1986 06 02
I
I
I
227
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 2, 1986
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. '!he meeting was
opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman
Watson.
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy and Bill Monk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwomam Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded
to approve-the Agenda as presented with the addition of a brief presenta-
tion on Council Procedure and Policy by Councilman Geving. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
approve the Consent Agenda as presented. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
1. a.
First and Second Reading of an Amendment to Section 19.03 of the
Zoning Ordinance Regulating Corner Lot Setbacks.
b. Preliminary and Final plat Approval, Greenwood Shores 2nd
Addition, James Agnew, 7061 Shawnee Lane.
c. Approval of Final Plat, Development Contract and Grading Plan for
Triple Crown Estates.
d. Adoption of Findings of Fact, Lewis Woitalla Variance Request.
VISITOR PRESENTATION:
Don Kelly: 2081 West 65th Street. I, along with five of my neighbors, have
r.eceived a letter from the City requiring us to correct problems with our
private sewer system and to commence correction within thirty (30) days.
We have had problems with our septic system that have, in the last couple of
years with the additional ground water and now with the flood waters at a
peak. OUr problem is that ground enters the septic system and then flushes
the pestilence into the house. To compensate for this for a few weeks
during the spring, we find it necessary pump the affulient out into the
yard which of course, isn't a situation that we are happy with. Right now,
and probably until the balance of this year, we do not have a problem.
Obviously we need a permanent solution to the problem. Last fall the City
was going to improve the drainage along our road. We hoped that was going
to help us with our ground water problems. '!hat project was put off until
this spring. The City put in drain tile along the road. We in turn put in
250 feet of drain tile in our lot to try to draw ground water away.
1
228
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Unfortunately the soil in our area is such that you can have water standing
three feet away from the drain tile and it goes nowhere, so essentially
what we have is a basin into which our septic system drains. The basin
also serves as a runoff area for ground water and the ground water causes
the septic system to back up. We are in a situation now where the City is
demanding we correct the problem. The only solution that I can imagine that
is going to correct the problem is going to be putting in sanitary sewer.
The municipal line happens to meet my western property boundary and the
line is also one block north of us so for us to put in sanitary sewer we
would have to move that line to the south. Also, there is some question about
whether or not we could gravity feed into the sanitary sewer on Melody Hill
or Murray Hill. Since the problem does seem to be a neighborhood problem,
it has been identified as a problem for the six residents, it probably
involves more people on our street and on Crestview, a more satisfactory
solution would probably be to put in sewer on the two streets. This would
involve putting in a lift station to serve them until the Lake Virginia
interceptor is installed in a few years. The only other alternative would
be for each of us to put in our own system, our own little lift station and
for each of us to expend a lot of money in a temporary solution that would
be replaced when sanitary sewer is put in in a few years.
Mayor Hamilton: I can see we aren't going to discuss that this evening but
if you would have it on a future agenda so we could review the whole
problem and discuss it at that time.
Don Kelly: One of the problems that we have is that we have been directed
to commence correction within thirty days without having any idea what we
are suppose to be doing. It is difficult for us to do that.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure we can extend the thirty days since you have
brought this, I think the Council should review that and look at our
alternatives and see what can be done.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED STREET VACATION OF A PORTION OF LONE EAGLE ROAD IN CARVER BEACH,
SAM MONTGOMERY.
I
I
Barbara Dacy: The requested action tonight is to vacate the 20 foot by 100
foot strip of Lone Eagle Road that is west. In 1978 when the Chaparral 1st
Addition was platted, it appears that the southerly 20 feet of Lone Eagle
Dri veway was incorporated into the boundaries or area of Lot 26 and Lot 27
of the Chaparral Plat. Now with the property owner of the lot to the north
is intending to do, is requesting that the city vacate the northerly
portion so that he can take the necessary legal action to claim that as
part of his legal description and his lot area. I spoke with the City
Attorney this afternoon because an adjacent property owner had mentioned to I
me in the last week that they were interested or wanted to know if they
could file claim for the southerly 10 feet of the northerly 20 feet. I
double checked with the City Attorney and he advised me that Council's
2
Ci)C11Q
:;eel ~ v
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
action tonight is solely to vacate the right-of-way. We have no power to
determine who has ownership of any part of that right-of-way. That is to
be determined through the Court process. There are no utilities within the
paper street or obviously, it is substandard mix so it is not intended to
be improved. Therefore being no public purpose, Staff is recommending that
this portion be vacated.
Councilman Geving: I had a question on this. I know we have never done
this but we are talking about roughly 200 square feet on many of these
vacations and I am wondering if there is a possibility that we can sell a
lot such as this to meet conforming. Let's say that the tax forfeited
parcel which was recently picked up has 12,000 square feet. This being
approximately 200 square feet. It would make a very nice piece to that lot
and my question is have we never done this to my knowledge. We've never
really sold a piece but I can see us at some future time maybe, possibly
thinking about that. I think it would be an appropriate way of disposing
of paper streets and other vacated pieces that we have no longer any use
for. I know some roads on Circle Drive, I think there is a small piece
that I recall and others that just happen to be odd pieces that we picked
up because of road construction project. Maybe you would want to address
that. Is it possible we could do that?
I
Don Ashworth: I know of no mechanism by which it can be done. I can check
wi th the City Attorney's office. My understanding is whether they are
plotted or come in a normal case like this street, it still remains an
easement along and to either half of that road. In a vacation, that
ownership reverts back to the owners on either side.
Councilman Geving: That is if we vacate, but what if we don't vacate.
Don Ashworth: I don't know of any cases. If you obtained the street for
street purposes, I don't know. Let me verify it with the City Attorney's
office. I am confident of the fact that you can not do it.
Councilwoman Swenson: In vacating this, do we have any authority to
require that their be a planting there for screening purposes as a
concession?
Dacy: The property would become part of the property owners own personal
property. Not to my knowlege has there been a condition.
Councilwoman Swenson: This would again, have to be established in the
Courts I would imagine.
Mayor Hamil ton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close publ ic hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
I
Bill Monk: Keep in mind with any street vacation that as a roadway gets
platted, no matter what form that platting should take or acquisition
should take, the City has basically two things it can do with it. It can
either keep and use that right-of-way for public purposes, be it street or
utility, or it can vacate it for the use of the abutting property owners.
3
CD. 'J2 ,~
,L:..J <iJ) Ioty
City Council Meeting ~ June 2, 1986
As right~of-way; I know of no legal way by which the City could sell right~
of~way because it is basically just public land and not something that the
City owns: It is more just you use it for a specific purpose: If you
don't you can vacate and that is about the only options the Council has
wi th it: '!he same would go with putting any condition on it: Either the
City has to make a determination that it would use it for a specific
purpose or not: When you vacate a street; you are making a determination
that you will not; and I know of nowhere to place a condition on a
vacation:
I
Councilman Horn: I understand that we can't benefit from this but is there
anyway that we can be liable in dividing it between the potentially
benefiting properties that would cause some conflict.
Monk: The claims would be made legally to acquire whatever is vacated by
adjacent property owners. The City makes no determination of either
property owners rights nor takes on any liability.
Resolution 86-31:
Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded approving the street
vacation of Lone Eagle Road in Carver Beach of Lots 2259, 2265-2269. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
I
PUBLIC HEARING:
PROPOSED STREET VACATION OF MAPLE LANE IN BARDWELL ACRES.
Public Present
Kay Hegman
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Dacy: The Maple Lane right-of-way was part of the Bardwell Acres plat
originally in the early 1900's. It has a substandard right-of-way width
and there are no utilities nor is there any public purpose involved for the
right-of-way. This came to the City's attention because of a plat
application pertaining to this property but no matter what happens to that
particular plat application, the right-of-way should be vacated no matter
what. Therefore, we are recommending approval of this vacation.
Resolution 86-32:
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the street
vacation request for Maple Lane between Lots H, I and J of Bardwell Acres
on the west corner of Highway 7 and 41. All voted in favor and motion
carried .
I
4
(1)<l"1l r
/.~ ~')> J'_
City Council Meeting ~ June 2, 1986
I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the
Minutes of the May 5, 1986 Regular Chanhassen City Council Meeting with the
noted correction on Page 13, third paragraph which should read:
In other words, I would like to see a maximum of, let's say, 20% under
the 15,000 square feet.
All voted in favor except Councilman Geving who abstained. MJtion carried.
Councilwoman moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Chanhassen Planning Commission Mintues of May 14, 1986. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Chanhassen Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 1986. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving pointed out to the other council members the strong
language from the public on page 5 on the Planning Commission Minutes of
March 19, 1986.
I
TOMAC DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 1 AND 41-
a. Request to Rezone 5.4 Acres of land zoned C-l, Office Building to
C-2, Corrmercial. - - - -
b. Preliminary Plat Request to Subdivide 7.9 Acres into Six Lots.
I
Dacy: On June 3, 1985 the Council approved the Land Use Plan Amendment
request to redesignate this area as commercial on the Land Use Plan and to
rezone the the south site from R-l to C-l. I would like to go through the
differences between the application of last year and this application right
now. What is being proposed is 5 lots as opposed to 4 lots that were
proposed last year. Access into the site has been changed by one way in
from TH 7 and one way in from TH 41 and a private access drive through the
site to 64th Street and on out to TH 41. You may recall that last year
discussion regarding the traffic option circled around five options. This
was the one that the applicant proposed at that time which was to close off
Oriole and construct a connecting street into a full intersection and make
the required median right turn improvements at TH 7. As of now, as I
mentioned, that is not the case. Oriole Lane is to remain open and the
site is to be accessed by private access drives from TH 41, TH 7 and 64th
Street. The zoning pattern is also different. What is being requested is
for the northeasterly three lots to become C-2 and retain the western
boundary as C-l as it is now zoned. The Planning Commission recommended
rezoning of only Lot 6 to C-2.
5
cc~2'
Ld~_."J
City Council Meeting ~ June 2, 1986
I would like to run through the differences in uses between the C~l and C~2 I
district: You will probably recall from last years discussion~ C~l
primarily allows only offices~ financial institutions and medical and
professional offices as permitted use: As a conditional use~ C~l will
allow hospita1s~ mortuarys~ research facilities and residential uses: The
C-2 district is more intense. It will allow general retail, banks,
offices, restaurants, dry cleaning establishment, mortuarys and civic
institution as a permitted use. Permitted use at this time requires the
Planning Commission and City Council review. It is not a required public
hearing. Conditional use provision of a C-2 district will allow auto
service station, dry cleaning establishments, motel and hotels, parking
ramps, private clubs and 1aundramats.
I would like to go over the elements of the preliminary plat at this time.
Because of the concern regarding this rezoning action last year, especially
in regards to the traffic patterns, Staff requested that they also submit a
traffic ana1aysis essentially included in your report. The traffic
analysis referenced four conditions. One of them being the improvement of
64th Street as it intersects TH 41. It also recommends signage to prevent
right turns traffic going back in through the neighborhood. MnDot has
reviewed the proposed traffic pattern and their letter is also attached in
your packet and they have recommended that certain things be made to the
connection to TH 4 and TH 41. Just a brief comment on the TH 7 Corridor
Study that is still progressing. The Corridor Study is still in the
preliminary stages. They had a public hearing in April to take preliminary I
public comment. The applicants have met with the Consultants, BRW on the
matter. What they are proposing is not contrary to the intent of the TH 7
Corridor Study and in essence, is minimizing the impact from TH 7 and will
be shifting that impact to a different portion of the site. At this point
I would like to shift to Bill Monk to go over grading and traffic concerns.
Before Bill starts, the Planning Commission also recommended approval of
the plat subject to the conditions contained in the Staff report. So they
approved the rezoning for this one lot and and approved the preliminary
plat subdivision.
Bill Monk: The overall proposal is proposed to run sanitary sewer from
existing laterals on 64th Street up into the plat and this will easily
provide sanitary sewer service to this entire area. Whether it is
developed as commercial or higher density residential. The water main is
also proposed to be extended from 64th Street and the water main is
proposed to be looped around back over to Oriole Avenue and the Orchard
Lane area to allow good flow through the entire area. I won't make further
comments on those unless there are questions at this point in time. The
actual access proposal as Barbara has noted, has changed quite a bit.
Instead of proposing a major access point on TH 7, the proposal now
includes a right in that would include a right turn lane up on TH 7. A
right in off of TH 41 and also including improvements to TH 41 to allow the
turn lane and major improvements to 64th Street as that becomes really, the
major ingress/egress from the site. All improvements, proposed roadway and
utilities within the site are proposed to be handled in a owner I
installation or privately in keeping with the City policy for that type of
installation. The proposal for 64th Street would include a minimum of the
6
'100
CdUUJ
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
four conditions that Barbara read, of the traffic study which Staff did
request be so required with the submittal, would in essense be construction
of three lanes down in this area to allow a free right turn into the site
and also three lanes up at TH 41 access point to again allow a free right
movement and some widening on TH 41 in this area. That is a condition of
any approval that would be given. Traffic is proposed to increase
substantially on TH 41. As I noted in my report, however, the numbers that
have been projected for the entire development, when it is filled out,
still do not project into warranting a traffic signal on TH 41 at 64th
Street and are within acceptable limits if the full improvements are made
to 64th street as outlined.
I
On drainage issues, what is being proposed it merely to combine a series of
existing low areas and created low areas along the road so that runoff from
this site can be caught up in the various ponds and the rate of outlet as
it is released onto 64th Street would be maintained at its present rate and
not increased. This does meet Watershed District and Staff City policies
for handling runoff. However, the City has it's own set of problems in
this area and it affects the work we have been doing recently on Herman
Field Park. This shows the existing street layout am the arrows show
existing drainage patterns, just rough drainage patterns as they currently
exist. We've got a road area on 64th Street just to the east of Oriole
Avenue. Drainage comes from all directions down to that low point before
it flows overland through an existing swale across a residential lot am
through the corner of what will be Herman Field. FLows across the proposed
access to Herman Field, and we've had some problems with that am that is
really why the project has not come back for Park Commission or City
Council consideration. We are still wrestling with a lot of the concerns
wi th the extension in that area. I will be recommending that the Council
authorize Staff to work on a minor storm sewer improvement in this area.
The installation of catch basins and a pipe that would run out across the
site into the City parkland am eleviate that problem that would allow this
development, no matter how it develops, improve the drainage system in here
basically through a cooperative type project that would not necessitate
involving assessments and I am recommending that the Council approve the
preliminary plat with that direction be given to Staff so that we can try
and improve the drainage problem. The problem that presently does exist up
in this area. There are a lot of items involved in this. I guess with
that, a brief overview of the improvement section, as the Council gets to
various areas I will be available to answer questions.
Dacy: Just one final comment. I should note that the Planning Commission
added a condition on the plat that screening and landscaping be installed
along Lots 2 and 5 to adequately screen the C-2 area. That is the same
thing as the western boundary of the site. Also you should have at your
table a petition that was submitted to my office from the surrounding
property owners.
I
Doug Arndt Jr.: Mr. Mayor, Council members, thank you for your time
tonight. We are back before you this year to upgrade part of the property
on the corner of TH 7 and TH 41 to C-2 use. Partly because Tomac has spent
the last year trying to firrl an acceptable C-1 use for it. As you well
7
2Q~
pL:'-
~dU' .,-
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
know from reading the newspapers and other publications, office space in
the western and southern suburbs is overbuilt at this point. Office use
for this site, at this point or the foreseeable future, is not a real
alternative as amply demonstrated by the Sullivan Center which is in
foreclosure. What we propose on the site on the larger lots that the
Planning Commission recommended to go to C-2, is a 28,000 foot, high
quality retail service center that would contain some higher quality shops.
Not just a regular service center that would be a benefit to the immediate
area and for Chanhassen. The need for such a center, we feel has been
demonstrated, although we have not signed any leases because we are going
through the various city processes, we have tenative commitments for up to
50% of the space. In terms of the financing arranged, we have long term
financing arranged for this center. TOmac Development plans to own and
operate the center for the foreseeable future. We intend to be good
neighbors and long term neighbors. As far as what we propose before you
this year as compared to what happened last year, we really sat down with
the architects that we are using, who are very professional and very good at
what they do, they have worked on such projects as Galleria and Bonaventure
and a similar project right now under construction in Skokie, Illinois. We
wanted to address the traffic problems that we knew were a problem last
year and we feel we have done that with the right in off of TH 7 and the
right in off of TH 41. We are not interferring with any of the existing
traffic patterns. We are not asking for closure of existing streets. We
feel that is the best possible way to handle the traffic on and off the
site. As far as the buffering the existing neighborhood, we are not
asking, in fact we are asking for less C-2 area than was asked for last
year, we are keeping a strip of C-l office between the C-2 and the
neighborhood. Right now it is vacant land which provides a good buffer.
Also, as Barb indicated, as part of our developers agreement, are willing
to landscape with adequate landscaping, our landscape architect is here
tonight if you want to go into detail into it, to screen the project from
the neighborhood and make it acceptable in that way. We have also
indicated our willingness to enter into a developer's agreement which
includes the landscaping, approval of the details of the building when we
reach that process, we also will include the improvements on 64th Street
and obviously meet all the city standards and MnDot standards for the
access off of TH 7 and TH 41 and we will also meet the drainage
requirements. I guess I would like to summarize just by saying that what
we are proposing, we feel is a very good, high quality development that
would really add something to that area of Chanhassen. We are not asking
for any City money or IRV money or anything. It is all going to be
privately financed. We will be adding to the tax base and we really want
to be good neighbors. If I may, I would like to have our architect come up
for a few minutes and run through some of the details on the building we
are proposing if that is alright?
Reed Becker: I am with the architectural firm of Heise, vanneyand
Associates. We have taken a very close look at this site and what we have
done is has already been described, we have right in off of TH 7, a right
in off of TH 41 and ingress and egress off of 64th Street. We have sited
very carefully our center. Most often what happens is the center focused
wi th its parking out to the road so you see the parking from the center.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
2or;
In P: ~ '
.~.;~ ~_..
