1987 06 29CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL M~ETING
JUNE 29, 1987
217
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Barbara Dacy and
Roger Knutson
APPROVAL OF AC~Nf~: councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Boyt
wanted to make a Council Presentation on Chan Vista, Councilman Geving wanted
to discuss the status of the Fire Station #1 E~pansion and Don Ashworth wanted
to give an update on the 4th of July activities. All voted in favor of the
agem:]a as amended and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the 'City Manager's
recommendations:
be
Resolution 987-61: Accept Streets in Chestnut Ridge at Near Mountain
5th and 6th Additions ar~ Trappers Pass at Near ~,Duntain.
c. Resolution #87-62: Accept Streets in Piper Ridge Addition.
d.
Resolution ~87-63: Revocation of County State Aid Status for County
Road 16.
e.
Approval of Plans and Specifications, Trappers Pass at Near Mountain
3rd Addition.
g. Approve Purchase of Totlot Equipment.
h.
City council Minutes dated June 15, 1987
Planning Cx~mission Minutes dated June 24, 1987
Park and RecreationCc~mission Minutes dated May 26, 1987
All voted in favor and motion carried.
VISITOR PRESf2F~ATI~: CARVER COUNTY ~I~STE MASTER PLAN, AL KLING~w.HUTZ.
Al Klingelhutz: I've been asked to talk about the Carver County Solid Waste
Plan and how it effects the City of Chanhasseru Legislative mandates brought
on by lack of landfill space and the environmental problems caused by
landfills require that the County find other means of managir~ solid waste by
1990. I did make a copy of the Plan and a very short synopsis of it. I'll
give each one of you one of these. We are not going to go through this whole
plan tonight because I know it would take three hours. This Plan was sent to
all the cities and townships in Carver County. I don't know if you've all
218
City Council Meeting - JUly 29, 1987
received a copy of this. If you did a good job of reading it, I know it took
you about 3 to 3 1/2 hours because that's what it took me. This short
synopsis of it pretty much tells what's going to have to be done and by when.
By 1990 the County is required to reduce the amount of waste generated by 5%.
That means that where we're at the 100% now, by 1990 we're only supposed to
have 95% as much waste. I don't know how that's goin~ to be done. I guess
we're going to have to educate the people to do that. ~ne second one is
recycling and compost. Chanhassen does have the recycling and compost station
up at the Minnewashta Park now and at the Arboretum which is working out quite
well. It takes out quite a little of that waste at the present time. The
third one is processing the fuel and compost, 82%. Carver County is now
working with Scott County and we did hire a consultant. Within the next six
months we should make a decision as to what kind of a plant will be built to
handle most of Carver County and Scott County's waste. One of the main things
right now is to develop a recycling center in Chanhassen, Watertown, Norwood
and Young America. Chaska and Waconia have fairly viable centers at the
present time. ~ney're doing a good job. We have to get that going in all the
other communities in Carver County. Number two, Chanhassen is already done
quite a little on that. l~nat's the yard waste and composting. The third one
is to develop a resource recovery facility and that's what I was talking about
the Carver and Scott County. The fourth one is to educate the public. We
have just decided to hire another person on solid waste in Carver County. We
do put out a twice a year a little newsletter. I think you've all gotten one
of these, to help educate the people. There will be a lot more done in our
schools. Public meetings, etc. ~ne main thing is we're mandated by the State
Legislature and Metro Council to get these things done. Where all the money
is coming from I can't tell you. ~ne County is going to help as much as
possible. The cities and townships are going to have to dig in and the cost
will have to go into the general revenue fund to pick up enough money to do
all these things. There is a surcharge that is being charged at the landfill
in all the counties except Carver County which Carver County is receiving
about $52,000.00 a year of which will help to start up some of these programs.
I don't much else to say. There will be meetings called. I'm sure that Mike
has met with City Staff. I think he's ~--_-~n meeting quite regularly with Ms.
Watson and she's been on the solid waste committee of Carver County for how
many years now?
Carol Watson: I think this is my second year.
A1 Klingelhutz: She sort of helped develop this plan. We had a little
discussion before and I guess the main thing is where is all the money coming
from to do these projects. That's about all I can say at this time. I hope
you all take this home and read it and study it. If you have any questions,
either call Mike Lein or myself and we'll try to answer them for you. If you
have big questions and want to meet with Mike Lein or someone else from the
County, feel free to call.
Mayor Hamilton: Do any council msmbers have any questions?
Councilman Boyt: I have a couple comments and some questions. I noticed on
Page 33 of your report you indicate that curbside pick-up is going to cost 25
cents a month.
219
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
A1 Klingelhutz: Approximately.
Councilman Boyt: I think if you can do it for 25 cents a month, it would be
real nice to get into the garbage pick-up business because it seems to cost
considerably more and I'm just wondering if that's a realistic cost figure.
It says curbside pick-up in smaller cities in western Hennepin County are
approximately 25 cents for each household in the city per month.
Al Klingelhutz: That would be for recycled materials. That wouldn't be for
the regular garbage.
Councilman Boyt: Your pick-up cost you're saying is 25 cents a month. You
come to that house once a month. Now Minneapolis has some experience with
this, are we profiting from their experience?
Al Klingelhutz: Yes, we're using every other counties experience possible to
work into our plan.
Councilman Boyt: One piece of experience they had was it was extremely
difficult to find a place to put their burning site. Where they were going to
do 82% or whatever of the recycling effort is going to basically burning up.
A1 Klingelhutz: That's true and Ign sure we're going to have the same problem
with the deciding of the plant that Scott and Carver County are going to
build.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe you could give us some advice somewhere in this time
about how w~ might go about protecting certain areas of our oaumanity.
Mayor Hamilton: That's been going on for years.
Al Klingelhutz: It happened whe~ the landfills were coming i~ I guess the
authority of the County by the Legislation is quite strong in this. We can
pass a very restrictive ordinanoe which we don't inte~ to do. We want to
work with the communities and townships and make it as easy as possible for
everyone. Right now there is a plat proposed for Waconia township by Rooter
Corporation to take care of basket things and leaves and things that are going
into solid waste that they really can't handle. Can be kept for burning as a
fuel. We did have a public hearing last week, Wednesday night and I tell you
we had a full house that didn't all fit so this is what happens. We had a
public hearing on this ordinance, one person showed up. That's the difference
when it hits your own backyard ar~ when it's just being talked about.
Councilman Boyt: I apologize for not making that public hearing. I guess
like many people say about the city, if I had known about it I might have ~
there. I think there's a serious flaw in this plan and I would suggest that
is, I saw nothing in there about chemical waste.
Al Klingelhutz: Yes, there is something in there.
page it is.
I don't know exactly what
220
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Councilman Boyt: Well, I can look for it later. I would like to see Al, if
there is some way I can get a copy where I could read the top third of the
page.
A1 Klingelhutz: Carver County has just bought a new $42,000.00 copying
machine. We're going to have better copies after this. That is one of the
reasons we had to buy it.
Councilman Boyt: I guess my other point is, it seems to me that back in the
early 70's and maybe there have been a few changes but it was determined that
the best recycler was industry not the individual. ~hat one of the reaons
industry was the best recycler is that homogeneous waste is the best thing to
recycle. We get paper that's all one grade. You get glass that is all the
same color. Those sorts of things. I see we are directing some efforts to
industry. I just don't look for a big impact to be made by the individual
h~meowner.
A1 Klingelhutz: The individual homeowner is going to have to cooperate in
order to get industry to take care of these problems. Industry is not going
to come out to the individual home and sort the glass and aluminum stuff out
of their garbage. We're going to have to separate those at the home which
we've been doing at our house for the last three years. It isn't that big of
a problem. We've got a big cardboard box that we put all our aluminum cans
in. We tie our paper in bundles and haul it over to Chaska Recycling Center.
All we do is call up the young lady that's making a little money on aluminum
cans. She comes over and picks when our box is full we call her up and she
comes and gets it. It isn't that big a problem.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to have to stop the discussion because this isn't a
discussion item this evening. We can make it a regular agenda item if
somebody wants to discuss it in the future. It was merely an informational
item that A1 wanted to bring before us and if you have questions or comments
you wish to make, I think you should call Al or call Mike Lein.
WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS SEWER AND ~ATER PROJECT.
Gary Warren: The West Village Heights sewer and water project is basically an
extension of our sanitary sewer system from the intersection of Powers and
West 78th Street east of Kerber Blvd. and north up the west side of Kerber to
service the properties in that area and in particularly the Village West
townhouses, Bill Jacobsen's development which is the watermain portion of the
project. We were very pleased with the 14 bidders that submitted bids. Very
competitive soliciation we felt and the low bidder of Brown and Cris from
Lakeville, Minnesota we have experience with ar~ we would therefore recommend
the award of the project #87-1 to Brown and Cris in the amount of $138,914.50.
Resolution 987-64: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to award
the bi~ for the West Village Heights sanitary sewer and watermain extension,
Project 987-1 to the firm of Brown and Cris, Inc. in the amount of
$138,914.50. All voted in favor and motion carried.
22-1
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
KERBER BOO-hEVARD CURB AND GUTTER IMPRO97D~TS, CONTI~TION.
Mayor Hamilton: This is a continuation of an item that's been discussed for
tt~ past month approximately. It appears as though through tl~ efforts of Don
Ashworth the City Manager and Rick Murray of BMT, we have reached a good
compromise o~ the project.
Resolution %87-65: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
authorize the Kerber Blvd. improvements as a public improvement project in
accordance with the recommendations as outlined by the City Manager. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
REAR YARD VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN ENCLOSfD Df~2K, JOHN MERZ, 390~ LONE CEDAR
LANE.
Mayor Hamilton: This was an item on the Board of Review and Appeals. Did you
turn this down Dale?
Councilman Geving: The chairman is here, maybe he could say.
Willard Johnson: There would be construction on' it a~] we denied it. We felt
he wks changing a non-conforming to non-conforming and passed it on to
Council. We could not find a hardship.
Barbara Dacy: The parcel is located at the end of Lone Cedar Lane at 3900
Lone Cedar Lane. The request is for a 5 foot rearyard setback variance to add
an addition and e~close a portion of the existing deck. As you can see, the
rear wall of the existing house is right on the rear setback line. To the
best of the Citlfs records, we have a copy of the permit of the building
itself but we do not have the record of the deck being built in conjunction
with it or as separate date in time. Because the existing unenclosed deck
exists within the rearyard setback, it is technically n~-conforming. Staff
recommended denial based on the fact that he is required by findings as
declared by the Ordinance could not be met. The applicant is here.
John Merz: Without going into details that we used before the committee,
number one we realize that the ordinances in this city are for good reasons.
I appeared to fail to show hardship although in my own mind I have some
hardship in that the criteria that was used in the design of this addition was
bad criteria on my part. I had some documents that I assumed to be the rear
setback requirements that were 15 feet in lieu of the 30 feet that I found
when I made application. Furthermore, I had reason to believe that because
the deck was on there that it was within the setback requirements that the
city had. The design that we've gone through, M~ry Ann and I, have really
made a considerable effort to improve the north elevation of our home and make
it better for the neighbors all the way around. It was unfortunate for us
that the criteria that I used in the design aspect was incorrect. I've taken
the time to go through all the people within 50~ feet of my property. I've
reviewed the plans. These plans. I've reviewed the survey criteria and I've
asked them if they would all sign this letter which I will give to you. I
could read to you and save you tim~ It just says, Dear Friends and
222
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Neighbors: Mary Ann and I are about to embark on a remodeling project on our
home. Included in the project is a small addition that extends 5 foot into
the 30 foot City of Chanhassen setback requirement for the rear of houses.
Due to the shape of our lot and which way our house is situated on the
property, it is necessary for us to obtain a variance from the City setback
ordinance. It is necessary for us to utilize this small area with an angle
corner of the addition in order to obtain the functional and aesthetic
objectives of the project. We believe it will sustantially enhance the north
elevation of our residence. After reviewing the project, it's grounds and
survey, please sign your name and address to the attached signature sheet if
you have no objection to us proceeding with this project. I had absolutely no
negative feedback on this and there are some other criteria that I think
should be brought to the light of the Council. Dr. Tester who is my
neighbor, we own the property directly to the north in a joint venture. He
and I own it together. There are no plans for us to sell this. As a matter
of fact, with the addition that's going on the house and the number of dollars
that I'm putting into the renovation project, if Dr. Tester would ever choose
to sell his half, we have an agreement between us in which I would purchase
his half of the property and I would become the outright owner. I certainly
have no plans to sell it in the future. I grew up in this area and I plan to
stay here my entire life. In terms of hardship, the only hardship I can
really claim right now is the monetary aspect of which dollars I've already
expended into the project prior to submitting for a building permit. I'm a
little bit redfaced about this because I'm a building contractor myself and I
should have known this on the front side. I did act in good faith and I was
just mistaken the documents that I used. What I really used on it was an old
document that showed an easement on the back that I assumed to be the setback.
Thre are some things that Mary Ann and I were on vacation last year and we
ordered some things for this addition not realizing that we had this problem
to deal with. The problem didn't come until we made application for permit
and at that time I was informed that I r~ a variance. I have present with
me tonight two of my neighbors who have the closest proximity to this
addition. I would also like, and I know it's difficult for you to review what
the north elevation can look like, if you could just pass this around ar~ get
a quick look at it. It's not a perspective drawing but it's an elevation
drawing. It's just the corner of this addition that's causing the problem.
This portion right here. I'm taking the corner of the house out and we're
going 5 feet out at an angle which is going to cause me approximately 5 foot
10 actually. There are several examples in my neighborhood of variances that
have ~ granted and even though I would like to have this stand on it's own
merit, due to the configuration of most of the lots in Trolls-Glen, most of
them frontyard setback variances granted to them on the front side and also in
the Kellynne Subdivision which is where Lot 2 is located, there have been
variances granted to that from the front setback. For instance, Mr.
Anderson's garage when he owned the property before so it's not without
precedent that some variances have been granted to this area. I have
considerable financial hardship if that's a viable hardship. To me it
certainly is. To redesign at this point in the construction is almost
impossible so I'm asking for the Council to review this and if you could see
fit, I would think it would be a benefit to my neighborhood. I have no
objections. As a matter of fact, I had more than everybody I talked to on
this signature sheet which is everybody within the confines of 500 feet. Had
223
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
favorable response to this project a~t no negative fcc~back that I know of. I
also have two neighbors here if you want to hear frc~ hhen.
Dr. Tester: I'm here to support Mr. Merz' variance request. I've looked at
his plans and I~m a neighbor of his ami it would be an asset to the
neighborhood. I would hope that you would consider his variance request in a
favorable light.
Terry Johnson: I own the lot to the east of John on Lake Minnewashta at 3898
and I too am all in favor of the project. I've seen the plans and it doesn't
obstruct the view of mine or anybody else in the neighborhood as far as I can
see and he is I think putting on a beautiful addition that just adds to the
neighborhood.
Councilman Johnson: As we came in we were listening to a bit of this, it
seems to me that the hardship was more or less self created which then lets us
out from the variance. It's the type of thing that doesn't seem to hurt
anybody but it's a precedent down the road. If we accept here ttkan we have to
look at is someplace else. If we grant this one the~re going to be saying
you have to grant that one. I have a problem with the variance for that
reason. To me it looks like a nice little plan and with the lot next door,
it's really not going to hurt them too muc/~ If theTe was some way, since you
co-own the other lot, to get that 6 foot for the whatever distance you need.
A 6 foot arc in there or whatever. It becomes technicallay avoiding the
variance where in reality you don't really do anything different. Take like a
6 foot by 10 foot wide area or 20 foot wide area or whatever you need out of
the next lot that you co-own and then you're within your 30 foot setback. It
might be difficult from a surveying point of view but it gets us around the
technicality of our variances rules, achieves what you're doing and doesn't
really hurt anybody. It does create a problem with building that next lot. A
little problem but not too bad. As if, I have a problem because I feel it's a
self created hardshi[~ Accidental as it may be but it's like if someone
shoots themself in the foot, it's an accident that he created himself.
Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask Roger Knutson if in fact, I guess I always have a
hard time, we look at these things when comments are made like Ja3(s about
precedent setting. I know we've talked about this before ar~ I guess Iku
looking for some clarification on that. We're not setting precedent like the
District Court may do or s(auething. It seems as though in tt~ past we've ~
able to look at issues on their own merit. H~ially in cases like this
where the entire neighborhood is in favor of it ard as Jay ha_- already stated
there doesn't mm to be any disagreement or any problem with the rest of the
neighborhood. Could you perhaps clarify that for me a little?
Roger Knutson: I think you use the work precedent in this context. To me it
m~_ns treating like situations similarly. I would assume that it is
everyone's intent that they would do that and I think that's a good idea to
get similar situations similarly. That kind of begs the question to determine
what a similar situation is. I think if we go to District court on these
things, equal protection argument is thrown into your face if you don't
treat similar situations. You can always try to distinguish them. I think
you should use as far as possible to honor that. If you see something
224
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
similar, treat them the same. As far as hardship goes, there's nothing I can
add other than what Barb's Report summarizes what she found on hardship. I
guess I w~uld have to concur with what she found.
Councilman Geving: I voted for this particular variance and my reasons are
that 100% of the neighbors in the Trolls-Glen area voiced no objection to
this. In fact they were very much in favor of tl~ project. I hear two
residents and neighbors from that area speaking tonight in favor of the
project and I think there are times when as a Council we have to use good
judgment and be reasonable people. This variance request has no impact on any
other neighbors in the area. I don't believe it sets a precedent in that we
look at each case individually. The addition of that particular dinner nook
or whatever you'll call this John, I think is a substantial financial
improvement to your property and to the area in which you'll live. It
certainly has no negative impacts on your neighbors or neighborhood and I
think as a Council we have to from time to time look at what is reasonable and
not nearly as much as what is the most practical or what is in fact the law
according to how we grant variances. I think as reasonable people I can see
that this is a substantial improvement to your property. I see no negatives.
In fact I see it as a positive and as long as we deal in that manner on each
case and if there were objections from neighbors, I would take that into
account and probable would have denied it but I don't see that in this case.
Even though I can not truthfully see a hardship, a financial hardship as you
mentioned could possibly be but I see no constraints for example due to the
lay of the land. If I were to develop this myself, I would have put the
building on the east side of your home. You chose not to for some reason.
