1987 12 0747
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
D~CEMBER 7, 1987
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Counci~lman Horn, Councilman Geving and.
Councilman Johnson ; ,
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Boger Knutson: Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann
Olsen, Lori Siets~ma, Todd Gef~rdt,~' m ~r ~ ~ ' m 'm m ~ '
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman
Johnson wanted to discuss COnditional Use Permits and Councilman Boyt wanted
to move item 7(a) presentations under Visitor Presentation. All voted in
favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the foll6wing consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
reccm~_ndations:
d. Accounts Payable dated Deosuber 7, 1987.
Se
Approval of Change in City Council Meeting Schedule, Establishment of
one meeting in December.
g. Final Plat Approval, Riley Lake F~adows, Dick Vogel.
i. City Council Minutes dated Novenber 2, 1987.
City Council Minutes dated November 16, 1987.
Planning Commission Minutes dated November 18, 1987.
Park and Recreation Cc~nission .Minutes dated November 24, 1987.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION:
Curt Oster, 6480 Murray Hill Road: I was talking to the City f~3ineer today
and they are proposing to put a new service road back to the water tower off
of Murray Hill Road there and it's in violation of a few things on our
development agr~-------nent for the property so I can present it now or if you want
to listen to it on an agenda?
Mayor Hamilton: As I understand it, it's the City's intent to put a driveway
through where we could service the water tower and the well in that area.
There is some need to act on that as quickly as possible since the road that
we do have that goes in there doesn't belong to the City and it does drift in
rather heavily with snow in the winter so we do ~ to have access to that
facility. Perhaps if you would like to tell us briefly what it is?
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Curt Oster: As the pictures show there, it's a narrow road with 50 foot pine
trees that we were directed by Council when we did the development to
maintain, which we have done. The whole project there, we've done minimum
damage to vegetation and the trees and we'd like to see that carried out. The
zoning ordinance for the residential, as far as I understand it, is only for
residential dwellings and parks, recreational areas, non-profit schools and
administrative offices and so forth. It does not allow for service roads to
pedestrials ways which you're going to eventually do there. Our pedestrian
way in our development contract says that we have to donate 10 feet but they
were only going to use 6 feet of it. That does cross property that we had to
donate for that purpose. My comments and my objections are listed in the last
paragraph there.
Dick Vandeberg, 6474 Murray Hill RDad: I object to this access to the water
tower and well for a number of reasons. Primarily I don't think we ought to
spend the money to cut the road in if we already have access to it by another
means. This is a residential area and I don't think that the heavy equipment
going through there would be beneficial at all. I have small children who
play on the cul-de-sac on the street and I don't want to see them injured or
threatened in anyway.
Bill Kreiberg, 6444 Murray Hill Road: I live at the property that abuts the
proposed project. I concur with the other people here for some of the same
reasons. I'm more recent to the area. I'm a little surprised that being that
this tower has been served for what I understand is well in excess of 10 years
by the current facility and the drifting issue of the snow would be just as
big a problem coming in from the side that you're proposing now as it is on
the current side. I think it's an academic adjustment. I'm surprised that
the Council would consider spending taxpayers funds in this particular manner.
I think the proposal would also create, as Dick mentioned, risk to the large
number of children that play in that general area. The liability of the City
should something happen would well exceed the benefits of accessing the tower
frcm Murray Hill Road. I appreciate your consideration of my thoughts.
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, w~uld you like to tell us about this?
Gary Warren: This is the area. In green is our present water tower which we
access through the neighborhood off Melody Hill Road and off of the existing,
basically we're coming in over an easement that was there from the watermain
that was constructed to the site. It's not actually a formal roadway
easement. This is a sheet off of the actual construction plans again showing
the water tower. We come in from this side here with the watermain easement
but this tract of land was actually acquired by the City. It's 110 feet which
abuts down on Murray Hill Road. This was the original access plan for the
water tower in 1972 or 1973 when it was built. The 50 foot right-of-way here
was donated as a part of the subdivision here which went on top of one of our
existing easements so what I guess I'm relaying is that it was always the
intent that we would have a formal access to the tower from the east. We had
been getting by by going over school property basically and driving in there.
Our crews visits the site Wednesdays and Saturdays in normal season so we're
there maybe twice a week to check on the tower. When we have dry spells or
very cold weather, where conditions might warrant there might be some problems
City Council --M~cting - December 7, 1987
there, at the most maybe once a day with a pick-up truck to look at it and see
that it's alright. We do have a lot of problems with snow obstruction there
from the west. It blows in. We have a lot of snow removal challenges on the
west side here on the school property to get in and the east side is a little
bit more sheltered. Our plan is really, I call it a driveway. That's all the
City is looking to do is to install a driveway to access the site. None of
the pines would be taken down. We're not looking to do anything disriptive.
We're looking to bring in maybe a load o~ two of gravel to-improve the
driveway but we're not looking for major construction or any heavy equipment
to be running arour~ in there. This does also coincide with the request to
put in a trail in this area to access the school. This is the plat .from
Murray Hill and in the developer's contract, the original plan was to provide
a trail easement along the east side of the left line and the south side of
Lots 3 and 4 to get over to the school~ Subsequently, Lori bm_~ ~ dealing
with this more than I, to get the trail through here which would then allow
access through the City property over here to the school district so actually
our 110 feet was also looked at to make the trail connection over to the
school because it's kind of deadended here in the subdivision.
Councilman Boyt: Where does your road enter?
Gary Warren: On here we would accessing right here. The water tower is right
about here.
Councilman Boyt: How does that impact on the trail?
Gary Warren: The trail hasn't ~ formalized but I guess my only point is
that there's 110 feet in here that a trail could be put through. That would
be the same as our access road really. A gravel road. It could easily be
used as a trail.
Curt Oster: That's in violation of the development proposal that says you'll
only use 6 feet of that.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have a copy of that with you?
Curt Oster: No I don't.
Gary Warren: ~he development contract said that the developer would provide a
10 foot easement and that the City would build a maximum 6 foot wide
bituminous trail.
curt Oster: It did not say bituminous.
Mayor Hamilton: That's for a trail. Was your agreement drawn up in 1973 when
the City purchased the property?
curt Oster: It was later than 1973.
Gary Warren: That specifically addressed the easements that would be
dedicated by the developer. H~re we would be putting this in on the City's
110 foot parcel so that wouldn't apply to our parcel. However we put a trail
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
in there, we could put theoretically a 110 foot wide trail through our parcel.
Curt Oster: You have to cross our property.
Mayor Hamilton: I think there's some misunderstanding here obviously based on
some of the comments I see from the residents they haven't any. idea what needs
to be done here so I think we should have this item put on a regul'ar scheduled
agenda. I realize that we need to have access to our utilities and I'm
surprised that the residents are so opposed .to the City getting access to
their utilities on their own property but we'll come back and discuss this
issue at length and we'll hear from all of you again.
Dick Vandeberg: Would it be possible to get a cost benefit analysis on this?
How much would it cost to cut the road?
Mayor Hamilton: It's not going to be a full-blown cost benefit analysis. We
will find out what the costs are to put the road in. It's not something
that's going to be assessed back to the homeowners anyway. It would come out
of the sewer and water fund which everybody in the city pays for out of their
sewer and water bills and that's how the road would be put in. There would
not be an increase in the sewer and water bills as they currently stand to
accc~pl ish this.
CONSIDER POTENTIAL 1988 REFERENDUM ITEMS: COMMUNITY CENTER, FINAL REPORT AND
Pd~CO~9%~t~ATION FROM THE COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE, PRESENTATIONS.
Mayor Hamilton: We asked to move item 7(a) to the visitors Presentation so
those who need to leave earlier could make their comments at this time. We
will then take those comments into consideration when we vote on the item
later on. Is there someone here who needs to leave early that wanted to make
comments on this? Do you have any comments that you wanted to make Bob about
it.
Bob Robinett: I'm not here to make comments, I'm just here to answer
questions. ..
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF RINGO DRIVE, 770 CREE
DRIVE, BETH SCHNABEL.
Barbara Dacy: ~ne site is located on the northeast corner of Cree Drive and
Yuma Drive and is triangular in shape. Proposed to be vacated is this area
and the vacated area would become part of the abutting properties. The
property owner on this north parcel here wanted some verification as to how
much exactly would be conveyed to his property so I just want the Council to
be aware that a more detailed drawing will be prepared by Schoell and Madsen
to detail the specifications. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation.
There's no public purpose needed to retain this right-of-way. We are
recommending, however that a 10 foot drainage and utility easement be reserved
along the western and southern portions of the property to accomodate the
existing utilities.
City Council ~c~ting - December 7, 1987
Mayor Hamilton opened up th~ meeting for public ~ts.
Councilman Geving moved, Cour~ilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Besolution 987-120: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton secor~ed to
approve the vacation request %87-9 to vacate a portion of Ringo Drive as
indicated in the Attachment ~2 subject to retaining a 10 foot public utility
easement along Yuma Drive and Cree Drive. All voted in favor and motion
carried. ~
PUBLIC HEARING: .CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY BILL, R(]BERT
Mayor Hamilton opened up the meeting for public comments.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Resolution #87-121: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
certify the delinquent utility account of R~bert Sommers for 6320 Murray Hill
Road. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: Just for the record I think we should note that this is a
utility bill that was overlooked in our last certification and that's why
there is only one here this evening and why we're doing it.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO Ar.r~)w AUTO SERVICE CENTERS AS PERMITT~)
USES IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT; AND TO Ar.r~)W
MINI-WAREHOUSES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK
DISTRICT, DORN BUILDERS.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting to amend the ordinance to allow
automotive service centers in the BH district. Staff is recommer~ing approval
of that amendment. We feel that an auto service center meets the intent of the
district and it also is compatible with the existing permitted uses in the BH
district. The applicant is also requesting that the ordinance be amended to
allow mini-warehouse facilities as a permitted use in the IOP district_ This
was removed as a permitted use when the ordinance was amended. Again, Staff
is recommending approval to include mini-warehouse facilities in the IOP
district. We feel that it is an appropriate use of the intent of the district
and permitted uses in the IOP district_ The Planning Commission also
recommended approval to amend the ordinance to allow mini-warehouse facilities
in the IOP district and to allow automotive service centers in the BH
district.
