1988 07 11CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
·
JULY 11, 1988
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag. · ~
COUNCILM~4BERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn~ Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara
Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori Sietse~a, Jim Chaffee, and Todd Gerhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
approve the agenda with tt~ following additions: Roger Knutson wanted to
discuss a land transfer and Councilman Geving wanted to discuss the M~tropolitan
Goose Hunt. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda itens pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendation:
d. Resolution ~88-67: Approval of (~ange Order No. 1 for Public Works Garage.
e. Resolution #88-68: Approval of Change Order No. 2 for Ground Storage
Reservoi r.
k. Resolution ~88-69: Resolution Eliminating Plan Check Fees for Construction
Projects Valued at less than $3,000.00.
1. Set Special Meeting Date for Assessment Hearings. ~{~%{,~ S~-7~
m. ~--~',~-.__v_____.. .v~ ~', ~. Approve Contract for Lake Ann Park Expansion, OSM.
n. Approval of Develo~m~ent Contract for Minnewashta Meadows.
o. Approval of Accounts.
p. City Council Minutes dated June 27, 1988
Planning Oanmission Minutes dated June 1, 1988 and June 15, 1988
Park and Recreation Oan~i~ion Minutes dated June 28, 1988
Ail voted in favor ar~ the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: (A) APPROVAL OF M?X~L~ BAKERY GRADING PLAN.
Councilman Johnson: On l(a) I've got, I'd like to add a condition 11 and I'd
also like to make a cc~m~t on the fact that the hours of operation, 6:30 to
11:00 p.m., ws have 4 people living around there. It wouldn't have ~_n that
tough to go and talk to those 4 people. I did stop and talk to Jim McMahon
today ar~ he diverted the conversation elsewhere so I never really got an answer
from him as to whether he was too objectionable to that or not. I think that
would have ~ very simple to do with only 4 or 5 families to contact and ask
City Council ~ting - July 11, 1988
them beforehand.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there some reason that condition 11 that you're w~nting to
impose should be placed on this developer and not others?
Councilman Johnson: In fact I'm going to be hoping to put this on most every
developer. I'm talking to staff on adding this as kind of a standard condition.
I've observed this in several construction sites already. ~ condition that
I'm asking to add is about motor oil. Originally it was just motor oil and than
I expanded it as I got thinking about it. Wnat I've seen at other sites is the
maintenance crew for the big bulldozers ccme out. They drop the bolt out of the
bottc~ of the engine and dump the oil on the ground and pull the oil filters
off. Leave th~n on the ground and then they change the oil on their equipment.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have some way that you think we're going to be able to
enforce this?
Councilman Johnson: As well as we can enforce any other condition we put on
into the other 10 conditions.
Mayor Hamilton: I think a lot of them are very easily enforceable and this one
is going to mean that you're going to have scmeone at the site everI~lay
inspecting the ground where their tractors have been. It just seemed to me that
it's one that's going to be very, very difficult to enforce. It's not a bad
idea but it's very difficult to enforce.
Councilman Johnson: Anyway, I'd like to add it anyway. Let me read it into the
record then. Condition 11, any used motor oil, hazardous waste, hazardous
material or recyclable material resulting from the maintenance of equipment or
discovered on site will be r~moved frc~ the site and treated and disposed of in
a manner consistent with the Carver County hazardous waste ordinances and State
of Minnesota laws, rules and regulations as applicable. It's kind of a general.
If you change your oil on site, you're going to do something other than to stick
it in the ground and if you do other maintenance with solvents, you're going to
do something with it. Or if you discover barrels while you're digging, you run
into barrels, you're going to do something with them versus moving them.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that' s common practice.
Councilman Johnson: It certainly should be but it's kind of just a warning that
we'll keep an eye on it.
Councilman Geving: I guess I don't appreciate getting a major amendment to a
construction contract at this stage in the game. If it were a one time deal
that's one thing but this is something that you intend to apply across the board
and I think ~ need to talk about these kinds of changes rather than apply them
the night that we're going to approve a grading, drainage and erosion control
plan. That's all I have.
Councilman Horn: I'm wondering why he's limiting it to resulting from the
maintenance of equil~nent. This leaves it wide open for any other type of thing
that's not related to the maintenance.
Councilman Johnson: Or it says, or discovered on site.
City Council Meeting - JUly 11~ 1988
119
Mayor Hamilton: Such as?
Councilman Horn: Such as? Well, any other types of materials that you might
use in construction that w~uld be dangerous that w~uld be stored on there. Not
necessarily the maintenance. There might be some penta work preservatives or
scmething in that category.
Mayor Hamilton: I think he's included hazardous waste and hazardous material.
Wouldn't that cover it?
Councilman Horn: That's true but mypoint is, it's resulting from the
maintenance of equipment. I'm saying that's really not necessary. You want it
be all inclusive. Whether it's used for that or anything else. Anything that's
on the site should be fair game.
Councilman Johnson: I agree with you. After material strike, resulting from
maintenance of eguii~ent or discovered on site. So just say material will be
removed from the site and treated so the two low conditions.
Councilman Horn: Right.
Councilman Boyt: It would seem to me that this is already covered by State
Statute and EPA ar~ all w~'re doing is puttirg in scmethirg that already exists
in the State level into a develolmment contract. How does that change our
ability to enforoe it?
Mayor Hamilton: ~nis is not in the development contract. It's one of the
conditions of the approval.
Councilman Boyt: Real similar kind of thing.
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't increase our ability to enforce it but it puts
notice upon the contractor that wa're concerned about it and that we'll be
looking for it. If that thought did cross scmebody's mir~ as to whether, let's
change our oil or whatever. Right now it's a common practice it seems tome.
I've seen it several places in town where they changed the oil on the bulldozer,
it's just drained out onto the property.
Councilman Boyt: I agree. We've talked about this before and I certainly
support what you're doing. My question is, isn't it already available to us in
the same extent that we're saying?
Councilman Johnson: It's just a preventative measure.
Mayor Hamilton: Anything else on l(a)? If not a motion would be in order to
accept it with the additional condition.
Councilman Johnson: I move wa accept item l(a) with conditions 1-1~ and
condition 11 as presented here and as modified.
Councilman Horn: I' 11 second it.
Mayor Hamilton: I'll just make one further comment that I would hope the City
or the developer will notify all surrounding property owners. All of th~.
studio and the people at Kerber's. The nursery. There are several residents
around there and notify everybody so they know what the hours of operation are
going to be.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the M~Glynn Bakery
Grading Plan with the 10 conditions as outlined by staff with the addition of
the following condition:
11. Any used motor oil, hazardous waste, hazardous material or recyclable
material will be r~moved fr~m the site and treated or disposed of in a
manner consistent with Carver County hazardous waste ordinances and State
of Minnesota laws, rules and regulations as applicable.
Ail voted in favor '~ ~ motion carried.
Gary Warren: One clarification. Is it Council's desire then that w~ include
this condition into our general conditions?
Mayor Hamilton: I think that should be put on for discussion.
Gary Warren: Roger and I will put something together and make reference to
State Statute.
CONSENT AGENDA: (B) APPROVAL OF OONTRACT WITH BRAUN TESTING FOR ROAD RATINGS.
Mayor Hamilton: I just wanted to ask a question I guess more than anything. A
c(m~ent in here that there are several roads that w~ know are bad and we're
going to have tested. If we already know they're bad, why do we need to waste
money testing them to tell us that they are bad like we already know? It seems
like we're wasting money here.
Gary Warren: Bad is maybe a bad choice of w~rds. Several of the roads,
especially the present Minnewashta Parkway, we expect to have bad spots which
are going to require maybe total excavation, soil correction work whereas other
areas which we'll be able to, will only need a minimum upgrade such as the 1 or
2 inch overlay. ~ne utility of this type of inspection is for us to be able to
get that type of a reading on any of the roads here that we consider to be in
non-sealcoating or on nonmaintenance type of a category so we don't just
blatantly r~m~ove courses of road that really don't need. Also, this does give
us the depth of the overlay, 1 inch, 2 inch or whatever that will save us s(m~e
dollars down the road.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I wasn't clear. It seemed like we were just having
th~m tell us something that ~ already knew.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Contract with
Braun Testing for Road Ratings as presented by the City Manager. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
City Council M~eting - JUly 11~ 1988
IZl
CONSENT AGENDA: (F) WOO~CREST SUBDIVISION]
Councilman Johnson: I think this duplicates what's probably in the develolament
contract on l(f). The way condition number 2 ended, the last sentence on it
was, all erosion control shall renain intact until an established vegetation
cover has ~ produced. Leaving it at that point some developers may be
inclined to go on their way as soon as their vegetative cover is produced, in
their opinion, go out and renove their erosion control so what I'm suggesting
w~'re add to the end of that sentence is, and the City Engineer approves their
r~noval. In the develoIazent contract I believe what w~ say is the City will do
the removal. I think w~ worked out s~ne way to where the developer could also
do the removal with your blessing.
Gary Warren: With one exception on Woodcrest.
Councilman Johnson: And this is Woodcrest isn't it?
Gary Warren: Yes. From the data here, actually erosion control and some of
these are thoroughly covered in our general conditions. The wording is more
appropriate in the general conditions because we spent more time with it there
and this is almost redundant.
Mayor Hamilton: I would think so since wa're the ones that are removing it. It
seeas to me w~'re not going to remove it until w~ approve it to be removed.
Gary Warren: And that is in the develoumant contract.
Councilman Johnson: What I didn't want is the two conditions to be different.
Gary Warren: When we actually core, pile the develofzm~nt contract, w~ get rid of
the redundancies and we put then in here so that there are key...that Council is
aware that we haven' t missed or forgotten about. Sometimes it' s hard to
r~member whether we got everything.
Councilman Johnson: So do you have a problem with adding it?
Gary Warren: It's really already covered in the general conditions.
Councilman Johnson: Of the develoim~nt contract?
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Johnson: It is at the discretion of the City.
Mayor Hamilton: I would approval of item l(f).
Councilman Geving: Second.
Councilman Boyt: I have a comment before we rush into a vote here. On the tree
removal plan, I would like s~me assurance. When I read in Staff comments that
the proposed grading plan calls for the removal of all trees within the northern
half of the lots, I get nervous. I know we had discussion as it also notes in
staff co~ents that this will go through DNR and City Engineer approval. I want
to be reassured that they're not going to come in and just wipe the trees off
t22
City Council Meeting - JUly 11, 1988
the northern half of the lot. That's on the last paragraph on the first page.
Councilman Johnson: The plans have always shown the entire areas to be regraded
with a couple of fills. ~ne entire north half of the lot except for maybe one
lot. I think I pointed that out last time.
Councilman Boyt: I thought that's where we got into the restraints about having
that approved before they were cut.
Councilman Horn: That's under 8(b) isn't it? A tree removal plan will be
reviewed by the DNR forester.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. ~nat's what we talked about earlier. Does that give us
the protection we need Gary?.
Councilman Johnson: What do you think we're going to actually see there? Do
you think there will be any trees star~ing?
Gary Warren: I think you're right in that there will be a lot of trees removed
because that's where the storm sewer is going to be going. With the amount of
slope along the roadway there, in order to establish reasonable building pads to
handle the amount of material with side slopes and there will definitely be a
lot of trees removed.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Plans and
Specifications and the Development Contract for Woodcrest Subdivision as
presented by the City Manager. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
CONSENT AGENDA: (H) AUTHORIZE INTERIM SEWER AND k%TER SERVICE, BEDDOR
PROPERTY, WEST 184TH STREET AND TH 5.
Councilman Johnson: I was going to pull it and I found out that the proposer
wants it pulled also until they can be here. Later on tonight. They weren't
able to make it here at this time. ~ney want to change what they're proposing
here to us anyway and not ask for quite so much as what is here. What I was
pulling it for was the fact that there was not a clear concise statsment in the
recommendation on the report. It just blended in within the report. I think
I understand the rec~zmendation but on a consent agenda item I'd like to see the
last paragraph saying exactly what the r~ndation is. That way there's no
argument from anybody at the end but I'd like to hold this one off until the
applicant gets here. I assume the applicant's not here yet. This is the Beddor
property.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I had a co~ent on this one also. I was a little
surprised to see that the item was on to authorize the interim sewer and water
service and then in the report is suggested that ws deny allowing this to be
done. I think it should be stated in the consent that this be denied not
approved.
Councilman Geving: It's the approval of the denial.
City Council Meeting - JUly 11~ 1988
123
Mayor Hamilton: That's not the ~ay it ccmes across. The way I read (h) is,
w~'re authorizing interim sewer and water but the report does say that you
recxam~nd that we deny it.
Gary Warren: I apologize for that. When we went to publishing the iten, at
that time we hadn't all the details for the ~ service and I was presuming
that we weren' t going to have a problem because I was led to believe that there
was capacity built into the systen. However, after looking into it a little bit
further we do, as I laid out in the staff report, have some constraints that we
need to work with. I did have a phone call discussion with Mr. Darrell Fortier
fr~m Frank Beddor's operation and he clarified to me that actually their request
for a ccm~nihnent fr~m the City was a little bit, what should I say, less
harmless than what I first reacted to in that all that they're asking at this
time is that any excess capacity, if any that we would have in our system at the
time that this property, which could be even a year or two down the road, at the
time that this property was cc~ing up for develo~t, that if the City could
cc~mit that yes, if we did have excess capacity after looking at our Park One
cc~ni~~, that w~ would be agreeable to servicing that property. Not that we
would just wait and say hey, we're going to service you. They understand that
we have cc~mzitments and such to the existing Park One develola~_=nt in which Mr.
Beddor obviously has an interest.
Mayor Hamilton: So Darrell is going to be here to present some additional
information?
Gary Warren: Darrell is going to be here and Bill. Smith to clarify the
discussion and their letter request, yes. He thought that he probably couldn't
be here until after 8: 30.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table this itsm until later
in the agenda per the applicant's request. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
CONSENT A~: (I) AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE BIDS FOR 1988 STREET SEAIX3DATING
PROJECT.
Councilman Geving: We had authorized 2 mils for this operation. Over the last
4 or 5 years we've done a pretty good job in the city. I have no problem with
what you' re requesting Gary except that you' re asking for $42,000.00 and we do
have $110,000.00 available. One of the things that I would like to see is a
complete schematic of all the work that we have completed to date by roads and ·
subdivisions and all the plans that you might have for the use of this 2 mils
over the next several years so that we complete all of the projects that we have
planned in the long term. I guess what I was looking for here is a map showing
just exactly what we have done and where we are going with the problem and how
are we going to spend the roughly $60,000.00 that will be not utilized for
sealcoating. Could you ~t on that?
Gary Warren: We do have a complete map that hangs on the wall in my office and
I apologize for not including that, which does show per year what we have done.
That is what we looked at to review this year's programs. The difference in the
dollars fr~m the $60,000.00 plus that looks like we wouldn't be utilizing for
sealcoating this year, we are looking to utilize in some form of overlay project
124
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
this year that w~uld be a result of the road grader w~rk that we just recently
approved here tonight. Because we needed more information on the road grader
and because of the weather conditions, we want to get the sealcoating going in
August, we split that package and expect to be c~uing back to the Council with
an overlay program.
Councilman Geving: That's the only question I have.
~oJlutizn 9~2-71: Councilman Gevingmoved, Councilman Horn seconded to
authorize to take bids for 1988 Sealcoating Project. All voted in favor and the
'motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION:
A1Klingelhutz: As you probably all know...Western Railroad line in the
southern part of Chanhassen is very possibly up for abandonment in a very short
time. Last year the Soo Line acquired an interest in that property and it
looked like it was going to be c~ming up for abandor~ent for about 2 years. Last
w~ek we were informed that abandonment process could possibly start taking place
yet in July. We discussed this at length at the County Board meeting and felt
that we should come and see the City of Chanhassen and the City of Chaska w~ich
this line affects mostly frc~a the fact that it's going to deadend in the City of
Chaska. What we'd like fromChanhassen is an idea of what they're tops are, if
Carver County through their railroad authority would acquire this land when it
becomes abandoned, what they would put into their comprehensive plan as the use
for that line and any other stipulations that might come up on it. We'd like to
have this as soon as possible. We know this came up rather suddenly now because
it was expected not to happen for about 2 years and it's possible that we're
going to have to take s~me action yet this month. Taat's about the extent of
it. I've got a lot of material here. I'll leave this with Barb or whoever and
they can go over it. Hennepin County is proceeding quite strongly for this
transit line ar~ they have selected the southwest corridor which is the line
that goes through Chaska for their 20 years transit improvement program so
I think it's something that Chanhassen should think about quite strongly.
Carver County has not decided if we want a transit line. We want to look at
what the cities want to do about it and the feasibility of it before we take
s~me action on it.
Councilman Horn: Would that have any impact on the upgrading of TH 5 since part
of the plan to upgrade TH 5 would be to remove the overpass?
A1 Klingelhutz: Tnat's one of the things that will cc~e up in discussion.
Councilman Horn: I wouldn't want to do anything that would jeopardize TH 5.
