further. One of the
main factors I think is cost recovery and Bill has already eluded to that. One
of the other may be more financable. May be more able to have dollars generated
for implementation and that's one of the things we're really concerned about
because if we don't have those dollars, that could be by far the over riding
factor in deciding which of the alternatives is to be constructed. So we're
looking at those things, yes.
Councilman Johnson: Those are my concerns. That we take all options into mind
at this point.
Fred Hoisington: I think the primary consideration for me is to make sure that
we do not miss the TH 5 schedule. I hope that that remains as a given.
Secondly, the financing of this entire system is crucial. You may call that the
cost recovery but to me it's financing. How we're going to pay for it. Then
one of your co~rments, the Manager made a comment that I thought was kind of
interesting on the last paragraph when he says that the decision as to whether
34
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
number 2 can be selected as the interim route with 2A being the eventual route
was seen as desirable. However again, that decision may not be totally within
our purview. Don, who is going to make this decision if it's not within our
purview?
Don Ashworth: The State Highway Department could or Hennepin County is going to
play a factor in this whole process. The whole north leg is within Hennepin
County and the financing alternative. That's why we need to go to the next
step.
Acting Mayor Geving: Well, I don't have any other direction for you Fred.
Councilman Horn: I have a question I guess. I'd like to know specifically what
you're recon~nending be included in this. My point being that I don't think we
should include anything in there that is not relevant to differeniating 2 and
2A. The whole issue of the apartment building is not relevant to 2 or 2A.
Councilman Johnson: Dale brought up the apartments, or somebody did. Effect on
businesses along the existing TH 101. Existing businesses. It's a wash on the
apartments. 2 or 2A is no difference.
Acting Mayor Geving: But I do agree with the statement you made. If we can
limit to one apartment building, that's crucial because, I don't know are there
12 units in an apartment? That is crucial to our community.
Councilman Boyt: 20.
Acting Mayor Geving: 20 units. Whatever the number of units are, we want to
limit our total destruction here to one building if possible. That leaves 20
homeowners out of...
Councilman Johnson: If we make this decision that TH 101 will be rerouted to TH
5, I'm wondering whether the State will allow us to resign it to TH 5 now. In
other words, turn it over to the existing Dakota Avenue and turn it around and
get that traffic away from our grade school now because that's the way it's
going to be eventually. Can we ask the State to resign that? We'll regain the
control of Great Plains Blvd. and 78th Street and be able to put back the stop
signs that should have been there in the first place but we can't do it because
it's a State Highway. I'd like to, after we've said this is our long term plan
is to reroute TH 101. Let's see if we can do it right now. Already turn people
and say TH 101 turns that way.
Acting Mayor Geving: Put that one in. I like that too. Good potential. If we
make that decision, let's do it early. Any other co~ments for Fred? We want to
leave this open for the con~nunity. I know that you have business concerns.
Fred is aware of th~m. I don't know if there's any other input that we need at
this time except Council's. So we'll see you on the 24th and if there's no
other direction from the Council, go ahead Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Certainly when you're considering impact on businesses, you're
considering the impact, the considerable impact that's been described to the
rerouting of the south TH 101. You're taking that into account. You're taking
into account the potential liability the City might have there?
35
City Council Meeting - October lg, 1988
Fred Hoisington: Yes. As we did in the first instance.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's no different than the McDonalds issue or Sinclair or
anybody else. These are all economic impacts that I'm sure Fred is aware of.
I'm not going to open this up for further discussion. This is not an open
discussion ita~. The City Council is in command and I think that we've given
you the direction that you need. There's no direction needed here tonight.
There's no motion and if you're comfortable with that Fred, we'll move on to the
next i tern.
SUPERAMERICA, LOCATED AT THE SOUTPfWEST CORNER OF TH 7 AND TH 41:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO PERMIT GAS PUMPS ON PROPERTY ZONED BN,
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT.
B. SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 45 SQ. FT. GROUND LOW PROFILE SIGN INSTEAD
OF THE PERMITTED 24 SQ. FT. GROUND L~ PROFILE SIGN.
C. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 3,2gg SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to be used
for gas pumps. They are also going through a site plan review and then a sign
variance. I'll just cover all three real briefly. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the conditional use permit and the site plan. They did
table it to resolve certain issues such as traffic, access from TH 7 with
approval by MnDot, lighting of the site, hours of operation, what would happen
if there were accidents with the gas. When the Planning Commission reviewed it
a second time, all of the issues had been addressed by the applicant. Staff
feels that they were adjusted adequately and that it still met the standard
conditions and specific conditions for a convenience store with gas p~mps. It
was recommended with approval and the additional conditions by the Planning
Con]nission. Staff is recon~nending approval of the conditional use permit and
the site plan. Do you want me to go through the sign variance now?
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's take one issue at a time.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicants are here.
Acting Mayor Geving: What's your pleasure Council? Should we hear from the
developer first or do you have comments that you'd like to discuss? Maybe i-t'd
be best if we heard from the developer because this is the first time we've
heard this issue in front of the Council. So let's hear from the developer and
~'11 take it from there. Would you come before us please and state your name
and what's being proposed. If you have pictorials or sketches, we'd like to see
th~.
Randy Peterson: Should we stick with the conditional use permit?
Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to have you stay with one issue at a time please.
Randy Peterson: I'm Randy Peterson. I am with the development team for the SA,
SuperA_merica Station. We do have SuperAmerica people here. We also have Ed
36
City Council M~eting - October 10~ 1988
Hasek from Uban and Associates to answer any questions that you may have there
and also Dave Koskee here to answer any traffic issues you have. We're putting
in basically a new type of station, design wise. That's getting into more of
the site plan. I'll open it up for questions that anyone has and answer thsm as
best we can.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's see your pictorials first. Let's see your sketches.
What's being proposed here. It's very difficult to divorce the site plan with
the conditional use in my view and it's very difficult to separate those things
out without seeing the station that's being proposed and we'll take it from
there.
Randy Peterson: Do you want to see the total site plan?
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to see the total site plan. The one that was
approved originally and where this fits on the site because we do have the two
items coming before us, the conditional use permit and the site plan. I'd like
to look at the conditional use permit but I need to look at the site to get a
reference.
Randy Peterson: This is a new prototype of their new building that they are
building. You probably can address the building issues better than I can.
Acting Mayor Geving: Go ahead. You've got the floor.
Randy Peterson: And we're locating it right here on the corner of TH 7 and TH
41 with an access coming in off of TH 7, routing it through the pump areas to
allow the cars to easily flow into here and then back out onto TH 41. We've got
the parking as it stands in front of the station and the ~nployee parking off to
the side.
Councilman Johnson: In our approval of the HSZ we were told and in one place
within this document it says that the deceleration lane for entering this site
was going to be extended all the way back to Oriole. However, in the drawing of
the site, it does not show that happening.
Randy Peterson: I'm not familiar with their development. Roger? Is that
correct?
Roger Zahn: It goes all the way back to Oriole.
Councilman Johnson: I want to make sure that when the people come out on
Oriole, that they've got now an acceleration lane for merging traffic. Right
now they have nothing. It's right out onto TH 7 and 60 mph semis. I want th~
to get a benefit out of this and that benefit beyond the left turn lane coming
in is that right acceleration lane going out. Since it wasn't on the drawing, I
had a concern there.
Roger Zahn: Roger Zahn, HSZ Development. We want that too and it absolutely
is in the plan. Both the acceleration lane extending out from Oriole. The left
turn lane into Oriole. A by-pass lane on both sides of TH 41 are all in the
plan and are all going to be built.
Councilman Johnson: Their figure from Barton didn't show that.
37
City Council Meeting -October lg~ 1988
Roger Zahn: In the current version, it is in there.
Councilman Boyt: While Roger's up there, can we ask him more questions?
Acting Mayor Geving: Jay, do you have more?
Councilman Johnson: That was my primary. They seem to be meeting most of the
conditions, all of the conditions of the conditional use and beyond that, as
we've been told by our Attorney many times, when they meet the conditions to get
a conditional use, it's very difficult to arbitrarily say no, you can't do that
based on because we don't like you or something. Or based on a petition from
the neighborhood that they don't like them. If they meet the rules, we have to
play by our own rules. They seem to be very cooperative of staff. Giving staff
what they need and we're not dragging them in here kicking and hollering like
s~ne developers do.
CounciLman Horn: The analogy of this one to the SuperAmerican on TH 4 and TH 5
c~me to me even before I read Dave Headla's con~nents about it. I think that it
was a very good one. It put the whole thing in perspective. But the difference
I see here is the fact that on this one, not only do we have a SuperAmerica
Station using that route but we've also got a shopping center using that route.
The other thing I noticed that's different is that TH 4 at that point turns into
a four lane road to handle that type of intersection. I'm wondering if there's
any plans to make TH 41 a four lane road to handle this type of thing. I didn't
see that.
Roger Zahn: Yes, there' s by-passes on both sides.
Councilman Horn: But there will be full four lanes on TH 417
Roger Zahn: Well, there's a by-pass at the point of the, right here. There's a
by-pass here and here and there's a right turn in here.
Councilman Horn: And how many lanes are going up to that intersection light?
Between TH 41 and TH 7 coming from the south? Two lanes or is that four lanes?
Roger Zahn: Here there are two lanes. There is a widening here for
acceleration going up and there's a by-pass on this side. So in effect, I
suppose that...
Councilman Horn: The intersection is two.
Councilman Boyt: Up north where it hits TH 7.
Roger Zahn: Up at the stop light?
Councilman Horn: Yes.
Roger Zahn: At the stop light, depending on which way you're going, there's the
free right if you're going to head east.
Councilman Horn: If you're going straight, it doesn't narrow down to two lanes?
38
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Roger Zahn: Two lanes but keeping in mind that on the southbound side, we are
widening this just barely around the corner and making it in fact three.
Councilman Horn: That's my biggest concern in this whole thing is how the
traffic is going to move through there because I don't believe the one at TH 4
and TH 5 works all that well. It seems like there's a lot of congestion coming
in in that area by SuperAmerica.
Roger Zahn: If I may, traffic flow around this site has been our major concern
from day one. I don't want a site that does not work from a traffic flow
standpoint. I don't want a project where people, customers, shoppers, get in
and can't get out or have trouble getting in or have trouble getting by because
that development in the long run is going to fail and we have engaged three
consultants. Some of the best people in the business. Dahlberg, Shardlow and
Uban. We've engaged Barton Aschman and the other guy slips my mind. Three
separate traffic consultants to look at this intersection and make it work. We
had a traffic study done that was very thorough and it works. When we asked
those people, that question wasn't, give us something to show that it works. It
was tell us if there are any problems. Plus staff, plus MnDot, plus our own
architects have all looked at it, all being experts in, our own staff, experts
in retail and they all say it works fine with the additions that we've done. And
we have been concerned about it. If anybody, if any of the engineers, if any
staff people, if any of those consultants had raised a red flag and said that
traffic at that point is not going to work, we would have stopped and done
something different. They've all told us it will.
Councilman Horn: Put it in perspective. Do they think the one on TH 4 and TH 5
works?
Roger Zahn: I didn't really ask them that question. I asked them if this
would.
Councilman Horn: The other issue I had, this is maybe putting my hat on the
other side, I noticed a lot of problem with dispensing deisel fuel here. The
one on TH 4 and TH 5 dispenses deisel fuel and I happen to drive a car that
takes deisel gas and I think it's ridiculous to think that there should be a
restriction on selling deisel fuel at this site. Environmentally, noise wise, I
don't think there's any reason to do that. First of all, semis aren't going to
come in there and fuel up anyway. Any size truck that takes deisel fuel, it
also...so they're going to have the same line going in. I don't understand why
that's a restriction on this. Maybe someone on the Planning Con~nission could
help me out on that but I couldn't see the logic.
Roger Zahn: I don't want to speak for anybody else but I think it was something
that was regarding trucks stopping.
Councilman Horn: Semis don't stop at SuperAmericas for deisel fuel. One of the
other items I had was, it was somewhat addressed in here, the type of
construction of the tanks. Just recently it's become painfully apparent to us
that there's a problem with underground seepage in these fuel tanks and quite
frankly I'm much more concerned about that than I am of any surface spillage
that could happen. You say you've got some type of coating on these tanks, what
precludes them from an underground leak?
39
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Roger Zahn: I'm not the right person to answer that. There is somebody here
from SuperAmerica that can tell you about that...
Acting Mayor Geving: Are we satisfied that you've got your questions answered?
Councilman Horn: I don't know who answers which.
Acting Mayor Geving: Why don't you just both be there and Clark can ask the
questions. Would you state your ri&me please.
Roman Mueller: My n~ne is Roman Mueller with SuperAmerica, 1240 West 98th
Street, Bloomington. The question on the underground tanks, I don't know what
the problem is you're having currently but if I was to make ass~nptions, I would
guess it's an old plain, uncoated, steel tank with no cathotic protection on it
because of the corrosive soil which is typical in this area. Currently we're
using what they can a STIP3 tank which is a coated tank. Basically it's an
epoxy coating on it and on top of that there is cathotic protection built into
the tank itself. Attached to the tank and is then wired to a monitoring system
that we will be monitoring annually to make sure that the annodes are protecting
the tank properly from any type of corrosion. We could get into the techinical
discussion of corrosion and basically what we're doing is eliminating it by
adding the annodes to the tank. On top of that, our piping system will prevent
lines and the supply lines for the dispensers are also completely cathotically
protected. Epoxy coated. Galvanized steep pipes. All of this is set into a
wash basin sand so it's not native soils. We're eliminating part of the
corrosiveness of the soil attacking the tanks or piping by contact. The piping
is also wired to a system for monitoring it so we can see the rate of decay of
the annodes and we can control the rate of decay of the annodes based on the
corrosiveness of the soil because some of the acidity of the soil will creep
into the sand over time. Currently the tanks are guaranteed by the steel tank
institute for 3~ years. Our annode systems are designed to carry them anywhere
from 30 to 50 years. ~ feel we've got probably the most conservative tank and
piping installation available in the industry. The tanks are protected and
monitored as one unit. The supply piping is protected and monitored as another
unit. The vent pipes with protective monitors are a third unit. Each one
isolated by non-conductive ice layers to separate them metalically from one
another. Even to the point of watching out so they can not, in the rare event
that some type of corrosion or contact by metal surface could cross them. They
are spaced far enough apart so ~ feel that can not occur. To have an extremely
rare occurrence and then that would immediately show up in our monitoring system
because we check them for continuity. Electronic continuity from one end to the
other. We can pretty well tell everything that's going on underground once the
system is installed.
Councilman Horn: Do you have any type of bonding that you put up to insure a
City that they will not get stuck with this type of a problem?
Roman Mueller: Currently we are required by the Federal Government to insure
them for a million dollars a site. We feel that's fairly adequate.
Councilman Horn: My last question is probably just a personal pet peeve but it
has to do with the type of pumps you plan to install out there. That is, where
you have one active hose and three inactive hoses. Everytime I've used one of
those, I've had to explain to about 3 different people who come up and try to
40
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
put gas in the inactive hose, that that won't work because I'm using this one.
They say, I don't care, I'm going to use this hose over here. The system
doesn't work that way. I really find it difficult that you find that to be a
marketable type of system.
Roman Mueller: To be very truthful with you, this is the first complaint I've
had from anybody that's used our systems in that light. The only other
complaints I've heard have been from people at the company themselves and that
deals mostly with being able to find that little blinking red button to turn
them on. Excuse me, that's the first real negative cogent on them I've heard.
The old 262 system, the ones you're more used to seeing, where it's just a hose
on each side, they've been around for a long time and everyone is used to using
th~n. I think that you're seeing more of the multiple hose dispensers coming
out and with time people will become more used to using them. Almost every
manufacturer of dispenser is moving away from the old two hose dispenser to the
multiples. As a matter of fact, the system, the 262's, excuse me for using a
type there, are actually going to be phased out. They've already phased our
their predecessor, the 162 and we fully expect to see the 262's phased out and
only the multiple hose dispensers available.
Councilman Horn: About the only way I coulde explain it to people is look, the
numbers are going up here and you don't see any more numbers over here. I can't
believe I'm the only one who's said that. That's all I have.
Councilman Boyt: Let me go back to Roger. Environmentally I'll let you rest
for a little bit here. Roger, you had some approvals coming up. How are they
going on your end of the development?
Roger Zahn: Which ones are you talking about? The Watershed, we have an
approval and we have been working just about everyday with the Department of
Transportation. I'm informed as of Wednesday or Thursday of last week, that the
central office has finally signed off on our right turn in and that it's now
processing and hopefully by the middle of this week we'll have it. But we had a
long bureaucratic entanglement between the Department of Transportation's
Central Office and District Office. The District Office being strongly in favor
of the right turn lane and the Central Office having some questions about that
that's nowbeen resolved. As I understand it.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. As I recall, one of the conditions of approval is that
you'll have MnDot...
Roger Zahn: Absolutely. We have to have that before we can do anything.
Councilman Boyt: Is it conceivable that the shopping center, because it
generates roughly 3 times as much traffic, would not get it and the gas station
would get MnDot approval?
Roger Zahn: The thought hasn't even entered my mind. The gas station doesn't
go without the shopping center and vice versa. They're really intertwined.
Councilman Boyt: There's a question here about utilities.
Roger Zahn: I shouldn't say vice versa. The shopping center will go without
the gas station but the gas station won't go without the shopping center.
41
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Councilman Boyt: On the utilities. There's also a condition that says utility
service for HSZ will be completed. What does that amount to?
Roger Zahn: I think it's probably our sewer. We have an extensive storm sewer
project. We have sanitary sewer and we have our other utility hook-ups that
have to be done. Before we can do that, we have our drainage ditches that have
to be completed and that whole system has to be in place before we can move
forward.
Councilman Boyt: I've got a question for Gary for a second. Gary, how much
money are we talking about on these utilities? Ballpark.
Larry Brown: We don't have any sort of cost estimate. I don't know whether
Roger Zahn can recall ballpark figures. It's quite an extensive &mount.
Roger Zahn: It's a lot.
Councilman Boyt: A lot? A million?
Roger Zahn: No, no. It's about, depending upon how you look at it, it would be
certainly well in excess of $200,000.00.
Councilman Johnson: Is that in the development contract?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: Have we executed that?
Gary Warren: Not yet.
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me. We haven't executed the development contract?
Gary Warren: The development contract has been approved for execution. The
involved pieces are now coming. ~e permits and stuff are all tied with it.
Councilman Boyt: I guess my question is, Roger you just mentioned that the two
are sort of tied in together. That's got to be virtually a guarantee. How do
we make that into a guarantee that the shopping center gets built?
Roger Zahn: Just make it a condition. That's fine. Basically I can't see how
it can happen any other way. First thing, we have to put, as I mentioned, well
in excess of $200,000.00 worth of work into this site and I guess I didn't throw
in the highway work that we've got to do. We have to build a left turn onto
Oriole. We have to build a side road. We have to build our entrance points and
our exit points. At that point you're getting up pretty close to $300,000.00.
With no building permit, there's no going forward without that and once we've
spent that money, we're going forward.
Councilman Boyt: Gary, when we get a development contract signed, with that do
we have some sort of guarantee? Is there some bonded amount that would allow
the City to finish, say construction of the roadway and utilities?
42
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Gary Warren: That is the letter of credit that he will put up is for the
utilities and the road. It's not for the building per se. It's for the site.
Councilman Boyt: So the site will be fully developed?
Gary Warren: Right.
Roger Zahn: Landscaping is in that also.
Jo Ann Olsen: And that is a specific condition of the site plan.
Councilman Boyt: Right. I wanted to get a feel Jo Ann for just what we were
talking about when we were talking about that kind of... If you can think of
any other way we can write in a condition that will guarantee it even more
solidly Roger, I'd love to have your input on that. I think that covers my
questions for the HSZ part of the development. I've got some questions for
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson, are you intending to apply for a 3.2 license in the
future?
Randy Peterson: Operations.
Roman Mueller: You can address that to SuperAmerica. We've got a big group
here on this one. It's a little bit unique in the development. Is there, Dave,
an idea of going in for a 3.2 license?
Dave: That would be our preference.
Roman Mueller: It would be our preference.
-Councilman Boyt: Let's see, who was the environmentalist? Okay. I've got a
question for you and Gary together. In regard to the ponding area and how this
was going to catch the, should it happen, spill. The larger than a few drops.
That hinges upon there being water in the ponding area. Okay, Larry?
Larry Brown: My diagram, although I eluded to it in my m~mo, didn't really
spell out the entire picture on how this went but further downstream before the
outfall towards the wetland, there is a catch basin that's constructed such that
it will actually, the pond will actually have to maintain pressure flow to force
it through the outfall. So it's not necessarily the pond, although that's a
nice little buffer there that they built into the system. It's the catch basin
downstream that's constructed to act as a pressure flow system that would buy us
a lot of time or actually act as the buffer in the event of a major spill.
Councilman Boyt: Larry, I thought you did explain a pressure flow system in our
notes but it required, what was it, 18 inches of water? 24 inches of water?
There was a certain amount of water it had to have in it in order to keep the
gasoline or whatever above that. Now is that a continual wet area?