Mayor Hamilton: Are Dorn Builders here and if so, do they have any com~en~?
Mark Moore: I represent the developer on this, Dom Builders. Mr. Heber is
not here at this time. The sellers of the .property are here. Perhaps I'll do
my very best to answer ~ questions for you.
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anythin~ that you wish to add to Jo Ann's
comments or did that cover it pretty w~ll?
Mark Moore: That covers it pretty well.
Councilman Johnson: My comments are that I favor both in this case. Tnat
it's a logical location for an auto service center and business highway seems
to be a good place for automobile servicing. It seems to be within the intent
of the district. We seem to have a lot of mini-warehouses coming Up and the
developers believe they can make a go of it, this too to me seems to be a
fairly reasonable place for a mini-warehouse as far as access. It's shielded
by the auto center and a few other things and I have no objections to it.
Councilman Boyt: As far as changing the BH district to accept auto service
centers, that makes sense to me. It fits with gas stations and car washes and
fast food restaurants and the other sorts of things that we put into the BH
district. I have some problems however with the second consideration for a
change in our zoning ordinance. Putting mini-warehouses into our Industrial
Office Park seems to me to be a misuse of good industrial land. Wherever we
put mini-warehouses, I think that Jo Ann and Barb did an excellent job of
including some background information on mini-warehouses. I think that we
need to go through that. I have gone through it. I think that there are many
conditions that they put on what they call single self storage facilities in
regards to their size, appearance, parking and I think that before we approve
what we now call a mini-warehouse area, that we should set up some conditions
to control those. With the proper conditions they might fit in an IOP but as
I see them now, the prospects of having what is a mini-warehouse sitting next
to what somebody may have spent a million dollars to build doesn't appeal to
me at all. The previous Council said that the industrial office park was
designed to generate employment. A mini-warehouse is not going to generate
any employment so I would be opposed to including it as it stands now in our
industrial office park area.
Councilman Horn: My feeling is that the application is appropriate to the
area that it's being put in. However, I-don't think that it may he
appropriate in all applications so if I were to go along with this proposal'
and there was some way that we could differeniate this proposal from general
proposals.
Councilman Boyt: We could make it all BH.
Councilman Geving: I have no problem with the service center proposal. I
think that fits into what we planned in the BH. Business Highway is just
that. It's just one of those things. You're going to have service stations,
auto centers. That makes sense to me. We didn't include it I suspect, we
just didn't think about that as a possibility when be built in the BH
zoning areas so I think that one fits. I do think about what we did in the
industrial park as far as the warehousing facility that's going to be placed
there. I had great reservations after the vote was taken about adding a major
facility like that in our industrial park and employing only a couple people.
Today I wouldn't vote for that and I think I feel pretty much the same way
here. For not to have the mini-warehouses in our IOP districts. There are
City Council Meeting - Dec~ber 7, 1987
places where we can place those. We did a very good job of settirg the one
warehousing facility down in the southern part of our community in the
business fringe area. I think that was appropriate so I guess I'd have to say
that o~ the first part of this, I'm in favor of the service centers. On the
secor~ part of it, I5~ not in favor of amercing it to include it in the IOP
districts. However, I think that it can fit into, as recommended here by the
Planning Commission, to the BH district. Just put it all in the BH.
Accomplish it there but let's not change both of them. That's my opinion.
Mayor Hamilton: My comments are that I feel that t~ auto service center may
best be under a conditional use. My feeling is, since those centers ...having a
way of getting out of control and becoming" rathe-' messy'and-things -' ....
accumulating around them, I would want to have the option to have some way to
help them control the debris and everythirg else that they seem to g_en~. ~rate.
I thinz we can 'best do ;that by' having a ~ddnditi'o'nal-use in that' district. I%n
not opposed to having ths~ in the district but I think a conditional use gives
us more control over them each year as we review their conditional use permit.
On the second issue, I was the only one who voted against allowing the mini-
warehouse in our current industrial park. I stand corrected. Councilman Horn
also voted that way but I also feel that for the same reasons that Bill has
stated, that our industrial office parks are designated to be employers of
people and to attract industry here. I don't look at a mini-warehouse as an
industry. It's a service for people who ~ to store their things. I know
that we need that but there are places to put those things and we do need to
designate some areas in this community where we can have those kinds of things
so our citizens here can use those facilities. Also, I think in this
particular one it would be at the entrance to the city ar~ I'm not sure that's
what we want to have at the entrance of the city when we have some beautiful
printing facilities and other facilities, multi-million dollar buildings that
would be very close by. So I would agree with Dale. Well, I wouldn't put it
in the BH either. I guess I'd want to look at each one independently. I gues
it's not clear to me Jo Ann, was this proposed mini-warehouse going to be
right near the auto center?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right behind it.
Councilman Boyt: So it would probably be blocked from view from the road. It
sounds to me like we're in agr~..-------nent then that the BH district can be modified
to include auto service centers and I know that I w~uld certai~{ly be 'in"
agr~ent with making them a conditional use permit for the reasons we
suggested and I'd like to see us handle these one at a time. I think that
even forgetting about their location in the city, does it just make sense to
have this in that zoning area and it does.
Councilman Johnson: I think both of them could be conditional use in the BH
to where we have that comtrol. In this situation With the front to back
location of this, I think we would have zoned the entire area BH and allow a
conditional use, both auto service and mini-warehouse under a conditional use
permit in the BH district.
Mayor Hamilton: This district, where it's being proposed to be built, is that
all BH or is it IOP or where do w~ stand?
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Jo Ann Olsen: They will be going through a rezoning process. Right now the
property is split in half with the north/south line. BH is on the west side
and IOP is recommended on the east side. What they are looking to propose to
rezone it to would be north/south. BH on the south and IOP on the north. It
could also be rezoned all IOP or all BH.
Councilman Johnson: With a conditional use permit we could get trees and
shurberies besides Redman Products for shielding on that side, etc..
Councilman Geving: Are there just two lots here?
Jo Ann Olsen: There's two lots under single ownership and they're split by
the County line.
Councilman Geving: So they should both be the same? Really technically, if
we make one BH tonight, it seems to me that the other should also be BH.
Councilman Boyt: We wouldn't be making it anything.
Councilman Geving: If something came in, we'd reomnnend that it be BH.
Mayor Hamilton: It just seems to me if we're looking at storage facilities,
whether it's BH or IOP, it's a little more restrictive in a BH but we're still
talking about the entrance to the City and I'd be very concerned about the
visual impact plus I think the impact is still the same on employment. That's
a nice piece of ground and it would seem to me there could be other uses for
that that would bring in more employment than having a storage facility. One
employee on however many acres that is, isn't very intensive use of the land I
don' t think.
Councilman Boyt: Tonight aren't we just considering the issue of whether or
not we want to change our zoning ordinance and the discussion about whether
we're going to change it in this particular location is really something
that's not in front of us right now.
Mayor Hamilton: Right. It's just whether we want to have those uses in
those particular zones.
Councilman Horn: I think our issue is, it seems like we all agree that we
would alllow auto service centers in the B}L That's really all we have to act
on. ..
Councilman Johnson: Tne other one is mini-warehouses in the IOP they are
requesting.
Mayor Hamilton: Right, there are two separate issues.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment Request to allow auto service centers as a conditional use
in the BH, Business Highway Service District. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
55
City Gouncil Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Johnson: As far as discussion, usirg it to generate employment,
this is a facility that supports business. Business's utilize these types of
facilities and having this facility here will support other businesses c~ming
into town so indirectly this type of use is appropriate to a point.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess that's not the issue. The issue is whether you want
to allow these mini-warehouses in the IOP district. ~nat's the only issue we
have to deal with right now.
Councilman Johnson: Right and what I'm hearing is the reason a lot of people
don't want to is because they don't generate jobs. What IR saying is, they
don't generate jobs, they are an asset to industry for providing a t~mporary,
expandable warehousing capabilities. To help this applicant, while he has not
asked for us to consider the use of mini-warehouses in the BH district, I~
sure that will be the fallback positioru He'll have to go ~o the Planning
C(m~mission and c~me back so it's going to delay the project several months.
Mayor Hamilton: But' that's not the request before'us. 'We can 0nly deal with
the request that the applicant has made. We can't have any conjecture about
what his fallback position is. That's up to him.
Councilman Johnson: Was it our staff's recommendation that we go IOP, split
it half and half this way? Did the Planning Commission consider whether they
would rather "-cc mini-warehouse in BH or IOP?
Jo Ann Olsen: That was staff's recommendation that that would be a second
option to do mini-warehouse in the BH district and the Planning Commission did
not wish to have it as a permitted use in the IOP district. The Planning
Commission didn't really address it. They felt it was a suitable use for the
IOP so that option wasn't really pursued.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I saw in the staff report that you presented that
option and they did not act upon that.
Mayor Hamilton: There's another thing to consider I suspose Jay, since you're
raising a lot of points to consider and that is that there is a mini-storage
facility being built in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. There is also a
mini-storage in operation down on Stoughton Blvd. in the southern part of
Chanhassen. I don't think we ~ one of these on every corner. I guess I
don't see any reason why we need to have ~ all over the pl .ace. The ones
that are there aren't full. I think what we really need to deal. with is
whether or not they are going to be allowed in the IOP as a permitted use. My
motion is to deny it.
Councilman Horn: sin~e we did de~iate som'ewhat' from 'the request on the last
motion, the request was as a permitted use. It would appear to me that we
would be within our bounds, after we deal with this issue, to propose an
alternate would be to allow mini-warehouses as a conditional use in the BH
district which would be appropriate for his back lot but I think the issue
before us now is as a permitted use.
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Geving: I think at this point we could go ahead and take the vote
on this issue and if the applicant would prefer to have us look at it as an
alternative, then we might consider it yet this night and turn it on as a
conditional use in the BH to allow the mini-warehouse on a conditional use
only but we're not going to discuss that at this time.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that s~methir~ you w~uld be amenable to?