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
What we have done is turn the building to the road and we have a nice
elevation on both sides and what it does is buffer the parking in this area
from the road so the surrounding areas see the landscaping, which is the
green space with trees and the parking is on the interior of the site. As
mentioned earlier, there is an area here which is separated by almost 2@@
feet between the residential area and our center. In order to be a better
neighbor, we have provided a berm area in here and a landscape buffer so we
have both berming and landscaping. We have done a study that shows the
houses that are in this residential area, their sight line, due to our
buffer and our trees, they would be looking over the top of our shopping
center and would not see the building itself. 'Ihey are lower so they are
looking up, their sight line would go right over the roof. They would not
see the center. The fact that we have landscaping on all four sides of our
project, the parking as I mentioned, not only is internalized, but required
parking calls for 157 spaces. We have 163 including handicapped so we have
more than adequate parking. Bill Monk has already addressed the utilities.
That we are in compliance with the City requirements and the Wastershed
District and would work with the City on any details that would be required
to make this project work. The materials, I would just show you a rough
picture perspective for what we propose the building will look like. We
have used a very residential scale on purpose in this building. What we
have is a couple of anchors at each end, the total height of the building
is 19 feet and we have a band that runs around the building at 8 feet that
would have the signage for the different stores on it and below that is the
walkway. Above that we have gone to a shed roof which is a typical
residential style roof trying to give a more residential low scale
appearance. We also have met all of the other city ordinances in terms of
lighting, the landscaping as I already covered, and any other requirements
such as screening. As was just mentioned, a developers agreement would
contract us to all of those requirements.
Doug Arndt Jr.: If I may, we have a representative from the Civil
Engineer, our Landscape Architect, the Traffic Engineer to answer any
questions you may have.
Mayor Hamilton: I think what we would like to do first is ask if there are
obviously people here from the neighborhood who would like to make comments
and if you want to make comments, if there is a spokesperson for your
group, I would appreciate that so that everybody is not coming up here and
saying the same thing.
Kay Hegman: I have a question first of all. I wonder if the office
buildings aren't used, why would we use them for a buffer? Secondly, I
would like to know what C-2 will finally bring into our neighborhood. What
is going to happen to those big lots on TH 7 and TH 4l? will there be fast
food restaurant or a 24 hour gas station with that noise and lights going
all night long with kids and everybody. This is a little tiny neighborhood
and this is a little tiny plot they are going to put all this stuff on.
It's only what, 7 acres. My husband did send in a letter to put in your
packet because he wasn't able to be here tonight about the traffic. We live
there and we know how much traffic is there now. There is just no way with
two new roads coming in that it isn't going to be herendous. We've been
9
Gl." 0:' '0.' ."
.J -. fi,
L,~!.~'j .
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
here last year, the year before when Mr. Reutiman wanted to put in a motel,
and we fought this now for three years and it isn't fair. No one is
considering the neighborhood. We just have to keep coming back and coming
back and we have no choice. Whatever is decided, we just have to take it.
I think this is way too much. It really isn't right.
I
Bill Sweringer: I live on the adjoining corner. I don't have any problems
with the commercial corner. That certainly is the traffic count is high
and certainly anyone understands that across the street Shorewood has a
major shopping center. I have two questions. (be is what will happen with
the two front lots that were not discussed by the architects and two, who
is going to pay for the street improvements on 64th Street?
Bob Wagner: 2511 Orchard Lane. This is the file that accumulated in a
residential mode for this development over the last three years. I sort of
feel like one of the dogs in Padalon's experiment and every time he rings a
bell anymore I salivate. I think it is getting to be sort of old hat. It
was less than one year ago that this was rezoned to C-1 and as I recall
the residents at that time preferred R-1. I think the road access as
proposed by the developers would certainly be adequate for a C-1
development. I think that would mix qui te nicely. I have a problem in my
mim wi th the C-2 zoning and parkland developnent right down the road. I
think that should be addressed. I think along with some Chinese water
torture here, this also raises the issue of strip zoning to some extent in I
my mind still, that has been an issue going back three years ago. I just
foresee that there is a nice parking lot here am a nice empty lot behind
it and as they say, they will come back every year and propose a more'
intense use to be able to get a return on their investment. I see that we
have land behind this that can be rezoned or addressed a year from now with
the parking lot in place with a potential for C-2. I think that if this
were to even be considered as being passed, that now is the time to lock in
a long term commitment from these people that the rest of this lam will
remain C-I. They mentioned the Galleria and the Bonaventure as examples of
their work and that is certainly beautiful property. I also stop am think
of the high traffic that goes along with it. I question the traffic flow,
not out of this back up on 64th to TH 41, but out of this western on Oriole
around to TH 7 and I'm not going to be convinced that traffic isn't going to
flow both ways out of this development. I think that one other issue that
I would like to see addressed, is the one of the lighting that is going
into this complex. I think that any parking lot deserves lighting from the
standpoint of protection to the shoppers and I think there should be some
concern given to that same lighting and the effect on the residential
neighborhood.
Robert Sommer: I live on Chaska Road probably a little less than a half
mile from this proposed development. I don't have a comment to make, I
have a question. I guess it relates to, as I gather and I haven't been
pri vy to what is going on very much in the past, but from what I have
gathered, they wanted to put in an office building and this is no longer I
feasible because the office building situation is overbuilt. Obviously
they didn't do any market research before. I'm curious if they have done
any market research on this. Whether a shopping center is needed in the
10
I
I
I
237
City Council Meeting ~ June 2, 1986
area. We have downtown Excelsior, there are extensive plans for downtown
Chanhassen. I am curious what type of market research has been done.
Sandy Putnam: I 1i ve on Chaska Road which is across TH 41 from this. I
have a couple of concerns. One is I can foresee that traffic will, instead
of making a left to go up to TH 7 on TH 41, will shoot straight across TH 7
onto Chaska Road, which if you are familiar with that road, is not a road
devised, is strictly a residential area, it is a narrow road, it is not a
well maintained road most of the time. The other concern I have is that it
has only been a year since this has changed. I remember well at the
Planning Meeting one of the members on that council saying once it's
changed from R-l it is much more played with, which is exactly going on.
The person was relunctant to change it at that time. I think you need to
consider that those of us who live in that neighborhood our homes are our
primarily financial investment. I realize that the commercial use has a
financial investment too, but when we purchased our homes this area was
R-l. Our homes are our primary financial investment. It affects our
financial status, it also affects the quality of life that we expected when
we purchased. Now we gave once and I think it is enough.
John Schumacher: I 1i ve on North Manor about two blocks west of the
proposed change here. I guess my question would be, it seems we were here
a year ago and the Council voted for a C-l zoning and everybody in the
neighborhood was pretty happy with that and we are wondering why the
people, how they can come back and petition so soon for a C-2. Why can't
we just leave it with a C-1 and be happy with that. It seems to be the
general consensus of opinion in the neighborhood for what its worth.
Mayor Hamil ton: Barbara, would you please address the zoning issue and why
the applicant can request the change in zoning.
Dacy: There were two folks who mentioned what types of uses are involved in
the C-2 district. Again, C-l is strictly office and financial
institutions. C-2 is more intense in that it will allow retail sales,
restaurants, dry cleaning establishments as a permitted use. An auto
service station is a conditional use which means a public hearing is
required and adjacent property owners have to be notified. '!here was a
question as to who would be responsible for the improvements for 64th
Street. It is a condition of the plat that the applicant be responsible.
I will read the condition of approval:
Street improvements to west 64th Street between TH 41 and the site
entrance be required as a part of the development contract with the
City approval of the final design.
As to how the applicant can request a rezoning action. Our ordinance does
not stipulate a time limit or the number of times a person or property
owner can apply for rezoning of their property. That is an individual
right that any property owner has to request to the City for rezoning
action.
11
238
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Doug, one of your people should respond to the
lighting question am your three lots on the north, what you are proposing
for there and your market research question. Unless you don't want to
respond.
I
Doug Arndt Jr.: N:>, we are more than happy to respond. We want to give
all the answers we can possibly give. The two lots to the north, we are in
the process of signing an agreement with Hardees Family Restaurants on the
corner lot. On the secom we haven't determined a use for yet. Obviously
we spent some time on the property with the Planning Commission on Saturday
morning am listening to the trucks go through the gears am so on going
out of the intersection, it is rather noisy and those uses we feel would be
suited to that corner. As far as the market research obviously, the
agreement with Hardees for their restaurant, they don't go into anything
blindfolded. They know full well what they are getting into am the way
the numbers work. As far our 28,000 square foot retail center. Like I
indicated, we have close to 50% of it pre1eased without anything in writing
yet, obviously, so we have done research on that basis and these aren't
just short term mom and pop type operations, most of the leases we are
going to be entering into are five and ten year leases backed by solid
tenants. They aren't just individual stores they are good quality tenants
that will benefit the area.
Councilman Geving: Excuse me. I think the question was addressed to what
market research have you done to show it isn't suitable to office buiding.
I think everybody accepts that you have people who are interested in this
for this other use, but what market research have you conducted that says
it isn't suitable for office use?
I
Doug Arndt Jr.: '!he market research that we have done is talked to all of
the major developers in the Twin Cities area that are doing office and
office warehouse. N:>ne of them indicated any interest in buiding anything
on that corner at very reasonable land prices. You have all seen am heard
the numbers they are paying for land in Plymouth, Eden Prairie and
Bloomington am we are way below that am they are just flat not
interested. '!he other thing I said, the Sullivan Center across the street
wi th a major national tenant as the lead tenant, the building is in
foreclosure. '!hat speaks for the office market in that area. I'm not
saying ten years from now it might not be there. We would like to put an
office building as the buffer between our retail store and residential
area.
Sam Stern (Attorney for Tomac): I wanted to clarify something. When Tomac
was in last year they did not ask for C-1. In fact there was some concern
a year ago as to whether or not the office development on that corner would
be appropriate. They felt at that time C-2 would be more appropriate am
it was the Council's decision to go with C-1 at that time. So it is not a
question of coming in trying to get C-1 am coming back. In fact what they
did, given the interest of the neighborhood in preserving as close to a
residential basis as can be, spent a year looking for office potential am
what representatives of Krause-Anderson among others said, if you put in a
quality shopping development like this, that will encourage the C-l
I
12
2' 'J) 01
.d~<:_P
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
development which responds to the other issue. There is absolutely no
intent to do anything other than the C-l. I think it would be foolhardy
for Tomac to think that the Council would approve anything. Staff has
talked about the transition that they would like to see between R-l and
C-2. There is another point and then I will sit down, but we are here to
answer questions. In 1968 the generalized guideplan for Chanhassen
designated the southwest, the property that we are talking about, as
service commercial. It wasn't until 1972 that a new zoning ordinance
designated it as R-l. So initially there was some thought that it was a
service commercial oriented area and given the traffic flow and given from
Chanhassen's point of view, it's presence as the introduction to the city,
it seems more appropriate, we believe for C-2 in that corner than
residential with the transition to C-l which we hope can be developed with
the C-2 development that we propose now. Then leaving the R-l, of course,
as it is.
Reed Becker: I would like to address the lighting situation. There is an
ordinance in Chanhassen for shielded lighting and lighting in todays
market, the lighting that is available is as good as the lighting that you
see on the board up here in that there is a definite line outlining the
square. Even with the parking lot lighting we can shield the lighting so
it lights the parking lot but does not go, we wouldn't even light the C-l
area let alone the residential area, because we can control it that finely
by todays modem lighting standards.
I
Mayor Hamilton: According to my notes there is one issue that has not been
discussed by Staff or Tomac and that is the relationship of the C-2
district in proximity to the proposed Herman Field parkland. I believe
that was a questions that was brought up.
Dacy: Maybe I could ask for clarification on the question. Are they
regarding to the drainage issue?
Mayor Hamilton: No, I believe the question was about the park being so
close to the proposed development and what the impact would be on the park
when it is open and people using that park in such close proximity to a
high traffic area as I understood the questions. Who asked the question,
maybe YGU can clarify it.
Bob Wagner: Yes, I am concerned with, as you expressed, the intensity of a
C-2 developnent in relation to the parkland...
I
Monk: That is the approximate location. I'm not even sure of the exact
size. The land that the city presently owns is designated, we are referring
to as Herman Field, there is proposed a roadway access, gravel roadway
access from the corner interesection of Oriole and 64th. The City has
looked at running into this location with creation of a very small gravel
parking lot in this area for limited uses in this corner. Those being
playground and other active areas, but this has always been seen as the way
to drive into the site. We are also working on presently having one access
that comes into the backside, the piper Ridge subdivision which is not shown
on here, arrl we are looking at trying to acquire an easement along the lot
13
6";', ~ 1)
/_fL,~.-_:
.._~ -",-
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
line in this area so people could walk along the end of Forest Circle to
maximize the amount of pedestrian traffic that could get into the north am
west sides of the park. The south side being basically wetlands and really
part of the regional park. As far as separation of uses, we are not
anticipating a large traffic movement down into this park. We do
anticipate limited use with only basically walk in child's ball field in
this location, not a full size ball field. And our whole thing to
accomplish most of this through pedestrian use. They are relatively close
and I guess all I can do is state where the park exists. Some conflict in
this area as vehicles attempt to come down am use the park, but I haven't
given any particular thought beyond that but that is the situation as it
exists.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Mr. Sweringer if you could just give
me your ideas on the park, if you think the children in your neighborhood
would be crossing on TH 41 to get to that park once it is developed. TO the
ball field.
Mr. Sweringer: I did make reference to the park but I am thinking that the
intersection of 64th and TH 41 and right now, with very little traffic on
it, it is very difficult to cross from 64th across TH 41. I don't know if
it is too close to TH 7 or not but I think that is going to one of the
toughest issues there especially depending on what happens to West Jr. High
School am the potential sale of that. Perhaps another 70 to 100 cars
moving in and out of there daily. I still don't feel the question of those
front lots was addressed to my satisfaction. I'm still concerned about
that. As far as the park goes, I don't think that is going to be affected
greatly. The north lots, Lots 2, 3 and 4. The one with Hardees. No one
has ever discussed whether there would be a second fast food restaurant or
whether it would be a service station. Either of those two lots would
certainly impact on traffic flow and I talked to several of the major
service stations, Food-n-Fue1 type companies. They have to have a vast
amount of traffic. They have to pump several millions gallons of gas in
order to break even on that am that requires a lot of cars. That, of
course, has concerned me because everything is going to exit on 64th and
TH 41.
I
Councilman Geving: I believe Bill, I did have a question that I didn't
see an answer to, or I didn't hear it am that was the cost of maintaining
and upgrading 64th Street. I don't believe that was addressed Bill. Maybe
you can answer that. He asked who was going to pay for the upgrading.
Dacy: It is a condition of approval that the applicant be responsible for
upgrading 64th Street 100%.
Councilwoman Swenson: May I point out though, that is only upgrading it
only to the lot line of the developer so from that point to Oriole, we are
still dealing with a very small road.
Councilman Geving: I just wanted to make sure Bill's question got
answered.
I
14
6);. ,'. -c1
."-~/-:.~': _/
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
Mr. sweringer: I am probably the most immediate neighbor outside of Jan
and Harry Reed, and the PeOple who live on the backside who will be bermed
by the development. I am the one that is going to look directly from my
back porch right into the area. I currently watch TH 7 and 'IH 41. There is
no question in my mind that this is a commercial corner. I'm lit day and
night by the Shorewood Shopping Center so some more lighting isn't going to
affect me, and as a matter of fact, they will probably drown out anything
that this development ever hopes to do. I'm more concerned about traffic
flow onto to TH7 and TH4l. '!hat is my main concern. '!his is without
question a commercial corner.
Councilman Horn: I would like some clarification just to make sure we are
all under the same understanding. If I understood what the Planning
Commission's recommendation was, it was to rezone only Lot 6.
Dacy: Yes, that is correct.
Councilman Horn: Lot 6 then would be what we have planned for this
development, would not allow a fast food Hardees on Lot 4.
Dacy: If you maintain Lot 4 as C-l and only rezone Lot 6, it would only
apply to Lot 6.
I
Councilman Horn: My major concern is that if we create major traffic along
here, and that same concern I had last time I looked at this, PeOple are
going to make a right off of Oriole Lane and back onto TH 7. You don't ever
consider intensifying this areas if Oriole were closed off to TH 7. I think
the generation of traffic down to TH 41 is being the egress to this
development is the only thing that makes sense, but I don't think it will
happen with Oriole open.
Councilwoman Swenson: Now I think, why don't we consider Hardees. Is that
a fast food restaurant?
Dacy: Yes.
Councilwoman SWenson: So that would not be allowed in a C-l district?
Dacy: That is correct.
Councilwoman Swenson: My main concern with this is that we are talking
about a lot that is proper block, that is approximately 6, we are talking
about Lot 6.
Dacy: Maybe I misunderstood your previous clarification. '!hey are
requesting the Lots 3, 4 and 6 be rezoned to C-2 but the Planning
Commission only recommended Lot 6, but the request still holds for all
three lots.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: My major concern is when we went through this
before, and seems to me we all had a lot of headaches on it, is that we are
going to have a lot of interior traffic coming west on Sandpiper and going
15
01 L~ CJ)
.cd "::.!J
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
back on Sandpiper to eliminate this corner of TH 41 and TH 7. I am very much I
concernErl with the junction of 64th and 'IH 41. While the developer is
planning to upgrade 64th East and West from his lot line, we are still
wiming up with a very small, very narrow street from 64th to Oriole am
then Oriole. This is obviously a street that is intended for residential
use. I don't see any way that we are going to be able to eliminate an
intensification of traffic on those roads and if in fact the park goes in,
I can see a whale of a lot of people from the park shooting up Oriole Lane
and getting over here, one way or another and going to pick up a hamburger
at Hardees. I just don't like it. I see Mr. Sweringer's viewpoint. Lot 6
is a conceivable situation with a shopping center but I am afraid that
would be kim of like a topsy am it would just grow. We have one am then
we have an excuse to say well, we might as well add Lot 3 or 4 along with
that. I worked really hard on this last time, as I'm sure everybody else
on the Council did and the Planning Commission, and I felt at that time the
C-1 was an equitable solution to the problem am I guess my decision hasn't
changed a bit.