Larry Brown: Yes. In that catch basin it will contain water just due to the
natural flow but even a gasoline spill, that pond would virually have to be
filled up to force that through.
Councilman Boyt: So what you're telling me is that the pond is dry, it still
works?
43
~ty Council Meeting - October 10' 1988
Larry Brown: Correct~
Councilman Horn: Didn't you say there isn't enough volume in one of these
things that it would come close to the percentage of vol~ne the pond has to meet
that...?
Larry Brown: Exactly.
Councilman Boyt: I understand that a potential leak is what, 2,400 gallons in
the pond is like 400,gg0 gallon capacity. It just seemed as though there had to
be water in the pond for it to function and you're saying it doesn't. That it
will capture it there without water?
Larry Brown: Correct.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Thank you. There seemed to be a lot of questions about
internal traffic flow. I know you've got all the consultants and MnDot and
everybody working on this but maybe like Clark, I've used your station in Eden
Prairie. It's a challenge. I'd like someone to explain to me how this is going
to be less of a challenge. How it actually works.
Roman Mueller: One of the things on this site that's different from TH 4 and TH
5 is the fact that here, you have a one-way in here and basically one way out
here. This one can act in two directions. TH 4 and TH 5, your accesses are
immediate. The one coming off of TH 5 straight into the operation and you can
exit back out again. Out on TH 4, again, you're almost in~nediate out of the
site and if you're there, you can both directions in a relatively restricted
drive. Something that is a requir~nent from the City is the width of the drive
which means that if cars have to stack there, you want somebody who wants to
turn right, he's got to wait for the guy in front of him that wants to turn
left. Here, we've got quite a distance out here and much, much wider...than we
have at TH 4 and TH 5 on either one of the drives. That type of a situation so
the ability to handle the number of cars that are in there is greater than the
one at TH 4 and TH 5. I'm very familiar with the one at TH 4 and TH 5.
Councilman Boyt: R~er, I'm glad you're back up because I have a question for
you.
Roger Zahn: Could I take a moment to just point out something that you may or
_may not be familiar with but the first tithe we were approved here, our site plan
was a little bit different. We did build this area here where initially, I
think maybe what you saw before was a straight in deal and we had some concern
about the slope and grade so we made the entrance ramp a longer item. Number
one, to reduce the slope. Give people a better visibility coming in and out and
also to provide for some stacking in the event there is any congestion. We've
got a very long stacking area. I didn't know if you were familiar with that or
not.
Councilman Boyt: No. I've got one more question for you Roger. On table 2,
where you indicate your restaurant and I thought I had read in the data here
that you had considered it a fast food restaurant even though one wouldn't be
approved in this area but when I read the average daily trips, I get a number
that says 96. Is that right?
44
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Roger Zahn: Dave Koskey is the traffic engineer~
Dave Koskey: Are you talking about the restaurant?
Councilman Boyt: The restaurant. ~ne 5,000 square foot restaurant with 96
trips a day.
Dave Koskey: Let me check.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe I read it wrong.
Roger Zahn: Just to conment on the fast food restaurant. We know that that's
not an approved use and we have no intention of doing it but we wanted a study.
What's the worse possible case as far as traffic and handle the worse case.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe I read it wrong. I hope I read it wrong or your study
doesn't work.
Roger Zahn: We weren't trying to indicate in there that we have any intention
in the future of going for a fast food restaurant.
Dave Koskey: Peak hour.
Councilman Boyt: But when you look at the totals over there, look at
SuperAmerica at 800 which is what they've been talking about all along through
the Planning Cc~mission. The retail center is at 3,094 which certainly isn't an
hourly figure. Then we get to the restaurant and that's 96.
Dave Koskey: I think we've got an error in that table. We show 96 in the peak
hour. It's 53 in and 47 out. That adds up to 96. Or not quite. 54 and 42
adds up to 96. I think our 96 figure under A, B and C...is erroneous there.
I'll have to check that.
Councilman Boyt: So if it's 19.1 hourly, than whatever that is times 24 would
give us the figure which would add up into the total and probably get us around
5,000 total trips in and out of the center.
Councilman Horn: Compare it to retail above, you see the in and out is 54 and
23. The restaurant is 54 and 42 so you know it's got to come up a lot higher
than that. It's got to be more than 3,000.
Councilman Boyt: Good point.
Dave Koskey: I think the 96 under allocated traffic is erroneous. What we
really studied was the peak hour on the street. The a.m. and p.m. peak hour.
That 96 figure is an error.
Acting Mayor Geving: What do you think it is? You're the expert.
Councilman Johnson: At any point did you use this 4,312 figure at the bottom in
any of your calculations?
Dave Koskey: No.
45
City Council Meeting - October 1~, 1988
Councilman Horn: That's too low even for that~
Councilman Johnson: It's way too iow if they ever used that number for any of
the assumptions.
Dave Koskey: The figure should be about half the SuperAmerica.
Councilman Boyt: So your restaurant is going to have a figure of about 400
trips a day?
Dave Koskey: 4g(~ or less, yes. This is a sit down restaurant. It's not fast
food.
Councilman Boyt: But when you figured your estimate, you did it on a fast food
restaurant. I remember reading that specifically. Maybe you didn't but that's
what was said.
Dave Koskey: We used...for fast food to develop a worse case scenario.
Counci~nan Boyt: Oh, that wasn't table 2? What table was the worse case
scenario?
Dave Koskey: That's table 2 but the figure that we have that put in here
...traffic, that's erroneous for the restaurant. We really only studied the
a.m. and p.m. peak hours. That's traffic on the road. The average daily
traffic,-there's plenty of capacity and so forth. The situation we wanted to
study was the a.m. and p.m. peak hours...
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so what you're saying to me is the figure that MnDot
would use in design of the road is not the total number of trips a day but your
peak hour trips?
Dave Koskey: That's right.
Councilman Boyt: So the table's still good.
Dave Koskey: Yes, but I will get back to you first thing tomorrow.
Acting Mayor Geving: Would you do that? We'd like to have a corrected figure.
CounciLman Boyt: Gary, does that fit with you? That's reasonable?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I'm down to about the point ~nere I guess I'd like to make
some suggestions. First, I appreciate, to start out on a good positive note
here, your willingness to accept used motor oil. That makes you unique in this
c~munity, at least on a temporary basis but it's good that you're building for
it because it would be my intention to require people to take it so you'll be
ahead of the game. I suggest that we add that as condition 12. That they
accept used motor oil and provide for it's safe storage. That was in a memo
from Jo Ann. On page 5 of the staff notes.
46
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: Just a minute now. I think we're really talking about 11.
Number 11 under the conditional use or number 12 under the site plan?
Councilman Boyt: No. Excuse me. Under number 11 on the conditional use, I
would state that the applicant agree to accept used motor oil and provide for
it's collection in appropriate underground tanks. That's cc~nendable that
you're interested in doing that. Now some of the tougher issues. I think that
our goal here for everybody. .Roger, I think your goal has been right along in
your development to minimize impact and try to help the neighborhood through a
couple problems but really to minimize impact and that's how you won their
support. I don't consider it tremendously surprising to see a gas station come
in here but I think we have to keep the overall intent the same which was, we're
going to make the impact zero, if possible, on the neighborhood. With that
thought in mind, I'd be open to other Council suggestions but I think that we
want to start out, I want to see it start out with something less than 24 hour a
day operation. I read your arguments for why it makes sense from a stocking
standpoint. From a save the miscellaneous driver who runs out of gasoline in
the middle of the night standpoint. I understand those but I also understand
that you're in an area with 6 other gas stations within a mile of this
particular location and I think you should open your operation with something
less than 24 hours a day and I rather suspect that if the neighborhood says, you
know, we don't notice these folks down here, you'll have no trouble expanding.
But it says to the neighborhood, again, we'll meet you maybe more than half way.
It doesn't represent, as I look at your traffic flow numbers, a great loss in
income as long as you're allowed to operate from 6:00 in the morning until
something around 10:00 or 11:00 at night, you've basically covered 80% of your
traffic volume. I would encourage the Council to limit those hours. The other
thing is on your restocking trucks. I think those restocking trucks should come
during times when the traffic flow on TH 7 and TH 41 is not particularly high.
You indicated a willingness to have them restocked or have your gas tanks filled
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.. I think that plays right into the possibility
of scheduling it at an unfortunate time for you and certainly for the traffic
and I would like to see those hours limited to possibly from 10:00 in the
morning until 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon. I think you'd stay out of
potential traffic congestion. I guess I'll go along with Clark on the idea of
deisel fuel. I think the way you've set your pumps up, a deisel truck a semi
can't get in there and refill anyway and you would'd want th~ there if they
could because it would certainly discourage traffic from c~ing in and buying
more expensive gasoline. I guess that covers it for now Dale. Thank you.
Acting Mayor Geving: Very good Bill. A very good coverage. I guess it's my
turn. One of the problems that I have with this entire development Mr. Zahn is
the fact that this has been a very historic site. It's involved a lot of
people, a lot of residents over the last 10 years. I can look to a lot of
meetings in my side of this bench. Looking at the Zeiglers, the Connors, the
Wagners. All the people who live along Forest, Oriole, that fought against this
plan. Not particularly this plan but a plan that would have impact upon them as
neighbors. I feel a little bit that we won most of those battles in terms of
the enviro~ent and what it was going to do to the neighborhood. What it was
going to do to their concerns. We tried to put in a low density office complex.
The market wasn't right for it but I thought that that was the place for a good
office complex and it would have worked. When the proposal came through for a
retail center, I think that the neighbors and certainly this Council were a
little bit coned, in a sense, by thinking that maybe it was right for a retail
47
City Council Meeting - October 1~ 1988
center if there were certain things that would happen. That again would be
landscaping. Light intensity would be kept down. The traffic congestion on
TH 7 and TH 41 would be resolved. The neighborhood's concern for water
pollution, oil pollution, noise and a whole lot of other things and we passed
that because I felt that the retail center was a proper thing for that
co~nercial corner, and I still think it's a commercial corner. Something's going
to happen. We approved that. Well, that's been a long time ago. I don't
r~nember exactly but it must be almost a year.
Roger Zahn: June.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, June. But it was a year in the making. It took a
long time for us to get to that decision point in June. The first thing that I
,wanted to see since we had passed that issue was the retail center. Get
something going out there.
Roger Zahn: Give me a building permit and I'll go.
Acting [~ayor Geving: Well, we've got other concerns though. Now, the retail
center was one thing. I can tell you I was greatly surprised when this issue
c~e before us as a SuperAmerica station. It's the last thing I wanted to see
in addition to possibly a fast food restaurant. Which brings us down to the
point of having gone through the Planning Commission and where they're coming
from and the neighborhood's concerns and I hope this time that you have met with
the neighbors. Lessen their anxiety in terms of what you're proposing here.
You're kind of putting the cart in front of the horse I think, in my view, by
proposing a SuperAmerica station rather than the retail center first. Maybe_
there's some people out there, and I'm one of them right now, ~Fno thinks that
you had this in your mind all along. That this was going to be the first thing
that would be sold. I could be wrong and I hope that I'm wrong.
Roger Zahn: Absolutely not. There's no way. I've heard that and all I can say
is, absolutely not.
Acting Mayor Geving: Alright. Let's get then to some of the conditions. Now
I appreciate the fact that you have negotiated with the staff and with the
Planning Co~gnission over several of the issues. You've talked about your
willingness to accept the oil. I think that's terrific because we're looking
for that and Bill said it, we're all saying it, we're going to impose it...
public: It's going to be a federal law that they have to.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's right. We're going to impose it anyway. I don't
know about that.
Councilman Boyt: Ail they have to do is post a sign that says ~nere you can
take it and that's what we're changing.
Acting Mayor Geving: But let's get 'to some of the bigger issues and that is, if
they meet all the conditions of our ordinances, and this is what the staff
people are telling us. That you have met and exceeded most of those, let's get
down to some that really count. Those are the ones that involve potential
impact on ~e neighbors. The lighting. Tell us about the lighting and how you
will recess that lighting so it will not impact the neighbors. Can you tell us
48
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
right now? I don't want to bring up 16 people here~
Roger Zahn: I'm just not the right person. Roman can absolutely talk to you
about that.
Acting Mayor Geving: When he comes up though, I want to talk about that issue.
I want to talk about your ski~er device that's supposed to take the oil and gas
off, whatever runs off your site. You Said you were willing to install that. I
certainly want to make sure that you've got it available the day that station
opens because that's going to be a condition. I want to know about the run off
from your facility and where it's going to go and that it's not going to impact
our neighborhood or the lake, which is not very far away. We talked about the
hours of operation. Nowwhy, for example, can't SuperAmerica operate normal
daytime hours from 6:00 in the morning until midnight? What's wrong with that
kind of hours of operation? Why do we have to have extra police, extra fire
protection during those other 6 or 7 hours when you're in operation? That's
probably the only business out in that area that would be in operation from
midnight until 6:00 in the morning. I'm not in favor of that. We run a Holiday
station in town here and it opens at approximately 6:00 in the morning and
closes at about 11:00 at night. Why can't you operate your station in the same
way? You're intensifying our commitment to provide to you police and fire
protection. I don't believe in my mind that we have resolved all of the roadway
issues, the utilities and the landscaping. This is one of the other big issues
that we've always had in that neighborhood out there and one of the promises
that you made to the neighbors for the retail center, that landscaping will help
to diminish that impact. I'd like to have you speak personally to that because
I have to assume that you're the one that's going to carry the ball. I don't
want to talk about your operations people or your signage people. I want you to
answer that question. Would you respond to that?
Roger Zahn: To the?
Acting Mayor Geving: To the landscaping and impact on the neighborhood.
Roger Zahn: Yes. I can understand your concern from the standpoint of we have
felt when we came to you the last time that we would be under construction by
now. Have this thing up and running. We have had this impossible bureaucratic
tangle with the Department of Transportation and consequently we can't get a
building permit. I'm not faulting the City in any way for that. We have to
have our permits from the Department of Transportation until we can build. You
made a comment that you think we're putting the cart before the horse because
we're doing the SuperAmerica station first. We're not doing the SuperAmerica
station first. As soon as I can get a building permit, we're going to go with
this project. The whole entire project, the landscaping, the berming, the
trees, the ramps, the left turn lanes, the whole bit, I'm dying to build them.
Acting Mayor Geving: Would you agree to a condition that says that you can not
build the SuperAmerica station until the retail center is being built?
Roger Zahn: Is being built? Sure. Absolutely.
Acting Mayor Geving: Would that be an acceptable condition Roger?
Roger Knutson: Sure.
49
City Council Meeting ' October tg, 1988
Roger Zahn: I want to say this. It has now gotten so late into the season that
i'['s very unlikely that we're going to get our blacktop down. What you normally
have for a retail center of this size and...of this size of this parking lot and
so forth, is 8 to 1~ weeks from the beginning of construction until you get your
blacktop down. We don't have 8 to lg weeks before blacktopping anymore. What
that means is, that it's very unlikely that we will be able to open our center
in January as we had hoped. What we intend now to do is to go as soon as we get
a chance to go and get as much of that done as soon as we can. We've got maybe
4 weeks of construction but that will include grading our site. It will include
building the berms. It will include starting the foundation. Building the
walls. You can see that there's going to be a building going up there. Your
concerns are legitimate. I know we've lost credibility because we haven't been
able to get going. That doesn't bother me. We're going to go for 4 weeks. At
some point it's going to make sense for us, it's the cold weather and we're not
going to be able to occupy our building and we're going to have to pull out and
wait until maybe mid-February or something and then get back in there and finish
it up. Hopefully we time the completion of the building with the drying out of
the land and we put our blacktop down and our tenants go in. So that's our
construction plan but there is absolutely no intention not to do the things that
we talked to those neighbors about. Their concerns are valid. They're
important to us too. We want to be a good neighbor in that neighborhood. Our
shopping center as well as this project and everything else.
Acting Mayor Geving: Did you understand the 11 conditions on this?
Roger Zahn: I never saw it. I still haven't seen it.
Acting ~yor Geving: You have not seen the conditional use permit with the 11
conditions?
Roger Zahn: I haven'-t seen the staff report. I haven't got it.
Jo Ann Olsen: We only sent one to SuperAmerica.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's important for us for you to understand that because a
lot of these are other than...
Roger Zahn: I expect that they're, if they're just what was gone over in the
Planning Commission meeting, I understand those and I have no problem.
Acting Mayor Geving: For the most part and I think there were some enhancements
made at the Planning Con~nission level with more changes. Tell me a little bit
about the hours of operation. That's one that really gets to me.
Roger Zahn: I'm going to have to turn over the SuperAmerica questions.
Acting Mayor Geving: Would you tell us a little bit about the hours of
operation and why you feel ]it's necessary to have a 24 hour a day operation.
Roman Mueller: First of all, our company is a convenience store. We're there
to be convenient to the customer. That's what convenience stores were built
around. As are any other business that deals with volume of people coming and
going at all hours of the day and night. That is the premise that all of these
50
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
things are built on. Be there when the people are there. Serve them when they
want to be served. Not when it's predicated or comfortable for us. That's why
we operate 24 hours a day, as does Holiday I do believe.
Acting Mayor Geving: In some places. Not here. Let me ask you this though.
In my reading of the script from the Planning Commission, you left the
impression that this was a negotiable point.
Roman Mueller: It is to a certain degree.
Acting Mayor Geving: To what degree? Would you agree to a 6:00 a.m. to
midnight operation?
Roman Mueller: We'd prefer to have 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. if we can simply to
get past the swing shift hours and the hours when people are leaving to con~nute
longer distances. I can speak on that myself con~nuting a little bit further
than a half hour drive to work wishing there were a number of places open from
where I live so I could stop.
Acting Mayor Geving: I guess I'm thinking of a neighbor or someone who might
live in that general area who's had none of this up until now and all of a
sudden a major impact of the 24 hour a day SuperAmerica station. Night and day,
all night long, cars stopping. I don't get the real impression here that you're
that active during the midnight hours.
Roman Mueller: It is not extremely active but there are the two shifts that we
do like to cover. Especially the late night shift. People coming home. We
have the time to serve them and to clean up, stock, etc.. Things that, as long
as we're there, we should have the opportunity to at least be able to do our
retail business. Another point I'd like to make is your comment about the
impact to the neighbors in the area. There's one thing, looking at the site
plan where we have some sections here where we've added our building onto the
existing sections that you've seen before, covering the whole site. Show the
shopping center. Show the trees. Show the berms, etc. We're here. The
neighbors are substantially a distance away. The impact, although we will be
there and there will be lights and there will be traffic, not much different
from the traffic that's on the highway there already. We do have the distance.
As sound travels through distance, it diminishes substantially, as we all know,
plus the trees. Plus the buildings. Plus the berm. It's as simple as I can
make it. So admittedly, we'll be there, hopefully on a 24 hour basis but the
distance and the objects between us and the neighbors does have a minimizing
affect.
Acting Mayor Geving: Any other questions from the Council on the conditional
use permit?
Roger Zahn: I think you asked about lighting too.
Acting Mayor Geving: Give us a couple minutes on that please.
Roman Mueller: I do believe we submitted a lighting diagram to staff sometime
ago showing the lighting impact of our site. If I may step up here and speak on
this, this is all laid out in foot candles of light. This is our site. HSZ's
development is off there and the other outlot is off here. Our light's spillage
51
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
into the surrounding area is negliable Almost non-existant. You might be able
to stand at a person's house and see t~e light but you can do that with the
lights downtown also. That's not an impact on them. We're not lighting their
buildings. We're not lighting their yards. We're not lighting anything they've
got. They can see a point of light but they are not impacted by the light
itself. It is also been required that in our canopy, our lights be recessed up
into them to eliminate that point of light that they can see. That's already
established in the development.
Acting Mayor Geving: Any other co_~ments? That's a very good point.
R~nan Mueller: Also, I'd like to point out that the lights that we do install,
even when they are not made to be recessed into the canopy, are all cut lenses
to focus the lights directly down. That is why the lighting diagr&m we have has
so little spillage out. It's strictly down like this and the way it's made. We
don't want to waste the light off on somebody else's property.
Acting Mayor Geving: Just one other question. I asked about the skimmer
device. Could you, since there was a lot of discussion on that, could you tell
us a little bit of how it works and where you might use it?
R~man Mueller: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to back off on that a little
bit. Your staff covered that extremely well. What we've got here is three
groups developing a site. I was not involved with the development of the
skimming device, the holding pond, the fallout from that. I can speak on the
principles.
Acting Mayor Geving: Are you satisfied with that Jo Ann or Gary?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay. Then we won't get into that. Just one other
comment. Roger?
Roger Zahn: I'm sorry to keep butting in here but also, not my consideration
and I just want to correct that, as to whether or not there was a recycling for
oil...
Roman Mueller: The recycled oil was a request made to us that we've just
recently found out about. We're seriously considering it but I believe that
there is a feeling here that says we have said yes to it. We have not yet said
yes to putting it in.
Acting Mayor Geving: But if we made it a condition of approval, you'd have no
choice and I think that's where we're coming from.
Councilman Boyt: That's what we're about to do.