Frank Naese: I'm representing the Minnesota Auto Service Company and saying
that it would be our intent to also request the conditional use for the mini-
warehouse in the Business Highway district.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving-seconded to deny the request for the
Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow mini-warehouses in the IOP, Industrial
Office Park district. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move, I think we've already discussed it
actually, I'd like to move that we permit mini-warehouse within the Business
Highway district as a conditional use.
Councilman Horn: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I'd feel more comfortable, I don't know that it
would make a dramatic difference in the outcome but I think any time we
propose a change in the zoning ordinance, we need to take this very seriously
and we need to publish what we're doing ahead of time and I don't think we've
done that tonight. I don't feel comfortable that we've given Mr. Bec]man and
his people sufficient notice that we're going to discuss this. I think it's
going to impact on his property
and the office center on the other side of the piece of property. I think we
should take time to notify all the people in Chanhassen that we're considering
putting mini-warehouses in a district that they're not now allowed in. I
don't think we as a Council should,tonight, take that out of their hands and
just do it.
Roger Knutson: I think it's a close question. Under State Statutes you're
required to publish notices for amendment to your Zoning Ordinance ar~ you can
be more restrictive. For example in the one you've just handled, it was
advertised as a permitted and you changed it to conditional. I'm very
comfortable with that because you're more restrictive. Now you're changing
from one district to another. Folks who own property in or adjacent to the
BH district might not have paid any attention to this because they're not
concerned about it because you've advertised it for IOP. It is a significant
change. It could eventually a significant change for someone so I would
think that the prudent thing would be to advertise if you want to consider
that. But you could give people your indication of how you feel about it
tonight so the applicant, staff and whoever, isn't spinning their wheels and
going through the form for nothing.
Councilman Horn: I guess I would disagree with Roger that we were more
restrictive on the first proposal. What we had before we made the motion was
10
City Oouncil Meeting - December 7, 1987
that the auto service centers were not allowed at all in the BH district. Now
we gave it as a conditional use. They requested a permitted use. We made it
a conditional use but it wasn't a use at all before.
Roger Knutson: That's right but it was advertised to allow it as a permitted
use in the BH district. That's how it was advertised. Your action passed
somethirg that's more restrictive than was advertised so the idea is, if I
was against the auto service centers as permitted, I'd be here tonight. I'd
make my voice known. It's difficult to understand how anyone who was against
this proposal would be for them as a permitted use but against them as a
conditional use. That's why I say it's more restrictive.
Councilman Horn: It seems that the current use that we would be suggesting
here is a conditional use, is also more restrictive than the permitted use
that was published tonight.
Mayor Hamilton: We're changing the district completely.
Councilman Horn: We're realigning two districts. We have two districts the
same as they w~re but w~'re realigning the~.
Mayor Hamilton: But we're going from an IOP to a BH and from permitted to
conditional. Different district. I think that's all Roger is saying. It
should be advertised not as an 10P but as a BH.
Councilman Horn: Which is typically a more restrictive district.
Roger K~utson: ! may own BH property and I don't care what you're doing in
the IOP because I own BH property. Right next to me, this amendment passed,
it might be possible that a mini-warehouse ar~ I might just be totally bent
out of shape about having a mini-warehouse next to me in the BH district and I
didn't appear tonight because it was advertised for IOP.
councilman Horn: You're saying someone other than someone adjacent to this
proposal?
Roger Knutson: Anywhere. It has citywide implications for BH and IOP
property.
councilman Johnson: I'm not sure of Robert's Rule of Order on this but can I
withdraw my motion or modify it?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure.
councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to withdraw the motion
for permitting mini-warehouses as a conditional use in the BH district based .
on advice from counsel and change this to a straw vote on the item to indicate
preference at this point and remand this to the public hearing process
through the Planning Commission as required by our Ordinance. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you withdraw your original second to this motion Clark?
11
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Horn: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: Bill would you care to start and give us your opinion on
whether or not you're in favor of this?
Councilman Boyt: I think given proper conditions, a mini-warehouse or single
storage facility would be appropriate in our BH district.
Councilman Horn: I think this is really a unique application here where it
would fit in. I don't see a lot of other applications in the City where it
would fit in. I think it needs to be controlled as a conditional use.
Councilman Geving: I agree with that.
Councilman Johnson:
City.
This is the only business highway district within the
Mayor Hamilton: Barbara, where's that business highway? Isn't there another
business highway other than this? Is this the only one? I thought there was
some on TH 2127
Barbara Dacy: This is the one. It runs down along the railroad tracks.
Mayor Hamilton: My only comment is, I guess I don't mind it as long as it's
conditional use in the BH so we can review each one on it's own merits and
location I don't have as big a problem with.
REVIEW HERMAN FIELD ACCESS PLAN, MARK KOEGLER.
Lori Sietsema: Basically I just wanted to go over what was in the memo and
that we have two feasibility studies and they all come up with that. ~ne Park
and Recreation Commission felt that the best option was to go with the Forest
Avenue. It would be an extension of Forest Avenue and then building a
driveway off of Forest Avenue to where the parking lot would be located. The
question was whether or not that extension should be constructed as a driveway
section or urban street sectior~ The Park and Recreation Commission felt that
it should be left up to the people that would be adjacent to that extension
would be assessed for it, whether they wanted it to be set and how it could be
constructed. ~ney indicated that they would rather have it built to a
driveway section rather than an urban section so that was their
recommendation. If you'd like, Bob Sellers is here to go over the cost and
what is involved and the location.
Mayor Hamilton: I think unless councilmembers have any specific questions
about that, I think the costs are very clear and we probably don't need to get
into detail on that.
Councilman Johnson: The only thing, I know there was a large turnout at the
Park and Rec Commission on this one.
Councilman Boyt: I don't think we're going to r._~ to go through that again.
12
City Cour~il Meeting - December 7, .1987
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so either.
fbunci lman Boyt: _ _
it's my sense that the City Council' is goirg to approve the
recommendation as made by the Park and Bec Commission unless you would
have serious difficulty accepting that. If you do have difficulty accp ting
Option #1, which is the least expensive of the options then I could see maybe
it's worth your time and our time to listen to you
Mayor Hamilton: I perceive the same thing that Bill does. That the Council
is going to select Option 91.
Marv Scheferli: Is this all been cut and dry and gone through? It's all
settled?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we've voted on anything yet so could you state
your question I guess. I 'm not sure what your concern is.
Mary Scheferli: Well, has this been approved by the Council to put the road
all the way through to the park?
Mayor Hamilton: That's ~hy ~'re here.
Mary Scheferli: . We did ask about a y~ar ago to have the road abandoned on the
south and also back east again and we were informed by the village that you
should wait because the Park and Recreation was considering putting a road
through there. Apparently now they plan to go ahead. What do they plan to do
where their road turns east to bring the road south into the park? There is
no paper road there now.
Mayor Hamilton: Have you ~ the plan of how the road would enter the park?
Were you notified of how the road looked?
Mary Scheferli: ~hey showed it entering the park way to the east side.
Lori Sietsema: That has ~ revised so it would go between the two property
owner's property. It would not go between, right through the middle of the
lot.
Marv Scheferli: That shows Forest Avenue stops right there where the dark
lines are. The rest is all a paper road by the south and entering east. Is
that intend to go from south at the point of the curve and what do they plan
to do the rest of the way? Condemn the property?
Mayor Hamilton: We haw~'t done anything with that piece as-far as I know.
Gary Warren: Under this alternative that piece would wait until further
development or interest from a developer. The easement would remain dedicated
for use but they would be built on at this time under this alternative.
13
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Marv Scheferli: Tne reason I ask about the bend in the road is because we own
the section F, It's divided by the road but it's not feasible to build on the
lower half. Tne only way you could build would be abandoning that section of
road and taking one piece of property to build a single house on. Going back
to your park that's buried in the back down there, have you considered police
protection for that park? You're hiding back there where there's no visible
access to it. It will be hard to police. We've already had problems in the
summertime with kids coming down where the road ends and walking down through
there and having beer parties and wild parties and everything else. What's
going to happen if you put a road down there to this tiny little park?
Mayor Hamilton: I think the issue is not whether or not there will be beer
parties. The issue here this evening is how we're going to put the road
through so the residents can access the park. We've had the property there
for a long time. We do not have access to it and that's what we're trying to
determine. If there is a problem, it will be enforced by our law enforcement
people the same as every other park in the con~unity.
Marv Scheferli: I felt that you consider making an access where it's much
more visible and easier for the police to patrol rather than burying it down
in the woods back there.
Mayor Hamilton: We've done a lot of studying of an access to this park and
this is the most feasible way to do it. That's why we hired a consultant to
try to tell us what they feel is the best way to do it and it seems as though
this is the plan that they've come up with that they feel is the most logical
and most feasible way to do it. It's not an easy piece of ground to access.
Mary Scheferli: I understand your problem. Who would we see about having that
path going to the east end or could that be left as a paper road now too?
Mayor Hamilton: For right now I think what the City Er~ineer, Gary Warren is
saying is that it would remain as it is until a developer or somebody comes
along. You could come in and request that it be abandoned and we would have
to consider that.
Marv Scheferli: Taxes have gone so high. We're paying $1,100.00 for a little
piece of property and you've got houses all around there valued at $100,000.00
to $125,000.00, is that what you tax?
Mayor Hamilton: I think as you just stated a few minutes ago, you requested
that that be abandoned a year or so ago and we said that we weren't ready to
do it at that time since we wanted to figure out how we were going to access
the park first. Now what I'm saying is, if you wish to resubmit a request to
abandon that piece of property, then you should do so since we know how we're
going to access the park now.
Marv Scheferli: .Fine, thank you.
Betty Lang: We're the other property owner along that part and I guess I just
wanted to back track for a minute and ask, at what time was this approved to
be a park or was that just assumed because it w~s donated property?
14
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: In about 1973 Mr. Herman donated this land to 'the City to be
a city park. Along with the lar~ he also gave the City, $35,S0S.00 in cash to
be used for the development of the park. Ever since that time the land has
sat as it is today, unuseable because there be- not ~_n a good access to get
into it.
