1987 04 06157
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
6, 1987
Hamilton called the meeting to order. ~ne meeting was opened with the
to the Flag.
PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann
and Lori Sietssma.
'.
OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, 'Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the agenda as presented, with the following additions: Councilman Boyt
wanted to talk about the memo dated April 2, 1987 from Gary Warren regarding
Waldrip's 2nd Addition. Don Ashworth stated as a point of clarification under
item 3 there should be added (d) Sioux Line Crossing. All voted in favor of
the agenda as amended and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items as presented:
de
City Council Minutes dated March 2, 1987
City Council Minutes dated March 16, 1987
Planning Ccmmlission Minutes dated March 25, 1987
Public Safety Oannission Minutes dated March 19, 1987
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations at the meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA:
a.
Site Plan I%eview for a 15,808 Office Warehouse Building, _Lot 2, Block
1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition, Ir~ustrial
Information and Controls.
Councilman Johnson: The purpose for a site plan review to get feedback from
the Council on the site plan on the Consent Agenda is impossible. I had a
real concern over erosion control. ~here seemed to be a lot of discussion
about that. Whether to use a 12 inch pipe or to use the street. I went out
and looked at the site today. I did hear that some people were considering
putting a pond in at the end of the 12 inch pipe. I have a real concern about
putting that much water directly into the creek without intermediate silt
ponds. There seems to be roo~ to maybe put a small siltation pond at the err]
of that pipe. I also have concern about overloading the street as your
engineer had concern about. I think those are some items to be looked into in
the future as part of the site plan. I find it extremely hard to believe that
there are absolutely no chemicals to be used at this plant. I've been working
in industry for many years and I have yet to see a plant without any chemicals
being used in the plant. Are you with ~ company?
158
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Tom Ryan: No, I'm with the contractor. Would you like to discuss the
drainage first or the chemicals? ~ne site plan has been revised somewhat
after meeting with Gary Warran and Bob Obermeyer from Bart Engineering. There
is no longer the storm sewer outlet into the pond. We have redirected the
water. The east parking lot will now drain out to the street. We are also
trying to pick up one-third of the roof area and direct that to the street
also. We've taken the remaining water off of the truck maneuvering area and
the roof and we have eliminated part of the curb and we are trying to sheet
flow it into the creek basin without the storm sewer present to minimize the
erosion problem.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, that sounds like what they wanted you to do.
To~ Ryan: As to the hazardous waste, it very well may be. I wasn't prepared
for this question. I don't know that I can adequately answer it. I toured
the building they are in. They do not manufacture things. What they do is
assemble components. They buy machines and put electronic controls on th~m.
Councilman Johnson: Do they print circuit boards?
Tom Ryan: They do do circuit boards.
Councilman Johnson: Do they solder them?
Tom Ryan: Yes, they do. What I would like to say is that I would like to
have my project approved with the understanding that I will get a letter from
the owners for submission to you for your approval later on the nature of the
hazardous waste and how they dispose of it. As I say, in my tour I didn't see
anything but you may be much more well versed in this.
Councilman Johnson: If you have a soldering machine you've got hazardous
waste because the draws off that contains lead well above the required limits.
I just thought it was funny that someone said there was absolutely none there.
Some of the other problems with it is that our Zoning Ordinance requires a
site plan to be signed by a licensed something or other. The site plans I
have seen aren't signed.
Tom Ryan: No, the site plans aren't signed. The reason the site plans aren't
signed is simply that we are going for what we thought we were told was a
major variance from the Watershed District and we are fully understanding that
before plans would be submitted to the building department, they will have to
be signed but we simply tried to save ourselves the expense of an engineer's
stamp of approval before submission to the building department. I just wasn't
aware of the requirement or I could have had it by tonight.
Councilman Johnson: That's just a technicality. The other requirement which
is not just a technicality to me is the grading and drainage plans that are
suppose to be put in for site plan review are suppose to include existing
topography and vegetation and trees. You're taking out two nice stands of
trees for this development and there is none of that shown on the plan. We've
lost a lot of trees in this town that we didn't know were there because they
weren't on the plans until too late.
'.ity Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
1-59
Ryan: I have a plan· It has been revised after my meeting with Gary
Lfter Jo Ann made me aware of the requirement that I show the existing
·
~ilman Johnson: It will be coming in then?
Ryan: Yes but if you have reviewed the sit~ you will see that
y there really are no trees that can be saved. It is a very
site and we have to cut the hill down to get the building in.
Dacy: The plan that he's referring to should have ~-~n in your packet.
Geving: Dated February 18th?
Ann Olsen: You should have gotten March 9th.
Johnson: February 18th is in our packet. So you have submitted
to Staff?
Ryan: Yes.
Johnson: Are you going to be bulldozing the trees or are you going
to try to transplant some of them?
Tom Ryan: I think it is a matter of bulldozing the trees.
Councilman Johnson: Does our City have the capability, there are some trees
that might be worth saving and moving to our tree farm?
Tc~ Ryan: There are some nice clumps of trees but...
Councilman Johnson: ~ne one thing I want to add to the 8 conditions o~ the
conditions of approval and there are two items I wanted to add. Under item 1
is suh~it plans showing existing vegetation which will be removed. I want to
add ar,] provide tree replacement in addition to the required 1 tree per 40.
As our Ordinance asks for tree replacement, I saw no offer of tree
replacement.
Tom Rlran: Taere was none.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see some kind of negotiated tree
replacement. To give him consideration for the 1 in 40 but not total. You
are required by the Ordinance to give us one tree every 40 foot already no
matter if you take out one tree or you take out a whole forest ar~ for the
number of trees you're taking out, I think there should be some replacement
there so we get a few more trees and a little better looking building for you
at the same time· I think I'll let that to be negotiated as a part of this.
The other thing is your landscaping is only trees. I don't see any shurbery
listed in the landscaping. I would like to see some shurbs. Some of the
smaller bushes.
Tom Ryan: We have a lot of junipers up around the building.
160
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve site plan 987-1
as shown on site plan dated February 18, 1987 with the following conditions:
.
~ne applicant submit a plan showing existing vegetation which will be
removed and provide tree replacement in addition to the one tree per
40 to be negotiated with the Planning Staff.
.
The applicant shall provide one tree per 40 feet along the north
property line.
.
The applicant shall provide an acceptable grading plan to accommodate
drainage from the Component Engineering site to the north.
.
The applicant shall provide revised site grades to force the easterly
half of the site drainage to flow to Park Drive thus eliminating the
12-inch storm pipe and maximize the sediment removal/erosioncontrol
for the site. The westerly half of the site shall be graded to allow
"sheet" flow into the creek setback.
.
The applicant shall provide an acceptable erosion control plan for
the site.
6.
The applicant shall install erosion control measures prior to
initiating construction; to be maintained throughout construction
until the landscaping/vegetative cover has been restored.
.
The applicant shall provide all necessary drainage and utility
easements.
.
The applicant must receive permits from the DNRand the Watershed
District.
.
The applicant must submit a letter to the City addressing hazardous
waste on the site.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
FI NALAPPROVAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCKGRANT YEAR XIII FUNDING.
Dan Frump: I'm representing the HERO organization. I'm also Chairman of the
Private Industry Council for Hennepin County and I can say briefly what they
do. It's an organization that advises expenditures of Department of Labor
funds in this area. It's primarily a voluntary group with the membership is
predominantly business. It has representatives from service organizations and
education and so on. We try to coordinate some of the funds that are spent by
the Department of Labor. ~ne HERO proposal is in response to, the Department
of Labor funds have been cut rather drastically over the last 4 or 5 years
since I've been with the Private Industry Council and this is an initiative to
provide job opportunities for disadvantaged and dislocated workers through a
work place that will encourage small businesses with labor intense industried
to come in and start a business so it does two things. It encourages'new
161
Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
and it provides specifically job opportunities for disadvantaged
dislocated. Dislocated workers are workers who traditionally have been in
~e mainstream and have had jobs and now find themselves without work. An
example, scme of the Control Data people or Iron Rathe workers and so on.
Mayor Hamilton: Can you tell me how it provides job opportunities?
Dan Frump: What we would like to do, our proposal is to buy a facility that
will provide space and a focus for hiring and bringing people to the job site.
It will involve a number of new industries so we're looking at small
businesses that will hopefully grow in labor intense setting and perhaps we
will move on into other facilities but it's called a business incubator if
you've read some of the things that are going on around the country.
Mayor Hamilton: Where would that facility be located?
Dan Frump: We feel we've got to have some access to public transportation.
Very likely it will be in the St. Louis Park area and it could be 10 miles
either way I guess.
Mayor Hamilton: One of the problems I have with this is that, even though
it's not a significant amount of money, to provide opportunities for
disadvantaged persons supposedly in our area, is that correct?
Dan Frump: Yes, and they will also be dislocated.
Mayor Hamilton: The problem I have is I think we have a very, very low
percentage of people in this community who are unemployed or ~ employment.
Anybody from outside the area seeking employment is going to have a difficult
time getting here. We do have some rapid transit, we don't have the best
system nor a system that could get them here in an expeditious manner from
downtown or from St. Louis Park for instance during tt~ day so I have to
question not what you're attempting to do but what the benefits this town
might derive from it. I suspect they are zero.
Dan Frump: What we're trying to do is replace what's happened with the
Department of Labor funds. To train a disadvantaged worker and place someone
who is on a welfare type situation into a job, the average costs really
exceeds what we're asking for. If you talk about one worker, it's going to be
a profit to the City.
Mayor Hamilton: Even though we probably have a high number of people who are
employed in this area, I still have a problem continually funding the
activities of Hennepin County and downtown Minneapolis and those other areas
witt~ut directly benfitting...
Dan Frump: This is to buy a facility. It's riot an ongoing budget. We're
asking for two year allocation but at that point we expect to be self funded
through the businesses. We also have some grants that we are requesting from
the Department of Commerce and w~ have about 50% of our resources.
162
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Councilman Geving: Tne questions I have deal with the organization of the
HERO itself. I was particularly interested in how old the organizaton was?
Dan Frump: It's new. It was founded with this purpose. It is incorporated.
It is non-profit.
councilman Geving: Do you have tax exempt status from the State of Minnesota?
Dan Frump: Yes we do.
councilman Geving: And also from the IRS? I asked for that particular
document to be included.
Dan Frump: I assume we do but I don't know. I know we have the corporate
501C Corporation. I don't have a copy of that document.
councilman Geving: I would like to have a copy of that inserted with this
packet because it does show how the disposition of your assets would be
displayed if the organization were to be terminated at any time and what you
current assets are. The Board of Directors. What you attempted to do. How
you are going to do it. I would like to have a copy of your official tax
exempt status report from the IRS because that would tell me a lot as a
councilman. Tnat you have jumped through all the hoops and have made all the
necessary requirements to get that exempt status. You do not have at this
time a training facility is that correct?