A1 Klingelhutz: We discussed that at the County meeting and they thought very
possibly it would be an overpass of the new highway 5 construction. The road
goes over the railroad now. When the rail transit would c~me in, TH 5 would go
under the transit.
Councilman Johnson: If you're looking for comments as to what we think, I think
the City should have been on the rail authority in the first place because while
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
125'1
the entire rail is within the fbunty, it's also c~pletely within our t~ cities
and when the light rail transit authority was set up, I w~uld have liked to have
seen the City of Chanhassen and the City of Chaska be offered a position on that
authority. If they are offering us a position on a citizen's advisory
cc~mission, I'm all for that.
A1 Klingelhutz: ~at w~ want at the present time is s(m~ething from the City of
Chanhasse~ ar~ something from the City of Chaska of what their ideas of what
should be done with that railroad right-of-way.
Mayor Hamilton: I suspect that whatever is done, w~'ll want to participate and
we'll want Barb to put this on a future agenda it~n so we can review it a little
further and then give you a specific recommendation back. We'll have it on our
agenda for July 25th and then we'll make a reco~m~ation back to you. We'll
make a recommendation to the County ar~ get it down to you at that time.
PUBLIC HEARING: HIDDEN v~rI.RY TRAIL REALIGNMENT.
Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public bearing was closed.
Councilman Boyt: I think the key is that staff ~ms telling us that the changes
are equally developable as the trail and as long as they are, it's alright with
~.solution 988-72: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve
the request for the trail realig~mm~t for Hidden Valley and that United Mortgage
~ny be directed to inform all of the existing homeowners of the new
alignment. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: MI~SHTA ~ PUBLIC IMPROV~I~gT PRfklfET.
Mayor Hamilton: We received bids rarging frc~ $133,865.50 high to a low of
$98,027.95. That bid ~as sut~itted by the Northdale Construction ~y and
it's your reccmmendation that we acce~ that bid?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Resolution 988-73: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept
the bid from Northdale Construction Company in the amount of $98,827.95 for the
Minne~shta F~adows Public Improv~t Project. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMd~T TO AMEND SECTION 20-1255 2(A) AND 2(C) TO PERMIT
LARGER ON-PRMMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRED 4 SQ. FT., DATASERV.
Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody need any additional information on this?
Councilman Boyt: No.
Councilman Geving: If we're going to vote, on the recc~nended change, I'd like
to ask why you put in residential properties? Does that have any value in the
IOP? In this case there aren't any usually in the areas. I'd like to strike
that word and just let it read, affect adjacent properties. Council have any
problem with that? I just want to strike residential and leave it read,
adversely affect adjacent properties of the general appearance of the site. No
other ~ents.
Mayor Hamilton: Tnat's in Section 2.
Councilman Geving: Section 2(c).
Roger Knutson: Is that in both sections? The w~rd residential?
Councilman Geving: Yes. The word residential is in both (a) and (c).
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Section 20-1255 2(a)
and 2(c) as amended. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
ADOPTION OF LAKE LUCY ROAD ASSESSMENT ROLL.
Mayor Hamilton: This item was carried over from the pervious council meeting
and there were some questions at that time that hopefully have all been
answered. Is there any Don that you think need to be addressed? Since I missed
that meeting, perhaps you could...
Councilman Geving: Maybe I could fill you in for a moment Mr. Mayor. We had a
good discussion on the 27th. We received approximately 7 letters questioning
various areas of the assessment roll and that night we gave back to our staff a
number of these con~nents and asked that they research the questions that were
posed by the residents. I believe our file tonight would show that. I would
hope that in every case where there was a resident who sukmitted a letter or
asked a question, that we record it in the official Minutes that they will
receive a response just like we received here at the Council tonight. That's
the extent of our cc~nents to date and then I also asked as a part of the
comments to see if there was any other way that we could either defer the
assessments. S~meone had suggested on the Council that it was a possibility
that we defer these assessments for a particular individual who may have a large
amount of frontage. We did get an Attorney's opinion on that and that is part
of our package. Then today I suggested to our engineer that possibly we could
extend the period of time from 8 years to 10 years. I didn't have the results
of that request but that's about where we' re at Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Hamilton: And were you able to find out anything about the 10 year
extension?
10
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Don Ashworth: I did that. I handed out this evening a sheet that shows the
effects of deferring the assessment. What occurs is the city continues to need
to pay those bonds. I used $120,~00.00 as a total defezment amount. If the
Council deferred or changed all of the~ from 8 to 10 years, that amount would
really be $200,000.00 so it would mean in the first years instead of being the
$3,000.00 showing, you would have to levy $5,000.00, $4,500.00, $4,100.00. That
would taper down to the year 1995 and then at that point you would actually be
receiving assessments back eve~ though the bonds had already ~ paid. In
those years we would receive $23,021.00 even though w~ had already paid the
bonds off two years prior to that date.
Mayor Hamilton: Does that answer your question?
Councilman Geving: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have any other coaments?
Councilman Geving: I don't have any other c(mments.
Councilman Johnson: What does that do to scmebody with $1,000.00 asses~nent?
With this going from 8 years to 10 years dollarwise do for ~? Do you have
any idea on that?
DOn Ashworth: Again, all of the figures are relative so instead of saying
$120,000.00, if you wanted to make it $1,200.00, then the palm~ent would be
$258.00 in c~rison to $228.00 so the individual then would be paying an extra
$25.00. It would be $25.00 less.
Councilman Geving: The reason I asked for that, we did receive at least one
letter requesting this very action ar~ then I was thinking of several of the
people who had very large assessments and se~ to feel that if this ~are
extended out several more years, it might be to their benefit. I don't know. It
goes both ways.
Councilman Boyt: It strikes me that we're caught in a difficult position. We
have a bill to pay that our auditors ar~ attorney are telling us that this would
adversely impact on our bood rate, if I read that correctly. So on the one hand
we have people who are facing potential palanents here of $18,000.00, single
individuals, which ~ like a fairly high assessment to me. It looks as
though we have no means of giving relief to those people. It seens to me if
we're talking about merely extending it from 8 years to 10 years, that it's
hardly worth the effort. Is that the best w~ can do and does even doing that
then give us a negative impact on our bond rating? DOn, does this adversely
affect our bond rating if we do it this way?
Don Ashworth: Not if we would make the yearly levies that are shown on there
that I would propose. In other words, if you moved the entire schedule what it
would amount to is this next fall, staff would have to make sure that we levy
that $5,000.00. The following year, $4,500.00, etc.. As long as that were
done, then in looking at any one of those funds, you would not find a deficit
that I hsd eluded to in this report, or that the auditor had.
Councilman Boyt: So this is a possible option then? It seems reasonable but is
11
City C:ouncil ~e~.ing - ~uly 1l~ 1988
it significant? Do we have any people here that we might find out if they are
interesting in reducing their assessment plan?
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'm not clear that it reduces it. Tne payment is
actually higher if extended for 2 years longer.
Councilman Johnson: They'll pay more interest in the long run.
Councilman Boyt: More interest but it will be less per month.
Mayor Hamilton: Their payment will be a little bit less per month. Maybe
$30.00.
Councilman Boyt: So if you had an $18,000.00 assessment though, wouldn't that
amount to a good bit more per month?
Mayor Hamilton: It depends on your philosophy and how you like to pay those
things I guess.
Councilman Boyt: Can we offer this option and people can take a choice as to
what schedule they want to pay off of.
Mayor Hamilton: There are several people here who are interested in this and
had made comments at the last meeting. Perhaps we could take a couple of
cc~nents to see some of those who may be affected, whether you would rather have
it on an 8 year or 10 year, just to give us an idea of what some of your
thinking might be. Does anybody want to volunteer?
Don Mezzenga, 6731 Galpin Blvd.: Mr. Mayor, there are lots of questions brought
up at the last meeting that weren't given proper answers. If I may take a few
minutes, I would just like to review my objections to the assessment so those
points are very clear. May I do that?
Mayor Hamilton: If they're the same questions you made last time, I guess
everybody has heard them.
Don Mezzenga: They're a little better organized this time. I've had a ~ek to
think about it and getting some help.
Mayor Hamilton: Be very brief I guess.
Don Mezzenga: I'll be as brief as I can. There are three points. One, I
question the assessment of $22.00 per foot for the folks in our area. People on
the west end of Lake Lucy Road. As I understand it from the Phase 1, the people
there were assessed $11.00 per foot because they had an existing road, therefore
less preparation and so on. We on the west end also had an existing road 67
road was there and the road had less work. We're assessed twice that which the
people were assessed on the east end for the same requirements. Point two,
Councilman Geving gave the only justification for my being assessed $18,000.00
for my piece of property and that was that he thought, he thought it was worth
it. Now that's kind of a nebulous answer. But his answer was food for thought
so I went to someone who does this for a living. My piece of property has a
very fine road to the west, Oounty Road 117, Galpin Boulevard. It had a very
nice gravel road to the north which is not Lake Lucy Road. I asked this
12
City Council Meeting - July 11~ 1988
assessor, this appraiser, how much has my property gained in value due to that
road? Now I had a road to the north. I still have a very good road to the
w~st. I mentioned after he gave me the answer that I was assessed $18,000.00.
This is an objective person. Don't know the man from Adam. He doesn't see
where you can justify assessing the road, that piece of property $18,000.00.
The land value hasn' t increased that much. The land was there before. The two
roads were there before. The third point is the one that's kind of a sore spot
with me and that is, sc~e of the developed areas, for example the Pheasant Hills
area has some 50 hc~es. 50 homes. The total assessment for 50 hemes was
$9,60~.00. Those people, those 50 homes use that new road to live. I'm one
farmer on the corner. I don't use the road. Never have used the road. If I
want to develop my land, I'll use CR 117. It's a much better road. The new
road with the very horrible inclines they produced because they raised the bed,
makes access, at least the road for me if I were a developer, very poor. Let me
repeat that now. 50 hcmes, 5~, were assessed totally $9,600.00. My one
$18,4~0.00. This is a horrible injustice.
Mayor Hamilton: How many feet do you have on Lake Lucy Road?
Don Mezzerga: I don't know. I'm sure the City Engineer could tell you exactly.
Mayor Hamilton: How many feet does Pheasant Hill have on Lake Lucy Road?
Don Mezzenga: I don't know that.
Mayor Hamilton: Zero. JUst so everl~oody knows what we're talking about.
DOn ~zzenga: Do they use the road?
Mayor Hamilton: Everybody in town can use that road.
Don M~zzenga: Must they use the road?
Mayor Hamilton: No they must not.
Don M~zzenga: Do they use it more than I?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. I have no idea how much they. use it~ The people
who live in Pheasant Hills do not have to use that road.
Don Mezzenga: The point remains, there' s a tremendous injustice here. I hope
that you men would put your collective heads together and try to resolve a
horrendous injustice.
Mayor Hamilton: If we w~re to extend the original question ~s, we were trying
to find out if you or others were interested in extending it two year. The
payment period. In favor of 8 years. 10 years.
Don Mezzenga: An extension would simply cost me a great ntm~er of more dollars.
I don't need that. I appreciate your thinking about it. It's a valid
alternative.
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, when you build a road to a standard s~mewhat to Lake Lucy
Road, what does it cost per foot?
[~ty Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Gary Warren: Tne cost per foot to build a State Aid Road would be $50.00 to
$65.00 a foot.
Mayor Hamilton: And we're assessing back to the property owners $22.00 and...
Gary Warren: $22.20 and $11.25.
Mayor Hamilton: The $11.25, perhaps you could clarify that for us again. Where
the difference came in between the $11.25 and the $22.00.
Gary Warren: The $11.25 dealt with the existing Lake Lucy R~ad aligrm~nt and
that the road was existing in some sort. The $22.20 was to address the new
real igrment of Lake Lucy.
Mayor Hamilton: Are there any other residents that would like to comment on the
8 year or 10 year? Larry?
Larry Kerber: I don't want to ~t on that but I've got a statement here
that is false. My name is Larry Kerber. I live at 6420 Powers and the property
affected is at the corner of Lake Lucy RDad and Powers Blvd.. Gary's response,
I guess number two in your m~norandum and I don't know if you guys base a
decision on this but that response is incorrect. I did not have a road. That
was accumulation of patches, sealcoating and dust. The road that was r~oved in
front of my property was installed in 1976 as part of the Carver Beach sewer and
water project. It's installed the same way to the same specifications. That
road is still there and it's in good shape. My road was in good shape before it
was taken out. It was a brand new road in 1976 and it was not accumulation of
patching and sealcoating. Further down Lake Lucy it was but not in front of my
property. I just wish you w~uld consider that because it just does not se~m
logical to me to have a brand new road in 1976 and 10 years later, a road that
I never used in those first 10 years so I don't know how I ever benefitted. It
was $600.00 per unit. I had no benefit out of it. To tear it out 10 years
later and make me pay for another road.
Mayor Hamilton: Tnanks Larry. Do you want to cc~x~ent on the 8 or 10 year?
Larry Kerber: No.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there anybody else who wants to make a c~m~ent. If not I
think we need to make a decision here. Certainly it's always hard to face
change and to accept progress I guess. I'm certainly hoping that all of the
streets in' the City of Chanhassen will be paved one day. There are still a few
r~maining that are not and those people who live on those properties that aren't
paved, they're certainly going to cost something to do that. I guess it wasn't
any different than when Clark and I had the street done in front of our house.
Everybody in town didn't pay for it but can use the street and I guess I wasn't
very happy about paying for it either but at the same time it needed to be done
so it's one of those unfortunate things. I think that the price we're assessing
the people along that street, it seems to me to be a pretty good buy. It's a
lot to pay, there's no question about that but a lot less than paying $60.00 a
foot. Any other comments?
14
City Council Meeting - July 11~ 1988
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that if we extend the schedule to 10 years, it
can always be paid off early by the individual property owners. We may give
s~me people an opportunity at relief. I'd like to see us do that. If that's as
long as we can extend it, then I think we should. I wasn't here when the road
was originally assessed and I've listened to this and tried to learn a bit from
the discussion but tt~ question I have is that the road is in and scmebody has
to pay for it. So I've been asking myself is who pays for it and given the
bill, I'm not sure if we're in a position to turn around and start the hearing
all over again but we certainly can't reduce a $22.00 a foot assessment without
charging ~y else more somewhere else on that road. I gather there must
have been quite a controversy when it was originally assessed and now they're
coming back and I think at this point maybe the best we can do is extend the
payments. I'm not particularly happy with any of the answers. I just don't
have a better one.
Councilman Horn: I just wanted to know if we had found out any more about the
drainage problem created because the curb cut was still in. Has that ~n
rectified?
Gary Warren: I visited the site last Friday again and the material that was
filled in, the curb cut, was done appears to be that of landscaping frc~ the
property owner. We haven't moved it yet. We certainly can.
Councilman Horn: Have you talked to the property owner? This was the property
owner that was complaining about ~ drainage probl~. Are they aware that they
created it?
Gary Warren: I haven't had a chance to talk to them, no.
Councilman Horn: It's important to get that resolved. The other problem that I
have with this thing is, it seems like we go about this whole thing a little
backwards. I meant we bond the thing and we set the bond rates up front and
then we come around to how we' re going to pay for it at the end when we're
already cut off our options because the bonds are in place. We ought to know
what the options are up front and everybody ought to know what the bill is going
to be upfront and you bond accordingly.
Don Ashworth: We tried to and at the time the hearing occurred on this, staff's
rec~emendations were known. Somehow you have to ccme up with the money to pay
for it. The project was built in 1987. It was bonded in 1987 and we felt that
the number of years was reasonable at that point in time ar~ now we're
considering change. I find it difficult in responding other than that.
Councilman Horn: My point is that we always see~ to defer the bad new~ until
after the thing is done and that is, how much am I going to get stuck with?
·..well, that will come out at the assessment hearing.
Mayor Hamilton:
else.
We had estimates of the charges hearings prior to everything
Gary Warren: Preliminary assessment roll and...
Councilman Horn: How close were the~
15
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Councilman Geving: They were $21.00 or sc~ething.
Gary Warren: The actual assessment rates, Council chose to stick with the
original assessment that we established in the feasibility.
Councilman Horn: I guess to people is that they should bring those things out
before the project starts, not afterwards. If they want these extended because
our options are limited after that.
Councilman Geving: Just to remark on Clark's cc~nent. These are not hidden.
We always do a feasibility study before every project. I believe that we are
very close to the feasibility figures. I remember a figure of $21.00 or
scmething a lineal foot way back in '85 or '86 when we first discussed this .and
we came in at about $22.00 sc~nething so I don't think we were far off and I
don't think it was a major surprise. The only thing that's not known at the
time that we moved ahead with this is the actual amount because that can vary
based on the problems that we might find on the project but for the most part,
all the figures were upfront and people have a pretty good idea of what's
happening. I'm referring right now to Bluff Creek Drive. We know right now
what that project's going to cost so this is, I don't believe there are any
hidden costs or any hidden agendas here. The only comment I did want to make,
I do believe we should pursue the 10 year schedule because I do believe that
will give some relief. You could pay it up if you wanted to in the 8 year or
less period of time so 10 years will give them sc~e relief. I did have a
question or two. I think that your comments regarding Mr. Phillip's letter,
Gary, are right on and if nothing else out of this project, we could pursue the
leg on the west end of this road and directional signs and anything else that
Mr. Phillips referred to. I think those are good ~nts and good ideas.