Betty Lang: But at no point then, the Council did not have to vote on it?
Mayor Hamilton: No, it has always ~ intended to a city park. Th~ only
question was, how were we going to get there and how would we park cars and
what would we do with the lar~, how would we develop it once we had access to
it'.
Betty Lang: Our property is on one side of the proposed road. Is our
property going to be condemnned in that spot? Are we going to be reimbursed
for any a~ount going through the property?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know, are we taking s(~e of their property Gary?
Gary Warren: No, it's an existing easement that we would be constructing the
road on.
Bob Sellers: From here to here, there is no easement or city park.
Mayor Hamilton: So we would need to acquire some of your property if that's
the property that you own. Whoever owns it we would ~ to acquire it or get
an eamament across it.
Councilman Boyt: Aren't we saying then, when we put in that gravel road,
we're going to have to have the easement before then or we don't have access
so at some point then this winter, if this is approved, we would have to go
through the process of acquiring that property.
Mayor Hamilton: Does that answer your question adequately?
Betty Lang: Yes.
Councilman Horn: It looks to me like this is all, it shows part of Lot 31 on
both sides of the access.
C~ry Warren: The ownership on the west side if Lang if you can see the
connection line there.
Bob Sellers: Lang owns Lot 30 and this part of Lot 31.
Councilman Horn: So LOt 31 has multiple ownership?
Bob Sellers: That' s correct.
Mary Scheferli: We own LOt 31, this 300 feet. That's where the property-line
is.
15
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept staff's
recommendation to construct Herman Field access off of Forest Avenue and
constructed as a private driveway option as represented in Option 91. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: I think it would be appropriate to admit that Mr. Scheferli
is quite probably right in that this park will be difficult to police.
Unfortunately it's not the only one in Chanhassen that's difficult to police
and we do have an obligation to the City to try to open up parkland so people
can use it but we also went through this past summer a rather intensive
enforcement effort in our parks. So when this opens up, keep the lines hot if
you feel it's not being used properly.
Betty Lang: I just have one more question. Have the plans for the park been
finalized?
Mark Koegler: Tae plans for this park date back to late 1984 when they were
approved by the Park and Recreation Commission and the Council and they were
run past the neighbors at that time. In fact, one of the representatives up
there on the Park and Recreation Commission at that time lived in that area so
it was extensively reviewed and that plan has remained in effect. It's been
tried to be implemented for the last 3 1/2 years.
Councilman Geving: Mark, maybe you could kind of give us a two minute thumb
nail sketch of the type of park that it will be so the homeowners know what
kind of develolm~_nt is going to go in there.
Mark Koegler: The Herman Field was designed to be a unique facility within
Chanhassen's system. The topography and the soil conditions are fairly
limiting in that area and as a result, the park that was drawn UP that the
Commission could finally agree upon had a ball diamond for neighborhood play
purposes. Just casual play purposes only. Then the park contained picnic
areas and what we called an extensive interactive kind of play area where
there would be natural areas for kids to run around and play at with play
structures and things interspersed among the trail system. Essentially that
was the tone of the park. It's a very low intensive park which is a unique
facility as far as Chanhassen parks go. On the eastern end would be the
picnic area. That may shift a little bit now as a result of the relocation of
the park but essentially the most intensive activity on the site is picnicing
and neighborhood ball baseball diamond.
Marv Scheferli: As the two homeowners in regards to the road that's going
through, the Lang's and us, the first we heard about it was last year when we
came in and asked about abandoning that road. We never knew about this being
a park. So who they invited in I don't know. If it was the people who live
in Minnewashta Heights or something like that or the woods but we as property
owners, we didn't even know about the meeting. We were never notified.
Mayor Hamilton: Tney are all public meetings and they're in the paper and we
try to notify everybody as much as we can but this park has been under
development and attempted development for years and I guess as property
16
City Council ~ting - December 7, 1987
owners, I guess I assumed that everybody that lived in that area knew that
this was going to be a park and would have some interest in it being park and
be somewhat involved. I know that Mr. Schoenecker who was the man that was
the Park and Bec C~m~ission member at that time.
Betty Lan~: Mr. Schoenecker happens to be in Minnewashta Shores. That whole
area was notified. Not the property of Minnewashta Woods where the people
live. Minnewashta Woods was the area that should have ~ contacted, not
Shores. They were contacted because they had an organized homeowners group
and we did not.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, that certainly is a problem although we normally would
contact individual homeowners but there's certainly nothirg cast in concrete
so if you feel you would like to make comments on how the park is going to be
developed, I would suggest that you contact Lori Sietsema and you can get a
copy of the plan as it's been proposed. If you would wish to make comments on
it, you can come to a fbuncil meetirg sc~etime and do it as a visitor's
presentation and we could put it (~ an agenda itom for future discussion.
Councilman Boyt: Or go to the Park and Rec.
Mayor Hamilton: It might be best to start here then we can send it back to
Park and Rec if that's needed. Maybe you'll like the way it's going to be.
We're going to have a nice park I think. There's a lot of passive area and
just trails going through there.
Betty Lang: I guess it's just that I saw what Greenwood Shores had to go
through with the vandali~ an~ all the things ar~ you didn't approve a parking
area for them but you gave it to us.
Mayor Hamilton: This is a little bit bigger park than Greenwood Shores. It's
a totally different situation really.
Councilman Johnson: Maybe we have approved a parking area for Greenwood
Shores.
Mayor Hamilton: No, not any longer.
Councilman Boyt: What we said with Greenwood Shores was that we would give
them a summer in which we would try to control the problems they pointed out.
I think we did. I think that the people in Greenwood Shores should be
prepared for a parking area.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we're getting way off the subject here. Those issues
can be discussed at the Park and Bec Co~mission and dealt with at that time.
REQUEST TO RECONSIDER TRAIL EASEMENT ALONG THE ~ LOTS IN T BAR K ESTATES,
KAREN SLATf{ER.
Lori Sietsema: This item was brought to the Park and Recreation Commission's
attention just a couple of weeks ago. Mrs. Slather has requested that this
17
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
trail easement along the 886 contour line, which is designed to be a natural
trail outlined on that trail plan as a natural trail, she would like that to
be reconsidered. Apparently she is having trouble selling her lots with that
trail along there. Tne Park and Recreation felt that the City's commitment to
trails throughout the city is important. They did not want to rearrange the
trail plan at this point and did not feel that this would have a severe impact
on the homes on those lots. They recommended that the trail alignment stay as
it is.
Karen Slather: We have a trail easement on one side of the property and
another easement on the other side. Two easements. We're not complaining
about the one on Lyman Blvd. but this is cutting right through there and I
wouldn't want people walking right through the middle of my yard either on a
trail. You talk about conservation, that's why people are wanting to buy
this property because being close to nature and having access to the swamp.
Of course they would be interested in caring for the swamp. I just don't see
that, we've lost four buyers already because of that.
Lori Sietsema: To show you how it fits into the trail plan, this would be
located at the dots right there going along the bottom of her lots. There's a
hill and a wooded area and it would be along the lower side of those.
Mayor Hamilton: That trail is proposed to be completed when, around the year
3000 or so?
Lori Sietsema: It would be in the later phase of the trail plan and it would
never be a bituminous trail. It's proposed to be a nature trail that would
connect into the Bluff Creek Trail system which is also a nature trail.
Karen Slather: When buyers get ahold of that news, they drop. I just don't
think it's fair to cut that land right in two.
A1 Klingelhutz: Mrs. Slather asked me to comment on this. We are handling
the real estate for her. She's sure not fibbing anybody when we get offers
for a piece of property, at first we thought it was a conservation easement
which I wouldn't have any problem with a conservation easement to protect the
swamp but it doesn't allow the public to use it as a trail system. That's the
way we presented it when we sold these lots to the people. When we found out
that it's a public trail, all of these people, we had all three lots sold, all
three lots cancelled out because of this. May be a little bit of my blame
because of the fact I thought it was a conservation easement instead of a
public trail easement but because it was not mentioned as a public trail
easement, I felt that these people had a right to get their earnest money
back. Now when we tell them that it's a regular trail easement, about 9 of
the 10 people immediately tell you forget it. We don't want people walking
through our backyard. It looks to be me, when you've got a double trail
system on a small piece of property like this, a 20 foot easement along the
road plus the 12 foot easement, not on the back side of the lot line but
actually through the property, it creates a big devaluation of the property.
Lori, put that trail system thing back up there that showed the section of
Bluff Creek. When you look on the east side of this so called swamp there,
there is no trail easement on the east side. It follows TH 101 around the
18
City fbuncil Meeting - December 7, 1987
swamp and then it goes up to Lyman Blvd., goes down to the swamp and then to
goes back into the Slather property, back to Lawrence Kline property line. It
just seems to me that a trail that goes nowhere like that ~n one end and
possibly the year 2020 before it would even be extended around that property,
is a little bit much to expect for a property owner to give up a valuable
price for their piece of property.
Mayor Hamilton: It appears as though it doesn't go an~re o~ either ~d.
Lori Sietsema: We are making efforts to connect that right in there. Tim
Erhart owns this property right in .here and he has already put in much of the
trail going to the north on that so there are plans to make that connection so
it would be looped.
Mayor Hamilton: Why can't you connect up with Lyman Blvd. then? You don't
need to have tw~ of ~.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have ~ts to the east or west properties?
A1 Klingelhutz: Not at this time.
Councilman Johnson: How far do we have to go east and west to get to
existing trails? IR really trying to see if this is a logical place to have
a trail that connects to someplace where we have a ~ for people to move
back ar~ forth or if it's just like an abandoned railroad spur off of tt~ main
track in that we do have Bluff Creek covered. If this was part of the Bluff
Creek trail system where we're trying to follow Bluff Creek, I have a whole
lot of support for it. Could you point on this map where this trail is?
Al Klingelhutz: This would be the property right here. This property line
extends down to somewhere in here. ~his is TH 101 here and this is the 10
acres that you subdivided into three lots. This property lines extends to
down here. This is the trail system going through the lots, three lots on the
T Bar K property. This little piece here ba_~ not got an easement at the
present time. That would be on the Lawrence Kline property. This has not got
anything at the present time_ That little map that shows another t_railway
~t to make a connection on Lyman Blvd. coming down to this system here.