Dan Frump: No. This is to buy the facility. If the facility should be sold
or terminated or anything, then the money will come back proportionally to the
cities.
Councilman Geving: What will happen to the organization if the request for
the $30,000.00 that you asked of the Hennepin County Co~nittee fails?
Dan Frump: I don't think it will go but we have recommendation from the
preliminary recommendations for $200,000.00 at this point but it still needs
to go to the commissioners but the advisory group has reccmm~ended this.
Barbara Dacy: The Citizen Advisory committe for this area has recommended
approval.
Councilman Geving: If you don't get the $200,000.00 that you are requesting,
will you seek other ways of getting that?
Dan Frump: I don't think we will have the means to do that. I don't think
we will be able to find other funds.
Councilman Geving: I wanted to touch on a comment that the Mayor made and
that is throughout the entire document that was presented to us before, it
talks strictly about Hennpin County and the disadvantaged and dislocated. Can
we be assured as Carver county and Chanhassen citizens that we would get the
same consideration for our disadvantaged people in this training facility if
we do provide some sort of funding for your organization?
'[63
.City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Dan Frump: There is not a restriction as far as who comes. It is r~ based
so it could be theoretically someone from the Iron Range.
Councilman Geving: Could you tell me if any of the sister communities such as
~den Prairie, Shakopee, Chaska have contributed to this organization? Could
you give me those three or four names.
Dan Frump: Maple Grove I know has and also Golden Valley are the two I
attended. Brooklyn Center I believe has and I didn't get their final but I
appeared before their group.
Mayor Hamilton: I think there are so many communities who are questioning
this whole thing as ~ are in talking with other communities.
Councilman Horn: It appears that there could be two sides to this thing. One
is the benefit of disadvantaged people. What about any types of benefits to
our ~ployers in this area. Would they have access to your services?
Dan Frump: It would be open to any employer that will provide job
opportunities. It is particularly for start-up type businesses.
Councilman Horn: Have you contacted any of our employment base out 'here to
see if they would be interested in taking people?
Dan Frump: We haven't done that. We have done some work with some of the
financial banks that finance start-up type businesses. Also Small Business
Administration.
Councilman Horn: So it's only start up?. It's not small business already
existing?
Dan Frump: It could be if they provide job opportunities. They call it a
business incubator. It's really for start up type businesses but any business
that would provide jobs would be included if they agreed to hire disadvantaged
or dislocated workers.
Councilman Boyt: In reading through the package you gave us, you've indicated
on page 2 that it's aimed at middle management, skilled manufacturing ar~
trades in that middle paragraph.
Dan Frump: That's the dislocated group. Not the disadvantaged group. There
are two groups here.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, then Mayor Hamilton asked you the location and you
said it might come as far west as Hwy 18.
Dan Frump: I think that's correct.
Councilman Boyt: That's page 6 or something in there. Then in terms of the
type of business, which is mentioned on page 3 I believe, you talk about
telemarketing and that sort of thing. In talking to similar kinds of
employers in Chanhassen, they can't find enough people to fill the jobs
164
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
they've got. I guess my initial feeling although Clark has struck a point
here about maybe being able to aid some of our current business people, my
three concerns are that it's too far away. ~/aat it's aimed at a group where
Chanhassen really doesn't have a significant contribution to make there and in
a sense you're incubating industry or businesses that are going to be
competing with existing Chanhassen businesses.
Dan Frump: It could be to s~me extent.
Councilman Boyt: You're talking telemarketing and mail in type of things so I
guess I just had co~m~ents. I didn't have questions.
Mayor Hamilton: My only other comment is in talking with the people who are
in business out here and they say they can not find an adequate number of
people to fill their entry level jobs here. Part of the reason for that is
that there is not adequate transportation as I indicated previously. They
can't get out here so I think you are probably going to have a great deal of
those types of people who you are trying to place and you're not going to be
able to place them here anyway. ~ney just can't get here unless they have an
aut~nobile and they can't afford to drive out here for an entry level job.
Dan Frump: Transportation is a major concern. It's one of the reasons we
really feel that transportation is really a must.
Resolution 987-25A: Councilman Boytmoved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to not
fund HERO and divert the Community Development Block Grant Year XIII funds to
the Senior Citizen Center. All voted in favor and motion carried.
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT:
a.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX
INC~ FINANCING PLAN.
B.
APPROVAL OF REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR RETAIL WEST AND HOUSING
PROJECT.
Ce
APPROVAL OF CONDEMNATION AGREEMENT WITH THE HRA FOR PARCELS IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA.
D. SIOUX LINE CROSSING.
Mayor Hamilton: Before I get into any of these, Bill had a question about an
item that I had put in the package dealing with myself personally. If you
would like to address that issue at this time and get that out of the way so
we can get on with the discussion.
Councilman Boyt: I would have been happy to put that off until the end of the
meeting. I don't see it here in front of me but I remember reading through it
and I appreciate having it in there and particularly the information provided
by the other community. Minnetonka I believe. He did a good job of digging
up what I thought was some real pertinent stuff. ~ne issue that I see here is
165
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
one that I saw mentioned in that document from Minnetonka as well and what
we're talking about here is, for those of you who may not follow it, is that
Mayor Hamilton has taken employment with a new real estate operation in
Chanhassen that has a link with CHADOA, although you've indicated you won't be
working on CHADDA issues directly. What I'm concerned about is that I'm
confident that when you say you won't be working on CHAIH)A issues or selling
that real estate, I have confidence in that. I think that where I've got my
concern is that we're talking about such a highly visible city development and
I'm concerned that an employment relationship between you and one of the
principal partners in the downtown development may create or weaken public
confidence in the decision making process we go through so that's my concerr6
Given some of the things in the paper recently about St. Louis Park and some
of the other issues where there has been a community confidence questions
rather than any kind of a legality question and I follow that with Tom, I
don't think that your vote is going to carry a difference in the downtown
development. The way I see it going, it looks like it's generally unanimous.
What I would like to suggest is that during matters your employer or client is
involved that we turn that part of the meeting over to the Acting Mayor. You
would retair~ your ability to speak on the matter but that you wouldn't vote.
Mayor Hamilton: May I respond? This came up recently and I have agreed with
Brad Johnson to go to work for Lotus Realty. A company that is owned by
himself. He is a partner in CHAID~ CHAfDA is not the developer of the
downtown. Winfield Development Company is. I have nothing to do with
Winfield. Winfield is the one who pays commissions. I am not at this time a
licensed realtor and I will not be for a short time period. Hopefully it will
be very soon so I can go to work but I have not at this time earned any money
obviously off the downtown area. I have done some legwork for Lotus Realty
Services but I have not done any lease work. Personally I would do absolutely
nothing to compromise the City's position in regards to downtown development.
I've talked extensively with our attorneys in trying to make sure that what I
would do tonight and in the future is going to be without question the right
thing for the City. Sometime I would like to do the right thing for me but
maybe that will come but I've been assured by Roger Knutson, our legal
counsel, that because I am not licensed, because I am not a member of the HRA
who really is the decision making body on these items, because I have nothing
to do with Winfield Development Company as far as tonight's discussion, there
is absolutely no conflict of interest. I haven't done anything and I'm not in
a position to do anything because I don't have a license to accomplish that.
We will be meeting more with Roger and perhaps even getting a second opinion
so we know exactly where I stand and I have told Brad of .this position that I
can't work in the downtown so we'll have to get together and work out all the
particulars and everybody will be kept abreast of what the opinions are and
where I stand in relation to my appointment.
Councilman Boyt: I appreciate your openness with this matter and I'm sure it
will work out well.
Mayor Hamilton: My main concern is that the downtown development gets done
and gets done right and I won't do anything to compromise that. With that,
unless there are other questions.
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Councilman Johnson: We had the same discussion earlier today on the phone and
I still stand by that I want to get the written legal opinions and everything
and still would encourage what Bill has suggested that if you would like to
volunteer for that for tonight I think it would make that 100% versus a 99%
assurety and we see nothing in writing. I think 100% assurety would be very
nice.
Mayor Hamilton: How do the other members feel?
Councilman Geving: I've known Mayor Hamilton for the last seven years as a
councilman sitting side by side with Tom and I can assure every one of the
Council members and any member of the public who is listening to our broadcast
tonight that under no circumstances would Tom ever take advantage of his
position here or has he ever and I have utmost confidence in his ability to
determine when the appropriate time to step aside on an issue that there may
be a conflict of interest or he feels that there could be ar~ that he would
step down in that particular situation and not vote or to act as a citizen, as
a realtor or businessman rather than the mayor of the city. I feel very
confident that we can trust in his judgment. Thathe knows when that
situation will arise. My personal feeling is that this was my initial
reaction to this tonight. ~nis is the first time I've seen this. I did not
know about it. I'm not concerned at all because I think you have to make a
living in this world. Tom is trying a new venture and it just happens to be
Chanhassen that he's striking out in a new manner to be a salesman in the
realty business and I wish him the best of luck because I think it's a new
world for you and a new enterprise. I'm very confident. I have no
reservations at all about his position here as the mayor of our city. In
fact, I feel very, very confident that in his position he will lead us into
this downtown development and it will work because of it and we will be that
much stronger because of the situation that we find ourselves in. He's been
very honest with us. He has written the memo to each of the council members.
We have it in our packet here stating exactly what he had said earlier and I
feel reassured. I don't need to say anything more than that. I have the
utmost confidence in you
Mayor Hamilton: ~nank you. Clark, anything?
Councilman Horn: Not much more than what Dale said except the question on one
point and t_hat is the request for not chairing certain sections of the
meeting. I don't understand that request.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's fairly common when the chair of a meeting sees
a potential to compromise to turn the chair over to, in this case, the Acting
Mayor at that point for that particular item. He would retain the ability to
speak to the issue but wouldn't retain the ability to vote on that issue.
When that issue passes then he would resume the chair and continue to conduct
the meeting and I think that's fairly con~on.
Mayor Hamilton: When Don, Roger and I discussed this just this past weekend,
we discussed this very issue. I said I don't want to compromise the issue so
I won't vote and Roger said that's fine. I said, I'll leave the room. ~nis
was before he understood what the involvement of all the parties were. He, at
10
167
City Council _M~cting - April 6, 1987
the time, thought I was on the HRA and he misunderstood that I was not a
member of the HRA and that I was not licensed. We hadn't gone through the
whole scenario. So I said, I'll leave the room. I won't even listen to the
discussion. I won't vote ar~ the other four members can decide. So then
after we discussed everybody's situation, everyone's position. Where I am in
my licensing process and Brad's involvement with CHADDA and Lotus Realty, he
said there isn't any conflict. He said for tonight there is absolutely no
conflict on anything that you do but we're going to have to talk about it some
more once I'm licensed. I said, fine. We'll sit down and talk again and I'll
do whatever is necessary. If I have to leave the room, I'll leave the room.