Roman Mueller: It's primarly the cost and the hazard. You're imparting upon us
the responsibility of taking care of for the life of that property, not the life
of the business, but the life of that property, by federal law, for any type of
spillage on that site. Now we will put it into our standards which would be the
s~ne as our underground tanks and piping but what you're doing is you're
c~npounding our liability on that site plus the initial cost of construction of
52
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
it which would be between $3,000.00 and $4,000.00. One of the co~ents that was
made to us is that another oil company said, sure we'll put it in. Well, the
problem with that site is they already have it. It's pretty easy to say you're
going to put it in when they've already got it. All they're accepting is
responsibility to have a sign up that says you can dump it.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think you're confusing your personal situation with the
desires of a city to keep our city clean. That's where we're coming from. We
have a con~ni~ent that we made to our citizens and if this is a new facility,
we're talking about anything that's new coming in, this Council has, we've
discussed it in our work sessions. This is a requirement that we've talked
about putting in with new stations so it's nothing new that we're going to stick
you with that someone else isn't going to have as well. So don't feel like
you're being picked on. You just happen to be the first one. I can tell you
that. I don't care if it costs you $3,000.00. If the Council indicates that
that's what a condition would be, to get approval in this project, then I think
that's what you're going to have to do.
Roman Mueller: We also have a responsibility to point out the liability that
you're ~mparting on the businesses in your area.
Acting Mayor Geving: We understand that. Any other co~ents? You had a
comment Bill, a~d then we'll move on.
Councilman Boyt: I want to add the two conditions I talked about and didn't
add. I'd like to propose that we change 8. That tank deliveries be made
between the hours of 10:00 and 4:00.
Acting Mayor Geving: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. Okay, that's a proposal for
discussion.
Councilman Boyt: Proposal for discussion and we'll see what the council wants
to do with it. I would propose an item 12, the hours of operation be limited
to, I believe 6:00 a.m. to 12:00. I can understand where we might slide that to
5:00 a.m. but we're really talking about eliminating 65 cars from their proposed
schedule and given that this is a beginning, I think it's a good statement to
the citizens that live around there that the station is willing to do this.
Randy Peterson: Can you restate your hours please?
Councilman Boyt: Sure. Let's go from 5:00 a.m., well, that you'll operate no
longer than from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.. If you want to operate less time than
that, you're welcome to.
Acting Mayor Geving: Any councilmen want to discuss those two changes? One,
the tank deliveries and hours of operation.
Councilman Horn: I think we read in here that the deliveries would be at a time
dictated by staff.
Acting Mayor Geving: They put that in. Monday through Friday.
Councilman Boyt: It says 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on item 8.
53
~OCity Council M~=eting - October 10, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: They put that in already[
CounciLman Horn: So we want to put those hours in? Is that staff's
recon~nendation?
Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Con]nission discussed the SuperAmerica and they put
in 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.. They didn't specify the day.
Councilman Horn: So you're going along with that?
Acting Mayor Geving: Bill wants to tighten that up to 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
Councilman Boyt: Clark, I'd like to not encourage a tractor trailer to turn in
there during some of the busy traffic times off TH 7.
Jo Ann Otsen: What this was discussing was that the deliveries for the gas...
Acting Mayor Geving: Tank deliveries.
Councilman Boyt: No, not to get gas. That's from 5:00 a.m. to midnight.
Councilman Horn: Yes, I think we should definitely make sure that they don't
deliver during rush hour.
Acting Mayor Geving: And what about your hours of operation Clark? Do you go
along with that?
Councilman Horn: I don't think that's, in terms of overall sales to
SuperAmerica, I don't see that as a problem, i think that's more of an
inconvenience to people who might want to get gas. Like Bill said, we're only
looking at 65 cars during that tLme period and that's if we were at 6:00 a.m..
If we extend it to 5:00, I suspect that might pick up a good share of that 65%
so I don't think it would be_ too much an economic hardship. My only question
there is in terms of how much problem we're going to generate between those
hours and the inconvenience that we're going to cause motorists.
Acting Mayor Geving: But can't you equate that though to at least 5 hours when
the neighborhood isn't going to hear cars coming in there. The lights will be
turned off. Give them a break.
CounciLman Horn: I agree with that. I think that the highway noise on TH 7 is
going to overshadow any noise that's at this station.
Acting Mayor Geving: Why?
Councilman Horn: I hear TH lgl. I live much farther away than these people do
and TH 101 I can hear from my house all the time. That highway noise is there
whether t_his is here or not. We've already heard from the Eden Prairie Super
America which is probably a bigger problem than this and that doesn't create a
problem for the neighborhood.
Acting Mayor Geving: Jay, have you have any comments on any of the conditions
including the ones that we're proposing to add and amend?
54
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Councilman Johnson: I also see that there's a late night rush hour, especially
like Saturday morning around 1:00 or so. Actually, as bars close the people
stopping in to get some gas on the way home or some breath mints or whatever. I
don't know what the impact is of thom staying open at those times. As far as
the impact to the City or the neighborhood, there's an adverse impact to the
people who are out at that time and doing work. I used to work the graveyard
shift and it was a real pain getting off work at 1:45 in the morning and nothing
was open.
Acting Mayor Geving: But you made some adjustments didn't you? When you knew
that the gas station wasn't open after you got out from your work, didn't you
get your gas before you went to work? I mean, those are just normal things that
people adjust to.
Councilman Johnson: Sure, but what I'm wondering is, what are we trying to
prevent? Are we trying to prevent a noise impact because we're not changing any
noise? The amount of change of noise of having them open or closed is going to
be minimal. In fact, like you say, TH 7 with the trucks accelerating down the
highway or the cars doing 60 mph down the highway. A car going 60 mph is a lot
noisier than a car pulling into the SuperAmerica station. In fact it might
reduce the noise a little bit if they're pulling into a SuperAmerica. I doubt
that. They're also slamming doors and stuff like that. I don't know what we're
doing. Brooks just opened. They're 24 hours a day. Holiday is 24 hours a day.
Super Q is 24 hours a day. The new one that's being proposed down here, they're
going to propose that one 24 hours a day. We're now saying that this particular
one has to, we're being quite arbitrary. We're fixing a problom that I don't
see exists. I can't support us getting into his con~nercial venture and saying
you can't do this because we think you might create a problsm. I have no
evidence that a problem's going to be there. If there's a public nuisance and
they do create a problom, we have ways of, in the future, of telling thom you
can no longer be open 24 hours. You are creating a problem. You are a public
nuisance. There are rules and laws to do that. Or, you have to do something to
reduce the noise. If they're out banging the garbage dumpsters at 2:00 in the
morning or something, that's disturbing the folks, that's the only time they
throw the trash away is 2:00 in the morning, you say hey, don't do that. Don't
go around slan~ning your garbage dumpsters at 2:00 in the morning. That was the
other condition.
Acting Mayor Geving: On the hours of operation, you have a con~nent that's
negative?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'm not in favor of imposing our restrictions on thom
until I see there's a need.
Acting Mayor Geving: Have we had any experience with police protection? I know
Chaffee isn't in, regarding the other unit of operations that are open 24 hours
a day.
Councilman Johnson: That's where they get their coffee and sweet rolls.
Acting Mayor Geving: You don't recall any big problems Don from the public
safety?
55
City Council Meeting - October lg~ 1988
Don Ashwor~h: The 24 hours operations for most of these is relatively minimal.
But to best of my knowledge, we've had no problems. We did have an early
morning burglary but that would have occurred, I think that was at the 7:0~ or
8: 00 timeframe.
Councilman Horn: I think the way they've addressed that here is they always
keep 2 to 3 people on that will discourage that more I think than being closed.
Councilman Johnson: There was an article in the paper about a month ago on
convenience store robberies and the main thing the Minneapolis Police Department
was asking for was 2 man operations within stores.
Acting Mayor Geving: Roman, is that how you will operate this if it's open?
Roman Mueller: .We have been operating with 2 to 3 people for years.
Acting Mayor Geving: On all sifhts?
Roman Mueller: On all shifts and it's our example that's bring this up with the
Minneapolis Police Department to ask some of the other convenience stores to do
the same.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm hearing from the Council that the hours of operation
as being proposed, from 5:gg a.m. to 12:gg is reaching a negative point there.
Councilman Boyt: Let me respond.
Acting Mayor Geving: If you want to make a shift in that Bill. YoOu'll have
the proposal.
Councilman Boyt: Jay, we're sitting in an area with 6 other gas stations.
We're not going to stand anybody.
Councilman Johnson: What are these 6 other gas stations?
Councilman Boyt: On TH 7?
Councilman Johnson: That are within a mile?
Councilman Boyt: The neighborhood Jay has asked that we restrict the hours of
operation. It's something that's much easier to add to than it is to take away
from. I would rather see us start, and I think we're being extremely generous
really in saying you can operate from 5:00 until midnight. That's a ton of
hours and if they want to put somebody in there to stock while they've got
everything turned off, I guess that's their decision. I wouldn't do it but it's
their decision. Let's not intermingle other situations that have already been
decided. Let's deal with this one and with the response to the neighborhood
that, as they would tell you, they're a little surprised by what's happening and
they'd probably like a vote from SuperAmerica that says, look, we'll do
something that may not make a lot of sense to us, but we're trying to be good
neighbors here.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think it's a negotiable point. They've said willingly
in the staff report with the Planning Commission that this is one area that
56
City Council Mseting ' October 10~ 1988
they're willing to talk about. I think from a resident's standpoint, I'd like
to see some relief, at least past midnight when there isn't a whole lot of
activity taking place down in that corner. I guess I have to vote for the more
restrictive hours. 24 hours a day is new as Don said. Maybe we haven't had a
lot of problems with burglaries and the problems but I'd like to keep that
option open to us and leave it at the 5:00 a.m. to midnight. If that's how you
want to be a good neighbor, we can start there. The other one was on number 8,
tank deliveries will be limited to 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. The reasoning
behind that was, Monday through Friday, was that we would not have tank
deliveries during the critical time when people are on the highways. I think
that's your reasoning there isn't it Clark? That w~uld be a good time to
propose that. That's reasonable to me. Now, I don't know from an operation
standpoint whether it holds us. Roman, maybe you can tell us.
Roman Mueller: That's what I was just clearing. We were hoping for an 8 hour
period simply because of the ability to schedule people in. The tanker has to
make a number of runs, number of stops, that sort of thing. I got the nod that
evidentally 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. is acceptable. We wouldn't call them to
come in there during rush hour anyway. It's ludicrous to try to...
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, let's stay with it. If you're willing to accept
that as a business proposal, than I think it's a good idea.
Roman Mueller: We're open on weekends though. It's Monday through Friday.
Right now we don't know if that says we can't deliver at all on weekends where
we're open hours during the weekends.
Acting Mayor Geving: Really what it says is that you wouldn't get any more
deliveries after Friday. This might be unreasonable. I would say this is
unreasonable. We would shut you down if you had a run of business on Saturdays.
Roman Mueller: Or Sundays. Just normal business would run us dry.
Councilman Johnson: How many days a week do you usually get a delivery?
Roman Mueller: 7 days a week.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's change number 8, that the tank deliveries will be
l~a]ited to 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
Councilman Johnson: He says he gets it 7 days a week. He'll run out of gas on
Sunday.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let the guys rest on Sunday.
Roman Mueller: So you're shutting us down on Sunday?
Councilman Boyt: No. Deliveries. You indicated at the Planning Commission
that you do not have to have a delivery everyday. We're taking one day a week
and saying...
Roman Mueller: That's on an average store. What happens to us if our business
there is greater than projected?
57
City Council Meeting -October 1~, 1988
Councilman Boyt: Come back]
Acting Mayor Geving: Come back and talk to us.
Roger Zahn: Just one comment on that. You have event traffic on Saturdays and
Sundays. I know I'm not speaking for these people but I happen know TH 41 a
little bit better. You've got the Rennaisance Festival. You've got Canterbury
Downs and that sort of thing. .Maybe it's just something to consider.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's go with this as being proposed by the Council. If
it doesn't work, come back and talk to us. [ge're willing to listen to amending
this. I'd rather start being restrictive and if it doesn't work out, and you
can prove to us that it doesn't, that you're being shut down on Sundays because
you're not getting deliveries, we'll listen to you as a Council.
Roman Mueller: Can I ask, I've never gone into a proceeding like that before?
~nat would be the procedure? I would have to wait un-til we have to close on a
Sunday before I can bring it in as proof? Is that ~nat it would boil down to?
Acting Mayor Geving: Possibly. Or that you're getting low and you could
foresee a problem. We're reasonable people but I think in this case, our whole
intent here in even thinking about granting this conditional use permit is to
allow a business that we never dreamed would happen in this area. We're trying
to be as restrictive as we can to make sure that it has the least amount of
impact on our con~unity. Now, if you don't want that business out there, then
that's fine. That's your business. We want you in Chanhassen but we want you
under our conditions.
Councilman Horn: That's not a surprise either. That came up at the Planning
Co~nission.
Councilman Boyt: Right. On page 46.
Roman Mueller: ...the Planning Con~nission as it was discussed was not have it
limited on the weekends.
Jo Ann Olsen: They never specified days.
Councilman Horn: Days determined by the City.
Jo Ann Olsen: I threw those in because what they were looking at was the noise
to the neighborhood. I didn't understand that you needed deliveries everyday.
Roman Mueller: We can't predict what day we need a delivery.
Councilman Horn: They said in their report that they didn't. They would get
unleaded every other day and that was the prime user at a typical station.
Starting up you're not going to be typical for a while.
R~man Mueller: For about 2 weeks. Our average turn around is about 2 weeks.
Councilman Horn: How often do you go to the Eden Prairie store?
58
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Roman Mueller: How often do I go there?
Councilman Horn: How often does your tanker go there?
Roman Mueller: That is a very busy store.
Councilman Horn: So stores in this area are above typical?
Roman Mueller: Understand too that not every tank runs out everyday. One day
one tank may need some gas and another day another tank may need it. It's not a
fixed flow rate where you can predict each and every day exactly what you're
going to have. That's why the limitation of the day is the problem. Not the
hour, just that one day because I will guarantee you we would be in here with
loss of business for one day and then we go through the procedure where we would
have to start on this and I'm going to guess it would take at least a month for
us to get that turned around which puts us out another 4. ~nat's 5 days minimum
that we're going to get shut down if that's the trend that develops. I just
want to be reasonable on that point. We've given many things along this. We
worked with the neighbors.
Acting Mayor Geving: You haven't given anything yet.
Councilman Boyt: One quick figure on this. It would take 500 cars to drain one
of their 3 10,000 gallon tanks. To drain one of them would take 500 cars. If
they each took 20 gallons. And they've got a 12,000 gallon tank so really
they've got a capacity there and I grant you, we have a run on one kind of
gasoline, it all goes. That's 500 cars in a day. That's half of the car load
in that day. I guess you know we can find out what the neighborhood thinks
Dale.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think this is a Council decision. We have to stick with
the Council, as much as I'd like to hear from the neighbors.
Councilman Horn: It seems to me if you top them off at 4:00 on a Saturday, your
chances of, your chances of the highly used one are the most likely to run out.
The others are not going to, that's not going to happen. That's unleaded.
Roman Mueller: Just going on historical data. If the City Council feels that
that's the way we have to go, we will go that way to get this installed out
there and we will go back through the procedure and count our losses and discuss
those with you at that point in time.
Councilman Horn: Okay, let's do it another way. You show us projections of a
typical station where this will cause you problems. We haven't seen that yet.
The projections you've given us said that this won't be a problem. Come back
with some numbers that show us it will be.
Roman Mueller: With the gasoline sales, is that what you're saying?
Councilman Horn: Right.
Roman Mueller: I can't predict how many gallons each car takes or what truck is
going to come in there but yes. I just went on the basis of the gentleman who's
the area manager, past store manager for TH 4 and TH 5. Dave, can you put
59
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
together number on the gallons purchased out there?
Dave: We can put them together. I can't at this point.
Ro~nan Mueller: Not at this moment. We can bring them and show th~n to you.
Councilman Horn: We'll go with this until you show us that it's a projected
problem.
Councilman Johnson: Roman, do you have an SA store somewhere in the area that
would be sLmilar to this one? TH 4 and TH 5 is not that similiar?
Councilman Boyt: TH 169 Jay. Out on TH 169.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, TH 169 might be in the same ballpark. It's heavily
used.
Roman Mueller: TH 169 and Flying Cloud?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, the one you were in here before with us on.
Roman Mueller: Oh that one?
CounciLman Johnson: Yes. You were in here for a sign, on the old SuperAmerica
down there.
Roman Mueller: That one is no where close to this type of an installation.
That one can not handle this kind of traffic.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. It doesn't have as many...
Roman Mueller: It doesn't have the pumps and it doesn't have the access.
Councilman Johnson: Instead of comparing it, if you had one that...
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's close it off Jay. Roman, thank you very much. We_
appreciate your presentation. I think it's now time to go to the Council and
discuss these conditional use permit options. Currently there are 12 conditions
that have been placed by the Council. Are there any further discussion items
the Council would like to discuss? If not, a motion is in order.
Councilman Boyt: I would move acceptance with the 12 conditions as stat~.
Acting Mayor Geving: And that includes the tank deliveries from 10:00 a.m. to
4:0g p.m., Monday through Saturday. Item 8. And number 11, the acceptance of
the used motor oil and the hours of operation from 5:gg a.m. to 12:g0 p.m..
That is the motion. Is there a second? If not, I will second the motion. Any
further discussion?
Councilman Horn: I could support that if you took item 12 out.
Acting Mayor Geving: Removing item 12. Mr. Boyt would you remove item 12 or
~nend it~n 127
60
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Councilman Boyt: No. I guess it's going to have to sink with us given the
neighborhood, gosh all of 5 hours of non-use time.
Acting Mayor Geving: What would be acceptable to you? Just pulling it out and
making it a 24 hour a day option?
Councilman Horn: And if there's a problem, they come back as Jay suggested.
Councilman Boyt: I'd rather do it the other way around. There's plenty of gas
stations in the neighborhood to service those folks.
Councilman Johnson: There are six 24 hours a day gas stations within one mile?
Councilman Horn: Right. That's not the issue. The issue is what we've done in
the past to other people and why should this be different for no good reason
that we can substantiate?
Acting Mayor Geving: Can we vote on this and if it fails, we'll go for an
amendment?
Councilman Horn: I would like our Attorney to respond on our ability to put
that criteria in.
Acting Mayor Geving: They said it was okay. I had asked them earlier.
Councilman Horn: Even though we allow it at other stations?
Roger Knutson: 24 hours at other places?
Councilman Horn: Yes.
Roger Knutson: You're concerned here that it would cause, or some members of
the Council, adverse impacts by being open 24 hours a day and trying to mitigate
those impacts, I guess it's your judgment whether those facts are accurate. If
they are, then it's an appropriate condition.
Councilman Johnson: Has anybody substaniated any impact? Any potential impact.
Numerated any potential impact or anything?
Councilman Horn: Public Safety?
Acting Mayor Geving: No.
Councilman Horn: Engineering?
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's go ahead with this item. Let's go to the vote and
we'll see what happens.
Councilman Boyt moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit #88-10 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received August 15, 1988" with
the following conditions:
1. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises.
61
g8
City Council Meeting - October lg, 1988
2. No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles is permitted on premises.
3. No public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel.
4. Gas pump stacking area deemed to be appropriate by the City shall not
intrude into any required setback area.
5. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as
motorcycles, snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles is permitted.
6. The lights on the gas canopy shall be receded into the canopy to eliminate
dispersion of light into the surrounding neighborhood area.
7. There shall be no outside display, storage or sales of merchandise.
8. Tank deliveries will be limited to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday.
9. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Assistant City Engineer as
stated in the memo dated September 14, 1988.
10. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the site plan approval.
11. The applicant shall accept used motor oil and provide for it's safe
storage.
12. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 5:00 a.m. and 12:00
midnight.
Councilman Boyt and Acting Mayor Geving voted in favor; Councilman Johnson and
Councilman Horn voted against and the motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2.
Acting Mayor Geving: The motion fails. Is there a second motion?
Councilman Boyt: Sure, let's take 12 out and run it again.
Councilman Horn: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit %88-10 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received August 15, 1988" with
the following conditions:
1. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises.
2. No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles is permitted on premises.
3. No public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel.
4. Gas pump stacking area deemed to be appropriate by the City shall not
intrude into any required setback area.
62
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
5. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as
motorcycles, snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles is permitted.
6. The lights on the gas canopy shall be receded into the canopy to eliminate
dispersion of light into the surrounding neighborhood area.
7. There shall be no outside display, storage or sales of merchandise.
8. Tank deliveries will be limited to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday.
9. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Assistant City Engineer as
stated in the m~mo dated September 14, 1988.'
10. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the site plan approval.
11. The applicant shall accept used motor oil and provide for it's safe ~
storage. -~
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Acting Mayor Geving: The motion passes. There are 11 conditions to this
conditional use permit for the SuperAmerica station at TH 7 and TH 41.
Gentlemen, let's move on to item (c). I'd like to pass on the sign variance
because I think it's more important that we get to the site plan and we'll come
back to the sign.
Allan Putnam: I'm very disappointed you haven't asked for the people...
Acting Mayor Geving: We're not done with this process.
Allan Putnam: You just approved the conditional use permit.