Councilman Johnson: Is that on a property line or anything?
Al Klingelhutz: Actually it would be on the 60 acres there. The 20 feet on
this property w~uld be right up along here.
Councilman Johnson: This is a request for us to reconsider.
Al Klingelhutz: This portion of the trail system, nothing has been done.
That's a different piece of property.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to -_cc more information before I reconsider
this on the entire trail system that this is a connection with. Whethe~ the
trail system will make more sense going up and connecting to Lyman than making
that 90 degree turn just near Lyman and going to the east.
19
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
A1Klingelhutz: Actually this is the proposed 20 foot easement along here.
This is the Bluff Creek trail system here.
Councilman Johnson: I can see a need to have the Bluff Creek nature trail
connecting into the Bluff Creek trail system from Lyman personally. Whether
it's from TH 101...
A1Klingelhutz: We have it here or from TH 101 too.
Councilman Johnson: See, we can already get it connected from the Erhart
property it looks like around there. I don't think I have enough information
to vote on this tonight.
Lori Sietsema: I think Mark can clear up some of those questions that you
have and tell you the logic of why it's aligned the way it is.
Mark Koegler: The philosophy that went into some of this, first of all
basically the entire southern area south of Lyman Blvd., a lot of the input of
where those trail alignments are actually sitting came from Tim Erhart from
the Planning Commission. He's spent several weekends down there walking that
territory and mapping out what he thought were the best corridors for use.
That's the Bluff Creek system I think everybody is familiar with. These are
meant to be connections to that extending on up and radiating out. Tne reason
this middle segment was put in here was simply because of the low wet area
that's here and an attempt to get around that. To do a combined trail if
necessary to get back down to Tim's property and be able to come back in
again so that's the philosophy behind that. That connection could me made to
Lyman and then around also. That is an alternative. The intent was to keep
it as a natural trail as much as possible.
Mayor Hamilton: Go back to the map there once if you would Mark. You said
there is a trail that goes around Tim Erhart's property, where is his house in
relation to that and maybe he wants people walking around his place, stopping
in and saying hello.
Mark Koegler: I don't know if he wants to invite them in for coffee but he
certainly does want them to have access to that property in accordance with
the comments that he made. I believe the home, I'm not 100% sure, I think it
sits somewhere up in here. He's bee in the process of acquiring land over in
this area. It's my understanding that he's been developing on his own, for
both his use and the general public's use, a private trail will be opened for
that purpose.
Councilman Boyt: First, I think that the Council needs to keep in mind that
we have a loop here and as soon as we remove that piece of it, we'll lose the
loop. We can have 95% of the rest of it and it won't work. So to make that
loop available, and Tim Erhart has already agreed to give a good bit of that
loop, to let 10% of it keep us from being able to use the other 90% of it
doesn't strike me as very logical. ~ this piece of property, you mentioned
that we're running it through the property rather than on the boundary but
we're running it on the boundary of the marsh. They're not going to walk out
in that marsh and grow grass or do anything else out in that marsh. Tnere's a
20
City Oouncil Meeting - December 7, 1987
32 foot drop down to that trail. There's a heavy star~ of trees between the
building site and that trail. So on the one hand we have a very basic
principle in trails, that you've got to have all the parts to make it work.
This one is probably as good as place for trails as we're ever goi_ng to find
because it's significantly below the buildirg pad ar~ is well sheltered with
heavy trees. I can understand that not everybody is going to be willing to
have a trail run through their property ar~ that's one of the reasons why we
have to put it in now rather than try to go back later after people have
already purchased that property and put it iD. They need to know when they
buy the property that that's where the City intends to have it's trail. I
think it might help your buyers if they realized that that trail was a non-
mechanized type of trail. I read your comments in Park a~d Rec, or Al's
comments, about the concerns that mini-bikes a~] such would go down that
trail. That's not the intended use for that trail and those people would be
illegally on that property just as they would be if it wasn't a trail ar~ they
chose to run their mini-bikes down there. It would be a bit of an enforcement
problem either way but it certainly Isn't the intended use for that trail
I have two summary comments. One of them is, as you can
probably tell, I very definitely support having this trail easement in place
where it is now. My second comment is, I think we're going to have a tough
time reconsidering it unless I missed the Minutes from our last council
meeting that indicated who voted positively on this issue because the only way
we can reconsider is if somebody who voted positively on the issue brings it
up to reconsider.
Councilman Horn: I must have missed something in all this because it appears
to me that if you take that part out of it, you don't open the loop at all.
All you do is extend the loop. The further trail easement, which looks like
it adds about another 150 feet to get up to the Lyman Blvd. trail. You don't
have the loop closed anyway because of TH 1~1. All we're doing is including
another additional 15~ feet of TH 101 in a complete loop. I guess I missed
Bill's comments saying we're going to miss the loop and cut out 10% of it to
lose access to 9~%. It appears to me if you're trying to k~ an all passive
trail, we don't have a loop because we have to go down to TH 1~1. All this
will do, if we take that out of there, it will mean you will have to go a
little farther down TH 101 which is a relatively short distance. I'm afraid I
missed the point of what we're getting at.
Councilman Geving: I was looking at that original slide, it seems to me, ar~
I've walked the back part of this. I was looking for mushrooms one day ar~ I
found some down in this area on the lower side there, there's quite a drop on
the back end of these three lots. Why that trail was looped bo the east to
try to connect to TH 101 along the 'path, of what I call a swamp basically,
didn't make any sense to me because I think they could do the same thing by
coming directly north and hitting Lyman Blvd. and getting to the easement on
Lyman ar~ accomplishing the same purpose. All we really wanted to do, if
that's the intent as Mark stated, is to make a loop. To reach the Bluff Creek
trail you can accomplish that and I~ sure that we can go back. Now I don't
know if your client would give us that easement Mr. Klingelhutz, on the west
end of Lot 1 but I think that if we eliminiated that 886 contour and went
directly north and then east on Lyman, we would have the trail looped the way
we want it and I'd he much in favor of doing that. There's no guarantee that
21
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Larry Kline would ever give us an easement across his property to make that
loop. I have no reason to believe that he would because it would be splitting
his property too so I guess I'd be in favor of, and I don't know how the
vote's going to go on this or if we can vote even, to eliminate this
particular 886 contour line and bring the line straight, directly north and
connect it with Lyman and forget about trying to make a loop. It's not going
to happen. That ' s how I feel.
Mayor Hamilton: My comments are, I'm a little miffed when we make some plans
some years back and always seem to think they're cast in concrete ar~ we can't
adjust them. After all it's just a mechansim to do some planning for
potential future things and when you start drawing lines across, putting
trails in across people's property that, in my opinion, start nowhere and end
nowhere and have no way for anyone to get to them, other than the three people
who might live there or someone across the stree who might be able to walk
across the street, it seems as though we're creating a trail for no one to use
and perhaps the concern is not a major one because I don't think anyone will
use it anyway. But I don't see any reason to put a trail in, especially
leaving it in a configuration that does interfere with the sale of the
property. Especially when there are other alternatives that could accomplish
the same thing just as well as this would. So people can still walk the area
and look at it and get the same effect as if it was to be used like this.
Also, I think Dale's comment is very germain that there is no reason why the
Kline's would ever want to give an easement across their property or future
owners. Why would they split their property and have people walking across.
We don't have that easement now and I suspect we won't get it. So I think
that this trail easement should not be in existence. Now I'd like to ask
Roger about the reconsideration issue. If you would refresh my memory on
reconsidering items such as this.
Roger Knutson: First off, I'd like to ask a question about the status of the
easement. Has the easement been recorded?
Barbara Dacy: It' s been executed and it' s in the process.
Roger Knutson: Has it been recorded at the County?
Al Klingelhutz: I'm not sure. Mrs. Slather has signed the easement I believe
and it was sent back to the City.
Barbara Dacy: It was suk~itted for signature and it would be a matter of me
going upstairs and checking the files to see if we received notice back.
Roger Knutson: If it's been recorded, you have to go through a public hearing
process to vacate the easement. If it's not been, then you can do it by
reconsideration. If you're handling it as a reconsideration, it's a two-
thirds vote.
Mayor Hamilton: Alright, then we need to find out if it's been recorded.
Will it take you a while Barb?
Barbara Dacy: It will take me a minute. I'll be right back.
22
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Karen Slather: It's wonderful gardening land right there. That's where-we
had our garden.
Councilman Boyt: Rather than get into another one, maybe we can talk a little
bit more about this one, if that would be alright, Dale, the area that you
were walking in, people aren't going to be able to walk iD, That's what you
were saying..
Councilman Geving: I was there for a particular purpose. I wouldn't walk
that area if it was a nature trail. I'd have no reaso~ to be down there.
Councilman Boyt: As far as someone else giving us land for trails, we have
to work on the good faith premise that when that lar~ comes up for sale,
because it's on our trail map, the City will have the option to ask for that
land in easement or purchase it. My understar~ing is that is how the trail
ar~ park planning system works so we can say 'where does it make sense to have
Mayor Hamilton: But as you do that, you don't .say this is where it's going to
be forever. There is no reason you can't charge a line or change a trail to
accomodate property owners.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with you. We're talking about running a trail along
probably one of the least intrusive areas that you could ever choose. Next to
a marsh and underneath a hill.
Councilman Geving: That was the question I asked and I didn't get a response
from your client Al, Mrs. Slather. Whether or not, if we as a Council, and
I don't know how this vote is going to go but if we were to eliminate this
contour as a trail and ask for an easement along your west property line of
Lot 1 in lieu of that so we could still make our loop, would you be agreeable
to that?
Al Klingelhutz: ...she has a letter stating that if she wanted to get final
plat approval and be able to sell the property, she would have to sign the
trail easement.
Councilman Geving: Answer my question tho~h Al. Would your client, our
applicant, approve of giving us a trail easement on Lot 1 on the west end in
lieu of this trail easement that's already here and it's been approved and
passed and if the Council were to so choose to eliminate that, we still need
to make the loop. That is to bring that line directly north to Lyman.