If I'm not to be chair, then I'll do that also. I have no problem with that
but I think for tonight I've ~ reassured legally by our counsel that I can
proceed as mayor.
Councilman Horn: I have no problem with the status quo unless the City
Attorney would give us s(anething to indicate differently.
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to move onto the first item in the approval of
resolution modifying the redevelotxnent plan and tax increment financing plan.
Don Ashworth: The City has in place a redevelopment plan literally since the
beginning of the district. Chairman Whitehill is with us this evening as
well and I would look to Mr. Whitehill for help with questions that the
Council may have. The City has operated under the redevelopment plan and six
amendments to that. The draft that you have in front of you combines all of
the previous drafts into one document. In addition to that, it incorporates
the ring road downtown public improvements that we've ~-~n talking about for
well over the last year arzt it also includes the two projects referred to as
Retail West and the housing project. The redevelopment plan is a form of
comprehensive plan. It sets the objectives for what needs to be done in the
downtown area. It is a primary document that City Council participates in to
lead the direction of the ~ Hopefully, it represents the work that we've
been talking about for the past year and a half. It represents a document
that the Council feels comfortable witl~ With that, I guess I'll open it up
for questions.
Councilman Johnson: When you said ring road just a second ago, you mean that
main street concept?
Don Ashworth: ~ne previous plan encompassed the ring road design from 1980.
That has been eliminated. The current plan shows the new road configuration.
Councilman Johnson: I think it looks pretty good.
Councilman Geving: As everyone knows we've ~n at this since 1979. It's
~cn a long struggle and tonight the culmination of all this effort is finally
coming back to us again after some very difficult economic times in 1979 and
198~ when this project was shelved and the HRA has hung in there and it's been
toug~ There have ~ a lot of times when they would have liked to quit ar~
found other eodeavors but tonight all of this is coming into focus and we are
in a position to launch the downtown redevelopment in earnest. I have one
question of you Don. I notice that you are designated as the administrator
11
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
for the entire project. I don't know if the term adminstrator is correct.
Don Ashworth: Executive Director.
Councilman Geving: I guess what I'm interested in is your actual involvement
in terms of the amount of time and energy that will be required on your part
in bringing this project in in relation to your duties as the manager of the
city. Will this take a substantial amount of your time to spearhead and carry
this project out? Can you do it? We've got to consider that this isn't a 90
day project. It's going to be in existence for years.
Don Ashworth: I don't know. It takes a significant period of my time right
now. Of course, we have Todd Gerhardt on staff and he is very helpful. I
look back a few years ago when we had employed a full-time person really just
for HRA activities and unfortunately at that point in time the project really
did not get going so we slipped back away from that position. It could be
that at a future point in time I would come back to this group but right now I
really feel the energy to see this thing through and I would like to see it
through.
councilman Geving: And I hope that day will come when you'll come to us and
tell us that you're swamped and you need to be replaced or need some help. I
didn't mean it like that. I'm pleased that you're accepting that as a
responsibility because I would feel better. You've been a part of it for as
long as you've been a part of the City and I think you're the best person to
lead this. I have no other comments.
councilman Horn: We've been through these of course in the HRA meetings. I
feel confident that we've put in the necessary protection for the City and I
think it's fine time this project get started.
councilman Boyt: I tried to sit in on HRAmeetings since November, whenever
I've been in town so I've followed a good bit of the recent development. As
Clark and Dale have said, it certainly seems to fit in line with what we want
to do. It seems to be as well protected as is possible to protect the City's
interest in it so I'm for getting on with it.
Mayor Hamilton: I have no comments. I agree with everything. Having been
involved with this project since 1978 when the original one started and still
being involved with it, I'm so darn excited to see something happening. I
wish we could break ground tomorrow. It wouldn't be too soon. We haven't
discussed item d. We could probably do (a) and ~) unless someone has an
objection to those two. We may need further comments on (c).
Don Ashworth: (c) and (d) really are quite administrative in nature although
the attorney has recommended to the Council to act on (c). (d), if I may
state, the City Council previously authorize Staff to pursue the Sioux Line
crossing issue. That came on more than one session. Staff has written a
letter as it has to continue to pursue that. We received today a request from
them but they would like to have that in resolution form so we would simply
ask. I do have a draft of the resolution but it's very simple. It just
simply is putting into writing the City's position that we want to have a
12
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
railroad crossing.
Councilman Horn: I would propose that Councilman Horn make the motion. He's
~n with it for some time ar~ cover items 3(a),(b) and (d). I think we can
handle those all in one shot.
Mayor Hamilton: Before you do that Clark, can I ask Cliff, the chairman of
the HRA if he has anything he would like to add.
Cliff Whitehill: I'm just very pleased that it has come as far as it is.
A note of thanks to everybody that's ~ involved and especially this plan as
contrasted from the last plan and that is the tremendous support and
involvement from the citizens of Chanhassen and business people have played in
the development of this plan so a note of thanks from the HRAto all those
people.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Downtown
Redevelopment Project:
(a) Resolution 987-26: Approval of Resolution modifying the
redevelopment plan ar~ modified tax increment financing plan.
(b) Approval of Redevelopment Agreement for Retail West and Housing
Project.
(c) Approval of Condemnation Agreement with the HRA for parcels in the
downtown area.
(d) Resolution 987-27: Approval of Sioux Line Railroad crossing.
All voted in favor and moti~ carried.
SHORRrAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD., JOHN ARDOYNO.
Councilman Geving stated that this was the applicant's fourth attempt in.
making this piece of shoreline into a single family home. ~neBoard of
Adjustments and Appeals unanimously approved the request to grant a 25
foot shoreline setback variance.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN OUTSIDE STORAGE AREA, LOT 2, BLOCK 3,
BURDICKADDITION, LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT.
Jo Ann Olsen: The property is in the general business district. It is located
just south of City Hall in the Burdick Additioru The applicant is proposing a
Conditional Use Permit to allow screened outside storage. The applicant is
Lakeshore Equipment which has a building just south of the located site. They
want to use this area to clean up their site. It's for storage of docks ar~
boat lifts. The applicant is here. You can get more detail as to exactly
what will be stored there. He was proposing an 8 foot high fence. Staff
suggested that that be increased to 10 foot high to further screen any
13
170
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
storage. He is providing a nice landscaping plan. It's located where the
existing trees will be maintained. Staff is recommending approval. The
Planning Commission also recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit
with the conditions that the fence shall be 10 feet high, that all equipment
stored in the area must be screened by the fence and that all equipment
currently stored on Lakeshore Equipment site must also be removed to the
storage area.
Steve Willette: In reading through the Planning Commission Minutes, the
PlanningCommission did some talking, we were unable to make that meeting, but
in reading their Minutes they talked about a lot of boats and high masts and
so forth and that is not going to be the case. There is a possibility of
maybe there being a boat or two but it would not go above the fence. The
equipment that we sell are docks and boat lifts and we would work at keeping
everything down below the fence area so it would all be concealed. Our
interest in asking for this outside storage area is to be able to conduct our
business and stay within the City of Chanhassen. We like it here and the
thing that we're looking to do is to try and clean up the mumble jumble that
we end up with around our building area with trailer stuff coming in and out.
What we want to do is consolidate it into a nice looking area inside a storage
area.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there a possibility that sometime in the future you would
be moving into a larger building whereyou would kccp things inside?
Steve Willette: It's a possibility but it's not one that we anticipate for
the near future because of the fact that we are a seasonal business. It is
structures like docks and so forth that can be stored outside very, very well.
Most of our stuff that would be in that outside storage area will be new
equipment so it will be looking nice. It will be kept in an orderly fashion
because we want to present ourselves properly to our customers.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you have a problem with that 10 foot high fence? Do you
think you need a 10 foot high fence? I see you requested a 8 foot high.
Steve Willette: I don't really see a need for a 10 foot high fence as our
equipment wouldn't be that high so we would cover our equipment and I guess
that's what we're all looking for.
Councilman Johnson: I notice on your drawings you say boat and trailer
storage. That you sell trailers and docks.
Steve Willette: The thing was done by a landscape artist and architect and I
don't think he knows what a boat lift or a dock is apparently because I told
him it was going to be docks and boat lifts and he put boats and trailers.
Councilman Johnson: You mentioned there could be boats anyway?
Steve Willette: There could be a small boat or two but it's not going to be
any sailboats with masts or any cruisers or anything like that. It's all
going to be concealed. It will all stay down below the fence and I guess I
wouldn't rule out boats entirely because if we use a service boat, which would
14
1'/1
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
be a little boat or something, that could be left in the outside storage area.
Councilman Johnson: But you're definitely not looking at winter boat storage?
Steve Willette: No.
Councilman Johnson: I wanted to make sure that was clarified. I do have one
comment on condition 3 that all equipment currently stored on Lakeshore
Equipment site must be removed to the storage area. I would say all equipment
currently in outside storage. The stuff that's inside the building I don't
care if it's moved out. I think that's what we really mean. To be accurate.
We don't care what's inside the building. It doesn't have to be moved out
into the storage area, only the outside storage. You think the 8 foot fence
will do?
Steve Willette: I think an 8 foot fence will 'conceal everything that we have
to conceal.
Councilman Johnson: Staff, why did we come up with 10 feet?
Jo Ann Olsen: In review of other cities, t~ use a 10 foot high fenoe and
that's when we were under the ur~erstanding that there would beboats in
there. As long as you have the condition that all storage will be screened,
you can go down to 8 foot fence.
Councilman Johnson: Is this downhill from 78th Street?
Steve Willette: Partially but I don't think you could look down from 78th
Street.
Councilman Johnson: I don't either and the extra 2 feet isn't going to give
you that much.
Barbara Dacy: We just wanted to be on the safe side. We did have a downtown
clean-up situation occurring last year so w~ just wanted to be consistent.
Steve Willette: We are a growing business and we want to present the right
image to the public also.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to welcome you to the town too as 'a new
business in town. I'm not too opposed to an 8 foot fence as long as
everything is screened.
Councilman Boyt: I just wanted to · emphasize that whatever fence
height it takes to k~ all the equipment screened is great. I actually find' a
10 foot fence pretty imposing and I don't know that-it wou/d-be in ~ with
the development of downtown so I would welcome a motio~ that read an 8 foot
high fence.