Acting Mayor Geving: We approved the conditional use permit. That's correct.
Betty Lang: We're not allowed a public hearing?
Acting Mayor Geving: This really wasn't a public hearing.
Bob Wagner: It hasn't been discussed before the Council.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's correct. It was not discussed before the Council
before.
Ben Gowen: Don't we have input from the neighborhood?
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we had public hearings at the Planning Commission
level. Jo Ann, maybe you could respond to that.
Jo Ann Olsen: They had a public hearing at the Planning Commission.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think that all of the conditions were met for the public
hearing.
63
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Resident: But it...
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't believe so because Jo Ann said...
Ben Gowen: You weren't there and I was.
Acting Mayor Geving: At the Planning Co~nission, yes.
Ben Gowen: You were not there and I was there and we did not have a proper
hearing. That meeting was set up for the proposition of putting in the station.
We didn't hear anything about putting in the station. All we heard about was no
packaging outside on the sidewalk. Delivery times and so forth. These were all
preconceived ideas that they were going to have the station.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think the Planning Corm]ission, maybe you could say Jo
Ann what happened at the Planning Commission.
Jo Ann Olsen: There were actually two public hearings. The first one was the
initial one that had a lot of those issues that came up and the public was
invited to speak. They tabled action and they opened it up for public hearing
again the second time which did center on most of the issues that had been
brought up at the first public hearing.
Bob Wagner: Does she have a microphone that works. It's real hard to
understand her.
Acting Mayor Geving: Would you speak into that please.
Jo Ann Olsen: We did have actually two public hearings. The first one was in
front of the Planning Con~nission which everyone was invited to. They tabled
action because of a lot of the issues that the public did bring up. If there's
an accidental spill. Lighting. Hours of operation, etc.. They tabled action.
They had a second public hearing which I know that you spoke at and everyone
again was, it was opened up for anyone to make comments.
Bob Wagner: I might not have spoke because we thought we would speak at this
meeting which has traditionally been what happens at the Planning Con~nission.
Gene Connor: May I ask you a question.
Acting Mayor Geving: Yes sir.
Gene Connor: Are you trying to establish a precedent whereby the public is no
longer invited or allowed to speak at Council meetings?
Acting Mayor Geving: Never sir. Never.
Gene Connor: Well, you're doing it tonight. We have always been able to speak.
Acting ~yor Geving: I know that and we've always had that opportunity but
Roger, haven't we met all the criteria tonight and at previous Planning
Commission meetings for the public to speak at the Planning Co~nission?
64
City Council M~e~ing - October 10~ 1988
Roger Knutson: Under State Law and your ordinance, the official public hearing
is at the Planning C~ission which I believe, according to Jo Ann, they met
twice in public hearings. I also understand that you have M~nutes of those
Planning Co~mission meetings were given to you so in that way you have the input
from the citizens through those Minutes.
Acting Mayor Geving: What I have here Mr. Connor, I have about 40 pages of
Planning Commission notes. Every councilmen here has read those. Now I would
be open, as the Chairman here tonight, to listen to anything that's new that we
don't have in these notes. If any of you would like to speak, I would be very
welcome to have you speak at this time. Please do and if you want to, you can
take that development proposal down, come before the Council and give us some
new input if you think that there is something that was not discussed at the
Planning Commission that is not in these 40 pages of notes. Because really,
there's a ton of information.
Bob Wagner: How do we know what are in those notes?
Allan Putnam: We haven't had a chance to see them.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would be very happy to share with any homeowner who
desires a copy of this. We can have them run off and make available to you.
Councilman Horn: If you were at the public hearing, this is a word by word
verbatim reading of everything that was said at the public hearing. So if you
were there, anything that was said are in these notes.
Acting Mayor Geving: The Council is always open. The Council is always
available to anyone who wants to come and speak but if there anything new that
you know of that we're not aware of that happened at the Planning Commission,
I'd like to have you come before the Council now and speak.
Gene Gonnor: I do have one ther question. Do I understand you're running for
Mayor?
Acting Mayor Geving: Yes sir.
Dennis Nesbitt: Mr. Mayor, councilmen, I'd like to identify myself. I'm Dennis
Nesbitt. I'm a resident of Eden Prairie. One of these supposed happy residents
that SuperAmerica is taking care of me for. I live approximately 115 feet from
the property of the SuperAmerica station. I can tell you a lot of this stuff
that they've tried to tell, their illumination plans, is a bunch of bull you
know what. There is not too many satisfied citizens. We've got a couple of
wooden fences out there. We've got a sidewalk and I'll tell you what. They've
got their little entourage here on their little strings and they jump up and
they sit down and I do this and I do that and I do the next thing. I think I
recognize one gentleman that went through the Board of Appeals over at Eden
Prairie. They took their little site plan, I haven't even seen this one really,
but they took and they jammed an exit from that SuperAmerica station right into
a residential neighborhood. What are they going to do to these neighbors next
time around? What are they going to do to you guys? Maybe you won't be sitting
here. Maybe you won't be living out there. Dot your i's and cross your t's.
They've come up with all kinds of little phony traffic studies and numbers.
They came up with a video of a traffic study on a busy day, they showed 3 school
65
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
buses. They couldn't even get the date and the times right on their study and
they supposedly had their technicians out there providing what they were trying
to back up what they were trying to prove. They couldn't even do that right.
The noise. I got up at 5:00 this morning, I was out on Lake Minnetonka at 5:00
this morning. I forgot to shut a bedroom window upstairs. I don't need a light
to go up to my northeastern bedroom. They light it for me. Do you know what
I get in the morning? Welcome to SuperAmerica shoppers. Go ahead pump 3. Go
ahead pump 27. Clear 23. That's what I get in the morning. That's what I get
on a nice calm summer night. My deck faces the north. This is what I get. I've
got a berm in the back of my house and I have some trees back there but this is
~nat I get. No impact on the neighborhood? Bull. .~
Acting Mayor Geving: Could you give me your name?
Dennis Nesbitt: I'm Dennis Nesbitt. I'll give you my card. I'm an employee of
the City of Eden Prairie. Clark says he goes in there and gets deisel fuel, you
ought to see the trucks that come in there. Dump trucks. Gravel trucks.
Asphalt trucks° Short haul trucks around town. Not just the Chevette deisels
and the VW Rabbits, no. There's many a truck that goes in there. I think these
guys give all these companies discounts so these trucks on the road have got an
SA card. So they promote that deisel fuel. The traffic count that they've got,
65 cars, no way. From midnight to 5:00 if you don't get 165 cars, you aren't
getting any cars. I think this little ponding and skimming idea you've got is
real nice but I think what you should do is go to your building department and
have them check on the future qualifications that are coming through in the 1988
UBC hazardous chapter. They are rewriting the whole hazardous chapter. That's
why these boys are pushing. They're trying to beat this H because the
requirements in that chapter for these new hazardous occupancies, are so
restringent that if they can get this built before then, they're not talking
about $3,000.00 for a fuel tank or a return oil tank. No, they're talking
hundreds of thousands of dollars. They've got to have holding ponds that hold
ponds and hold ponds after that. They've got to have triple protection.
Garbage dumpsters. 24 hour a day lighting and the service, that doesn't bother
me. The people that con~ in there. It's the oddballs that come back through
the neighborhood. That's the one I worry about. That one light. You're
talking about Near Mountain Drive. You get an oddball character who doesn't
live in the neighborhood, that's the person that's going to kill. That's the
person that's going to kill that child. That's what we have to look forward to
in our neighborhood. Maybe then we can get our City Council and our Board of
Appeals to go back and shut that driveway off. I went around and I surveyed all
these gas stations that they had around town. I think I did 8 or 10 of them on
the southwest side. Not a one of them had an entrance in a residential
neighborhood. TH 4 and TH 5 does. They'll do it. They'll do it to you.
They'll dot your i's and cross your t's. Don't trust any one of these guys.
What do you think these guys are sitting here for? They're waiting for you to
make a little slip, they're going to slide a little something through on the
Planning Comnission. They're going to...
Acting Mayor Geving:
statement.
Just a moment now. I don't think that was a correct
Dennis Nesbitt: Okay. Now the next one. The fuel tankers, I think you should
restrict th~n to off service hours because that fuel tanker, when he comes in,
if there's any amount of traffic around there and there's a cigarette, what are
66
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
you going to do? You're going to lose something. Make them deliver the fuel at
night. That tanker is not noisy but it's extremely explosive. And get them to
take their garbage out at sometime other than 4:30 or 5:00 in the morning.
BFI has the noisiest dumpster collectors that you've ever heard in your life. I
really think, take care of your neighborhood and your constituents who live in
your community. They snuck a little quirk through on TH 4 and TH 5 and I'm not
very happy with it and I'm sorry to take anymore of your time.
Acting Mayor Geving: Dennis, thank you very much. Dennis, you brought up
something that I thought was rather interesting. The tankers refueling at
night. I hadn't thought about that. Maybe none of us had in terms of the best
time that a tanker could be on the road and refueling at that station.
Dennis Nesbitt: Tanker drivers are extremely good drivers. Those people, they
know what they're handling. It's the people that are on the site that don't
know what's going on. I think if you would check with your Fire Marshall, the
State Fire Marshall, or somebody like that, I think their recommendations would
allow you more leniency than just between that 10:00 and 4:00 or something like
that.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay. Thank you very much.
Allan Putnam: Allan Putnam. I live at 6285 Chaska Road across TH 41 from the
site. Three con~ents that I have. One is, the num~bers that they've given as
far as the number of cars, number of stops per day and then their concern about
running out of gas. It makes me nervous because on the one hand they're talking
about numbers of cars which aren't going to be any problem and then all of a
sudden when we want to restrict deliveries, they're worried about running out of
gas so apparently they're anticipating perhaps maybe significantly more numbers
than they're been talking about. Also, I'm concerned about the traffic flow on
that corner and with the increased noise because of starts and stops. That's
when you get a lot of noise. It isn't just the traffic rolling down the highway
that causes the noises. It's the acceleration that causes more noise.
Acting Mayor Geving: You live right across the street?
Allan Putnam: Across TH 41. The other thing that I would like for you to
reconsider the hours of operation because again, just as the gentlemen from
F~en Prairie area is concerned about noise late at night, so am I. The third
thing, I would like for you to add...
Acting Mayor Geving: Before you go on, what would you consider the best hours
of operation?
Allan Putnam: I think 5:00 to midnight is satisfactory. The other thing is, I
would like for you to add another conditional use and that would be that they
not be allowed to sell any 3.2 beer or make an application even to sell any 3.2
beer or other alcoholic beverages at any time in the future.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's certainly one that one of the Councilmembers
mentioned. I think Bill mentioned it and we didn't pick that up.
Allan Putnam: I would like that restriction put on as a conditional use that
they can't even apply.
67
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Bob Wagner: I'll try and skip over my big speech. But before the ink was dry,
I think we've seen some things cane back that we hadn't expected. The issue
really is, and has always been one of intensity and I have heard traffic
studies, but I think your issue of intensity of the neighborhood is the one that
rests home with me and warms the coppers of my heart anyway. It's always been
talked about at this level and at the Planning Con,mission, find a win-win
situation. A workable solution. I think it's with that that the community came
forward with good faith and worked with these gentlemen. I asked myself, where
does it stop? It should have been before tonight. We shouldn't be here talking
about gas stations. To me it's signs of railroading. I think that the
neighbors wouldn't have been nearly as congenial as they have been if a gas
station had been readily apparent in the beginning. That to me comes down to
the issue of zoning. I don't think conditional permit zoning should .be even
allowed. I think it should be completely stricten from the zoning regulations
for this development. I read it again. I think that we should recommend
conditional permit zoning be completely stricken from this development. This
corner can develop within the auspicies of BN zoning without that. The second
issue is one of convenience store. Specifically a gas station. There are 7 gas
stations, 7 of them, not 6, within less than 3 miles of this corner. 6 of those
are within less than 2 miles and 4 of those are within a mile.
Councilman Johnson: 24 hour gas stations?
Bob Wagner: One of those is 24 hours. The JET station 2.7 miles later. Open
24 hours.
Acting Mayor Geving: 7 gas stations within how far?
Bob Wagner: Within 3 miles of that corner.
Allan Putnam: And the Amoco station in Excelsior.
Bob Wagner: That's two for you and that one is within 1 mile. 1.2 to be exact.
We've got gas stations. Then there's the argument that the 24 hour service that
I think still deserve some more con~nent and how it would be so convenient.
We've already got it. We've talked about it. There's two right here ~hat we
just pointed out. We've got the convenience and all within less than 3 miles of
the location. Or how about the issue of let us remain open 24 hours to restock.
It's not our convenience. It's inconvenience. It's the inconvenience of the
trucks, the gas and general merchandise being delJ. vered. Any kind of goods in a
bedroom c~nunity after hours isn't to the convenience to the corm~unity. I
don't think we need the inconvenience brought on by the added risk of the
robberies. You talked about your article, I brought it for you. Pass it out to
you. Several of the issues are addressed. It talks about the added police
protection that Dale was talking about. 60 phone calls within a period of x
nttmber of days. I quote, "convenience stores have always been an easy touch for
robbers", the police department says. "The late night hours when there are few
customers around make them attractive targets." They talk about the station
down at 7-11 in Bloomington Avenue South. He talks about the clerks at that
store and two more nearby average 60 calls a month to police the first half of
the year in 1988. Mostly to forestall trouble. I think it relates back to what
we heard fr~n the fellow from Eden Prairie talking about the kooks in the
neighborhood. They go in and talk about the two employees per station as a
68
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
necessity. I think that should be in the conditional use permit if you're going
to allow the station open. We're already on the fringe out there of contracted
police protection. I think you're just adding to the intensity of the problem
you have. Even Driskill's Super Value across the street operates closing at
midnight now. I called this morning just to verify. We have no business in the
area open past midnight that I'm aware of and I think that we should maintain
that. I think the real issue is, we feel a little hurt. What the hell, we've
come back with change to zoning change to change zoning, the whole thing we're
playing again was intensity. I don't know of anything more intense than a gas
station. Even a fast food station turn off their lights at about 10:00 if you
come down TH 7 by McDonalds. I think the issue is intensity in a residential
community. I think it's inappropriate zoning.
Gene Connor: I'm Gene Connor, 2521 Orchard Lane and I just want to say what a
priviledge it is to be here tonight. It's almost becoming a hobby. Bob's so
damn efficient, he said almost everything I wanted to say. I'd just like to
make one additional point and underline it. If a gas station had been what was
proposed when all of this started up a couple years ago, it never would have
been considered. You know, you all know that. Yet today you're allowing it. It
looks like you're going to allow it to come in on the coattails of something
else that we asked to, and we did ask, with some relunctance because we thought
it was a good proposal. As Bob said, I don't think any of us, I think we woul
have fought tooth and nail if we had dreamed they were going to try to shove a
SuperAmerica station in behind it. And I like SuperAmericas gas. They run a
great gas station but I share the concerns about all the concerns that Bob
narrated. There's no point me going over them again.
Betty Lang: My name is Betty Lang. I live at 2631 Forest Avenue. I guess
I just have to repeat the same thing that as far as the neighbors, we were
conned into this. What I have here, I mean you see the same faces all the time.
What I have here is a petition, although you don't want to see a petition, but
it's from the neighborhood, the inm~ediate neighborhood with 82 signatures. I'm
sure there are many more signatures...
Acting Mayor Geving: We'd like to have that. I wish we could have had it
earlier this evening Betty. Normally what happens is the petitions and letters
really come before. What normally happens before we get our Council packet, we
usually have all of the letters or petitions or whatever so we can each have a
copy and we'll put this into the photocopier and we'll get a copy for each
councilmen. Thank you very much.
Gene Connor: You made a cc~ment earlier, if I may, about we all had our
opportunity at the Planning Con, nission. It was so completely obvious to some of
us that the Planning Commission had already made up their minds and it was
totally stacked against us that we decided it might be much more productive, and
I say that deliberately. We decided, we discussed, both Bob and I and some
others, that our best forum was here at the Council. We didn't have any idea
that we were potentially going to be cut off.
Allan Putnam: We were told that we should come and voice our opinions here.
Bob Wagner: If you ever attend those meetings, they pass them up to you just
to get out there.
69
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: I understand that. Like I said, we've got this much, this
is how thick the comments from the Planning Commission are. I know when they
finally settled this issue, they tabled the issue. They really tabled this at
one point.
Bob Wagner: So pass the buck and the buck stops here.
Acting Mayor Geving: But we never, and I can honestly say this, we never tried
to cut the public out. The only reason I said what I did is that we had had
Planning Con%mission public hearings. We met all the criteria for allowing that
to happen and maybe we should have had all of your comments before but we were
able to read, in my mind at least, most of what I even heard tonight. Now Bob
made a new proposal that I hadn't thought about and that was that a condition
should be that two clerks would be required in the station, even though they say
that's a normal operation. I agree. That should be a condition if it does
become part of a 24 hour operation.
Gene Connor: I have another suggestion. That it not be built.
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know how the Council feels about that but we did
look at, and I can assure that we are very familiar with every comment that was
made. I know Bob's comments. I heard your comments Gene. I heard your's
Allan. I read those in here so these were not something that we didn't
anticipate and many, many more.
Gene Connor: I'm at a loss to understand why, when by your own admission, this
never would have passed two years ago had he stood up and presented his.., why
everyone is so anxious...
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't think it's a question of us hurrying to this
issue. It's just one of about a dozen that we've got to settle. Sometime,
either tonight or in the near future.
Councilman Boyt: I've been where you're sitting. I know the frustration.
Recognize that when it was rezoned, decisions were made. We couldn't, I gather,
or we didn't, one of the two, rezone just the shopping center area. We rezoned
the corner. I was hoping, and I think it will work that we have provided a
shield should the center get built. We've been promised it will get built but
I understand your needs to get an opportunity to have an audience in front of
the Council. Everybody wants to have an J~pact on what's going to happen to
them. I hope that we can write conditions that will make this a zero impact on
everyone, or as close as possible but understand that given the zoning, the
limits the Planning Co~nission had and the limits that the City Council has, is
we can create conditions that are reasonable but that's our limit. We can't say
to them, if you jump all our hoops you still can't build it but we can put every
reasonable hoop out there. And that's what I think we've tried to do tonight.
Now maybe s~ne of the Council wants to reconsider some of the hoops that didn't
get put out there but we're trying.
Gene Connor: Don't I remember when the shopping center was being discussed,
don't I recall hearing that a gas station was outside of the conditional use
permit?
70
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Councilman Boyt: If you look at our Zoning Ordinance, I know from my part, as
I mentioned earlier, it doesn't surprise me that this intensity is out here.
That's why I was so intent on w~rking to be sure that we had a sheild in this
station. I think that once we rezoned it, we pretty much opened the door to
whatever is in that zoning area and all we can do is create conditions that make
it as liveable as possible. I'm sorry you're discovering that at the last
minute.
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that it is a permitted use now in the...
Councilman Johnson: Conditional.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's conditional use but it's part of our process that
allows it to be a condition.
Bob Wagner: Define conditional use for us. Does that mean, if you don't
approve it, you can't do it. That's a conditional use.
Acting Mayor Geving: We make the conditions. We provide the conditions and
that's what we were trying to do tonight is to make this thing as tight as
possible. We arrived at 12 conditions and that's a very unusual number, by the
way. Most of them, if you see anything over 5 or 6 conditions, that's pretty
tight. What we're trying to do Gene and Bob, is to arrive at tightening this
thing down to the point where if it does go, it's going to at least be
acceptable to the community. I heard some things in the last 15 minutes here.
I heard at least four items that I wish now we had put into the conditional use
permit process. The 3.2 beer issue that Bill brought up, I thought was a good
one. We didn't address that.
Gene Connor: Is it too late?
Acting Mayor Geving: No. The second one I heard was the hours of operation.
The gentleman from F~en Prairie, I thought he brought up a good point. I
thought that the two clerks in the station on the fourth shift. Whatever, the
12:00 until 6:00 shift, if you call it that, should be a condition if we go that
route. So there's about 3 or 4 things here that maybe there's still some
tightening that could be done. I think at this point, from my view, I would say
we should be open for reconsideration. Now Clark, would you like to make a
comment or two?
Councilman Horn: Yes. First of all, I think we got some good input, as Dale
said, but we also got some conflicting opinions. One conflicting opinion that
I heard was a suggestion that said we should have deliveries at the off hours
which would be the hours that the station was closed. On the other hand,
I heard we don't want deliveries in the middle of the night because they create
a lot of noise.
Bob Wagner: Simple. One is safety and one is the neighborhood.
Councilman Horn: Well, supposedly this was one of your people representing you
speaking who wanted deliveries...
Bob Wagner: The neighborhood already said they don't want it. I think from an
inspector's viewpoint from Eden Prairie, he said it makes sense there.