Karen Slather: Then would you go on the other side of this line?
Councilman Geving: We'd go just on the other side of that little metal shed
there, wherever that is. We need to make that loop.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we started out, I was asking Roger a question about
how this can be resolved. It has not ~ recorded as I heard Barb say. Now
what is the position?
23
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Roger Knutson: First would be a vote to reconsider. That would take a two-
thirds vote. Four positive votes to reconsider.
Mayor Hamilton: It takes four votes to reconsider. If it's not reconsidered,
what are the applicant's alternatives?
Roger Knutson: She can wait until it's recorded and petition to have it
vacated. A petition to have it vacated is only a simple majority by State
Statute.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to act on that first of all on whether or not
it's even going to be reconsidered because there seems to be many questions
about things that need to be resolved that I don't think we can resolve here
tonight with the information that we have. However, if we should determine
that we wish to reconsider this item and put that back on a future agenda,
that would serum to me to be the best way to handle it.
Councilman Johnson: If we were to reconsider this, we're reconsidering the
entire final plat? Is that the way I see it? This means final plat is gone,
we're starting over again?
Roger Knutson: That's not the request.
Mayor Hamilton: We're being asked to reconsider the trail easement.
Councilman Johnson: One part of it.
Barbara Dacy: Part of condition 3 at the Council action in May.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so they'd still have a preliminary plat and then on
a future meeting we would get all the information and decide upon this issue?
A1 Klingelhutz: I have one last comment. You're sayir~ it would only be a
preliminary plat?
Mayor Hamilton: No, that's not true.
Barbara Dacy: The final has been signed and executed.
Mayor Hamilton: What we said A1 is this would be a reconsideration of the
trail eas~nent period. It has nothing to do with the rest of the plat.
Councilman Johnson: What we would do then at this time is continue on this
meeting and decide whether we want this easement here or not?
Mayor Hamilton: What I would like to do, what I would suggest to the Council
is if we vote to reconsider it, it should be on a future agenda item so we can
have more of the facts available to us, so alternatives can be prepared so we
have more information to deal with at that time so we can take a closer look
at it. If we vote to reconsider it, it does not mean that it's going to be
changed. All I'm saying is we're reconsidering it.
24
71.
City Council ~ting - December 7, 1987
Oouncilman Johnson: Ths~ on a future agenda we will reconsider it? At that
time, how many votes does it take to pass the change? It takes a simple
majority?
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Councilman Johnson: I hate to lose this easement here without having more
information.
Mayor Hamilton: That's exactly what you'd have if it's reconsidered. We
would have additional information to review whe~ it cc~es back on our Council
agenda.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to reconsider the trail
easement alorg the rear lots in T Bar K Estates dated November !7, 1987. All
voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to request that Park and Re= look at the
alternative that Dale was proposing. As to now we, as a Council, are
proposing a change to the trail plan which has not ~ reviewed by Park and'
Rec, I'm not going to be voting to abandon this one without getting the one of
the west side, I'd like the Park and Rec Commission to consider that option
and look that property over to ~ which of these options they would like
before we put it on an agenda. I don't know if we can put that on their
agenda and have d~ne by January 7th.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask our counsel then, Roger, since the Council
has voted to reconsider an item, it would sccm improper to me to send it back
to the Park and Nsc Commission at that time. We have voted to reconsider it
at the Council level, is that not the case or what is the normal procedure
there? I guess I'm not sure what that is.
Roger ~nutson: I guess I don't know what normal is, I haven't seen it done
here before. I think it's within your discretion to keep it here. If you
think s~mething will be gained by ser~irg it there, it's up to you, There's
no law on this.
Councilman Johnson: They're our professional trail planners, that's why I
believe that they should be the people to look at it.
Mayor Hamilton: They are volunteer trail planners.
Councilman Johnson: Alright, they're volunteer trail planners a6d I value
their opinion highly. ~heyhave not looked at the option that Dale has
brought forward ar~ that's the only reason I wanted to reconsider this, is
that was a valuable suggestion and what Dale suggested makes some sense.
Mayor Hamilton: Except I think the applicant is being held up on sellirg her
property now because of this problem. We're trying to deal with the problem.
I think to put them off another period of time while we go back to the Park
and Nec Oommission and then come back to the Council, it's going to be the end
25
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
of January by the time that happens. I'm not sure that that's fair.
Councilman Johnson: When is the next Park and Rec meeting?
Councilman Boyt: Tomorrow night.
Mayor Hamilton: It won't be on that agenda.
Councilman Boyt: There's another point Jay and that is that the Council has
already voted to overturn the vote of the Park and Rec Commission. Tne Park
and Rec Commission was unanimous in not wanting this to go through for
reconsideration so why send it back to the Park and Rec Commission when we've
already told them we're not going to listen to thsm.
Councilman Johnson: Did the Park and Rec Commission have the alternative that
Dale is proposing?
Mayor Hamilton: Tney probably had all alternatives available to them if they
would have seen them. All you have to do is look at it. It's as simple as
that. They're the ones that should be coming up with ideas to propose to us.
They didn't. I think w~ need to move on to the next item.
Councilman Horn: I think we should have Mark prepare to come back to speak to
us about this atlernative.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to amend the agenda to move
the Consent agenda items (h), (a) and (f) to this point in the agenda. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: H. APPROVAL OF SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE
FOR BIDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT.
Councilman Geving: I took this off because this is the most major thing that
we're going to be doing for capital improvements in the autemobile area for
public works this year. It includes an awful lot of items. Dump trucks, 4-
wheet drive service trucks, engineering 4 x 4's, Bobcat's and so forth and I'm
looking at item 4 particularly. Knowing how our community's developing, and I
understand the need. My only comment is, do we really need the 4 x 4 and
Gary, that's why I'm bringing this to you for comment.
Gary Warren: The off road issue is a primary issue plus part of the duties
that I serve as deputy public safety volunteer in our civil defense plan,
there are times where I envision that I will be out in inclement weather and
winter as well, where a 4 x 4 would be necessary. Also, the higher frame, the
axle is what I 'm looking for for what w~ do encounter with new developments.
Councilman Geving: Tne other thought that I had, over the last several years
it's ~_n kind of my observation that we have one or two council members who
have a fair degree of expertise in vehicle. Have owned a number of vehicles.
I think of Mr. Horn, and I would like to suggest that maybe Clark Horn be a
part of this bid specification process when we get into, specifically the
26
City Cour~il Meeting - December 7, .1987
ergir, ccring 4 x 4 or any of the others I know that's one that Clark could
offer s~me advice on. T~at's the o~ly reason I pulled this off.
Mayor Hamilton: I know that Clark has asked for that in th~ past a~ that's
why the specifications were included in the packet so it could be reviewed.
These are all items that have ~_n budgeted. Are needed. Are included in the
budget and if they weren't budgeted for, they would be separate items. I
think w~ should move ahead with ~. They are certainly needed.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the specifications
and authorize to advertise for bids for Public Works Equipment pursuant to the
City Manager's recommendations. Ail voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: For Clark's benefit I would like to direct your attentio~ to
page 3 of the specifications. I think it indicates that we probably don't
need to put all the specifications iD. Item 10, bids must include license
plates labeled manager's vehicle, such being attached to a new Porsche. New
plates and attac~ent are to be buried in the bid. This was done half serious
ar~ half in jest because I think it points out that when we have a budget we
follow our budget. We need eguilmnent and we don't all read through the
specifications. We have a professional staff to do that and I think we ~
APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR COLONY POINt.
Councilman Boyt: I want to see us add the _~__--~- ~ to this develo~t
contract that we have been putting in other development contracts lately
I think we should have a statement in there
saying there will be daily clean-up of blowables. Any materials that would
ter~ to litter the area. Ar~ that the hours of operation would be t/Te. s-m~ as
we used in other developments, 7:~ a.m. to 6:~ p.m. I believe it is,
Mo~ay through Saturday excludirg all Sundays and holidays.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the development
contract for Colony Point as amended by Councilman Boyt with the addition of
the two points he mentioned. Ail voted in favor and motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, HAWKS HILL, MIKE KLINCRr.~3TZ.
Councilman Johnson: Actually I pulled (f) because we weren't given the plat
until right before the thing and I hadn't had a chance to look at the plat. I
wasn't going to vote for it. I've now had a chance to look at the plat and my
comments are over with.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to know if Mr. Davidson is in attendance tonight.
The property owner to the north.
Barbara Dacy: We doubled checked and we haven't heard from him since the
Planning (k~mission m_~ctirg.
27
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Boyt: I think he made a good comment and it's all too true of what
can happen when people buy property without checking with City Hall to see
what can happen to the property surrounding them. Mr. Davidson stated in the
Planning Commission that when he purchased the property using A1 Klingelhutz
as his agent, he was told that the City was moving to a 10 acre ordinance
limit and that there certainly wasn't any indication that the property just to
the south of him would be subdivided into any lots smaller than that. Within
months we see this development brought in by Mike Klingelhutz proposing that
the property be developed into 2 1/2 acre plots. That's awfully unfortunate.
Though I see no particular reason to not allow this, since it came in under
our other ordinance, it seems to me it's just another example that homeowners
have to use every precaution and in that they should include visiting the city
offices before they sign the contract.
A1 Klingelhutz: I wonder if anybody asked of Mr. Davidson about this 2 1/2
acre. Your statement really makes me pretty damn angry because I as a realtor
usually tell people what's going on in the municipality and I'd like to have
Mr. Davidson here tonight and ask him the question. If I actually told him'
that there would be no further subdivision of that land south of his property.
If you want to get him before me, I would personally like to ask him that
question.
Councilman Boyt: I appreciate your response. I can take by the tone that you
certainly didn't intend to imply nor did you tell Mr. Davidson that and it
helps me make my decision.
A1 Klingelhutz: I absolutely did not tell him that.
Councilman Boyt: But that's what he claimed at the Planning Con~nission meeting.
A1 Klingelhutz: Mr. Davidson bought a piece of land there for the same reason
I think that Mike Klingelhutz bought his piece of land. To have a place to
build his house.