Councilman Horn: The only concern I really have on this is not so much the
storage area that you need to conduct the new business portion. Is there
15
172
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
going to be winter storage for any used equipment? For any equipment for
customers?
Steve Willette: Tnere really won't be. We don't really provide a service as
such. What we're looking for is it's going to be docks and boat lifts. There
may be some used stuff coming in from time to time but our new stuff sells so
fast it doesn't sit there for very long and all of the stuff, whether it be
new or used, is going to be concealed behind the fence.
Councilman Horn: It wasn't so much used as it was a question of storage. I
got the impression going through here that there would be some storage of
the custcmer's supplies.
Steve Willette: No.
Councilman Horn: It's strictly the things you're selling?
Steve Willette: We own everything that would be within that fence and it has
to be that way because of our insurance policy.
Councilman Geving: You're renting this space from Mr. Burdick at this time is
that correct?
Steve Willette: Yes.
Councilman Geving: Do you have a long term lease for that piece of property?
Steve Willette: No, I don't.
Councilman Geving: And if Mr. Burdick were to advise you shortly after you
built this 8 or 10 foot fence that he was selling that piece of property, you
have an understanding?
Steve Willette: Yes. He told us that if he would sell that property that if
he had other property that we could possibly move to, it would just he a
matter of moving the fence to a different location or whatever. He said he
would give us some time to do that.
Councilman Geving: How have we done this in the past Staff? For instance, Mr.
Pryzmus put up his fence for his golf shooting range. He did have a fence.
He went out of business. Did we tear that fence down? I think it was one of
the conditions.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it fell down.
Councilman Geving: When we 'build a fence as a conditional use, I have to
assume that there has to be a responsibilitysomewhere to tear that down and
remove it if you were to go out of business or moved out of Chanhassen. Mr.
Burdick wouldn't be sitting there with a fence.
Steve Willette: Probably the easiest way to explain that is that we're
proposing a rather nice fence and there will always be a value to that fence
16
City Oouncil Meeting - April 6, 1987
and I would just as soon not leave it there myself.
Councilman Geving: There were several sketches of fences here. Is there any
here that would d~nonstrate to us what we're looking at?
Steve Willette: Dog eared.
Councilman Geving: The dog eared cedar, is that what we're talking about?
Steve Willette: Right.
Councilman Geving: And it would be stained or something or just leave it?
Steve Willette: I don't know. We have not really decided one way ~r the
other. I planned on leaving it natural and let it go gray. It probably would
blend into the backgroundmore and not be so mud7 of an eyesore. If we
stained it a color it might not blend as well.
Councilman Geving: How did you arrive at the seven Black Hills spruce trees
for the plantation around the north end? How did you arrive at that? ~nese
are 6 feet tall is that right?
Steve Willette: Yes. The conditional use permits, we were given a copy of
the City Ordinance to the landscape architect and we tried to have him design
it to your specifications.
Councilman Geving: In your opinion Don, you're quite a tree person, is 6 foot
Black Hills trees adequately cover that? We're talking about an area 75 feet
long covered by 4 trees.
Mayor Hamilton: 5 actually.
Councilman Geving: Actually almost 5 to the corner. There are two around the
corner there. They wil grow fairly rapidly once they get beyond 6 feet. I
know that. ~hat do you think Don? Is that enough?
Don Ashworth: They will be 40 feet across at the base. That's going to be
enough for years in the future.
Councilman Geving: Ihn thinking of what we've done out here on the slope next
to the City Hall with some of the 6 and 8 foot Norways that we put iD. Will
that cover this?
Don Ashworth: It's about 15 feet between trees. I think that's actually too
close for this.
Steve Willette: The thing is, I don't know if you want the whole fence
covered with trees. It's going to look nice. We're going to landscape around
it. We're going to try and make it look nice but as far as covering the whole
thing with trees, we had not planned on doirg that.
Councilman Geving: I think the only caution I have for you Steve is that I'm
17
174
City Council meeting - April 6, 1987
really not in favor of this fence but I would rather have the enclosed
machinery rather than having it sitting out in the open. ~nis is the entrance
or will be very much the entrance to our downtown area which we just approved
probably many millions of dollars tonight and we want this area to really look
nice and getting an assurance from you that you are going to make it
attractive.
Steve Willette: We want it to look nice also.
Councilman Geving: No other comment except I'm in favor of the 8 foot tall
fence.
Mayor Hamilton: I think as Steve has eluded to previously that he will
probabybemoving to another location in a year, two years depending on how
fast that whole downtown project goes and how fast it moves to the west but I
would think that there would be a better use for that land and I'm sure you
realize that so maybe we can find you another spot someday. I would also like
to welcome you to town Steve. It's nice to have your business here. I think
a few people were a little surprised when they found out you were here and I
said, after all we're right in the middle of all ~ lake region so it seems
like a very reasonable place to me for you to be. It's nice to have you here.
I would like the 8 foot fence also.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Conditional
Use Permit 987-4 for screened outside storage area as shown on site plan
dated March 4, 1987 on Lot 2, Block 3, Burdick Addition with the following
conditions:
1. The fence shall be 8 feet high.
2. Ail equit~nent stored in the area must be screened by the fence.
.
All equipment currently stored on the property must be removed to the
storage area.
Ail voted in favor and motion carried.
PETITION FORSANITARY SEWER ANDWATER IMPROVEMENTS ALONGCHURCHROAD, MERLYN
AND BETTY WANOUS.
Gary Warren: As you are aware, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission is
going to be constructing mostly this year and probably even next year the Lake
Virginia Forcemain and the Lake Ann Interceptor. The alingment for the Lake
Virginia Forcemain comes out of Shorewood down 62nd Street and along the
western edge basically of Church Road and then on it's way down the roadway
easement of TH 7. The discussions with the commission indicate that Church
Road, street service will basically be totally obliterated due to the
construction in that area and it's present condition which can't support
construction traffic. So Staff thought that at least we should take a look at
whether there was an interest to have sanitary sewer and/or watermain run into
this area. The current properties along Church Road here, Wanous, Campbell,
18
175
City Council ~cting - April 6, 1987
Frizzell, Kerber, Carlson and the park area here are not serviced by water
with the exception of the few properties that Gary Carlson has brought in
sewer and water to with his own buildings. City records are not very
accurate. I see that he has done that on his own behalf. There is a stub
that exists from 62nd Street that was provided from sanitary sewer interceptor
on 62nd which is available and that will be the likely route for installing
sanitary sewer here and a watermain exists in the cartway on this side of the
roadway. Again, we haven't done a detailed feasibility yet. That's what
we're discussing tonight but to get an idea, we're looking at possibly
bringing the watermain in across the southern boundary of the park area and
then split it and go up and down Church Road. Basically we have a petition.
I have not received anything in writing from the other property owners but we
have received a petition from Wanous and Campbells for Council to consider
this item and Staff, as I pointed out, was interested as perhaps the Council
is to see the thoughts from the property owners in the area. This would be an
opportune time to save at least the expense of the roadway surface.
Mayor Hamilton: I just have one comment. It seems to me that anytime we have
the opportunity to eliminate septic systems and hook up to sewer and water
system, we ought to take advantage of it and this is certainly a good
opportunity for these properties to come on-line and that would be four septic
system we would be eliminating from the City which I think is a credit. Even
with all the information that people say t~ are good systems, I still think
it's good to eliminate as many septic systems as possible and I was happy to
see this.
Councilman Boyt: I would be interested if there are any of the property
owners here tonight. I'll hold off until I've had a chance to hear from them.
Merlyn Wanous: I instigated this petition. I've had conversations with the
City Engineer and he informs us that, like with the septic systems, that once
they go bad there is an ordinance that prohibits a permit to install a new
system and ours is the newest house there and our system is 27 years old but
we've maintained it. We've had it pumped every three years. There is nothing
wrong with the system. It's great but I see an opportunity to save some
money. If it would be possible at this time because this opportunity will
never present itself agairu This is the only time and it is somehow the same
construction could dig it up and put the system in at the same time. The only
question I have is as long as the sewer is going to be forced under TH 7, the
water is on the other side of TH 7, if it somehow couldn't be forced the same
way and be cost saving to a certain degree.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you look into that at all?
Gary Warren: Yes, we can not share the same trench with the forcemain. Water
and sewer going together.
Merlyn Wanous: The only reason I presented the petition is because I felt
it's a good opportunity to fix it and you never know with Victoria drilling a
new well whether our wells are going to go dry or whether they are going to
become contaminated at some future time and here is an opportunity to hook up
to the City system and be assured of clean water. That's all I've got to say.
19
176
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Harry Campbell: I pretty much believe what Merlyn says. ~nere's not much
more that I can add to it but we just feel that as long as they are going to
tear the road up, why not put the sewer down because maybe in a couple of
years they will be right back there having to put sewer in then and why retear
the road all back up again so this is more or less why we want the sewer in
now. As long as they are going to tear that road up. Like I say, Merlyn said
just about the same opinion I have about the whole thing right now.
Mayor Hamilton: Harry, do you know what the other neighbors there, what their
thoughts are on this? Have you talked to ~?
Harry Campbell: Jim is right here so you can get his opinon of that but I
don't know too much what Kerber down at the corner. He's here too.
Jim Frizzell: When I learned about this I agree that there is an opportunity
here because they are going to be digging up the road. ~ne questions that
came to my mind. Two basic questions was the question of need. Like Merlyn
said, the septic systems have been in for a while. On the other hand, for the
water end of it, we all just put brand new wells in. We all incurred, I think
it was $5,000.00 a piece for a new well in April of 1984. Septic systems are
supporting small dwellings. I live alone. Kerber has two small dwellings on
the corner, one bedroom houses. Merlyn and Harry's are both three bedroom
houses. They have two people living in their house. It's not a cramped
environment. It's not a city environment. ~ne whole back of the property is
my property and it's open. I think that's a consideration. I think there is
enough space there so it doesn't pose a big threat so the need I don't think
is as drastic as in other areas. The other point was the question of economic
justification. If the estimates that I've seen, what Harry and I were talking
about, about $8,500.00 initially per lot owner plus any stub fees and whatever
the cost is to actually hook up to the house. We had kind of ballparked about
$12,000.00 estimate not to mention if there be any road assessment. If they
upgrade the road from a 4 ton to a 7 ton road so in my mind we're talking
about $12,000.00 to $15,000.00. You put $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 into the
value of these houses, we're not talking $100,000.00 houses here. They range
from $20,000.00, $30,000.00, $40,000.00, $50,000.00 maybe up to $80,000.00 so
we're talking 20%, 30%, 40% of the value of the house in the septic and water
system which in my mind we do not need. We have brand new wells we just paid
for three years ago this month and I think adequate septic systems. ~nose two
points along with I think a majority of the land owners there, Kerber, myself
and Carlson, would oppose on the basis of that reasoning. If we want it just
because the opportunity exists, I have a hard time feeling that.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the action we would take tonight would be to
recommend that the City go ahead with a feasibility study. At that time, once
the feasibility study is done, then we would know costs pretty close to what
the actual costs would be and it would also be reviewed again at that time and
you would be notified and you could come in and look at the feasibility study.