I have no other co~x~ents.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask Don a question. On an assessment like this
that's going to go against property taxes, can they pay it off early? I thought
you could pay it off lump sum up front or you're stuck. On a house palanent you
can make extra house payments. Can you make extra special assessment payments
to pay it off early?
Don Ashworth: Yes, you can pay it off initially. I guess I'd have to ask
Roger. Can I come in and pay one-half of my assessment?
Roger Knutson: Initially you can. In the first 30 days you can come in and pay
any amount you choose. A minimt~npayment of $100.00 and you can pay $100.00 or
anypercent you want initially.
Councilman Johnson: And then after that? Say they get on a 10 year schedule?
Roger Knutson: You can pay the balance at any time.
Councilman Johnson: Anytime you can pay off the balance of special assessments
but you can't make just like one extra payment?
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilman Johnson: The Carver County computer would probably get confused if
you tried to do something like that.
16
City Council M~eting - July 11, 1988
Councilman Geving: They don't have one.
Councilman Johnson: The other thing I'd like to do is a little more general. In
the special assessment loan fund establishing a City fund to help peoplewho
like have an $18,000.00 special assessment. ~ho own their part of their annual
payment or whatever, can go against their special assessment and then it will be
placed against the property...at the time the property is subdivided or sold at
scmetin~ in the future that they would then, that money would be paid back into
the revolving fund. Scmething to help these people with these large, you'd have
to start that fund and build it every year. It's not something w~ can do
tonight obviously but it might be something to consider to be available in the
next few years.
Mayor Hamilton: Any more c~ments? If not, a motion would be in order.
Resolution %88-74: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve
the adoption of the Lake Lucy Boad Final Assessment Roll as presented over an 8
year period. All voted in favor arid the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF OFF-STREET PARKING PLAN, G~~D SHORES PARK.
Lori Sietsema: This it~n was discussed a year ago at which time the Park and
Recreation (kmmission was directed to monitor the concerns brought up by the
residents at that meeting. Having done so, we found a minimal number of calls
to the Carver County Sheriff's Department and therefore w~ began to review the
parking plan that was proposed last year. The Oanmission heard a number of
concerns from the residents concerning the limited turn around area. There w~re
conflicts with cars and pedestrians using the same entrance and it was difficult
to monitor the parking situation from the street. Also, they had concerns that
w~ were letting cars down into the park. Taking these concerns into
consideration, staff was directed to revise the parking plan. The revised plan
shows four parking spaces just inside t/%e park entrance and Mark Koegler is here
to discuss the details of that design.
Mark Koegler: The direction that we were given by staff and the Park and
Recreation Oa~nission was pretty ~_11 stmmmarized, which was to look at
alternatives and if the decision was made to put parking in that park, where
would be the best location to place it. After serious discussions with the
Oarmission, it was decided that by placing the parking at the top end of the
park, there were several advantages. First of all, the spaces were easier to
assess by scmebody c~ning in as to whether or not they w~re full yet to a
certain degree the berm that is in place at the present time, which exists
primarily off on this side, would be retained to screen the parking to sc~e
degree from the street. The previous plan, you may recall, we had parking
spaces down on the lower level. (~viously, by moving tbs~ up, that lower
portion can be returned to the park as green spaoes if you will. All or part of
the gravel that serves that lift station area can be removed depending on...
Fr~n there we planned really to complex a series of embelli~ts for this.
Also, having s(x~e landscaping around it to improve the appearance of the area.
The bicycle path which would connect down to the existing bittm~nous which stubs
out here and comes around to Lake Ann. Initially the concerns of the
17
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
bollards...to control the lift station area to control parking only into that
upper area. That is the philosophy behind making that a shared parking from the
lower section to the upper.
Mayor Hamilton: Thank you Mark. Councilmembers have any questions they'd like
to ask Mark?
Councilman Boyt: How big is the parking area is square footage Mark?
Mark Koegler: The spaces are 9 feet wide and counting th~n all, there's four of
them by the way, and counting the aisle width behind ~, they are about 42
feet in width. The other being the driveway ccm~ing in so the parking area, with
the exception of this driveway, we have dimensions of 36 feet by approximately
42 feet.
Councilman Boyt: 8 feet or so of that is driveway down to the lift station?
Mark Koegler: That would not include any of the driveway down to the lift
station. ~nrough the parking area, yes it would but once you cross to the other
side of the bollards, the control point would have to be calculated in with the
additional gravel extending on down.
Councilman Johnson: If you've got four in this park and the fifth car comes
down, can they turn around and go out of there forwards or do they have to back
out?
Mark Koegler: No, they would have to back out and that was part of the reason
that it was placed up above so that a car could ccme in and you could readily
see the four spaces just as you entered the area. It would require a backing
movement. The thinking was to try to keep to a bare minimum the amount of
improvenents that would have to go into the upper portion of the park.
Councilman Johnson: I certainly don't like people backing out onto streets.
Another thing is, is one of those parking spots going to be reserved for
handicapped?
Mark Koegler: That could be. That's at the discretion of the City as to how
that sign is proposed.
Councilman Johnson: I would certainly want at least one spot in there reserved
for handicap. I think anyplace we have parking we should reserve a handicap
spot. What do you think it would take to give us adequate room in there to turn
around? A little bubble down at the er~ or something.
Mark Koegler: To be honest with you Mr. Johnson, I think we would have to think
about relocating the parking down at the lower part of the park. There's kind
of a neck, if you will, that oanes out here as you approach Utica and it really,
physically, to try and lessen the impact on either of the residents on either
side. At least my recommendation would be, if you're going to look at a turn
around...you have to go back down to the lower portion of the park and probably
use some of that existing gravel to the lift station access. Tnere may be
other ways to do it but I think you're going to have impact to the adjacent
properties.
18
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
I37
Councilman Johnson: I'm not trying to get a 50 wide and 50 foot radius
cul-de-sac or anything in here but some method to where somebody could back up.
I know probably in my little Horizon I could probably do it but with my wife's
station wagon I couldn't.
Mark Koegler: Conceivably you could put a little "T" b~m~erhead type thing off
on the north side. So when you pull in and point vehicles...is going to impact
that residence somewhat also.
Councilman Johnson: It's a narrow street. It's curved. There's quite a few
kids down there. I'd rather people be looking at where they're going with the
amount of child traffic in here. I'm in favor of the parking but I want it to
be where we canback out of there face first.
Councilman Geving: Mark, I'm looking at your estimate of costs here and it
c~nes to $6,900.00. Pay particular attention to $2,200.00 that you have
included in your estimate for bituminous walkway and bike lane. ~y do feel
that that's necessary to connect that Lake Ann bikeway that's blocked off now at
the bottom of the hill to this park?
Mark Koegler: That it~ specifically came fr~m the Park and Recreation
Cc~mission that they wanted a safe access into the park where the pedestrian ar~
bicycle access would be totally separate frc~ the other access...into the other
bike path area.
Councilman Geving: So you're circling the bike path and trailway in front of
the parking area. If w~ were to put this in, what Would be your estimate of
annual maintenance and upkeep of this little four unit parking area? Do you
have a figure for that?
Mark Koegler: I don' t have a n~aber that I can give you that I think would have
a lot of credence off the top of my head. It would be a relatively low number
because you're maintaing that access for the lift station purposes year round
anyway. Then it becomes an issue of are you going to open it up in tl~ winter
or not and so forth but the actual maintenance of the gravel parking area, if
it's graded properly, is very, very slight.
Councilman Geving: So you didn't give me a dollar figure.
Mark Koegler: I don't have a dollar figure on me.
Councilman Geving: You feel it's negligible and not a major...
Mark Koegler: I certainly think so in light of the fact that you're got a 'lift
station there that you maintain access to.
councilman Geving: Are you showing a parking area that would be sufficient for
a medium size car?
Mark Koegler: Yes. The spaces are 9 feet by 20 feet.
councilman Geving: What's your reaction to Councilman Johnson's suggestion for
a turn around? Obviously you're going to pull into this parking lot area and
then when you reverse, you'll be backing up and making a turning movement. Is
19
City Council M~eting - July 11, 1988
it feasible in the space that you've got there to do that? That you could have
a slight turn around area where we could be pulling out into the street heading
face first?
Mark Koegler: That's certainly possible. One w~y to look at that ~)uld be to
extend the parking lot further to the west. Add another space, if you will, and
use that for turn around purposes. ~ne practical problem of that is going to be
enforcing that as a non-parking area. You can sign it but that's going to be a
problem and we' re trying to avoid making problems and enforcement problems. Tne
only other reasonable solution that I see again is to go back down to the road
area where there is one...and come up with a sign down there.
Councilman Geving: Does your plan also call for the removal of that rock down
there by the lift station and placement of sod over t_hat? Is that the plan?
Mark Koegler: With the exception of the...used for lift station access.
Councilman Geving: How much are you going to have to dig out of that lot area
to make it work with the park itself. What's the depth that you're thinking of?
Mark Koegler: It's sporatic. We just dug down a little bit in a couple of
areas and the rock that was there, ...washed down to that area .... all of that
would have to be removed and top soil brought in.
Councilman Geving: For $100.00, I don't think you're going to get much rock
removal.
Mark Koegler: We're hopeful that, that was just basically a cost of straffing
that and transporting it back to the top side. We'd like to use as much of that
as possible. A portion of it will have to be done...
Councilman Geving: I'd like to ask you one more question. A good share of your
costs are associated with the bollards. Is that a pretty safe way of putting in
a parking area and making sure that it will stay there over time? Is it a
physical chain that you would place between the bollards?
Mark Koegler: It's very much the same approach the City of Minneapolis uses
around their parkway system. It's a substantial 10 by 10 bollard with a cap on
it with a heavy duty chain that swings inbetween. In gravel parking lots
situations such as this, that is commonly used. It's effective and as
aesthetically pleasing as possible to control that. To have an improved parking
lot with the curb and gutter and so forth, obviously you won' t have the
definition probl~ns that you would here.
Councilman Geving: Talk for just a mcment with us, if you will, on the
plantings. The Ninebarks and the Crabapples. Is that your suggestion for the
area?
we'
Mark Koegler: Yes, it is. Obviously a simple planting plan, re trying to
provide screening of the area. We're trying to provide a little bit of seasonal
interest in color. The area will be largely screened by the berm which we had
kind of around to the north. There will be more impact to people that are
coming from southbound in terms of actually seeing the parking lot. We would
certainly be willing, that's a suggestion at this point. I think that's
20
City Council ~%~eting - July 11, 1988
Y39
called...for next year and the residents that abut that, have a particular
choice of...they wanted to see.
Councilman Geving: Thank you Mark. I appreciate it. That's all I have.
Councilman Horn: What was the original price of the totlot that was proposed
for that park?
Lori Siets~a: $5,~.0~.
Councilman Horn: Wasn't there scmething else? I guess it was just the bollard
and chain improvement for the park entrance.
Lori Sietsema: At one time they had talked about volleyball but without
clearin~ trees, they didn't know if they wanted to clear trees to make roan for
a volleyball court.
Councilman Horn: I assume it would be a Park and Recreation rec(alm~er~ation that
if we approve this to put the parking in that they would also put the totlot in.
Is that correct?
Lori Sietsema: That' s correct.
Councilman Horn: So in effect we're talking about an additional expenditure of
approximately $12,~0.~0 rather than $7,000.00 just for the parking lot?
Lori Sietsema: We have budgeted for the totlot.
Councilman Horn: I thought that was taken out of that budget when the parking
was not added.
Lori Sietsema: That' s true. They would budget again for it in the next year.
Councilman Horn: So in effect we'd be looking at 1989 budget item of $12,000.00
for that park, if that was put in. If I recall, that's what percipitated this
in the first place was spending money for a totlot and volleyball court. I have
no other questions.
Councilman Boyt: I've already asked my questions of staff. I'd like to use
that transparency before you take any c~uments. The Park and Rec ar~ the
Council has been discussing this over the past year. We received several
letters and I tried to take that information and stmmarize what I thought I
heard the c~n~ity saying were their concerns. The ~ity of Green~x~
Shores. They were basically safety problems. The added traffic ar~ the
entrance and exit visibility that Jay talked about. The fact that we might be
destroying the natural beauty of the park. Increasing crowding of the park and
leading to noise and parties. I think those topics have been discussed very
thoroughly. There must have bccn 60 pages of Minutes with this ite~.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that it? Do you have any other ccmnents?
Councilman Boyt: If w~'re going to take a vote, I've got some ccmmm~ts but
before that, no.
21
City Council Meeting - July 11~ 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I know there's a lot of people here from Greenwood Shores area.
Is there someone who wants to make any cc~ments as a spokesperson for the group.
We've all had an opportunity to read all of the Minutes from the Park and Rec
Cc~nission so we're aware of your cc~nents. We're aware of their comments. We
have received all of your letters. I would appreciate it if you don't hand out
that much information.
Jan Lash: We highlighted the important parts.
Mayor Hamilton: We can't take the time to study it.
Jan Lash, 6850 Utica Lane: You don't have to do it. I thought you could read
it over the next year. We've got a petition here with 132 signatures out of 83
homes. Councilman Boyt, I think did cover most of our major concerns. We have
been to 4 or 5 Park and Rec meetings this year. Several people have discussed
these. They did address some of our concerns. It didn't ever really put a stop
to the idea of the parking. Last week I checked into the history of the whole
thing a little bit, which I think should weigh a little bit on the decision
here. I sat up until after 1:00 in the morning one night reading Minutes from
the Greenwood Shores Association. Minutes that date back into the 60's and
correspondence with the City Council and Park and Rec ar~ everybody. I think
that a lot of people feel very strongly about this issue. A lot of people have
lived there for over 20 years. Initially when they moved in, it was for
neighborhood use only. It isn' t anymore and we know that but at that time it
was neighborhood people who cleared the lot. Paid their own pocket money to
haul in the sand. Spent many, many Saturdays making it a nice park. Therefore,
they feel that they have a personal interest in it and they would like to see it
stay that way. I guess we feel that that $7,000.00 or $12,000.00, if you put in
the totlot, we would rather see you give it to Lake Lucy Road asses~ents and
make everybody here happy because we really don' t see the point in it. The
people who are willing to use it, obey the rules of it, are willing to walk the
540 feet or whatever it is that we've been told it is. Personally, my family
has a speedboat and we would like to try to use Lake Riley. We've gone to Lake
Minnewashta. We've never been able to get in. There's never any parking spots
available. I don't call up and C(mlplain because I can't get in there because
I'd have to get up really early in the morning to get there in time and I choose
not to do that. I would rather go scmewhere else. I guess I feel that that
applies to this situation also. If you don't want to walk 540 feet, you could
possibly find another facility that's closer but I really don't think you'll
find anything that is much different. We've done some checking over at the main
beach at Lake Ann. The walking distance is very cc~parable. We've done checks
with the Chaparral Park with the baseball diamonds. The distance is very
comparable there. To other facilities we think it's comparable and we think the
way it's set up right now, it perfectly suits our needs and anyone else who
wishes to come over there is perfectly welcome to come. I don't think anyone
has ever been chased out of there except for the people who come and break the
rules and then they're chased out by the residents. Not by the police. I can't
think of anything else right off but if I do I'll come back.
Mayor Hamilton: Did Bill's overhead adequately address your concerns Jan? The
neighborhood ' s concerns.
Jan Lash: I think the traffic. The safety, visibility factor. We have a video
that we brought tonight to show you actually what driving a car. I don't know
22
City Council F~eting - July 11, 1988
I4I '
if we w~uld be able to do that. I think those are the tw~ main fears. The
increased cro~dirg. I think now on many, m~ny days when I'm down there during
the week, there is probably for sure 30 people. ~n the weekends there's quite a
bit more than that and I really don't see that it can acccmodate a great many
more people and I think it w~uld detract fr~m the people who do want to use it.
One of the reasons they look forward to using it is it's not as packed as a lot
of the other beaches. To put more people in there, it's probably going to take
one of the main attractions away.
Councilman Geving: May I ask you Jan, of the 30 people that you saw down there,
were they mostly residents? Did you recognf~ most of them?
Jan Lash: Scmet~ they are. On Father's Day we were down there and there
were over 50people and until 3:00 in the afternoon, I did not know one person
down there. But w~ did count that day 7 violations as far as parking and dogs
and other things like that.
Councilman Geving: How do you feel most of those people got to the park?
Jan Lash: Most of them walked or rode their bikes. A lot of people ride their
bikes. I see a lot of people c~ming over from C~aparral on bikes. I see people
taking the trail syst~ fr~m the main lake beach.