Councilman Geving: A year ago I think Council looked at this request very,
very hard. After a lot of discussion, a lot of review, am I agree that Bob
Wagner's file is as big as ours, we probably have twice as many papers on
this whole subject that we have been fighting am working with for the last
three years. I think Council made a major concession in converting this
residentially zoned property to C-l. It was a designation that I felt
uncomfortable with but I did feel that it finally solve the problem that we I
worked on for the last three years. I was quite surprised that it is
corning back to us again for another look. This takes a lot of our time, it
takes a lot of our Staff's time am quite frankly I think if the developer
had made his market study at the time he requested this back in 1983 and
1984 am 1985 again, then I think we wouldn't be here tonight, am maybe if
he has problems with his ability to get office space in this area, maybe we
ought to convert it back to residential because that is the one thing that
is really selling today. Secondly, I think that the action of the Council
has been very consistent. The denial of the original application from C-2
to C-l meant that the Council had acted to reduce the intensity and density
of this planned area to make it a more viable residential district. OUr
second action in the same respect was to approve the Randy Herman's Piper
Ridge development. It was only twelve units but it is going to be a very
nice, high quality residential area. Thirdly we approved the eventual
development of Herman Field, am I think all three of those actions kirrl of
gave an indication to the people who lived in the area that we are
attempting to make a very nice residential area for you. We want to keep
what is there at least. My concerns are that I have no idea what will
happen to Lots 3 and 4 if we go along with the Planning Commission
recommendation to rezone and work with just Lot 6. I have no guarantee, or
this Council has no guarantee, that if we are to approve that, that next
year we would be looking at Lots 3 and 4 and subsequently we would be
looking at eventually Lots 2 am 5. The whole thing is really going to be
a mess. I think we will continue to fight with this developer in terms of
wanting something more and like I said earlier, I thought we gave them a I
major concession in designating this to C-l. Now, if in fact the developer
does have 50% of 28,000 square feet of rental on a retail center already
16
~ /1 ':?
L,j'-:.;::LJ
City Council Meeting ~ June 2, 1986
I
commi tted~ we've got lots of places in downtown Chanhassen for those
people. I would like to see you bring them downtown. Finally, I don't
think anything has really changed for me in the year since we last looked
at this and as far as I'm concerned the whole area should remain C-l. '!hat
is the end of my corrments.
I
Councilwoman Watson: Dale said a lot of what I've been feeling since
we met last June which I was opposed to at the time. I had carpooled with
someone in this area and I had a chance to drive Oriole and 64th Street,
attempt to cross TH 41 at 64th to go onto Chaska Road and it is just about
impossible as well as the fact that these are obviously residential
streets. The homes are relatively close to these streets. You are never
going to make them any bigger than they are now. It can't be done without
putting those people practically in the middle of the road, so I feel and
have felt even more strongly since I did that than I did when I voted no on
the C-l in the first place. I understand that they want to come in and
produce a high quality development. I've never heard anyone say they were
going to come in and produce a poor quality development and I really think
it should go downtown. '!hey have people who want to develop in Chanhassen,
we've got places for them. I guess we made this decision only a year ago
and I didn't want it then and I don't want it now and since they don't have
a use for the C-l zoning, as they indicated that they can't use it, then I
agree. I think it should go back to residential. If there isn't room for
office space. They are building houses at Crosstown and Highway 18, they
are building houses all along 494, we have a development, and the gentlemen
who is planning this is sitting in the audience, who is going to put
housing along the 212 Corridor. People are willing to build houses in
buffered areas even in high traffic areas and I believe if this were
planned correctly, this would sell. As Dale pointed out, the thing that is
selling in Chanhassen right now is residential houses. We are building it
and we are selling it and that is what belongs there.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: I guess I have many of the same concerns. I felt that
when they last requested C-l that the proposed development was good one,
with the exception of a few traffic problems that existed on that plan, I
thought the C-l was a good zoning for this piece of property. I think the
development they have proposed is certainly not all bad and the shopping
center looks nice and would probably be a nice amenity to the community.
You have a shopping center right across the highway that I don't think is
extremely successful and we are proposing putting some of the same things
in this shopping center that are contained in that one. I'm not sure that
they would be any more successful here than they are across the street.
Lots 3 and 4, I guess I'm not convinced if a shopping center was to go in
here, perhaps Lots 3 and 4 would be a better place to put it rather than
Lot 6. Swing it around the corner. I'm not sure we have seen the best
plan if that is going to be that way. I still think C-l, I liked the
previous plan, I guess I was one of the proponents for it last time. I
thought it was a good plan and I felt that C-l would fit nicely in the
neighborhood and it would minimize the noise. You wouldn't have weekend
noise and weekend traffic and that was certainly one of our major
considerations when we approved C-l, so I agree with the other council
members that at this point C-l. As a residential corner, I don't
17
2.. ~ A.,.
L~_L,I_
,. -..:- --
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
think it is a residential corner but there would probably be some multiple
housing put in there that could work out nicely. Are there any further
corrments that you would like to make, Doug?
I
Doug Armt Jr.: Yes, a couple. First of all, as far as locating the space
we have interest in on TH 7 and TH 41 into downtown Chanhassen. '!hose people
are interested in that corner not downtown Chanhassen unfortunately for
various reasons.
Sam Stern: Location and the traffic flow there that we don't believe is
comucive to residential on that corner am we even have representatives of
the neighborhood acknowledging that is a commercial location. As such that
TH 7 and TH 41 makes sense for these people am for some reason, they are not
interested in downtown Chanhassen.
Doug Arndt Jr.: As far as the traffic and your concerns about the traffic.
We paid a professional engineer who makes his living at figuring out how
people drive, where people drive and why they drive. You've got the packet
in front of you and I'm sure you have all read it and seen it's
conclusions. He doesn't feel that there is a problem going back to the
west on 64th am going back up 64th to TH 41, both the State am traffic
engineer have said that intersection will handle it as it is currently
designed as long as we upgrade 64th which will take care some of the
existing problems. '!hat is money out of pocket that we are willing to
spend am further, to keep the questions about keeping 64th west of the I
intersection into our area the way it stands, I, as I come out of Ridgedale
or any number of other shopping centers, having my druthers, will always
take the easiest way out and going down a narrow, bumpy road is not the
easiest way out. If you can get back on TH 41 if you want to go east on TH 7
and just take the right hand turn onto TH 7, that is a pretty easy way out.
Sam Stern: We talked about alternatives at the Planning Commission meeting
involving signage, I don't know if we discussed speed bumps or whether or
not that would be acceptable, but there are ways of, am it is really an
enforcement problem more than anything else, of controlling the traffic.
If in fact it is going to be, and it is acknowledged that this corner is
more appropriately commercial, than the issue is, and Tomac is more than
happy to work with the City and State, how to best assure that
enforcability so that we are not running the traffic through the
neighborhood. We have a representative from the traffic study people here
and maybe he can address some of the concerns. I would like a full airing
of the issue so that we are not at least making decisions on false
impressions.
Steve Grow: I'm with Parks and Ashmen Associates and I'm a professional
traffic engineer. Traffic is a pretty subjective issue especially if you
live on a street next to a development such as this, and we have heard a
lot of concerns by the neighbors. However, we have looked at the traffic,
we've looked at the way in which the trips are going to go in and out of
the site and I think you should keep in mind that in many ways, this is
very excellent access to the site and the City Engineer has agreed. You
have got two right in only's off of major streets and it is a big
I
18
? L-d"l
4L:.::.~ -...- .......;'
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
improvement over the previous one. As far as the egress, going out, we
have proposed that 64th Street will be upgraded between the south site exit
and TH 41. '!he question remains as to whether the traffic along 64th Street
and Oriole Avenue will bother the residents sufficiently to hold up this
approval. I'm not going to stand here and say that there won't be any
traffic on that section, but we, through our studies, believe that there
won't be significant amounts of traffic. The easiest way out is along the
64th Street to TH 41. There is no question about that for people going
south or going back east. We have anticipated about 40% of the traffic
will go west so you have 40% of the exiting traffic that you have to worry
about. ~w we propose that we put a sign there that says "Local Traffic
Only" and I assume that people will obey that sign. Other factors that
enter into that have to do with how much time it takes to go each way for a
person, how much congestion there is at TH 41 and 64th Street which we
believe can be handled adequately. ouring off peak hours, the congestion
is not going to be significant and there is not going to be any incentive for
people to go through 64th Street, Oriole Avenue and make a difficult left
turn at a unsignalized intersection having to cross four lanes of TH 7. It
is only in the peak hours where this 40% of the traffic that does not
choose to obey traffic signs and I can come up here and quote you numbers
but it boils down to whether you think that is going to be sufficient to be
unacceptable. In my professional opinion, it's not. Thank you.
I
Doug Arndt Jr.: TO clarify two things. '!he center across the street that
you all express interest in is owned by Ryan Construction. My partner,
Todd Thompson is the leasing agent for the center. It has been fully
leased for some time with the exception of one 2,000 square foot piece that
is now going to be filled next week as a 81,000 square foot center. Ryan
Construction, I'm sure any of you that are involved in anyway in the
construction industry, does not do anything that is not profitable. It has
been a very profitable center for them. They are currently considering
either upgrading it or selling it and the new owners will in all
eventuality upgrade it. TO put our center in perspective, we are at 28,000
square feet, they are at 81,000 so we are less than half the size. What we
are proposing is a small, quality center that is not going to necessarily
compete directly across the street. What we are trying to do is intercept
some of the people that may be going to Bonaventure or over to Ridgedale.
They don't have to run all the way to Wayzata to get a pair of boat shoes
or what have you.
Councilwoman Swenson: Hopefully they will only have to run to Chanhassen.
Mayor Hamil ton: We have a request before us to rezone 5.4 acres of land
zoned C-l, Office Buidling to C-2, Commercial.
I
Councilman Horn: As I understand, we couldn't make a motion to accept the
Planning Commission's recommendation because that is not the action before
us. Is that correct? OUr action is either to accept or reject the
proposal as it brought before us tonight.
Dacy: Yes, the Planning Commission's action was a recommendation to rezone
just Lot 6. However, the request still is to rezone Lots 3, 4 and 6 to
19
~&Jl)
I ,.,.~ ~ \U
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
C-2. You can approve it, deny it, approve one lot, two lots, three lots or
table.
I
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded for denial for Tomac
Development, Southwest Corner of Highways 7 and 41 for the request to
rezone 5.4 acres of land zoned C-l, Office Building to C-2, Commercial for
Lots 3, 4 and 6 and to table the item until the Attorney can prepare
Findings of Facts for denial. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Dacy: I would recommend that the Council consider the Attorney preparing
Findings of Facts for denial.
Mayor Hamilton: I would entertain a motion to table this item until the
Findings of Facts can be foun:] by the City Attorney. Councilwoman Watson
moved and Councilman seconded to table this item until the Findings of
Facts can be found by the City Attorney. All voted in favor an:] motion
carried .
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY:
a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow Substations as a Conditional
Use in the R-lA, Agricultural REsidence District:--
b.
Conditional Use Permit Request to Allow Zoned Substation to be
Located on 7J;.Cres of Property ZOned R-lA, Agricultural Residence
Districtand Locate<rat the Northwest Corner of County Road 17 and
County Road 18. -- - ---
I
c. Conditional Use Permit Request to Allow 115 kv Power Transmission
Lines through the Ci ty of Chanhassen Ei th'er Along Highway 5 and
the Chicago-MITWaU'k'ee Ral.lroad or along the future Highway-212
Alignment. - - -
Dacy: I would like to, if possible, discuss all three items because
everything is interconnected and Staff has also prepared some video tapes
to aid in your review of this so I beg your indulgence and ask you watch
the TV for a little bit here. What we are going to do start by showing you
snapshots and strategic aspects of the four alignments for the proposed
transmission property. The four alternatives consist of three options along
Highway 5 and the fourth option is along 212 Corridor.
Option 1 is extending the transmission lines from the Westgate
Substation along the north side of Highway 5, reaching 184th Street going
north to the railroad tracks and then south an:] west along the railroad
tracks to the business park to the existing 69KV line to the south.
Option 2 is just follow the Highway 5 alignment into Chanhassen to
approximately where the taco shop and cement plant is, again along the
railroad tracks through downtown and down to the existing 69 kv line.
I
20
oAr;
~ I, ,_"_. !
.c.>.~ ..:A. t:
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
Option 3 is to cross Highway 5 at the Dakota Avenue intersection to the
south side of TH 5~ and then to the railroad tracks through the
business park:
Option 4 is to follow the TH 212 Corridor:
At this point a tape change occurred during Staff's presentation am the
video presentation.
I
Mr. Hoisington: Your Honor and members of the City Council. We had the
luxury of being able to look at this from a rather narrow perspective, the
perspective of downtown as opposed to having to look at all of the
alternatives that you must struggle with. What that does for us is allows
us to eliminate Alternative 1 because for the sake of impacts on downtown,
Alternatives 1 and 2 are basically the same. Because of the distance
between downtown and 212 Corridor, where there will be no impact on
downtown, we did not evaluate that either as per the direction of the City
Council and Planning Commission. I won't go through the characteristics
am the construction schedule of the transmission line, I think you have
been through that enough times in the past. We are all familiar with the
height of the poles am the spacing am so forth. The only comment I would
like to make with regards to some comments that I have read in Minutes and
so forth with regard to 212, is that 212 will be an absolute necessity to
the City of Chanhassen and as traffic consultants to the City of Chanhassen
or the HRA, we have every reason to believe that thing that has been out
there for so many years is going to realized one of these days and if it
isn't, you are going see a horrendous roadway project on Highway 5 in
future, so I guess all I would suggest to you is that we not treat 212 as
something that may never occur. I think it is going to occur and I don't
think you can avoid it occurring in the future. We had to struggle for a
long time with the downtown plan for the City am one of the most difficult
parts in dealing with downtown was the railroad line itself. If the
railroad line represented some kind of an edge to downtown, we would have
had much less difficulty dealing with it but what it does is it represents
a barrier exactly between Highway 5, which is our way to get into downtown
and the real heart of downtown which is on both sides of West 78th Street.
We though of all kims of things that could occur am all different ways an
access could be provided and what we concluded was that what was needed was
sort of a loop that included Great Plains Blvd. but also included the
second access to downtown. As most of you know we have been in the process
of evaluating that over the last several months am we are about ready to
come back to you with the recommendation that has the agreement of MnDot
and all the agencies that have been involved in the process with us. I
only want to say to you that railroad has been a very difficult barrier for
us to overcome and I will say that I'm not sure we've overcome it at this
point. What I will say is that it is a two dimensional kind of barrier.
It's not a three dimensional barrier and I think we can tolerate or live
with it, but I'm not sure we can live with a three dimensional one that
would reinforce that railroad line. I won't go through the downtown plan
objectives. You have those and you have had the opportunity to review
I
21
248
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
those in the past. I will say that objectives 8 and 10, I believe would be I
violated by any proposal that would run the power line down along the
railroad tracks. I won't go through the concept plan highlights but what
it does is summarizes for you what we were trying to accomplish and what
some of the features of that plan are and what the effects of the
transmissions line on downtown. Again, we are considering only
Alternatives 2 and 3. ~wntowns are the most difficult part of any
community to deal with unless you happen to be a central city where you
have housing problems that are also very difficult to deal with and usually
those problems are very close to downtown. The reason downtown is so
difficult is because you have to invest dollars there and the reason you
have to invest dollars there is because you have to make what is happening
downtown competi ti ve with what can happen in the corn field. It is easy to
do things in a corn field. It is very difficult to do them in downtown.
What they mean is the city has to put dollars into it and at the same time
it is putting dollars into it's downtown to revitalize it, it cannot afford
to be shooting itself in the foot and doing things that are contrary to
that very substantial investment in the downtown area. OUr conclusions are
that Alternative 2 would be one of those things that would be very
detrimental to your downtown business community. When we develoPed the
plan, we expanded the business or the planning area to include both sides
of West 79th Street, both sides of the railroad tracks, purposely to unify
and integrate that business are but secondly to provide access to Highway 5
to the most important part of that business community. We believe that
Alternative 2 would violate not only the plan objectives but would tend to I
create that three dimensional barrier that would be obtrusive, difficult to
overcome, would tend to diminish the private sectors willingness to invest
in downtown and we just simply can not, under any circumstances see it
located as per Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would have a much lesser
impact. What it does is put the power line at the edge. I'm not
suggesting that it is any better for the properties that it goes through.
Only that it puts it at the edge of downtown and the only real impact you
have is from downtown. You can look from West 78th Street and will be able
to see the power poles in the background. That doesn't bother me a whole
lot in comparison to what the impact will be if it is right along the
railroad tracks. We make some recommendations to you, just seven of them.
We would ask you to exclude from any further consideration Alternative 2 as
the alternative routing for the transmission line. I'm not sure how you
deal with alternatives 3 and 4 but since neither have significant impact on
downtown I wouldn't really care to get into those. On the other hand, if
Alternative 4 is selected, we noted that there was some consideration on
running down section lines as opposed to the roadway corridor itself. We
would disagree with that. We really don't want to see a multiple corridor
si tuation out if that should become the al ternati ve that would be accepted
by the city. One of the things we would strongly encourage you to do,
wherever possible, put existing power lines wi thin the downtown
underground. In the communities I have worked with, we have struggled with
that and succeeded in some cases and not in others and even the normal
service, normal distribution lines we would encourage to be put
underground. Of course, that takes some effort and some expenditure of I
city funds to make that sort of thing happen. 'lb build one major facility
along railroad tracks, we believe would be contrary to intent. With that I
22
C'ilJQ
bj "::!L/
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
think what we will do is show another video tape and try to give you an
impression of exactly the same structures that you would be looking at in
this case. We can't replicate the situation for you precisely but what we
can tell you are a number of things that would coincide.
At this point staff gave it's video presentation showing examples of
transmission lines and substations in other towns in the Twin cities area
and their relationship to adjoining residential and business areas.