Mayor Hamilton: I would just like to comment that Bill's comments in no way
reflect the rest of the Council's feelings about Al Klingelhutz' feelings on
this piece of property.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the preliminary
plat for Hawks Hill pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
CONSIDER POTENTIAL 1988 REFERENDUM ITEMS:
A. COMMUNITY CENTER, FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY
CENTER TASK FORCE.
Mayor Hamilton: We have three items that we're considering for referendum
potentially in 1988. The Community Center, we have the final report and
recommendation from the community Center Task Force this evening. We have the
Trail Plan and Lake Ann improvements by the Park and Recreation Commission and
28
City fbuncil Meeting - ~r 7; 1987
remodeling of the Fire Station which will be presented by Nick Reuhl of EOS
Corporation. First of all the Co~.unity Oenter, a final report and
recommendation frcm the (kmm~nity Center Task Force.
Don Ashworth: Jim Mady will be presenting the overview and then he will be
introducing Bob Davis who will go through the plan itself.
Jim Mady: ~ne Task Force met for the past eight months to revieW the
feasibility of building a community center in the city of Chanhasse~. We
initially set out our goals and our objectives and set out our plan what our
purpose was going to be. We first off decided, or looked at what the needs of
the community were for a recreational facility to be in the community meeting
facilities for the whole community. We also wanted to review the opportunity.
to present to the city in obtaining the HRA building, the Frontier Lumber and
the lease of that facility. We wanted to find out what the impact to the
taxpayers were to building a center. What it was going to cost the taxpayer
of the city and we wanted to look at th~ possibility of a community center
being a magnet, a draw, pulling the entire community together. What we found
was that a community center built in the old Instant Wehb location was an
unprecedented opportunity. We could build a 4 million dollar facility for 2.6
million dollars. We found that the community currently is split. Many of our
citizens are traveling to the communities of Chaska, ~en Prarie, Excelsior,
Minnetonka to participate in various recreational facilities as well as to use
meeting areas in being able to get together. We looked at the tax impact and
found that a community center built in the downtown area could provide up to
$250,~0~.~ in additional taxes to the city from other developments in ar~
arour~ the community center. We saw that there was a shortage of recreational
and community meeting spaces in the city. We presently can not handle meeting
activities we would like to plan in the city. We found also that the
community center could be self-sufficient. It could, in itself, raise enough
funds to operate itself without being a drain on the taxpayers. For these
reasons, the Task Force voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council
that the referendum placed on the ballot to the voters of Chanhasse~ to build
a community center as shown in the materials provided to the Council. Now
I'll have Bob Davis go over the community center plan that we came up with and
he will be able to answer any questions you have on it.
Bob Davis: This is a larger scale map of what I think you all have received.
Let me just fill in a little bit of information for you. My name is Bobert
Davis. I'm an architect. I've worked for the city's Community Center Task
Force for about 2 1/2 months. You all have a copy of this on a smaller scale.
Let me give you some orientation and point out a few features that are not
specifically labeled. The building referred to on the south line is the line
across that is labeled community road. The west side goes all the way up, was
labeled ... That's the structure that's existing. The south 80 feet of that
is a concrete structure, concrete walls, concrete roof, substantial building.
Our direction is to within that structure construct racquet ball courts and
community rooms. To the north of that what we're labeling as the swimming
pool area, the idea is to remove the roof, remove the columns that support the
roof and build the pool within that under a new roof structure over it which
is highlighted in the section here. The area would have some sky lighting
with several levels with pedestrian walkway on the one side. That would
29
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
continue around. A good share of that would be enclosed with..., hopefully
from the point of view of safety and monitoring and using a narrower corridor
than the typical feeling of seeing through to the pool, it would be a
comfortable feeling I think to walk down some of these long corridors. Going
on from there, you have an area labeled gymnasium and there is shown two
basketball court layouts going north and south and one going east and west
over the top of the other two. The north 66 feet of that gymnasium is what I
refer to as the Frontier Building or the old lumberyard building. ~ae balance
is new structure as is the structure here to the southeast. The ice arena is
a new structure. Tne retail just to the south which is labeled the Animal
Fair is about 6,000 square feet under city ownership which would be used for
retail. Perhaps in a trade for some of this property or under some facility
to bring a tenant in there. Either sold or leased or contacted in someway in
developing the plan here. Hoisington and Associates has recommended 492
parking spaces needed to accomodate the civic center facilities, swimming pool
and gymnasium, racquet ball, community rooms and the ice arena. We're showing
approximately 95% of that, 474. That includes 180 which are new to the south
of the bowling area and this is worked out with Hoisington in what is existing
and what is proposed now, we have a count of plus 180 here. To the east we're
adding 37 directly south of the ice arena. North we're adding 40, north of
the ice arena and 162 to the east of the arena. There are 55 labeled across
very close to the railroad tracks. ~nose 55 are on the railroad tracks right-
of-way. There is a strong feeling that that is a viable directio~ to ask for
an easement from the railroad to be used for parking. It's a narrow easement
compared to some of the other areas along the railroad track. It's not an
area that could ever be developed. Parking would be a reasonable use of that
space. 0 to the east we're showir~ a couple areas in the pink or red
color. Just north of the ice arena we're showing future development from
Bloomberg Companies of the theater. That would take out some parking spaces
if that theater was built. At that time there would be a need in our planning
for a parking ramp. This area here would accomodate 330 to 340 cars. At time
point I think we would also have to reroute this road and perhaps lose this
building. It is Fred Hoisington's feelings that the ramp in here at that
location could accomodate several levels, three in fact. One accessing from
the higher elevation from the east and the lowest from the south. It's a very
tight situation with this building and that building would eventually go. The
other building here, the existing mill shop, would have to be taken out to
accomodate this 162 parking lot. Up in the other corner here is the second
level of the pool showing the circulation around the small seating area. On
top of the racquetball sectopm here which indicates our character which we're
trying to achieve in the center of this area. We feel that was a good way to
accomodate somebody coming in from the various corridors that we would have in
this center. The swimming pool with a skylighted area and a sparkle of
acticity and light and we felt a good atmosphere to the community center.
Are there any questions?
Councilman Johnson: I like what's going on here mostly. The elevated
corridor on the west side of the pool, I'm not 100% sure what all the need
for that is. It's probably a minor cost item. The corridor on the west side
of the swimming pool that goes from the community rooms up to the retail
center.
30
City Council ~ting - December 7, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: Circulation area?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, just a circulation corridor.
Bob Davis: In the section that's showirg the seatirg area to the south of the
pool, overlooking the pool on the second level, would be adequate for that
seating. That seatir~ perhaps could be located in another place. That's an
ideal place for in terms of a swimming meet, to watch a swimming meet. 7~ere
certainly are other possibilities of arrang~~ for seating.
Councilman Johnson: So that's the point where it narrows down here behirxt the
racquetball courts?
Bob Davis: One of our thoughts, we have some expansion space above the locker
rooms for visual expansion in the future. We have expansion space over the
community rooms. They're only one story high and that existing structure is
20 feet high. That corridor could in the future lead down to a secor~ level
here. Locker rooms are down farther to a second level or some future
development over the existing community rooms proposed here beyond the racquet
ball.
Cour~ilman Johnson: ~hat I'm talking about is the corridor.
Bob Davis: The corridor, right, on the w~st side.
Councilman Johnson: Right. It comes from the north going south. You think
that's a necessary connection north to south?
Bob Davis: It certainly is with the proposed seating. Seating from the
secor~t level.
Councilman Johns6n: Right, but you can get to that seating from the south
with a partial corridor but you're just saying it would be better to come
either way?
Bob Davis: No. This is the only access right to it right now unless we
provided a stairway or seine other connection frem the the west. That corridor
does not go all the way around. It only goes south to the seating area.
Mayor Hamilton: I~ not sure why you have a problem with the corridor.
don't understand what the problem is.
Councilman Johnson: I'm looking at the lower drawing.
Bob Davis: Okay, the north/south corridor here?
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Bob Davis: It's providing circulation as a second route around the community
rooms or access into the bowling center from the side ar~ there is an ex itway
arxt a corner that's retained by the City there.
31
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Johnson: Are we looking that we will have an access to the bowling
center at that point?
Bob Davis: Yes.
Don Ashworth: They accomodated a cut out in their building plans so the
actual cut out as it would go into this corridor currently exists. On that
west side there are two levels of corridors. The bottom level which would go
to the Bowling Center, outside north and then up. Then the upper, corridor
which goes to the seating area that Bob has proposed.
Councilman Johnson: In other words, we could park in the future parking ramp
next to the future hotel and come in that way and make it to the community
rocms a lot simplier?
Bob Davis: There are really four directions to come into this.
Councilman Johnson: Do w~ have some elevators in this area?
Bob Davis: No. We will have to have a ramp from the south entrance into the
community rooms. We're changing elevation of approximately 4 feet from the
entry level here to this circulation level so for handicap access we will have
the ramp with an elevation of plus 4 feet.
Councilman Johnson: Can handicap get to view the swimming pool?
BOb Davis: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: In the seating area?
Bob.Davis: Our pool deck area is 956 which is the same as the south and east
entrances.
Councilman Johnson: So handicap would only be able to get to the deck area
unless the came frcm a different direction?
DOn Ashworth: Again, if you parked over on that west side, going through that
corridor, all of that is at 960 elevation so you would have to know that that
would be an access for handicap. That you could get through there.
Councilman Geving: I guess I was quite surprised by the Task Force report. I
had talked briefly with the Task Force on one evening and I was convinced that
we still hadn't found the best sight in the community for a community center.
I asked them to search out throughout the community areas that might be
considered and not concentrate just on the downtown area. Specifically do not
concentrate in the Bloomberg complex and my thoughts were that we should take
a look at all of the freestanding opportunities. So when this Task Force
report came to me on Friday, I had a chance to review it and I'm still
skeptical about the plan that centers the whole operation in the Bloomberg
complex. For one reason, I'm afraid that if this facility is built as I see
it here on your sketch, there is virtually no expansion capability ever.