Mayor Hamilton: I just had a couple of c~m~nts I'd like to make. In looking
at the plan that's ~ developed by VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings, four parking
spaces, $1,730.~ per parking space. The way it's laid out, they're going to
have the bike path c~ming kind of arour~ tt~ south side of ~ parking. Also,
with the trail going directly into the parking area so you could, I suspect if
you put that there to park so people will get out of their car ar~ walk directly
down this path to the beach, which they probably won't use anyway. But it's
certainly an attractive spot for kids to be riding their bikes or to be walking
and to be walking behind cars as they're cc~ing out or going in. So I certainly
don't like that part of the plan. I guess generally on the whole idea of havir~3
parking there, it seems to me to spend the amount of money and the time that
we've spent on this particular project for four parking spaces is not the most
intelligent use of time. I can't think of any reason why there r~s to be
parking in this park. It is used by a great many people. People can walk
there. They can ride their bikes there. They can drive up and drop their kids
off or people off, whoever wants to go there. People can walk over there and
ride their bikes fr~m the Lake Ann main park. It can be accessed in many
different ways and to put in four parking stalls does not se~m to me as though
we are opening it up for the general public to use. I'm not sure what s(x~e
people are trying to prove by trying to ram this down the neighborhood's throat
and I really don't like it. All other parks in the City do not have parking by
them so I would suspect that if the Council should prevail and pass this, then
we better go look at every other park and make sure that we have parking in each
and every one of those other parks that don't need it so we can waste s~me more
money. This should continue as a neighborhood park. It serves the neighborhood
well and I think as the neighbors had stated, it was developed by the
neighborhood. It was paid for by their funds. They did turn it over to the
City a number of years ago. The City has maintained it sir~e. It serves a
great many people and I think the people who are, or anybody who ~nts to use it
can use it, as I said before so we're not eliminating anyone fr~m the use of
that park. So if we can by tonight's action put this to bed once and for all
23
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
and whatever the action would be, whether it's to open the beach or deny it, we
would also say this will not be reviewed for a period of time.
Councilman Geving: I'm kind of the senior member of the Council and so I can
refer to historical problems that we've had with this area along with scme other
probl~s at Carver Beach. We took steps to eliminate and try to resolve the
problems that we had. For example, a number of years where there were parties
and it was a great hangout. It was a great place for kids. Beer parties and 3
to 4 years ago, maybe even longer than that, we decided to get tough and do
something about it and that's when we really tried to close off the access to
this particular area. I think it's working. I think it has been working. I've
had a chance now to go to the park. In fact ! walked all the way over from Lake
Ann because I wanted to see how far it was. One of my original cc~nents way
back in 1980 I believe when I tried to get to the park and had to walk quite a
ways and I realized that this was not an easy way to do it because of all the no
parking signs but I found that it wasn't really that tough. If you go down to
the park at Lake Ann, walk along the paved trail, it really isn't very far to
get to this place if you want to get there. My personal feeling is let's leave
it alone. I really think that we've solved the probl~n once and for all and I
don't believe that we have to treat all parks alike. I think that there is a
difference in parks. Differences in neighborhoods. Differences in how we view
a park and how it's supposed to be used by our people. Originally the 75 homes
or so in the Greenwood Shores area, it was really only maybe 35 or 40 and it's
grown up a lot in the last couple of years. We've added Chaparral. We've got a
lot of area in Carver Beach. People can still walk across the road and get to
this park so I believe that we don't have to treat every park in the City the
same. They are different. To make a blanket statement that every park should
have parking, I don't believe is correct. I believe that there is enough
sentiment on this particular issue that really we should listen to the people.
~ney're trying to tell us that they're the ones that use the park. ~ney will
police it for us and that's exactly what we told the cor~nission, the people a
year ago. We said, let's test this area for one year and then we'll take a look
at it. I believe that based on our guidance here tonight, that there has been a
minimum number of calls to the Carver County police. There has been virtually
very, very few instances that I'm aware of, where major problems have occurred
at this particular park in Greenwood Shores. I don't know of any major probl~ns
so I think there is a certain amount of policing going on by the residents and
the fact that that really is closed. I believe too, that there is a
realtionship with our people who are residents of the area. They've tried to
make this an attractive area. Again, I walked down there just yesterday. It's
clean. It's nice. It's a nice family area. It's the kind of place where you
want to bring your kids to play in the sand and swim. I agree with the Mayor.
I think we ought to leave it alone. Settle this issue once and for all. We've
been at this now for 4 or 5 years and let's just leave it nice and let the
community enjoy it. That's all.
Councilman Horn: I have no problem with leaving this the way it is. I think
the thing that really precipitated this item and where the idea got across is
when we, in my opinion, went overboard with the no parking signs. I think we
can have no parking signs if they serve the primary purpose which is safety. I
think if our public safety group goes down there and determines which no parking
sign are necessary for safety reasons, we can leave those in. Any other no
parking signs can be taken out because it...of trying to keep something for the
exclusive use of an area. I think that's what the Park and Rec Commission is
24
City Council Meeting - July 11, 19BB
trying to get rid of by saying that they're trying to develop exclusive use so I
have no problem with this. I said originally when this ibsm came up, I felt
that if w~ are going to have restrictive parks, that the City and it's general
funds should not spend any more money ~n adding new equil~nent to it and I still
agree with that. But the neighborhood didn' t se~n to have any probl~m~ with that
either. In fact I haven't heard anybody in the neighborhood say t~ want a
totlot down there. I think w~ should eliminate any of the unnecessary no
parking signs. Not spend any extra money down there except to maintain it and
enforce the laws that exist down there and just leave it at that.
Councilman Boyt: I haven't heard anybody want to take, off the Council, say
that w~ should take the parking out of Carver Beach. You put it in there last
year.
Councilman Horn: We put it in earlier.
Councilman Boyt: Last year we reopened the parking for Carver Beach. It was
closed. We didn't have 100 people show up in the neighborhood but the issue
was the same. It's accessibility to the park that couldn't be accessed easily
otherwise. We've had that park open and that park had a previous record of
complaints years ago. It doesn't have a record of excessive cc~plaints today
but there is open parkin~ there. Those tw~ issues do not follow hand in glove.
The issue is enforcement. The issue isn't availability. We have on the Council
c~mmitted the resources to enforcing park regulations. I want you to explain to
the people at Carver Beach ~ahy they have parking on a difficult road to drive on
but they've got it there. But w~'re not going to put it here. Or what are you
going to tell the people at Chan Estates Park ~here the ballfield is? Where
it's right in sc~ebody's backyard. What are you going to explain to ~ why
there are places for 20 cars to park over there but w~'re' not going to put in
this park? That's not ec~3a] treah~ent. Every park is not the same but that is
a narrow twisty road. It's s~mebody's backyard so it's very closely related,
s~me are hack-yards to houses and yet the City hasn't hesitated to put parking in
there. This is an issue in which, it really is, accessibility. Four spots in a
park are not going to turn that park into some sort of public fiasco.
Especially if we follow Jay's suggestion ar~ make one of ~ limited to
handicap. We're talking about a place where people can go, drop off their kids
and probably on a good many days, park there and make the park easier to use.
We' re not talking about a dramatic change in that park. People already park
there in the access that's used by the City and chained off. Residents park
there in the access chained off. You look at the cc~plaints that were called in
and I assume the neighborhood is calling cc~plaints in and we have 14 c(x~plaints
called in last year. That's not a dramatic number of c~m~plaints for a public
park or for a private beachlot. It's unfortunate that there have to be any but
anytime we have an open piece of property, you're going to have to police it and
I think that's where the City's efforts should be. We've got a street there
that's certainly not safe. One of many in our town that are too narrow to
handle traffic. I don' t think that we're going to be able to go down there and
r~ove those no parking signs but I'd hate to say to scmleb(xty, you have to walk
540 feet because we can' t put a parking spot in. ~here we could very w~ll put a
parking spot in, is not appropriate. If you look at the Park and Rec's
discussion and the fact that they unanimo%lsly voted to put this in there, it
indicates that the general public feels there should be parking in their parks.
I went down and talked to some of the residents. I know, given your turnout,
I'm glad that your organized and you're presenting your point of view. When I
25
[44
City Council Meeting - JUly 11, 1988
talk to people who don't live in your neighborhood about this issue, I haven't
foun~ anybody who said, you know, I really don't think there should be parking
there. I know that in your letters you've indicated that yes, you have people
who live in several of the develo~ents outside of yours who use the park and
say, gosh we'd rather not have parking there so I've seen those ~ts. I'm
telling you that what I've heard and talking to people is a little different
than that. To me this is an issue of policy. I guess unlike sc~e of the other
m~mbers on the Council, it's my position that the parks that the public is
involved in, that the public pays for any service, should be open to the public
and that means there should be parking available there.
Dick Lash: You can park wherever you like.
Councilman Boyt: I'm telling you that every park should have parking available
so people can access it directly. I'm not treating your park any differently
than any other park. I agree with Mr. Geving when he says the City should be
responsive to the neighborhoods. This is an extremely difficult issue but my
particular position is different than his and I feel that the Park and Rec group
has established this can be done with reasonable safeness.
Councilman Johnson: I'm in pretty much agreement with Bill's coax~ents. I've
been driving by for the last year, both this park and the park at Carver Beach.
I've utilized the park at Carver Beach several times when the folks from
Scotland came to town. We took them down there to Carver Beach to show them the
beautiful little park there and have a little picnic and did a little fishing.
Probably 3 to 4 times a month, scmeti~ several times a weekend or in the
evenings driven by and I have yet to discover an incident going on at the park.
The closest I got was somebody parking in the roadway there which when I called
th~, they stayed in Greenwood Shores when they went home. A lot of people stop
in there, drop the kids off and then drive their car up a few blocks and then
walk back so they can take their innertubes and whatever out. I don't think 3
parking spots and a handicap spot is going to deteriorate this park. The only
other park that I know of without parking right now is at Lake Susan and that
doesn't any access right now because there's no way to get access to it. It's
not feasible to have access to that until we get Lake Drive West put through.
There maybe be another neighborhood park that has no parking signs around it but
I don't know. Clark's idea of getting down to only those required for safety
means, to me that there would only be a few signs. I'm not sure if Public
Safety has even looked at this issue at this point and how far away from the
park that would be. I would assume it would only be on the curb so there w~uld
only be maybe 100 foot of no parking in there. But I don't like parking on that
narrow street. I'd rather see 3 spots plus a handicap spot. I don't think it's
going to deteriorate. Opening up Carver Beach Park has not caused a probl~ at
Carver Beach. There was one evening where some fishermen were playing some
music a little bit loud, after 10:00 and the Sheriff stopped by and asked th~
to leave. The park closes at 10:00. Beyond that, I know of no other incidents
at Carver Beach Park that I've seen. There may have been sc~e. I haven' t seen
the police record on Carver Beach. I don't think that opening up this one is
going to cause anymore probl~m~ than anyplace else. The way the set-up is here,
the officer or CSO will be able to drive into the parking area and have a better
look down and see the park actually better than they can now from the street.
Resident: And back up onto the street.
26
City Oouncil Meeting - July 11, 1988
145
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'm not for backing out because that's what you've
got right now is tl~ people pullirg in and backing back out onto the street.
That's the situation you have now but ~hen w~ put parking in here, I want the
people to be able to turn around. Whether we take one of those four parking
spots or add a half spot or whatever. It looks like we're not going to do it
until the 1989 season so I would like to see that ability to rum aroum~ ~
added to this park. That is not a good intersection to back out of. That's my
only c~nplaint with the design of the syst~n. I think if I lived in the
neighborhood I'd probably be complaining just as n~ch. I know when they were
developing behir~ me I was as wild as anybody else complaining. Most of the
things I said have sc~newhat come true. I'm still in favor of it. That's how
I'm going to vote.
Councilman Horn: As one who pushed very long ar~ strong to get parking back
into Carver Beach, I think there's an important factor in here and I totally
disagreed with the previous Council in closing that parking off. I hate to see
a right that was granted to a particular area taken away because of an
enforcement problen. You're penalizing everybody for what a few people do.
However, I think wa have to be sensitive to what precedent this is going to set.
The difference between this park and Carver Beach Park is the original intent of
the Carver Beach Park was that there would be parking there. This body took it
upon thsmselves to take it away. Ail w~ did by restoring it was to put it back
to the original intent that it was put there for in the first place. That's
what I see w~'re doing here. This park never had any parking in it. We're
changing the intent of what this park was established for and that has an effect
on people just like taking away the right that people emjoyed has an effect on
people. I was one of the people that used to park my canoe Carver Beach Park
and couldn't launch it anymore because the parking was closed off. It affected
a lifestyle that I had bec~m~ used to. What we're doing here is doing the same
thing. I think that's what wa're looking at. It's fine to have a consistent
philosophy on how we do things but we also have to keep in mirxt the reason
things were done the way they were in the first place. We have to study history
to find out what was what. ~hat you see here is that this park was developed as
a City park. Was given to the City by the people. I think that's something we
have to consider that might be different.
Councilman Johnson: A lot changes with the years.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question for you. When did the City put in the no
parking signs?
Mayor Hamilton: Since I was here 10 years ago.
Councilman Boyt: When they put the no parking signs in outside of this park,
they took away parking. They took away parking. ~ere was parking there and
they took it away.
Councilman Horn: That's my point.
Mayor Hamilton: That's why Clark is saying he thinks the no parking signs on
the street should be reviewed and those that don't need to be there should be
removed, if I understand what you're saying correctly.
27
146
City Council Meeting - July 11~ 1988
Councilman Boyt: This is what w~ started on a year ago. We ~ant some parking
access. The question was discussed at that time or shortly after that, can we
take the no parking signs off the street. I think we had a request fram one of
the neighbors to do that. We didn't do that. We didn't do it because it's not
a good corner for people to park on. That's what got us into where can w~ put
parking? There's been a fairly logical process followed in getting to this
point. If we decide to not put parking in the park, there isn't a good place to
put it for 540 feet is what they said. So the issue is, do you want people to
be within 540 feet of that park or not?
Councilman Horn: Can I ask Jim Chaffee one question? Did we go along with your
recarmer~ation on where the no parking signs should be for public safety or did
we increase that to cover areas that were not raised as an issue of public
safety?
Jim Chaffee: I can' t answer that. I wasn' t here at that time...
Councilman Geving: Let me ask the same question in a little different manner
Jim. Clark's suggestion is to review those no parking signs and r~move those
that don't fit. Or based on your best estimate, your knowledge Jim, come back
to the Council and tell us. Those that either should r~main or pull sane of
them. Would you have any problem with that?
Jim Chaffee: No, I would not.
Councilman Geving: What is your assessment of this area right now in terms of
the no parking?
Jim Chaffee: Along the curve there, there certainly should be no parking.
Exactly how far it extends back, I haven't b~n~ there for a while. I'd have to
look at it.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to move on with this. I'd like to make a
motion.
Dick Lash: M~. Mayor. Cme thing. Could I make one comnent before you vote on
this? My name is Dick Lash of Greenwood Shores. Mr. Bolt...I think is the one
with a conflict of interest with his wife on the Park and Rec Cam~ission. I just
think that would swing his vote. It would swing mine if my wife was there.
I~t Hasek: You've heard fram the neighborhood on their comments. I'd like to
just take a few minutes to put something together for the Park Board to tell you
maybe where we' re caming fram. First of all we're generally acting under, what
we feel is your direction on this issue. Policies trying to make parks
accessible to the general public within the City of Chanhassen. Not to specific
neighborhoods. I would suggest that if we do not put the parking in this park,
we should consider changing the policy to have parking in no parks. I feel very
strongly about that. The reason that we have looked hard and strong at this
particular park is because it has a beach. Beaches are becaming very hard to
come by. I would sutx~it that if we go through any develotxnent that comes up on
the lake anyplace in the future, the chances of us getting property to put a
beach into that lake fram that developer are virtually non-existant. They're
not going to allow that to happen. It's too valuable so we have a cam~odity
here that we'd like to use and we'd like to use it for the citizens of
28
City Oouncil Meeting - July 11 ~ 1988
Chanhassen. Four stalls again, is not too many to request for that particular
park. Personally, I w~uld like to see the original 6 to 10, I think w~ were
talking about. 6 or 8. 500 feet is not close enough to any particular
recreational area. They keep making the comparison with Lake Ann. Now I w~uld
sut~it to you that w~'ve got a lot that's i~mediately adjacent to ~hat is
considered the beach area do~a~ there. Not the sand per se but it is adjacent to
the beach area. Actually, this particular park, I believe if we had the graphic
up here, is probably still about 200 feet fr~ the sand so there is a c~mparison
be~ that particular park and this one. If in fact there was parking on that
street closer than what exists out there today, then in fact you have taken
parking away as you did in Carver Beach and we as a c(m~ission would like to see
that replaced. I guess in viewing the situation out there on site ar~ looking
at where the parking exists, I would have to agree with where the location of
the parking signs is because it's goin~ to be very difficult to get it much
closer unless we consider scmething in the neighborhood of the parking hays'
which would have to be built adjacent to the existing parkirg lanes out there.