I
Dacy: The other recommendations from the Planning Commission was that the
Opus Corporation be given a chance to present their concerns and their
representative is here tonight. Thirdly, that the City Manager certify
that there is a need for the transmission lines. In your packet there is
information that NSP has submitted convincing the Staff that indeed there
is a need for the transmission line. The data they have submitted
coincides with our records as far as residential, commercial and industrial
growth. It is interesting to point out that in fact the southwest area,
their Minnetonka division, leads the metropolitan area in the percentage of
increase in electric loads since 1980. Fourth, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Manager agree that the 212 Corridor is not a
viable alternative. Mr. Hoisington has just spoken to that issue.
Finally, that the City would work with NSP to minimize negative impacts on
business parks and downtown that would continue depending on which option
is chosen by the Council. Just briefly on the substation request. What is
needed is a zoning ordinance amendment in the R-lA district to allow such a
use. The present ordinance does not address it specifically. Some
communities like Eden Prairie allow substations or transmission lines as a
permitted use defining that as an essential service. However, our present
ordinance does require a conditional use for the transmission lines and
based on that, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning
ordinance amendment to allow electrical substations as a conditional use
subject to five standards and they did add a sixth one requiring that
substations shall be 500 feet from a single family residence. So the final
request for this particular item is for the location of the substation
si tee I'm going to refer to the area up here. At the location of 17 and
18, and there is a reduced copy of the aerial in your Staff Report. The
Planning Commission action on this was to recomend denial of the location
of the substation at this site feeling that alternative sites should be
looked at specifically adjacent to the railroad. In between the Commission
and Council meeting, NSP submitted additional information in conjunction
with Staff, the alternative two sites were evaluated. The three major
criteria to locate substation sites is (I) importance of access between the
substation site and the existing 69 kv line; (2) immediate access from the
major collector roadway such as Lyman Blvd; and (3) the location of the
substation at the appropriate point along the transmission of routing. Not
only do they have to locate the substation site in a position that is
appropriate for feeder lines and distribution and transmission lines coming
in so there is no lag of voltage down the line. Also, as you recall, NSP
is proposing in conjunction with Chaska Electric, to hook into the Chaska
distribution lines immediately the west. With those three criteria, two
other sites were looked at. The first site is further north along Lyman
I
23
c; h. (\',
L".d U V
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Blvd. adjacent to the railroad tracks. Visibility and visual impact is
characteristic of all the sites that you just can't avoid. No matter the
site, there is going to be a visual impact from some direction. Drawbacks
for site number 1, in view of the criteria, is that it is located too far
away from existing kv lines. NSP would have to double back on their lines.
While access is good in location to the Chaska distribution lines, the
major drawback with Alternative 1 is it's distance from the existing line.
Also, there is a william's Pipeline easement that runs in this area that
was not specifically defined for this particular matter but that is another
limiting factor with these two options. The second site, while it is
closer to the 69 kv line is further east for connection into the Chaska
distribution lines. Also, as you walk the site, the topography rises
gradually to the east and then falls rapidly down into this low spot in
here, NSP requires that access to their substation site not exceed a grade
of 3% because of the type of vehicles they have. This site would
need extensive grading in this area for access to this particular site. We
corne down to the original, considered site. It has immediate access to the
69 kv line, it has immediate access to County Road 18, it does provide the
appropriate location for the transformation of electrical voltages from the
69 to the 115 but the remaining factor is the visual impact. Based on
that, Staff has revised site plan to sink the substation to create a 15
foot berm. The top elevation is viewed from County Road 18 from
approximately the south. As you can tell, there is a difference in grade
of approximatley 15 feet such that a control house could be completely
behind that berm. What you would be able to see is the top of the' 115
transformers which are approximately 36 feet in height. If you can
remember back to that videotape and I was talking about that particular
structure in Brooklyn Park, you can see those singular poles. However, the
majority of the ground structure would be sunk and screened from County
Road 18. The bottom elevation gives another view of that as well. As you
can tell by the grades on your site plan that the property is being
screened from the south and west. There are stands of existing vegetation
in southeast corner and along the northwest corner so that the view from
the traveled roadway would be screened. There is no question, because of
the grade to the north and east, that this site will be exposed. That
exposure is characteristic not only of this site but also of the other
sites that we looked at. The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping
plan to compliment the berming, etc. along that. Item 6(b) of your packet,
we have recommended six conditions of approval on the substation site.
Basing approval of the plan that see tonight the installation of
landscaping, the installation of a culvert under the proposed access
driveway and the driveway access shall be blacktopped to the security
fense. Also, you will note that there is an existing house on the property
that is being leased. At this time, in order to give the present owner
time to vacate the premises, as a condition of approval, that the house be
removed within one year of the date of Council approval. Thank you for
your patience. Staff is completed.
Don Chmiel: I'm with Northern States Power. I think Barbara has
sufficiently covered what we had looked at as far as proposals. What we
have done in the substation site itself, if I could just point it out. You
are looking at a contour now of 925. Previously the sole substation was
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
69fZf
Ld UJ .1;_
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
moved to the south, up above the 940 level as shown here. By taking it and
it back and depressing that station, we will gain an additional 15 foot
height in screening for it whereby utilizing the existing berm off of this
area and as Barbara also mentioned the fact of planting some landscaping in
adjacent to that particular site with a different selection of plantings
all the way through within this area. I guess we agree with all the
specific conditions on the substation site itself. The only one is the
number 5 which is the driveway access should be blacktopped to the security
fence. We would prefer just putting an apron in on this particular
location and using crushed rock. Because of the heaviness, in the event
that we have to bring in a mobile transformer, we would have to build that
dri veway which is about 200 and some feet long up to a 20 ton capacity road
and we feel that we could much better utilize that with crushed rock than
we could with that and thereby saving some cost differences as well. That
is the only condition we are basically not in agreement with. I guess we
are open for direction as to location of the transmission lines. We do
know there is a need and I think we have proven that need now to the City
in bringing in substantial data and bringing in our ledgers showing where
those load and capacities are, so with that I will turn it back to the
Council.
Mr. D=gler: I live on Lyman Blvd. and my parents live on the corner and
maybe you aren't aware of it, I hate to bring it up and talk about it, but
my brother was killed by this relatively low 69 kv compared to the 115 that
they are proposing now. I'm not going to talk much about the line. My
main concern right now is the proposed substation. I feel real bad that
NSP didn't take the recommendation of the Planning Commission and look more
into moving up by the railroad tracks. I feel that the City of Chanhassen
does not need another blight out in a good, prime location. I agree with
everybody that said the railroad tracks are to live with but they are
there. We have to live and I think that is the place for another faciity
just like this. I'm not sure if you have looked, walked out, if you are
familar with the other proposed two sites. I think they are number 1 and
number 2, but I live there and I took the time last night and walked over
to the other two proposed sites plus this proposed site. I personally
feel either site, 1 or 2, is better than this proposed site for a couple
different reasons. Site 1 is easy access. You are on top of a hill which
can be bermed appropriately. The problem with Williams pipeline, if you
look at a map, there is plenty of room up there. William Pipeline is not
going to present a problem in that area. In between one-tenth of a mile
and two-tenths of a mile, you have more acreage right there. One-tenth of
a mile is only 500 and some feet. You have plenty of room for substation.
It is close to the track. From on top of that hill you can look and only
see three at the most, four family houses right there. There are two more
that you know they are there, but because of the growth of trees this time
of year, you don't see the house. You go back to this proposed substation
and there are seven that you can look right at, broad daylight and there
are two more with the growth of trees, you can't see. The next proposed
option was 2. It was mentioned that it was low ground. You walk in there
it goes down and then up. It's not classified low ground by any means. It
has been a field with corn last year. It is obviously not low ground. It
is lower than option 1, but not classified as low ground. NSP might have a
25
PC;0
Ld~'L'd
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
problem with 3% slope but I'm not so sure Lyman Blvd. itself is less than a I
3% slope. I think you can easily make a road if you want a road to get
in. This proposed site is relatively close to existing houses, within one-
quarter a mile there are three houses that are going to stay there.
Obviously within 500 feet, within 1,000 feet, even throw a ball from the
house that is there now. I just heard tonight that that house would have
to be moved. I'm sure the owner of the land would go along with it but
that is not his number priority right now to get rid of an existing family
structure. We know that the City of Cllaska is buying the land. '!hat was
part of the agreement with NSP. The City of Chaska realizes the problem of
a substation within a city. They realize it is an eyesore and they will
work Chanhassen to put it in a spot that would be the least problem. I
have talked to their City Manager and he recommends, highly agrees with
putting it up next to the railroad tracks. It is actually closer, cheaper
for his distribution lines. '!heir power need is in their industrial park
which is west and north of the railroad tracks and he said at this proposed
substation, they would have to bury the line from this substation up to the
railroad tracks and then again bring it up because they firmly believe in
burying their power lines within their industrial park. This substation is
qui te a ways away from Chanhassen's need. Chanhassen's need is obviously
in the industrial park. with either option 1 or 2, next to the tracks it
is a straight shot east right to the industrial park. We heard how they
would have to back track off of the 69 kv line. That is, if you take
option 2, approximately one-tenth of a mile, 500 feet. That is not much a
back track. If you take option 1, at the most it is three-tenths of a I
mile, 1,500 feet. I don't think that justifies. Here, there is still
going to be a back track of about one-tenth of a mile. '!he owners of the
property, as far as obtaining ownership of this property. Chaska
Investment owns this proposed property and they also own the other two
proposed sites. I have talked with them and they see no problem. They
would rather see it up next to the tracks because they realize too, with
Chanhassen's present growth, the railroad tracks are not going to help them
sell the property next to the tracks. Where this is a prime piece of
property, their plans would be to make it into hobby farms, at least one,
maybe two hobby farms. '!hey see this is a prime location. '!hey would be
more than happy to have the substation next to the railroad tracks. My
personal opinion is this is too close to residential property. If my folks
knew back then what they know today, that 69 kv line would not be where it
is today. I have a family, a set of twins plus a girl, and I know how
these boys are only 2 1/2 years old and they wander. I have a driveway
that is two-tenths of a mile long and would you believe it, there has been
at least one of them down by the mai lbox. I hope he has learned his lesson
but it is less than two-tenths of a mile from my folks house which someday
I might be farming at that place, from there to that substation. I would
rather than that substation as far away from my folks and my family.
Obviously it is very feasible, very possible to put it up next to the
rai lroad tracks where it would have the least amount of impact on
Chanhassen. Why spoil a nice piece of property. I can't think of anything
else I would like to say right now. Thank you.
Bob Worthington: Executi ve Director, Governmental Affairs for the Opus I
Corporation. I am here representing Opus as well as American Linen who is
26
2~Q
.,.",<:~.L
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
I
our joint venture partner in the Chan Lakes Business Park. First of all,
we would like to thank you very much for giving us the owortunity to have
input into a process which has kind of gotten away from us when we
discovered that there were some proposals that was going to affect our
property some two weeks ago. Planning Commission recommendation subject
to, of course, us doing further research and getting together with NSP to
find out basically what was being proposed and come to some conclusion as
to what we felt the impact was going to be on our business center. We met
with NSP. Had a long and cordial discussion with them. It is tough
decision that the city has to make and I guess, based on our findings and
conclusions, we're not going to make it any easier. As most of you know,
we took over Chan Lakes Business Park in 1982 from Ed Dunn and his group
who had done quite a bit of planning on this property along with the City
prior to our assuming of this development. Before taking over this park,
we did quite a bit of research into some of the things that the planning
group that Dunn had hired, had done in order to try to structure an
environment for what he wanted to be, his group wanted to wi thin the City
of Chanhassen, a premier business park within this area. Several of the
things we discovered we were impressed with. '!hey were using modern day
standards in order to upgrade the environment of that particular park.
Upgrade the architecture, create natural amenities so that people who used
the park, that is tenants, people who bought buildings, who bought land to
develop in the park, could have a high degree of pride, could have a high
degree of comfort and safety in using that which ul timately would be
produced as part of this particular park. One of the standards and
covenants they used was to bury all overhead utilities underground. I
don't think I have to go into why that particular thing is of interest.
The gentlemen before me used such terms as blight and such terms as
ugliness, indicating that when you are dealing with overhead transmission
lines, you are dealing with something that is very functional, very
necessary but also, if not properly controlled, has a detrimental effect in
terms of the environmental perception of people who might be using property
adjoining that particular facility. All of this metropolitan area, skirmish
lines have been drawn and NSP has, of course, always been in the middle in
terms of where do we put those things. We hear stories time and time again
about safety problems, about people feeling their properties are going to
be detrimentally affected and insufficient utilization of property and in
each instance we kind of come up with some sort of compromise. In our
opinion, the high transmissions wires along either TH5 corridor which goes
along from our property or down the railroad tracks represents a very,
formiable aesthetic challenge which if not properly handled, is going to
have negative impacts upon, not only the land used but within the park from
this point on. It is also going to have an effect upon what kind of
marketing we have to do now in order to attract potential customers and
tenants to the particular park. As you know, since 1982 we have been going
slow. We have been having a tough time in trying to convince people, just
as they have had in downtown, that Chanhassen should be the place for their
particular business should be located, but we feel we have turned the
corner. We have overcome the question of access which everybody is always
talking about as a detriment. We've overcome the question of price,
overcome the question of whether or not this locaton is as good as in
Bloomington, as good as in Minnetonka, is as competitive as it would be in
I
27
C1"iEI1
&1 U L:::
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Eden Prairie, and we have started to fill up our specutative space in terms I
of Chan Lakes Business Park One and last fall we had Chan Lakes Business
Park finished and we have located now eight new business wi thin this
community, arrl what have we sold? We sold environment. We sold
aesthetics. We sold community commitment to certain values that are
important to people who locate within these facil i ties. We think if you
arbitrarily now say lets put a high wire transmission facility down along
the railroad tracks that are going to be 100 feet tall, are going to have
six wires stringing from them. As most of you know if you look at our plat
here, we have properties that adjoin that particular facility, you are
going to divide the park into two neighborhoods, which we haven't done at
this point, you can understarrl what is happening with the railroad track
going through and we are going to have to now concern ourselves with how we
take care of the high tech, high image type of business that may have
wanted to locate near a railroad track but is now saying. Railroad track
is one thing but when you start putting high transmission lines next to it,
no good. I think you have to take into consideration values here.
Everybody kirrl of looks upon people in irrlustria1 parks as kirrl of being
second class. They don't deserve the same kind of treatment as people
living in residential homes. If you've got anything wrong, throw it up
there. We happen to represent those folks and we happen to believe that
they deserve the same kirrl of consideration arrl same kirrl of concern in
terms of locating a facility as you would in a residential neighborhood.
We believe that there is an a1 ternati ve. OUr proposal would be that you
look at the 212 corridor and until the State says we are not going to do I
facility at all, then arrl only then should you look at the railroad tracks
and if you look at the railroad tracks, we would recommend that you look at
it from the point of view of either lowering the towers, burying, I know
that is a very expensive cost, and even though we are going to get a
benefit, but you are going to have one errl of town taking care of the
other, then maybe have separate special assessments district go by
everybody who has benefitted arrl participates in that cost. Then under
those circumstances, can you have everybody win. I guess our official
position at this particular point in time is we are opposed to having a
high transmission wire down along the railroad tracks and down along the
front of TH 5 because it will have at this point in time, a detrimental
effect on the park, it is going to be contrary to what has already been
done in terms of planning arrl investing in this park. We think it is going
to be very tough once that is done to keep our marketing efforts along the
line that we have started in the past several months.
Councilwoman Swenson: Mr. Worthington, wouldn't you agree that the very
same things that you talked about also relate to private residences. We
wouldn't really need the lines at all if it wasn't for the industrial area
arrl the very things you mentioned tonight about environment arrl amenities
and blight, etc. is no less going to effect a lot of property owners with
a lot of money invested where they live. This type of thing is going to be
considerably more bothersome, if you will to use a mild word, going through
residential areas than it will do in an industrial park.
Bob Worthington: Councilwoman Swenson, I think that is a value judgment
that you perhaps hold. I don't think that we, who have seen these
I
28
0f?P;
~~ Q]) t~ .J-
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
facilities built in other areas through residential areas, probably agree
wi th that.
Councilwoman Swenson: I suppose as you say, it would be depending on where
you sit am what your property is but I fim it difficult to believe that
if it is going to effect the environment and the amenities and create a
blight in an imustrial area, that it isn't going to do exactly the same
thing in a residential area. TO me this is totaly inconsistent.
Bob Worthington: I agree with you 100% but the question is, with the
technology that is being proposed, what we are doing is we are developing a
trade-off. Everybody wants the service but it goes into your neighborhood.
Perhaps the solution that I just talked about, which is looking at some
sort of assessment district which would pay for the cost of burying that
particular wire in the area where it is going to have the highest area of
impact. Maybe that would be the best solution to the problem.
Mayor Hamilton: You would be willing to contribute to that, is that what I
am hearing?
Bob WOrthington: Ch yes.
Councilman Geving: Would you agree Mr. Worthington that there is a
necessity to build this line.
I
Bob Worthington: I agree there is a necessity for additional service, yes.
Councilman Geving: I guess the question I am asking is, if we don't put
this line in, I keep hearing from people like Jerry Carlson and others,
that it is going to affect their business and their abil i ty to keep in
business and in your respect, I suspect that you would not be able to sell
properties is you knew you couldn't have power to satisfy their needs so
the power need is there.
Bob Worthington: '!hat is correct. We are not taking issue.
Councilman Geving: We always come up with his idea of placement am that
is what we are going to get to eventually this evening. I am happy to hear
what you had to say. At least you had a recommendation for us am we can
now take that into consideration. Thank you.
I
Al Klingelhutz: Mr. Worthington came up with some of the same things that
I've been thinking about. en a corridor that really isn't established yet,
we have been waiting twenty five years for a corridor to be established.
It looks like it's coming closer but we aren't sure and to put a high line
in an area of a corridor that might never happen, to me seems like putting
up a blight that shouldn't be there. I heard Mr. Hoesington say something
about three dimensional blight of the downtown area. The railroad track,
the highway and then if you add another one. The high line would probably
kill the downtown project. I am just wondering would a four lane freeway
and 115 kv line through our R-lA land, which just last week the Planning
Commission approved final plat on which will be coming up to the Council
29
C7'I"::'~
-p. 1:' :, -;l
A..~;:fJ.l('~- "'"'
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
very shortly, of 231 residences along this very same line plus all the
residences that are now. What the impact would be in selling those lots.