71
~City Council Meeting October 10, 1988
Councilman Horn: I/ne other thing that he said was, I thought he said that there
were not trucks that had deisel engines that c~e to SuperAmerica. That's not
what I said. I said there are no trucks that go there and buy deisel fuel that
don't have equivalent sizes with gas engines. They can use a gas station. That
was my comment. The question on traffic studies, I think we saw some flaws in
what they said. That's why we have an engineering staff that we ask questions
to. Do these numbers make sense? We asked them that question tonight and they
said yes, they did. I had the s~e concern that Jay brought up and I think it
was a valid concern. Even though there were some errors that were pointed out
here, those were used in some of their traffic analysis. That's why we
specifically asked our engineer, whether they were. He said the numbers made
sense. We're not traffic engineers up here. We rely on our staff to give us
that type of data. They could very well slip through a traffic question on me
and I wouldn't catch it. They better not let our staff let them slip by because
they're paid for that. The other issue he said was he gets his bedroom lit up
from these lights. The staff report that I read said that the lighting that's
going to be used here is different than the lighting that they're using on TH 5
and TH 4 and that will not be_ an issue in this case. That's the information
that we have to deal with. If that's not correct...
Gene Connor: Is that one of the conditions?
Councilman Horn: Yes. It has to be totally recessed lighting that can't shine
beyond the periphery of the diagram that they showed us. When I first saw this
tank deliveries, I thought sure, they ought to send them in the middle of the
night and I don't know what kind of noise will be generated by that. I'd like
some of our engineers to respond to that because to me the best compromise to
safety and no noise is what we need. I know that there are a lot of areas that
don't have any restrictions at all on this but I think we should put some on
that make sense. 9~at I want to do is have things that make sense. Not just
throw something out there to throw a rock in the path. That doesn't solve
anybody's problems. They have to be logical things that we do. That's why I
had a problem with hours of operation. Nobody could convince me that we would
be solving any noise problems if we cut out the hours between midnight and 5:g0.
Bob Wagner: What you're cutting off is potential other things going on in the
neighborhood that that draws out there like a magnet.
Councilman Horn: That's a safety issue that hadn't come up before. That
particular element of safety because of the draw. The other issue too is if
you've got 6 of these others within a 2 mile radius, aren't you going to attract
that element anyway?
Bob Wagner: You bet. It's down the road...but it's already there. They don't
want it in their backyard either.
Councilman Horn: These are the kinds of the things that I think we have to try
and make value judgments on. We have to rely on our experts.
Bob Wagner: I thought the co_~nunity, the cohesiveness of it and the
cohesiveness of that community, that this...
72
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Councilman Horn: The other thing I'd like to ask Dennis, if he's the neighbor
that Dave Headla was referring to when he was talking about the neighbor of the
SuperAmerica station in Eden Prairie because that's a totally conflicting input
from what we got from Dave Headla on the Planning Con~ission.
Councilman Johnson: Mrs. Zeigler I believe found Mr. Nesbitt. I believe they
are separate people.
Councilman Horn: So we've got two totally conflicting reports on the Eden
Prairie SuperAmerica. How do we make that a judgment?
Acting Mayor Geving: Well, you don' t.
Councilman Boyt: There is another point Clark. Mr. Nesbitt was quite upset
about the outside PA systsm. One of the conditions, I think the Council is
working awfully hard to try and make this as little impact as possible and one
condition is that you can't hear that off the site. If you can, then they have
to change it. They have to always follow the conditions. If they don't, we can
enforce th~m.
Bob Wagner: I heard earlier that sound doesn't travel. Let me tell you, where
I live, I listened to Prince's concert. That's a long ways.
Acting Mayor Geving: Here's what I would like to do. I have in front of me a
petition and I want to make sure that these four areas have been covered by our
staff and we have those comments adequately covered in the Planning Con~ission
notes to us as well as staff's. These four involve traffic. The estimated 800
cars from SuperAmerica plus cars from the proposed shopping center and possible
restaurant. The Watershed. This entire development will drain into Lake
Minnewashta. Third, the noise issue as a 24 hour business. And four, the sign
which we haven't talked about yet this evening. That's the 45 square foot sign
that SuperAmerica is proposing would ruin their landscape of the area. So those
four issues are what has come before us here and we'll make copies for the
Council. Now I want to make sure that from your standpoint, that you're
comfortable with those four and that you have those four items covered Jo Ann.
Jo Ann Olsen: We have covered the.
Acting Mayor Geving: You feel that those four items have been discussed
properly and adequately in our notes?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: The Watershed for example. How do you feel? Do you feel
comfortable about that Gary?
Gary Warren: The Watershed...
Councilman Horn: Traffic analysis, you're comfortable with that?
Gary Warren: Traffic, you mentioned that they were going to do some checking on
the numbers tonight and I guess I'd like to see, they're going to get back to us
tomorrow, to see to check those numbers.
73
5O
City Council Meeting - October lg, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: I think the traffic is still a little hazy. The numbers.
We're talking about 8~ just on the SuperAmerica station. We have no idea how
good their other numbers are. I agree with Bill on the noise issue. When we
put a condition for noise and the only thing that's in there is that PA system,
if the noise is a problem, we can shut them down. This is not unusual for a
condition. These_ are conditions that we place. If there is any complaint, we
follow up on it. I can tell you that.
Gene Connor: The F~en Prairie gentleman mentioned garbage collection too.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's a good point. Something again that I hadn't
thought about and I wrote it down. I've got those 4 or 5 items. Hours of
operation. 3.2 beer. Two clerks in the store. Refueling during the off hours.
Noise, including the garbage truck and lighting. So these are all new issues as
far as I'm concerned.
Councilman Johnson: There was a question as to what's the difference between a
permitted use and a conditional use. I think it's very simple. There's a list
of 14 permitted uses for this neighborhood. The first one is a convenience
store without gas pumps. If they did not have gas pumps, they were just putting
in a convenience store, it would not come before the City Council. A permitted
use, we don't even see it. A self service laundramat, that was there. We
wouldn't see it.
Acting Mayor Geving: Isn't a car wash one of them?
Councilman Johnson: Day care center. Shopping center. Health services.
That's an accessory. If you put in an automotive service station, they can have
a car wash as a permitted accessory to it. Although the service station in
itself is a conditional use. Now, if you have something that's not on that list
of 15 but it's on our list of 6 that are conditional uses, convenience stores
with pumps. Service stations. Drive in banks. Temporary outdoor storage of
merchandise. Standard restaurants. Bed and breakfast establishments. Any of
those have to come before the Council and we place upon them some standard
provisions that are within the ordinance which one that did get overlooked,
which we see on almost all our conditional permits, is the noise one. You will
not be audible off the facility. That's the difference between permitted and
conditioned. You wouldn't be having this here is that was a permitted use and
there'd be no room to speak at all, except for in the site plan.
Acting Mayor Geving: What I'd like to do, is listen, I don't know who's over
here who would like to speak on this item, but I'd like to hear some last minute
closing con~ments from someone who would like to speak to the Council so that we
can hear what your concerns are and we'll take it from there. This is your
opportunity. Would you like to speak? Anyone in the audience at this time and
we'll close this issue out.
Ben Gowen: Ben Gowen's my name. We've been railroaded. The Planning
Co~mission meeting the other night was published as, should we have a Super
America. The first question was, should we put the Coca Cola bottles on the
outside of the building. The second question, will the lights hit the
neighborhood. I walked out. It was a pregone conclusion we were going to have
SuperAmerica. Not should we have it but how we're going to have it so I think
we've been railroaded and it's not my pleasure to see this happen.
74
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Betty Lang: I think Mr. Gowen has said it all~
Gary Reed: I'm Gary Reed. I guess you know me. I live at 2471 West 64th
Street. I'm kind of in the middle of things here. I can understand Mr. Zahn
when he wanted to get the outlot sold so he could generate some capital to do
some of the other improv~nents that he's agreed to do. On the other hand,
I don't want to live next to an all night operation. I've been there for 38
years, 40 years, 50 years almost. We moved out there in '38. Time flies.
I hate to say this, it's a public hearing but I don't usually lock my door.
That's the kind of neighborhood it's been. I'm a little sad to see and hear
some of the these comments about back traffic and really all night type of
people. That's just some of my comments. I guess I would be happy with a
daytime operation.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, Gary thank you. It's now up to the Council. As far
as I'm concerned, I have heard some things here in the last half hour that have
certainly I would consider a reconsideration of this motion.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to reconsider the motion made on
the Conditional Use Permit Request #88-10. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Acting Mayor Geving: At this point then we should reconsider this. I think
since you made the motion Clark, I think that it would be appropriate. Did you
make it or did you make it Bill?
Councilman Boyt: I made it.
Acting Mayor Geving: Do you want to make the motion to reconsider based on new
evidence, that's fine.
Councilman Boyt: We did that.
Acting Mayor Geving: I know but now the new motion.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, let's take these one at a time so they go or down in
fairly quick order. That one condition be that there be no sale of 3.2 beer.
So moved.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think what I'm after here, since there are a nkmtber of
issues that are being proposed, I would like to have them be placed before the
Council and turned over to staff for direction and fact finding. I don't think
that you can come up with just 3.2 beer or so forth but go ahead and proceed
along that line.
Councilman Boyt: Give me a second and then we can discuss something anyway.
Anybody have a second to the 3.2 beer situation? Then it dies for lack of a
second.
Acting Mayor Geving: A procedure that I'd like to follow...
75
City Council Meeting - October lg, 1988
Councilman Boyt: I understand that but may I co_n~nent?
Acting Mayor Geving: But I don't want to make a motion on each item.
Councilman Johnson: I think that'd be more efficient Dale.
Councilman Boyt: I think we ought to deal with this tonight. The people want
to get going. It's not a matter of, in spite of what we might like to do, it's
not a matter of we can't sit up here and deny the gas station. We can sit up
here and make conditions to minLmize the impact of the gas station but we can
not, unless Roger corrects me, I don't think there's anyway in the world we can
legally say you can't build. But we can say you have to build it given these
conditions. Roger, is that right? Maybe an over generalization.
Roger Knutson: It's a generalization but from the facts after that...
Councilman Boyt: What I'm proposing Dale is that I don't know if these things
are going to go or not but if we try to discuss them all in one lump, I don't
think we're going to make it. So one of the ones that we've batted around a
little bit is that given the concerns of the neighborhood, this isn't the only
neighborhood that should have this concern but it's our opportunity to act on
it. One issue was 3.2 beer. So I moved that we, as one condition, that there
not be the sale of 3.2 .beer or, of course, other intoxicating liquor.
Councilman Horn: I'll second it for discussion. Question. Isn't that
something that's reviewed on a yearly basis?
Councilman Boyt: The liquor license is reviewed on a yearly basis. This would
be a matter of stating our intent.
Counci~nan Horn: For this year?
CounciLman Boyt: Well, if we put it in as a condition, I gather it carries
beyond this until so{ne future Council would take it out of there, if they can do
that.
Councilman Horn: Is that true?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Horn: So we don't have to review it on a yearly basis if we put this
in as a condition?
Roger Knutson: If you put it in here, you can't sell beer period until they
come back and ask to ~mend the condition.
Acting Mayor Geving: They have to come in with an application and request that
they be granted it. But I see nothing wrong with putting it in as a condition
as the intent of this Council. Go ahead Bill.
Councihnan Boyt: Well, that's one. Shall we vote on that one Dale?
Acting Mayor Geving: There's been a condition made to add condition number, I
think we're up to 12. This will be number 12 and it's to deny the 3.2 beer,
76
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
sale of beer at this location for this particular business2
Councilman Boyt: Jay, when I initially brought this up, I was hoping there'd be
so~e Council comment on it. It occurs tome that it was a condition that
probably reflects one of my own biases more than it necessarily reflects logic.
Acting Mayor Geving: Just r~ember, the applicant could come back in to a
future Council and request it as part of this condition. It's part of this
condition. It's condition number 12. All in favor.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to add a condition number 12
which states that there shall be no sale of 3.2 beer or intoxicating liquor.
All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1.
Councilman Johnson: I haven't been presented any evidence to tell me why that
condition's a good condition.
Acting Mayor Geving The condition passes. Number 137
Councilman Boyt: Okay, I would again introduce the motion that hours of
operation be limited to no more than 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m..
Acting Mayor Geving: I'll second that motion. Any discussion?
Councilman Horn: Yes. I think we ought to discuss that in light of number 8
which is when we allow tank deliveries. I can justify an hour of closing if we
improve the safety by stipulating the delivery times be made during this time.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe they're more difficult. What's SA say?
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's see how this one flies as item 13. The hours of
operation being proposed is 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.. Any further discussion?
Councilman Boyt: Let's find out when Clark's thing, what SA feels about those
hours of delivery and what the neighborhood thinks.
Acting Mayor Geving: We heard quite a bit of discussion. Several people from
the audience suggested it. That the operations should cease at midnight.
Councilman Johnson: Do you want deliveries after midnight? Is that what you're
saying?
Councilman Horn: The suggestion was made that it would be safer to have
deliveries made at a time when they're not operational which makes sense.
Councilman Johnson: I've seen that happen at other gas stations.
Roman Mueller: You can get the drivers to deliver fuel without. Would you buy
something from somebody that you hadn't monitored? There are no tank gauges on
it. Besides that, you're still depending on the guy that's out there and the
cor~nent made by Mr. Nesbitt from the City of Eden Prairie as to how dependable
77
City Council Meeting -October 10, 1988
those drivers are, I put that to you. How dependable are there? I'd personally
like to have somebody else there to watch it. I also think that Mr_. Nesbitt
from the building depar~-nent in the City of Eden Prairie, I'm the one that he
recognized from those other meetings because he and I went to a number of
meetings over a couple of years. I don't think that is the safest operation
that has it delivering after employees have left the store. Now you're going to
say that we should keep the employees at the store after midnight which entails
leaving the lights on which defeats the purpose of having the lights off so what
we're doing is ~'re compounding the conflicts here. The tanker delivery is
best when there's limited traffic which is at non peak hours. I can't argue
with that. We have no problem with that.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is this normal in your business? To have tankers in the
off hours or in the evening hours?
Roman Mueller: Evening hours, yes. As a matter of fact, late last week the
store next to our office, they were delivering fuel I think about 7:00 to 7:30
at night. That's just after the rush hour in that area.
Gene Connor: ...how many fire problems have you had with the tanker delivery?
Roman Mueller: I don't know of any at all. The only type of accident I have
ever heard of is the tanker forgetting hoses or having extra product and the
hose, s~e spilling out. We have solve that problem since then with what they
call an overflow manifold that picks up that product if he has product still in
the hose...
Acting Mayor Geving: Clark, did you have any other question. The hours of
operation being proposed, 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m..
Councilman Boyt moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to add a 13th condition that
the hours of operation be limited to between 5:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight.
Councilman Boyt and Acting Mayor Geving voted in favor; Councilman Horn and
Councilman Johnson voted against and the motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to
2.
Councilman Boyt: The other condition is two snployees at the station during all
hours of operation. Two or more.
CounciLman Horn: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to add a 13th condition that
there be two employees at the station during all hours of operation. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
CounciLman Boyt: If you have any others? I'm tapped out.
Councilman Johnson: I've got two more.
Acting Mayor Geving: There were two other issues.
78
City Council M~eting - October 10~ 1988
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me but there is one issue that we haven't dealt with at
all really that Mr. Nesbitt brought up and that's the business about the UBC
Hazardous Chapter. Gary, are you aware of the changes in the Code? UBC?
Gary Warren: I'd have to check with our Building Department. They follow the
UBC.
Acting Mayor Geving: I have two other issues here and one was the tanker
refueling during the off hours. Did we rule out number 8?
Councilman Horn: No, we left it.
Acting Mayor Geving: We left it as is.
Councilman Horn: 10:00 to 4:00, Monday through Saturday.
Acting Mayor Geving: It remains as amended. 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday.
Councilman Horn: I would like to also move that this whole approval be
conditioned upon satisfactory review of the traffic studies and other questions
that came up this evening. I think the other one was the skimmer operation that
you want to re-review. That our approval be conditioned on satisfactory review
of those by staff.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Acting Mayor Geving: This is number 14. There's been a motion made to make
this a condition that satisfactory review of all the traffic studies that were
brought to light tonight and the second issue was the skimmer which we talked
about but we did not see.
Councilman Johnson: It was a part of HSZ's site plan. The skimmer was in
there.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is that in the site plan?
Councilman Johnson: HSZ's site plan.
Acting Mayor Geving: But it's not in this particular proposal?
Councilman Johnson: No, because it's not their skimmer. It's HSZ's skimmer.
Acting Mayor Geving: The reason that it's in there is because of this proposal.
Councilman Johnson: No, it's required on all our ponds.
Councilman Horn: It's more important because of this.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think this is a very important one because some of the
things that were missing tonight were the traffic study issues. The numbers.
The numbers don't add up.
79
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to add a 14th condition that
approval be conditioned upon satisfactory review by staff of the traffic studies
and the skimmer operation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Acting Mayor Geving: Now, the other issue that I picked up from one of the
co~nents from the neighborhood was the noise and lighting and garbage trucks.
This all goes together. One issue. It has to be satisfactory, I think it all
falls under noise.
Councilman Boyt: Wouldn't it make sense to have garbage pick-up during the day?
Councilman Johnson: No trash pick-up prior to 7:00 a.m.?
Acting Mayor Geving: We do have the noise issue covered I believe as noise from
that PA but the other noise that we heard tonight from the neighborhood was the
garbage trucks.
Councilman Horn: I would move that we ~nend item 3 to include other noise
sources such as garbage trucks. Make that all inclusive.
CounciLman Johnson: That can't be 24 hours a day. Otherwise they can't pick up
their garbage and then we'll have an odor problem.
Councilman Horn: We'll amend n~n%ber 3 to include no public address system or
other noises emminating from the site shall be audible from any residential
parcel.
Councilman Boyt: I'll second it. My experience with industrial garbage pick-up
is that it is noisy. Just kind of a fact of life. It would seem to me that if
we can put the noise at a reasonable time but to say that a residence isn't
going to hear it, which is what we're saying in 3, I just don't think it's
possible.
Councilman Horn: Would you want to put a time limit on that?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Horn: Public address too?
Councilman Boyt: No. I think public address is all the time.
Acting Mayor Geving: 5hat's out period but I like the idea on the garbage truck
pick-up during the day would make sense.
Councilman Horn: Okay, then let's put a time limit on the other audible sounds
eminating from the site limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m..
Acting Mayor Geving: Is this consistent with what we did with the lumber yard?
Councihnan Horn: It's the s&me concept. I don't know if those were the hours
we used.
Acting Mayor Geving: Because that's the same type of thing.
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Jo Ann Olsen: You didn't limit. You just asked them to try and reduce the
noise.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, let's put an hour on it then. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m.?
Councilman Johnson: But when you say all other noises, operational noises.
You're not talking about a car coming in with a loud muffler like my wife's car.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, we have amended number 3 to not only include the
public address system but other noises eminating from the site which are
operational in nature, could be from any number of things happenings and we'll
call that from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m..
Councilman Horn: No, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m..
Acting Mayor Geving: Wait a minute. Are we talking about garbage pick-up or
are we talking about noise?
Councilman Horn: We're talking about noise at night. We've said they can't
pick up the garbage before 7:00 a.m..
Acting Mayor Geving: Everybody clear on that one?
Councilman Boyt: Well, I'm not exactly sure that I am.
Councilman Johnson: The quiet time is from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m..
Acting Mayor Geving: But it's better than what we had before.
Councilman Boyt: Yes, it is better than what we had before. I just want to
make sure that we're not creating something there that's just completely
impossible. If that's what we want to do, there are other ways to do that. I
think what we're trying to say here is, what Clark is trying to say is we don't
want loud, banging sorts of noises. Is that right?
Councilman Horn: Right. That's what I said.
Acting Mayor Geving: We now have 14 conditions. I would like to vote on the
amended number 3 that was just stated.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to amend condition 3 to state as
follows:
3. No public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel at any
time and all other noise sources, operational in nature, shall not be
audible from the site between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m..
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
81
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: Item 3 has been amended. Number 8 has been amended. We
have added number 11, 12, 13 and 14. I'll tell you right now, until the hours
of operation fall in line to what I think is reasonable, I'm not going to vote
for this package. That is, at the present t]une since the vote failed, which was
5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., that failed. To me that's reasonable. Unless one of
the other council members is willing to change their vote, I'm not going to vote
for it.
Councilman Boyt: It's up to Jay and Clark.
CounciLman Horn: Or up to you.
Councilman Johnson: You could change that around.
Acting Mayor Geving: You voted for this originally. You were the one that
proposed it and I think it's reasonable.
Councilman Boyt: We're trying to win them over Dale. What can we do?
Acting Mayor Geving: But to me it doesn't make any sense to have a 24 hour a
day operation in this site.
Councilman Johnson: What's so particular about this site? We've isolated this
site fr~n the neighborhood. It's not like TH 4 and TH 5 where there are
neighbors right behind it. The neighbors have some distance. The people coming
in, come in off TH 7 and TH 41. There is no access back to the neighborhood.
Direct access back to the neighborhood. TH 7 traffic is not going to be
reduced, significantly reduced. There will be some attraction. Additional
vehicles to this area. People know that they can get some gas. He's on his way
to work and he knows he can get some gas here. Instead of taking TH 5, he might
go up to TH 7 over to 1-494 so he can get some gas. Of course he knows he can
get it at Superkmerica...
Acting Mayor Geving: Any other con~ments?