I don' t know that there's right-of-way that could a~te that. It's a very
hazardous corner. Granted, parking doesn't belong on that corner. However, 50~
and some feet, plus or minus, can not be considered accessible. The whole point
is to get people into that park. Whether you can walk there or if you have to
drive there and pull your wheelchair out of the back of the car to get down to
the beach. You have to be able to use that park. Thank you.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to make a motion for consideration. I'm going to move
that the City fbuncil direct City Staff to do no additional work in the
Greenwood Shores Park on either parking nor totlot or increased equil~ent or
trail connections. A trail connection I guess needs to be done at s~metime but
the park should not be improved in any way at this time. It should be left as
it is for use by the people who are currently using it which is a great many
people. That is my motion.
Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion.
Councilman Horn: Do you want to add to that the review of the no parking signs?
Mayor Hamilton: Ch yes. I would put that in there.
Mayor Hamilton: That the Public Safety Director review no parking signs to
determine if any of ~ can be r~oved and if they can, they should be r~moved.
Mayor Hmmiltc~ moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the City Council direct
City Staff to do no additional work in the Greenwood Shores Park on either
parking, totlot or increased eguiIx~ent. Also that the Public Safety Director
review the no parking signs to determine if any of them can be r~moved, and if
they can, they should be r~moved. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and
Counci~ Horn voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Boyt and Councilman
Johnson voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of
3to2.
29
City Council Meeting - July 11~ 1988
Jan Lash: Mr. Mayor, could I ask you how soon it will be up for review again or
are the residents going to have to go through this each year?
Councilman Geving: Four years. Another Council can bring it back.
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW TO AMEND A PLANNING UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CHES MAR FAI~M OFF OF
TH 41, LOTUS REALTY.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Oannission reviewed the proposal. The original PUD
was to...existing uses to the farm to the zoning. There was a duplex, an
apartment building, two duplexes and a single family residences. The applicant
now is proposing to increase the units and the single family lots. One of the
plans to include the single family home located up here now has been sold off to
another individual so that's not included. Also, the duplex has been sold off
and that is not included. ~ne six unit apartment that's being proposed is split
into two lots so it can be developed as duplex. The house that was moved onto
the site, is proposed to be a single family lot. Then they are proposing an
additional sixth single family lot. The area is in the unsewered area.. It does
not have water. The ordinance currently now regulates a minimun of 1 unit per
10 acres. The proposal far exceeds this. The ordinance also requires a minimun
lot size of 2 1/2 acres for lots not serviced by sewer and water. ~ne lots that
are proposed are below this minimum. There are steep slopes on a majority of
these lots. The lots located on Lot 2, Block 1 have a lot of improveaents to
the existing structures on them. Staff has visited the site with a soils
consultant. It's going to be difficult to site two approved septic sites per
lot. Staff is reccmxnending that the concept plan does not meet the requirements
of the ordinance. We are rec~n~er~ing that it not be approved. The Planning
Cc~mission also agreed with that. They felt that it was not in conformance with
the Zoning Ordinance and that they should come in with a new proposal. For the
City Council tonight it's a four-fifths vote for approval of the concept plan.
Mayor Hamilton: Councilm~mbers have questions of Jo Ann? If not, Bradley, did
you want...
Brad Johnson: If you guys would pass this around. This is the original
photograph of what Ches Mar Farms used to look like, for your own information.
It was taken from an airplane in 1930. Basically, the reason that we are
proposing something...is that the property itself has been deteriorating over a
number of years. I think in the case of the Planning Cc~mission, they don't
have to deal with economic issues but it's a problem that the City... The
property has gone through three owners in the last several years. Each time, it
never quite worked out the way they had planned and slowly but surely the
buildings have been burning down and/or deteriorating. At a certain point in
time, we felt it would be necessary to correct it. Mr. Kirt came in here about
4 years ago and had it...basically any existing zoning. Through the assistance
of the planning staff with the thought that he'd be able to sell the parcels
off. He has been able to sell a parcel that is located here and a parcel that's
located here. The duplex is back here and there's a single family gatehouse
here and then this is...the Gross' that is located here. He was unable to sell
any of the balance of the property. The main problem is there is a six unit
apartment building that has existed there as long as that photograph has been in
existence and it's had probably some great days and some bad days. In real
life, it's a real nice duplex but it's not a six unit building. It is difficult
30
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
1:53
finding people who are willing to live in that type of unit. Periodically Mr.
Kirt has picked it up and had to come back and put clean it out. Basically it's
scmething that's just a real problen. Unless he's had relatives living on the
site, he' s just had major problems. That is the proble~ essentially. It's not
anything else and the valuation has dropped. Secondly, w~'ve got, you can check
Mr. Chaffee here, there were a number of Public Safety calls out there and this
is just typical of what happens when you've got this type of rental property.
It slowly degenerates. It just does and people just don't care. Especially
with absentee owners. Our proposal is in concept only. We're looking for
~y to give us some direction as to what we should do with the property or
it will continue to go down in value because that's just too expensive to
maintain as it is. The proposal basically is, in concept, -to take and transfer
that value of what land we have frc~ the existing two family hc~e and the costs
that he has incurred to maintain it and transfer it all onto other lots so they
can lower the selling price on the duplex so we can find sc~eo~ to buy it.
That's t/~ whole idea. In other words, right now the valuation on that is too
high for anybody to be willing to purchase it. Secondly, this has never worked
as a sixplex for years and years ar~ years so we'd like to convert it back to a
two family home. We think we can ~lish that with that kind of transfer is
approved. Now, that's the probl~n. The solution to our probl~n, probably frc~
the process point of view is that this is currently in a FJD so we are proposing
an amendment of the PUD. We're lookirg at the addition of an additional 20
acres so w~ would not increase the density on the site. ~nis particular
proposal has a total of 9 lots. T~D new units which were used by the Naegele
property which we purchased just using up t/~ additional density. As we
ur~erstand it, and staff can correct me, the reason that you have a 1 in 10
ruling out in that area is you have these agreema~.ts with the Metrpolitan
Council that that's what it's goirg to be. Is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. Metropolitan Council dictates that all.
Brad Johnson: So I went to Metropolitan Council and asked them if it would be
okay, in concept only, to just change densities in there as six unit be there as
four ones and a duplex. Taey, in concept, did not have .any problem with that.
The next issue then is if the zoning currently requires a 1 in 10, it's our
opinion that we can be governed in a number of different ~ays. We can look at
this as an amending of an existing PUD. We can't charge what's there. There
just happens to be a six unit building on that particular site. Previously
there were probably 14 or 15 units out on that particular site. That's what we
advised the Council here. Now in that process of going through the Planning
Oannission, they came back and said, they did not like primarily the size of the
lots. Rs~mg~er we' re doing a concept thing, so we kind of amended the plan, and
we just got this done today, so that we now m~et all the rural, in concept, we
now ~t all your rural. ~hese are all 2.5 acre lots. We've reduced the nunber
of lots. Our problen is where the two buildings are now. ~ne duplex. We can
not probably reduce that so that it's 2.5 acres per unit. So we came in at
2.27 and 2.07. This then ccmes very, very close to mcctirg your rural lot
requirement size. Probably because the building sites are now farther away fr~
the plane, or a flat surface, probably meet that to take a requirenent and we
feel that that's pretty close except for the 1 in 10. That's kind of where
we're at. So if we can get by the 1 in 10 and forget that. Deal with it as a
PUD and use 2 1/2 acres as a lot size that we're trying to achieve, we can
probably come up with a plan that would fit in concept with what we think the
Planning Cc~mission required. We don't think this would come in as a 1 in 10
31
because of already the building that's there. ~ne second thing is the road
entrance systsm that's there. Currently there's an easement that runs all the
way back. It's only 20 feet wide at the entrance versus the 50 required. Here
again, when they went through, they changed everything to a 50 foot wide
easement and it could go to 60. We have a problem at this point. ~ne
neighborhood objects violently to anything that looks like a public road
they would prefer to have it remain as a private road at least until there is
sewer and water available. Therefore, the request is that they may go along
with this as long as the road r~mains private. Now at one time this parcel was
controlled by everybody but whoever did ~ ultimate layout of this set it up so
it would be impossible to put a 50 foot wide road in there. We have set aside a
50 foot easement running along this side of the property in case the public road
sometime or public property would have to be brought in. The proposal in
concept and we do something out there within the rules. As I say, with this
particular plan meets most of the rules except for the 1 in 10. we're kind of
studying our cases and we're staying in the densities, exactly the density
that's out there and we've added 20 acres. I think we've done everything we
can, and as I said, the solution is just to stop the deterioration of what's
happening. We have through this plan now attracted people who are willing to
c(mle in and develop it and live there, we're in the process of actually
starting that process anyway with the hope that we'll be able to accomplish it.
This r~ains an outlot with a trail systsm scmeday to get down to Lake
Minnewashta.
Mayor Hamilton: How many feet do you have on Minnewashta?
Brad Johnson: 200.
Mayor Hamilton: What would your ideas be of developing that?
Brad Johnson: Our current ideas? Currently we're setting it up as an outlot.
Mayor Hamilton: So you'll be back in requesting a dock or something?
Brad Johnson: I don't know. We've been reducing the number of lots and the
cost of doing the outlot and dock and everything is starting to get out of
control so all we're showing here now is just a trail down to here, fr~m our
point of view. The homeowners at someday can buy it. It qualifies I think as a
beachlot. Size. There are s(~e problems down in here because it's really a
marshy area. ~ywould have to spend s~me time but we decided that the
type of dock, it would have to be a floating dock or something, we'll just let
the homeowners association worry about it at a later date. Originally our plan
had docks. If you look at it, the original one had docks, tennis courts and
everything. In the process of losing a couple of lots, we had to take out all
the amenities. I think I understar~ the rules. One, you'd have to figure out
how to get around the 1 in 10 situation. Two, I don"t know if this fits the
Comprehensive Plan where that is, or if we would have to amend it. Three, I
think at that point we meet almost all of the rules. Jo Ann, she pointed out
and correctly so, we should be concerned about the soils because she was there
for the perc tests for sewer systems but that will be the next step. We thought
this idea was okay and then we'll go back and work with the City folks tomake
sure that we're not, it becomes an engineering problem. Tne only other big
issue I see is the public versus private road concept.
32
City Gouncil Meeting - July 11~ 1988
155
Mayor Hamilton: You or Harold, spoke with s~m~dy on the Metropolitan Council
and I know there were comments in the Minutes about that. Perhaps you could
refresh my m~mory about that conversation.
Brad Johnson: This had to do with the, strictly with the density issue.
Harold Ness: My name is Harold Ness and I went with Barb Dacy over to Met
Council and talked about the idea of changin~ or creating the six unit, in unit
concept, for six single family. In this case we w~uld use tw~ of ~ for the
double and then four of ~ in single family lots. They said they felt that
would not violate the Lake Ann Interceptor rule. I think Pat Pahl is the
representative of this area.
Mayor Hamilton: Who was that you talked to?
Harold Ness: The lady's name was Pat Pahl.
Mayor Hamilton: Pat Pahl. She's a...
Harold Ness: Staff msmber. She's a staff person in charge of this area.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you go there Barbara?
Barbara Dacy: Yes. I was in attendance at the meeting that Mr. Ness is
referring to. What I would rec~~d that the Council do also, Ms. Pahl does
now have another job with Met Council and on other issues over the last couple
months, when they change staff over tt~re, s~metimes w~ get a different
interpretation and I know that's frustrating for you and it's frustrating for
the City as well. Also, given the fact that they have suk~it~ a new plan
today, staff feels a little ~ortable having the Council act on this. I know
it's sc~e minor changes that you're calling for in the intent of the Planning
Cx~mission approval but it might be worth it for the Council to table action on
this it~ for two w~eks until we can receive a letter fr(x~ Met Council...
Mayor Hamilton: As a concept plan, I didn't know we were going to approve
anything other than to just make c~ma~t whether we would like it or go along
with it. If it could be refined in scme~ay that would ~ to be workable.
Barbara Dacy: My only concern there ~as that the ordinance requires a four-
fifths vote on concept plan approval and if general c~m~nts are made to proceed
for tt~ applicant to the preliminary plat stage. If the case is denied, I'm
just concerned that the applicant gets the correct message frc~ the Council and
that all of a sudden we see more information and then you have a. change of heart
or a different set of requirements.
Mayor Hamilton:. I would encourage the applicant to talk to Marcy Waritz and
Dirk DeVries who are Metropolitan Council representatives who have ~ a great
help to us in the past in this cx~munity. Show them your plan and see what
their feelings are. They're the ones who's blessings you may need eventually to
accomplish ~hat you want to do.
Councilman Geving: There's another point too Mr. Mayor. I don't believe that
there's any atte~ tonight to get the Council to comment one way or another or
give you any kind of assurance that we'd go for this plan. The plan that you
33
[~?ity Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
sho~sd the Planning Cc~mission was entirely different than the board that you
switched around and showed as Plan B tonight. I'm not prepared to cc~m~_nt on
that issue because we didn't get any cc~m~nts frc~ the Planning Cc~mission
regarding your Plan B. Staff probably just say themselves for the first time
when you turned this around tonight so I'm very uncomfortable, other than to
give you my views on what you're attempting to do but not to go to a vote
tonight of any way or to encourage you even.
Brad Johnson: When we left it at the Planning Cc~ission, they did not vote on
it... What we're really interested on is the 1 in 10 concept. Tne ability for
us to actually use the density however the plan is laid out. The ability for us
to use the density, assuming Met Council should go along with it.
Councilman Geving: Brad, the comments that I made are relative to staff input
which is extremely important to us and Planning Cc~ission seeing Plan B. Until
that happens, I'm not real anxious to really give you very much encouragement on
this plan.
Mayor Hamilton: However, on an overall basis I think we would have enough,
looking at both plans, to say whether or not it's something that we may want to
see them pursue or not pursue. I don' t think that's a very difficult decision
to make.
Councilman Boyt: Can I c~ment? There are a couple questions that I would have
for you. I think you've addressed several of them. The sewer and water
constraints. You're certainly going to have to clear that up. I think for me,
Met Council is the deciding factor and I think it is for you as well. If Met
Council approves this idea, you have my support. I think that what you're
trying to do is a definite improvement to the community fr~m what I've read and
I would encourage you to pursue this. I would also encourage you to pursue the
first plan. I think the idea of a PUD is to create common open space. I guess
that first plan may have even bigger sewer problems with it and there may be a
lot of other reasons why you wouldn't want to do it but if it was strictly a
matter of what's the best layout of a piece of property frem a use standpoint, I
don't have difficulty with a 1 acre lot and common area but it may have building
problems.
Walter Whitehill: I beg your pardon. Would you repeat that.
Councilman Boyt: Sure. What I said was, if it's possible to create a com%~on
use area for everyone, I don't have a problem with that. My problem is...
Walter Whitehill: ...1 acre lots.
Councilman Boyt: I said with 1 acre lots in a FJD concept.
Walter Whitehill: This is not a PUD concept.
Councilman Boyt: It is a PUD concept.
Mayor Hamilton: It is a PUD. Taat piece of property is zoned PUD right now.
That' s what we' re looking at.
34
City Oouncil Meeting - July 11, 1988
f57
Walter Whitehill: But what they're proposing here will not meet the PUD
requirements.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. I guess we're not debating that issue right now.
Councilman Boyt: What I'm talking about is a constraint on ou~ develo[m~nt in
this area. It's sewer and water ar~ the Met Council and if they can deal with
those ~ issues, then I'm in support of what they're att~a~pting to do to the
piece of property. I don't have constraints greater than the Met Council's or
the sewer and water concerns in regards to their lot size. That's scmethirg
that other people have set those constraints up. I'm happy to live with the
constraints they've set up but I don't have greater constraints iS what I'm
saying.
Walter ~hitehill: You don't feel any obligation to stay at the 2 1/2 acres per
lot?
Councilman Boyt: If you're talking about general develol~ent in the area
outside of this...
Walter Whitehill: That's what it's all about is general develolm~ent because
that's the restriction ar~ you say you have no...
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you could tell us who you are. It ~_.~---~s like you're
talking a lot. Maybe you could give us your name and address.
Walter Whitehill: I'll be glad to. I'm Walter ~hitehill and I live just south
of this area. You have my letter and I object to this proposal. First of all
I object on the grour~s that you are increasing density. With the nt~9~_r of
people that are housed in the current housing that is there, cc~pared to what
you will have if you have $3~0,000.00 hcmes, you're going to have a lot more
people. You're going to have a lot more toilets. A lot more sinks ar~ a lot
more wells. Now I speak with authority on wells. I had 13 years of experi~
with the Department of Agriculture in Texas and I can ~arantee you that the
water table will drop when you punch in these additional wells or start
drilling. I'm concerned because I've got well south of here and if my table
goes down to where I can't pump, then I'm in serious trouble. Number t~, there
is already a sewage probl~ c~ming off of this property onto my property. It
was there when I bought the land so it is a pre-existing condition and I belly
ached to nobody but I guarantee you, I premise you that if you approve this and
the developer goes ahead with it, a~ there is additional effluent cc~ng down
and I've got a way of measuring it now, I will bring legal regress against the
Council, against the City and against the developer. It's not a threat, it's a
pr~mise. I shall do that. Now, when you put in these additional h~mes and you
have all the water draw down fr~m the water table, it has to go sc~m~place. It
c~mes out of the ground and goes down the toilet or sink. It's going to c~me on
my lar~ and I can't tolerate that. That's my principle objection. I don't want
to lose my well and I don't want to lose my land. It was mentioned here that 2
or 3 other developers have bought this lar~ ar~ went bankrupt. They were, to
pardon the expression, stupid businessmen. Each one thinking he could outthink
the other guy and make this go. Now we've got a fourth developer who cc~es
along with the same idea. He's going to buy it and he's going to make s~me
money and now he's asking the City, hey, it didn't work. Bail me out. Help me
change this thing when I w~nt in with my eyes open and I didn't ~-c all the
35
[58
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
problems that are coming up and now I can't make any money on this. Please,
Chanhassen, bail me out of trouble. Pass some new rules so I can develop this
thing and make my money. I don't think that's the job of the Council or the
City to do that. I know that if you put in these nice expensive homes you'll
get more taxes which will help the City in total but I don't think that's the
idea of the zoning is to develop more tax money. I think what you have to do is
console with the com~%on interest and that's what I'm asking you to look at.