Personally, I don't think it will sell very good. I've been in real estate
business for a long time and I did have a piece of property with the 65 kv
line running through it and every time I showed it, that was the first
objection. We don't like this because we don't like to live close to such
a powerful high line. What it does to the value of land in residential
area could be just as great or greater than what it does to an industrial
park. You already have a corridor there. I believe, if it is going to be
overground, my first suggestion to NSP was, wouldn't it be nice if you
could bury it. If that could happen, I think we would all be happy.
I
Jim Curry: It is hard for me to imag ine how a rai 1 road could be more
blighted than a railroad is by being a railroad. When Ed Dunn and I built
that park, we put it there because the railroad was there and, of course, I
can't add much to what Al said, but it is the lesser of evils. You would
rather it was buried. If it isn't buried, the railroad tracks is the place
for it. Certainly all of us wouldn't want to live by it, and I know that
is why the park was put there. Partly because it was on both sides of this
track so I don't think the high line there would be as offensive as it
would be down in our residential area.
George C. Martin: I live on Audubon Road next to Deglers. A couple
things I would like to say. I guess the citizens along the highway and the
Planning Commission all agree that it should go by the railroad tracks. I
He went on to say that the people who work in the Industrial Park are only
there from 9:00 to 5:00 then go home to Bloomington, Eden prairie, Edina,
or wherever but he, along with his neighbors have to look at the high lines
from early morning until late at night. He felt the right place to put it
is by the railroad tracks.
Brad Johnson: One of the things that is nice about coming out here this
evening as we are always concerned about people being able to find their
way to downtown Chanhassen because we are faced with a number of different
barriers. I am happy to say tfiat I couldn't even find a place to park in
the parking lot outside today. We've got people coming from the south and
people coming from all the way over near Shoreview. I represent the
Chanhassen Downtown Development Group which is made up, basically, it is a
relationship between Boomberg Companies and downtown Chanhassen or the
Chanhassen HRA, so in a way I feel I represent the City, indirectly. We
are proposing a 20-30 Million Dollar development for downtown. The project
will service daily about 5,000 people when it is completed. We primarily
plan on shifting the entrance into the community, attempt to include this
area into the downtown area and also much of this to the west. Back to our
blighted areas of Chanhassen, basically the back part of the Dinner
Theater, in muddy weather is not a really great asset to the community. We
plan to change the main entrance to the facility along with all the
community activities in the city for children and all of us, into this
particular area. One of my concerns, of course, is that this is where we I
will be running the line. N::>t because of danger so much but I think it
does not fit what we are trying to do aesthically. I'm not a planner but
we are spending quite amount of money to make sure we maintain the local
30
2~g8'
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
I
church and I don't know if you can see it out from TH 5; but in the evening
it is nice to see that~ We are trying to preserve the look of downtown
primarily becau~e we think if it looks good; people will come there; and if
they come there, they will shop and it will be a successful project. I'm
sure none of you can disagree with that: O1anhassen has had to face many
development barriers. We have heard a lot about barriers this evening.
One is the highway access, we would love to get rid of the cement plant.
Lakes, even though they are nice to have, lakes in fact have been a barrier
to our community because as you look at the lakes from the east, it is very
hard to get here. It is just a problem. As you look at this particular
photograph we are an isthmus that is just about ready to arrive as far as
development is concerned. Once that starts to develop and we get on track
for this particular area, the only place they can shop, we have been faced
with a lot of barriers. One happens to be the lake. We have split school
districts which makes it difficult to market residential property. We have
railroads that run through the town and at one time we had very high
interest rates which caused things to slow down somewhat. We are now
preparing another barrier. I read Fred's report and I concur with him and
we at the Chanhassen Downtown Development Group are opposed to the
transmission lines using the TH 5 Corridor and the railroad track. The
reason we are opposed to the TH 5 Corridor is because, I think one of the
problems we are going to face, and again I am speaking just from marketing
downtown, I realize all of you are marketing other things so I am just
concerned with downtown, is that I try to picture myself driving down that
road, and I'm glad somebody took a videotape, because I was going to have
one of our archi tects draw up a picture of what a road looks 1 ike, as
narrow as TH 5 and straight as it is most of the way, with a number of
those towers in a line. Even though they are separated and a long ways
apart, as you drive down TH 5, it is going to be a narrow one that already
has some transmission lines there. It is not going to be a real appealing
thing. As far as barriers downtown, again I agree with Fred about the
problem we might have if we have a lot of high towers separating TH 5 with
the downtown area. We just have to deal with how we are going to do that.
I don't know what affect we will have on this development in here. I guess
it would affect it just about the same as it would affect everybody else.
We plan on having people there about 18 hours a day and consumers who shop
in areas like to have nice places to shop and part of it is what it looks
like. I have talked to a couple of other planners today and they say very
seldom have they seen a successful downtown with a high line going down
through the middle of it. Power lines of this type do create a negative
feeling for shoppers. Again, what we are merchandising in this plan is the
attraction of shoppers to this particular area. We are overcoming some of
our barriers. TH 5 may be upgraded, 212 may come along, TH 41 is a very
goOO road, Highway 17 is a very goOO road. We are making access to
downtown. Development has just started in central Chanhassen. It seems to
be improving. We can't change the school districts, the railroad has been
here for a long time. I think Bob has some ideas, I think everybody here
has some ideas. I'm told to put it underground is One Million Dollars per
mile, $160,000.00 per mile above ground so that gives us some number to
think about. Maybe there are some alternative solutions. We would
recommend that you reject TH 5 plan and corridor and reject the railroad.
Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot.
I
31
o <1} 0,
~"..J.U
City Council Meeting - June 2~ 1986
Dacy: Before you start. 'Ibis issue came up a couple of times in the
comments. I just wanted to clarify the need issue that the transmission
line needing to go through the industrial park because that is where the
need is. Certainly there are businesses within the park that do need the
electricity but I wanted to make clear, it is also a southwest area
electrical need. The residential growth has also caused the need for the
transmission line. Another important factor for the connection between
Westgate and Scott County is to provide that link in the circular pattern
of the transmission lines so that no other lines are overloaded into the
Deephaven-Excelsior area. I just wanted to make that clear.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: It sounds like we are adopting all of the problems
of the southwest corridor which is south of where we 1 i ve and north of
where we live. I wanted to ask Mr. Chmiel. You have shown already for the
need for these power lines that are going through?
Mr. Chmiel: '!hose are adjacent coming down TH 5 from Eden Prairie. '!hat
is a distribution three phase line. It is not a high capacity line.
Councilwoman Swenson: w:>uld that be replaced or would that remain.
Mr. Chmiel: There are two probabilities that we are looking with that
particular line coming down. Either with the distribution aspect, carrying
it as a secondary under the existing transmission on the same pole.
Basically with those existing wood poles, you have spans of between 200-250 I
feet on the distribution line. On the transmission, we are looking at
anywhere from 400-600 feet in spans which will mean pole for pole you will
be eliminating one pole for every transmission line structure you put in.
You would be eliminating number of structures as well.
Councilwoman Swenson: Is that the same distribution line that currently
goes along side the railroad tracks through the industrial park?
Mr. Chmiel: No, that distribution line goes directly into 79th Street
right through town.
Councilwoman Swenson: Do you happen to know what the line does along the
railroad track?
Mr. Chmiel: '!he lines paralleling the railroad track are communication
lines of the railroads. Maybe if I could address one more thing in
relationship to the underground as opposed to the overhead. As I
mentioned on page 14 of the April 23rd Planning Commission Minutes, I
stated that the Public utility Commission will not allow NSP to underground
to benefit one respective city and if the city so desires to go underground
then basically it is the city's requirement to pay the differences between
the overhead to the underground.
Councilwoman Swenson: Do you have a projection of what this would run?
Mr. Chmiel: Roughly we are talking $160-$170,000.00 per mile at a ratio of
6 to 10. First of all what you have to do is to get a pipe and in that
I
32
2R. ~.
\"'. ~
,:;.juu
City Council Meeting ~ June 2, 1986
I
pipe you contain the oil for circulation. You have to have pumping
stations at intervals as well, and the reason you have the oil in the pipes
is to cool the conductors to keep it cool. You are talking roughly going
through that area, if I remember correctly what Bob said, I would say that
cost would run just over One Million Dollars just to parallel the railroad
tracks in the industrial park.
Councilwoman Swenson: In addition to what NSP would add to putting them
above? I guess I am looking at the differene between the two.
Mr. Chmiel: $170,mm.00 per mile as opposed to One Million Dollars per
mile plus.
I
Councilman Horn: I think Pat answered those and that was whether we could
double up on some of these going through. I think the general comment I
have is that obviously there is going to be a blight anywhere we put them.
I would tend to disagree somewhat that there is the same amount of blight
through an industrial area. I think the residential area would suffer a
more severe blight and I think we have born that out by some of the
comments by people who are industrial leaders in our city. They have
accepted a certain lot size next to their business but require an
additional lot size next to their residential area that is significantly
larger which appers to me to be some sort of justification. I think we
have to be careful not to interfere with the downtown area so I think we
need to follow some existing right-of-way. I think 212 will happen. I
think we have defined a right-of-way for that. I think that would be the
preferred right-of-way if this weren't put on us today. Since this is put
on us today, I think our decisions are somewhat different and we aren't
going to get as good a solution. I think it has to stay away from the
downtown area and it should follow an existing line such as the road.
I
Councilman Geving: I have several comments. I did attend the Planning
Commission meeting on this subject so I was surprised tonight, for the
first time to see the transmission facility itself, the substation. I
hadn't seen that before. I hadn't seen the plan for it except that I was
quite pleased to see that it was moved north of where it was originally
proposed. I kind of like that idea. I do have a couple of questions
however, and comments. I think that we asked NSP to go out and try to
secure a route along an existing corridor. That was our original charge to
NSP rather than trying to cut down the section lines and disturbing
residential areas. I think they tried to do that to the best of their
ability. No one seems to want this transmission line but I think it is
definitely needed. Now if I had my druthers, I would really like to wait
for the 212 corridor but I am afraid that is down the road just too far for
us at this time. There seems to be a sense of urgency. Again, I go back
to the Planning Commission comments and people were indicating that they
are already experiencing difficulty so apparently there is a need and it is
more urgent than we realized. I guess the thing I would like to comment on
or question, Mr. Chmiel, is if we went with the 212 corridor, how much
additional lay in would be required just for the transmission line that
would need to be put in. Have you got a figure for that that someone can
give me a figure for a number of feet that would be required in addition to
33
(~', "J,"~
-P', .~?-.,,~', E.\
~ \!J! v
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
the existing road right-of-way.
I
NSP Representative: We would probably take 40 feet easement width along
side the highway right-of-way.
Councilman Geving: Another 40 feet. If I could add that to 212, has
anyone got a figure for 212.
Dacy: 300 feet.
Councilman Geving: So maybe 340-350 is a pretty big swath to come right
down through a planned residential area that doesn't exist yet but it is on
paper and certainly will be on us before we realize. '!hat is quite a big
area that we are speaking of in terms of a swath through that area. I
think when you put everything together, the pros and cons, like I tried to
do, I feel that the less total impact is by going on 'IH 5 but eliminating
the first two options completely and I don't think we should even consider
any further comments on options 1 or 2, but shift our thinking immediately
to either the TH 5 corridor that goes through the south part of town to the
south side of TH 5 up to the church property and then goes across the
railroad down through the industrial park. Now, if we could just place
those poles so that as we come through Chanhassen, we don't impact, let's
say the Legion property, a very valuable corner, or we don't put an 100
foot pole in front of the Lutheran Church on top of the hill so that the
spans at least can be placed so you don't have that kind of visual affect. I
Then I don't think that would be too bad. Those are some of my thoughts.
I really think the TH 5, Option 3 is the one that I tend to think is the
best.
Councilwoman Watson: I like Alternative 3 as well. It already exists and
I think that, as Dale pointed out. The videotape was very nice but when
you sat and looked at that one St. Louis Park and the poles marched after
each other down that line, it was far uglier than I expected. I was really
appalled by that and I guess those great big white poles. I like the
little ones. I always liked wood compared to the steel ones. I don't like
any of them frankly but at One Million Dollars per mile, it seems to me
that even Opus might cough when we suggested that we would like to assess
these costs as it goes through the industrial park. I do think those white
poles are incredibly unattractive. I don't know why they have to be white.
I don't know what would a better color is, but I don't like the white,
metal poles and I guess that is what goes with it. I also would prefer
either of the substation locations along the railroad tracks. I don't want
that substation si tting out in the middle of that area. I think someday
that is going to be a very attractive, high amenity residential area and I
don't think a substation would do to the potential use of that property.
Mayor Hamilton: I certainly feel it is a very difficult issue to attempt
to resolve. It is kind of like putting in a sewer line. Nobody wants it
to go anywhere near their property but yet we want to continue to grow as a
community. We have residential developers here and commercial developers
here. Everybody wants to continue to grow and sell their property and have
people come in but nobody wants to a power line in so you can serve all
I
34
CJ. .' r::; ~
L"}J<.J.0,}',.-
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
I
your people with electricity. I don't know if it was in my neighborhood,if
it went through my area. I've been through several areas in Richfield and
Bloomington where power lines go through residential areas and all of them
seem to be full, but perhaps they bought those homes knowing full well that
the lines were there. I don't know, but they seem to live there and
exist and I don't hear of too many problems. But we do have a problem with
power and we need to get electricity into the community and the whole
southwest area and we also have a need to, I feel, to continue to develop
downtown Chanhassen. We have been working on this project for many years
and I think we now have a very viable and good plan that is being put
together and to through up another roadblock in the way of developing
downtown which is something we have tried to do for so long, I think would
be a mistake at this time. I just think looking at the future and the long
run, the best place to put this thing is to run the 1 ines down the 212
corridor. The State can establish or MnDot can set up where the right-of-
way is. We can put the lines down the 212 corridor and it is going to be
in a position along side of a highway where you so often see them in other
areas of this state and other states. It would remain there for a long
time and I think my personal feelings is that it wouldn't bother anybody.
If you are going to have visual blight I guess no where you put it. No
matter what you do today, you drive down the streets and you see visual
blight virtually everywhere you go and if that bothers you then I guess you
are going to have to stay in your house because you are always going to see
it but put it where it has the least amount of impact would seem to me to
be the most reasonable thing to do. As far as the substation is concerned,
I think where it is proposed by Staff is certainly the best location am it
is going to be virtually not able to be seen at that location and would
seem to fit into the scheme of the plan best. Those are my comments. I
would certainly with the City Manager said of his assessment of the growth.
Councilwoman Swenson: Mr. Chmiel or gentlemen, can you give me an idea of
cost of the easement that you could be required to buy if you were to
follow the 212 Corridor?
NSP Representative: Regarding cost, we usually try to value the land than
the easement would be a percentage of that. We couldn't say, we aren't in
the acquisition end of the business, but our normal method of establishing
prices for easements is a percentage of the lam value.
Councilwoman Swenson: Al, you have a pretty good idea of what that land
value is. Could you give me an idea of what the cost of the lam is?
I
Al Klingelhutz: I know what the land value is. Everyone that has spoken
here tonight has said, what does it do to the value of the lam not only on
413 foot easement, 11313 foot easement, but what does it do to the value of
the land on each side of the easement. I think that is one thing that NSP
is not talking about. When they come to get an easement across my
property, they are going to talk to me about what it does to the value of
land not only for an easement but what it does to the value of the land. I
think Mr. Curry will say the same thing, am everyone down the line will
say the same thing.
35
61lab!l
~{?L~
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: '!hat is fine, we're not arguing about that point but let
NSP. I would like to not eliminate that al ternati ve until NSP has talked
wi th the land owners and until they come back and say we absolutely can't
do it financially.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: The aim that I am working towards is taking that
into consideration, you mentioned $170,000.00 per mile on the line and One
Million Dollars per mile underground. Now if you were to take that
$170,mm.00 and add to that an anticipated cost of your easement down 212,
is it conceivable that we could come up with some median figure that would
not make an assessment totally unrealistic to put it underground. In other
words, let's not stop at that $170,000.00 because that really isn't a
realistic figure. If a corridor were granted through 212 it would cost
considerbly more. Now is it conceivable that we could think in those
terms.
NSP Representative: The prices we were talking about, the incremental
price of $160,000.00 per mile and roughly One Million Dollars was for
equipment cost only. Normal procedure is we get appraiser and look at the
value of the land and a percentage is paid on that basis. If it gets down
to an unreasonable figure, the company does have the recourse to let an
assessment be made of it and the Courts can decide what a fair value is.
Usually what happens is NSP historically has made offers to land owners
that always ends up being higher than they get after going through the
court system. I don't think it is going to get to the price differential
of $160,000.00 to One Million Dollars per mile. That would be the far
stretch.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: So we aren't necessarily talking about $830,000.00
per mile being the cost?
NSP Representative: No.
Jim CUrry: As an answer to your comment, if you only buried it in the
downtown area, that isn't even half a mile. That wouldn't be that far and
what Pat was saying, I think, was that they are going to spend more on more
easement, stick that money in there at some comprom ised figure to reduce
that difference even further, I think that is what I heard you say. You are
only talking about a few blocks. Then it takes care of your problem Tom
and then I think the City would probably accept an assessment for such
reduced figure. You are only talking about $300,000.00-$400,000.00, if my
mathematics are right. It isn't that far. How far would it be to keep the
downtown area fram be blighted?
Dacy: Just looking at the section map here, from the Hennepin County-
Carver County line to approximately the church property, it is one mile and
than from the church west through the business park it is another mile. So
there are two miles total.
Jim Curry: Are both of those miles equally important to the downtown. I
would have thought that the secorrl mile, even just part of the secorrl mile.
Is there any minimum you can do? Can you go half a mile?
I
36
I
I
I
~/~o
Lrj~u;I~?
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Mr. Chmiel: You can go any amount you want.
Jim Curry: I thought the first mile was less important because those
people have spoken at the last meeting am it didn't bother them, I don't
think that much. So you've got the area along TH 5 which is part of the
downtown area that seems to the bug in peoples mims. That is the part we
ought to bury.