That sounds like a lot of money to me too but the Council has had no
opportunity to see what costs may be and that's the timing on it. We would
like to do that so we would know what it might cost. It might be a lot less.
Councilman Geving: Not only that but there probably will be some options
20
177
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
there too where you could go with sewer and not water or both depending on
what the feasibility study said.
Mayor Hamilton: We're not trying to approve this tonight.
Mike Kerber: I guess mine is pretty much along the same lines. I just want
to know what it's going to cost. I look down the street and some are going to
get hit. We've got property in Shorewood and Victoria so Ihn getting hit
already because it's coming down the line twice. I'm not against
improvements. Not at all but dollars and cents. I want to know what it's
going to cost.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what w~ want to know too.
Mike Kerber: I sunk $2,000.00 in a well last year. I also called up here
last year to find out because the fire barn is just 100 feet away from my
property, why we can't bring water over there being it's that far and I was
told that never, ever would there be water to service those 3 to 4 houses.
Now all of a sudde~ they can have it or possibly.
Mayor Hamilton: At this time last year we didn't know that we would have this
opportunity. We really didn't. We were fighting with the State, with the
Metropolitan Council on when this project would be done.
Mike Kerber: Was this all up in the air because I heard last year that they
are going to remodel TH 7. They are going to do all this and this is all
coming through.
Mayor Hamilton: But the sewer project had not been approved. We were still
fighting with the State trying to figure out what we were going to do with
this.
Mike Kerber: Okay, if you could get some figures as to what it's going to
cost. Now these guesstimates because I know how they double. What it's
going to cost.
Councilman Boyt: I have a quick request and it looks to me Gary like we're
wing to go ahead with the feasibility study. When we do, I would like to know
the difference in cost between doing it now versus say waiting until there is
in fact a true need. How much does the road save in other words?
Mike Kerber: I've two houses there. If it does go through, do I get hit with
two assessments or one?
Councilman Geving: One per lot. Probably a unit basis.
Mike Kerber: It's a small lot. There are two houses on it now.
Grandfathered in or whatever. It's ~ there for forever.
Gary Warren: That is a big question on the area. Even though it's a small
area and in talking with Gary Carlson, just the number of units that we would
come up with on the feasibility study really needs to look at that closely.
21
.l 78
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Who can split and who can't and how many units are we dealing with because
that can change the cost pretty dramatically.
Mike Kerber: I doubt anybody would ever let me split that. Move one out or
whatever. There are two houses so I don't want to pay for two assessments
either.
Gary Warren: You've got two there now?
Mike Kerber: There are two small houses yes.
Gary Warren: So right now we would look at it as two units.
Mayor Hamilton: That would be something that would be in the feasibility
study. What the size of the lot is? The properties that exist today with
homes on there.
Councilman Geving: That's why the feasibility study is so important Mike.
We'll know at that time how feasible this is and how many units you can have
on your property. Whether it's one or two and approximately how much you
would be assessed for this project. Whether it's on a unit basis or a footage
basis.
Mike Kerber: So if it went through as one, that somewhere down the line I
could never have two, and then you wanted to hook up. Can we hook up
co~unity type? Hook to one house and run over to the over?
Mayor Hamilton: No. No way. You can't do that.
Councilman Geving: Once we lock that in, you'll know how many units you can
put on that lot and get serviced by that sewer. You probably would have to
talk to our attorney but you probably would have every right to maintain those
two units because you have th~m grandfathered. I don't know. We would have
to discuss that. You have two units there, we might have to give you two
units.
Merlyn Wanous: If this is not passed, what if Harry and I would just run a
line back here to the existing sanitary sewer. Like Mr. Carlson over there,
he had the opportunity and he ran it right through his own property to the
existing sewer right over here ~ he hooked up his units to that. He paid
for the construction of the unit himself but it went right through his land.
The sewer is right here and then we could just run a private line through our
own property.
Mayor Hamilton: I suppose that's possible and Gary can you address that?
Gary Warren: It's possible. I think the fact that there is 15 feet of sewer
already in the street and there is potential seeing that Wanous and Campbell
are downstream. Usually it's the other way around, that we could look at the
cost here of just servicing those two properties and put a manhole so in the
future it could be extended to this whole alignment.
22
1-79
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Councilman Geving: It should be one of the options. It should be one of the
alternatives.
Merlyn Wanous: Work something out here and everyone would be happy.
Resolution ~87-28: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
direct Staff to prepare a feasibility study for sanitary sewer and water
improvements along Church Road taking into consideratiom the comments made by
the citizens at the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
ACCEPTANCE OF FEASIBILITY STUDY AND AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPMCIFICATIONS, WEST VI~ HEIGHTS SANITARY SE.
Mayor Hamilton: I had a call from Rick Murray this afternoon and he's at'
another Council meeting this evening and would have liked to have ~_n here to
comment on this because it hits him particularly heavy. He has a lot of
questions about it and I think he has seine very good ideas about how this
project could possibly be done for less than what the feasibility study shows
so if the Council doesn't mind, Rick said he could be at our next Council
meeting and if we could ~hle this until that time. Is that going to cause a
problem?
Gary Warren: I think what you're saying is the curb and gutter improvements.
The watermain and sanitary sewer, the lateral service which is a part of this,
the timing is important to Mr. Jacobson as far as West Village Heights. If
it's possible to split that and allow the design or at least call a public
hearing on those improvements so we can continue on with that and address the
street issue as a separate issue.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't have any problem with that.
Gary Warren: As it relates to the curbing arzt gutter but if we could deal
with the sewer and water, that's the most pertinent time on it.
Councilman Geving: Can you separate them?
Mayor Hamilton: Can you put in the improvements without putting the in the
curb and gutter.
Gary Warren: The watermain exists already in Kerber Blvd. based on our
construction this year so that's an easy extensio~ into the plat for Mr.
Jacobson.
Councilman Geving: Can we take items 1, 2 and 3 on the summary and forget
about the curb and gutter, 4, 5, 6 ar~ 7? How about that Gary?
Gary Warren: Right.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to ~mhle discussion of the
feasibility study items for West Village Heights dealing with curb ar~ gutter
until the next Council meeting on April 20, 1987. All voted in favor of
tabling the iten and motion carried.
23
180
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to amend the agenda to move
discussion of acceptance of the feasibility study for West Village Heights
regarding sanitary sewer and watermain issues to follow the Chan Vista
consideration. All voted in favor and motion carried.
CHANHASSEN VISTA 3RDADDITION: APPROVAL OF UTILITIES, 3RDAND 4THADDITIONS.
Gary Warren: I made approval of the plans and specifications. You have a
copy of the plans for the 3rd and 4th Additions. Basically the consultant has
modified the plans consistent with some of earlier reviews in the grading and
erosion control plans that were approved on March 16th to eliminate the storm
sewer and resurface drainage enough to maximize the effect of our wetland area
to the east. Upon review of the utilities I find them acceptable. I
recommend them for approval with conditions that jacking pits for the
watermain connection at Kerber Blvd. which were not addressed specifically in
the erosio~ control plan, be properly protected. I'm requesting trash racks
to be installed on the 18 inch storm sewer inlet and the 12 inch storm sewer
outlet from the wetland area. It's in such a residential area, I'm concerned
from a safety standpoint. Then the conditions of grading and erosion control
plan approved on March 16thbe adhered to and any comments from the Watershed
District and DNR and financial sureties which are a condition of the
development contract and of course continue with our access restriction to
Kerber Blvd..
Councilman Boyt: One of the questions that I had was in taking action on (a)
and (b), are we having impact on (c)?
Gary Warren: I don't believe so. It would be the same situation that we are
looking at right now with the 2nd Addition in that it is providing your
reconsideration request, we would not be vacating the right-of-way. We would
just be restricting the improvement at this time and this plan here does show
the right-of-way.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so we're compatible with 8(c) or at least as
compatible as we are now?
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Boyt: The only comment I have on 8(a) is that I'm appreciative of
you removing the storm sewer, you and the developer, from Chan Pond. Thank
you for following up on that. I think that's a nice improvement and I'm
acceptable of the rest of the package.
Councilman Johnson: I only have on (a). The silt fence which was previously .
approved as Sheet %9 and now they have taken it out. I must admit that I was
under the understanding that this silt fence was going to be at the top of the
grade there instead of over the edge and down the hill. If the conservation
easement goes beyond the silt fence, I think they have a problem with the
erosion control location of the silt fence as staked out there and actually I
show on the drawing %9 here that the fence line is where the ridge is that we
are trying to protect. I would like to see that the erosion control is in
24
181
".ity Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
front of what we're trying to protect rather than behind it.
~ry Warren: When I reviewed the field with the developer and the consultant
that was the direction I had given them based on once we finally saw the
~taking which was due to be done the next day. It didn't make any sense to
have it down and especially when we get a conservation easement which is
definitely not what we want to have happen so he is of the understanding that
the silt fence and the haybales will be up on the ridge and not down the
slope. That's acceptable with everybody concerned.
Councilman Johnson: I was quite concerned when I was looking at those stakes
this weekend ar~ found out that that was the silt fence below what we are
trying to protect and the conservation easement was not properly staked either
but you are taking care of those?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: I have no further c(mm~ts on it~u (a).
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the construction
plans and specifications for Chanhassen Vista 3rd and 4th Additions as
prepared by McCombs-Knutson, printed March 18, 1987 with the following
conditions:
le
Proper erosion control protection shall be utilized around the
jacking pits for the watermain connection at Kerber Blvd..
Trash racks be installed on the 18 inch storm sewer inlet and on the
12 inch diameter storm sewer outlet from the storm water detention
pond on the east end of the plat to prevent unauthorized access to
these sewers by children from the neighborhood.
e
e
e
The developer adhere to the conditions and stipulations of approval
incorporated in the Final Grading and Erosion Control Plan (Revision
F) approved March 16, 1987.
The developer complies with all conditions issuedbytheWatershed
District and/or DNR.
Security for performance be provided by the developer to the City in
the amountequal to 110% of the costs of the improvements consistent
with Section 6.02 of the August 20, 1986, development agr~_--~ent.