Councilman Johnson: I move that we accept the package as amended with the
individual votes amending the items so we now have items 1 through 14, as I read
it.
Councilman Horn: I second that.
Acting Mayor Geving: Just so we all understand now. This is very important.
Councilman Boyt: We understand.
Acting Mayor Geving: The hours of operation have not been changed.
Councilman Boyt: We're still at a staLmate.
Acting Mayor Geving: This is a motion. It's been seconded. No further
discussion.
82
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit Request #88-10 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received August 15,
1988" with conditions 1 through 14 as previously amended. Councilman Johnson
and Councilman Horn voted in favor. Councilman Boyt and Acting Mayor Geving
voted against and the motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2.
Acting Mayor Geving: I will now make a counter motion.
Councilman Horn: To wait for Tom?
Acting Mayor Geving: Unless there is no way that the two members who voted for
the motion change on the hours of operation, this vote has failed and it must be
brought back at the next Council meeting. I'm sorry to say that but there's no
way I'm going to give in on the hours of operation.
Councilman Boyt: Let's continue to discuss this. It is important that they get
started here.
Bob Wagner: I think your reason is an issue of safety.
Councilman Boyt: Well Bob, see SuperAmerica will make an argument right in line
with your article here really.
BOb Wagner: It doesn't keep them from drawing into the neighborhood.
Councilman Boyt: No. Separate. Neighborhood safety is important. They'd make
the argument that by forcing them to close down, we're increasing their safety
problems.
Gene Connor: From a robbery standpoint. Not from a nuisance point.
Councilman Boyt: But, I mean they would make a counter-argument is all I'm
saying.
BOb Wagner: Then address it from the standpoint that the City has to be forced
to...
Councilman Boyt: Let's see if we can't work out something here to get this to
rest. Are you guys at all flexible about the hours of operation? Can we look
at anything in there?
Councilman Johnson: Let's see what we've got to say from over here.
Acting Mayor Geving: Now this is getting late and I understand we've spent a
lot of time on this but it's a very important issue. If we don't do another
thing tonight, we want to resolve this or table it and move it to the next
meeting on the 24th where we'll have five votes. We are currently hung up and
it's all over the hours of operation.
Roman Mueller: I understand that. I don't want to take us up any longer than
we are. I would like to push from 5:00 to 1:00 and just settle at that. Just
stop right there. We agree with that completely.
83
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I'll move for that]
Councilman Horn: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Condition 15. Operations from 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m..
CounciLman Boyt: Roman, what's a dog gone hour?
Roman Mueller: That's ~nat I'm asking you.
Councilman Boyt: I can tell you that, in all likelihood, what I would suggest
you do is make this fail and then bring it back 2 weeks from now and you'll pass
it without any hour limit at all because I'm confident, from 2 years of history
as to how the third vote's going to go.
Roman Mueller: We would like just to settle it right now.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, you can settle it right now...
R~man Mueller: By changing to yours, what you're trying to convince th~ to do,
I'm trying to find some type of middle ground where they're not giving up 100%
of their ground and you're not giving up 100% of your ground.
Councilman Johnson: Plus he's getting his shift change.
Councilman Boyt: I appreciate that but what we're talking about here is
something that started out to be unreasonable to begin with at 5:00 to 12:00.
I'd like to see your project go but I'll tell you that this is to the point now
where I think you could swing the vote of these two gentlemen. It's 2 weeks and
you got your hours, 24 hours a day or we settle it right now and for my vote,
it's 12:00. You guys decide.
Councilman Horn: Are you guys completely inflexible? I'd like to ask you that
question.
CounciLman Johnson: You're denying him one shift change. That's what you're
denying him. You're denying the operation of one shift change by denying that
hour. That midnight shift. For the guys that get off at midnight, as part of
their customers that they want.
Acting Mayor Geving: Then if he started at 6:00.
Councilman Boyt: As I saw that traffic study, I didn't see that.
Acting Mayor Geving: Gentlemen, we're hung up here. 1here's no question that
I'm not going to change my vote. I want a 5:00 to midnight operation or less
and I'm not going to change.
Bob Wagner: SuperAmerica came to the first con~nunity meeting before the
Planning Commission. It was addressed to the con~nunity, if you don't want the
station, we won't even come in here. Now you've got 82 signatures that address
timing. I think if they would address their first issue. They said they
wouldn't even be here if the community didn't want it. They would certainly
agree to the hours.
84
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: I've made my choice on this. It's 5:00 to midnight. I
hear that from Councilman Boyt. I hear two other deciding votes for different
hours. As far as I'm concerned, we hung up on this issue and if we can't
resolve it, then it goes to the 24th and the fifth council member, the Mayor
will have to vote on it.
Councilman Horn: Why don't you call up a question.
Acting Mayor Geving: The question now before us, there has been a motion made
and seconded. Would you read again your motion so we all understand.
Councilman Johnson: 15 items. 1 through 14 that we modified earlier and voted
on individually and the 15th is, 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. is the operation.
Councilman Boyt: I thought that failed.
Acting Mayor Geving: No we have not voted. It has been, the motion made and
seconded. 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.. The motion is in front of us.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit Request #88-10 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received August 15,
1988" with the conditions 1 through 14 as previously amended and adding a 15th
condition which reads the operation shall be between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and
1:00 a.m.. Councilman Johnson and Councilman Horn voted in favor. Councilman
Boyt and Acting Mayor Geving voted against and the motion failed with a tie vote
of 2 to 2.
Councilman Boyt: What's Roman want to do?
Acting Mayor Geving: The motion fails on both counts. 5:00 a.m. to midnight is
what I will accept. I'm just not going to go beyond midnight. That to me is,
I just feel that the neighbor has to rest something out of this and this is a
compromise that I'm willing to make.
Councilman Horn: I think you're winning the war before the battle.
Councilman Johnson: Because it's going to be 24 hours.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's up to the Mayor to make that decision. Now, are
there any other comments from any of the neighborhood before we close out on
this issue. We are currently hung up on it.
Betty Lang: I'd sure like to see Jay live where we live because we're right
behind there. But he says that he didn't think that we'd be bothered.
Acting Mayor Geving: Gene, how do you feel about this?
Gene Connor: Midnight close.
Acting Mayor Geving: Tnat's what I heard from the neighborhood.
85
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Ben Gowen: SuperAmerica is a major company. They can't come up with the right
traffic numbers. They don't know how many times they've got to fuel their
'hanks. They can't measure the tank if nobody's standing there. I think it's a
railroad. I still think it's railroaded.
Acting Mayor Geving: Gentlemen, I'm going to pass this issue...
Councilman Boyt: Wait.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is there anymore? There's no way that we can if we' re
hung up on this Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Warren, we said all along that if you get out there and
demonstrate there's no noise problem, then you're probably not going to have a
problem coming back here and extending those hours. I'd like to see you get in
the ground.
Roman Mueller: Do I get a chance to say anything yet?
Acting Mayor Geving: You have one last shot. I'm running this meeting and it's
already been too long but it's been important to us. We brought this out for a
lot of discussion. We're opening up an area in Chanhassen that has not been
opened up to any kind of commercial enterprise.
Roman Mueller: Just to explain, I was discussing with the group we had here
when the motion was put forward and I was no longer able to speak.
Acting Mayor Geving: You can have that time right now.
Roman Mueller: We will go 5:00 a.m. to midnight if you will vote in favor of
that now.
Counci Lman Johnson: So moved.
Councilman Horn: Second.
CounciLman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Conditional Use
Pemnit Request #88-10 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received August 15,
1988" with the following conditions:
1. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises.
2. No repair, ass~nbly or disassembly of vehicles is permitted on premises.
3. No public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel at
any tf~e and all other noise sources, operational J.n nature, shall not be
audible from the site between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m..
4. Gas pump stacking area deemed to be appropriate by the City shall not
intrude into any required setback area.
5. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as
motorcycles, snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles is permitted.
86
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
6. The lights on the gas canopy shall be receded into the canopy to eliminate
dispersion of light into the surrounding neighborhood area.
7. There shall be no outside display, storage or sales of merchandise.
8. Tank deliveries will be limited to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday.
9. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Assistant City Engineer as
stated in the memo dated September 14, 1988.
10. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the site plan approval.
11. The applicant shall accept used motor oil and provide for it's safe
storage.
12. There shall be no sale of 3.2 beer or intoxicating liquor.
13. There shall be two clerks employed at all times while the station is in
operation.
14. Approval be conditioned upon satisfactory review by staff of the traffic
studies and the skin, her operation.
15. The hours of operation shall be between 5:00 a.m. and midnight.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Acting Mayor Geving: We still have 15 conditions in front of us. Some of which
the staff has to come back to us with answers because these are conditions.
Review of the traffic study. Let's go on now to the site plan approval. Item
6(c). We have just approved the conditional use permit with 15 conditions.
Item 6(c). 6(c) is the site plan approval. I know it's getting late but it is
important to us to continue. I'd like at this time to have the staff report on
the site plan.
Jo Ann Olsen: Just real briefly, the Planning Con~ission recommended approval
of the site plan. The site plan is meeting all the conditions of the ordinance.
We have the suggested conditions in there. There are 11 of them which included
the lighting and that HSZ must be at final platting stage and the development
contract recorded. We're recommending approval of the site plan with those
conditions.
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, condition number 8. Storm sewer calculations shall
be submitted prior to final site plan review. Isn't this final site plan
review?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's one of Larry's conditions.
Councilman Johnson: Have they been submitted?
Larry Brown: Yes, they have. They have gotten Watershed approval.
87
City Council M~eting - October 10, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved prior
to final site. Has that been?
Larry Brown: That was before the Council, I believe the council meeting before
this.
Councilman Johnson: So 8 and 9 are not applicable at all because those have
been completed so there's no use in having tham in a site plan review? Put a
condition on there that's already been finished. The rest of them are pretty
much straight conditions. You've got meet the conditions of the other
conditions. I have no problem with the remaining 9.
Acting Mayor Geving: There are 11 conditions being proposed that we adopt here
tonight. Now there probably will be others as we proceed through the process.
Do you have any other con~nents Jay? Clark?
Councilman Horn: I wanted to add in here that we would not also give a building
permit until we had seen evidence that the shopping center would be in place.
Councilman Boyt: They agreed to that.
Councilman Horn: I thought that was in here but I was mistaken. What was in
here was they couldn't have a building permit until they had approved access
permit for TH 7 and TH 41.
Acting Mayor Geving: Clark, would you like to state condition 12 just the way
you read it?
Councilman Horn: Yes. I would like a building permit not be issued until
development is started on the shopping center.
Councilman Boyt: What do you mean? Because they already have to do utilities
which is the roads and grading and all that sort of stuff. How's this
different?
Councilman Horn: I don't want to see the gas station as the first thing that
goes up.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we have to look at the intent of Clark's
statement. His intent is that the gas station proposed by SuperAmerica can not
be started until all the permits have been provided for building the retail
shopping facility. That is the condition.
Councilman Horn: And in fact progress starts.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, does everybody agree to that? Condition 12. That's
the intent.
CounciLman Horn: And staff will put in the proper words.
Councilman Boyt: I tell you, I was going to, when I viewed this I was going to
ask for about twice as many trees but I think we've tapped you guys and we'll
let it go.
88
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: The cor~nents that I had on this were exactly the 12th
cc~ment and condition on the building of the retail center. I'm also very
concerned about the drainage off the pr~mises. I don't know if that has been
adequately resolved. Do you feel that we've got this covered with a condition?
Gary Warren: I believe so. We've gone through it with the Watershed District.
Acting Mayor Geving: Erosion control shall be submitted to the City so item
number 9 will cover your concerns?
Gary Warren: Item 9 that we're talking about has actually been satisfied.
Acting Mayor Geving: Now as we did previously, if there is any member of the
community that would like to speak on the site plan.
Ben Gowen: We've never seen it.
Acting Mayor Geving: Do you have some renderings you could show to the
co~m~unity of your site plan?
'Mike Schlager, 6287 Chaska Road: Nothing was ever mentioned about this
pollution control, UBC or whatever it's called. Nothing was ever mentioned
about this UBC that the gentleman from Eden Prairie was talking about.
Roman Mueller: I'll try to be as brief on it as I can. It's the Uniform
Building Code and it's administered by the International Conference of Building
Officials. ICBO. I'm a past member of the ICBO. I keep up with it. The
restrictions that he is dealing with are for hazardous sites. He's dealing with
tank farms. He's dealing with larger facilities. Service stations are not
considered by them as hazardous facilities. They are dealing with exposed
product tanks, not concealed, buried product tanks. He's talking about say you
were in a tank farm at a refinery. You have to build dykes around it now.
Those are primarily the issues they're dealing with. They're not dealing so
much with the service stations. Especially on this scale because it's also
brought back into square footages. Types of use, etc.. Some of the new
regulations will govern service stations but it's not going to be any more
stringent than it is now. It's unfortunate his misled everyone onto that. Keep
in mind that in that 6 months, those laws will be changed drastically and that's
a misnomer. They are not laws. They are guidelines to be interpretted by the
city officials as they see fit. ~ne most stringent requirements that we have to
follow are by the State Fire Marshall, the EPA, the MPCA. Their enviror~nental
groups and I'd say after that, probably the, it's not the lifesaving codes. I'm
falling off of my codes here. NFPA. National Fire Protection Association
Codes. Those are the ones that are actually going to be restricting the most.
There's not even a guarantee that the new code sections will be approved and
it's a 2 year process. Every 2 years they're updated.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to have Gary respond as well to Mike's question.
Gary Warren: I was just going to add, like he said earlier, when building
permits or plans were submitted for the building permit, the building department
will utilize the latest codes...
89
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Councilman Johnson: Whenever a new set of Codes comes out, they come before the
City Council for the City Council to approve it as included in our ordinance as
part of the City's Building Codes. We have approved the State Building Codes.
We've approved the National Fire Codes.
Gary Reed: I'm just wondering if the site plan includes the 'West 64th
cul-de-sac?
Councilman Johnson: No. Super~merica only.
Betty Lang: I'm wondering about the, you had mentioned the holding pond. Are
those on-site holding ponds?
Councilman Johnson: HSZ's holding ponds.
Acting Mayor Geving: The holding pond is not part of this site. It's part of
the overall site for HSZ. Maybe you could explain where those are. They're
really off site.
Gary Warren: They're on site as far as the storm water retention basins that
are required by the Watershed District and our standards.
Councilman Johnson: HSZ' s site, not SuperAmerica.
Gary Warren: Not SuperAmerica.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's on the overall site plan Betty.
Betty Lang: We have a lot of run-off that c~nes down into our back property. Is
this something that's going to be coming from, will we be getting anything from
this holding pond down through the back of us now?
Larry Brown: Part of the plans and specifications which were approved either 2
weeks ago or 4 weeks, the Council tried to address that issue in helping get the
drainage down to the wetland where it belonged. Maybe to hit on one of the
Council's other concerns. The holding pond and exploring the catastrophic
event, the Watershed District came back to me and said this is the best systan
that is available at this t~me. At this t~me, we have to rely on their
authority and expertise.
Acting Mayor Geving: Do they have a written report that's available that says
just what you've stated?
Larry Brown: I can get that.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we should have that for ~e record.
Betty Lang: When you're talking the wetlands, does that mean the park area down
behind us?
Larry Brown: That's correct.
Betty Lang: So it will be right in our backyard?
90
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Larry Brown: The holding pond itself is in~ediately west of the proposed
cul-de-sac in the Reed Addition.
Ben Gowen: I didn't see a site plan yet.
Acting Mayor Geving: ~ne site plan is here. We're still talking about the
SuperAmerica site.
Ben Gowen: Do we get a picture of it? How do we look at it?
Acting Mayor Geving: Is this on the monitor? This is not showing. Would you
turn that around Gary for the residents? We've seen it because we've got our
visuals here. That is the site plan. That's all that we have. This is exactly
what anyone who went to the Planning ~ission would have seen. It has not
changed. Any other con~nents? If not, we will call a question. We have in
front of us 12 conditions. ~ne addition that Clark made on the building permit
regarding the shopping center. Is there a motion to approve the site plan with
the 12 conditions?
Councilman Boyt: So moved.
Councilman Horn: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Site Plan Review
#88-10 dated August 15, 1988 with the following conditions:
1. The site plan shall meet the conditions of the conditional use permit
approval.
2. The wall signs shall meet the requirements of the ordinance.
3. No signage will be permitted on the gas canopy.
4. All rooftop equipment must be screened from view from any direction.
5. The trash enclosure must be totally screened.
6. The applicant shall not receive a building permit until MnDot has approved
access permits for TH 7 and TH 41, the access points have been installed
and the final plat and development contract for HSZ has been recorded with
Carver County.
7. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation prior to final site plan review and comply with their
conditions.
8. Storm sewer calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
approval prior to final site plan review.
9. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
approval prior to final site plan review.
91
City Council Meeting - October lg, 1988
1~. The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the executed roadway
easement for the portion of Lot 2, Block 1 which serves the westerly access
for the subject parcel.
11. Utilities service for this property is contingent upon the HSZ site
improvements.
12. No building permits shall be issued to SuperAmerica until all building
permits have been provided to HSZ and development starts on the shopping
center.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
Acting ~ayor Geving: We now go to item (b) which is a sign variance request.
This variance request is to permit a 45 square foot ground low profile sign in
the BN, Neighborhood Business District. I think we've all discussed this, or at
least have read it thoroughly. We understand what is being requested here.
Councilman Boyt: I move that we deny the variance request. There's no
hardship.
Councilman Johnson: Second. Roman's been before us before. He knows our
standards. There's no reason to bring in a sign other than the signs that meet
our standards.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny the Sign Variance
Request #88-12. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Jo Ann Olsen: Did you want staff to pursue a ordinance amendment or just leave
it the way it is?
CounciL.~an Johnson: I think we still have to look at our sign ordinance. I'd
like to form a sign ordinance con~nittee to look at that. There are a lot of
issues in our sign ordinance beyond just the filling stations that probably
should be reviewed.
Acting Mayor Geving: This item has been denied so the sign variance has to meet
City standards.
Councilman Horn: I would also like staff or Planning Con]nission to review the
Zoning for the BN District. To me it's very confusing and I think the course
that we t~d to live with was set when we rezoned it to BN. It seems confusing
to me .... accessory use is a car wash when accessory for automotive service
station when in fact that's a conditional use. I don't think this ordinance is
proper and it should be redone.
Acting Mayor Geving: I agree and we' 11 direct staff to do that.
92
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
BONDS OF 1988, DISCUSSION, ANDY MERRY~
Andy Merry: You have in your packets the 1988 municipal bonds program. I will,
in an effort to expedite my presentation, highlight certain things which I think
might be of interest to you and stop me, interrupt me if you have questions. I
think that might be the best format. The first, past the summary page, the
first presentation is a copy of the debts service schedule for the bonds that
were sold on Sept~nber 15th and subsequently closed 1.2 million general
obligation bonds for the Fire Station and fire truck purchase. %he second
schedule is the $1,775,000.00 taxable tax increment bonds of 1988 purchased by a
firm down in Chicago. The one thing that's of interest there I think is, in
addition to the optional redemption beginning November 1, 1995, there's an
extraordinary redemption and in the event that a development contract is not
entered into, there is a mechanism under the extraordinary call whereby the City
has an option twice in 1989 to collapse the bond issue and wipe the slate clean.
Moving forward, to complete the 1988 bonding program we've proposed a sale of
three separate bond issues which would be sold separately but at a single sale
to be conducted on November 7th. The day before election day. The first sheet
is the details, the public improvements for 429 special assessment bonds. There
are five different projects. 87-2, 87-5, 97-9, 88-2, 86-11. 87-2 is.divided
into two phases. We are proposing that both phases, similar to what we did with
the downtown improvements back in 1986 when we had both phases at a single bond
issue for a number of reasons. One is to take advantage of some economies of
scale. However, you have three years in which to disperse funds from a
comparable account. From a construction account and if phase 2 is not carried
out during that period of time, proceeds can be used for another improvement
project or the proceeds can be deposited into the dead service fund and used to
call bonds. The second page of the presentation basically is an allocation
representing the perspective, issuance expenses and allocating to the various
projects for assessment purposes. Second page also calculates the interim
interest. That's the period of time in which interest is payable on a bond
beginning May 1, 1989 would be covered from bond proceeds. That covers the
interim period until assessments are levied and actually on stream and beginning
collection. The third page shows how the respective maturities have been
divided between the projects. Coming up with a grand total and rounding for
issuing purposes and as you can see the grant total comes up to $4,185,000.00.
The last page basically gives a forecast using the same coupon rates that were
on your 1.2 million bonds which I might add are rated AAA by virtue of FGIC
insurance. We contemplate that bonds on November 7th would be insured also.
Acting Mayor Geving: Do you think that rate will hold Andy? That's a terrific
rate, 6.7.
Andy Merry: It is a terrific rate.
Acting Mayor Geving: I have a hard time believing that for a 4 million dollar
bond issue.
Andy Merry: Not necessarily but by providing credit support for the bond issue
and getting the insurance, and we will be applying to four, if not five
different insurance carriers to qualify these bonds for insurance coverage, it
upgrades the bonds from the City's stand alone credit which is BAA to AAA by
both services and that broadeneds the market in many, many 9~ys for your bonds.