Maybe structurally you couldn't but in my opinion, I believe the Council can
act reasonably and with good judgment in these cases and make a decision in
favor of granting a variance. That's all I've got to say.
Councilman Horn: I think there's something that's a little unique in this, at
least in my mind, and that's the fact that what he's doing in this case does
not go beyond what's already there. I would look at it differently if the
deck were 5 feet wide and he was looking at an expansion beyond what's already
there. To me that makes somewhat of a difference in this case. I understand
that he didn't get the variance for the deck in the first place but that's a
past issue. What we're looking at is an issue that we have before us today.
Unfortunately I'm afraid that Roger would tell us that neighbor sentiment
doesn't dictate to us which way we make our decision. You can clarify that
later if I'm wrong on that but I believe to me the key fact is the fact that
he's not extending beyond what's already there.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with your understanding Clark as far as neighborhood
sentiment. Unfortunately this is an issue where we can't follow that.
Another thing that disturbs me is reasonableness also doesn't play a part. I
would like it to play a part except what's reasonable in one situation may not
be reasonable to us in another situation but if we undercut ourselves, we have
no legal footing to base it on. I think the City has occasionally undercut
itself by granting a variance that was reasonable in that situation and having
it turned around and used against them in a situation that didn't appear so
reasonable to the Council. Given that, I guess my other thing is the deck
being there. Unfortunately I think we do have a problem. That people do
225
City Council Meeting - JUne 29, 1987
construct decks and don't get a permit to do it. You may be the victim of
that in your planning but as long as we have that problem, I don't think we
can turn around and condone it once it's comstr~ and say, well you didn't
ask ar~ therefore it's alright, So, I agree with Staff in their position that
there has not been a hardship shown according to our ordinance for variances.
I can understand your point that it certainly is a financial hardship but
given our ordinance as it stands for variances, I just don't see how we can
grant a variance here and not be susceptible to granting a variance to anyone
that comes in and asking for it. I think your plan makes sense. I can ~
why you wouldn't like the alternative of not giving even a small chunk out of
the piece of property that you own jointly but I really don't see a legal way
that w~ can grant this variance.
Mayor Hamilton: I always have a problem with variances I guess and I think
there is more to it than just the legality of bSm ordinance and I think there
is an intent of the ordinance and it's not always to be fairly restrictive but
I think you ~ to look at each ir~]ividual case ar~ I think in this case
certainly merits our consideratioru I think it's a nice looking addition. It
improves the neighborhood ar~ the neighbors don't have any objectioru
realize that neighbors objections don't play any part in this, or they're not
supposed to anyway, but nevertheless if there were people objecting to it I'm
sure it would make a much different story to tell. To us anyway so I don't
feel and I guess based on Roger's comments, I feel we have in the past treated
like situations similarly. That's certainly the feeling I have and I
certainly have no problems doing that. A 5 foot variance on a 30 foot setback
is not going to infringe anybody's rights that I can see and consequently I
will be in favor of approving this. Those are my comments. Was there
anything else you wanted to add John?
John Merz: No, I would just to have you refer to the map up there and give
one brief comment. What is my rear setback requirement, the side setback
requirement to Lot 2 that Dr. Tester arx] I own jointly is lq foot and that
also just adds to the complexity of how it goes. It's just a weird situation.
My back lot adjoins our other piece of propertifs side lot ~ that's all I
have to say. Thank you for your consideration.
Councilman Horn: Is the question of the deck moot at this point or would
there need to be a variance in that also because it protrudes farther?
Dacy: To answer your question I would say that it's moot. It's a non-
confoming structure and the request is to enclose a portion of it.
Councilman Horn: What does it mean non-confoming?
Dacy: It means that it doesn't meet the required setback at this time. It
encroaches within the setback.
Councilman Horn: Does that mean technically we should be requiring him to
tear it down? Is that what that means?
Dacy: Well, it could be a condition of approval to make whatever construction
conform. I should point out that under our new ordinance, an unenclosed deck
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
can encroach into the rear setback by 5 feet. Some of the Board of Adjustment
members recall that that was in response to a lot of side setback ar~ rear
setback requests that we got in other subdivisions in the city so we
structured the ordinance to allow s~me amount of intrusion. Through the
ordinance process we allowed 5 feet for an unenclosed deck. However, this is
enclosed and an extension of the home.
Councilman Horn: I guess my concern here is are we leaving an issue open?
Are we going to grant a variance to a non-conforming use?
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Roger can clarify that.
Roger Knutson: Right now, as it stands, that deck is, there are two types of
non-conforming uses. Legal non-conforming uses and illegal non-conforming
use. A legal non-conforming use means that when you constructed the deck,
house, whatever, what you did was legal. The rules were later changed and not
you couldn't do it if you were starting fresh. An illegal non-conforming use
means that when you did it you were violating the rules. Tais is an illegal
non-conforming use because when he did it he was violating the rules.
Councilman Johnson: Would the City pursue that?
Roger K~utson: It could.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve a 5 foot variance
to the required 30 rearyard setback at 3900 Lone Cedar Lane for John Merz.
Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilman Horn voted in favor of the
motion; Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson opposed the motion and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Geving: I would like to have that letter be a part of the official
record.
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, BURDICK S~CONDADDITION.
Barbara Dacy: Proposed final plat application is the final plat for the five
lot subdivision which was approved by the Council ~uly 21, 1986. One of the
original conditions of that preliminary plat approval was at that time the
applicant was considering installing sanitary sewer to serve the parcel from
the Business Park across TH 5. However, since that time the city has
initiated a public improvement project to bring the sewer in from an alternate
route and that construction is now underway and will be available for service
earlier this fall. Tae attorney's office notified us regarding the necessity
to retain a utility easement and their letter of correspondenee has been
included in your packet. Our recommendation is to match the recommendation
from I believe the engineer was McCombs-Knutson on the final plat. Secondly,
since the time of preliminary plat approval the City has authorized Bart
Engineering to do an overall storm water management plan for the downtown, the
Industrial Park and the area in and around the subject parcel. Part of that
recommendation was looking at creating a detention siltation pond towards the
rear of I believe it's Lots 4 and 5 of the final plat. With this process the
10
227
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
City commissioned BRW to look at the West 78th Street realignment to Powers
Blvd.. Included in that feasibility study will be en~i~ring issues of
drainage and utility service. ~he feasibility study will be looking at two
alternatives. Drainage in t?~ Burdick piece ar~ the James parcel to the
north. One of the options is that the drainage coming off of the Burdick
parcel will be retained o~ site in this proposed pond area ar~ then discharged
into the south. The other alternative for creation of a storm water system
from the James property down to the Burdick sit~_ In tb~ first alternative,
the storm sewer for the James property is proposed to be directed to the west
to the Eckankar piece. The applicant was tryimg to process this final plat
application prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat one year time
approval. We do know that th~ feasibility study is going to be before the
Council July 20th. City Staff and BRW and Watershed District can come to a
determination of the limits of the drainage easement for ~ pond area within
the subject plat within the next week. However, the feasibility study will
address these issues in detail and I~ sure tt~ applicant is going to want to
speak at that public hearing regarding the feasibility study. So in summary,
Staff's recommendation is approval of the final plat subject to obtainin~
utility easements and also obtaining drainage ~ts.
Mayor Hamilton: Jim, do you have anything to add to Barb's outline?
William F. Kelly: I'm here as the attorney for the developer, Mr. Burdick. I
think we've ~ before the Council and the Planning Commission over the past
year and a half about eight times on this plat and we've argued out all the
issues. Finally the Council and the Planning Commission placed certain
requirements on us. We've accepted those. ~hat was approximately a year ago.
We have then proceeded with our plat as you instruct_~ us to do. We have
waited on that almost one full year because we knew there were going to be
some changes on West 78th Street ar~ hope that that could be completed. We've
not come back and met the requirements of this Council. Now, as to this
sewer, Mr. Burdick has ~ perfectly willirg ar~ agreed and gave a license to
the City to install this trunk sewer on this property on the condition that
there would be a negotiation as to what would be fair and Just compensation
for that particular use because that is a trunk sewer and not a lateral sewer.
At the same time he was willing to give the easements necessary for the
lateral sewer provided that there could be some justification in working out a
just price for the trunk. That apparently has not ~ successful up to the
present time. Now the City does have the authority to proceed to take this
property by eminent domain if you can't agree on an appropriate price. We
don't think that that is a matter that should be contingent upon ac~le of
this plat. You have the authority to condemn if you can't agree. You should
not hold this plat hostage during that time that you're going to work out a
deal. Say either give us the easement or you can't have your plat. As to the
second contingency. When we came into our site plan, if there's a water
problem, we have to take care of it on our property. If the City feels that
it's necessary that there be an overall drainage system established for the
entire area, it has the authority to do so thro~h the proper eminent domain
statutes or any other statue which they care to use but I don't believe that
this owner has the obligation to provide the source of ground for porting for
the entire area simply because he wants to plat his property and he's met the
conditions. We're here before you. We have some problems with time, just as
11
228
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
you have problems with time. Because we have sales that we want to pursue
those sales ar~ we can't have those sales without platting of the property.
We've met the conditions. We ask you to accept our plat. We're not here on
preliminary plat. This is the final plat. You've set all the conditions,
we' ve met them. Thank you.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like one clarification from R~ger and that
is, I guess as I read this the conditions have not ~__~.~n met in that the
easement, putting in the sewer has not been negotiated. As Mr. Kelly pointed
out he feels that we would be holding the whole plat hostage, in his own words
and it would seem to me that if we chose to do that, again he's the one who
chose the words, it would seem as though the negotiation betwc~n_ the two may
be more serious if it was approved with a stipulation that they continue
negotiating.
Roger Knutson: I think some things ~ to be worked out on the easements.
There is a letter from my partner Pat Farrell who pointed out we're concerned
about some legal descriptions. We have different engineers looking at it,
McCombs-Knutson and Bill E~gelhardt. We would like some time to work out the
easement situations to make sure it's done right. I believe the last time you
reviewed it was about a year ago. I would think one week to work the
situation out, until your next meeting would be enough time to get it done so
it's done right. Our request would be to table it.
Councilman Johnson: Tne plat needs the prol~er easements over where the sewer
is going to be. It doesn't make sense to have a plat without tb~ proper
easements that are going to end up being there. I think if the developer and
the City can work together, which recently we've bc~n~ having good luck with
the Staff and developers working together in getting things accomplished, I'm
willing to table this a week.
Couniclman Geving: I think it should be tabled. I can see that we really
shouldn't proceed with this tonight based on the recommendations from the
Attorneys. ~nere apparently is some difference of opinions from the
engineering groups and until those people get together and work that out I
don't think we should proceed with this.
Councilman Horn: I don't have any comments.
Councilman Boyt: I have one. What's your time line on developing this? The
last line I read on the Staff Report says that really you're trying your very
best so we won't run into an expiration of the preliminary plat. Is that the
major problem here?
Jim Burdick: No. Quite a few things are happening down there. Chanhassen
has gone away from the real slow stage and things are moving rapidly. We are
no less than three parties very interested down there.
Councilman Boyt: So you're interested in quickly moving ahead. There's a lot
of interest and you would like to make progress and you think you can do that
prior to 78th Street being straighten out? ~.
12
229
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Jim Burdick: Yes because prior to this time it's ~ the fear of the
unknown. It seems like the fear of the unknown really killed some things but
now it's quite definite that it's being changed, it doesn't see~ to bother
then nearly as much.
Councilman Boyt: I would support the tabling move. I guess it's very
important that w~ move quickly on this ar~ I think Staff can probably do that.
Mayor Hamilton: We have until July 21st which the year would be up at that
point.
Councilman Boyt: I would be for granting an extension if that was our
problem.
(buncilman Geving: Oould this be back on in one weeks Don?
Don Ashworth: I think that's up to Mr. Burdick and the Attorney.
Councilman (~eving: Let me ask you this, what is your schedule for the next
City Council meeting? Is it pretty full?
Don Ashworth: ~he July 6th is going to be very tight.
Councilman (~eving: Then I suggest that we not consider this for the next
council meeting.
Mayor Hamilton: It could be a consent item. If everything is agreed to and
signed, I see no reason why this can't be a conse~t item.
Coum~ilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table final plat approval
for Burdick Second Addition until July 6, 1987, assuming it can be on the
Consent Agenda. All voted in favor of tabling the i..t~ and motion carried.
TH 212 CORRIDOR:
B. JOINT POWERS AG~~ FOR ElS AND DESIGN REPORT.
Mayor Hamilton: I think I would just like to preface whatever Barb is going
to say by saying that we know there are some neighbors here who have interest
in commenting on this. This evening is not really the time to comment on it
since it's not a public hearing ar~ this is simply a concept that we're
looking at so let's move ahead with Barb's report.
Barbara Dacy: This represents the fourth meeting in a series of meetings
regarding the concept alignment. Two meetings were conducted with the
h~meowners along the north ar~ along tt~ south route a~z] ths~ a public hearing
was conducted in front of the Planning Commission on June 3rd. You have in
your packets tt~ verbatim Minutes of the June 3rd meeting. Mr. Fred
Hoisington and Mr. Koegler were at that meeting as consultants for the City.
T~ have not ~ asked to attend tonight's meeting however their comments
13
230
City Oouncil Meeting - June 29, 1987
are included. There were also a number of person attending the meeting and
obviously the verbatim Minutes you also have their comments. Evan Green from
Minnesota Department of Transportation is also here this evening to answer
your questions and act as a resource person. The Planning Commission
recommendation was to recommend approval of the north Lake Riley route based
on what Staff is calling the revised concept alignment. What your revised
alignment did was pick up frontage roads that MnDot had proposed from west of
Powers Blvd./CR 17 extension ar~ instead create a bridge over Pioneer Trail
and replace some of the continuity that had been lost in the original
alignment. So to quickly summarize, the alignment starts at the ~den Prairie,
Chanhassen border, proceeds to the realignment of TH 101 down to the extension
of CR 17 and then crossing Pioneer Trail ar~ out into Chaska. To summarize,
the benefits of the north Lake Riley route is it does provide for a major
reliever to the projected traffic volumes for TH 5. As you recall from the
broaden study area report that TH 5 is expected to receive volumes that would
require improvements to 6 to 8 lanes by the year 2005. TH 212, because of
it's proposed location can act to relieve the flow through volumes on TH 5.
Secondly, the creation of the interchange at TH 101 and the opportunity to
realign TH 101 provides for more of a reality. During the meetings with the
homeowners, people along Lake Susan requested the City and MnDot to
investigate the possibility of shifting the alignment to the east to avoid
traffic directing exiting onto TH 10L MnDot is now in the process of looking
at an entire realignment all the way up to TH 5 north of the TH 212 corridor.
During the public hearing there was considerable discussion regarding the
possibility of whether or not the City could officially map both corridors.
Both the north ar~ along the south. The south route parallels the north side
of Pioneer Trail. The official mapping process enables the City to not only
reserve the corridor from conversion to other uses, it also enables the City
to petition for loan acquisition funds from the Metropolitan Council to
preserve corridors if they are under eminent development. In order to
preserve both corridors the City would also have to officially map the south
route and literally be responsible for possible acquisition of the 85 lots
that are in this area. Taere were questions raised at the Planning Commission
that should be further addressed. One was the method of appointment of the
original advisory committee. In your packet was a copy of the City Council
minutes. At the time, in 1979, the method used to appoint tho~
representatives was to chose one from the Planning Commissin, the Chamber of
Commerce, the City Council and a person from the Bluff Creek area. Candy
Takkunen was that representative. Dick Vogel was the other representative and
there was a member of the Planning Commission and Dale Geving was the Council
representative. There were also a number of concerns from people along the
north route about how they were not notified of the TH 212 corridor. The
Planning Commission, as you read in the Minutes, referred that to the Council
to discuss more thoroughly as far as the City's overall program for notifying
citizens and new citizens that are developing in the area of this current and
proposed plan. After Council action tonight, if the Council is to recommend
approval of this concept alignment, direction will be given to MnDot to
complete the center line survey of the TH 212 corridor. Once that center line
survey is completed, that has to come back to the City Council, according to
State Statues ar~ conduct another public hearing to officially adopt the
official map. Tne second item on your agenda, and we'll discuss it a little
bit more after this item, but that is the Joint Powers Agreement between the
14
231
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
affected agencies of the TH 212 corridor. B~en Prairie, (~manhassen, Chaska,
Hennepin and Carver County, Met Council and MnDot. That Joint Powers
Agreement also establishes a TH 212 task force which will review the
environmental impact statement process and tb~ design study process. That
item on your agenda will be to appoint representatives to that TH 212 Task
Force from Chanhassetu There should be one Staff member appointed ar~ tt~
Council is contaced to consider what other types of representatives should be
on this task fora Certainly an option for the Council to consider would be
to nominate that lives along the corridor to participate in the task force to
review the EIS and design study process. Steve ~-mirgs from the Planning
Cxxmnission is here tonight also.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe I could start because I'm probably the most skeptical
on the Council of this whole project. I don't disagree with a lot of the
comments that have been made by residents and I certainly share their concerns
about a major highway passing near their h~me. In looking at the alignment
that Barb has shown us on the overhead tonight, see a different alignment from
one that I have always had in mind ar~ one that I had expected to see. It
seems to have shifted north and west somewhat so it's cutting deeper into
Chanhassen Hills. I think that's a major change from what I've see~
previously plus this project has been on the boards for only about 35 years
ar~ after attending a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Eden Prairie last week
where Commissioner Len Levine spoke and we were interested, as a group of us
who attended that, in funding that was available not only for TH 212 but TH 5
which are two projects that the combined cities of ~sen, (~aska and fk~_n
Prairie have ~ working on for a number of years to accomplish both
projects. Mr. Levine commented that there just plain and frankly, there is no
money. There is none available to do much of anything ar~ it seems as though
what they're doing currently to accomplish projects is to throw all of the
projects that have come to light and have actually ~ classified as
necessary to be done, they're throwing them all into a hat and they're kind of
drawing them out one at a time and if you happen to be one of the lucky ones
to get your name drawn out, your project or a portion of it will be done.