6.
Construction traffic shall be restricted to access the site only from
Kerber Blvd..
All voted in favor and motion carried.
CHAN}f%SSEN VISTA 3RD ADDITION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
Barbara Dacy: This is the 3rd Addition final plat. Staff is recommending
approval subject to the standard conditions in the Development Contract and
25
182
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Financial Security. We did not modify the existence of the drainage easement
where the wetland area is and a minor modification of the lot line in hhe cul-
de-sac of Conestoga Trail. Also I would like to briefly address the
conservation easement issue. The lines that you see on the Lots 22 of the
southwest corner of the plat, the lines that they have indicated there for
drainage and utility area is consistent with the map. This is the map that
was considered by Council last summer. I think what we're trying to verify is
the exact location of the conservation easement boundary. The intent is clear
that the point of the ridgeline needs to be preserved and the developer and
staff will verify that to make sure that that is correct so I think it's just
coming down to a survey problem out in the field. On paper it's consistent.
We just have to verify it with the ridgeline in the field.
Councilman Johnson: That one point really has been frustrating tome to find
that we had a estimated line which everybody understood on the previous
drawings was really a guesstimate of where that was going to be and we had a
physical description of where it was going to be as far as the ridge line or
however it was going to be and that the surveyor went out and staked the
estimated line and then plat it so we have a plat here with a line on it that
should say conservation easement, is that correct? Instead of utility
easement?
Barbara Dacy: Technically, according to State Law, a trail or conservation
easement has to be filed as a separate document. For them, placing utility or
drainage easement over it is fine. It reserves it for that purpose. However,
it is not the City's intent to use it for that but what the developer would
have to do is similar to 1st Addition. File a separate document for each lot
abutting that conservation easement so they will have to come up with a survey
description and verify that and have a detailed survey description as they did
with the 1st Addition.
Councilman Johnson: When will we see this document?
Barbara Dacy: This was a concern that can be addressed by the Council in
either one of two ways. Approve the plat conditioned upon seeing that on a
future agenda item probably within the next two weeks or you can table plat
approval.
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Frank is here. Perhaps Greg, if you want to come up here
you can respond to these things.
Greg Frank: I'm with McCombs-Knutson Associates. ~nere are two easements
we're looking at. One is utility and drainage easement which Barb again has
mentioned, is the same as what shows on this drawing here. ~ne conservation
easement, which again was based on the preliminary plat which was based on the
contour of 960 and in the field, in fact the conservation easement is actually
above the 960 contour in the field but we understand the concern that the
ridge line would be the demarkation line. Tnere was a fence line. I know
that was discussed quite frequently at Planning Commission and Council as
being the demarkation line for the conservation easement and I think generally
we can work that out. It's just a matter of coming up with that legal
description. I know there was talk as we went through this whole process last
26
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
year about the 960 contour is one. Secor~ly there was a fence line. I think
the 960 contour, the way it was computed on the plat, that's where the
easement is shown but the conservation easement which is a separate document,
again, could be the fence line. We'll go back and have that surveyed that
way.
Mayor Hamilton: When could you have those documents?
Greg Frank: Within a week. We could have it to Staff I would think by the
end of this week.
Councilman Geving: From my standpoint. I was interested in the ridgeline so
when a person who was supposedly on public property or the conservation
easement area, they could be walking along and feeling like at least they were
on a conservation easement area rather than what is private property. I think
what I failed to understand all along was a very important part that came out
in a meeting with the Park and Rec people. I would like to have you refer to
that one piece of land that juts out in the middle of the ponding area. In
the 4th Addition, Block 2, I believe it's Lot 4. Are you familiar with that
one piece of land that juts out. It's the highest piece of land there. When
we met with the Park and Rec people it came to my attention that this would be
a beautiful spot for someo~ to put a picnic table or a place where people
could sit on top of that ridge and feel like they were overlooking the ponding
area without being on someone's private property. It would be my desire at
least and I know I've talked to several Council members, that we make sure
that we get that high spot as part of the conservation easement because that
is a very, very nice overlook area. I can't tell where the easement is
marked.
Greg Frank: I think it is marked but let me just double check.
Councilman Geving: I would like to have Staff make a note of that.
the conservation easement?
Is it in
Greg Frank: Yes, just the top of it but probably a 20 foot at the top
then you have the ridge line of about 20 feet.
Councilman Geving: Would it be sufficient in size for a person to utilize
that area as citizens for an overlook over the ponding area.
Greg Frank: It would be 20 foot by 20 foot based on the scale of this drawing
so I would think it would be.
Councilman Geving: I know the park people were anxious to impress upon us
that we wanted that piece of property as part of the conservation easenent.
Greg Frank: And that lot is sufficiently deep where I don't think it will be
right out the back window.
Gary Warren: I think there is enough concern and I guess I'm not that certain
in my mind that a conservation easement that you are asking in that area, that
it might be appropriate to at least for the conservation easement issue to be
27
184
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
brought back. In talking with David Segal earlier, they are willing to work
with us and get the plan that we want but it should be looked at on a lot by
lot basis.
Councilman Geving: That particular one is one that I'm very much interested
in. I know other council members are too.
Councilman Johnson: I walked that Saturday and they have the conservation
easement underneath that tree.
Councilman Boyt: It's not staked out correctly. We're aware of that.
Councilman Johnson: It's about 25 feet away from the ridge line as I paced it
off up the side of the hill. So it's about 25 feet south where the property
is staked right now. From the fence line and the ridge line because the fence
runs on the ridge at that point.
Councilman Geving: You understand what we're talking about Greg and our
qoncern. We want that particular piece to be part of the conservation
easement.
Councilman Boyt: I think the developer has said right from the beginning that
I couldn't count the number of times that they have said they are willing to
work with the City on the conservation easement. Once we get it staked out
correctly, and I think there is a pretty common understanding of where that
line is, this is going to be fine.
Councilman Johnson: Are the trees that are marked in orange, the trees to be
saved or the trees to go?
David Segal: ~ne trees to be saved.
~reg Frank: What we're trying to do there is to just go to where the house
pad is.
Councilman Johnson: ~ne only concern, the house pad area that you were
planning on cutting and the trees would be saved within the house pad area?
Greg Frank: No. The ones in the house pad, where the house would sit,
between your 30 foot setback to roughly 65 to 70 feet back, that would be
clear but the area between the house and the street would be saved. ~ trees
would be saved. There would be some loss of trees when they put the driveway
in but we're saving all those at this time.
Councilman Johnson: But the ones marked in orange are going to be saved
because some of those are within that setback area.
David Segal: They are on the lot line. They are within 10 feet of either
sideyard.
Greg Frank: We want to save as many of those as possible.
28
1 85
',ity Council Meeting - April 6~ 1987
lman Johnson: ~aat's why we tried to make sure that they were real
marked the last time. I think Gary did a pretty good job.
Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the final plat
3tamped "Received March 25, 1987~' subject to the execution of the development
, submission of financial securities and compliance with approval of
grading ar~ erosion control plans. Also, that the conservati¢~ easement
correctly staked and marked and the documents be submitted before the next
Council meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried.
VISTA 3RD ADDITION: RH39NSIDERATION OF FRONTIER TRAIL ~ION.
Hamilton: I%n going to ask Bill, hopefully you've had an opportunity
look at the memo from Don dated today. We can do this two different ways.
If you want to seek reconsideration as outlined in Don's memo or if you would
like to seek a motion putting it on the agenda for the next meeting since it's
request.
lman Boyt: What I would like to consider Tom is something that will
take quick action. I see no benefit in delaying this. Particularly not since
the developer I'm sure wants to get going as soon as he can get in there with
his equipment. As I'm sure you are all aware, I think this is a very
important issue and I'm looking for some insight from the Council. I think we
have a separate issue that has surfaced here in regards to our method of
considering reconsideration but we can sort that out probably at another time.
Ihn looking for some insight from the rest of the Council on how we can
quickly resolve this matter.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the procedures are clear that first of all we rmt~ to
have a vote to reconsider or to put it on the next ager~a ar~ that would be a
three fifths vote and that ~s a motion made by Clark, Dale or myself at
which time it would then be reconsidered on our next ager~a or if you would
prefer to just put it on the next agenda. The next agenda is the earliest it
would be reviewed.
Councilman Boyt: I think as they stand now they talk about a reconsideration.
I think that we have taken some actions in the recent month that have an
impact on this connection to Frontier Trail as it stands now. I would like to
see us reconsider this if that's the speediest way to get it up there or
you're telling me that I can make a motion and get it on the next agenda and
that accc~plishes the same thing T~m? Is that what you're saying? _
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. You can make a motion requesting that the item be
placed on the next agenda.
Councilman Boyt: Are we discussing putting it on the merits of the motion
itself or just putting it on?
Mayor Hamilton: Just the motion itself.
Councilman Boyt: If I can take a minute here. We have just approved
Saddlebrook across the road from this development and that's going to put more
29
186
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
traffic onto Kerber. It is that traffic that wants to go north on TH 101 I
believe is going to be looking at Big Horn Drive to Frontier as tbs shortest
means to get there. I would like to think that that's not true but the way I
look at it, it is the shortest means to get there and what I'm proposing I
think gives everybody what they want or as close to that as is reasonable to
compromise. It makes the trip to Frontier from Kerber one in which the people
coming out of Saddlebrook would basically be looking at goingbackwards to go
to the north. It still gives the City it's two entrances into the people on
Frontier Trail and yet it means that the traffic that in the process of
getting to Frontier Trail, it's basically taking three 90 degree turns. It's
very similar to what we just did with Fox Hollow Drive if we connected it but
we made it twist and turn enough so it's not a very convenient route. That's
why I'm proposing that w~ consider this on the next agenda.
Councilman Johnson: I believe that Bill has come up with a reasonable
alternative that answers most the public safety objections. Two, it provides
the double entrances and all that good stuff and out of courtesy to Bill I
think I would encourage everybody to reconsider it. At this point all we're
doing is looking at it to reconsider it. Whether we will or won't, I would
like to encourage you to vote in favor of reconsidering this so we can look at
this and get some good information to make our choice on. I think this will
make everybody happy. I would like to hear if the developer has any
objections to it since he's here or if he even knows what we're talking about.
David Segal: I know exactly what you're talking about. In terms of
objections, whatever you decide to do is fine. If you do pass it and do away
with the connection, that you also okay a 1,400 foot plus cul-de-sac because
that's what you would end up with on Big Horn Drive and I don't know what your
Ordinance says.