That's the highest credit standard that there is. The bonds are purchased by
93
~%ity Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
firms that sell the bonds. Bond funds at the banks and insurance companies~
The second bond issue that we structured here is a tax increment bond, Series II
in the &mount of $740,000.00. Basically this is to complete the funding
requirements for project 86-11 which is downtown improvements. As you can see,
the line share of the funds, $700,000.00 of the $740,000.00 is for land
acquisition and that's for either an award that came in higher than anticipated
or for renegotiated settlements that where the settlements were higher than what
we anticipated back in 1986 when the original tax increment bonds were sold.
Again, following the first page I had given a forecast and we would expect these
bonds to go off today at 7.09%. If you look at your list of interest rates, the
bond buyer's indexes, you'll notice that when we sold the bonds on September
15th, the GOBBI which represents a weighted average for 20 years bonds was
7.59%. We really hit the curve pretty well and this past Thursday it was down
to 7.53%. If we guess right, and every indication is that we're moving towards
that direction, hopefully the curve will continue down, which is the whole idea
to do this the day before election day. Who knows what's going to happen the
day after election day. The last bond issue is for the Audubon Road project
~nich is associated with the McGlynn construction. The entire amount of that
tax increment bond which is Series 3 for the year, is a million fifteen thousand
dollars. Again, we've divided up the issuance expenses and this one we included
s~e interest to carry the City through the inter]m period. Following is a debt
service schedule. You'll notice that the schedule is a little bit shorter, the
maturities are shorter than the first two bond issues. That's because a new tax
increment district is an economic development district ~nich is an easier
district that's in the process of creation presently, or I think it is created.
We have put in place an optional redemption feature that in the event there is
surplus funds on hand, the City can begin 'to call in bonds without penalty
beginning November 1, 1994 as opposed to the final maturity which is in November
of 1997. We expect those bonds to go off also at a net effective rate of under
7%. This is the Reader's Digest abridged version of a very lengthy presentation
where we could go into each bond issue and each improvement within those bond
issues in some detail. A great amount of thought and work has gone into it I
can assure you. We've met numerous times with staff to structure these things.
I don't have resolutions. They are presently being drafted by bond counsel but
following your questions, if the Council deems it appropriate, I would ask that
you adopt the appropriate resolution to be provided in the next few days to sell
these bonds by competitive bids on Monday, November 7th for a bid opening at
7:30 and ]_n~nediately following my tabulation and your review, consideration for
award.
Councilman Boyt: Doesn't it make more sense to sell them on Friday so we don't
cut it too close?
Andy Merry: We could. There's a couple of practical considerations. One that
generally speaking it's difficult to assemble public bodies on Fridays~
especially in the evenings. Short of that, it would mean opening the bonds in
my office sometime during the day, let's say at 11:30 on Friday and getting back
to the City, having a special meeting, presumably around lunchtime or 1:00 so
that I can, ass~ning there's an award, get back to the underwriter. What the
underwriters don't want is to have to carry those bonds over a weekend and we're
talking about a fairly significant number of bonds here. As a matter of fact,
when we sold the million two issue and the $1,775,000.00, after we had the bid
opening, I went and made a long distance call to the firm in Chicago that had
bought the taxes bond. What the underwriters hhat buy your bonds and bonds from
94
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
every other issue were concerned about is getting caught in an interest swing.
Weekends, especially around election time, I think would have a negative impact.
I think the underwriters would put some extra fat in the deal to hedge their
bets. The last thing we want to do is create that type of an environment so I
think selling bonds on a Monday or Tuesday, Wednesday, possibly a Thursday would
be fine. I think Friday, we're taking a chance.
Councilman Boyt: Well Andy, it would seem as though, and you're the expert,
that's why I'm asking, but it would se~n as though we run into the same scenario
selling the day before the election when historically the election plays havoc
with the interest rate one way or another.
Andy Merry: Actually we made a study of that.
Don Ashworth: I had him research that issue.
Councilman Boyt: Well, you can make me smarter. Tell me what you found'out.
Don Ashworth: While Andy's getting that...
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we can go ahead with the resolution though.
Councilman Horn: I had another question. In one of the overruns, you talked
about an additional $110,000.00 before the undergrounding that was not estimated
by BRW. How do we get into these kinds of situations where the rules change
once we agree to things?
Don Ashworth: I think you'll recall, Mayor Hamilton had come back, he was quite
disturbed. R~ember the original number was $330,000.00. Then we went into
$220,000.00.
Acting Mayor Geving: You got it down to $100,000.00.
Don Ashworth: In defense of BRW, projects up until that point in time had been
done really at no cost to, generally to cities. Our ordinance that had been
adopted 15 years ago establishing the franchise for NSP gives th~m the right to
charge the City. We turned it back to Roger and said, is there anyway out of
this? He said no.
Councilman Horn: Is that before or after we approved the line extension?
DOn Ashworth: That was after but it was right on the heels of it. In fact, I
wanted Don Chmiel to come in on each of those meetings because he was the one
who had represented NSP on the powerline distribution. But anyway, that was a
cost that was not seen. The biggest portion there though is additional land
acquisitions that were carried out. More than over two runs or anything to that
degree. We purchased the Renner property and the additional bank property. We
have assets that are well over $700,000.00 that we can anticipate getting back
into...resolved.
Councilman Horn: Those I can understand. What bothers me is when we go into an
agreement and the rules change after we had agreed to it.
95
~City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Don Ashworth: I don't think that BRW could have, no engineering firm would have
foreseen that that rule would have changed. Quite honestly, I think that we
came out of that fairly well because of the predict&~ent that we were in.
Acting Mayor Geving: Andy, go ahead and give us those statistics.
Andy Merry: If you look at the sheet that I gave you, you'll notice that in
November of the preceeding two years, 1987 and 1986, in November the rates were
actually on the decline from where they were earlier in the year. In 1985, the
same trend held true. Rate historically have climbed up through July and August
and began to recede in the fall of the year through the winter and the first
quarter. Then as construction began about in cities and industry contemplated
spring projects, rates would begin to increase. I think part of that is due to
just general building and pressure for money. In the last election, back in
1984, and you don't have this, I do, but I can tell you that the low for the
year, in terms of the general obligation, 20 year rate, was on February 2nd at
9.51%. If you remember, from 1979 through 1985, rates ~nen right through the
roof. As opposed to rates today in the mid to high 70's. In 1984, in that
election year, the high for the year was 11.07% in May. At the end of May. So
between February of 9.5% and May, rates climbed 150 basic points or 1.5%. By
November of that year, when the elections actually occurred, rates went from a
high of 11.07% in May, down to 10.11%. That rate had actually improved.
Whether or not that was in contemplation of one party or the other being
victorious I don't know but rates continued to receed through the balance of
1984. The low for 1985 was December 26th of 1985. The high for 1985 was
January 3rd so the rate was the highest and it continued to decline from May 31,
1984 through the balance of 1985 and then they began to spike upwards a little
bit in 1986.
Don Ashworth: Andy, I thought you gave me one of these. On election day, in
other words, a similar type of a situation, the rates were just as favorable on
that day.
Andy Merry: Absolutely. I've got scale sheets fr~n both Minnesota bond issues
and national bond issues that were sold back on, actually on election day as
opposed to the day before or day after, but on election day in 1984. Relative
to where rates were the week before and the week after, there was no significant
change one way or the other.
Don Ashworth: And the worse rates were on the weekend or something of the Bond
Buyer's Picnic or something.
Andy Merry: It's surprising. That has to do with this Friday psychology. In
Minnesota the worse time to sell bonds in when the underwriters have their
picnics and holidays.
Acting Mayor Geving: Any other questions? Bill, are you satisfied with that?
Councilman Boyt: We can kibitz about it but I'll go with whatever you
reconxnend.
Acting Mayor Geving: November 7th is when we'll meet to go over the, that's a
regular meeting isn't it?
96
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Don Ashworth: No ~
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, that's the special. I'd prefer not to meet that
night but if that's the night that w~ accept, we'll go with it.
Don Ashworth: Would you like to do an early?
Acting Mayor Geving: If that's the only thing we've got, it's up to the
Council. I'd just as soon not have a special meeting. We're open for a motion
for adopting the resolutions and Andy you're going to prepare those correct?
Andy Merry: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: I move the adoption of a resolution to approve the sale of
the bonds for November 7, 1988 at 7:30 p.m..
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Resolution #88-109: Acting Mayor Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
adopt the resolution approving the sale of the bonds on Monday, November 7, 1988
at 7:30 p.m.. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: Can we have the resolution for our meeting on the 24th, for
in our packet?
Andy Merry: Yes.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 7210 GALPIN BLVD., DAVE
STOCKDALE.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission recorm~ended denial of the conditional use
permit because it was within one mile of an existing contractor's yard and
within 500 feet of a residence. Those are two conditions of the conditional use
for a contractor's yard. The Planning Con~nission also felt that this is exactly
the kind of contractor's yard that they had intended so they were hesitant in
denying it but they couldn't justify the hardship. They did ask staff to look
into how it could be approved but again, it can't be approved unless you find a
hardship or amend the ordinance. Staff is still recon~ending denial because it
does not meet those two conditions.
Dave Stockdale: I'm Dave Stockdale. I live at 7210 Galpin Blvd ..... the third
option would be that the variance is granted with the one mile radius. My
understanding coming out of the Planning Con~nission meeting was that there are
three key reasons why they had to deny it. One was the one mile radius.
Another was the 500 foot limitation of a residence and the third was the hours
of operation that I was asking for. I was willing to adjust my hours to meet
the time conditions of the request. I had a letter that was in the Planning
Commission from the resident that lives at the residence 500 feet away and he
was basically in favor of my proposal. Did they get a copy of that letter?
97
City Council N~eeting - October 10, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't believe I saw that letter. I don't have it in my
packet Dave. I don't see it here.
Jo Ann Olsen: It was passed out at the Planning Con~ission. I apologize for
not getting that in. You can pass it around but he did say he had no objections
at all.
Dave Stockdale: I think I presented the background of my situation to the
Planning Co~nission. I received a conditional use permit when I moved out here.
That was approved.., and for personal reasons I wasn't able to act on it at that
point in time. I was unaware that they were in the process of changing the
ordinance or I might have acted differently on my request. I'm back to you now
for the s&me request that I had two years ago with sc~e modifications of my site
plan. I've reduced the size of the parking lot. I've reoriented the building.
Instead of facing Galpin Blvd., it's facing southerly to private land. That
person has seen the plan and he had no objection to is. I increased the size of
the trees on the berm.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, thank you very much. Council have any comments?
Councilman Horn: This is a tough one because it is the intent of what we would
allow for contractor's yards. However, we've been somewhat powerless to control
these types of things. I think, if I understand correctly what you're saying is
this ordinance didn't change...to allow this type of a use. Before that, it was
not a conforming use at all in that area, unless I missed something.
Jo Ann Olsen: The conditions of the one mile radius weren't, that wasn't part
of the original.
CounciLman Horn: That was done in 19857
Jo Ann Olsen: That wasn't part of the original conditional use.
Councilman Horn: But co~ing back in a year for starting something, was that a
condition at that time?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's always been a part of the conditional use.
Councilman Horn: So it would have lapsed anyway? This one to me has less
negative effect than some of them we've seen. However, we do have to put some
control over on these things and I really hate to set the same precedent of
changing or deviating from that ordinance that we've established, l~nis one is
really tough but I'm leaning towards denying it.
Councilman Boyt: I think Clark has probably said the essence of it. It is
tough. It was tough for the Planning Con~nission when they looked at it. Two of
them voted in support of granting the permit and the variances required. I
guess the question went through my mind is why do we have one mile separation?
I follow that with why do we have contractor's yards at all and where did we
ever get a figure like 500 feet? My guess is that we pulled one mile because it
gave us some limit on the n~nber of contractor's yards in the City as a whole. I
remember asking staff about 6 months ago that we needed to be limiting on
contractor's yards and the response I got was no, there's really no place we can
put another one. Since then we've seen two applications. That's a long way of
98
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
getting to the point of, I'd like to be convinced but there's no way in the
world that this meets our criteria for variance approval. On the other hand,
it's sitting here with a situation, a previous Council has already approved and
we're being hit over the head with our, if you don't start within one year, you
lose everything. It seems to me that it would be an easier thing to change than
to change the ordinance. But I'm looking for guidance from the Council or other
council people on how we can fit this into our, either our ordinance or our
variance language and I can't find a way. I'd like to have that explained to ~
me. If anybody else can see a way.
Councilman Johnson: I wish I could see a way. I can't. I would like one thing
though on all conditional uses and things where this one year condition applies.
That we state such in the permit. I read his own permit. It wasn't stated. It
is a part of the ordinance. I understand that. I also understand that most
people who come in for a contractor's yard or some other conditional use permit,
does not know all the fine print of the ordinance. Something which allows you
to completely lose what you fought for to get and maybe times it is a fight,
because of something buried in the ordinance. I'm not sure that Mr. Stockdale
may have known about the one year time span but since he got the permit once,
it's no big deal, you can get it the next time also. Unfortunately, the world
changes. And along with it is sometimes the abilities to get exactly what you
want. Things that happen 5 years ago or even 2 years ago, situations change and
all of a sudden, somebody becomes not eligible for something. A small use like
this is what I think was intended. I wish there was a way that we could allow
this one. If it hadn't been for the one year dropping in, and the residence
being built across the street, if it was only the one mile problem as the only
reason that it was being denied, I would, within myself, be able to say that the
hardship was created by a change in the ordinance. Or the applicant not
watching the change. Not monitoring what's happening in a city when the zoning
ordinance changes. It made the newspaper many, many times. Most everybody
should have been aware of it. Anyway, I still don't see that a hardship is
other than self created. He could have come in and put up the berm and at least
started. If some action had been taken in the first year, that would have
grandfathered him Jo Ann? If he had taken any action? Put up the berms? Put
up a couple of trees or something, but no action was taken other than building
his own home.
Dave Stockdale: Can I correct that? When I got a mortgage on my house, I had
to separate the property so that legally redefined the property. Even before
the one year, that changed. ~ne legal description.
Councilman Johnson: Did that action by that bank that said you could not, you
had to resubdivide your property in order to get your mortgage, did that action
by the bank which then nullified your conditional use permit, was that the
action that then stopped you from, made you make the decision not to take any
action on your conditional use permit because you knew it was no longer valid?
Dave Stockdale: I knew it was no longer valid. As a result of finishing my
house, I was quite honestly exhausted.
Councilman Johnson: What I'm trying to do is establish a hardship coming from
somewhere else besides him. With the bank requirement to subdivide which
nullified it, unfortunately if you had come in at that time, you probably could
have gotten it back. It's almost like Bernie waiting a year and a half to ask
99
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
for a change in venue. It's just about too late. This is a tough one. I hate
these where your gut says one thing and your mind says another thing.
Acting Mayor Geving: 5he way I reviewed this, I looked at the timing of this.
Mr. Bentz c&me in on February 4, 1985 and he got his conditional use permit for
a contractor's yard and put up his operation and went into business. You came
along the very next month and did the same thing. Had you gone ahead with your
conditional use permit and built your contractor's yard, you wouldn't be here
tonight obviously. I think that you had the right intention of building a nice
business out there and keeping it covered. You're just caught in this
acl~inistrative web right now. In the meantime the rules were changed. As much
as I want to see you in our community with your business, I don't know how we
can bend these rules. My sympathy is with Mr. Stockdale because I think that he
had in good faith received a conditional use permit for this contractor's yard
from our Council in 1985. Everything was going along smooth. Why he didn't
pursue it and build, he said he had personal reasons. That's his business. I
would like to see us grant this variance. I have a difficult time however
following our rules to grant you a variance based on a hardship because I just
can't see it. So we're kind of hung up here. I think that your explanation of
why you didn't start your business is a good one. The fact that you were forced
to subdivide based on your mortage, is reasonable. That's what they've done
with everybody on these loans. The building of this house, the resident across
the street, is something that you had no control of. The one mile variance, to
me I think we've got a number of situations in our community where the one mile
exists. I think of the Volk property. What do we have there? At least 2
businesses. At least 2 contractor's yards on the same site so that doesn't
disturb me.
Councilman Johnson: There's only one yard.
Acting Mayor Geving: There's one yard but there's several different businesses
aren't there?
Councilman Horn: Yes, but it's one contractor's yard permit.
Acting Mayor Geving: But aren't there other contractors within a mile of that
site as well? There is no others? Well, I think we're ready to call the
question on this. Anyone want to make the motion?
Councilman Johnson: I move we deny it.
CounciLman Horn: I second it.
Councilman Johnson: I should say with regret.
Councilman Boyt: It seems as though what we're talking about here is that there
hasn't been any physical progress towards establishing a contractor's yard.
~nat if there has been? Does that change things?
CounciLman Horn: Has there been?
Acting Mayor Geving: I get the impression that nothing has happened? Have you
done any work out there at all Dave?
100
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Dave Stockdale: Other than driving stakes~
Acting Mayor Geving: You haven't built a berm up?
Dave Stockdale: I wish I could say I had. There's some rocks there.
Acting Mayor Geving: Probably the reason he hasn't is because he hasn't had the
active permits. You wouldn't do that either. He'd violate the ordinance. On
the other hand, I've seen other people go ahead and do something and it's
already up.
Councilman Boyt: How would the Council feel about, he did have an application
in to subdivide this into 2 1/2 acre plots. Is there anyway we can resurface
that?
Councilman Horn: How does that show activity for a contractor's yard?
Councilman Boyt: It doesn't. It doesn't. It's just the land is losing value
by leaps and bounds here. We're taking away all use of the land except
farmland.
Jo Ann Olsen: There's no way he could pursue that 2 1/2 acres.
Acting Mayor Geving: Not anymore. How many employees would you have on this
site if you had a contractor's yard?
Dave Stockdale: I have 12 employees. Two-thirds of them would come there...
Councilman Boyt: Gentlemen, it seems as though there is a delay...
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know how we can do it.
Dave Stockdale: I don't understand the process. Is there, can you only grant a
variance based on hardship? You can't grant a variance for any other reason?
Acting Mayor Geving: Well, I just don't see the hardship. That's our problem.
Dave Stockdale: I understand. It's a self-imposed hardship but if in fact it's
considered a desirable addition or an acceptable physical additional and the
hardship is not going to grant a variance, are there other...
Acting Mayor Geving: I think that's why the Council is having so much
difficulty with this because I think we would like to have you have your
business right where you're proposing but we can't find a way through our
ordinance to grant the variance.
Councilman Johnson: There are approximately 5 items that all have to be found
in favor of to grant a variance. One of those 5 items is hardship. The other
procedure is to amend the ordinance to where a variance isn't needed which gets
sticky in that you'd have to amend an ordinance to where someone previously,
prior to 1986 or something that was granted a conditional use permit, it gets to
be such a site specific thing that it's seen through completely.
101
?8
City Council Meeting - October lg, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: We would be_ absolutely ruining our ordinance, taking the
teeth out of any ordinance provision we had just to grant this if we wanted to d
that. I can't see us amending the ordinance for this particular case.
Gentlemen, the motion has been made and seconded.
Dave Stockdale: Do I have one more option? Is it too late to withdraw it?
I don't feel I'm able to...
Acting Mayor Geving: You have that right. If you want to withdraw it at this
time, there will be no motion.
Councihnan Horn: Does that make a difference?
Roger Knutson: If he wants to withdraw it before you act on it, that's his
option.
Dave Stockdale: I'm asking to withdraw it for now and bring it back.
Acting Mayor Geving: You want to table it?
Dave Stockdale: Table, I'm sorry.
Councilman Johnson: I make a motion to table it to the 24th.
Acting Mayor Geving: ~nat would be your purpose of doing that Dave?
Dave Stockdale: Since it's pretty late. I don't have the clearest
indication...
Acting Mayor Geving: If you would feel better from a personal standpoint and
making that presentation on the 24th, a motion has been made and I'll second it
to table this item until October 24th.
Councilman Johnson moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to table action on the
conditional use permit request for a contractor's yard for Dave Stockdale per
the applicant's request. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Boyt ~no opposed
and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Councilman Boyt: The reason I'm opposed Dave is because I think you've got a
pretty good sense of where the four of us are coming from. There's some hard
issues here that aren't going to change 2 weeks from now.
Acting Mayor Geving: On the other hand though Bill, I think as a citizen he has
the right to do that and I can't deny him that.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to give him every opportunity. Unless something
amazing comes up...
INFORMATION UPDATE, TH 5 IMPROVEMENTS, MNDOT.
Gary Warren: This is Carl Hoffsted. Planning Manager for MnDot.
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Carl Hoffsted: Msmbers of the Council, I appreciate the opportunity even though
it is the early morning hour, to bring you up to date a little bit on the
activities on TH 5. As many of you know, the time schedule has changed
significantly on TH 5 through the efforts of the community and certain interest
groups in the area. Tne letting dates of a couple of the segments have changed
from November of 1991 to June of 1989 and therefore is really at a trust time
schedule and there's a lot of activities going on. We appreciate the action
that Council took earlier on the segment from the west Hennepin County line to
south of TH 4 and we are moving ahead on that segment for June of 1989 letting.