Consequently, TH 5 was drawn out of the hat, according to Mr. Levine and we
will be given I guess were his words, an updated TH 5 from 1-494 to Mitchell
Road it will be four lanes so that's probably an addition of about 3 blocks of
four lane road. All intersections from Mitchell Road to TH 41 will be upgraded
with the turning lanes a~d there will be a new top coat of bituminous put on
the entire stretch of the road from 1-494 to TH 41. Someone raised the
question about, in 1988 when we come back to seek additior~l funds to exter~
TH 5 four lanes even fur~, what is going to be the disposition of your
office at that time in reviewing that request and he said, you're already
getting on the rolls this year and you're getting 3 1/2 million or whatever
the number was. Consequently, you probably won't get anything next year. If
we can't even do better than that, I find it hard to believe that there's ever
going to be funds available for TH 212 unless, ar~ .what I suspect the State
will do is come back to the cities and say, you have to participate in the
construction of the road which means we may have to purchase the right-of-way
through our town somehow. ~hrough levying taxes or however we find necessary
to do that. It's going to be a very difficult process for us to do. To have
to go to all the businesses again who have just experienced a 15% increase in
their property taxes and perhaps levy some more so we can build a road that's
15
232
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
been on the books for the past 35 years. So, I'm very skeptical of the whole
process and I just wanted to express that because I think reality tells me
that this project isn't going to be accomplished in my lifetime as much as
it's needed, unless something very unusual happens between now and the next
several years so the State comes up with the funds to even purchase the right-
of-way and that doesn't cost about construction funds which I don't know, what
does it cost to build a highway now? A few million dollars a mile and we're
talking about a long stretch of road. I guess it's been no mystery to the
Staff and they keep telling me I shouldn't talk like this but I just have to
say that. I just really, as much as I would like to see the project done in
conjunction with TH 5 upgrading, if we can't even get TH 5 upgraded, I just
have a problem believing that we're going to be able to get TH 212 done.
Those are my comments. A~ain, this is a revised conceptual alignment so this
isn't even a final of anything. We're just talking blue sky type of a
program.
Councilman Geving: I think it's more than just a blue sky though Mr. Mayor.
I've bee~ a part of this for about 10 years when I was selected to serve on
the TH 212 committee and before me A1 Klingelhutz served for many years prior
to 1970's I believe so this process has ~ going on a long time. But I
really believe that in approximatley 1979 we made a decision as a Council to
support the north alignment. We agreed as a Council to do that. I was quite
surprised when this issue came up a couple of months ago that we were going to
go through the whole process again. The public hearings and getting this news
out on the street about the fact that we were confused about the alignment.
There was never any confusion in my mind because as far as I was concerned
sitting on the Council, that decision had already been made and why it came
back, I haven't questioned the Staff or anyone else why the process was being
repeated. We spent a lot of time on this. We spent many hours at the County
with other representatives from TH 212 committees from other communities. I
think the thing that's important here and Mr. Hamilton dwelt on it quite
heavily is that we need the transportation. Whether it's TH 5 or TH 212. We
need a break in getting in and out of our community. We are at the point I
believe where we're asking for tonight is an alignment process to be shown as
a decision. ~ and for all a decision by the City Council so that it can be
shown on our maps, the official city maps, as an alignment. Whether it ever
happens or not may be a moot point but the fact is, if you are a developer and
came into our community, our city staff could point out to the developer that
we have aligned the proposed TH 212 and here it is and if you so choose to
build in this alignment, you're doing so at your own risk. That's the key
point. We're trying to preserve a piece of land for our corridor and if we
don't do it now, we will have less problems now than we will in the future.
Development is coming. It continues to come and as a Council we do not try to
disuade it. In fact we encourage it. For the most part we have tried to
encourage developments through this whole area but as it so happens, if people
know that this is going to be the corridor route and it's the official route
that we have selected, they are taking the risk because they're not going to
be reimbursed for their development other than the land that it sits upon. Is
that right Mr. Green? Could I ask you that question to clarify it for me in
particular and maybe for the Council. That if we decide on a corridor and
there is a developer who develops in the corridor and at some later point we
need that corridor for the actual highway TH 212, he will only be reimbursed
16
233
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
for the amount of land that we are taking. Is that correct?
Evan Green: ~hat' s correct.
Councilman Geving: Not for any buildings or structures?
Evan Green: That's correct. It's happening down o~ the Shakopee by-pass ar~
up in Brooklyn Park.
Councilman Geving: Thank you for your input. I think it's important for us to
realize that because I don't believe were ever turned down a development
anywhere in the community for the purpose of the potential TH 212 alignment
but it's going to hapimm~. Right now we have not too many hemes to deal with
in this alignment. Maybe it's been shifted a little bit more into the west
into the Curry property where we're not building but I don't believe that the
impact is as great today as it might be in a year or two years from now if we
don't do this alignment. Let's not forget one other thing. WeR~e already
committed $30,~0.~0 as a Council to the EIS for this project so we must have
had sc~e thoughts about this project when we made that commitment ar~ all of
the other commitments that were made by other communities along the corridor
route. So this isn't the first time we've see~ this and it's of no surprise
to me that the Staff recommended to the Planning Commission, Mr. Emmings is
here tonight and may want to speak to us about that, it was no surprise to
them that this process had been accomplished once and it looked like more of a
formality than anything else because I believe that both ends of this route
have already been selected by fk]en Prairie and Chaska. We're sitting right in
the middle of the project. I really think that our action tonight is to
decide once and for all upon an alignment. Whether we go north or south and
the~ once we make that decision, that it appears on all of our official city
maps once and for all so that we all understand where this alignment is going
to be. I really have nothirg more to say. I think this is a very important
decision for the City but we have to make this decision tonight. We can't
stall it To~L Regardless of what you're saying about maybe TH 212 never
happening in our lifetime, that's possible. We may not get funded for it for
many, many years but so everybody understands where this proposed alignment is
going to be, we have to make a decision. I think that was the Planning
Commission's viewpoint as well. I listened to the Planning Commission that
night and everybody said the same thing. Let's get it on our official map.
Mayor Hamilton: Contel,al ly.
Councilman Geving: I don't care how we put it there. Whethar it's a concept
or whatever but at least identifies for potential developer, a potential home
builder, a person who owns that land today, be knows that that's the proposed
route of TH 212. That's all I've got to say.
Councilman Horn: As you proably know, I'm currently sitting on this TH 212
Task Force. I think there are a lot of reasons that this highway hasn't gone
through sooner than now. Part of the reason has been that we really haven't
had a coordinated effort by all the c~mmunities in this are~ We now have
that. Unfortunately the timing is just when there is no money available in
the highway fund but I think we have to not be too discouraged by that at this
17
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
point. I think we have to keep going on it. When the money is available, we
will be in a position to get it. We've never had ourselves in that position
before because there's always ~n some kind of difference between each of the
municipalities as to where the alignment should go. The first step in putting
this thing together and getting a uniform position on it is that we all agree
on the alignment and that can not be used against us anymore as it has ~ in
the past. That's been one of the unbeknownst to us. It's been one of the
major hassles in getting funding approved for this project. Now we are in
agreement. We are all working together on this. We've got the committee in
place to make this happen. We have to hope for better legislative climate in
which people understand that you have to provide highways and transportation
or you might as well quite doing business in this state. As far as I'm
concerned, this is a necessary move even though we can't see the outcome
totally today in what's going to happen, we move ahead and when funds are
available we're in a position to get the money.
Councilman Boyt: I have a couple things and one of them is Barbara, maybe you
could help me out. It's my understanding that the EIS will be completed on
both the north and south route regardless of what we choose.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that' s correct.
Councilman Boyt: So it's also possible that regardless of what concept plan
we approve, the road could er~ up going either way?
Barbara Dacy: That's correct. Tnat's the purpose of the EIS.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so that's the purpose of the EIS. So Dale, inspite of
our best efforts, we are locking anything in concrete. I would also just like
to clarify a point about people who develop in it, through some piece of bad
judgment, that development in this concept lane their right to reimbursement
and I think Mr. Green has shared his opinion, I would like to hear it from our
City Attorney about that.
Roger Knutson: The official mapping Statute provides that if someone builds
without getting a building permit or in violation of that permit on your
corridor, you do not have to reimburse the owner. But if they come in and get
a building permit ar~ you grant them the building permit and the building goes
up on that corridor, you must pay them for the building. What the official
mapping act does is give you an opportunity to jump in when someone c~mes in
and asks for a building permit to say, whoa, we want that land and we jump in
and acquire it from you at that point to keep you from building. That's what
it does for you.
Councilman Boyt: Following up on that and what I think we're talking about
tonight is where is the City taking it's gamble. Where are we willing to back
up our opinion with money. Are we going to back it up on the north route or
are we going to back it up on the south route. Eden Prairie said on Page 10
that they could care less of the draft scoping document for TH 212. They said
they would accept either the north or south route and be delighted. Not
that's somewhat dated. I don't know what their opinion would be right at the
minute. They've indicated in the discussion heard a good bit during the
18
235'
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Planning Commission meeting on the Environmental .Impact. I think it's very
important that we get people arour~ wherever we decide to put it on that TH
212 committee to protect the environmental impact. I think there are good
many things that the State Highway Department would be willing to do ar~ maybe
some things they would do that they weren't happy to do with sufficient
citizen input. It's indicated again back in the scoping document that there
is no question to the people who put it together that the north route had the
largest emvirommental impact potential but I don't think we're really hear to
wrestle the environmental issue because that's going to decided by the
environmental impact stat~uent. It's not going to be decided by us tonight.
What we're here to do is say, which of these makes sense for the City to spend
it's money to protect, We've indicated that, I think Barbara said it would be
less expensive to protect the north route than it would to protect the south
route. Is that right?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: (kay. Another issue I didn't catch if you mentioned it but
I know it's come out in the discussion is that the north route appears to
offer relief to TH 5. Anybody that drives TH 5, which I'm fortunate not to do
very oftem, is certainly held captive as much as Mr. Burdick on his piece of
property. As to why we put it back on the agenda, I think Ih~ real clear as
to why we put it back on the agenda. Because we got a letter from Jo Ann
Larson February 24, 1987. Received another one from Mike Mulligan on March
17, 1987 ~ both of them indicated that they would sure like to have this
looked at again so as a Council we've decided it's ~ a couple of years,
we'll respond to their request to look at it again ~ we'll go through what's
turned out to be a rather lengthy re-examinatior~ I think that's appropriate
for a decision of this impact. I guess I really didn't have any questions,
those are all comments but I think we're here to make a decision that ~s to
be made regardless of the time because the City is going to have to take
action to protect one of these two routes.
Councilman Johnson: You four have done an excellent job here ar~ stolen any
thunder I had because I totally agree with a lot that's been said here and I
think we have to protect the northern route. Clark almost where down my list
so I'm just going to let it go at that.
Mayor Hamilton: I just have one further comment or a couple I guess. I don't
want it to be misunderstood that I~ not in favor of moving ahead with the TH
212 project, either the north or the south. I think it's very necked. I also
think that's it time for the State to make a commitment. The State is askir~
the City to make a commitment of an alignment. ~he~re asking us for a
commitment of dollars and we still have absolutely no commitment from the
State that the project will ever be accomplished. I realize they can't tell
us that in 2 or 5 or 1M years that the funds will be available but I think we
r~ to hear more from the State than the possibility of this being done
within the next 35 years~ Perhaps that's what is rubbing me on this whole
thing. We continue to commit and work on it and give it our best effort and
everybody in the community combined works on it ar~ we gather our resources
and we do our best effort and we still seem to fall short from the State I
think but I do completely agree with the rest of the Oouncil that we do r~
19
236
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
to protect conceptually an alignment and we need to then have some public
hearings to hear from all of the neighbors. Get the EIS finished so we can
review that and find out where in fact the allot should be.
A1 Klingelhutz: If I could just make a comment. I think I've ~ as
frustrated as Tom has and been working on it a lot longer which I haven't
accomplished any more than him. I really do feel that the coalition that we
have now of the communities and the counties working together that we are
moving ahead. It looks to me like there is a little progress being made. I
think the main thing we have to do now and I think Mr. Green would agree with
me is put the pressure on our legislators to put the money where their mouth
is. They come out and tell they're going to give us new highways and they
never do because they don't furnish any money and if these guys are really
know, they're passing money which belongs to the Highway Department because it
comes from the Motor Vehicle Tax, then we have to work to get them out of
office and get some guys in there that will do it. We definitely, I feel,
should at this time establish a route, be it the north or south. Originally I
was against the northern route probably seeing what it did to my farm but let
that be. Let's establish a route because at one time when we put the by-pass
around the...if the communities would have agreed, we would have had a four
lane highway down to 1-494 but the communities at that time didn't agree.
~nere was money available at that time and there was no agreement. The by-
pass went around 1-494. There it stopped. We've got a funnel from the west,
four lanes in. We've got 1-494 coming out from the cities. TH 212, we've got
a gap in there that has to be taken care of.
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Mulligan is here who has written us a letter about his
concerns about the realignment and Mike, I guess I just want to assure you and
ask if you are comfortable with the process that we're going through. I know
you're going to want to comment but I think tonight is not the time to comment
but rather when w~ have a public hearing. Do you have a comment on that?
Mike Mulligan: That' s fine.
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Green, do you have anything you wish to add?
Evan Green: I do share your concern about not being able to build a highway.
We have this problem throughout the metropolitan area. Practically every
community that is developing, particularly as you are, needs to put up the
land before we put the highways in there. An important part of that, at this
stage of the game is to designate a route and try to keep it opeD, It makes
it a much more viable project in competing with other projects throughout the
metro area. I don't have anything else.
Councilman Johnson: You mentioned one thing, the Council is so serious on
this matter that for the public hearing three of us showed up at the public
hearing and listened to all the public comment when we did have a public
hearing on this so I think the interest is there. I think we all had good
input here. We want to make sure that the public input was there and we were
there listening.
20
237
City Oouncil Meeting - JUne 29, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: I didn't mean to overlook Jo Ann Larson who is here also and
has writtte~ a letter to the Staff and City Oou~cil about the project and I
guess I would like to ask Jo Ann if you are satisfied with the comments that
have ~ made and the opportunity you will have to comment in the near
future.
Jo Ann Larson: Yes Mr. Mayor except that I think there should be some attempt
to preserve the southern route as much as we caru I feel that developers down
there should know that an EIS is being done and that the route is still being
maintained as an option.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure they will be notified just as a matter of course.
Steve, you had a comnent you wished to make?
Steve Emmings: Just a very minor addition to your comments. Chan Hills was
essentially designed around this alignment. We even t~bled t/~ thing once to
let them go back and do hopefully a better job of designing it to this
alignment of TH 212 and they went away ar&] came back ar~ did that. I think
having that corridor provides us with an opportunity when we see a developer
to get that job done. Jim Curry was very cooperative in doing that. It was
in his best interest obviously. I think there is a real problem, like Jo Ann
says, of notifying people of th~ southern route. Whs~ the Gagne development
came before us, that never came up.
Mayor Hamilton: The whole process is difficult because as we've stated, Al's
~ working on this for probably 25 years and the players keep changir~ and
to try and keep everybody updated as people come into town and leave town,
it gets to be a monumental task.
Councilman Boyt: At the Planning Commission hearing, the point that came
through to me was that there was a feeling by the Planning Commission members
that the decision had been made. Is that right Steve? That the north
alignment had basically ~ decided upon at least two years ago if not
earlier amd that you were basically reconfirming that decision.
Steve Emmings: No, I don't think that's quite accurate Bill. I think we
recognize that prior history and our decisions up to that point in time were
directed at an acceptance of the northern route but I think imdependent of
that there was certainly I felt, and I think the Commission did too, that the
northern route was important for the downtown. I don't think that ought to be
overlooked. ~hat the further TH 212 gets away from the downtown, the greater
tendency there is going to be for a _commercial develop to leak out of downtown
to TH 212 and that isn't something that we want to see. So I think there are -
two things there. The history on the one ham] ar~ there's also recognition
that TH 212 corridor should be as close to the downtown as possible.
Mayor Hamilton: Would you want to include in your motion encompassing
thoughts that Jo Ann Larsen had about also being sure to notify anybody who is
considering building or doing anything within the southern alignment, that
that may also be a viable option in the future? That the choice has not
made. Conceptually we are saying we like the northern route but until the EIS
is complete and we've gone through the entire process we r~ to also have
21
238
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
some concern for the southern aligrm~ent.
Councilman Johnson: As I ur~derstand this process, by saying we're supporting
the northern alignment at this point, we can purchase property and get loans
from the Met Council to save that corridor. The southern is just an advisory
type of thing which I think Staff can handle upon their own.
Barbara Dacy: Right but we won't be able to apply for those funds until after
we have officially adopted the official map which won't be until late this
sum~er.
Councilman Johnson: Ckay, so what's tonight?
Barbara Dacy: Tonight the correspondence from MnDot, which is in your packet,
is requesting the City to state for the record what their preferential
alignment is and from this point they will take your decision and prepare the
official map and the center line survey.
Councilman Johnson: So they're going to bring in an actual map and that map
is based on our decision tonight?
Barbara Dacy: Right.
Councilman Johnson: So in effect we're directing them to produce this map of
this route so in effect, if they come back with what we just told them to
do...
Barbara Dacy: Tne official map is stating our preference. The EIS will
evaluate the alternatives.
Councilman Johnson: But we will be doing the official map well before the
EIS?
Barbara Dacy: That' s correct.
Councilman Johnson: And as I understand it, I think Staff can adequately
without it being in my motion, inform people within the southern side that an
EIS is going on within this. I don't really see, I think Staff can handle
that with direction from Don or they just know what we want. Without
confusing the issue to the State. I think we have to keep clear direction to
the State. If they look at it and say, they're waffling now between north and
south. My motion does not include any comment on the southern alignment.
Mayor Hamilton: Before we officially adopt the official map, the EIS process
has to be completed.
Barbara Dacy: No, that's incorrect.
Mayor Hamilton: How can you adopt the official alignment map without
finishing the EIS?
22
239
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Barbara Dacy: That's been the issue that's been confronted the communities by
MnDot and the Metropolitan (~ouncil. MnDot does not have the fur~s to complete
the environmental impact statement. ~he purpose of the second item on the
agenda is to sign a joint agrc~ment whereby all agencies affected will be
contributing monies to complete the EIS. In the meantime, each agency has to
reserve a route and protect a route before the EIS is completed.