Councilman Johnson: ~aat would be considered under the reconsideration. That
is one of my problems with the whole thing but that can be debated two weeks
from now and I think there are some solutions to that to look at. We can't
even air those at this time but I agree with you.
Mayor Hamilton: Should it be reconsidered, that would be part of it.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to place reconsideration of
Frontier Trail connection on the next City Council agenda on April 20, 1987.
Councilman Boyt and councilman Johnson voted in favor, Councilman Horn,
Councilman Geving and Mayor Hamilton opposed and the motion failed.
AOCEPTANCE OF FEASIBILITY STUDY AND AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS SANITARY SEWER.
Mayor Hamilton: What we've done Bill is take out of the feasibility study any
item pertaining to the curb and gutter and discuss just those items tonight in
the feasibility studyhaving to do with the sewer and water. We have tabled
the curb and gutter items until our next meeting. So with that, if you could
address just those it~ns.
30
187
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Bill Engelhardt: Tnis is the feasibility study for the Jacobson, or what I
call the James property. The Jacobscn development is Village West Townhouses.
Mr. Jacobson has purchased that portion of property from the James Oompany who
originally had the entire piece of land formerly known as the Brode property.
The sanitary sewer service that we're looking at tonight is to connect into
the 1987 trunk sewer extension that is presently under contract. That sewer
will provide service to this corner and the Burdick property. The trunk sewer
will eventually go the west and on out. We would be connecting to that trunk
sewer in the Burdick property and extending a line along existing West 78th
Street in approximately the ditch line servicing the Burdick property as we go
over Kerber Blvd., cross underneath West 78th Street and extend the line up to
the proposed entrance for the Village West townhouses. Extend that line into
the edge of the plat of the Village West townhouses and also be extending the
lines to service the individual townhouse units themselves. The area shown in
green is the proposed assessment area. In the case of Mr. Burdick's property,
Lot 1 will be served via the proposed trunk sewer line. Lots 2, 3 and 4 I'm
proposing to assess under this project because they would be getting service
from the lines being installed parallel with West 78th Street. I've shown the
assessment area only 300 feet back. The properties range anywhere from about
350 to 450 to 550 back from West 78th Street but for reasonable depth be
constructed in this area, we've come back into the property, looked at his
contour maps, approximated building floor elevations at that 30M foot distance
back, allowed for extending the service up to West 78th Street and therefore
the service area for this particular sewer would only be 3~ feet back. Lot 5
of the Burdick property would be served via Pica Drive. Mr. Burdick has
indicated that he would have desire to do so. As we get into the James
property, services would be extended off of the proposed trunk line. Service
probably one-half of this area to the west. This line would service also the
proposed commercial lot in this area ar~ there would he service to this area
so as far as the James Property is concerned, we're only proposing to serve at
this time and assess at this time, this area. In the future, if additional
service is required for this piece of property up in this area, we could go
west or to the east, depending on how they want to plat that property and
divide it up. We are proposing to assess this on a unit basis and the basis
for the units is minimum density for the various types of zoning of the
property. In the case of the James property, it is zoned commercial. The
Burdick is zoned commercial. The Village West Townhouses, we're proposing to
assess that on an 8/lBth times the number of units proposed in that
development and that's consistent with Metro SAC determinations or SAC units.
The total project cost for the sanitary sewer is $146,488.0~ ar~ some odd
cents. ~nis is the proposed assessment. It would be a unit basis utilizing
the minimum density per acre for that property taking into account the 3BB
foot depth for the Burdick property and the zoning for the James property and
the Village West Townhouses. Multiplying out the density times the area and
we come up with the total of 71.72 units which gives us a unit cost of
$2,022.51 and that would pay for the total project cost. The second portion
of the project is the watermain construction. There is an existing watermain
in Kerber Blvd. There is an existing watermain in West 78th Street. This
actually extends all the way over but we don't show it that far. These
properties would all be serviced off the existing mair6 The only watermain
under consideration for this particular project is the watermain in the
Village West Townhouses themselves. The grc~n_ area shows the assessment area.
31
.i88
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
All the costs associated with the watermain would be assessed directly back to
the number of townhouse units. In this case, because it's going directly
against the townhouse units, we have not used the multiplier of 8/10ths. We
said there are 32 units and divided the project cost by 32. The cost per unit
for the watermain is $826.72. Total project cost for the watermain is
$26,455.00. With that, that's the sanitary sewer and watermain for this
project. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer th~.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there going to be a lot of fill required to be brought in
in connection with the sewer and water at all or is that primarily curb and
gutter?
Bill Engelhardt: Primarily curb and gutter. ~nere would be no fill at this
particular time.
Councilman Johnson: Ail this area is within TIF. Is there any effect?
Don Ashworth: Theparcels could be eligible under special assessment
reduction program. ~ne HRAhas not considered that at the current time. We
will have to go back to them. I'm not sure if that's your question.
Otherwise, it does strengthen the overall district yes. That's the other part
of the question.
Councilman Geving: What's going on out there right now with the water pipes?
Is that water that I see?
Gary Warren: Tnat's our trunk watermain connection. ~ne Kerber Blvd.
extension is completed and the same contractor has the Chanhassen Hills trunk
so he's working on that now. When he finishes that, which should be in a week
or two at the most, then he will pop back up and finish the rest of the trunk
along Powers Blvd. to the north so that's our watermain improvements totaling
about $500,000.00 worth of construction.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I notice Mr. Jacobson is here.
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Jacobson, any con~nents you want to make?
Mr. Jacobson: I'm not sure that I do have any comments. The only question I
did have, I notice you are running the water not only east and west but also
north and south. Is there a reason for that?
Bill Engelhardt: The reason for that is we feel that we should be consistent
with how we serve these units as we served in Chaparral and where each unit
received the single sewer and water service. In order to provide that single
water service, each unit would have to extend north and south.
Mr. Jacobson: If that's the case then, we would obviously provide you the
easement through there for that. Would it also make any sense to also put in
the sewer line up and down?
Bill Engelhardt: Tney are being extended.
32
189
City Council M~eting - April 6, 1987
Mr. Jacobson: We are somewhat anxious to see this proceed as quickly as
possible. We see the feasibility of gettirg this in the ground as soon as the
bids are awarded to the contractor. We would anticipate from talking to Gary
Warren that this could be as early as June 1st. It's fairly important that we
get it in quickly because if it gets started too late, then we get the project
finished too late and it's difficult to get people moved in late in the Fall.
Resolution ~B7-29: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
accept the feasibility study ar~ authorizepreparation of Plans and
Specifications for the sanitary sewer and water improvements for VillageWest
Heights. All voted in favor and motion carried.
DISCUSSION OF 1987 LA~2ONAPPLICATIONS.
Lori Sietsema: Applications for the 1988 LAWCON are due May 4th. What we're
asking is for your input to the Park and Recreation Commission to review this.
Some projects that have come up in discussing this with Staff is Lake Ann
ballfield development. We have made this application in the past and it
includes a softball field that would serve for soccer in the fall and softball
in the summer and access for parking and a regulation sized soccer field. One
of the options we have to receive this grant and go ahead and accept the
grant, we will be able to free up one of the other softball fields, probably
43 for a Little League field. CAA has ~--_-~n wanting a regulation size soccer
and a Little League field are the two biggest ncc~ that tl~ve got right
now. We've got a lot of kids interested in playing Little League ball in
Chanhassen ar~ there isn't an official sized field for them to play here so
they either have to go to South Tonka or Chaska unless we make our own
regulation sized field. The estimated cost of that project is roughly
$2~,000.00. This will probably be the first phase of a two or three phase
project in redeveloping that tract of th~ additional 28 acres, our last
acquisition of Lake Ann. The next project was Lake Susan Park development.
That would be grading of a temporary road to get into the park, boat access,
trails, fishing dock and a fish cleaning house. It's considered a high
priority from Staff anyway because I've got a lot of people calling me to use
that park. People have seen that park and ~ a way to get there. The
estimated cost of this project is roughly $50,000.00. In talking in-house, we
thought we would put the temporary access road right along the alignment of
the right-of-way of Lake Drive East so we wouldn't be disturbing it anymore.
The next one is the Lake Ann Picnic Shelter and recreation building. This one
we've also applied for in the past, It's ranks quite high and we've
encouraged by John Lindy who's been working in the grant office. He's not
there anymore but he just quit this past year and be works real closely on
these projects and he's encouraged me all along to get trying for the
ballfield development and shelter because it does get a high rating. This
project would include an enclosed shelter that would have rest rooms,
concession stand, boat rental on the lower level and covered screened in park
shelter with a fireplace on the upper level. It also includes trails, boat
rental/fishing dock, handicapped ramp and landscaping. This project is an
estimated cost of roughly $100,000.00 and along with that, we could put the
Lake Lucy road access via Lake Ann. Lake Lucy looks to be the next two lakes
t~hat we should be looking at getting an access on if Council decides to have
access on those lakes and one of the ways would be to dredge out a channel
33
190
City Council Mee%ing - April 6, 1987
between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy and use the Lake Ann access to get to Lake
Lucy. There would be a number of permits we would have to get to get that
final approval. In conversation with DNR people they are going to let me
know if we even have the legal right to do it. Estimated cost of that project
is $80,000.00. We would be providing a picnic shelter which would give the
picnic shelter possibly a higher rating because it has more to do with water.
The more you have to do with water, the higher your project is ranked. Tne
next one was a trail connection to Chaska and we tried to work with Chaska
District $112 school district for a trail plan to connect downtown Chanhassen
to the Chaska schools. A bike trail down in that area. Estimated cost of
this project is roughly $300,000.00. Total length of the trail would be about
7 to 8 miles. The last one listed is downtown rest stop area. As part of the
downtown redevelopment project, there is a storm water holding pond. This
project would involve developing a rest stop area around that pond that would
include a 10 car parking area, driveway, trail around the pond, picnic tables
and benching, lighting and landscaping. The estimated cost of this project is
roughly $40,000.00. Those are the projects that I was planning to take to the
Park and Recreation Commission.
Mayor Hamilton: It's a pretty impressive list. I think you've said most of
thesehave been done in the past.
Councilman Geving: Are they in priority order in any fashion?
Lori Sietsema: They are probably close to the priority that I would give them
personally.
Councilman Geving: And if we were successful on any of these, it would
include matching funds from the City?
Lori Sietsema: Yes. ~ minimum of 50%. If we got LAWCON money and LCMR.
LAWCON is Federal money and LCMR money is State. If we got both, they pay 75%
and we would have to come up with 25%.
Councilman Horn: The only thing I would suggest would be eliminating the fish
cleaning house.