Tonight he said that with this new proposal, Plan B, if you forget the 10 acres,
and I'm saying you can't forget the 10 acres right now, but if you do he said,
then we meet most of the rules of the 2 1/2 acres. Not all of them. Again,
what's the Council going to do. Are you going to require the people meet the
rules or not. Can you fudge a little or can you fudge a lot. When you start
giving leeway to fudge, I think you're getting in some deep w~ter. I'm asking
to rule this on the basis of the existing regulations. To take an awful hard
look at the very likely probability that there's going to be more effluent
cc~ing onto my land and if it does, you have my pr~mise.
Councilman Geving: Walter, did you su~it a letter to us? You said we got your
letter.
Walter Whitehill: Yes I did.
Councilman Geving: I don't have a copy in my packet.
Walter Whitehill: I was told that it had been presented.
Jo Ann Olsen: No. It got in the Planning Cc~mission. I forgot to include it.
Councilman Geving: Would you make copies for everybody.
Walter Whitehill: I was told it had been sut~itted to you. I apologize.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to continue if I might Mr. Whitehill. ~ry, we've
just heard about an existing sewage problem on the surface and I would assume
you' re going to follow up on that pretty quickly because we don't accept that
problem, in spite of what Mr. Whitehill might feel that he bought. As I stated
earlier, there's certainly sewer and water constraints on this property. I
would encourage Mr. Johnson to continue to pursue the development of this piece
of property. It takes a four-fifths vote but from what I've seen, I think you
can work through the problems. However, the problems, as you know, will have to
be worked through.
Councilman Johnson: I think there are considerable constraints on here and
looking at the property, even Plan B is going to be very tough to get two sites
for septic syst~m%s. While people have a right for water to flow off of their
property onto somebody elses property, they have no right for sewage to do so.
I'm with Bill on that. We're going to have to follow up on that failed septic
system if that's what's happening there as quickly as we have for everybody
else. How many people are currently living in the duplex? Or the sixplex as
you're calling it.
Brad Johnson: At one time there was probably 12, 15.
Mayor Hamilton: And right now?
36
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Brad Johnson: There's one family with 7, 3 singles. 14 people~
Councilman Johnson: Ar~ then this particular structure you ~nt to convert to a
duplex where there's only ~ families in it. I haven't gone out to look at
the structure. I should have but I didn't get out there. I never considered a
Planned Unit DeveloB~ent going into the RR district, or being an expansion as
such. I have a lot of probl~n. I know something r~s to be done here but I'm
not sure if this is the right time or the right plan. As I read through our
Planned Unit Development district rules, I can't find that it restricts it to
the sewered areas. That PUD isn't restricted in place. A PUD can be anywhere
as I read it. Maybe it is allo~d as such. I have trouble thinking that it is
a good way to use a PUD to get arour~ this. I'd like to see all the lots at 2
1/2 acres. I'm not totally wild about the 1 in 10 rules that's being forced on
us by Met Council. The 2 1/2 acre I think is our rule. The 1 in 10 is Met
Council's rule. You're definitely going to have to look for the well dra~own
problems. Hopefully you won't have too much of a probl~ with these small wells
and depending upon which aquafirs you're in. The sewage is going to be a
tremendous probl~n. Like I say, I want Planning Omnnission also to take a look
at this Plan B before I have any kind of vote on it.
Councilman Horn: That pretty well s~uarizes my comments too. I want to see
Planning Ommission look to review this plan. I want to see staff's input on
this plan. To give a rec(mm~ndation. It's the first time they've see~ it so
it' s something that we can' t do. Also, I'm concer~ about the Metropolitan
Council. I think you want to be concerned not just what they tell us upfront on
this thing but the little caveats they have a way of sneaking in on the backside
of the project as they did on the Lake Ann Interceptor because I c97 just see at
some point where we would come in with another request to ~ and they'd be
throwing this up in our face saying that we violated their rules here, ar~
therefore you can't have this other proposal when it makes sense so I think we
need to get that very clear with ~ because we've run into that problem
before. Also, the sewer issues ~ to be addressed and they have to work.
have no fear of being sued if we have our staff go in ar~ make competent
judgment on anything that we do in terms of the sewer and water. I think we
have to be very careful on how we approach that. We can' t bend any rules on the
two sites just as we do on every other site. I understand the concept of
improving when it doesn't work for a developer. I don't have a probl~ with
that. I'm concerned about improving it from the City's viewpoint. If the City
wins and the developer happens to win too, I don't have a problen with that. It
doesn't have to be the City win ar~ the developer lose situation. It's better
if it can be everybody wins. If that's what happens here, I think it will be
better than what we've had in the past on this site and I would go along with it
but I don't want to see any deviations frcm any of our established policy on
this with the possible exception of certain areas which we have deviated in the
past if the averages work out right. ~ of them comes in at 2.4 and the other
one compensates at 2.6, I would deviate that far but. the average has to make
Councilman Geving: Back in October, 1985 when we passed the original PUD, the
concern that we had at that time was that this PUD would not increase in
density. It was a very important issue ar~ we talked about it for a long time.
My feeling is that we should stick with our 2 1/2 acre minimums or anything
that's very close to that because as we look down the road for other developers
37
160
City Council ~eting - July 11~ 1988
and their proposals that would come before us, if w~ deviated a lot from 2 1/2
acres, I think w~ are opening ourselves up to a lot of problems. I'd like to
stay with the 2 1/2 acre minimum. Have it go back to the Planning Commission.
Have our staff put the input on this. I am very concerned on the water runoff.
The sewer issues certainly have to be addressed. As far as I'm concerned, they
haven't been. Again, I think density is the issue for me. 2 1/2 acres is a
must because I know we're going to see lots of other developers who will ccme in
here and want us to bend the rule just a little bit for th~ and I agree with
what Brad is trying to do here. Whether it's Brad or anybody else, I'm not
always in favor of trying to ressurrect and save a person from economic hardship
but the reality of the situation is that we can make a nice development there
and if there's something that we can do to make that happen, I think that we are
the winners. Again though, it must meet our minimum standards. If it does
that, I'm all for it. I'm in favor of sending this back to the Planning
Cc~mission with those comments and let's take another look at it but not
tonight. We've given you some direction. We've given some thoughts on how this
thing might work and I want to make sure that all the bases are covered
including Mr. Whitehill's or anybody else who lives in the area who has concerns
about water well drawdown. Water runoff from the properties. I'm kind of
concerned a little bit too about this beachlot that may face us in the future
and I'd like to see a total plan rather than just this development. If he's
even thinking about that as a potential, I know we're going to have to face that
in the future as well so you'd better put it in there Brad. Include it in your
plan so w~ see the total plan that might happen over the next several years on
this property. There was one question that I had that staff brought out. ~nat
is, the parcel that's included in the convenant that could not be subdivided.
Can you address that for us Barbara or anyone? It was included in the staff
notes and also the Planning C~m~ission notes on a covenant that covered the 21
acres. How does this affect the Plan B that was posed tonight?
Jo Ann Olsen: What was brought out was that, during the Planning C~ission
review they saw that outlot as just being used to keep the density down and that
it wasn't really going to be used as part of the lot, although this plan does
use some of that outlot area as buildable area but I think at that time they
said it was not going to be subdivided and it was always going to r~main open
space.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to have that issue addressed because what people
say in a planning situation and what actually happens in the future are two
different things. I reme~r Mrs. Swenson saying exactly that. That she was
concerned, about the density issue way back in 1985 and she was concerned that
this exact thing would happen. That eventually that piece of property would be
included in the net density so make sure that that's part of the discussion
that's brought back to us. That's all I have Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we've covered all the points. I guess everybody is
concerned about the w~ter and sewer and those issues need to be thoroughly
addressed. I think all the alternatives need to be investigated as to what type
of sewer syst~ you can put in there. I think there are some alternatives we
need to look at. I like the planning that I see. I think it's a good plan.
Either one of them but I also w~nt to get comments from the Planning Cc~mission
on your new plan. We have a blighted area there that was a beautiful area at
one time. I think we have an opportunity now to clean it up. To make it a real
nice part of the City of Chanhassen there's no reason that just because that's
38
City Council Meeting - July 11~ 1988
out in the country a little bit that we shouldn't be concerned about cleaning
that up just as well as any other part of town. I'd encourage you to go ahead
with the plan also.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to t~hle action on the Concept
Plan to amend a Planned Unit Develoi~nt for Ches Mar Fanss until after the
Planning Cc~mission has had a chance to review the new plan presented at the
City Council meeting. All voted in favor ar~ the motion carried.
Gerry Eikaas, 2761 Ches Mar Farm Boad: In the last Minutes I think it said my
nam~ was Aikenspot or something but it's Eikaas. We did ~ a letter to
councils and to the Planning Staff asking if we could please be notified
of any change or any plans and that has not occurred and I'm just asking out of
courtesy when you set up the meeting at the Planning Staff or City Council
meeting, if you could just send us a notice.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we have your name and if you give your name to Barbara.
Perhaps if they didn't know how to spell your name last time, it was hard for
~ to find you.
Councilman Boyt: Did we get that letter?
Councilman Geving: I don't r~member seeing it.
Gerry Eikaas: That was sent for the first m~-ting and I sent it ever~ on the
Council. We also sent it to the Planning Staff with my right name and address.
It was signed by everyone that lives at Ches Mar Farm.
Councilman Horn: Outside you said you didn't send it as part of this package.
You sent it directly to us?
Gerry Eikaas: No. I sent it to the City Hall.
Councilman Johnson: I think it was under Adminstrative Section several months
ago wasn't it? It was quite a while ago. I do r~ember a letter from Ches Mar
and I said, what's going on here?
AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR LAKE LUCY Rfl%D ~A~IN.
Gary Warren: Just briefly, to give you an overview here since everybody is
pretty familiar with our situation. This is an it~ that has appeared before
the Council back as far as 1979. The City's water-systs~ is split into
service areas. High pressure zone and what we call low pressure zone syst~.
It implies that it's deficient but it's lower than the high. Three quarters of
our users, basically frcm Yosemite Avenue to the east are in that low pressue
zone area and are serviced by Well ~4 down by Lake Susan and by Well ~2 in South
Lotus Lake park area. We just recently added our new grouts] storage reservoir
is in the low service area and added ~ed capacity into that area. The high
service zone is on the west side of the City and is serviced frc~ Well 93 off of
Galpin Blvd.. It services about a quarter of the users. Primarily up in about
the Lake Minnewashta area. As we pointed out in tlTe past and previous
39
feasibility studies ar~ most recently in 1985 the water study, a needed
improv~nent to the system is the trunk watermain along Lake Lucy Road to
interconnect the two systems on the north side down. Along Lake Lucy Boad to
basically connect tb~ Well #3 into the low pressure system. They basically are
pumping at the same service area and the water fr~n Well ~3 is sent through a
booster station to get it up to the higher elevation to the higher zone there.
A couple of things come with that. One, is Well ~3 is about 1,000 gallons per
minute pump, a major pump like for Wells #2 and #4. However, it only has a 250
gallon per minute back-up up in our high school well. Council took action as
you saw from the attactments here and I'm sure many of you are familiar with it,
having been there, to do necessary modifications to Well ~3 at that time and
also, to upgrade the capacity of the high school well from 150 to 250 gallons
per minute. That was done and that's all the farther we can really develop the
high school well. So by making the interconnection between the low pressure
system and Well %3, we are able to utilize pumping capacity of Wells ~2 and %4
to feed into the high pressure zone and likewise we are able to utilize Well #3
to pump back into the lower pressure system to serve as addition pumping
capacity. Well #3 currently runs about 5 hours a day on the average whereas
Well #2 is running in the primer mode, ve been up over 20 hours a day before
the sprinkling restrictions so %2 and %4 and definitely the work horses because
of the large amount of the system that they're feeding and Well #3 could help to
take some of the peak off of those wells. At this point in time, in light of
I guess what I would call almost a void in our system here, I thought it
appropriate to bring it back to the Council to reconsider and taking a fresh
look at the Lake Lucy Road watermain because as we all know, even with the
reserve capacity, storage capacity you have in the system, the ability to
develop the water and pump in the system is a real key for us as far as staying
ahead of the game on sprinkling ban problems.
Mayor Hamilton: When was the last feasibility study done?
Gary Warren: 1980.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could refresh everybody's memory and so everyone has
an understanding of what the feasibility study will show us.
Gary Warren: The purpose of the feasibility study would be to take a look at
constructing the watermain connection along Lake Lucy Road to actually establish
the feasibility of doing it, for one thing, and also to look at the cost for
constructing that improvement as well as funding scenarios. Whether any or all
or none of the costs would be assessed to the abutting property owners or
benefitting properties.
Mayor Hamilton: I know there are scme residents who are interested in this and
just so they know that by doing a feasibility study doesn't do anything other
than to give us additional information.
Gary Warren: We look at this as typical, I guess 429 public improvement
project, if the Council authorizes it, which would call for a public hearing
after the feasibility study was done. Invite public c~nnent and then allow an
evaluation on the basis of the Council to decide whether to proceed forward with
each step or not. We do have about 1,300 feet of the 18 inches. It would be an
18 inch watermain and we do have 1,300 feet of that already installed. We did
it as a part of the Curry Farms 1st Addition but we did not look at the local
40
City Council F~3ting - July 11, 1988
163
benefit from an assessment standpoint2
Councilman Horn: Did you also include in that other examples of this type of
facility? How it was funded or any deviations that w~'ve made from our
traditional funding methods?
Gary Warren: Yes, as I'm sure you're referencing here, with Chan Hills trunk
watermain for example. There we had a combination of local benefitting
property, that had a residential assessms~t ar~ also a large participation of
Councilman Horn: The other thing I'd like to see addressed in there, would
there have ~ the same had this ~ done in conjunction with the road
improv~lt project?
Gary Warren: The intent, just to clarify everybody's mind, is that we have
enough right-of-way out there ar~ such that we would not be tearing up Lake Lucy
Road.
Councilman Geving: Not just intent.
Gary Warren: That we would not be disrupting Lake Lucy Road.
Councilman Horn: If you were disrupting it today, would you plan the sewer
differently than where it is now because that will be the obvious question that
everyone will have?
c~ry Warren: As far as the cost?
Mayor Hamilton: We talked about that when we did Lake Lucy Boad. Why not do
the water at the sane time and I don' t remsmber what the reasons were why we
didn't but I know that we did talk about it.
Gary Warren: In going through the record, all that I could obtain was the
discussion, there was some question about Well 93 ar~ that it could be brought
up to higher capacity and also developing the high school well to a larger level
of service which was the direction the Council w~nt which at that time provided
us maybe 24 hours of reserve, which is reasoD_ahle with a service area for that
time. With the expansion we're seeing now, that is cutting...
Councilman Geving: Gary, is it possible that this entire project, for
feasibility purposes only, we're only talking feasibility here, could be funded
by means other than asses~ents? I'm talking 100%.
Gary Warren: There's always the options of utilizing trunk funds. Trunks funds
currently show a cash balance of about $270,000.~0. We're estimating the
project to cost about $350 , 000 . 00 so there is a shortfall there. I'm sure
through a general tax levy or there are other alternatives.
Councilman Geving: Those would come out, like Clark is mentioning, in your
alterantives.
Councilman Boyt: My comment would be, what you've told us, it's easy to
recognize that this is a critical situation. I don't think' it's critical to the
41
164
City Council Meeting - July 11~ 1988
people who live on Lake Lucy Road and I think I would support the direction Dale
might be headed in. I'd be opposed to assessing the people on Lake Lucy Road
for this. We need to pursue other alternatives with the thought being, at least
from my star, point, re not going to assess people that have a functioning
well and an existing working system. If they want to join it, then they can pay
whatever the fee is to attach.
Mayor Hamilton: ~nis is a citywide benefit and to loop the water system
cc~pletely is really a benefit to everybody in the City so I see that as
certainly not something that should be born by the folks who live on Lake Lucy
Road. I think we need to keep our vision open and look at all alternatives but
certainly looking more to how we can fund it without assessing anyone.
Councilman Geving: There's another issue though too Tom. Don't we have the
regulation that requires hook-up within one year if the facility is available.