Mayor Hamilton: I think as Opus has said too, Mr. Worthington, it is a
problem going through their property too because they want to go
underground or at some other place than their property.
Jim Curry: Yes, but there has to some kim of compromise somewhere, if it
comes down to the buck. That is one place to cut it.
Al Klingelhutz: What is the extra length if you went down the 212 Corridor
to the substation versus the railroad tracks?
Mr. Chmiel: I'm sure it is another half mile or mile difference in length
there.
Dacy: From the Westgate substation there is approximately 4 1/2 miles
along the 212 Corridor and along TH 5 there is about the same amount.
Mr. D=gler: By adding that up, we are assuming the proposed substation is
where you propose it. If you put it by the railroad tracks, where I think
would obviously be better. Where it is proposed, that property can be used
for much better for some other purpose where up by the railroad tracks, so
if you put them up by the railroad tracks it would be much shorter.
Mr. Chmiel: Giving Councilwoman Swenson using an arbitrary lam value of
$3,000.00 per acre and 45 foot width easement that the representative of
NSP stated, it makes the cost of acquisition of right-of-way $15,000.00 per
mile if they paid at market value, so if it was 4.2 miles of acquisition
along the 212 Corridor, it would 4.2 times the $15,000.00. If they indeeed
purchased that right-of-way at a percent of market or if the $3,000.00 was
a inflated figure, the cost would be less than that.
Councilman Geving: The question I have is timing and assuming Mr. Chmiel
if you go down TH 5, you could do that a lot quicker than you could do the
212 operation. Could you tell me the relative difference in the amount of
time? Is it a year, two years?
Mr. Chmiel: I think we are looking at TH 5 with the requirements that we
need for servicing and planning, would be made by 1988 for a 115. If we
were to take that same line it would be the same time frame for both of
those, be it the 212 Corridor or TH 5. Maybe I could interject am
clarify a little more.
NSP Representative: In order to complete the transmission line by May of
1988, which is our completion schedUle, if we could have our route
established by October 1, 1986.
37
C} (:;~4-
A~ "-i --
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Councilman Geving: That is what I'm after. Thank you.
I
Al Klingelhutz: Do you think you can get all of the easements by October
1, 1986?
Mr. Chmiel: N::>, but the route won't be established by then.
NSP Representative: My reply was in order for us to meet the May, 1988
conclusion date, we should have a route established by October of 1986 and
that is the point when we start negotiating with land owners.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment 85-5 to amend Section 6.04 to provide for electrical
substations as a conditional use in the R-LA Agricultural Residential
District. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Dacy stated regarding the Conditional Use Permit Request to Allow a Power
Substation to be located on 7 Acres of Property Zoned R-LA, Agricultural
Residence District that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the
proposed site wanting NSP to evaluate the two other options adjacent to the
railroad tracks.
At this point there was discussion on whether to vote on 6(b) or 6(c)
first in regards to the transmission lines placement and the substation
placement.
Mr. Chmiel: Once it is determined which route is going to be selected for
the power line, that would probably have some bearing on where the
substation ought to be.
I
Mayor Hamilton: We probably shouldn't just specifically say Conditional
Use (b) at the corner of County Road 17 and County Road 18 since if it goes
down 212 then you might want to select another site by the railroad tracks.
Mr. Chmiel: The present location for the substation is what we are
suggesting and the reason for that because it being in adjacent to that 69
line also with the proximity for the means of distribution.
Dacy: To clarify the proposed substation site. As NSP is proposing, if
the transmission line is either on TH 5 or 212 Corridor, that location can
accommodate both of those alignments. However, if TH 5 is chosen as the
preferred alignment by the Council and then a revision of the substation
site, then maybe the Council wants to consider the other two sites further
to the north. But as proposed, that site can accomodate both alignments.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Option 3.
a.
Placing the transmission line along the northside of TH 5 until it
crosses to the southside at a mutually determined location between
the NSP and our professional planners with the least possible
impact on the downtown area.
I
38
CD ,n h:
L.J I{}.j 0)
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
b.
It then follows the south side of TH 5 to the railroad and could
be constructed within the MnDot right-of-way. It would go down to
the church on the souths ide of TH 5 and then from the church it
would follow the railroad to the substation, wherever they may be
located.
c. We would like to continue conversation, discourse on the subject
of underground placement of the wires as it would affect the
downtown and industrial park developments.
d. Existing distribution lines be eliminated or incorporated with the
115 kv lines.
e. '!hat between the Staff and NSP, work out the arrangement for the
distance between the pOles and the height of the pOles in some
locations to minimize the visual affect.
All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed. Motion carried.
I
NSP Representative: Could I interject one more thing, in order to have the
flexibility when we start looking at prices, maybe another option with your
land use planner, that we could work on some possible alignments coming
into the the downtown to minimize the impact. If the price of underground
is too great you may want to look at some other option so that is why Don
is trying to get some flexibility and not be pinned down to a specific
street where you have to turn.
Bob Worthington: I just wanted to ask that if it is determined not
feasible to put it underground, that we could be part of the decision
making process to at least know what is going on.
Mayor Hamilton: You will be a part of any discussions that the City in
involved in.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Conditional
Use Permit #85-14 for an electrical substation as depicted on the site plan
stamped "Received May 23, 1986" with the following conditions:
1. The applicant receive a driveway access permit from Carver County.
2. Installation of landscaping as depicted on the plan stamped
"Received May 23, 1986".
3. '!he applicant receive a permit from the watershed district and
comply with all conditions of said permit.
4. Installation of a culvert under the proposed accessdrive to allow
for proper flow of area drainage.
I
5.
'!he substation will not be used for habitation and will not
contain sanitary facilities.
39
2An
'_~,h~
~ -!)\J-
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
6.
The existing house and garage on the property shall be removed
within one year of the date of approval of the conditional use
permit.
I
All voted in favor except Councilwoman Watson who opposed. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are we sure that is where we want it?
Councilwoman Watson: No. Not at all. The vote at this time is on this
particular location. It doesn't give a choice of locations. It simply
says do you want it located on this 7 acres. So I guess if you don't like
it, we've only got one choice.
Councilwoman Swenson: Barbara, could we possibly have a shot of the
alternatives before we make this decision. The other two possible
locations for the substation.
Dacy: Again, I'll go back to the three cd teda. The location to the 69
kv line, the access to the roadway and the ability to connect into the
overall system of the transmission lines. No matter what the site,
visibility is going to be an issue and I think it all comes down to cost as
far as the applicant is concerned. Anything can be regraded substantially.
The drawback to 1 as I mentioned earlier, is that lines would have to
double back from the existing line along the souths ide of the railroad and
there is existing stand of vegetation there. This site is just as visible
as this site. It is fairly level so they would have to do a lot of grading
like they are proposing down at the substation site but the major drawback
for the applicant is the double backing. It can be done but it is more
expensive. Site 2 is further east and further to the north. Significant
way to go for access. There is a drop in topography. The area is low.
I'm not commenting on the soil types. I'm just saying there is a drop in
topography. I walked the site too, did take some shots and I don't want to
bore you anymore with more TV, but you will be able to see this site and
this site as you corne from the east and west. As you corne from the south,
you will be able to see 1. As I said, visibility is going to be an issue
with all three sites. It comes down to the criteria as to locating the
substation close to the existing 69 kv line and the ability for the
applicant to get access to that. That is why they are proposing this
particular site because it achieves all those three requirements.
I
Councilman Geving: Can you show me where the railroad tracks are across
from the access?
Dacy pointed out the railroad tracks.
Councilman Geving: What is wrong with that site just to the northwest of
where you are. What is wrong with that industrial park site?
Dacy: It is not zoned for industrial. It is zoned R-lA at this time. I
do not recall who the owner of this property is. I'm not sure if Chaska
Investment has it or not. I guess my preference is that first one.
I
40
267
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
Councilwoman Watson: I guess I don't understan:1 why we have so few
choices.
Dacy: They are looking at this specific area and based on the information
they submitted to Planning Commission, they can shift only so far to the
north and to other areas to achieve the location to put the substation in
it's appropriate location between the two other substations.
Mr. Chmiel: Adjacent to the existing corridor that is already existing
wi th that 69 kv line.
Councilwoman Watson: In the Southwest. There is an industrial park there.
That is where I want it.
Dacy: In Chaska.
Councilwoman Swenson: I talked to Mr. Chmiel about that. I think he gave
me a very satisfactory answer.
I
Mr. Chmiel: One of the considerations too is the certain amount of taxing
dollars that will be derived from the facility of a substation as well as
the transmission. By having a substation within the City of Chanhassen,
there is approximately $60,000.00 some tax base on that substation per
year. The City does not get the full $60,000.00 but it goes to the school
district, the County and the City.
Final Plan Amendment Request and Final Plat Approval to Subdivide 2.62
Acres into Six Single Family LOts, Pheasant Hill Subdmsion, Tom -
Klingelhutz:-- --
Dacy: The applicant requested preliminary and final plat approval for the
creation of six lots as appear on the transparency. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the request subject to the four
conditions in the Staff Report finding that the proposed lot design was
consistent with that originally considered in the sketch plan review and
the amendment would not have a significant impact on the originally
approved POD. The City Engineer also has an additional recommended
condition that just came up within the last week.
I
Monk: It has come to our attention that Hughes' driveway and Hughes'
property directly to the east of the proposed subdivision, the driveway
does cross a portion of Lot 4. Very minor in nature but we are
recommending that a condition be placed on the final plat that an easement
be granted across Lot 4. It is a very narrow strip and at no point do we
believe it to be wider than 10 feet. The easement be executed across Lot 4
to allow for the existing driveway to continue to be used in it's present
location so it doesn't have to be shifted into the wetlands further east.
Second item was brought up concerning the line of trees very close to the
edge of the plat. Staff is not recommending any condition in respect to
those existing trees. They are mature and we are hoping they will be
41
C?tC!.D
Jl..~~.'~.b10
.?..u~
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
retained by whomever's property they happen to be on, but we don't see how
the City can place that into a condition form. I am recommending that 5 be
made concerning the requirement for an easement for driveway purposes
across Lot 4 be executed and granted to Mr. Hughes.
I
Councilwoman Watson: When there are only six lots. I don't see any
reason why we have to see just the average lot size and median lot size. I
think we could have gotten the six lot sizes.
Dacy: The lot sizes are the plat too.
Mayor Hamilton: Have any trouble with that condition 5 Tom?
Tom Klingelhutz: No, no problem at all. I think it would be foolish to
make him move his driveway when the lot is so large anyhow.
Dave Hughes: I live on the east side of the property line and I
acknowledge the Council is not setting legal property lines. I am
appreciative Mr. Monk's willingness to enter that easement and Mr.
Klingelhutz's willingness to go along with it for my driveway and I paid
SPecial note to his comment that he wouldn't bulldozed those trees subject
to finding just whose trees they are.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the
Final Plan Amendment Request #83-1 for platting six single family lots in
Outlot D as presented on the plans stamPed "Received April 24, 1986" and
subject to the following conditions:
I
1. Creation of a 10 foot landscaPed strip along the two lots abutting
Lake Lucy Road.
2. Shorten the cul-de-sac ten feet.
3. All construction meet urban design standards for utilities.
4. Site grading be required to route runoff away from the already
develoPed property to the east.
5. An easement be granted across Lot 4 for driveway purposes for the
adjoining property.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Blue Circle Associaton, Northeast Corner of Highway 101 and Lake Drive
East:
a.
Preliminary Plat REquest to Subdivide 1.93 Acres into Two
Comnercial Lots of 1.35 Acres and .58 Acres. --
I
b.
Conditional Use Permit Request for Gasoline Sales on Property
Zoned C-2, Commercial.
42
C?r:>r-.
/1:.....;-'.~~/-J
._" .~--'"' ~:....-..-
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
c.
Site Plan Review for Commercial Uses on 1.35 Acres of Property
zor:ied C-2, Corrmerclii1. - - - -
I
Dacy: I will quickly run through this request. '!he plat request is to
divide the parcel into two lots so the free standing build on the eastern
portion of the lot can be conveyed to separate ownership. Condition of
plat approval that the two lots file across easement access agreement
between the two lots so that those lots can only be used as proposed from
Lake Drive East. As you recall, the lot was platted in conjunction with
the Hidden Valley Estates plan and you will recall that Lake Lucy is going
to connect eventually down to Dakota. It was a condition of approval along
the south side of Lake Drive East that there be a 6-8 foot berm along this
area. This Outlot and the Outlot to the east of the American Legion
Property was zoned to C-2 at the time of the Hidden Valley Plat approval.
So the applicant's site plan requires two approvals by City Council. One
is a Conditional Use Permit for the sale of gasoline. Two is the site plan
review for the commercial use itself. Retail uses are permitted uses in
the C-2 district so the conditional use only pertains to the sale of
gasoline. The site plan for determining the location of the pumps does
meet the setback requirements for the C-2 district. Of concern may be the
gas pump signage that is proposed. I think most of you will recall that
earlier request of the Holiday station and at the Lincoln Properties has
prohibi ted any type of gas pump can't be signaged. However, if it is
considered by Council as recommended that the signage only be located on
the north and west side and not the south and east to only promote the
ability to see the signs from that direction and not from the neighborhood.
As far as the pumps are concerned, the Fire Marshall was consulted and he
is recommending conditions of approval. As far as the site plan is
concerned, we have noted 12 conditions that would be made a part of
approval. What I would like to do is briefly go through those so we know
what Staff is recomnend ing .
1. As far as signage is concerned, there will be one pylon sign on the
west side of the site. It is also being recommended that along the south
side, along with a basis of signage in and around the profile sign rather
than a pylon sign to give it a different character.
2. Additional landscaping in the northwest corner of the site. However,at
this time Staff wants to withdraw that condition because of the issue that
is raised with the access from TH 101. What is being proposed is a one-way
in or one-way out from TH 101 into the site. MnDot has come back and said
that in the future when the American Legion property develops to the north,
that this access will be closed and a new access be built along the north
lot line and that the traffic design of this site be reoriented to the
north to access into the driveway. Thus is condition 12 that the City
Engineer added at the time of Planning Corrmission approval.
3. Is to direct on-site catch basins and not to Lake Drive East.
I
4. '!hat the access island on Lake Drive East be lengthened 10 feet to the
north to assist with traffic channelization. This will alter the turning
movements of cars entering the site and also coming out of the site. We
43
6l) 1'7 [t)
~cu
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
propose two lanes as you exit the site for a right hand turn and left hand
turn.
I
5. Requires that lanes in here be clearly striped.
6. That the developer acquire the MnDot permit and comply with all of its
conditions.
7. The standard condition requiring all bituminous areas shall be lined
with concrete and curbs.
8. That the root-top equipment be screened as shown on the plan dated
April 24, 1986.
9. Installation of landscaping.
10. Refers to an installation of a fire hydrant along Lake Drive East.
This is to insure proper water supply for fire protection services.
11. One of the parking spaces along the front of the shopping center be at
least located to provide for fire lane. Fire lane access and the
elimination of one parking space will not affect parking requirements.
The Planning Commission recommended approval on the plat, conditional
use permit and the site plan approval with the 12 conditions as presented.
I
Pat Hallasee: I guess I have nothing to add other than the fact that we
have worked very closely with the Staff in developing our plan and feel the
recommendations they have added are very wise and are consistent with good
planning and we intend to follow those recommendations.
Mayor Hamilton: I think I saw that you are planning on putting in a
Q-Superette in there.
Pat Hallasee: That is correct.
Mayor Hamil ton: Don't they generally sell 3.2 beer.
Pat Hallasee: 3.2 beer, yes.
Mayor Hamilton: Personally I have a problem with that. I would make that
a condition that a 3.2 beer license not be allowed at the Q-Superette.
Pat Hallasee: I think that would be a substantial problem.
Councilwoman Watson: Why.
Mayor Hamilton: We would just have so many problems, we've had problems
with other facilities in the City and I work continually with the Carver
County police department and that seems to be a major source of minors
purchasing alcoholic beverages is buying through a Q-Superette or that type
I
44
""'" ""'-<1
OJ;;' j ~1
#':-::J t? _ -"
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
of establishment, whether it is a Tom Thumb or whatever types sell it.
That is a major problem. We've had those problems in this community
before and it is an important problem that we have a hard time dealing
with because you can't have someone sitting down there all the time. You
often times have 16 year olds working in those type of facility and they
are selling to other 16 year olds. Police departments tend not to patrol
those type of facilities simply because it is a 3.2 and you can't get drunk
on 3.2.
Dacy: The only comment I was asking for clarification was, is that the
liquor license is not a zoning issue pertaining to this application.
Mayor Hamil ton: I brought it up because I want the applicant to know that
is an issue.
A discussion followed on what other facilities such as Holiday, Super
American and Kenny's sold 3.2 beer. It was established that Super America
and Kenny's did. Holiday does not, trying to decide if a precedent has
been established with respect to issuing of liquor licenses to these type
of facilities, a gas station facility with a store attachment.
I
Don Ashworth: Council has great discretion in terms of liquor licenses.
You have issued a license to SA and have not issued one, nor have they
applied for one, to Holiday.
Pat Hallasee: I think it is an issue that's of some fairly major
importance though. I'm not going to say it is a real major factor in Q's
business, I know it is an important part of their business and I've never
really specifically questioned the gentlemen about whether he would go
forward on this site or not without it, but I do know they are in
competi tion not only with Holiday but with Kenny's market also and they
would certainly be at a competitive disadvantage if they were not allowed
to compete on the same basis as Kenny's.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded approval of
Subdivision Request 86-12 as depicted on the plat stamped "Received April
24, 1986" and subject to an easement across Lot 1 being recorded in
conjunction with filing the plat to insure permanent access for Lot 2. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded approval of Conditional
Use Permit Request #86-2 for installation of gasoline pumps as depicted on
the Site Plan stamped "Received April 24, 1986" subject to the following
conditions:
1. Gasoline tank storage shall be in compliance with the Uniform Fire
Code and a permit must be obtained from the State Fire Marshal.
I
2.