Mayor Hamilton: We ~ to be getting into some terminology then that's not
clear a~ maybe that's where lb havirg a proble~ T~e official map is an
official conceptual map that would be adopted, is that correct?
Barbara Dacy: The official map is a fold out document that shows the right-
of-way limits of where the highway is going to be constructed so that the City
can use that. It's close almost to a Certificate of Survey so when
develoIm~ent occurs along it, the City has a map to...
Mayor Hamilton: That's fine but is that conceptually or not? You're not
answering my question.
Gary Warren: Subject to the EIS.
Mayor Hamilton: It's ludicrous to say we adopt an official map and say this
is where the alignment is going to go and then we do an EIS and it may c~me
out and say you should do the southern route.
Barbara Dacy: Mr. Gr__----n, if you would like to help me that's fine but it's my
interpretation that it's a center line survey and it's the right-of-way on
either side of that center line.
Councilman Johnson: Barb, I believe what Tom is saying is this cart has a
rear wheel drive. In other words, the horse is a little bit behir~ t?~ cart.
I agree, I think that's how it is but I think we have no control over that.
We have to ride on this cart ar~ the horse is behind us.
Councilman Boyt: May I take a crack at this. I think the City is saying,
when they establish an official map that that's it. That's where we want it.
If the EIS comes back and says you can't have it there, then we've got a lot
of dollars ar~ a lot of effort in the wro~3 hole. We're going to have to go
out and do the other hole. Is that right?
Barbara Dacy: But your question though was, what is an official map and I
guess I took it by the literal definition.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess my real problem is when we have residents who are
concerned and want to comment on the northern and southern alingment and we're
going to adopt an official map of where the alignment's going to be without
having a public hearing, as I would think.
Barbara Dacy: It's a legal mechanism for tt~ City to use to preserve the
corridor. Once that official map is adopted, if development occurs we have
the ability to apply from the Metropolitan Council right-of-way acquisition
loan fund process. It's called RALF funds. So a legal means that we have to
23
240
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
preserve the corridor subject to the completion of the EIS.
Mayor Hamilton: My concern is that we have residents who are and want to
comment about the alignment ar~ we're not going to give ~ the opportunity
to do that. Maybe Roger can co~m~ent on that.
Roger Kl~utson: We have the official map public hearing. You have the public
hearing and if the EIS comes back and says this is a mess, south is best, than
you have a hearing to appeal this official map and go with another one.
Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make clear. We had a meeting held at
the end of January. The meeting held at the end of March ar~ another public
hearing in the beginning of JUne and these people have sat through all three
meetings.
Mayor Hamilton: But they haven't talked to the council I guess.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the northerly
alignment of ~H 212 corridor as depicted in Attachment 911 and identified as
the Revised Conceptual Alignment dated June, 1987 as recommended by the
Planning commission. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and
motion carried.
councilman Boyt: Tom, what do you support? Are you saying you support the
south?
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't support the process.
Councilman Bolt: You abstain.
Mayor Hamilton: No, I don't like the process and it's typical of what when
the State gets involved everything gets screwed up and I think that's what
this is.
Evan Green: In your packet is a copy of the official map. All the official
map does is allow a community to preserve a corridor. We don't even have to
be involved in this if you don't want us. You can go out to any group and
your comprehensive plan and go through the same process. Like Barb said, we
have held several hearings and in the past the City Council did go on record
saying they favored the north route. The official map process, they xerox a
copy...in your packet. I can't explain it any better than that.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is 6(b), a Joint Powers Agreement for an EIS
Design Report. Didn't we Barb, haven't we approved the funding or isn't that
what we're approving? We approved that previously.
Barbara Dacy: The Council has approved the allocation of money but you need
to approve the Joint Powers Agreement and the language that it contains.
Councilman Geving: I'm more interested in our representatives for Chanhassen,
what is it's role. We should be looking for people who are interested in
serving on this committee. That's my comment.
24
241
City~ouncil Meeting - June 29, 1987
Councilman Johnson: My only comment would be similar to Dale's in there that
I would be interested in beirg on the E~viro~mental Impact Commit~ Being
an Environmental Engineer and I do this kited of work ar~ am very concerned
about our environment in this State ar~ this community. Beyor~ that, an early
plug for that. I'm totally in favor of this. I've been following this for
quite a while now.
Councilman Horn: Just a comment on the State participation. $12~,~.~0
given by MnDot which is a division of the State.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question as long as we're discussing this and that
is, in the Staff Report it says the State has agreed to continue to re-
evaluate and keep this up-to-date. ~here does that say that in the Agre~mm~t?
Barbara Dacy: The last sentence of Section 1.g4. ~ne Minnesota Department of
Transportation agrees to advance the project pursuant to the ~ Rules and
then it cites the specific code section such that an Environmental Impact
Start evaluation will not be necessary per the time limitations.
Councilman Boyt: Ar~ the time limitations are?
Barbara Dacy: The agreement is set up for I think it's 42 months, 3 1/2 years
ar~ if for sc~e reason the process goes beyond that it can be renewed.
Councilman Boyt: If the State is willing to renew it?
Barbara Dacy: Right. The Agreement says that this agreement may be renewed
for additional one year terms upon written agreement of both paties. That
section was drafted though in the case that we did get everythiug dor~ and
then there would be a time period lapse between completion of the design study
ar~ allocation of actual fundirg. So 3 or 4 years past in the interim, the
State would agree to keep it current and the agencies involved wouldn't have
to go back 5 years later and start eve~ir~ all over again.
Councilman Boyt: I ~ it's a little late to be redrafting an agreement
but I would read fr~m that that the State could give us 12 months notiee and
be out of this at any time after 42 months.
Barbara Dacy: Your first comment was right. We're goir~ to be the last ones
to sign the document. All other agencies have signed it. I guess the only
way that I can reassure you about this is that all parties involved, I think
the way that it's drafted is that we're all in it one way or the other. We
have put an ownness on MnDot to keep this thing current which I believe was
the concern of the Carver County Board also.
Councilman Boyt: Well, I hope your faith is well founded.
Barbara Dacy: Also, six different attorneys reviewed this also.
Resolution ~87-65A: Mayor Hamilton moved, Oouncilman Horn seconded to approve
the Joint Powers Agreement for the EIS and Design Report. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
25
242
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES
TO BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TH 212
AND TH 169 INTERSECTION, TED PERUSSE.
Mayor Hamilton: Do Council members have any problem with this? It's
adjoining BF District that we zoned.
Councilman Johnson: It was unanimously approved by the Planning Oam~ission.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Rezoning
Request %87-2 to rezone the entire two acre parcel of property located at the
southeast corner of TH212/169 from A-2, Agricultural Estate to BF, Business
Fringe District. All voted in favor and motion carried.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN OF 342 ACRES INTO 892 RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF POWERS BLVD. (CR 17) 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF TH
5, DON PATT6N, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST.
Barbara Dacy: Tne plans that were dated June 26th in your packet reflect the
most recent sutznittal by the applicants in response to the Planning Commission
action on June 17th. I'm going to keep my comments bried because I know the
applicants have a presentation that they would like to give to the Council.
To summarize the changes that they have made, in your original Staff Report it
was noted that there were a number of lots or I should say there weren't
enough lots size 15,000 square feet and above and the applicants have gone
back and corrected that so approximately 57% of the lots are 15,000 square
feet or above. Therefore, their overall square lot size has increased also.
Secondly, the major concerns of the Planning Commission was the overall
reduction in density. The original zoning plan anticipated a certain amount
of R-12 and R-8 and the proposal was to reduce approximately 30 acres to the
R-8 zoning. Tnis plan reflects, if you look on Outlot D, originally that was
designed as R-4 and now they are proposing that as R-8. Outlot D is
approximately 10 acres in size. Another comment from the Planning Commission
was to make sure that the recommendations from the Park and Rec commission
were being met and the plan that you see here proposes park space on Outlot F,
Outlot G, Outlot H proposes concrete sidewalks along the interior streets and
an 8 foot bituminous path along the west shore of Lake Susan. The bituminous
path is to be located within the acreage that is supposed to be dedicated to
the City. Also, the wetland area in Outlot A is also proposed to be dedicated
to th~ City. Another concern the Planning commission had was to look at the
site plan for sensitivity to natural features. Right now a majority of the
site is now cornfields and being used for agricultural production. It does
contain steep slope areas and the shaded areas are slopes in excess of 16%.
A remaining concern that Staff has is location of the cul-de-sac at the end of
Block 11 here. It looks like according to your drawings would be encroaching
into the 16% slope area. We would want to look at that in a little bit more
detail and look at the impact into the adjacent wetland areas. Other
sensitive areas are up along the northeast corner of the site adjacent to Lake
Susan Park where there is a pocket of existing vegetation. Tnis plan also
reflects proposed landscaping plan. Another comment identified by the
26
'243
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Planning Commission. They are proposing a rear and sideyard treatments
through to the site as it is existing as an open agricultural field. It is
going to be difficult to vegetate the area. With that, you have the Planning
Commission recommendation in front of you. The applicant has sukmitted this
revised plan to attempt to address some of those concerns. ~he Council ~s
to direct the applicant as to whether or not they feel the proposal is a PUD
and whether or not they should proceed to the next stage of PUD application
process. If not, then a straight subdivision application can be applied for.
Mayor Hamilton: ~he applicant gave me some letters that he had received and I
was wondering if you could, I know we don't normally like to have, but -_ccing
this is the coocept plan, put these in your file for this particular project.
I belive these are couments from local companies.
Don Patton: Mr. Mayor ar~ Council, as a part of the growth of Chanhassen you
~ a good employment base. You r~ a good retail base an~ you nee~ a good
residential base. We're proposing the development, 299 acres of residential
development. It was carved out of the old Dunn & Curry project from some
years back. The owners of the land are here tonight. Mr. Tom Reeves, Mr.
Mike Forbes and Jim Lamso~u I bring this to the Council. The single family
lots as we will go through, have been bought on a puchase agreement by Joe
Miller Construction represented by R~n Dahlen ar~ Bob Count. We think that we
have done a good job in planning this. We have met the requirements of the PUD
Ordinance. I would like to introduce Mr. Jim Hill who will make a
presentation.
Jim Hill: The picture that is on the monitor now represents the original
applicatioru By the hanks to the partnership it is still 3~ acres. Some 893
dwelling units consisting of both multi-family and single family detached.
Approximately half ar~ half. With the higher densities along Powers and
adjacent to the Industrial Park and Business Park to the north. Since the
application and reviewing with the Park Commission and Staff, tt~ partnership
has made a modification of that plat. What we are reivewing represents the
latest land use plan but this is a modification of the latz] use plan wherein
the park dedication and the densities have been modified to reflect the R-8
densities giving us about a 5% increase in overall densities~ Reflecting the
additional 8 acres of p~rk that was required by the Park Oommission.
Addressing their issues with regard to concern that is it a PtD or is it not a
PUD. The proposal on this PUD is to provide now some 933 dwelling units in
classifications of R-l, R-4, R-8 and R-l), Generally the multi-family are
against Powers and against the Industrial still. ~he PUD addresses the
natural features of the 3~ acres. Those are the slopes, ~ wetlar~]s, the
existing trees and existing road slm~ that is in and through the 3~ acres.
In addressing all of those conditions ar~ all of those natural features,
including Lake Susan, we have come up with this alignme~t of the roads. ~he
number of cul-de-sacs don't differ from the PUD that was approved sc~e 8 years
ago. ~he cul-de-sacs still stay because the land has not changed and the cul-
de-sacs recognize those slopes and recognize the drainage areas. Along with
that, consideration for PUD, Planned unit Development Ordinance of Chanhassen,
it gives the developer the opportunity to vary lot sizes. The P~D says ar~ it
specifically says that lot sizes, single family residential homes, can be
varied within a PUD if it meets their star~a~. The data that has ~
27
244
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
suk~itted to Staff meet those standards and I appreciate that when you take a
residential plat, whether it be a standard subdivision or a PUD subdivision in
R-l, you're going to see very little change because what you're doing is
meeting a PUD ordinance that says you're varying the lots. In the 300 acres
the reason for the PUD is to vary the lots and vary the land uses so that we
can achieve and stay with the natural forms that are on the site. Recognizing
Lake Susan. Recognize Powers Blvd. that goes through the area including all
of the wetlands. The recommendation by the Park Commission calculated under
the Park requirement of Chanhassen that 33 acres shall be given and that will
be the requirement of the 300 acres and the 930 dwelling units. In their
calculation of 33 acres, they gave credit to the 18 acres here, the 7 acres
along Lake Susan totally 25 and that's the reason for the change where we add
an additional 8 acres of park. Under the proposed PUD and that 8 acres is
here adjacent to the residential high and 3 acre parcel adjacent to the R-4 in
the single family.
Councilman Boyt: Could you go through that one more time for me. Where
you ' re having your par ks.
Jim Hill: Park requirements of Chanhassen shall be the number of dwelling
units times 2.8 people per dwelling unit times the number of dwelling units
divided by 75 and that's the number of acres you shall provide. That's 33
acres. The Park Commission looked at a proposal of some 50 acres of open
space proposed in the PUD and said of that 52 acres we shall credit you 25.
25 consisting of the 7 acres along Lake Susan and the 18 in the southwest
corner. Along with that southwest corner we had proposed and provided a park
layout to the Park Commission and they accepted it. Ballfield spaces, soccer
and skating, totlot and future tennis. 25 acres of the 33 required was
credited against the 52 so an additional 8 acres renained...
Councilman Boyt: What's this open space now? 0utlot G and Outlot H?
Jim Hill': All the green on this site. The 18 acres in the southwest, the 8
acres in the northwest and the 2 1/2 acres in the center and the 35 acres in
Outlot E being the lower wetlands or the corridor to Lake Susan and the 7-7
1/2 acres along Lake Susan comes to a total of 62 acres or 21% of the site.
Part of the proposed PUD, and I think this was explained quickly to the
Planning Commission is to provide additional landscaping. The builder has
agreed to allow the streetscape, around other subdivisions you would not have
additional planting within the streetscape over and above one tree per lot.
You would not have additional lar~scaping in the streetscape as you drove down
the street. What the building is proposing to do additional plantings in the
street, adjacent to the street boulevards and that is represented by these
clusters of greens that you see along and throughout the single family
detached lots. He will provide approximately a $65,000.00 budget for that
landscaping throughout. Over and above that the multi-family, a low average
for multi-family would be approximately $530.00 per dwelling unit and that
would constitute against the 500 dwelling units of multi-family for attached.
That would be another $250,000.00 in landscaping. Part of the proposal and
agreed on by the Parks, that the developer shall provide and build the
pathways and the sidewalks within the street. That is approximately 3 1/2
miles of concrete sidewalk and/or 8 foot bituminous. Tnat will be buit and
28
-;245
City Council ~k~eting - June 29, 1987
constructed during the phases of the PUD. In conjunction with the FJD, the
developer shall also grade the park~u That's some 33 acres. The 18 and 8 for
some 26 acres. We have proposed a park layout for the southwest park, 18
acres. That was generally approved by the Parks Commissioru The developer
has agreed to grade the access road, the ball diamond and the soccer field and
seed and produce cover o~ the disturbe~ areas. If one counted all those
give toe's in this PUD, one could come with a number in excess of a normal
subdivision of some $4~0,000.0~. If you didn't like those numbers ar~ you
just said James, figures don't lie but liars do figure. If you just looked at
the PUD that they are proposir~ and say to yourself over ar~ above what is
proposed is some $6~,~0.~0 to $65,~0.~ in street landscaping in the single
family area. Park grading to the tune of $50,~0~.00 to $6~,~.~ and the 33
acres that is acceptable credits for the park, which is ooe-half of the gr~-------n
space that you see in a PUD, of the 33 acres only one-half of it will be
credited against the $415.0~ that you would normally accept and require if no
lar~ was give~ so that's another ~19~,~.~. So you could count over a third
of a million in the PUD that is extra in their eyes over and above a normal
subdivision. The Lake Susan West community is a neighborhood of mixed
housing, unglading lands, lots of open space, access to the Lake Susan,
pathways and parkways and available parks that are graded and useable. That's
the PUD and the developer is trying to provide a neighborhood of people that
can function within itself and have the amenities that are there without
destroying and going to the cookie cutter, grid system of planning.
Don Patton: This is the current zoning that we're confoming to. You see the
R-12, single family here and over in through here. The R-8 is in this area.
Again, we're changing the arrangement of that. Some of this is outside in tt~
A-2 we would be looking at rezo~ing that. The MUSA line is this line. Do
s~me density transfers moving that into the MUSA li~e- From the star~int of
phasing, it's a big project and obviously can't be built at once. What we're
looking for is, in trying to figure out the natural topography, you've got a
line that goes basically like this. ~his draining back towards the Riley-
Purgatory Creek area ar~ this area draining to the west into a different
Watershed District. This is a natural boundary for the west phasing. ~his is
the line that we defined as Phase 1 of the ~t side. The phasing that we're
looking at is in the single family on the west side, the market bracket, and
again if it doesn't sell it's not worth developing, are $9~,0~.0~ to
$14~,~.~0. On the east side we're looking at $14~,~.~ to $225,~.~ to
$250,0~.0~. If you've ever ~ down along the lake you'll see the
desirability of a lot of these lots. As a part of the development we would be
looking at Phase 1 in the high income housing project ar~ th~ moderate income,
this would be Phase L Developing to the south, Phase 2, again Phase 2 here.
Phase 3 here. Phase 3 down here. ~ of the things that we see in defining
this and trying to maximize the topography and terrain in this development is
to define the multiple size so those can then be market~ for multiple
construction. We're looking at covenants. A high level of construction. The
h~nes in here would be wood ar~ masonry. Timberline roofs and panel doors so
we're looking at something that we would be proud to live in and something you
would be proud to be building in Chanhas~.
Councilman Geving: ~hat was the price range on that Don?
29
246
City Counci 1 Meeting - June 29, 1987
Don Patton: On which one?
Councilman Geving: In number one.
Don Patton: We're looking in the $140,000.00 to $225,000.00. One of the
things that we've done, if we can pull sc~ne more of rabbits out of here. (Mr.