That we might have to address that. If people do have a working syst~n, they
might be able to, part of that particular persons, you might want to refresh us.
Gary Warren: It's 1 or 2 years but it's within 150 feet also.
Mayor Hamilton: Tnat should be addressed within the feasibility study.
Councilman Geving: I don't want to force anybody into something that might cost
them a lot of money if they're got a new system and it's working even though we
do have a policy and an ordinance that covers it.
Councilman Horn: I think too, which will bring out in the feasibility study,
what our philosophy has been. I can remember the statement saying, if your well
isn't broke now, it's only a matter of time until it will be and the assumption
is you'll be tying into it. A lot of people paid a lot of assessments based on
that. It's going to come down to the same, just like Tcm mentioned earlier.
You were the last guy who paid for the water syst~n in front of your house even
though you had a working well and now the Council ccmes along and decided to
change the policy on how we assess this thing, I'd be a little upset. I don't
think none of us can make the statement on how this should be done until we get
the history...
Councilman Geving: Based on that, I would move that we authorize the feasibility
study on the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain as proposed to us tonight by Gary
Warren with all the comments prepared here given by the Council, to be included
in the feasibility study.
Mayor Hamilton: I'll second it. Did you guys have any comments? Brian or
Larry, did you guys have anything you wanted to cc~nent.
Larry Kerber: Could hcmeo~ers hook up to this or is this strictly a trunk?
You could hook up a house to it?
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Larry Kerber: Okay, how is it going to affect places that have water already
like my property?
Mayor Hamilton: You mean you have your own well?
42
City Council Meeting - July Iii 1988
165
Larry Kerber: No, I have city sewer and water~
Mayor Hamilton: You're already hooked into it? You won't be changing your
hook -up?
Larry Kerber: I mean if you decided to assess the homeowners, would I be
assessed? I already have sewer and water. I'm talking about my parcel o~ the
corner of Lake Lucy and Powers.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's kind of hard for us to answer that now. I guess
that should be part of the study to address properties like yours ar~ what the
alternatives would be because we just don't have the information. Brian?
.
Brian Tichy: C~ry, are you setting the pipes on the north side of the road?
Gary Warren: The current 1,300 feet is on the north side. The actual original
feasibility looked at the south side and had a sketch on that but there wasn't a
lot... The fact that we have 1,300 feet on the north side, they're not going to
beoom
~ ~a]:ren: ~e would ~etja~: ur~:~e~,~ath ~ roa~.
Resident: If you come on the north side, how much beyond the right-of-way are
you c(~ning into?
Gary Warren: I don' t know. We' 11 have to look at it.
Resident: You' re already at my front door.
Mayor Hamilton: That's part of the feasibility study. It's hard to answer
that.
Ted Coey: I think the reason a lot of us are here is because, as you know with
Lake Lucy Road being a probl~ ar~ we've already got an assesHm_=nt, in the
future on the interceptor and we're going to get this and what I'm saying, we're
all concerned about being able to afford to live there.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what you heard us saying. We're concerned about
Ted Ooey: I appreciate your comments and what Dale and a couple of the other
councilmembers said. We like it there and I don't want to have to move because
of a $20,000.0~ assessment. I have problems with $4,000.00 on this road...
Mayor Hamilton: Our goal is that you'll get hit for nothing.
Ted Coey: ~hat's what I wanted to hear. Thank you.
43
Resolution #88-75: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
authorize the feasibility study for Lake Lucy Road watermain as proposed
including the cc~nents made by the City Council. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW TO EXPAND FIRE STATION, 7610 LAREDO DRIVE.
Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody have any comments, questions? A motion would be
in order.
Councilman Boyt: I have a coa~ent. I think t_hat we should, there's a comment
in there about the addition of sugar maples. I think we should make that more
specific and say, we want about 25% to be sugar maples.
Barbara Dacy: 25% of the total trees?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: What' s wrong with the silver maple?
Councilman Boyt: Maple trees, how would that be?
Mayor Hamilton: Any maple tree is nice. What are those red ones with the red
leaves.
Councilman Boyt: Tnose are red maple. Maybe there's general agreement that
want to fix a percentage on that. The other thing I thought was worth some
discussion here was Planning Cc~mission m~m~er Batzli brought up handicap
accessibility. I guess philosophicly, we're building a public building, it
ought to be handicap accessible.
Councilman Johnson: By State law.
Councilman Boyt: It's a little frightening the cost of putting in an elevator
into the fire station. S~mehow or another I think we have to deal with the idea
that the building is cc~pletelyhandicap accessible.
Barbara Dacy: You may want to address that from the construction standpoint.
We...with the builder inspector, it's not required by State Law. Going beyond
that, you might want to address that.
Jim Chaffee: When I attended the Planning Commission, when they did address
this, it was my impression that he was getting at the voting that was going on
at the fire station. He was, I thought, that was going on down in the bassment.
It's not. It goes on upstairs. It doesn't address your concerns about being
totally handicap accessible. ~ne cost of the elevators is way beyond our
capacity at this time. It is not required by Code.
Mayor Hamilton: It's a fire station. It's not someplace where handicaps should
be going. We're not going to have handicap people as fire people, I wouldn't
think.
44
City Council Meeting - JUly 11~ 1988
Barbara Dacy: The main level is handicap accessible. It's the low~_r area that
we're concerned about.
Councilman Geving: That's basically a basement. Isn't that really ~hat w~'re
talking about? Training for the fire fighters.
Mayor Hamilton: Just by the nature of the...
Councilman Boyt: I understand that. It's sort of philosophical.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree. If we could somehow work in handicap accessibility. I
think it's unfair the way we treat handicap people but when you have a situation
like a fire station where you really need to be an able body person to partake
in that activity, even though we use that facility occassionally for scmething
other than a fire call. There are s~me meetings there, it would be nice if we
could have s~me way to acccmodate handicap people.
Councilman Boyt: The main floor is going to be. We're going to have the curb
cuts and all the things that we need to consider there. And I was impressed
that you put in lockers for w~men so maybe we're going to get s~me f~m~ale fire
fighters in there.
Mayor Hamilton: Just following up on what Bill's saying, see what else you can
do for handicap accessibility. For the building. Any other
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Site Plan l~view
~88-5 for expansion of the Fire Station based on the plans stamped "Received May
23, 1988" and subject to the following conditions:
1. Concrete curbing shall be added to the north side of the proposed driveway
entrance to the new apparatus storage area.
2. The lar~scaping plan shall be amended to indicate a species for the proposed
trees along the south lot line and to att~m~pt to save the Sugar Maple on the
northeast corner ar~ install 25% maple trees.
3. A revised grading plan shall be supplied to the City Engir~---r for approval
prior to final site plan review.
4. Calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer which verify that
adequate flow ar~ pressure conditions will be met to meet the ~ for
the sprinkling syste~.
5. Adequate fire hydrant spacing will be met as part of the plans and
specifications review process.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
45
Council ~=eting - July 11, 1988
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND S~CTION 20-813 TO ALLOW CHILD CARE
CENTERS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT, FIRST
READING.
Mayor Hamilton: I think Redman Products already has a daycare center in their
facility.
Barbara Dacy: That's correct. That was under our former ordinance and the
former ordinance did allow that type of accessory use.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's a great idea. It's really neat that companies are
willing to do that.
Councilman Boyt: I think we need to be specific about the users of the daycare
center. I think they need to be limited to children who have parents ~mployed
in the Industrial Park or maybe even with that particular ~mployer where it's
located. I don't think we want to encourage licensed daycare centers to take
people from the general public in an industrial office park. It's a real good
idea for the children of the people who work there.
Councilman Geving: I think that's probably already built in.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you know what the scope of your operation is going to be
Dick?
Dick Warren: ~ne primary purpose of course would be for the employees of
Instant Webb Ccmpany. What you run into is we have some fairly significant
costs that are associated with regulations. Construction really has to be built
during contingency so, I'm trying to find a good way of phrasing this. I think
that it would make the thing a lot more doable if you had the escape hatch of
opening it up to other people in the office park, if for whatever reason... It
would make the project a lot more feasible over the long haul.
Mayor Hailton: I think that's what Bill and Clark are saying. As long as it's
for the people in the office park, people who work there. Not necessarily
someone who works up on TH 7 and wants to just drop their child off at your
daycare center since there are other daycare centers to handle those type of
folks.
Councilman Boyt: I think we need to word that someway because as it stands now,
anyone could ccme in and say I want to put a daycare center in the IOP.
Barbara Dacy: Not as a permitted use. We have to have an established permitted
use in the industrial first before you can have an acessory use.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, I guess that covers my concern.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Request ~88-10 to amer~ Section 20-813, Permitted Accessory Uses of
the IOP, Industrial Office Park District, as follows:
(4) State licensed day care center.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
46
City Council M~eting - July 11, 1988
1.69'
CONSIDER BUDGET AM~MENT TO Cf~PLETE LAKE ANN PARK SHELTER.
Lori Sietsena: In the memo it says that there is a letter attached to the
Chanhassen Legion and I found that my packet didn't have it.
Councilman Boyt: Is that as a result of the action taken by Park and Bec? You
sent a letter as a follow-up?
Lori Siets~ma: No. This was an attachment and I don't know how it got excluded
from the package.
Councilman Johnson: They were quite busy on Friday night trying to get all
these out.
..
Lori Siets~na: It's a letter fr~m me to the Legion just outlining what
I understood their position on the Lake Ann Park shelter.
Councilman Geving: Thi~ is interesting on this electrical work. At first we
were just going to have a bulb practically hanging from the ceiling ar~ an
outlets so we could plug in sc~e cookers. It was going to be a low key, low
budget electrical amount of work. I'm surprised by this $8 , 000. 00. .
Lori Siets~ma: The bulk of that is getting the electrical from...
Councilman Geving: I know it's bringing it all the way up. Is that true then
that most of the cost is really that?
Lori Sietse~a: Yes.
Councilman Geving: Because I don't recall a whole lot of electrical work within
the facility itself. Have we ever gotte~ any money at all frcm the Legion Club?
Lori Sietsema: Yes. They made two palamm~ts last s~er. Each palanent was
$250.~.
Councilman (~eving: ~hat' s kind of skinny.
Mayor Hamilton: It just seens incredible to me that this little shelter can
cost so much. It's just amazing. I don't know who's ripping who off but I
think somebody's getting their pockets full and it just irritates me everytime I
see this. $1,758.~0 for co~.~rete, the only concrete work that's been done has
~n to set the damn thing. Unless that price includes pouring the floor in
there.
Lori Siets~m~a: Yes. It' s pouring the floor.
Councilman Boyt: What was the process you went through in getting bids for
this?
Lori Siets~ma: I contacted four local contractors and two of ~ were willing
to suh~it a quote for finishing the project at the site.
Councilman Boyt: And this was the low~st?
47
[7O
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Lori Siets~ma: Yes. The Woitilla's was the most by $5,000.00.
Mayor Hamilton: On the 4th of July weekend the Rotary used that shelter for
their concession stand and it worked out quite well just the way it is. It
would be nice to finish it I guess. Put in a c~ment or some kind of a floor or
asphalt or something in there. It worked well. We used it. It was just fine.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe you guys would be interested in picking up the...
Mayor Hamilton: Not a chance.
Councilman Horn: I would make a motion that we accept the recoaxnendation of the
Park and Recreation Omunission.
Councilman Geving: I'll second that. But that recca~nendation says that we go
back to the Legion and force thsm to pay the money to cover this and finish it
up.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Bec Oannission was relunctant to amend the budget
to spend money for this project. Instead of the City taking it over and sending
them t_he bill, they wanted to put it back in their lap and say, go with your
original plan to finish it with volunteer labor or donations or whatever and
start making your monthly payments.
Councilman Boyt: Haven't you already just about basically done that with this
letter?
Lori Sietsema: No. This letter just outlines, it would still be the City that
would be contacting the contractor to finish it. We would then add, I don't
know what, the options are outlined as far as what we would do. The Legion
agreed to pay $25,000.00 and then the question was, who was going to pay the
rest? Were we going to just only do $25,000.00 worth of work or was the City
going to pick up the additional or are we going to go back to the Legion and
Councilman Boyt: The philosophy of the Park and Rec Board then was to say that
the Legion has committed to building this shelter. We're sure that they will
follow through on that co~nitment and that's the nature of your motion? ~nank
you.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the recoaxnendation
of the Park and Recreation Oannission to deny the budget amendment proposal and
that the Legion should continue to work on the shelter and begin paying the
monthly installments on the existing loan. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOWMETAL BUILDINGS IN THE BUSINESS OFFICE AND
INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICTS, FIRST READING.
Barbara Dacy: When we last looked at this, essentially what the ordinance
amendment recogmended was basically it~ns (a) and (b) frcm the Planning
48
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Ommission. The Council was very concerned that we really w~ren't saying what
we had intended to be which was nuri~r one, prohibitirg polebarn buildings. So
we went back and did a little bit more research and looked at s~me other
co~nunity's ordinances. The question as posed before the Council is how do you
want the ordinance to regulate ~cial and industrial construction. Would
you want to permit a metal exterior such as the one that Bernie Hanson was
recently approved or do you want to implement a policy where there would be no
exposed metal walls on the surface. We have drafted an ordinance which would
accomplish prohibiting a pole building but would allow an exposed metal
exterior. Rightly so, the manager has added some c(mments regarding the
rec(lm~ndation that the City pursue an ordinance which would prohibit exposed
metal wall surfaces. We would have to come back with amended language. For
example, where he has allowed for construction that utilizes a metal roof systsm
so we would have to clarify that policy... So that's the major question
tonight. We've given you an example of one ordinance in another cc~mmity.
Mayor Hamilton: Isn't the building that the Chan Video and MGM building that
they're in, I believe that's a metal building.
Barbara Dacy: The Saddlery building is...but I think ~ is concrete blocks.
Mayor Hamilton: Because the exterior of that is nice.
Don Ashworth: If I may just follow up on my c~ments. I think we should allow
for metal buildings in the BF district and farm area and as part of contractor
yards. Right now there are literally restrictions from Opus which stops-metal
.
building construction within the Business Park. ~ne areas that we potentially
have left to see c~anercial and industrial develoIznent are all on lots that have
high visibility fr~n various directions. The Burdick parcels have high
visibility frown TH 5, CR 17 and realigned 78th Street. The parcels that could
be generated or created out on our east side which would lie between Lake Ilrive
East and TH 5, again have high visibility from the highway. I'm not really that
concerned about the ability of a property owner to do a facia. Again, similiar
to West 79th Street. West 79th Street, I think came out very nice. The
Saddlery, Dr. F~2oll~'s office. Those are all metal buildings. They look very
nice and the reason is, you don't really have any perspective there of the
depths of the buildings ~lves. You see the facia. You don't really see
the sides nor do you see the rear portion with the railroad tracks behind.
That's a lot different situation than for example the Riveria. They have a
facia there but you catch the whole side view as you're going by on either side.
You don't even notice that they have the facia on the front. It's not long
expanse of depth that I a~ quite concerned with. I tried to mull through my own
mind how you might do something where you would again do a partial type of
thing. Scmething like we did with Bernie Hanson. We screened two sides of him
and made 50% of each of those wall areas covered with materials other than the
metal but I don't know of any way you could potentially do that. Again, on the
Burdick parcels and the parcels on Lake Drive ~t, I guess I came to the
conclusion that I really think we should not put this ordinance through at this
point.
Councilman Johnson: I'm kind of split both ~ays in that I don't want polebarns
up but then I do see on the industrial side of things, there are times when the
metal building for high bay purposes or whatever, and strictly cost purposes of
doing scme people in. You can put up a building by Butler or various other
49
~[ 7~ty Council Meeting - July 11~ 1988
manufacturers that have s~me pretty good facia on them, even on the sides.
They're not just straight sides. They're indented and whatever. They've got a
texture to them. They can look pretty good. They're not going to be looking
like a brick building or scmething. It's not going to be as fancy but scmehow I
don't think it's reasonable to totally restrict metal buildings but then I don't
want to see a buildin~ that is just straight, quansant hut or metal building,
metal roof and absolutely no style to it. The town does have a certain class to
it. We have put up some pretty classy buildings. If you talk about a
contractor's yard within the IOP, I don't think it should be there either. I'm
not sure this is what we want. A polebarn is what a contractor's yard, they're
not looking for a fancy metal building.
Councilman Geving: I'll keep my c~ents brief. I think we should allow the
metal buildings. I think there's room for them in our city and they can do a
nice job with the facia. I have no problem with this. Bernie Hanson's building
was as nice as any. In fact, you were even fooled by s~me of the ones that are
already up like the Saddlery. I thought that was a wood building so I am in
favor of allowing the metal buildings. That's all.
Councilman Horn: I think there are certain metal buildings that are
appropriate. I don't think this shot at the ordinance goes far enough. I think
just saying that because it has a wood pole construction, that it is not
adequate. I think that more... I disagree with Jay. I don' t think the Butler
building is appropriate in this type of district. I think there are certain
metals that are. I think it boils right down to the same issue that we talked
about before, how do you specify what's a pretty metal building and what isn't.