Gas pump canopy signage shall only be located along the north and
west facia of the canopy.
3.
Approval of site Plan Request #86-1.
45
~1'/61>
~6hd
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Council woman Swenson: Is it anticipated that there will be any automobile
repair or maintenance on this site?
I
Pat Hallasee: No, it is strictly gas sales, self service gasoline and
convenience food.
Dacy: '!he canopy signage would be part of this request.
Councilwoman Swenson: I looked diligently through here I thought and I
could find no copy of what they wanted to put on this sign. Is there a copy
of what the signage on the canopy was going to look like. I know we were
very SPeCific with Holiday that they couldn't put anything on this sign...
The signage would have to be restricted to the name of the station.
Dacy: '!he nine foot square sign, that is the Q sign, the other one lists
prices.
Councilwoman Swenson: Ch no.
have it up there. You can put
prices. We went through this
They want rotating pylons.
You can't have it up there because if you
the name of the establishment but no the gas
with Holiday. That is a main corner there.
Dacy: No, they understand that it is not to be rotating. '!hat is
prohibited by ordinance.
I
Councilman Horn: What is the difference if the prices is on the canopy or
on another sign.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think it can be pretty "icky" looking eSPeCially
as you are entering the City. If our whole policy is going to change than
I think we should establish it before everyone else is going to be wanting
signs all over the marquees. Do I understand that the area that is going
to be facing TH 5, the north lot line is the rear of the shopping center or
are we talking about something else.
Dacy: Yes, the north side is the rear.
Councilwoman Swenson: The pumps are going to be facing Lake Drive East?
Dacy: Yes, at the corner of Lake Drive East and TH Hn.
Councilwoman Swenson: What provisions are being made for the architectural
appearance on the north side of the building.
Pat Hallasee: It is all brick.
sides.
The building will be brick all four
Councilwoman Swenson: Where do you intend to have trash containers?
Pat Hallasee: We have indicated two positions on the Site Plan. We
understand the trash containers will be screened. We would want to do that
anyway.
I
46
6)FJQ
,f,,,,1 (j \:_.~
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Now we are having two signs. We're having a pylon
on the northeast side and another one on Lake Drive East. Yes, the sign
ordinance provides that you can have one sign for every street frontage so
as a corner lot they are allowed two signs.
Councilwoman Watson: What does the pylon say as opposed to what the canopy
says?
Dacy: '!be detail on what the sign say was not submitted. '!bey will apply
for a sign permit and they have to meet the location and the size
requirements as stipulated by the sign ordinance. We require them to show
the location on the site plan so the Council is aware that there is going
to be a sign on the particular site.
Councilwoman Swenson: We approve the signs then.
signs?
Council approves the
Dacy: No, it is processed administratively. The gas pump canopy signage
is included in the conditional usage permit approval however, the free
standing pylon signs are administratively approved because that is what the
sign ordinance provides. If they meet the standards of the sign ordinance
on the free standing signs, they file an application and Staff processes
the permit.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: I noticed in the Planning Commission Minutes,
according to you, one of the conditions for approval was that there was to
be no gas canopy signage. en page Thirty ene of May 14, 1986 Minutes. Okay
the one on Lake Drive East is going to be the neighborhood type, the ground
profile and the one on TH 5 is eight feet tall. I believe that is what I
read.
Dacy: en TH 5. No.
Counci lman Geving: You are down to number 9.
Councilwoman Swenson: On the back here it says rotating it says it is
going to 6 feet side and 8 feet high on a 12 foot post. Which is the same
size as McDona1ds.
Dacy: 20 feet is the maximum. '!be Planning Commission did approve the
Conditional Use Permit as presented in the Staff Report. 48 square feet.
The maximum for a commercial sign is 80 square feet so they are underneath
that requirement.
All voted in favor except Councilwoman Swenson who opposed. Motion
carried.
I
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded approval of Site Plan
Review Request #86-1 as depicted on the site plan stamped "Received April
24, 1986" and subject to the following conditions:
1. The free-standing sign along Lake Drive East shall be a ground
profile sign.
47
Cj') '7 61_
/j ~ .J.-
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
2.
All site drainage be directed to on-site catch basins and not to
Lake Drive East.
I
3. The access island on Lake Drive East be lengthened 10 feet to the
north to assist with traffic channelization.
4.
The exit lines to Lake Drive East be clearly signed
designate proper turning and directional movements.
plan be submitted with the building permit denoting
stripage of the access areas.
and striPed to
A detailed
signage and
5. The developer acquire a permit from MnDot for the TH 101 access
and adhere to all conditions of said permit including maintaining
ditch drainage.
6. All bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb, including
the islands at both access points.
7. Roof-top equipment and trash enclosures shall be screened as
depicted on teh plan stamped "Received April 24, 1986".
8. Installation of landscaping as depicted on the plan stamPed
"Received April 24, 1986".
9.
An additional fire hydrant will be located on Lake Drive East.
this will insure proper water supply and availability for fire
aparatus.
I
10. Fire lane access will be provided in the front of the building.
The SPecific location to be determined after final building plans
are suhnitted.
11. The TH 101 access is approved as an interim entrance/exit with
closures require upon the construction of an access along the
north property line at a future date. Such closure shall be
required only upon the legal right of Lot 1, Hidden Valley 2nd
Addition to use said access. Also, site plan revisions to allow
for this access shift shall be approved by the City to insure
property vehicular movements.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Dacy: Mr. Mayor I just noticed that on the plat request, the agenda should
have read preliminary and final plat. They have submitted both. As a matter
of fact, the plat in your packet is a final plat. For the record could
you entertain a motion.
Mayor Hamil ton amended his motion and Councilman Geving seconded to amend
the Preliminary Plat Request to subdivide 1.93 Acres into Two Commercial
Lots of 1.35 Acres and .58 Acres to include Preliminary and Final Plat
approval.
I
48
(017[:;
L4 (j ~~
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
Sign Variance Request for a 96 Square Foot Temporary Real Estate Sign and
an Off-Premise Directional-Sign at theHldden Valley Sllbdivision SITe,-
Hemphill Northern, Inc. - --
Councilwoman Watson: Where is this located. Where is 6390 Near Mountain
Blvd., Chanhassen.
Dacy: It is the construction trailer on Near Mountain Blvd.
Hemphill Northern is requesting a variance for the ability to have a
leasing sign approximately 90 square feet in area along the south side of
TH 101 for the advertising of the sale of Hidden Valley lots. The second
request is to have a six square foot off-premise directional sign at the
American Legion site on the southeast corner. The Planning Commission
action was to approve a 54 square foot sign on the south side of TH 5 on
the commercial property of Hidden valley for a two year time period. Also,
on the second item, there was a motion made to approve the off-premise sign
but that motion failed so that request was denied.
Councilwoman Swenson: Barb, did you happen to find out that 80% provision.
Dacy: Yes, the 80% does apply to commercial and industrial signs only and
not to the subdivision lots.
I
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded for approval of a 6 foot
by 9 foot sign, 54 square feet, east of TH 101 on commercial zoned property
of Hidden Valley for a two year period of time. All voted in favor except
Councilwanan Swenson who opposed. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson: Why are we allowing 54 instead of 32? Michael I
noticed you abstained.
Michael Thompson: Did I abstained!
Councilwoman Swenson: We have a 32 foot ordinance, we're going to have
everybody in the City of Chanhassen within who wants to come anywhere near
us is going to come in here and want to change a sign.
Michael Thompson: I'm on the Planning Commission. I think our philosphy
is basically this. Whether it is 54 or 96, we are trying to come up with
something that is equitable. We feel that it is our obligation to try and
help our developers sell the property and anything we can do to enhance the
situation without hindering the community and if signage will help them, we
can work on a temporary basis. In this case, the application for 96 square
feet was rather large, and the applicant indicated that he would consider a
lesser size, and I think we compromised at the 6 by 9. I think we also
talked about a double sided sign. The possiblity of a double sided sign.
It could be faced that way so it could be double sided. Whether that is
right or not, we just decided that.
I
Dacy: As I recall, Mr. '!hompson, that it was consistent with the motion or
approval for the Near Mountin.
49
,-_.. ~ ,.r-. ..'
y. i "
L,j C'D
City Council Meeting ~ June 2, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: I think the Near Mountain sign is an entirely
different situation. I am absolutely sure that if we do this, go beyond
the 32 feet, we are going to beseiged by people wanting the same.
I
Councilman Horn: W::>uld it better for a shorter period of time?
Councilwoman Swenson: I can't believe that the two years has been
established. He can come back wi thin a year and let us know what is going
on. I would still personally would prefer the 32 feet.
Tom Bracher: Hemphill Northern. The off-premise sign would be a 6 square
feet which is the size of a standard real estate for sale sign and we would
be locating that on the American Legion property. That again, would be for
a two year per iod. However, that could be the type of sign we could be
moving. Just have it there on the weekends. The reason we are looking at
that particular site is that is right at the intersection of TH 101 and
TH 5 and we are looking in addition to our larger sign down the road, we
are looking to get traffic to turn right at that intersection. That is
what our idea was for that.
Councilman Geving: Aren't you going to have a sign right in front of your
sulrlivision as you enter it? When you get organized, aren't you going to
have a nice sign.
Tom Bracher: Yes, we are thinking of putting some type of entry monument
at the intersection.
I
Councilman Geving: You sure will be able to see that. I know you will be
able to see from TH 5 and you will be looking for it so obviously you will
be turn left there. I don't see any reason for this 6 foot sign.
Mayor Hamilton: Then we should eliminate the others like Chaparral sign
that they sure didn't have a permit for up on the hill as you cross the
bridge. At least these folks came in and made a request. It is something
they would like to have for weekends which seems reasonable since that is
when they do their major advertising. We could make that a condition.
You would not be opposed to that being a condition?
Tom Bracher: No, that is fine. Holidays we are closed so it would just be
Saturdays and Sundays.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded, to approve a six foot
square off-premise sign directional sign on the American Legion property,
with their approval and that Council see such approval, at the intersection
of TH 101 and TH 5 to be up only on Saturdays and Sundays. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
I
50
9F7FJ
uJ {j tJ
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
I
Request for Sewer Extension, Lots 977, 1002-1006, Carver Beach, Terry Cook.
Bill Monk: Several years ago a group of lots owned by the Carver Beach,
Lots 977 and 1002 through 1006 did go tax forfeiture. They were purchased
by an individual who has now requested permission or is really requesting
permission from the City to expand utility and street utilities from the
existing terminous several hundred feet to the west of Nez Perce,
about 150-160 feet to service these lots. The lot is 12,000 square feet.
The report says that it is the City Attorney's opinion that if the street
and utility extension is approved by the City Council, this parcel will
then meet all conditions and ordinance of 47-J and would be buildable. At
this point in time this owner is requesting private installation of all
utili ties and street improvements down to service the lot and stating that
they will pay 100% of those costs and we would require some type of
financial guarantee probably in the form of a bond situation to cover
proper installation of those utilities. utilities would be full sized
lines A sewer and 6 inch water and a street to match the existing street
section so if further extension were to take place, they would not have to
go back and rip up any of the sections. I have tried to show in free hand
style where existing lots are. There are two existing houses that come out
on what is known as Hiawatha Road over to the paved section. I'm not sure
if the driveways are exactly in the right place. There are a number of
houses along Carver Beach Road that do have access to Carver Beach Road.
Again, at this point the owner is requesting permission to privately extend
full size utility and street improvements down to service the property.
That is it in a nut shell and I guess I will answer questions from the
Councilor the public.
I
Wally Schwab: I will attempt to be brief. I am the owner of the property
directly to the south and adjacent to the property in question. I have
opposition to Mr. Trinka's request and probably will need to go into a little
bit of background in order to explain why I have this opposition. When
this property went up for auction about 2 1/2 years ago. My wife called
over to Chaska and she was informed by the people there, whose names she
did not get unfortunately, that it was not a buildable piece of property.
It was assessed at a value of $500.00. A neighbor and myself went to the
auction, Dale Magnuson, intending to purchase this piece of property and
finish out the general method in which all of the properties along both of
these property lines were laid out. I have a map indicating what we are
looking at. What the layout of all the properties are in this general
neighborhood. It was our intent and desire to finish this end prior to our
purchasing this property had been split up, as it were as opposed to the
rest of the properties. We were not able to purchase the property because
Mr. Trinka wanted it quite badly apparently. So, thinking it was an
unbuildable piece of property, we quit bidding on it. Bill says that it is
12,000 square feet. I take exception to that. It is composed of one
package that 100 by 20 feet and five packages that are 80 by 20 feet
therefore making it 10,000 square feet which is exactly the same as what my
land is. The building of a house on that particular piece of property,
I've got the most to lose in relation to this, the building of a house on
that piece of property will put that house's back door exactly 60 feet from
my back door. That is putting intercity bunching in an area that was
51
Ci'lFiQ
~ G C"
City Council Meeting ~ June 2, 1986
originally laid out to be free and open. Therefore, it is because of my
objections to the possible building of a house on that site that I am
against Mr. Trinka's request to extend the street and sewer. I am really
super directly involved here. Had I been at all able to purchase the
property, even knowing that it was building, I certainly would have tried
to. I went as far as I could. Mr. Magnuson an:] myself pooled our
resources and it still would not do the job. We have circulated in the
neighborhood a petition a copy of which has already been submitted to you,
and I have further copies also to join it. They are just people in the
neighborhood who feel very much the same as myself arrl our directly related
neighbors. I guess that is the whole basis of my thing, that they are just
going to bunch houses arrl in particular it is going to bunch me in my back
yard. Thank you.
I
Dale Magnuson: I am the property owner to the west of this property. My
feelings are the same as Wally's. My house sits on a lot that consists of
24,000 square feet and my neighbors to my west are all in the 17-20 and up
to 30,000 square feet. Now, we are proposing here, what is being proposed
is having two houses on one of those lots. TO make matters even a little
worse, I have three additional lots, 976, 975 and 974. Another person has
these lots in the front which I can't make out the numbers, which if they
were combined would make 12,000 square feet. So if this would go ahead,
theorica11y those are buildable lots also. So then you are going to have
three houses jammed together on a tiny spot and I just think it would ruin
the whole neighborhood.
I
Jay Misgevits: I am at the end of Hiawatha where the drawing isn't very
clear. First of all the question, will I be denied access to my driveway.
If it is extended from here down, won't the road be torn up?
Monk: There will be very temporary portion where the applicant will have
to go back and connect the sewer line and repair it. I would assume that
work could be done in a day so that there wouldn't be any long term access
denied there and they have to go back, I believe about 50 feet to get to
the existing uti1ties, but it would be very short term.
Jay Misgevits: There is a hearing here and the same thing happened with an
unbuildab1e lot approximately in my back yard right here, on Western Drive.
I asked the City Councilor the planners at that time if a hearing was
necessary to exterrl sewer line and the water arrl I didn't get an answer.
My backyard was torn up and I'm still digging rocks and tar and things out
of that, arrl I was assured this would be a minimal type operation. It
wasn't and the road is not the same, my backyard isn't the same. My
primary question is who is going to guarantee that I can gain access to my
house? The City or the person who is developing this lot? Is that clear?
Monk: The answer is the City would guarantee through inspection of
compliance of plans and specs that would have to be provided for extension
of utilities arrl streets in here. We would make sure that provisions were I
made for continuation of use and access, so in essence the City through
it's inspection of the plans arrl specs would make sure provisions were made
for that and would be prepared to enforce those provisions.
52
0f7G
/d (j ~)
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
Jay Misgevits: '!he roadway would be up to the same specifications as now
and extended. Okay, then that leads to my second point is that I agree
wi th the people who just spoke that the whole character of that
neighborhood is changing. When I sit back and see you are talking about
really big developments in the city and I kind of have a sense that is
where your consciensenous is. It is late and I know that, but I have lived
here since I was four years old and I think the word precedent has come up.
When we moved in we were guaranteed and I know there is a turnover in the
City, the planners and the Council and all that, but all those small lots
at the part of Carver Beach, that part of Chanhassen, were almost
guaranteed unbuildable and that is one of the reasons we bought the house
we live in. I think now when I call Barb, the City Planner and she talked
about who ever bought that is going to get a lawyer to sue the City, I
don't know, to build a house there, but the point is my precedent, where I
am coming from, is that the City over and over said they were unbui1dab1e
lots. Now there is a total switch am it is almost like if wanted to move
to Richfield where they have the 10,000 square foot lots but now it is
being pushed. Now I have no choice but to move out. My third question is
like what was stated, can I build a house in my back yard if I have 12,000
square feet?
I
Monk: I think I should go into that in a little more depth with the
Council members some feeling for this situation. . It may answer that
question and give everybody, I know it is almost 12:00, but it should be
answered. The situation is different. The reason being, as PeOple stated,
this is unique in that most of these lots in this area, lot lines basically
go all the way back. People own property, I know I don't have the property
lines right, but these people own property. '!he gentlemen speaking right
now I believe owns all the lots on the western, like this. If you look at
the City'S Ordinance 47-J it basically states, one of the main conditions
is that if you have been a lot of record since 1972. The lot we are
looking at has been a parcel of record since 1972 and therefore Ordinance
47-J would apply. The other lots in here, I am just drawing lines, would
go all the way between these two streets. If these people wanted to, any
other individual wanted to come in here and split their property in this
way, they would basically need a variance.
Jay Misgevits: But I bought two parcels.
Monk: Well then you could basically have the same set-up as this one does
if you do indeed have two parcels of record. I don't know how these
parcels exist but if they are one parcel they would need a variance to lot
size.
Jay Misgevits: Q1 the lot on the map, there are two lines drawn and there
would be two parcels put togethers.
Monk: In checking the records, this zone only shows one lot.
I
Jay Misgevits: Is that a moot point? Does it have to be two parcels?
53
CJ..' r.~;f)
~::J0v
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Monk: '!his is one parcel. If you own two parcels, a front and a rear, you I
could well come under the provision of 47-J arrl get a secorrl building
permit. What I am saying is most of these parcels did exist as one parcel
of record and would require a variance in order to split which is a
different process than what is being looked at this point in time. I just
wanted to make that point.