Patton then showed a slide presentation showing the different housing styles
that Joe Miller Construction builds.) As a part of our partnership in the
Chanhassen community we met with a lot of the business people, Mr. Jerome
Carlson from United Mailings.
Jerome Carlson: Don talked to me a week or so ago and we went over about what
you've gone over I suspect. What interests our company and me is that we have
a lot of employees, as you know, who really have a hard time finding
affordable housing, maybe any housing, out here. I believe that this would
significantly help fill a need for our employees. It would be more
affordable. It would be convenient without a doubt. I also believe that it
would be a selling point for new employees, which we are having difficulty
finding. We constructed a facility in Little Falls and moved in to that last
August. Less than a year ago. The only reason was because we were unable to
find people within a reasonable distance to fill jobs. This year, less than
one year later, we are in the process of finalizing plans for a 45,000 square
foot addition to the Little Falls facility and that is 100% based on a labor
availability business decision. We are anticipating as we have experienced in.
the past every year severe labor shortages as we enter the late summer and
fall and winter and spring season. Our slow time generally is May, June, July.
This year that did not happen. We are fortunate but we are really trying to
accelerate the addition in Little Falls because quite frankly gentlemen it is
very difficult to find enough human resource within a reasonable distance. We
are raising the minimum wages. We are doing a number of things so that you
can assured we are working very hard in all kinds of ways but the fact of the
matter is, affordable housing that would be conveniently located would be a
bo(xn to the community marriage of business and housing and I would imagine the
redevelopment of the downtown. It all fits together in my mind. This goes
back many years when we were working on a redevelopment plan that goes back a
few additions. That's what I came to tell you. I am in favor of this and I
hope that you can find a way to get on with it at the earliest possible date
because we need those people.
Mayor Hamilton: I appreciate your being here for one thing. Do you feel that
if you had the affordable housing here and you feel by being able to attract
new employees to this area that your businesses would expand here and perhaps
you wouldn't have the need to expar~ in Little Falls and the expansion could
take place here?
Jerome Carlson: We have additional space in our buildings that is not being
utilized. That was on the basis that we would fill these up originally before
we would be going elsewhere. Now, in Instant Webb and at Victory, the labor
shortages are not nearly as severe as they are at United Mailing. We
certainly would not have built a facility in Little Falls when we did if the
labor had been available in Chanhassen. That I can assure you because it's
added expense to a facility that we've already committed to and we have no way
3~
247
City Council Meeting - JUne 29, 1987
out of that. To the extent that labor becomes available Tom, down here, that
will directly /mpact the rate of growth in Little Falls.
Councilman Geving: Jerome, have you ever done a market analysis or an
employee evaluation of where your people come from to get to work in
Chanhassen?
Jerome Carlson: . I can't say that we have one that is real recent. I think
the most recent one is at least a couple years old ar~ there have ~_--n some
people that have moved over time to the area fr(~n where they were.
Councilman (~eving: I drive TH 5 east every morning and it seems like there
are as many people coming from Bloomington and ~ina ar~ wherever they come
from from the east comir~ our way but it seems to me that what ,we're talking
about here tonight I haven't ~n any, what I would consider, affordable
housing. We're talking $90,00~.~ to $140,~0.00. Are you havir~3 trouble
getting executives out here too? Your middle managers or your manager types.
Jerome Carlson: Our primary concern right now, frankly because it is so
critical, has to do with the young people who are 30 and under and the
affordable housing issue. It was always my understam~ing going back over the
years with the zoning that in fact the City was going to take care of that.
Going to take care of that ar~ address that so we would have not just middle
to higher income housing. ~hat we would address it for all of the people who
we need in the commmity.
Councilman (~eving: What we didn't get from the developer ~ tonight is an
ir~ication of the multiple family ar~ higher density areas and what those
might do for our community in terms of affordability. I have,Pt heard that
yet. Maybe you could address that for us.
Jerome Carlson: ~bose, in my opinion, are absolutely as critical. Those
later phases of those multiple dwellings. We would really like to = those
available.
Don Patton: Let me just address that point. One of the reasons for this R-12
is for th~ lower income. We're looking of course for these high densities,
you're looking at 360 units in this orange area. Projections on that would be
again based on that king of input I think would he certainly fir~ some builers
for that in the $65,~00.00 to $70,0~.~0 range which would address those
cor~-N.~rns.
Mayor Hamilton: Don, maybe you could address the Outlot, the o~e right along
CR 177 You had at one ~{me I think proposed to downzone that.
Don Patton: Yes, again that was what I was showing on this slide. I guess
the feeling that we had is that downzoir~3 was appropriate. The feedback that
we got from the Planning Omm~ission was that that was not desirable. Again,
we want to be a good partner to tl~ City of Chanhasse~ We want this to be
successful ar~ there are a lot of things that make things successful. The
market makes it successful. Good planning makes it successful and by changing
this area right here to R-8, we will accommodate that and we appreciate those
31
248
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
comments from Jerome on the housing needs. The buyer that we have right now
is for the single family but again we feel that by saying this is where single
family can best be designed and go up according to what Mother Nature gave us.
Don't fool Mother Nature, we're trying to design around that. Platting the
outlots as we've seen will give the buyers when they come in and market for
multiple family housing. We have talked to several people.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have anything else you want to present or does that
conclude it?
A1 Klingelhutz: I guess I would agree with Jerome. The fact that Chanhassen
has a lot of businesses and we have more employment in Chanhassen than we have
people to fill the jobs and the only way we're going to create a little
different climate for more industry to come in here is to get more people to
live in Chanhassen and put develolm~nts up like this is one way of doing it.
Councilman Johnson: I agree with the Planning Commission on this one. I see
a lot of hocus pocus with these numbers. I'm literally very upset to tell you
the truth. It really baffles me how in Blocks 8, 9, 10 and 11 we can increase
the lot size of 24 lots between Planning Commission and here and one lot was
decreased by 300 square feet so somehow we've taken that 300 square feet and
divided that amongst 24 of the lots. Some of them increased by over 2,000
square feet and did it in the same area and having the same amount of open
space and the same amount of outlots. This is hocus pocus. This is
unbelievable. The only thing that was done, when you took this, you changed
the numbers here. All the lot lines are identical. I can't find any of the
lot lines that are different. I can't find anything on the east side of CR
17, any lot that's been decreased in size except for one. I found one that
actually was. It went from 15,300 down to 15,000 but within that 300 square
feet we're able to pick up 24 lots and increase them up to 15,000. That's
hocus pocus to me. They say there are 934 dwelling units. Mr. Carlson wants
more affordable housing and this development keeps going smaller and smaller
on the multiple families. There aren't 934 dwelling units. There are 857
now. We've decreased the amount of dwelling units because we cut back by 12
acres the R-4. We cut back by 5 acres the R-12. We did increase the R-8 by
10.4 acres. It's interesting that we had 360 dwelling units in the R-12 when
we had 30.1 acres. We decrease that by 5.7 acres and we still have 360
dwelling unit in the R-12 district. This is hocus pocus folks. These numbers
are not right. Somebody is figuring. I don't believe that Outlot B is
useable for R-8. T~ere's no way to access it. It's hardly wide enough for a
regular lot no less than putting in R-8, medium density, residential which is
what Mr. Carlson wants. Everytime you turn around we're cutting down and
adding more. This is not a PUIX We need internal parks and totlots in here
versus making everybody walk way out to the periphery and the areas that we
can't develop anyway. I don't really see that this qualifies for a PUD at
all. I would like to see more of the multiple. I would like to see some
commitment to those multiples so we can get affordable housing. $90,000.00 to
$200,000.00 housing is not what I call affordable housing. I see an R-8 right
nest to an RSF. I see RSF right next to IOP, that's not good planning. You
don't put residential lots right up next to the Industrial Park. You put R-4,
R-8 or R-12 next to Industrial Park but are you going to tell the people that
are going to be buying these lots what's zoned behind it is industrial or
32
249
City ~ouncil Meeting - June 29, 1987
zoned next to it is high density? If there is someway we can make it required
to disclose that information, I want that disclosecL I sat and listen to a
developer tell somebody, Bill that he was going to have single family housing
next door to him and it was zoned R-12. That was a different development. I
believe as far as for single family housing, Chanhassen Hills ams Chart Vista
are going to provide more affordable single family housing than this
development. Chart Vista starts at basically $80,000.00 then if you want a
porch from your back door it's a little bit more. The people who are moving
in there are the young, single, married, I just had 32 people move in behind
me and just about every one of them is in their 30's down with one kid or no
kids and just getting married and the type of people that you're looking for
are moving into Chan Vista right now.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could stick to this.
Oouncilman Johnson: I%n just making comparisons her~ That was a PUD ams we
didn't get much for that. I'm in total agreement with the Planning
Commission. This does not deserve to be a PUD. I get very upset when people
do hocus pocus arithmetic because it's technically impossible to make larger
lots with 30~ square feet. The numbers in this chart are totally wroog. The
only thing that stayed the same was 427 single family residents and that's
what thel~re trying to do. The~re trying to push the single f~mily
residents. I don't think we'll ever see R-8 in 0utlot D. I'll let somebody
else rant ar~ rave for a while because I~ voting against this because I don't
think it's a FJD.
Councilman Boyt: Let me start out with some good news. I think the move to
put public open space along Lake Susan should be applaude~L That's something
if other developers had take~ that same approach we would have a much
different city lake sys__h~- than we do and I really appreciate you doing that.
I think the 3 1/2 miles of walkwalm amd trail systems is a credit to you and a
credit to the Park and Rec BoarcL I would however like to comment that it
would have been nice to have the Park and Bec Minutes to read about this. I
assu~e you guys discussed it and w~ didn't get your Minutes in our packet.
Jim Mady: I don' t believe they are ready yet.
Councilman Boyt: I think you're an important body ams we r~ to get that
sort of information to make a reaso~_~hle back, round search before we meet. I
think what you have is an excellent opportunity to be creative. You've got an
open field. You don't have neighbors. You can basically do all kinds of
things with this piece of property. You have by tl~ nature of th~ zoning that
the city chose to put on this, you already have what I think might have gotten
you a PUD under other circumstances. The desire to do this has already ~
zoned in there by the City so maybe you were thinking a lot alike. I've got a
question for you, I would like to kmow how many acres do you plan to grade in
each of these phases?
Do~ Patton: Part of that will depend, obviously we're asking for concept
approval so we can come back with the preliminary plat and as we talked about
in our phasing, this would be this phase 1 and this area up here would be our
1st phase of initial grading. Again, we would like to get that in the ground
33
250
City Council Meeting - JUne 29, 1987
so the next sales will happen this fall yet.
Councilman Boyt: Can you give me an idea about the number of acres that are
going to be opened up? If we're talking four phases, are we talking 70 acres
a tract?
Don Patton: I think this was about 30 acres and this was about probably 12.
Part of this, unfortunately, to get the necessary water and sewer
intrastructures started, it was more than we would like to open up but that's
again, the requirements of developing a wetland, the ponding, because of the
lakes, everything has to be ponded on-site. In ponding, grading in the
sewer, connecting on the sewer provided through here. Connecting on the water
line that goes along CR 17, it's just hard. We want to minimize that.
Obviously that's a cost factor.
Councilman Boyt: C~e of the things I would like you to do is bring to us some
sort of idea about how you're going to minimize dust going into Lake Susan.
Having lived on an edge of a dustbowl for the past month, I can tell you
you're going to dump a lot of dust if you open up a lot of that ground. Kind
of come with that in mind. We heard a good bit here about the need for
certain types of employees in Chanhasser~ Mr. Carlson, it would be my guess
ar~ I have no idea that you're paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $4.50
per hour. Is that roughly in the ballpark?
Jerome Carlson: That is the lowest number.
Councilman Boyt: Let's say you're paying $5.50 per hour. If someone works
for you full-time they are grossing $11,000.00. I will maintain that there is
no one who can live in anything that's going to get built in this town that
makes $11,000.00 a year so I don't think that these people are going to be
providing. Not being a banker I can't tell you but I don't that anybody is
going to buy a home with a total income of $22,000.00 so I don't think that
this offers an opportunity for you to find people to work for you.
Jerome Carlson: A lot of the people who work for us are also second income
types. They generally are married to, if they are married, to a family
situation where the primary income is not that great and that's why they're
there. The most typical profile of the lower er~ wage earner at United
Mailing, the most typical profile is that they are a two family income family
so what the gross wage that they could pull for housing would really depend in
part on the primary wage earner.
Councilman Boyt: I'm just saying, in my opinion Mr. Carlson, that you are
indeed in a dilemma. If the City will not be building housing that can
substantiate or that someone can live in with the sort of income that a
business like yours is forced to pay because of economics. I think you're up
against another problem and that is unemployment in this city and Minneapolis
is 3.6% and that's full employment. There just are no bodies here ar~ what
you've done in Little Falls is go find a place in which people are locked and
in which they are very happy I'm sure to see you there, we're happy to see you
here but you have a different kind of employment base in Little Falls than you
do in the Twin Cities and we're not going to be able to change that.
34
251
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Jerome Carlson: The multiple dwelling though in some of these outlots as they
come on-line, I believe would provide part of the ncc~. I still maintain that
the lower end housing in this development, because of the second wage earner
and the primary source for many of our employees, many of our employees are
the second wage earner, this I believe would be a significant resource for us.
Councilman Boyt: The gentleman here on the Planning Oommission had said there
is no market for multiple dwellings in the R-12. I think that speaks for
itself. As far as Jay's comments about this being a P~D, I would agree with
the Planning Commission. I think you could make it a PUD but what I'm looking
for in a PUD is something that really shows creativity ar~ innovatior~ I
don't think we have a better opportunity in the city than you have right here
and that's what I expect from you or I expect this to cc~e in as a normal
subdivision.
Councilman Horn: I was involved when this concept was originally approved and
I remember one of the criteria we used at that point was that this was a good
area for this type of development because we had some concerns about moving
multiple housing adjacent to some of our existing single f~mily housing. The
neat part about this piece of property is that there is no other single family
housing immediately adjacent to it so I think they have somewhat of a unique
opportunity here to create a type of PUD neighborhood. I agree that anyone
who locates in that must be aware of what the whole plan is for the
neighborhood. I'm ~ing that type of thing happening in ~ Prairie next to
I believe it's Mitchell Lake over here when they had sc~e very nice ho~ee r~xt
to the lake and now the multiples are going in and I think it's a matter of 5
years later wh~ all the phases are completed but now the multiples are being
put in place and I would envision this being a similar type of situatior~
Where we have very nice h~nes next to a lake ar~ in the same subdivisi~
putting in multiples. I think they've done some neat things here in what
the~re providing in terms of amenities. The property does't allow a lot of
natural amenities other than the lake at this point but it appears to me they
are doing things with landscaping to make it very nice develoAzuent.
Councilman (~eving: I think what we have to realize here is this development
by itself represents approximatey 25% of all the housing units in Chanhasse~
Can you imagine what this will do to our community and the growth of our
_community if it adds 25% more units? We only have about 3,5~ units in the
city right now. This is one beck of a big development and we've got to do it
righ~ We have a r~ for it. We have a ~ for a varied array of single
family dwellings which apparently are the hot item right now and are selling
but we also have the r~, as Jerome mentioned, for the multiple units and I
can tell you one thing, I know a lot of these young kids that work for Jerome.
They're not just living by them_selves making $11,~0~.~ a year. There are 3,
4 or 5 of these kids living together in a house or an apartment and they are
sharing these units. Maybe not even in Chanhasse~ but they are sharin~ units
and combining their income, qhat's how the~re surviving. I would suspect
they could do the same thing here. They could buy one of these units, 3 or 4
kids along, together, whatever, and they could survive, ql~ey'll make it go
but what I saw and heard from Jim Hill amazed me a little bit. Some of the
developers amenities that he's willing to do for us. I haven't heard from a
lot of other developers some of the prospects of giving us for example all the
35
252
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
lakeshore on the west side of Lake Susan. Not many developers have done that
for us other than Jim Curry. I think I would like to look at approximately 30
acres or more for parkland and totlots spread more equally among the
develoument. I don't know what this 18.2 acres looks like on the southwest
corner. Maybe A1 could tell us. It might be more flat than I realize but it
just seems like it's fairly far removed from the plat and it might be very
difficult to get at and get to. I would like to see more of this parkland
spread throughout the development. This is a big development and there is
going to be a lot of need for example for that 360 units in the northern part
which are high density residential and I believe that Jim you said that is 8
acres that you had set aside there.
Jim Hill: That's approximately 5 to 6 acres. 5.7 acres.
Councilman Geving: Ckay, 5.7 acres. To me that is not a lot of land. You're
talking about 360 units. There may be over 1,000 people in that one little
area in the north part of the development and 6 acres just isn't going to cut
it~ I would like to see us add a couple more acres to that. At least, I've
always been under the impression that unless you have a minimum of 5 acres you
can't even put in a ball diamor~. If you intend to put in a totlot ar~ some
ball diamonds and other things, 5.7 acres in that area for 360 units is not
enough. The other thing I saw on this particular development, we talked about
the possibility of some sidewalks and maintenance, who's going to maintain
those after we build them. It's always nice to have those in our community
but what do we do 5 years after the developers gives it to you and we take it
over and start to maintain them? I don't know. Where does the money come to
develop that to keep it going? Also, I see an awful lot of cul-de-sacs in
here as was mentioned before. There should be a way and the Mayor and I have
talked about this, he had some ideas on how some of these roads could be
better aligned and cut out some of the cul-de-sacs. I don't thin you're going
to give up any land. I don't think you're going to lose any of of the
potential for lots and I think the road alignment could be better developed.
Overall I like the plan and I like what it could do for our city. I believe
it's a positive thing. It's something that would have happened. This
development would have happened 10 years ago if it hadn't run into some bad
economic times and you wouldn't have had just 892 units, you would have had
over 1,000 units but there are some very positive things here. I do have to
question one thing, somebody mentioned something about a 50% credit for
parkland. Was that agreed on Jim?