What we have here I totally agree with the City Manager that this doesn't give
us much protection. I think we need more teeth in it than this. I think
there's a place for them but you can't leave it this loose.
Councilman Boyt: I appreciate the staff including the ordinances fr~m
surrounding communities. When I read them, t~den Prairie, I~dina, Blocmington and
Burnsville all deny metal buildings. I'm opposed to them. I don't see that
they can't build them in t~den Prairie so let's go over to Chanhassen and build a
metal building. Initially I thought gosh, it should be possible to build a
metal building but if we have some pretty outstanding c~unities that have said
you can't build ~ here, then I think they don't belong in our industrial
area.
Mayor Hamilton: I wouldn't be opposed to building them as long as we can review
each building and look at what the exterior treatment is going to be so that we
have sc~e say in what the outside will look like. A pole building is not really
a pole building. It's more than just that. It's not a couple of poles going up
for w~lls. It can be a pretty significant building but as long as the exterior
of it meets our requirements and the way we're trying to have the com~/nity
look, I guess I don' t seen any problem with building one of those. That's my
thoughts. Basically I'm in favor of ~ as long as we can control them
scz~at. The exterior facade.
Councilman Johnson: Does this ordinance do that for you though? I don't think
it does.
Mayor Hamilton: No it doesn' t. It has to change s~mewhat.
5~
City Council ~eting - JUly 11~ 1988
178
Don Ashworth: I would recommend that the Cournil t~hle this and allow us to
take your ccmnents into consideration and cc~e back with something.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman ~eving seconded to table' action on the Zoning
Ordinance Amenclnent to allow metal buildings in the Business Office and
Institutional and Industrial Office Park for further staff consideration. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: We saw some price figures in here that indicated that
something called a double skin metal treatment was up in the price range of
other types of building materials that were more appealing. I think staff
should consider rewriting this, if we're going to have metal, that it be
something that's the finest standard of metal that we can require.
CONSENT AG~DA: (H) AUTHORIZE INTERIM SEATER AND ~%TER SERVICE, BElieR
PROP~, WEST 184TH STREET AND TH 5.
Daryl Fortier: I'm Darrel Fortier frc~ the architectural fire of Fortier and
Associates. I'm here to represent Frank Beddor Jr. who is the owner of Park One
and also the owner of about 42 acres of property in ~en Prairie that we refer
to as the Craig Morton property. A minor brief background of the history of
m4en Prairie property. ~ Mr. Beddor Park (~e, he also looked for some future
expansion and that was to be into ~den Prairie simple because he had already
purchased Park One and Park TWo, which is the (~mnhassen portion of the
Industrial Park. His plans have now changed but at that time he was aware that
there were no utilities available to the ~en Prairie property. ~here was a
feasibility study issued ar~ during that feasibility study, the overall plan
which we had presented to the Council and Planning (km~nission at that time for
Park 0~e indicated that Frank's intent was to put up about a 2~,~00 square foot
building in ~]en Prairie and also perhaps use of an office building, although
that was very far sight and not of Frank's concern. Since that time the
feasibility study was approved and a lift station, because of it's topographic
difficulties, was installed and the sanitary sewer and a water stoke was
provided at least facing ~den Prairie, in case there was capacity there. Frank
is now in a situation where he has the opportunity to see that property
developed and to assist in the development of the rest of Park 0~e which is now
on the market for develo~z~ent. In order to do that however, he is seeking
confirmation frc~ the City that the City is willing to extend utility services
to the extent possible. He in no way is asking for a commitment that says
Chanhassen will indeed provide sanitary ~ ar~ water to a 250,~00 square foot
building. That might cut his own property short. He'd be cutting his own neck.
He does not want to do that. He is only looking for a consensus or a written
opinion from the City saying tha~ he would look favorably upon extending utility
service on an interim basis only to the project in ~den Prairie to the extent
that capacity is available or to the extent that the developer would be willing
to upgrade the lift station to make capacity available but not beyond that. I
guess that's the extent of my clarifications.
Councilman Johnson: I had a question ~ahether Met Council would have a problem
with us extending sewer into ~den Prairie. I don't know what ~den Prairie's
MUSA line situation is. Whether that's an allowable ~ed area or not.
51
174
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Daryl Fortier: It is within the MUSA llne but you're right, there are many
other conditions and concerns that would have to be addressed. Again, we are
not seeking confirmation that you solve them all. We're saying the project has
to stand on it's own merits. There has to be capacity there. It has to be
approved by ~den Prairie. If ~den Prairie does not have utilities available, we
are looking for a position statsment, if you will, from Chanhassen, saying that
you would be willing to provide this service to the extent possible and that
includes capacity and it includes approval fr~m other organizations. It is
simply a state of willingness, if you will, or looking upon with favor upon
extending this service. That's the extent of it.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like there's s~ne information that we need to have
before we can say we would or wouldn't and for what period of time is another
thing. To extend it for how long? I would suspect that if we did this, we may
want to say it's only going to be for a period of time. Whatever that may be,
it's not going to be indefinite.
Daryl Fortier: We're optimistic that utility service will neer be provided to
Chanhassen. The City of Eden Prairie has indicated that they are willing to
provide utility service but on their schedule and their schedule says that after
TH 5 is upgraded, they will extend utilities to this site as part of their
continuing utility expansion plan. At that time, of course it has to be hooked
up. We would see that a point condition under which if the applicant were to
come in saying Eden Prairie was not ready, we need it for 2 years, 1 year and we
also believe that the applicant would have to pay all costs incurred.
Councilman Horn: How do they tie that to the TH 5 issue?
Daryl Fortier: I'm not sure why Eden Prairie has done that.
Gary W~rren: The way I understand it, it relates mostly to water and that
realigr~ent of TH 5 and the filling and to construct a watermain at this time
and then to have when TH 5 comes back in on top of it and buy the watermain
would be a trsmendous...
Councilman Horn: I recall that...do we do that?
Mayor Hamilton: No.
Councilman Geving: But that was a different deal Clark because Shorewood had
made a decision by it's Council not to provide city sewer and water ever. So
that's why we didn't look too happily upon that situation and we turned th~m
down. We weren't going to provide their service for th~n if they weren't going
to help themselves.
Daryl Fortier: If a resolution were granted, we certainly have no objection of
pointing out that it is conditional upon the project's merits. Upon the
capability. Upon the interim service period being defined. It is really the
willingness of whether or not the City of Chanhassen is c~nfortable in providing
interim service to another community, ~den Prairie until the highway is
completed.
Mayor Hamilton: I would see it not as supplying a service to another co~unity
but carrying it to the applicant, Frank Beddor. We've worked well with Frank in
52
City Council Meeting - July 11~ 1988
the past and he's been good for our ~ty and hopefully w~'ve been good for
him but there are some questions I'd like to have answered prior to making a
decision on it. ~hat the excess capacity might be. ~hat Metropolitan Council
might say. Those issues are key to me.
Councilman Geving: Wouldn't we have some thoughts too about some ~atering bans
that we've had in the City of Chanhass~m this sumner and people have ~ really
doing a good job to assist us in this effort and then we turn around and say,
gee we've got so much water we'll give s(x~e to fkten Prairie ar~ help ~ out.
I think we've got to think about, as pretty ~mll through the process and make
sure that we do have that kirk1 of capacity because I suspect if we put this in
writing to Mr. Beddor, he's going to take it to the bank and it's a cc~nitment.
It's a commitment that he's going to give to a developer and to the sale of that
property. It's more than just a nice to have agre~mm~t. ~nis is a firm
cc~mi~t on the part of Chanhassen to make sure that that water flows and the
properties are sold and the people, the new developers get the water that
they're anticipating so I think there's more to this, as Tc~ says, than just
saying yes, re going to do it We've got to find out ~hether we' re capable
of doing it.
Daryl Fortier: You are partially correct there in the portion that Frank will
take it to the bank. Yes indeed, this is one of the issues of whether
development occurs next year or whether it occurs in 3 years. There is a
difference here. Tb~ issue of capacity is one that's going to be very tough to
resolve regardless of how you go about the nt~bers because it's going to be
directly related to what the develoIx~ent in Park One is. Currently, Park One
Lots 1 arxt 2 of Block 2 have put in a separate lift station ~hich serves
sanitary sewer. It excludes the lift station that was denied for Park One so
those two are effectively cut out of the capacity that was engineered into it.
Similarly, Lots 3 and 4 are only at about 50% of our projections for their use
so they're under capacity thereby creating some extra... We w~uld also have to
look at, regardless of what the engineering numbers were to begin with, we w~uld
have to look at how Park One is going to be developed. It w~uld be, at best, a
very rough estimate. If it continues to develop the way it is now, it certainly
will not reach more than 50% of it's expected capacity. If it w~re ho~_=ver,
suddenly to have a develolm~ent in Block 3, say we want to put up a 6 story
office building or some other use, that may exceed the capacity. It will he
very difficult to pin that down in advance. That's why the study for capacity
is going to be difficult to answer your concerns. We are seeking approval only
for excess capacity ar~ rely on that, again, Frank owns Park One and he does not
want to do anything that is prohibitive to develolmment of Park One.
Mayor Hamilton: Hopefully Gary and you can work together to answer scme of
these questions that we have. It's kind of a chicken and egg thing because we'd
like to see what you got planned and you want to get our okay before you start
planning and I don't think it's going to work that way for us.
Gary Warren: After Daryl and I had a chance to talk earlier today, if indeed it
is a c~m~itment for us to provide any excess capacity, I guess I could be
cc~fort~ble in that respect with the understar~ing that in order to establish
that we have excess capacity, that really is going to necessitate an engineering
study on it's own. Whenever the petition or whatever comes in, you say, okay
now we have a viable develolmnent here. There's one on that whole...and that is
alright, what is that develofm~nt and what are it's uses? Even now,...or just a
53
Council Meeting - July iii 1988
shear guess so that kind of trips the mechanism that this is...and then we say,
alright here is where Park One has developed to and what the capacities are and
do a base study, if you will, on the City expense. ~nat is where we still have
the control to say, well we don't have this or we do...
Councilman Horn: My gut feeling tells me we need Lake Lucy trunk before any of
this takes place.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see something in writing. A resolution
actually placed before us that with all these if, ands ar~ buts written down
into it so I'd recommend or move that we table this until we get the further
infonnation and everything in the proposal as we've got in front of us on paper
is opposite from what was presented tonight so I'd like to just table this until
we get an accurate proposal of what exactly you want.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table action on the
request for interim sewer and water service to the Beddor property at West 184th
Street and TH 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ACCEPT PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES, HIGH~AY 101 REALI(tT4ENT.
Resolution #88-76: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to accept
the proposal for Engineering Services for the Highway 101 realignment. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Geving: The discussion that I'd like, I'd like to make sure that
everyone who lives in the area that would be affected by this, fully understand
that if this should go through, Dakota Avenue and scme of those places might be
closed and that we'd want to hear about in the future that they didn't get the
word so I'd like to make sure that everybody along the line is aware that these
things that happen might affect. How you get that word out, I don't know.
Residents of Chan Estates and businessmen, the whole works. You know what I
mean.
Councilman Johnson: And on the north side along Great Plains Blvd..
Mayor Hamilton: Be creative. Everybody. In the apartments. In the Meadows.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Geving: I don't know what our current status is, where w~'re at, but
I have seen already the applications for the September Metro Goose Hunt which is
going to take place on September 1 through 10 in the metro area and I want to
know what we're going to do in Chanhassen. Are there areas that are closed off?
Will there be an allowed hunt on the farms and so forth? Jim, could you tell
us?
Jim Chaffee: I think you're going to find that we' re going to face the same
issues that we did last year in regards to shooting north of TH 5. By ordinance
anyone who wants to shoot north of TH 5 must come for Council approval prior to
the shoot and that is only particular to DNR sponsored control methods for
54
geese, deer, what have you. Last year we ran into the problem of timing.
People weren't aware of this particular part of the ordinance. They were cc~ing
in before action could be taken before they had e~ough time so I think if we
publicize it as soon as we find out. Let people know that we they have to get
their applications in in plenty of time for the Council to take the appropriate
action. I think we would clear away about 90% of the problems that we faced
last year.
Councilman Geving: Precisely why I'm bring it up tonight so we can get ahead of
the game and let people know.
Councilman Boyt: There's a big difference between this year and last lamar. I
think it's JUly 15th is the last day they can apply for a permit fr~n the State.
I think it would be a waste of money for us to go out and advertise this because
it's decided.
Councilman Geving: That's only the State application that goes in. They still
have to get the pennit, approval frc~ the larzl owner. If Mike Klingelhutz wants
to open up his farm for hunting, be still has to get approval from the City to
let those applicants who were successful cc~e out to his land to shoot geese.
Councilman Boyt: So what would you be thinking that we're going to. advertise?
Councilman Geving: I just want to let the Mike Klingelhutz' ~ everybody else
know who are planning on a hunt on their properties, that we still have in place
some approval processes that they've got to come to the City to get that pennit.
Councilman Boyt: I would say then, if we can do it, we should set a deadline of
whatever, what' s t/~ first meeting in August?
Barbara Dacy: August 8.
Councilman Geving: The big ommplaint last year from these people was that they
didn't know ar&t then we didn't have a meeting before Sept~m~ 1 so they didn't
have a chance to get their applications in. That was the problem.
Councilman Boyt: Can we set August 8th as our deadline for applications or
August 5th or whatever is sufficient time to get it into the packet?
Barbara Dacy: At least 10 days.
Councilman Johnson: Because staff's going to have to go out there and review
the site.
Councilman Boyt: We're already out of time.
Councilman Geving: I'm just bringing it up for staff.
Mayor Hamilton: So we're prepared more than we w~_re last time.
Councilman Johnson: DNR didn't ccm~ up with the idea or announce their plans
until August last year did they?
Councilman Geving: You're better organized this year.
55
[7~ty Council Meeting - JUly 11, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Just so you're on top of it and they're aware of it.
Councilman Boyt: My point is that if we advertise now, it sounds like it's
going to be pretty difficult to get everything in and settled by our August 8th
meeting. If we have to put it off fr~mAugust 8th to the 22nd, that's a week
before they're going to shoot. That's ridiculous to be making a decision at
that point. I would think either we get it done so it's on the August 8th
agenda or we don't do it.
Jim Chaffee: This is only particular to areas north of TH 5.
Councilman Boyt: So can we do it by the 8th?
Jim Chaffee: I think so.
Councilman Johnson: Last year we more or less restricted it to landowners
shooting for their own, not for profit. I know there was a gun club that wanted
to come in and shoot on there. I think there were some underlying impression I
got that s~me people were trying to turn a buck on it by making their land
available at a price to these people. Are we looking again to saying that this
is for the local landowners and their frier~s to c(x~e in and shoot and this is
not a c~m~rcial venture?
Councilman Geving: See, what you don't know Jay is how much money is passed
under the table even though it looks like just a friendly shoot. These guys are
charging $25.00 and $50.00 a day.
Mayor Hamilton: That's not unc~on. I don't think you can blame a farmer for
charging someone to ccme onto his land to shoot. There's no reason why we
should restrict that.
Councilman Johnson: North of TH 5 there shouldn't be.
Mayor Hamilton: Wherever they can shoot. If they want to charge someone to do
it, that's up to them. It's none of our business.
Councilman Boyt: As long as it's safe.
Mayor Hamilton: As long as it's safe and as long as it meets our ordinance,
it's up to them. The next item, Roger wanted to talk about land transfer.
Roger Knutson: I' 11 be very, very brief. Dale Ahlquist is also in the
audience. I believe you all have a letter from Chaska Investment Company on
this item. I won't read it to you. I have no personal knowledge of the facts
other than that and discussed it briefly with Dale and with Karen and s~me
people in City Hall. What appears the best people can tell is that the City
owned the adjacent parcel and there was a land swap. We got the parcel where
the small maintenance shed is now and we transferred this piece by deed back
scme 20 years ago or 15 years ago and the deed is missing. Now Chaska
Investment has sold the property and it seems that the land is still in the
City's name and they would like you to sign a Quit Claim ~. I have nothing
else for you. If you have any questions of Dale, he's here.
56
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
1'79
Councilman Johnson: Do you need to research this?
Roger Knutson: There's nothing else to research. We have researched it as much
as the records go. There is no deed out in the City.
Councilman (~eving: Would you describe exactly where this is? I'm confused on
the location.
Barbara Dacy: (]~ TH 41 just opposite...
Councilman (~eving: Our old maintenance shed at Copper Hill?
Barbara Dacy: Right. That's one parcel and the other parcel is opposite.
Roger Knutson: It appears w~ got the old maintenance shed property and we
swapped this parcel but the folks that we swapped it to lost the deed or put it
in their pocket or whatever and they did not record it.
Councilman Johnson: So do we still own the other?
Roger Knutson: Yes. We ow~ this too.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the land sale for
Cb~m~ Investment as noted. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to move the assessment hearing
date for the trunk sanitary sewer project from July 25, 1988 to August 8, 1988.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Gevir~ seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The ~ting was adjourned at 11:05 p~..
Suhnit~ by Don Ashworth
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
57