Councilman Geving: I did get a call this evening and it's been a call that
I've gotten from several other baseball minded people. The concern is the
ball diamond at the American Legion and there is a constant fear that someday
that ball diamond is going to be gone and that's the only ball diamond that
our Babe Ruth League and older kids have got to play on in the City.
Lori Sietse~a: They also play on field $1.
Councilman Geving: Anyway, this is a real concern that there doesn't seem to
be a plan for replacing a baseball diamond for Babe Ruth age kids amd also the
town league that we used to sponsor here in town for many years. I get that
kind of question, in fact I did just before the meeting tonight, how are we
going to handle this? What are we going to do if the Legion does bulldoze
theirs?
34
191
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Lori Sietsema: We do have a possibility and it was included on one plan that
I saw on Lake Ann to make one of those a baseball field. That would make one
baseball field, one Little League field and four softball fields.
Councilman Geving: And the baseball field could also function as a soccer
field as w~ll? Is that what you're saying?
Lori Sietsema: I~n not going to say that for sure because I don't know about
that mound in the middle.
Councilman Geving: Tnose are the kinds of questions that I would come up with
in terms of standards when you lay out a standard baseball diamond or a soccer
field. What's a standard size that you ~ and w~ haven't developed those?
5ori Sietsema: It depends on the age group that you're talking about. The
~st and 2nd graders play on a lot ~naller field.
Councilman Geving: I'm strictly talking about baseball for Babe Ruth and
older children to actually adults in the City. I don't see us providing for
it. My concern is I want to make sure that in the future we address that at
least on the expansion of Lake Ann Park.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with the fish house. Can you give 30 seconds of
what LAWCON is?
Lori Sietsema: LAWCON is Land and Water Conservation fund. It's a Federal
grant. The Federal government sets aside a certain amount of money to be
distributed to different agencies for park development and it usually gives a
higher rating if it ba~ to do with water. Trails around lakes. Trails around
streams. Boat accesses always rate really high. They are concerned with land
and water conservation development. They have a tend~ to not give athletic
facilities as much of a rating so that's LAWCON. So what the State did, they
have 25% matching. The State developed a facilities grant which all it
qualifies for application is not acquisition of land but just developmental
land for athletic purposes. So LAWCON is always 50% if you get that ar~ if
you get the State grant in conjunction with ~N, it's 25%.
Councilman Boyt: How are we doing on these things? What's our history?
Lori Sietsema: We have done pretty good. We're one of the top in the State.
Mayor Hamilton: Prior to the fire in town, we had a fellow who had Lori's job
and probably the one thing he did really well was he knew people to get the
LAWCON grants and he would spend most of his time over there holding their
hands and we always got them. It's just amazing and that's carried on and
Lori has done an excellent job of continuing on with it. I would like to see
us, if we can submit four or do they start thinking we're trying to hog it all
if you sukmit more?
Lori Sietsema: They don't have any restrictions on how many we request. The
only thing you might want to k~--cp in mind is that we usually have Mark Koegler
work with us on putting these packages together because the nicer it looks,
35
192
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
the better chance we've got and depending on the project, it can cost anywhere
from $500.00 to $1,000.00 to prepare these. Some of these done last year
won' t cost anything.
Councilman Geving: You can just reuse them can't you?
Lori Sietsema: Right but something like Lake Lucy, that will be closer to the
$1,000.00 because it's a lot more.
Mayor Hamilton: It's more within your budget to do the top four? Say Lake
Ann ballfields, Lake Susan Park development, Lake Ann Park picnic shelter and
recreation building and the Lake Lucy access via Lake Ann.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us have the Park and Rec group come up
with the four.
Lori Sietsema: Tnis will be going to their forum but because of the time
constraints, you needed to see it first so we're seeing it backwards and if
they come up with any others, we'll consider those.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe we can just say that those are the four that we think
are important and if they want to throw something else in that's up to them.
It's just giving them direction. They don't have to take those four, maybe
just go with three.
Lori Sietsema: I think we may want to combine the Lake Lucy boat access with
the picnic shelter. It will be one big project but if the people of the State
decide that they don't have that much to give one agency, they will break it
up. They will say you have this much money and you choose what part of your
project you want.
Mayor Hamilton: ~'nat will be a good thing to work out with Park and Rec. See
if you want to combine that.
Councilman Boyt: I think what you're saying is maybe we're going to spend
$2,000.00 preparing these things. Is that the thought? So maybe we could
turn it over to Park and Rec saying your budget is $2,000.00 to choose the
number of these you think you can best present for that money and do it. Does
that fit?
Mayor Hamilton: I guess you've heard what we've all agreed to. You don't
need a motion? You have our cou~ents.
CONSENT AGENDA:
B. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.47 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS, NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 63RD STREET AND YOSEMITE AVENUE,
MILTON SIGEL.
Councilman Johnson: On l(b) there is a recommendation, it is a preliminary
and final plat approval for three houses. What I would like to see on Consent
Agenda is that the actual motion is put in here so when we approve the
36
193
City Council Meeting -April 6, 1987
Consent Agenda, the entire agenda, that there is already in motion form, that
we approve that motion. Here we're approvirg a vague recommendation and in
this case an inaccurate recommendation because we're only approving final
plat. The recommendation is final plat is consistent with preliminary plat
and approval is recommended. We haven't approved the preliminary plat yet so
the r~aton doesn't make sense.
Barbara Dacy: ~nere is a recommendation for the preliminary plat. But we can
easily do the motion.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, because after I read through this, when we vote for
these four items, there is a motion to approve the items but there wasn't a
specific motion on each it~n. This is more a procedural thing.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision 987-
16 as shown on the preliminary plat dated March 13, 1987 with the following
conditions:
.
Lot 1 shall not be issued a building permit until the barn ar~ garage
is either moved or removed from Lot L
.
The existing fence shall be removed from the 63rd Street right-of-way
and from the property to the north.
Also, to approve the final plat dated March 13, 1987 that is consistent with
the preliminary plat. All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
C. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, OLD SLOCUM TREE FARM.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the fiD~] plat
for Old Slocum Tree Farm as shown on the plat dated April 3, 1987. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
A tape break occured while Councilman Boyt was asking the City Engineer to
clarify his memo regarding Waldrip's 2nd Addition relating to street access.
Gary Warren: It's in the Minutes from last fall. This would be the Alternate
~2 version. Phase 3 had three alternates ar~ this is the preferred alternate.
It was to come to Wood Duck Lane and join in with Wood Duck Lane and that's
where the discussion came about vacating the rest of Lake Lucy Road. Those
Minutes are in the packet.
Councilman Boyt: I see a note here from the property owner Peshek and he
mentions that he bought his property specifically with that alternate assured
to him. I would like to know how what you just did in this differs from what
you just refused to do with changing Frontier Trail. Not you Gary but how the
Council.
37
194
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: I think your question is out of order. One is one and the
other another and I don't think that you need to compare one to the other.
Councilman Boyt: I'm asking if this follows our rules given that we just
talked about the need to reconsider, when you bring up basically as you saw
the same action and this was not brought up for reconsideration.
Mayor Hamilton: It is a completely separate development plan. You're talking
about Waldrip's Addition.
Councilman Boyt: No, I'm not talking about the Addition. I'm talking about
the change in the road.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know that we've changed the road. All we did was
give access to Waldrip's Addition. We have not changed from our original
motion. We have not changed that.
Councilman Boyt: We have not gone to Phase 3, Alternate 917
Mayor Hamilton: No, we have not.
Councilman Geving: We haven't even talked about it. We talked about it and
we gave direction to Gary to come up with some facts which he did and that's
what he's responding to in this April 2nd letter.
Don Ashworth: Dale had asked questions as to why we did what we did and
really that is what Gary's response is.
Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that Gary was given the direction to
go out and choose whatever route seemed to be most economical to connect
Waldrip's and he had to look at the possibility of coming off of CR 117 there.
Wasn't that road construction from Phase 3, Alternate 92 changed then?
Gary Warren: No.
Councilman Boyt: Did you decide to come off of CR 1177
Gary Warren: Actually the record shows that at the time we were talking about
the alternates, trying to align the access with Outlot B with West 65th Street
and some of those alternates with flag lots.
Councilman Boyt: We took the flag lots out and then there came the matter of
how are we going to access those lots and were we going to come off CR 117 or
were we not going to come off CR 1177 Were we going to go from what used to
be Lake Lucy Road?
Gary Warren: ~ne last direction in the resolution was that that be based on a
cost analysis that I perform which was what generated this memo.
Councilman Boyt: So now are they entering off of Lake Lucy Road or is it CR
1177
38
195
ity Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Warren: CR 117.
Boyt: My mistake.
lman Geving: What Bill has brought up here, this is a very important
.tern for not only the developers who are workirg this are~ Mr. Palmer and
Klingelhutz and Mr. Peshek amd others who build in this area since we made
original proposal. I think it's very unfortunate that if we accept Gary's
of April 2nd as a condition here tonight, that we proceed with his
, that this information should be provided or should be
lable at least to those people who are very much interested. I refer to
I refer to Klingelhutz. Palmer has not called me but I can assure
that I'm surprised that he's not here tonight but this is to me a pretty
)rtant decision.
Hamilton: It's not an agenda it~m~ though.
Geving: I know that so we've got to get circulation on this.
Horn: I think if we look at the reasoning that we used when we
our decision, it was based on a larger dollar figure than what it
y turned out to be. Dale had second thoughts about looking at that
on a dollar figure and so do I but from a traffic standpoint it seems to
more sense the other way. Here we're led to believe at that time it
be at least a $3~,000.00 increase in cost. I get the impression now
it's not nearly in that range and maybe in fact only a third of that.
we known that at the time we made our consideration on this, we may have
that differently. Now at this point, I think it would be somewhat
lit to the people who bought based on what we said here.
1988 CITY COUNCILMRRTI~ SCHEDULE.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to change the 1988 meeting
dates for City Council to the second ar~ fourth Monday of each month arzl
Planning Commission to meet on the first and third Wednesday of each month.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton stated that he saw only one conflict which would be in
December. There would be a meeting schedule for December 26th, the day after
Christmas. Don Ashworth recommended that there would be only one meeting in
~r.
Councilman Johnson stated that due to the massive amount of information that
the Council is looking at, he was wonderirg about trying to squeeze another
meeting or two out of the year and to meet like every other week. He stated a
lot of other towns do every other week or end up every quarter with one more
meeting. To avoid Monday holidays, maybe move it to another day of the week.
Mayor Hamilton stated that if other meetirgs are needed, special meetings will
be scheduled. The City Manager and Mayor decide if special meetings are
needed and all Council members are told ahead of time.
39
196
City Council Meeting - April 6, 1987
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m..
Sukmitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
40