Jim Mady: It was discussed that, at that time the 892 units, we were looking
at 33 acres of parkland and I believe, and I'm holding my memory because I
haven't seen our Minutes either, we were recommending that we reduce the park
dedication fees by 50%, getting all the land so we would have the monies
available to put into the park equipment. The comment on your 18 acre
parkland, our commission toured that parcel. There is room on one hill to put
a soccer field and there is a considerable slope but I believe the developer
is planning on putting one ballfield down below the slope. That's it for
passive use really.
councilman Geving: You might want to explain a little bit about the grading
because I think this is the first time that the developer has done that for
36
City Oouncil Faeting - June 29, 1987
us. We've always asked for it but we've never gotte~ it.
Oouncilman Johnson: Gentex is going to do it.
Jim Mady: When tb~develo~ came in front ofushementioned something about
grading but really didn't have any specifics for us at that time.
Councilman Gevirg: These are the rough grades for the hall diamonds?
Don Patton: What we're looking at here is a soccer field in this area. A
road in here, tennis. This is a nice slope through here for a sliding hill.
Softball down in through here. We're going to ~ ponding and again, various
real complex drainage on the site from the north, make this a dry pond ar~ use
that for hockey in the wintertime.
Councilman Geving: ~his idea of the totlots throughout the developed area,
was that mentioned at all in the Park and Bec? Did you discuss that and how
that might be achieved?
Don Patton: Gne of the things that was talked about, they were looking at
~eighborhood parks and they agreed on four. From the standpoint and correct
me if I'm wrong, you do have the other hall diamonds for your leagues in other
areas. The e~visi~ment of this was really for the neighborhoods.-
Councilman Gevtng: Would you care to comment on my question about the 5.7
park on the north part of the development ar~ what you tnte~z] to put in there
in terms of how it could be developed for active play areas?
Jim Mady: What we were seeing at that time, as I remember we were looking at
about 3 to 3 1/2 acres of land so this is all new. Outlot G is ~ew.
Don Patton: Yes, they were sayirg that they ~ about 8 additional acres
in the formula so that's when we talked about fulfilling that requirement
which is part of that.
Councilman Geving: I understand the 8 but I'm looking really for more on that
very high density residential district up there, the R-l). You're going to
have a lot of people in there and tbefre not going to be going to Lake Ann.
They're going to be going out their back door looking for someplace to play.
If you're going to have kids, and more than likely it will be kids in this
particular unit. I may be wrong but it seems to me that if you're going to
have high density residential, you're going to have small children there.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to make a suggestion if I could. I think this
gets into the area of creativity that I was talking about earlier. You have
an R-12 density but there are a lot of ways to get to that density ar~ that
you could certainly create a good bit of open space which would be very handy
as part of that area.
Don Patton: 7hat was part of the discussion we had that night was actually,
this entire 32 acres was the R-12 district and we were looking at this being
the trade-off of the open space for that design of the orange area.
37
254
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Councilman Geving: That's something that you might want to come back to us
with. If I were a Park commission member, I wouldn't let up on this one. I
would really w~nt as much space in that area as I could get.
Barbara Dacy: Another option would be, in conjunction with the high density
development, sometimes there are totlots developed immediately on the R-12
property immediately adjacent. That there could be some private recreational
areas there also. If it is approved as a PUD you could make that as a
condition of approval that when the site plan comes in that that site create
recreational areas on the site.
Councilman Geving: I really don't have any other comments. I think it's a
positive thing for our community and it's going to happen. I think that we've
got a good development company working on this. I think it's going to be
great for the community. I'm in favor of what I see here with some
adjustments. I do not believe however that it is a PUD. ~nat's all I have.
Mayor Hamilton: I had some questions more on Staff's recommendations than
anything else. I spent quite a bit of time reviewing this and reviewing the
PUD ar~ what sc~e of the conditions are that are called for in a PUD. It
seems to me that this is a PUD and that the developer is meeting the PUD
requirements. Just look at the Staff's recommendations. 1, a plan showing
existing natural site feastures and how they would be preserved. It would
seem to me that the developer is doing that by working with all existing
slopes. Trying to build the roads to the contours of the land and preserve
all of that that they can. You have to remember this is all cornfield. They
don't have very many wooded areas to work with. Consequently it's going to be
a little hard to work with site features when there aren't any. Item 4, a
landscaping plan showing additional landscaping along the boulevards over and
above the typical one tree per lot. I'm not sure that our ordinance requires
something over and above one tree per lot, does it Barb?
Barbara Dacy: There is the section in the ordinance where it says
landscaping, that is one of the criteria to evaluate whether or not it is a
PUD. There is specific language in there. Provide a landscaping plan above
and beyond what is typically required. In response to, again the Planning
Commission in it's original report, they prepared this plan so that was not in
the original suhnittal.
Mayor Hamilton: I know that the PUD ordinance states clearly in more than one
place that PUD should indicate planning design over and above what a normal
subdivision would and it seems to me that the developers are doing that. As
Dale commented on, the plan with the reduced number of cul-de-sacs, I guess
Don if you could come up to your drawing here, I would like to just ask you a
question about some of the cul-de-sacs and see if there is a possibility of
redoing any of them or just throw out my ideas. ~he one on the northeast
side, next to Outlot C. I'm wondering if they can't be looped instead of a
cul-de-sac, terminating in a cul-de-sac if that can't be looped?
Don Patton: If you look at the terrain, you see the natural contours, this is
a natural hill. You've got steep slopes around it. Tae reason for taking the
hill on the top of the slope is you can make that cut then build the house
38
255
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
benches around here so they would be walkouts around. If you start going
across that you start getting into some heavy fill situations ar~ again, we're
going against what Mother Nature provided. ~his is a natural area. Gertainly
it can be done but we feel like we're doing the least amount of environment~_l
grading, causing the least amount of grading adjacent to the lake which is
certainly a concern under the developed land use.
Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple others I wanted to ask you about. ;~3ain, Ibm
not terrible familiar with the topography once you get post the hill here~ If
you go to the west from that cul-de-sac, the first one. If you took that cul-
de-sac and extended that somehow in a looped manner again so t/~ road is
looped o
Don Patton: Again, you have steep slopes right in through here. ~his is kind
of a natural ridge in here and what we're trying to do, originally what we
wanted to do was continue the road straight in but to get the grades of 7%
grades, we really ~ed to take this approach here to minimize the grades for
safe ice conditions.
Mayor Hamilton: From a maintenance standpoint it would be advantageous for
the City if there was someway we could go through. Moving to t/~ west again,
the next set of cul-de-sacs to the west, that one and the next one to the
west, if those could be joined together.
Don Patton: If I could go to the slide. This is port of your pocket. It was
SP---~ct $7. There are some wetlands designed in this area. Again Dr. Rockwell,
we've already walked the site and designated this one here, one here, one
here, one here and one here.
Councilman Johnson: Are those existing?
Don Patton: Those are ex istirg wetlar~s and our tops require staying back
from them so to use that, the top one being here and getting the size lots.
One thing, if I could make the comment, these are larger lots in the PUD that
you look at down here because of the change in the zoning ordinance so we did
have to do that. The lots here. The road in here and then bringing this up
in to kind of preserve and keep the proper setback distance from those
wetlands. You see this wetland for the drainage here, again that wetland,
when this road, again this road is designated ar~ there has been a feasibility
done to develop that road as a part of this IOP area, would utilize s~ne of
that ponding area for the storm water ret_~ntion. Again that then falls down
through a culvert and open porting syst~ and down into the park area that we
talked about earlier into the creek area so there are a series of ponds. To
answer your question, sure we could bring that across but you're going to put
culverts in and have to again bring up the expense and everytime you raise
expense you cut s~ebody out of the market.
Mayor Hamilton: ~he cul-de-sacs directly to the south of the one I just
mentioned ar~ ~ going ease, can you connect that one going across there?
Don Patton: That certainly could be connected. What we end up with that flow
that goes in through here in our pond ing.
39
256
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: Then right at the cul-de-sac at the end of your pencil, if
you connected can that go across the ridge? I'm looking at those primarily
from a maintenance standpoint. It's going to be a whole lot easier if we can
have someway to plow and bring those through.
Don Patton: The thing we're trying to do is maintain the drainage that is set
up there and the topography. Those could be taken across.
Mayor Hamilton: Item 8 in the Staff Report, traffic analysis to determine the
need for turn lanes on Powers Blvd.. Do we need to do that Barbara? I would
think that's a part of what you're going to do there anyway. You want to have
turn lanes there anyway so why would we...
Barbara Dacy: Carver County requested that and they will have to do an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet so there will have to be some information
of traffic flows in and out of the sight so the County can properly evaluate
th~ needs for those intersections.
Mayor Hamilton: Item 9, I think they've already done that. Designating
existing wetland areas and providing a 75 foot setback. Item 11, a new
phasing plan providing a new south and north connection of the easterly street
with Powers Blvd.. Maybe you can tell why that's necessary.
Barbara Dacy: The main intent of that was to connect the two streets so we
wouldn't be ending up with one long cul-de-sac operating on it's own for a
significant period of time. It wasn't in your objective.
Don Patton: What we talked about doing, going back to some of ~ original
history, when Powers was developed the current owners of the land donated that
to the County for that and as a part of the original PUD established sight
distances from an engineering and traffic standpoint at this location and this
location and what we've ~ trying to do is some of those givens, again those
didn't change. Those sight distances didn't change. Tnose intersections
didn't change. What we were saying at this point. Again, we can't develop
the whole sight. We would run a temporary road from here out to here to
provide that point. Obviously when Phase 3 is developed you'll have the
connection coming all the way through and it won' t be a t~mporary access.
Mayor Hamilton: I really like the concept and I think and feel very strongly
that this type of a project is needed in the City of Chanhassen. I, perhaps
more than anybody, has spoken out in the past for the need for smaller lots
and for housing to accommodate employees such as Jerome's company employs. I
think the thing that we're perhaps overlooking is those people, if they want
to, afford this housing and it will make the labor market more stable here for
companies such as Jerome's. Your employees would ter~ to be more long term I
think instead of saying, oh heck, I just don't want to keep driving out here.
They are going to seek housing here and they are going to be a part of this
community. Also, if you look at the PUD ordinance, which I've done and
hopefully interpretted it correctly, I feel that this does very much so meet
the ordinance as it's written. It is a PUD. There are a lot of loopholes in
that PUD ordinance. It left a lot of openings in there and we left a lot of
discretion up to the Council to say it's not. I think that was done because
4~
279
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
we didn't want to see PUD's any longer. We wanted to see subdivisions, not
PUD's. However, I think the developers have met the letter of the ordinance
and the intent of it and I would like to see them move ahead with this project
ar~ to start building and to c~me back to us with your next phase. I would
like to ask Don if you or Jim if you would care to answer any of the concerns
that Jay brought up about his hocus pocus and do another magic trick for him.
Jim Hill: Jay, it wasn't out intent to make a list of lot sizes and shortly
thereafter modified the lot sizes without char~ing, that's not the intent. We
have so many acres. We have stipulated that the PUD ordinance shall be met.
We've ir~icated that 57% of the lots ir~icated o~ the P%D will exceed 15,~00.
The intent here is to demonstrate that on a scale of 1 inch equals 200, a
pencil line is 10 feet so my technician, in her inventory of the lots, made
some errors and when I looked at it the second time I adjusted the t~_hles. It
wasn't the intent to make any hocus pocus. With regard to the density of 934,
we have discussed the idea of taking 8 acres and placing the 8 acres in these
two ar~- and I suggested that because we didn't want to move density in the
PUD, that we transfer density. I have done that. We have done that on this
latest plaru In other words, the original PUD had some 30 acres of R-12.
We've taken some 6 acres, let's say, off of the 30 ar~ wound up with 24. We
stayed, if you look at the table, we stayed in the R-12 with the same number.
360 units. ~he density then will be 14.8. ~hat's given the open space and
still maintaining the 600 units for that parcel. With regards to ~ 5 or 6
acres adjacent to R-12 or 360 dwelling units in the north, in the final
drawings of Outlot A that bring in the attached housing, at this period of
time the developers don't know what that attached housing will be. Will it be
cond(~ninium? Will it be carriage homes? Manor h~nes? I don't think they
know today. That's why we don't see innovative drawings of Outlot A or B or D
and C. But in the development of the multi-family tracts that you see there,
the higher densities, they and we all know that on a PUD that site plan will
be approved maintaining density ar~ maintaining open space for the number of
people that will be there. T~at shall and will be addressed, I hope by the
Council whe~ those parcels come in under this ~ If it is ~ wish of the
Planning Commission and/or Council to combine all of the private open space on
Outlot A ar~ combine it over towards the wetland that is located here and
adjacent to the public parkland, then we would be starting to achieve the land
use space. As I indicated earlier too, we have separated the single family
from the industrial park. The only place we didn't do that is right in here
where Jay rightfully said that we've got it backed up to an Industrial
Business Park but this, as Don indicated, this area right here is a lower area
ar~ will be used for ponding and I~ sure the folks that drive into the
industrial park will be dumping water into it and that system then will be
ponds] in this area and this is a 1 inch equals 200 so we have almost 2 inches
right there from that cul-de-sac to Creek Drive and that represents 400 feet.
This here has got to be at least an inch ar~ a quarter so that's got to be 250
so we do have that spacing between Creek Drive and the future industrial.
Part of t~e cul-de-sac system and correctly stated, yes this one could be
connected to here and this one can be connected here and this one can be
connected here but the overall drainage system does wind through in this
system in this manner. It's the intent to leave that as is and not disturb
that but these cul-de-sacs can be connected. If you look at the plat closer
you will see th darker areas of the 16's, 20's and 25% slopes and you will see
41
280
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
that there are very few, if any, in this area. Chan Vista was mentioned as a
PUD and Chan Vista and other PUD's prior to this one, is under the new PUD
ordinance. Tae old PUD ordinance did provide for small lots. 75 foot widths
and lot sizes under 12,000. Nearly 10,000 square fet. That's where we
achieve the lower modest housing. Under the new PUD ordinance that this one
is being constructed under, we have stipulations and under those stipulations
our overall average in this PUD, under the new PUD, our average lot will be
16,100 square feet. If you look at the minimums we are going to look at our
80 to 85 foot widths with 80 being our bare minimum at the setback. Under the
old PUD you could get down to 70 to 75. Higher densities and that's where you
can achieve the lower end of the modest cost housing. Modest cost housing
today is anywhere from $80,000.00 to $90,000.00. It just ain't there anymore.
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Don Ashworth, the City Manager, for
comments. Don's been involved with the development of this site since the
days when I~d Dunn and Jim Curry owned it and were talking to us and I think
Don's input would be important.
Don Ashworth: The process started well over one month ago in meeting with
developers. Many of the enclosures you have in front of you were prepared
based on the information that we had again one month ago. Initially meeting
with the developers, the Staff made them aware of the fact that this was 1987.
The approvals that were given before are not in any way binding and that in
fact the overall density would in fact change from what had been given. One
thing I would like to note is that I am very enlightened to hear the
developers speak this evening to a number of the issues primarily which is in
the park and recreation area. I think we've had some good discussions between
developers and staff. As the Council went through that codification process
you made changes in that park ordinance. We made changes bringing over to the
ordinance that requires a greater amount of land to be dedicated for the
public requires park trails and payment in there. I was very enlightened to
hear the comments regarding their willingness to not only grade but to
construct the trails as a part of this process. When the original report was
prepared by Planning going to Planning Commission, those forms of concessions
had not been offered. And I think it was just a matter of time in working to
come to those positions but what I'm stating to the Council is that the
positions that Staff has asked for in the last month, to the best of my
knowledge, every issue that we have gone through with the developers has ~_~n
met in the current draft or with the positions that you've seen in your packet
as well as presented tonight. Construction of trails. Dedication of
additional green area. Grading of those are all areas that again have
improved in the last 30 to 45 day period of time.
DOn Patton: If I could say just one other thing, I guess I've heard the
comments tonight that you want affordable housing. We can gold plate the
thing and make it unaffordable. We think we have planned, provided, working
with staff to provide a good community and the compromise of $60,000.00 in the
R-12 to 225 so your workers can be there or your executives can be there. We
think that speaks to the PUD. Again, we can keep giving things away but that
goes into the price so the request, the demands of the Council, the Planning
Commission and the Staff, go into the price of the house and I'm hearing that
we want to hold that price down. I think we've given what we can to make this
42
261
City Council Meeting- JUne 29, 1987
affordable. We request from you tonight tD give us PUD approval so we can
come back in as quick as we can with the pr~iminary plats.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I'll have to represent a minority opinion here. I
think you've got opportunities to provide whatever Chanhassen b~_, by means of
affordable housir~3 in your R-12, R-8 and your R-4 and I am flat out against
small lots in residential development. When you' come to single family, those
people ~-~ room. I am comfortable with your cul-de-sacs. Unfortunately,
those become playgrour~ls for a lot of kids in your neighborhood. I think you
have done some things that by our PUD ordinance would suggest that you're on
the right track. You certainly have got a variety of housing. I gather
you've done something to try to protect the environment although our
ordinances are fairly strict and the PUD clearly says that you have to act
above and beyond what would be asked of you in the ordinance. When we look at
this a second time I would sure like you to come back indicating what you~e
done with it. Your off-street pedestrian ways, which is one of the things
that we've asked for and you've offered. The lar~scaping, I gather you're
offering. I guess my sense, as I said earlier and I'll stop, is that we have
such a tremendous opportunity to develop s~me nice large tract with a variety
of things that I know Steve Emming.s wants in a development in terns of variety
in housing and I just don't see that yom'Ye~ do~e '-enough f~' me
say that you .qua~lify for a full reduction umder a PUD.
Mayor Hamittod.~: 'i think we've ~r~d imost of the issues. Unless there is
something new that we haven't brought up at this point then I will ask you to
make your comments and try to make it brief so we can move on ar~ get done
with this item.
._.
Councilman Johnson: ~his is definitely the~biggest subdivision and most
important thing we're looking at tonight, You talked about house benches, are
you going to be grading in all of the homesit~s? Basically digging out and
preparing the house pads for the builder as a .Part of.your subdivision? Is
that standard?
Don Patton: Yes. We really ~ to do that as a part of balancing the land
ar~ to assure that you don't have bad material for the footings.