Jay Misgevits: Okay, the answer to my first question is I would not be
denied access to my house. The second point is that it is really kind of
destroying the character of that area and third is that I might be able to
build a house in my backyard, right?
Monk: Yes, if it is two parcels you meet 7,500 square feet, it is a very
distinct possibility.
Jay Misgevits: 7,500 square feet?
Monk: 50%.
Councilwoman Swenson: We couldn't split your lot. If it is one parcel,
we could split it.
Jay Misgevits: Yes, it was bought in two parcels, but my main point is
that is not why I bought two parcels to build two houses. I want to make
it clear, the important thing is the character of the neighborhood as the
way it is.
I
Mayor Hamilton: '!his has come up other times and a person has a right to
request to build on their lot. Other neighborhoods have had the same
problem and there is nothing you can do about it. If you own a lot and
want to build on it, you have the right amount of square footage and
everthing else is met, there isn't much you can do about it. It just
happened to Carol.
Councilwoman Watson: It just happened in my neighborhood and there isn't
a thing you can do about it. You don't like it, you don't want it but it
happens anyway.
Kermit Austad: I used to live one door down from Dale there. I don't
know where you guys get the 12,000 feet for that lot. It is 10,000.
Monk: 10,000. I made a mistake.
Kermit Austad: It is like Dale said, if you permit this then another one
comes along jammed in there and we already have a mess down at the other
end where you guys let this guy build garage in front and here we have been
trying to eliminate these small lots and problems from Carver Beach. It
doesn't seem like it is working that way. '!here is one up by 17 that looks
like a vegetable stand up there when you drive in and if you get three more
jammed down at the other end of it, it is going to make one big mess out of I
the whole left side of Carver Beach. I don't think it is right, so I hope
you won't make the same mistake again.
54
9'R1:
';;,..-..-.. ':..- -.-
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
Public: If that is a buildable lot from 1972 on, when the sewer and water
was put in, why wasn't it... When the sewer arrl water went in 1976.
Monk: Basically when sewer and water went into Carver Beach a lot of the
reasoning behind, just in reading the file, was in an attempt to service
the existing properties that were there. utilities were not run except
down by specific request to service vacant property arrl I can only assume
it was not one down there because there was no request to service that area
at that point in time. I can't say anything about that because I just
don't know.
Councilwoman Swenson: It isn't a buildable lot because sewer and water
were not extended to it therefore it is not a buildable lot.
Monk: Not as it stands.
Mayor Hamilton: That is why they are requesting a sewer extension.
Councilman Horn: The question is do we have a basis to deny that request.
I
Councilman Geving: Yes, I think that we declared about 7 years ago that
this was an unbuildable lot because it didn't have city sewer arrl water. I
think that if we took the worse extreme and looked at the map that was
provided here and a number of these PeOple did exactly what is being
proposed here tonight, is to split those lots and build on 10,000 square
foot. You did that throughout both this Hiawatha Road and extended it over
to Western Drive, I don't know how many actual you could get, but I see 13
potential homesites with that 10,000 square feet. 13 of these little,
bitty 10,000 square foot lots and I think it would change the entire
character of what I now see as being quite good in that entire Carver
Beach area. We have made attempts in the last ten years to combine lots,
build bigger homes on bigger size lots and if we go back and try to destroy
that neighborhood now by allowing this, even the first one, the precedent
will be set and we will be dammed hard to deny the next one.
Mayor Hamil ton: Why didn't we deny the ...
Councilman Geving: I wasn't here that night or I would have voted against
it.
Councilman Horn: Because it was over 15,000 square feet.
I
Councilman Geving: That just happened to be big sized lots. I wouldn't
have had any problem with that. It is the same theory. It is the same
theory but here I am multiplying this and you could probably do that again,
here is what is happening here. We are going to extend sewer and water 150
feet. The next guy comes in and we add another 150 feet. The next thing
you know we are all the way down to the completion of a paper road and we
have got the potential for 13-10,000 square foot lots. I just don't think
it is what we want in that community.
55
0Q?
LJOL',-J
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the request for
sewer extension on Lots 977, 1002-1006, Carver Beach with Terry Cook as the
applicant.
I
Counci lman Horn
Councilwoman Swenson
Mayor Hamil ton
Councilman Geving
Councilwoman Watson
Opposed
Favored
Opposed
Favored
Favored
Motion carried, 3 to 2.
Terry Cook: When you say it is the first horne, Wally got a home of that
size.
Councilman Geving: '!hat is right. He's got a home that size but he isn't
backed off into another home in his backyard.
Terry Cook: Another point to make is that Hiawatha Road goes down, it
declines down and people farther than what this lot is, you wouldn't even
be able to get water and sewer in. '!his is probably the last house that
could be built.
Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure.
Councilman Horn: I know Roger isn't here, again, I have to ask the same
question, do we have the legal right to deny this? Is it based on an
earlier ordinance are we stuck with it.
I
Don Ashworth: I sincerely believe, to use your words, you are stuck with
it. From the standpoint that this was a legal lot of record in 1972. Any
of the other parcels would have a right to corne in before you and ask for a
lot split and the City Council at that point could deny those. I have a
great deal of empathy for the people here, but the fact is that was a lot
of record in 1972 and under your ordinance he does have a right to build.
Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure.
Don Ashworth: If you would like to table the item, to clarify the item
through the City Attorney's office, I would be happy to do that. I think
the interpretation we had was clear.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we should clarify the reason for denial.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think it is necessary to establish why we denied
it. Mine is that it does not conform to the Ordinance 47-J, Section 1,
Subsection 2(a). '!he lot is not serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and
has not been assessed that way.
Mayor Hamil ton: '!he request was for sani tary sewer.
I
56
61l0CU
biVu
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Lake Drive East Between
Highway un and Dakota Avenue:- - - -
Monk: A lot of time and thought has gone into these plans and I hesitate
to run right through them. I do have exhibits to show easements arrl
all kinds of things. Bob Fregard is here, has elected on his own to sit
through arrl listen and to be able to answer questions. I will go over some
very brief highlights. Plans do include and you will see, if you looked at
the different sheets, the widening of TH 101 is quite entensive. We did
include a concrete sidewalk on the north side of the street. This is an
eligible MSA project cost and storm sewer improvements do include improving
existing drainage on Dakota and will carry water down to the CPT swa1e and
do include some easements that will have to be awlied from the Mason
Corporation for the holdings that they own in there. I am not anticipating
any problems. If the Council would like me to go through the plans, I can
go through them quickly or if they would just rather ask questions. I
think the plans are consistent with the Feasibility Study which the Council
did review quite extensively. It's a major project. I don't want to
belittle it and I don't think the Council does either. The hour is late
but the improvements are extensive and we could spend a lot of time.
Hopefully the Council has had a chance to look at them arrl if you have
questions.
I
Resolution 86-33: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
approve the Construction Plans arrl Specifications for Lake Drive East
Between Highway 101 and Dakota Avenue and the solicitation of construction
bids on the improvements. All voted in favor arrl motion carried.
Monk: I am assuming on the motion that would include authorization to
proceed for acquisition of easements necessary. There are a couple of
temporary easements.
Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation on Goose Population Control
Program.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission held a public hearing on
May 27, 1986 on the proposed goose population control program. The program
involves removing and relocating Canadian Geese at Lake Ann, Lake Lucy and
Lake Susan. Four people attended that meeting. All four of them were
Minnewashta residents requesting that Lake Minnewashta be included in the
program as well. They have a severe goose problem with the lake homeowners
there. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City
proceed with the program. Made a second motion suggesting that the Council
consider Lake Minnewashta. They were unsure whether they had the authority
to make a bonafide recommendation to include Lake Minnewashta so they left
it as a suggestion. There were other Lake Minnewashta homeowners here
tonight. Because of the late hour they had to leave. There are still a
few here. Q1e of those was Dick Wing and he left me a note he asked me to
read to you.
I
My concern is not emotional. We have gone from intest and nuisance to
outright stress. My concern is now the heal th arrl safety of my family. We
57
20A
,;' ,)L~_
JlO""'... "--"" ..o.__
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
have lost the use of our swimming raft and dock. Two major problems of
recent. Overnight loss of docks am swimming raft through heavy deposits
of goose droppings. Removal which necessitates shovels. Late night and
early morning noise. This very morning at 4:45 a.m. more than 30 geese
came onto our yard with the associated noise level. This is a real
problem. I am not asking the City to fix it but only to help me solve it.
I will gladly pledge any funds necessary as may be needed and will approach
additional lake homeowners for additional funds. Richard Wing.
I
I also have peti tons from Red Cedar Point homeowners and other Lake
Minnewashta homeowners.
Councilwoman Swenson: Lori, do you know if Chaska has been approached on
this project?
Lori Sietsema: I haven't talked to anyone at Chaska. I did talk to the
people at Lake Minnewashta Regional Park.
Council woman Swenson: I think Chaska might be interest in their parks
there because this is a major problem down there.
Mayor Hamilton: Wouldn't it be more appropriate for those people to
contract on their own. We are contracting for the park, for the purpose of
getting them out of the park not city wide. I guess I'm not sure if it is
appropriate at this time, going around to every neighborhood and removing
geese. It seems to be up to them as to what they should do.
Dr. Jim Cooper: University of Minnesota, Department of Fishery and
Wildlife. The question at hand involves a permitting process through the
Department of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife Service. To obtain
these permits for the removal of geese from community property, involves a
collected decision and approval of local authority. In other words,
neither agency wants to be involved with approving removing geese unless
the community itself agrees that this is a problem and should be done so.
I
Mayor Hamilton: So supposing we go into areas where there are goose
problems. Is that assessed back to them?
Don Ashworth: Mr. Wing has noted his willingness to pay, we have budgeted
monies under the Park and Recreation Commission for the park areas. When
the item was submitted, the Park and Recreation Commission, they were
concerned that they had not dealt with this type of expenditure, that they
should carry out the park monies for other areas in the community. I think
we are in the experimental year. If I might suggest that we approve the
program if we do have private neighborhoods who want to have their area
improved, we will seek their support and literally donate the funds to pay
for that area. If we have a generalized, everyone appears to like this
program, in the future potentially, the City could pick up the cost.
Councilman Geving: Look at the number of people who are interested in I
peti tioning. There must be 100 names here. They should be willing to chip
in something to get the problem under control.
58
C';)Q~
~jc.a
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
Mayor Hamilton: Like Richard said, he was willing to put funds up and he
thought he could get funds from the neighbors. What would be the
additional cost, what do you charge per goose or how do you do that?
Dr. Cooper: The cost is approximately 25% of the quoted cost. What it
involves in an area like Lake Minnewashta would be somewhere in the range
I would estimate, two-thirds of a day with a crew and trucks and that runs
us, depending on the travel distance and logistics, anywhere from $500.00
to $700.00.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we ought to go ahead and go up there and with that
amount of money, I think we should probably do that.
Councilwoman Watson: Do the geese arrive there well, do they, in Oklahoma
or wherever we ship them off to? They stay there next spring? They will
go back to Oklahoma?
I
Dr. Cooper: Yes they do. '!he majority of them stay there. '!he work that
we have been doing is experimental. That is why the University
involved with it. If it was operational, we had all the answers, then the
University would not be involved. Our estimates on work we have done in
Minneapolis, Golden Valley and now in New Brighton at the International
Airport, indicates that, in round figures, 85% of the geese that are
transported to Oklahoma, remain there. '!he other 15%, for some reason,
like Minnesota and all our nice weather in the summer, and find their way
back. We are working closely with both the Department of Natural Resources
as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service to have an alternative site and
will be using an alternative site this year. We hope that we can eliminate
this return. It does reduce the effectiveness and extends the length of
time it takes to obtain a population reduction. '!he other part of your
question is that all transportation and handling of these birds adheres to
all of the ordinances passed by both State as well as Humane Society
ordinances and requirements.
The question was asked if anyone had petitioned from Lake Susan. Lori
Sietsema said that no one had. The person from the public indicated that
he thought they were the most beautiful site you can see on the lake.
Lori Sietsema stated that Dr. Cooper's staff does a survey on the lakes
and their goal is for three pairs per lake. If three pairs is all that is
on the lake, then they wouldn't do any removal of geese.
Ray Redker stated he lived on the north shore in Sterling Estates. When he
built his house in 1976, there were two geese. Last summer he couted 110
on his property. There are usually 6-8 small ones per pair and it is
multiplying.
I
Alfred Smith collected the signatures on the petition. '!hey were all from
lake property owners on the lake. He indicated that the $700.00 Dr.
Cooper indicated, taxes should cover the additional cost of $700.00.
Councilwoman Swenson asked if the geese were taken as family groups.
59
286
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
Dr. Cooper: When we catch the geese, they are caught as family groups.
However, the adults are sent to Oklahoma and the immature birds are
separated and released here in Minnesota. That is a very successful
program. The mature birds will call home that place they learn to fly,
just as the geese that originally started here, did so. The immatures are
released in State approved areas in coordination with the Department of
Natural Resources where sportsmen and other folks desire additional geese.
Not in urban or suburban areas.
I
Lori Sietsema: The funds required are $3,360.'m per year for a four year
program.
Councilwoman Swenson: Do we have to take the whole four year program. We
might decide we don't like it after a couple of years.
Lori Sietsema: In the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation they
did recomnen::1 that we evaluate the program on an annual basis.
Mayor Hamilton: We need an additional $500.00 to $700.00 to cover lake
Minnewashta so if we go to $4,000.00 that should be reasonable cost.
Mayor Hamil ton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Goose
Population Control Program and allocate $4,000.00 per year to accomplish
the goal and include lake Minnewashta. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
I
Dr. Cooper: The Canadian Goose is here to stay and this is one thing when
we talked to the Park an::1 Recreation Commission, is even if you elect to
eliminated all geese in Chanhassen, that the geese in adjacent comunities
will pioneer into here so I want to very upfront on this that this is to
some degree an ongoing program of goose control. However, I feel it is
much more widely than the in::1i vidual owner needs. We are hoping to
coordinate the the Met Council and look at this in a much broader issue
because we talking 10,000 geese an::1 that is up from 1,000 in 1973 an::1 it
could 20-100,000 if these programs aren't implemented.
Accept Feasibility Study for Water Trunk Line an::1 Storage Facility
Improvements. ---
Monk: Again I am sorry for the lateness of the hour because this is a
major issue that needs to be addressed by the City Council. At this point
in time I am going to let the report and comments speak for themselves. I
am recommen::1ing that the Council accept the Feasibility Study an::1 authorize
scheduling of a public hearing at which time we will be able to go into the
details of the proposal at much more depth. The j ist of the proposal is
basically that I have found that the construction of a tower and two trunk
1 ines in Chanhassen are very much needed at this point in time and I am
recommending that trunk lines be constructed and fully assessed where the
Silica Reservoir be funded by the City using the directed general funds.
The Manager's office has done extensive work in that area and will be
prepared to review the finances on June 9th with City Council as you look
at your upcoming bond issue. I can not overstate the need for the
I
60
(;J;(.)Fj
/';.4 () ~-,
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
I
improvements listed in the report and while I hate to end there, I will
answer questions.
Councilman Geving: Ib these people that you have included in your
proposed assessment area, have any inkling that they are going to be
assessed considerable monies, for example the Kerbers $48,000.00, the
Kerber Estate $110,000.00. Ib you think they have any inkling that this is
coming at them?
Monk: No, that would be the purpose for the public hearing would be to
alert all these property owners that this is coming. Again, I can tell you
that the Adella Kerber property has been sold. It is in the process of
being resold. The John Kerber Estate. Hansen and the Bernie Kerber
property is very well aware of what is going on at that site. The Brosey
property has been sold.
Mayor Hamilton: When it sold, did they come in here before they purchased
it and ask if there is going to be any assessments?
I
Monk: Basically two have and I told them that Council is reviewing for
this potential but it is nothing more than a proposed project at this point
in time but that is the reason for the public hearing to send them out the
report and let them read it. This is a very reasonable trunk assessment
and with the property being sold and being ready for development, I am not
expecting an outcry, but again that is the reason for the public hearing.
Resolution 86-34: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept
the attached Feasibility Study for Water and Trunk Line and Storage
Facili ty Improvements and schedule public improvement hearing for July 7,
1986. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Dacy: Mr. Mayor, before you move on, I checked with the applicants for the
Tomac application. They wanted the Council to act to table the preliminary
plat item also to next meeting. You just acted on the rezoning item and
just for clarity of the record to table action on the plat as well until
that time. I think the motion was just in reference to the rezoning and
just for the clarity of the record.
Mayor Hamilton: 'Ibmac was preliminary plat request to subdivide 7.9 acres
into six lots. That is what we did not deal with so that is the only thing
we have to deal with that item so they are asking that we table that until
June 16th. Why would we want it back on June 16th?
Dacy: Because that is when the Findings of Facts from the Attorney's
office will be brought back as well on the rezoning. It is just an item to
make clear that the plat is not hanging out there with no action.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: I guess I really don't see why that has to come back. at
the same time we have the Findings.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table the Preliminary
Plat Request to Subdivide 7.9 Acres into Six Lots for Tomac Development for
61
000
,~4GU
City Council Meeting - June 2, 1986
the Southwest Corner of Highways 7 and 41 until June 16, 1986. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
I
Councilman Geving: '!he only thing I wanted to bring up, we received a
letter today as residents of the City, I'm sure you all got the same
letter. What I would like to propose is that whenever a letter is
broadcast to the general public as this one was, to over 3,000 residents,
that it be signed by the Mayor and not a staff member. A lot of people
don't know who Bill Monk is, . he's not an elected official. I had two
neighbors ask me who Bill Monk was because they came over and said I can't
put on my water anymore. Who is this guy? I think as a matter of policy
it would be good for the Mayor to do that.
Zoning Ordinance Worksession, City Planner.
The Council discussed when would be a good night to meet for this
worksession. Barbara Dacy indicated that the June 3rd date had been set at
the end of March and just wanted to remind the Council of that and if they
wanted to set another date would be fine. It was decided to postpone the
Zoning Ordinance Worksession until June 3, 1986 with the Special Meeting of
the Board of Review meeting.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m..
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
I
62