The activities though that will be coming up in the city of Chanhassen, we've
scheduled an open house on Thursday, October 20th from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 here in
the Council chambers. Just an informal opportunity for people to come in and
chat with us one on one on our plans and follow that up with a public meeting on
the 27th of October. We hope to be able to come to the Council sometime in
November with the improvements for TH 5, as you saw, CR 17 to the West Hennepin
County line. The portion from TH 41 to CR 17 is going to be included in our
project development process even though it is unprogrammed at this time. When
we started this project development process, that project was submitted for
programming. It had a good chance of being included. Unfortunately, it hasn't
been to this date. We're still going forward in anticipation that at some point
in time it will be. We do have a project that is coming up for February letting
and will be from Heritage Road, or just to the east of Heritage Road over to
...Road and that will primarily be the south intersection. Gary has mailed out
notices to a lot of the property owners along TH 5 regarding the open house and
the public meeting. In brief, that's where we're at and what we're trying to
accomplish here on TH 5.
Councilman Boyt: As long as you've been here and waited so long, I have a
question. TH 101, maybe you know. We've been wrestling with TH 101. Do you
have a sense for the time line on when we have to have that resolved?
Carl Hoffsted: Yes I do and I guess if I could maybe simplify the picture a
little bit in saying that once we start a project and to carry it to a contract
letting will be a ten step process. I think we're at step 5 on TH 5 at the
point in time. It would be my opinion that the TH 101 proposals are at about a
step 2. Therefore, there is a need to accelerate some decisions on TH 101 to
bring them into the time line for TH 5. We're ready to go into the final design
right now for TH 5 from South 17 to the west Hennepin County line. The final
design has been started by the consultant for the portion for the portion from
the west Hennepin County line east to Heritage Road already. In order to
maintain a June of 1989 letting, those design plans have to be finished in March
of 1989 so that's only 5 months away.
Councilman Boyt: I have one ther questions. Give me a ballpark on when you're
going to extend it to TH 41.
Carl Hoffsted: I think we had submitted it for 1991-92 timeframe. As I said,
right now design programs might be made available, I think we're talking the
early 90's.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, that's the key question. Do you have any sense of the
probability of money being made available?
103
~ity Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Carl Hoffsted: I don't have right at this point in time. Our programs are re-
evaluated on an annual basis. This is a 6 year program. A 2 year element of
that is the funded program. It will be resubmitted again for programming next
year.
Acting Mayor Geving: What's the probability of getting TH 41 completed before
the U.S. Open? Out to TH 41.
Carl Hoffsted: Out to TH 41. I think out to 17 has a good chance provided we
can get started with the additional frontage over the railroad tracks. That
will be the key element as far as time. Structural time.
Acting [~ayor Geving: Which phase? The one here on TH 5? Right here by 177
Carl Hoffsted: Right. We'll give it a shot.
Councilman Johnson: You may have heard earlier, I don't know if you were here
when we were discussing, yes you were. Whether there's a possibility that
Option 2 and 2A are the type of options where 2 is basically what we have now
except for the north leg being rerouted and then it comes over and goes down the
existing TH lgl. 2A straightens out the existing TH 101 and realigns it
slightly to the west after you have passed Lake Susan, it hooks up. There's
talk that based on the 2g~5 study, we're going to need two left turn lanes off
of TH 5 onto TH 101. Can the design of both those intersections be made to
where either option is feasible without major redesigns of one of those
intersections? So that in the future we can, right now I don't think we need
two left turn lanes. I don't know. If you look at the present traffic, the
traffic ~nrough 1992 and the traffic through 1995, whatever, and say do we need
two left turn lanes? If the answer is no, can we design it to where it is
relatively inexpensive in the future to put a second left turn lane in at either
or both intersections?
Carl Hoffsted: I don't recall the median that they're proposing right at the
present t~me but with the wider median...
Councilman Johnson: Of course there are financial considerations that get
rather complicated in the choice of 2 or 2A but if it came down to slowing down
the design schedule of TH 5, ~Fnat would make that consideration of 2 or 23t, an
increased median width at those 2 intersections, just about solves that problem.
We go ahead and put in a single turn at those intersections and we do the north
side of it, design of Dakota Avenue, because that's where it's going in. We've
got what we need for TH 5 and TH lgl improvements. Then it's a matter of the
financing in the future.
Acting Mayor Geving: Carl, has Fred Hoisington, our consultant discussed this
with you and the options 2 and 2A?
Carl Hoffsted: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: Will your input be part of our options on the 24th?
Gary Warren: [~nDot input is part of it.
Acting Mayor Geving: So we can be assured of Carl's discussion on this.
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Gary Warren: Evan Green in particular~
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, because I see something tonight that you're very
much involved in this and it lends some credibility to Mr. Hoisington's design
package of course on the 24th. I'm sure he's already spoken with you. I want
to make sure that that's included.
Councilman Horn: I just wanted to run past him Jay's question. Could we
reroute, starting immediately, reroute TH 101 to go down through off of TH 5?
We have some real probl~s with the way it's going right now.
Carl Hoffsted: I can't say yes or no right here tonight. I think we'd have to
run it through our staff and our traffic section. Especially as far as the
signing changes and the designation changes. It would have to be a process of
turning back the existing TH 101 route. Either, I think first of all to the
County and then back to the City so there are some complications involved more
than just changing some signs.
Councilman Horn: It would work a lot better than what we have now.
Gary Warren: We were looking for a monitor candidate for our 27th meeting.
Acting Mayor Geving: I assumed that was going to be Mayor Hamilton. I hope.
At least he's the one who should be because Eden Prairie had their Mayor right?
So it would be appropriate for Tom to chair that.
Councilman Horn: I'd like to nominate Clark as a back-up because he has been
involved in the TH 5 as our representative on the cc~ittee. He's got more
knowledge of this than anybody else on the Council besides Gary and Barb Dacy
from Fridley.
Acting Mayor Geving: I agree with you on that. Would you agree to do that
Clark?
Councilman Horn: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, Clark then will be the back-up to the Mayor.
ADOPTION OF MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN.
Councilman Boyt: My question is, how long is the district life?
Don Ashworth: District life under State Statute is, you can exist for 10 years.
8 years of collection and...
Councilman Boyt: But what have we set it at Don?
Don Ashworth: This one here is for Rosemount. It will pay itself off within
slightly more than 2 years.
105
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Resolution #88-11~: Councilman Johnson moved, CounciLnan Horn seconded to
approve the resolwution mcdifying the tax increment plan for the Chanhassen
Downtown Redevelopment Project. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADOPTION OF THE 1989 PROPOSED BUDGET.
Don Ashworth: I know there are some questions regarding the police contract. I
would suggest that those go back to our Public Safety Committee. I basically
presented changes that would bring down or would find the $57,0~g.00. That
gives you the most flexibility in terms of looking at either reducing the police
contract, adding a 24 hour person. I think both of those items should go back
to Public Safety again. This budget just insures that you have total
flexibility.
Acting Mayor Geving: And we have a balanced budget at this time?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Acting Mayor Geving: Any other questions? Jay, you had originally moved for
adoption of this on the Consent Agenda. I was one that, not to put it on the
Consent.
Councilman Johnson: I move adoption of the 1989 budget as proposed by staff.
Acting Mayor Geving: I' 11 second that motion.
Councilman Boyt: I think that, I'll take one more shot at some of the items on
here. I think that we should have a full time CSO. We don't have the full time
and two part times. We need them. It's a good return for our dollar. That
would be my recon~nendation.
Acting Mayor Geving: Did you read though that this is what Don was referring
to. If we approve the budget with the $57,00~.0~, this goes back to Public
Safety for their review. If the money were available, the CSO would be approved
for the full time if that was the wishes of the Public Safety Con~nission. I
think your conxnents and concerns are appropriate but I think the provision in
this budget proposal is there for that.
Councilman Boyt: It's a possibility if the money be found and what I'm
suggesting to you is that the County sets the standards for how much police
protection we have. The County tells us how much we're going to pay for that
police protection. It irritates me. It irritates me from the standpoint of I
don't think we have, even though the Public Safety Commission looks at this and
works through it, I don't feel that we're getting the best services fr~m the
people that we've got and giving them the best chance to do their job. In my
opinion Dale, is that a full time CSO along with the two part times that are
being recommended, would better service that.
CounciLman Horn: What would that run the mil rate to?
Councilman Boyt: What I would propose to you gentlemen, is that we don't have
to have that 24 hours of police service. I don't think that the Public Safety
Commission has looked at that seriously.
106
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: We haven't gone to the County yet and made that proposal
have we? Where we're dropping the $36,000.00. Is that right Jim?
Jim Chaffee: The County budget, the Sheriff's budget has been adopted by the
Board with the 21 hour service for the City right now.
Acting Mayor Geving: So we do have the $36,000.00?
Councilman Boyt: Is that right? We're in a 21 hours?
Jim Chaffee: What they're waiting is for us to make up our minds on whether
we're going to go with the 24 or stay at 21. They did not put in for the 24 in
their budget because... So we're in their budget for 21 hours.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to make my motion a little more comprehensive
than that. We pass this budget as recon~nended by Don and that we refer to the
Public Safety Con~nission that we would like th~m to seriously review the option
of staying at 21 hours on the contract and adding a full time CSO. Utilizing
whatever money different there is there, within the Public Safety Department for
any increasing of on street visibility of some type of uniformed officer. Be it
a CSO or, I believe that we're better served with 8 hours of a CSO on the
streets than 3 hours of a Sheriff on the street.
Acting Mayor Geving: I will second the motion because I believe that's exactly
what the provision is here. Now with this information from the contract that we
do have 21 hours and it's up to our option to use, I would go along with that
and second the motion.
Councilman Boyt: I know because of Don's conservative budget figures that
there's going to be money found as the year goes along, or I anticipate there
will be. I would like the Council to establish a couple of priorities. I thin
that we need to have a priority in bringing in some sort of interim building
inspector during the sun, her in addition to the people we already have. I think,
as I've stated before, that it's inappropriate for us to be charging inspection
money and not spending it in that area. I think the other item that we should
establish as a priority is for an Assistant Planner in addition to what we
already have. That's an overworked area. She's left us but it's one of those
things that, I think those are two priorities and the Council should make it
clear to Don that these are things that we want him to try to find.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think that the third person in the Planning Department
is s~mething that we've talked about alot. I don't know if it's built into the
budget Don but I do know that what you're suggestion sounds more like an annual
goal statement that the new Council would make in January of 1989. This is the
kind of thing that we would establish as a goal objective for the new year. It
would be appropriate for that kind of a proposal, to make that proposal at that
time when we make our goal statement and I think that that will happen. I think
that will happen. I don't think anyone on this Council doesn't recognize the
amount of anquish that went with Barb Dacy when she left knowing that we lost
one heck of a good person. She was overworked. She was stressed out and two
people in that department is just not going to hack it. We're going to need
three people and we all recognize that and somehow or another, we'll squeeze
whatever it takes to make it happen in 1989. Regardless of who sits here, I
107
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
think everybody realizes that. And I agree with what you've just said but I do
believe that it belongs in the goals statement for 1989 to budget as we see it.
We'll make provisions for that. I think that what we did tonight with the
budget proposal that Don has before us and his comments on the CSO and how we
can generate, will also happen in this other area of not only your talk about
planning department. I feel just as strongly about the finance deparhnent.
feel strongly about the finance department. I think Jean and the other person
we have in there is a relative newcomer, have one heck of a lot of work to do.
We don't give those people the amount of credit that .we should because of all
the developments that we've been pushing on them and think of the assessments
processes that we've gone through in the last year. We've had 3 or 4 major
assessments and they do all the background work and do all the work for us so it
makes it easy when it comes to the Council. While you're interested in more
planners, and I am too, I think we ought to look at some of the other areas in
this building where we need help. So those are just part of what I would call
the goals statement for 1989.
Don Ashworth: Help may still be_ possible in the community development area.
That recognizes that the HRA has not finalized their budgetary process. There
is the possibility that that position could be funded through that function.
Basically I'll be posing that question to than at their next meeting.
Councilman Horn: I think what we need to keep in mind is that first of all I
don't think we're approaching this budget... Our position as the City Council
should be to set the mil rate for the year and to give guideance as to
percentage of each department for the total budget. Getting into detailed nitty
gritty about do we add a person here, do we add a person there, is not our
function. That's the function of the City Manager. Our function should .be to
set the mil rate and to give s~e general guidelines in areas that we think need
beefing up. Not numbers of people but areas where we need more help at the
recon~nendations of the City Manager. If he says I need 26% in this area and
I need 25% in that area, that's the area we should be dealing in. All of us
sitting up here and trying to manage a city staff is ridiculous. I think what
we're doing here with this mil levy is we're going too high. The original
recon~nendation was 26.5. I'd like to see us pass 26.5 and then not get into the
nitty gritty on how it's spent. That should be up to the City Manager.
Councilman Johnson: I think it'd be great if we could pass 26.5 but I think
right now I don't think it's feasible. I think if we can maintain what we did
last year, which is what we're trying to do here. Provide for no increase. We
know that we're, as we just discussed, and we feel that we're still short of
staff, even with this 26.67. 5he .13 gets us to the point. I would like in the
long term goals over the next 5 years is to see us try to whittle down that mil
rate. That has been, I think that Council's long term goal for quite a while
and just the circumstances of our rapid expansion in this town has created a
problem of the property tax system in the world or the United States is such
that it takes too long for us to get property taxes where we' re already
providing public support. We don't get dime one from these developments that
we're looking at that we've spent time in 1988 reviewing and trying to get off
the ground, until 1991. We start plowing their snow and Barb's spending her
time and us spending our time and our lawyer's spending his time and spending
money on, so right now I think our development in the city is costing us the
ability to reduce but in the long run that will, as we catch up, decrease our
mil rate.
108
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Councilman Horn: Cutting back is a habit that unless you start doing it, it's
gets out of control and we'll never do it.
Councilman Boyt: Clark, I wish you'd go talk to the County. It disturbs me
when the City basically holds the line on taxes and the County doesn't seem to
feel obligated to do that.
Councilman Horn: That disturbs me as well.
Councilman Boyt: I also agree with your co~ent that the role of the City
Council is much better spent setting general objectives and guidelines and
allowing the administrator to determine specifically how thta will happen. I
don't know what we have to do to get that to happen. I thought we set up that
sort of scenario last year but it seems like the budget comes at us very quickly
and then needs to be approved to meet county guidelines. I think fitting along
the lines of what you just said a few minute ago Dale, this is an excellent
topic for whoever's on the new Council to pick right up with and get a consensus
about where do we do this so Don has something to work with. We keep him in the
dark quite a bit about what our priorities are.
Councilman Horn: And we all have different opinions.
Acting Mayor Geving: The thing that happens here, we all gave Don a statement
that we wanted to see the mil rate go down. He took that and that was our
objective. We really wanted to do that and we still want to do it. We've got
to get the mil levy down to what I consider somewhere around 23 or 24 mils.
Wherever that takes us and that may take us a long time to get there. ~nat we
do generally with this budget is, it's quick. It's dirty. By the time it gets
to the Council for consideration, we're always under the gun to get it out the
same night that we receive it. We should be in this process long before that.
It isn't Don's fault because we started back in September, early September. We
just couldn't get together. We just couldn't get enough of us together to
really go with this. It was with a lot of relunctance when I looked at that
$42,000.00 and decided in my own mind that if we could just hold the line, we'd
be lucky this year. We've added a lot of people. A lot of things have happened
to chew up that 15% so I feel good that we've at least been able to stay even
and not have the levy increase. Certainly our long term goal has got to be to
reduce that mil levy and give DOn the options he needs to carry out the budget
process. How we do that, we each have our own little pet projects. That's the
way it is. ~nat's the nature of the beast. Some of us like trails. Some of us
like people on CSO's. But the fact of the matter is, we've got a balanced
budget at this time. We've got some discussion. The motion has been made.
It's been seconded.
Councilman Horn: I have one quick comment. I think it's easy to look and
compare ourselves with the County and say gee, we're really doing a good job. I
don't think that's where we look. I think we have to look at how we compare
with other cities. When we look at other cities, I don't think we're doing that
good a job.
Acting Mayor Geving: I can tell you one thing Clark, you've sat here for quite
a while, I only know of one budget increase that affected the taxpayers in the
last 10 years.
109
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1988
Councilman Horn: Businesses?
Acting Mayor Geving: No, I'm talking about individual property owners. In 1983
was the only time that I know of where we actually had something that affected
your pocketbook and we can go on record with that time and we're going to
continue to do that.
Councilman Horn: I can tell you that we're going to lose businesses along the
MUSA line if we don't do something about this mil rate because it's more
advantageous for them to be annexed into Chaska.
Acting Mayor Geving: Well, there's a lot of reasons for it but I think we all
know where we' re going with this thing and we've got some ideas on how we can
continue to work with Don and get this down.
Resolution ~88-111: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
adopt the 1989 budget as proposed by the City Manager and to relay to the Public
Safety C~mission to seriously review the option of staying at 21 hours on the
contract and adding a full time CSO. All voted in favor except Councilman
Horn who opposed and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
CounciLman Horn: Back in July we said we wanted to establish a form of
government committee to look at putting that item on the referendum. I have not
heard boo about that committee since.
Councilman Boyt: I understood it a little differently.
Councilman Johnson: I did too.
Acting Mayor Geving: As I understand the question that was posed that night,
I don't have the date of that meeting.
Councilman Horn: July 25th.
Acting Mayor Geving: Clark posed a question about a precinct type of election
format. Elective precincts. There was a discussion. Roger had some input on
it as to how it was carried out. I believe there was a motion and the motion
was carried 3 to 2 in favor of moving ahead to looking at the possibility for
election precincts. Now I think the vote carried and I don't know whatever
happened beyond that.
Councilman Johnson: And did it call for a referendum in November?
Acting Mayor Geving: No, it did not.
Councilman Horn: NO, but it said there would be study con~nittee put together to
see if the issue would be put on the referendt~n in November.
110
City Council Meeting - October 10~ 1988
Don Ashworth: I didn't recall this one at all. I must not have been at that
meeting. Though I did talk to other council members, I had Karen look through
the Minutes. She did not find anything. I'm happy you stated a date of July
25th.
Councilman Boyt: As I recall, Roger, who unfortunately is still here, brought
up the point that it's really not a referendum issue. This is something where
the Council decides to call a body together that becomes a separate governing
group.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's a Charter Commission.
Councilman Boyt: Charter Commission. That's not 'a referendum issue. That's
something the Council decides to do or not to do.
Acting Mayor Geving: As I understand it, the Council had decided because we had
a 3 to 2 vote.
Councilman Boyt: No, we decided to have the study group.
Acting Mayor Geving: No, not the charter. Only a group. Roger, could you
remember your con~ents on that?
Roger Knutson: My recollection is that you decided to have a committee to look
at it. Not to rush down... You're limited to the Charter Commissions...
Acting Mayor Geving: I guess from Clark's standpoint he says what happens next?
Councilman Horn: What happened to that motion?
Don Ashworth: Like I said, until Clark had called 2 to 3 weeks ago saying how
come this item isn't on the referendum, I did't know...
Councilman Johnson: I think that was when you were on your back with your back
problem.
Don Ashworth: I have no idea because I have no notes of that. We have a follow
up staff meeting after every one of our council meetings. I do not recall ever
presenting that or having it discussed.
Acting Mayor Geving: It was not intended as a referendum item for this fall.
I don't believe we were that far along. We were asking for a study.
Councilman Horn: We implied it could.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's have Don review and see where We're going. Than
Bill, did you want to talk about Robert Pierce?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. His property on Lake Minnewashta. I think that the
Councilmembers, when you get a chance, you should drive by that piece of
property and see what they've done to it. Those trees that the forester labeled
as, I think trash trees is the term, were probably 50 feet high, 12 inches and
up in diameter and they're leveled.
111
Council Meeting - October t0, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: ~nat kind of trees where they? Cottonwoods or something
like that?
Councilman Boyt: I don't think they were Box Elders but neverthreless they were
tall trees that .were a substantial part of the landscape. They've been cutting
and burning out there steady. You should just go take a look at what's left, or
not left.
Councilman Horn: Do you they have a burning permit?
Councilman Boyt: I think they did have a pennit as long as they manned the
site. That's ~nat I heard.
Acting Mayor Geving: Do you want any action on that Bill?
Councilman Boyt: I don't think there's anything we can do.
Acting Mayor Geving: Why don't you check on that Gary?
Gary Warren: Yes, I'll talk to Jo Ann as far as the forester is concerned.
Councilman Johnson: I just wanted to show to the Council, we talked about it
several times but I went out last month and photographed and helped Public
Safety review the drums of waste material which are out there. I believe it's
paint sludge fr~m apparently a commercial painting operation from the colors and
the quantities involved here which were illegally stored at this site. 7~ney've
been 'there a considerable period of time. There's been about 4 inches of ground
which has formed around th~n in this forest as the leaves decompose and the
ground forms up from where they originally set so they've been there for quite a
while. There's only one drum with a label on it that is still readable and that
was a military lubricant. It's not filled with paint sludge. It's dated 1954.
I have a bunch of pictures of it if anybody wants to look at the pictures.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 a.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
112