Councilman Johnson: That's one part of the PUD where, in this case, much of
this area in this area you don't have any problemu You're talking cornfields,
no big deal to do that but the cul-de-sac in Block 11, Lots 7 through 14,
that's a treed cul-de-sac. You're going to take out almost all those trees
that you're indicating on here to do that. Up on Block 10, again to put in
housing pads, you're talking clearcutting again and one of the things that I
see is if you want a PUD you're going to have to save those trees. You're
going to have to say okay, we'll individually cut in bxane pads. These are
your $2g~, ggg. ~g ~ ·
Councilman Johnson: That's not what you just said.
<,' . .'. ~ ._' L~> ~.-: ,
43
262
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Don Patton: You asked two questions. (]ne is the open area, you grade in the
lots. In the tree areas, you bring in the street and the driveway to put in
the utilities and leave the lots natural to design the house to conform to it.
Councilman Johnson: Right. That's what I'm tryin~ to make sure.
Don Patton: Trees add value to the lot. We don't want to take the trees.
Councilman Johnson: I heard that before then I saw the trees leave.
Don Patton: To assure the Council, I developed our 13,000 single family lots
over the last 15 years and believe me, trees are hard to get rid of for one
thing and they certainly add value in the sales price when it comes to putting
~n a house.
Councilman Johnson: I've heard that argument before. Just to reiterate, I
believe the entire street layout and everything would be done just the same
because of topography whether it was a PUD or a regular subdivision. I think
if we look at it by the contours, I'm not totally convinced. There's a few
small things that are being given. Trees here and there, i don't think we're
getting that much parklar~ for what we're giving. I still think that there's
a little more room to negotiate.- ~%rough some tough negotiating we-can get
some creativity going in here. I see ponding in people's backyards without
any real connecting the ponds. A trail system in a subdivision that I lived
in in Iowa when I lived in Iowa briefly had a trail system through th~
subdivision along ponds and stuff. We're putting ponds in people's back-yards
but only those people can get to it. I can see something much more creative
here that would convince me this is a PUD. With a few lots out of 427 lots,
we may end up with 400 single family lots or s~mething. I would want to see
that number drop a little bit so we could get a few things. Sidewalks, we had
in our ordinance that we can ask for sidewalks in a regular subdivision. It's
not a PUD to ask for a sidewalk. There is very little here that we can't ask
for in a regular subdivision and get it anyway.
Barbara Dacy: One technical item, the plan before you is the one that's dated
June 26, 1987. The PUD ordinance for the general concept plan states that the
Council may approve the plan but approval shall require four-fifths vote of
the entire council so if there is a motion to approve, it would benefit the
applicant to specify items that need to be revised in the plan if they are to
proceed with the PUD.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what we've been trying to do.
Councilman Horn: I would like to go on the voice of the minority in saying
that I would appreciate leaving the cul-de-sacs as they are. I think they are
a great amenity to a housing development. I think for the minor inconvenience
they cause the city, they are well worth of the safety aspect for the people
who live on them and I would vote for leaving them as they are. That's all I
have.
Councilman Geving: Just one quick item, I noticed throughout the whole
development a lack of identity. A concept or a theme and originally this was
44
263
City Council Meeting - JUne 29, 1987
proposed as Lake Susan West or something like that and I'm surprised that you
haven't brought this out in your marketing strategy here to sell this to the
Council as a total package. What I would like to see at the beginning of the
development as you come into it, a monument in te_rms of entry and access
points and so forth. ,
Don Patton: Lake Susan Hills...
Councilman Geving: Lake Susan Hills is the official name. Are you planning
any of these entry type monuments with shurbery ar~ so forth as you enter th~
area?
Don Patton: Again, we're reviewing a concept right now and those are the
things that you will see in the preliminary plat.
Councilman Geving: I know they will come later but I just want to em~size
that that's the thir, g that looks good. That's all I have.
Mayor Hamilton: I will entertain a motion that the developer would like to
see concept approval for the PUD so he can move ~ with his plans and come
back to us with the preliminary plat.
The motion was made at this point in the meeting ar~ discussion followed.
Mayor Hamilton: I think as long as the developer has the comments that all of
us have made and is supplied with tl~ Minutes so t~ can review those, it
would be helpful .to them I would think..
Councilman Boyt: As I understood what Barbara said, our motion has to include
the areas that w~ want addressed. Is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what we've been doing now.
Councilman Boyt: I'm okay with this if that's what we're doing but if we're
making a motion that basically incorporates our comments, that's a heck of a
job.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what we've been doing I think for the last hour or so
ar~ that's why you have the discussion is to give the developer those concerns
that we have and they get a copy of the Minutes and if there are any other
questions, if they have any questions, they can fir~ them.
Councilman Boyt: On the one hand, if I understand all those comments
basically get distilled into what comes to us next time, then I can live with
it as a PUD but if on the other hand we basically turn him loose carte blanche
and say, you look at these things and you adjust them the way you see them,
~ I'm voting against it.
Mayor Hamilton: My motion included our comments. I stated clearly that our
comments would be given to the developer in the form of Minutes ar~ he is to
respor~ to those appropriately. -If.he ch~m .- to deny them~, that's .up--'to him.
That just make~ his job tougher.
45
264
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Councilman Boyt: When this takes the next step downBarbara, does it still
take a four-fifths vote to go beyond the first?
Roger Knutson: Yes. When you plan to rezone, when you get to that point,
when the final rezoning takes place when you get to the point of doing the
final plat, that would take four-fifths vote.
Councilman Geving: So we have another shot at this. All we need tonight is
the concept.
Councilman Johnson: What does the preliminary plat take?
Roger Knutson: That takes a majority vote but that won't do any go~d unless
you grant the PUD because if the preliminary plat does not fit into the zoning
you can't do it. Unless you approve a PUD, which is a pre-requisite to doing
any of this stuff, it takes a four-fifths vote.
CounciLman Johnson: That's not final plat, that's rezoning?
Roger Knutson: Right. Bezoning takes a four-fifths vote. They can't final
plat until they get the rezoning.
Councilman Boyt: We're not rezoning tonight?
Roger Knutson: No, you're not rezoning tonight.
Councilman Johnson: FDw much additional information do we have before we go
to rezoning? I see a lot of changes to convince me this is a PUD.
Roger Knutson: What you'll end of having is final plats and development
contracts. All the details spelled out. Grading plans, landscaping plans.
Barbara Dacy: The next stage is called the development stage which is
synonymous with the preliminary plat and under t_he ordinance it says with the
appropriate notification, the Planning Commission shall conduct a hearing on
tbe preliminaryplat and the rezoning reports making recommendation to the
City Council.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconced to approve the PUD concept
review for 427 single family lots and 465 multiple lots, that's not an exact
number any longer but the plan that we have reviewed tonight as a PUD as a
concept including the Council comments as stated in the Minutes. All voted in
favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR $204,000.00 TEMPORARY TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SPECIAL
SERIES 1987.
Don Ashworth: I wanted to run a listing to show the impacts of, I mentioned
the Pheasant Hill project and the potential problem we may have in that area
and a potential benefit of a loan from the city over to HRS. Not only to
serve their financial needs in obtaining some liquidity but also to really
46
265
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
improve the City's position. I wanted to run the two runs on Pheasant Hill
which would show what. the effect of:-.~_h~t-w~uld~.b~ :We're in' the pr~osss...of
making computer changes, moving thimgs around and so I was unable to get that
printed. If you would like to see this tabled for a week, that's fine. I
could show you the two different runs. It makes a difference of from a cash
position that's about even to one that would be almost $20~,~0~.0~ in the
hole.
Councilman (~eving: Would you recommer~ this be passed before the auditors?
Get some input from Bob?
Don Ashworth: Have them review this proposal?
Councilman ~eving: Just give us an idea of whether...
Don Ashworth: If you like, sure. ~here is not an urgency on this. A~ain,
the expe~ditures have ~ budgeted as a part of the HRA budget. We have
closed on the Retler house. Negotiations have completed on the 0utlot B~
That paperwork is over in Opus. They have not set any type of closing on
that. You will have discussions in the r~xt month regarding the daycare
center and that's going to prc~p th~ issue of how do we pay for ce~nex.
Councilman ~eving: This is new conept though Don. We've never done this
before.
Councilman Johnson: It's a good idea from just the basics ar~ not being a
financial guy looking at it but I agree .with Dale, I would like to see the
comments of our accountants. See what they say.
.-: ~ :3, [ '-:' ' :'
· o
Mayor k~m~ilton: As long as there:s not an extreme urgency right now to do it.
Councilman Geving: How about the secom] meeting in July? Let's make it July
2~th.
Councilman (~eving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to ,~hle approval of
Resolution for $204,00~.~ Temporary Tax Increment Bo~z]s until the July 20,
1987 meeting. All voted in favor a~d motion carried.
APPROVAL OF ABCHI~ AG~~ FOR PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE.
Councilman (~eving: This is a pretty important project here and I think we
ought to go for as much room as we can get. If you don't go for the maximum
amount of office space and long space, we're fooling ourselves. I wouldn't
cut this project down. Is that your proposal?
Gary Warren: What I presented in the Council packet is our preferred
alternate which is identified as the base bid plus alternate sheet 6. That
was our intitial approach to the project and then after looking at some of the
budget shortfall based on what funds had ~ set aside, we thought that to be
fiscally responsible that we would put that alternate together and see what we
could c~me up with.
47
266
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Councilman Geving: The only difference between your base sheet 6 is that
other 30 feet or so on the vehicles storage. I would move that wall right out
to the north edge like you're showing there in the first alternative.
Don Ashworth: That is by far better if we would do that. What we're worried
about being accomplished was being able to have a place for the guys to work
in the winter like the park maintenance and sign, etc.. That figure does that
but it adds $40,000.00 to $50,000.00 onto it.
Mayor Hamilton: All our bids have been so good.
Councilman Geving: I think we have to take a chance on our bids. You're got
to put a wall in there, let's move it out another 30 to 40 feet.
Gary Warren: The very base proposal does not allow us any extra. We can just
barely fit all of our equipment in so it does take us to right now. If we buy
anymore equila~ent it sits outside.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the base bid plus
alternate as shown on Sheet ~6 for the architectural agreement for Public
Works Garage. All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: SADDLEBROOK ADDITION
1. APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT
Councilman Geving: I know several other people pulled this out but I guess my
problem with this, not that there isn't an unusual number of conditions, 22
conditions, but I was more specifically interested in what we were going to do
with tearing down the old house and barn and how we're going to destroy or get
rid of that property. This is my opinion. I believe that there is no room to
tear down that facility, that house and that barn, dig a big hole in that
property and try to bury all of that timbers and whatever. My personal
opinion is, I would rather let the Fire Department have a training exercise to
burn the darn thing down to the best of our ability and whatever remains, move
it off-site. The reason I'm saying this, earlier tonight we heard from our
Commissioner here about not filling up our landfills and that wood and that
lumber and all the materials have got to be placed s~newhere and sure as heck
it will be headed for a landfill if we don't do something, here. I think it's
appropriate for us to think about burning it. It says here the degradable
debris shall be removed from the site and disposed of in a construction
landfill. I would just as soo~ burn it. That's why I pulled it out.
Mayor Hamilton: We've done that many times previously and I think the Fire
Department always needs to have these types of things to practice on to
improve their skills and it's helpful for them.
Councilman Boyt: This is just upwind from the neighborhood that I live in.
48
267
City Council Meeting - JUne 29, 1987
Councilman Geving: It's a one night or two night training exercise for the
Fire Department. We've done it all over the community. Al, can I ask you for
your opinion on this?
Al Klingelhutz: I really think your idea is good. ~he concern about the
wind, I think we've got a lot of open area up towards Lake Ann and I guess I
would stipulate that there should, when the final burning takes place, the
practice session, they did the house right across the road from me ar~ when
the smoke came out of the windows it didn't bother us a bit. ~he final
burning you should be careful which direction t~ wind is. I would say an
east wind wouldn't bother anybody in C~anhassen.
Gary Warrem I talked with Rick Murray today and there were two items. One
was the burning possibility and I guess I didn't want to see the burial site,
especially for the degradable material because of the settlement in that and I
know earlier in the platting process there had been some discussions about
not burning so that's the reason for my recommendatioD. I think personally,
the other reason burning was a concern was because of our water shortage and
those concerns. I think we do have to sensitive to that but that can be
scheduled and work with the weather ar~ other conditions so burning is what
Mr. Murray was asking that we consider and I guess I could go along with it
with those restrictions. The other item that's not in the report here that
was intended to be there and I talked with Mr. Murray about was looping the
watermain off of Trotter's cul-de-sac which is on the east side of Kerber
Blvd.. It's 20~ feet of watermain and it's a 5~ foot lon~ cul-de-sac and
typically when we get up into longer lengths like that, looping is mandatory
and Rick had no problem with that so that we would like to see included in
our reco~n~ations.
Councilman Boyt: I've got a comment on the burning. We're not talking about
going out and starting a camp fire in the back yarcL We're talking about
burning asphalt shingles. We're talking about burning all kinds of stuff
that's accumulated in those buildings. We've got a substantial develola~ent to
the north. We're building a development right across the street from it. I
agree with you that we don't r~ to be filling up our lar~fills but we also
don't ~ to be polluting the air. Somewhere in there there is a reasonable
balance but if we burn, I want to be sure that we're burning at a time when
it's not going to impact the residents north or east. I don't believe there
are any south of there or west so if we _~a_n work 't ~ha_t out. If the PCA can
live with it, maybe but I think it should be a last resort.
Councilman Johnson: I'm very familiar with the opera burning laws in this
State. Through my company I have an open burning permit for the very rare
ones that a~nually renewed instead of a one day permit and you can't, you're
not allowed by State rules to burn if it's going towards any home sites within
a certain specified dist~_n_~. Any complaints and they put it out. Our public
safety group, who I've talked to them about open burning here before and they
require a bulldozer to be on-site. If the wind shifts they have to put the
fire out. If the Fire Department is on-site and the wind shifts, the fire
goes out completely. That's the rules. I am for open burning this type of
deal. It's better than burial. You don't have as much long term problems.
You don't know how many trees have ~ buried lately near .by us. In fact I
49
268
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
asked 3 months ago, 4 months ago, I don't know how long ago now for Staff to
prepare an ordinance on construction disposal landfills. I haven't seen it
yet.
Councilman Geving: That's the only reason I pulled that out Mr. Mayor.
Councilman Johnson: I had a lot of reasons why I was going to pull it out.
Mostly with these 22, it really doesn't look like they're doing much of a, a
lot of these are real basic things that a basic engineer should not miss. I
would like to hear from the developer.
Bob Pedan: I'm with Sathre-Bergquist Engineering and I guess we're not trying
to pull anything over on the City. We've done other subdivisions within the
City. This is the first major one we've done with Gary as the City Engineer.
We worked with Bill Monk and worked with the City before. A lot of the
details he's asking for are the same details we use on the last 8 projects we
did with the City as far as the street sections, the sewer services, those
sorts of things. We're willing to work with the City. I guess in this total
list I don't see anything that really is a major item other than the burning
the removal of that building. As far as indexing the sheets, I guess that was
an oversight on our part. We should have done that. The grading ar~ erosion
control plan, those items were discussed back when the grading plan was
reviewed. I believe most of it or all those corrections have been delivered
to your office.
Gary Warren: I don't have anything on the ponding. Tae silt fence on the
Bob Pedan: Okay, I guess I haven't reviewed them all completely.
councilman JOhnson:' So there seems to be quite a bit of work left to be done
here before we're ready for this phase. It looks like this is an engineer's
review where two engineers get together and say well, what else do I need and
you get 22 and you answer most of these and there might be a couple that are
still tough. Usually we have a couple things where there are a couple
decisions left to be made, not 22. I would like to see this come back to us
with, I know you guys are in a hurry. There's ~ a lot of pushing and
there seems everybody is pushing too hard. It's not getting there. This is
not the way to do it with 22 conditions tacked on, 23 now. I would rather see
the conditions worked out before hand. Before it gets to us.
Mayor Hamilton: It makes no difference if there are 122 conditions as long as
our engineer is satisfied that all the conditions will be met. I don't think
it makes a darn bit of difference.
C~__ry Warren: I guess in defense of the conditions per se and Sathre-
Bergquist, their work I guess, when I got into this, maybe we're all up
against the time issue here and had we had more liberty of time I'm sure Bob
and I would have talked further about it and resolved these things. What I
was trying to do was respond to the fact, when I got halfway through the
conditions I said I had two choices. Stop and delay it until we could get the
things completed or I felt we were close enough that I could at least
50
269
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
incorporate the conditions because this stuff has to be passed before the
Watershed District will review the plans and if we miss this meeting ~
they're off another month. So I did go ahead here with putting the
recommendations in. I don't see that the~e is anything insurmountable. I
believe I can get with Bob and their company here but it was in the interest I
guess of completing the review and I felt that I could at least get. e~ough
conditions that would allow that to proceed ahead.
Councilman Johnson: When is the Watershed District meeting?
Gary Warren: Wednesday night.
Councilman Johnson: How many of these 22 conditions are going to be included
in your presentation to the Watershed District?
Bob Pedan: The conditions pertaining to the grading of land. We've already
more or less received the grading permit based on satisfying the city's ~s
so the permit we're going for for the Watershed is for the utilities and storm
sewer construction. I guess as far as their utilities are concerned, they are
concerned about the damage to the environment. ~he erosion and the
restoration of the site in that area. The storm sewer, I think the only item
in here is the rip-rap and the one basin. The details on those two shallow
structures which I guess I don't think they are major items with the Watershed
District.
Councilman Johnson: I want the Watershed District to know very well that
there are a lot of modifications that are going to go into the plans that are
being presented to them. I know one particular case where the Watershed
District approved a set of plans and then I went over and talked to ~ about
the next set of plans we saw and they said these aren't the ones that came
before us. We've got a different set of plans than they did.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we should deal with this issue and not something that
Councilman Geving: Here's how I feel about this Jay. I think we can go ahead
ar~ approve this plan, the Saddlebrook plans and specs. The conditions are
here and the conditions have to be met. ~he e~gi~s can work this out.
This is not the first time we've allowed conditions to be approved so the
developer can proceed with the next stage.
Councilman Johnson: Is there anyway, if you've got 23 conditions, the~e are
probably a few that Gary has missed in the time delays and everything, I would
like to give him sue leeway also to find additional or~s. I guess he's
implied that it's there but with this many changes, as they make these changes
other changes may be brought about which typically happens.
Councilman Geving: What I think is a point in time Gary has to say, I've done
everything I can think of. This is my list of conditions and Ih~ finished. I
kind of saw him shake his head when you mentioned that. He's saying how many
more can I think of. He's ~ working overtime already to come up with 23 of
th~m.
51
270
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Gary Warren: I think the only item out of the conditions that might have an
impact and I guess Bob could maybe address it, is plaoement of the watermain
in the roadway area, not on the curb and gutter. I guess the plans are
relative anyway.
Bob Pedan: I guess when I read that condition I thought about that somewhat
and the general practice that we've been following in Chanhassen has been to
try and maintain the sanitary sewer close to the center of the roadway and
then the watermain is 1~ feet off from the sanitary sewer one side or ~
other. The watermain is 7 1/2 feet deep and in order to dig that up so you
don't damage the curb you're going to have to be at least 7 feet away from the
curb and then you may lose it or not to get your trench in there to dig it up.
With curvalinear streets that everybody has been using, it's very tough to
keep that watermain a distance away from the curb to keep it so you're not
damaging the curb if you do have to dig it up unless you're going to try and
center the watermain on the center of the street.
Councilman Geving: Is there a conflict between you and Gary over this issue?
If there is then we have to lean on Gary because Gary's the one who's going to
make the decision.
Gary Warren: I don' t see that we' ve got anything insurmountable.
Councilman Geving: That's what we want to know from Staff. If you two guys
can work it out with 23 conditions.
Gary Warren: Bob has already said that they were agreeable with working on
it so...
Councilman Geving: Is there any comment from the rest of the Council on
l(f) (2)?
Councilman Boyt: ..on spotting the lots. Tnat's what I read in there and I
think that' s terrific.
Don Ashworth: I did talk to the developer, he would like to go through the
development contract again with me. I don't see anything insurmountable but
it's not in a form tonight. There are maybe some things that he would like to
see clarified. They are not major but I would rather have a final copy to you
than have you go back.
Councilman Geving: So you want us to table 2?
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Saddlebrook
Plans and Specifications with Builder's Development Inc. with the 22
conditions as stated in the Staff Report amending condition 3 to state that
the demolition of the building is to be done by burning with the residue being
taken off the site and adding a 23rd condition of looping the wa~ermain as
stated by Gary Warren. Also, to table approval of the Development Contract
until a final draft is sutm~itted. All voted in favor and motion carried.
52
271
_
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Councilman Horn: I hope the next time this comes back to us it's more
complete. It ~ like we've been behind the 8 ball everytime this program
COUbK2IL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Boyt: I have a visual aid here. ~here are a couple reasons I
bring this u[~ I grant that we should all be sensitive to every develolm~ent
as sensitive as I've been to this one. and some of us have ~ as well. I
think that what I want to point out here is first, they con~nitted, in their
developmemt agreement to control dust in this piece of property. Now, if
they have gome out and spread any water (x~ that piece of property, I would be
surprised. Dust has rolled across the neighborhood to the west of this. As,
in the first addition, I don't think they've ~ responsive to some of the
problem they committed themselves to. Another issue and that centers around
this marsh. When we started this thing looked like a marsh and I was a pert
of this vote. ~rm_n we all, after some discussion, approved this grading plan
and I want you to go back and take a look sometime at what we createcL What
we crested is on this east end here we've got a dike that could stop most
rivers. You could drive a car across the top of that dike. We're talking
about a marsh that in the back when it rained all that amount last year, this
marsh probably had two feet of water in it and this dike is, if you count
these little lines, you'll see it's a good 6 feet high. It comes higher than
the cattails. It's wide enough, as I mentioned, to drive a car across. It's
completely out of proportion to what it's trying to do. The other thing is
they filled in arour~ here or cut and filled around the side so we now have a
4 foot across on the shoulder around the marsh so what we've got folks is
we've got a pod Where there used to be a marsh, where there will never be
anything but a marsh because we've got an entrance here at I believe it's at
the 949 level ~ we've got an exit at the same level. We've got a storm line
and a high point om the storm line is 954.
Gary Warren: 954 1/2.
Councilman Boyt: (kay, 954 1/2. ~he 1~0 year high water mark in this marsh
is 95L What we approved here there's no way in the world the water is ever
going to get up there. If it gets up there, the houses along here are going
to floating because of the grour~ water tm_hle. I don't know what we can about
this if anything but I guess I'm just pointing it out. Something that we all
knew. These final grading plans are extremely important. I find them
difficult to read and in this particular instance I think we blew it.
Gary Warren: We had a check out there. T~m berm as it star~s right now is
rough graded. It's not a final graded. It's anywhere from 1 1/2 to 2 feet
above what the plan calls for. I em]ked with the consultant earlier today ar~l
they will be going out to put in some referemce hubs so we can get the proper
grading out there. They're not done with the grading. The plan shows I
believe it's 4 feet, maybe 5 to actual elevations and there's no question that
it's high right. It should ccme down from where it is.
53
272
City Council Meeting - JUne 29, 1987
Councilman Boyt: Well, if we can drop it down, as long as they are in there
grading, if they can drop it down to something that's reasonable to the marsh
so it will look a little better and if what they're creating going to west of
that is supposed to be an emergency outlet, it's 4 1/2 feet above the high
water mark. ~nat's not going to work as an omergency outlet.
Councilman Johnson: Again, the pond, because the development in the area, the
storm sewer is going to it, is going to need a-lot more retention than what it
used to. We're going to get the water into it a lot faster and we want to let
is under the same speed so that is, during high water is going to become more
of a pond than it was before. It used to take a long time for the water to
get down there from acres away. Now it's in a sewer pipe hauling out down
there at 3 feet per second or whatever and gets down there. We got lucky on
our side with the dust because it was during the winter and we had our windows
closed but they did zero dust control on 1st Addition and I was out of town
during a real dusty week and after I got back we had a lot of complaints and I
said, did anyone call City Hall. Nobody did but they have committed on their
EA to do dust control.
Mayor Hamilton: There's a shortage of water so I supposed they are trying to
balance that too.
Gary Warren: I think where you get most of your dust is off of the building
pads t~selves. They have put water down in the roadway surfaces area but
when you have a dry year as we have and those building pads are open, they can
drive the water trucks over the building pads and sprinkle that effectively.
Councilman Boyt: They can make an effort Gary.
Gary Warren: I'm not saying they can't. I have brought it to their
attention.
Councilman Boyt: Just one other point. From an information standpoint. Jim
Chaffee when out there with one of our building inspectors ar~ said that he
could move the wall on the house 3, 4 or 5 feet and yet it passed our
inspection. I think we have some kind of a opportunity I guess I would call
it to look at how we can insure quality construction. He's currently looking
at that but if the Council has scme input on that at scme point.
Mayor Hamilton: I've talked to, in fact I was informed of that before Chaffee
was that there was inadequate construction occurring out there so I did talk
to Chaffee. It was another bullet actually that they had complained about the
building that was taking place and some of the other homes. He was upset
because he is building a home there and he felt why should be toe the mark and
do things ~ way they ought to be done when the guy next door to him is not
doing a very good job so that generated a lot of discussion with Jim about
licensing people and I think that's the whole area of our ordinance that we've
overlooked in the past and we need to look at that. One of the areas that was
not conforming out there was when you get young people putting in fireplaces,
from what I understand they were 18 year old kids or whatever their ages were
and they've never had any training and they're throwing these things in and
they were just asking for trouble because they're not licensed for one thing.
54
273
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
The guy who does the building isn't licensed in the city. He can hire anybody
and put them in and I just think we ~ to take a look at the licensir~3
process in the City and make sure that we have licensed, bor~ed people are
doing construction otherwise we're going to have problems. We have talked
about that and we are going to take a look at that.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us put that on a future agenda.
Mayor Hamilton: Jim is following up on that.
Councilman Horn: I got a c~mplaint tonight on this Chan Vista construction
traffic using Frontier yet. Are we monitoring that?
Gary Warren: They have ~ very good about that to be quite honest. We've
watched it, especially the utility construction. They've moved into the third
Addition and maybe he's using a different sub but just by the n,,mher of cars
that are parked on Kerber I thought they were cc~plying very w~ll.
Councilman Horn: I got that just tonight.
Councilman Johnson: I'm sure there are a lot of residents using it and cutting
across the dirt and over. Several times I've ~ down there and people come
down the new road and cut on the dirt and over to the old cul-de-sac and cut
u~ What tt~y might thing are construction people cc~ing in are people living
in Chanhassen taking the shortcut already.
Councilman Boyt: Let's ask ths~ to drop a load of dirt there.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, Dale wanted to talk about the Fire Station Expansion.
Councilman Geving: I think what prompted by thinking there was what we did
earlier tonight on the municipal building for the maintenance people. I've
~ out to the Fire Station several times recently ar~ it's okwious that
they're crammed. With our growing community, it's just going to get worse.
If you saw how they had to park their vehicles. They back ~ in ar~ move one
to one side and it's quite a process. I kr~w we've talked about this and I
don't know if there is any funding thought of or how we're going to approach
it but it seems to me we r~ a facility there that's about twice as big as we
currently have. We couldn't operate that 2 or 3 years from now unless it is
double the size. I understand that Art F~=_rber has been working with the
consultant and maybe that's what you ~ to tell me D~n or Gary, whoever's
been involved, where we're at and ~here this might be.
Don Ashworth: Nick Ruehl has ~ involved with tl~ Fire Department, Jim
Chaffee. We're looking to coming back to you. It's really our total capital
outlay plans which would also include this facility. I'm really putting
together funding sources and when they may occur and alternative designs and
alternatives in each of those building areas. You'll see that within the .next
3~ to 6~ days.
55
274
City Council Meeting - JUne 29, 1987
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, CITY PLANNER.
Barbara Dacy: This item was brought before the Planning Commission at their
last meeting. They recommended that at looking at the area beyond the year
2000 MUSA line was a valid item to be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Howver, they did not recommend that the City actively push for a strong
application to lobby Metro Council to move that year 2000 MUSA line in advance
of that time. The Commission felt very strongly that because of the amount of
growth that we're having now that land use patterns and transportation issues
should be adequately addressed prior to actively pushing for extending the
growth area in Chanhassen. This item is brought for Council recommendation.
If you so decided to include this area in the Comp Plan Update process, we'll
direct Mark to do so and work with myself in accomplishing that. What it
really comes down to is how active a stance you want the Comprehensive Plan to
take to going beyond what was originally agreed in the Sewer Facility
Agre~uent.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we should challenge it every chance we can get.
Councilman Horn: I think it's a tad early though. It's still pretty fresh.
Don Ashworth: I don't know if that's totally true from the standpoint, look
back when we started with those whole forcemain issue in 1980. It's 7 years
ago now and the Lake Ann Interceptor is still not started construction.
Councilman Horn: That's my point. Maybe we want to let it move further along
before we bring this up.
Don Ashworth: We could very well look to at least a 3 to 4 year battle with
Metro Council before there would be any consideration to making a change. If
we authorize this process now, it will take us almost a year in house to have
completed everything to literally present it and then we would look to a 1 to
2 year battle with them after that point. I could tell you things would go
faster but in all liklihood they probably will not.
Mayor Hamilton: If we continue to do that and work with people like Mill's
Fleet Farm who would like to be in our community, that's certainly a part of
that process. I think we ~ to continue to work with them to see what
progress we can make.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us take the slower approach. We seem to
have our hands full with developing what we've got and to open up the
Frontiers so to speak, I would like to see us do a real good, thorough job of
developing what is in the MUSA line before we begin turning to the Met Council
and saying give us more faster.
Councilman Johnson: This is what we're telling the Planning Commission is
start looking at it.
Mayor Hamilton: That's right. It's not an overnight process and there's only
one parcel of land left within the MUSA line that hasn't ~ purchased for
development. We're out of land. You've got to plan ahead a little. I don't
56
275
City Council Meeting - JUne 29, 1987
think we want to stop the process that started and start having ~e leapfrog
take over so if anybody is looking at us, Ede~ Prairie is going up and they
look at us and say, beck they don't have any land left so we might as well go
out to Chaska or some other town.
Councilman Horn: If we don't get our transportation taken care of we won't be
able to build anything anyway.
Mayor Hamilton: We've got to keep everything kind of cooking at the same time
and hopefully as we move on down the road a year or two years fr~ now we're
going to get more land so development can continue to take place.
Councilman Horn: I didn't mentio~ this in our discussio~ of the highway but I
think part of our other problem that we've had in trying to get transportation
out here is proving Met Oouncil's point that t/~y don't want expansion in this
area. If we start pushing a little too hard, they might guarantee that they
were right in our transportation issue.
Councilman Johnson: I think we ~ to move cautiously but I don't think we
need to delay this. I think we have to. get started now so that in 3 to 4
years when we're all filled up, ~ckankar is all filled up then we get at the
panic point. I think this is the time to start looking at it. Knowing the
Planning Commission's schedule and everything they've got going too, they
ain't going to jump right on this and be back to us in a month or two. Like
Don says, it will probably be a year before we bear anything once we authorize
this o
Mayor Hamilton: It's just laying the ground work for the future.
Councilman Horn: I don't disagree with that as lo~3 as we k~----p it to
ourselves.
Councilman Geving: It's just Staff. We're just asking Staff to start working
on it.
Barbara Dacy: Again, the (bmmission's main concern is that they saw a
definite ~ to study it, include it and so on but I think to use Ladd's
words, he really didn't want the Mayor ar~ so on going down this year and
really lobbying hard for the whole effort but yes, it will take a significant
amount of time.
Councilman Boyt: Are we talking about spending staff time or are we talking
about sperling additional outside money?
Barbara Dacy: Mark has been retained through the (]~3 monies to finish the
Comp Plan update. It would probably mean expansion of that contract. How
much I don't know. I wouldn't think it would be a significant amount but Mark
and I have ~ working closely together on the whole project anyway. If it
is approved tonight, we would ask Mark to come back with another scope of
services in the contract.
57
276
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Councilman Boyt: It would seem to me that one of the things we do by delaying
that expansion is that we may fill land that is open to the MUSA line more
valuable. That may give us more of a quality development program than a quick
fill, onto the next frontier mode. I think this is something that can wait.
Mayor Hamilton: It could be a disadvantage too.
Councilman Geving: I don't think you ever stop planning. We're constantly
planning for tomorrow. I think that's all this is here is we're letting staff
continue to do their thing ar~ start planning for the future.
Councilman Johnson: What about planning the TH 212 corridor, is that within
the Comp Plan review at this point?
Barbara Dacy: Yes. In the existing chapter there is discussion now and the
Ccmlp Plan states our preference for the north route.
Councilman Johnson: I'm talking about development along the corridor.
Barbara Dacy: No, it does not.
Councilman Johnson: Because I think that's important for us long range to
look at is in 20 years from now what do we want developed along that TH 212
corridor as much as reserving the corridor.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to direct staff to amend the
Comprehensive Plan Update Process as recommended by the Planning Commission.
All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: Don wants to talk to us about the 4th of JUly activities.
Don Ashworth: I have to apologize to City Council because we have not kept
you as abreast of the activities as I normally try to and the reasons, we're
trying to take and incorporate something associated with our downtown project
and to do a ground breaking, it's tying in around the 4th of JUly and that's
what we started to recognize that two weeks ago so we've ~ busy trying to
coordinate those two activities. The 4th of JUly will be a major day for us.
There will be a number of activities occurring starting early in the morning
out at Lake Ann. Ail of the activities will really occur at Lake Ann.
Softball, all the games and all those types of things until the early evening
at which time we'll have two large tents set up. We will be serving free hot
dogs. There will be beer, pop, ice cream vendor, concessions. Most of the
items again will be free. That will be coupled with the band. Hopefully we
will have both the Mayor and th~ Chairman of the HRA who will present some
form of speech. To the extent that the Council would like to be involved in
the process, you're going to have to kind of let me know. In other words, we
simply blocked out a period of time for the ground breaking ceremony. Again,
there will be free food and refreshments during that period and then we'll
move into the fireworks. How the Council might like to see that ground
breaking occur I guess I'm looking for scme input.
58
277
City Council Meeting - June 29~ 1987
Mayor Hamilton: Are we planning on the downtown ground breaking, are we
looking at companies, other mayors and things like that or what are we looking
at?
Don Ashworth: The memorandum that I put out to the HRA wanted to do something
with all of the people who have helped to make this project a reality. The
Watershed District, the County, State Agencies and all the rest but we looked
at that to be in the fall really whe~ most of the work was alremdy completed.
It was kind of a victory type of thing. C~%DDA in discussing the item with
the HRA had talked about tt~ importance of doing a news media blitz ar~ kind
of talking about what was going on in the downtown area. I haven't met with
them any further to discuss how that might c~ne about. How we might do that
as a part of this. I really don't have a good answer for you.
Councilman Horn: I guess I~ concerned about why these are tied together. It
seems to me the 4th of July celebration in the City is one entity and this
should be a stand along type of thing. I'm surprised to see the~ merge.
Don Ashworth: We were trying to look for timing for when we could do all
these things ar~ the project was started JUly 6th. If we took 2 weeks before
and 2 weeks after, I'm talking about again having something where you would
do, someway to bring people out to be a part of the whole celebratio~, it just
almost seemed like a ~atural. ~his would be o~e way you could get a large
number of people who all could participate in this celebration.
Councilman Horn: I think if there had been some advance notice but people
have plans made. This is at the end of this week ar~ this is the first we've
heard about this.
Don Ashworth: Yes, and that's how I started out apologizing to the Council.
When the thing was discussed at the HRA level what we wanted to do was
something with the businesses. (~t the businesses invovled so we prepared a
sheet ar~ those have all ~ handed out ar~ telling tbem_~ about this whole
dalWs activity. Oome join us for free hot dogs and free refr~hments. We
distributed that to all the businesses and their employees. We're really
trying to get the employees involved ar~ that's where we came in with the
buttons and tried to hand out the buttons as a part of this whole thing. The
banner up. We've got the signs that are being installed at the three entry
areas. We're hopirg we would have one of those sitting up here by this te~t
thing. We tried to put together a deal where the senior citizens would
literally furnish the food or help dish it out but we were unable to put that
together. Jo Ann couldn't really get that lined up.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson secor~ to adjourru All voted in
favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:5~ p~..
Sut~itted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
59