There's no place to ever build anything onto the structure once it's
32
City oouncil Meeting - ~r 7 ~ 1987
constructed. There's no place to go. Ign not totally convinced; as the
report indicated here, that it would be cheaper to build this site someplace
else. I don't see the dollar figures showing that difference in our report
and I think that we asked for that. ~he savings of a million and a half
dollars, I'm not convinced of that. I am very much concerned about parking
for this facility. I see the r~ here for approximately, what we'd say, 490
parking spaces. There's a potential for the expansion of the Dinner Theater
to add another theater and if that takes place, we're going to lose all of the
40 on the north side of the ice arena, a great deal of those that are on the
east side and be replaced with a ramp. My question to you and anybody else.
who like to respond, once that ramp is constructed, would our citizens be
paying for that parking in the ramp? I ~ to know that? I ~ to know if
that was considered by the grou~ When Bloomberg expar~s his Dinner Theater
and he removes those parking spaces from this facility, where do our citizens
park? Do w~ park in his ramp and do w~ pay for our parking?
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have any other questions?
Councilman Geving: Yes I do.
Mayor Hamilton: Ckay, keep them oaning.
Councilman Geving: I see that the group here is proposing one complex at 2.5
million dollars. We have four issues ahead of us as far as I'm concerned on
the referendum. I've always in my mind split tt~ ice arena away from the
community center. It made a lot of sense to me to split the 1 million dollar
ice arena away from the community center so we'd have two issues. One for 1.5
million dollars and one for a million dollars along with the Fire Department's
request for a million dollars ar~ the request for a million dollars for the
trail plan. I originally thought that we were going to present all four of
those issues to the citizens on a referendum. Now tonight I~ a little bit
surprised. It looks like you're going for the whole bundle in one shot at 2
1/2 million dollars. Maybe you can explain that to me Jim.
Mayor Hamilton: Before you do that, do you have any other questions?
Councilman Geving: Yes I do.
Mayor Hamilton: Please finish your questions.
Councilman Geving: I have a number of questions? I want to see a breakdown
of the cost for an off-site location outside of the downtown area. I'd like
to know what's going to happen if and when the expansion takes place by Mr.
Bloomberg on his facility and what happens to those parking spaces that will
be lost. Will our citizens be paying for his parking ramp? I need to know
that. No one, as far as I know, ever contacted the Senior Citizens to ask
them whether or not they'd be interested in spac~ in this facility ar~ yet you
have 800 square feet for senior rooms. I've talked with the seniors as late
as last Saturday and I talked to several people who said they were never
interested in moving into a community facility. ~hey are very happy in the
elementary school. I don't know where that item came from. Then I'd like to
have some facts and figures on the heat generated by the proposed ice arena.
33
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
It says here that a cost factor of $50,000.00 could be saved if the ice arena
were to be built and you'd save that heat from the ice generating machine. Is
that a fact or is it just a selling point? ~hat's the first time I've seen
that. I have seen no figures that would support that or no indication from
someone who is an engineer who would support that. Then finally I have just
one more question for Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, who do you work for? Were you
hired by the HRA to do this architectural scheme or is this part of the
Blocmberg project? I need to know that answer and that's a fair question?
Mayor Hamilton: Let me just go back through these questions. You asked a
number of them. First of all, I'd like to ask Jim Mady on behalf of the
committee to respond to the site question that Dale asked about considering
other sites in the community and I think he also was curious about the cost of
other sites. He apparently feels that the committee did not consider any
other sites and I wish you would address that.
Jim Mady: We looked Dale at possibly putting a community center out at Lake
Ann on the land that we currently own there. We looked at possibly the
Charlie James property along West 78th. We discussed possibly a number of
other areas throughout the community. Not specific to land parcels but just
areas. It was felt that number one, the cost of building a facility free
standing in other areas at 4 million dollars was more than the committee, the
Task Force itself wanted to spend.. We looked at the difficulty of building
another facility outside the MUSA line where a number of the locations would
have been and just didn't feel that was feasible. The inability to have sewer
available to us, right on the main lines and without water, it just didn't
make sense to us to do that. We felt all and all that the downtown location
was the best bang for the buck.
Mayor Hamilton: (kay, then Jim or Don, would you care to comment on Dale's
comment that he feels there is absolutely no room for expansion, ever with the
configuration that's been shown here. Bob, whoever should handle that.
Bob Davis: It's a good question and one that the committee discussed at quite
length and I think down at the bottom you'll see about five revisions to date
on this plan. We moved, turned, slid. There's a distance of. 33 feet between
the gymnasium and the ice arena. We studied the combination of volleyball and
gymnasiums and how many could fit in there with the best combination and how
much space we should use. At one point we were consider a larger gymnasium.
Our direction was to move the ice arena down at this point to allow for
possible future expansion of those gymnasiums. Whether there's volleyball,
gymnastics, aerobics, some other activity that needs more space. 33 feet
times 120 feet wide, there's a significant potential there to expand. There's
expansion space on the second level above the proposed men and women's locker
room to double their size. There's expansion space above the labeled
community rooms on the second level to double-that size. The ice arena is 120
feet by 240 feet. It's about as large as any ice arena ever built. Typically
they may be down to 110 wide, 200 long, 210 long. We felt as a committee, we
wanted to build what we could now in a shell structure and artificial ice that
would accomodate future locker rooms, seating, washrooms but build the shell
for the size now to accomodate any future need. I think we've taken that
direction. The budget on the ice arena is for a shell building, artificial
34
.City Council ~ting - Deceu~oer 7, 1987
ice, hockey boards ar~ a zamboni but it allows for future space. We have some
sketches in the development plan showing where the washrooms, locker rooms,
changing rooms, skating area would be. The seating.
Mayor Hamilton: Then Bob perhaps you could also address the parking costs
that Dale asked about. Should there he expansion of the Dinner Theater and a
ramp is built, Don do you want to handle that? How those costs may be
handled.
Don Ashw0rth: Actually there are several committee members here tonight. I
feel confident that any one of the <x~mmit~ members could respond to any of
these questions but we definitely have a chicken and egg situatioru The
Dinner Theater wants to preserve their ability to construct a theater at this
location. A 1,~00 seat theater and they wanted to insure that they would have
sufficient area, planned area to accom~te that. Similarly, they wanted to
he assured that as a part of any type of approvals that everyone recognizes
that they would have the ability to construct a hotel and have surface parking
for that hotel without necessitating a ramp. So in all scenarios as far as
Bloomberg Company is concerned, they wanted to insure that everyone recognized
that there is sufficient lar~ area here to accomodate their future desires for
the construction of an additional Dinner Thea~ and the construction of a
hotel without necessitating a ramp. If you look at the total parking and the
total r~s when we complete the retail, the hotel, the additional theater,
bowling center, you will see that there is a necessity for two ramps. One in
this location ar~ one in this location. Those two ramps will in fact meet the
total parking needs of this entire area. In the interim, the area that would
be put as the future site for a new theater can acc~modate, that we have
sufficient area between this area and this area and this area to accomodate
surface parking for this complex. The need arises for the ramp o.nce the
theater is constructed. The dollars generated by the construction of a new
theater or the construction of a hotel would be sufficient to pay for the cost
of a ramp.
Mayor Hamilton: ~he tax increment dollars?
Don Ashworth: That' s correct.
Councilmah Geving: The question I. asked was, will any citizen ever be charged
to park in Mr. Bloomberg's ramp when he goes to attend one of our civic
functions in the civic center? That's ~hat I needed to know.
Mayor Hamilton: We need to get a clarification on who's ramp it is. Ihn not
sure why Dale has a hangup on Bloc~berg.
Councilman Geving: I have a hangup because lb getting questions from our
citizens Mr. Mayor and the question is, whether or not the referendum, if it's
passed by our citizens, think that they're getting one thing and 5 years from
now know that they're going to have to start paying to the HRA or to the Cit~/
or whoever owns that facility. Let's put it out in front right now ar~ get it
out on the table.
35
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Don Ashworth: If it is tax increment dollars, which are constructing this
ramp, it would be a city facility.
Councilman Geving: As free parking?
Don Ashworth: If the facility itself has been paid for through tax increment
dollars, then the only cost you're talking about is operating that facility.
I guess no where in that process had anyone on the committee or on the HRA has
not reviewed this in great detail but I do not see a necessity for any type of
maintenance associated with this facility that would require some type of an
attendant. I guess Ihn trying to think, there are a number of ramps
associated with hospitals and other facilities in which no charge is required.
councilman (~_=ving: That's what I need to know. I think that needs to be
stated quickly as part of this overall proposal. Is that this is a community
facility. It belongs to the City or it belongs to the people ar~ will be used
by the City and it's people at no charge in the future when it's paid for and
there is no other maintenance.
Mayor Hamilton: One that comes to mind to me is the ramp on 50th and France
in ~dina which I'm sure was built out of tax increment dollars to develop that
whole area and there is no charge for that. It's to be used by all the people
who are shopping in the area. Okay then DOn, perhaps you could address the
question about combining the ice center and the remainder of the community
center on the referendun and not splitting them off.
DOn Ashworth: I think I can speak for the entire committee, and maybe when
the committee was initially created there were some definite beliefs as to the
desire for a community center, potentially not ice. And some were for ice and
not necessarily a community center. There were those questioning the
necessity for a pool versus the necessity for ice. ~ne unanimous vote that
was received on this item recognizes that the entire committee came back to
the position that this facility should be built as a one facility. There were
those people who came into reviewing this project on the basis of one or the
other and came back to the final position that this should be one facility.
It should not be separated and the best way to provide the best for the
community would be to leave it as one facility. Again, we saw some real
diverse beliefs in attitudes when that committee was first formed and in the
early formation periods. Again, they w~nt back to that position.
Councilman Geving: I guess the problem that I have with that Don is that I
always looked at these four issues separately and there may be people who will
vote for the community center and wish to place their other million dollars on
the fire station. If we use up the 2 1/2 million dollars that we've got
planned in the first stage of this whole process, that may be what the people
really want to do but if we combine this into one package at 2.5 million
dollars, we'll lose that capability.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to have Don go through that scenario with us again
because we've reviewed that previously. The dollars that we have available
but we can't...
36
City Oouncil Meeting - ~r 7, 1987
Oouncilman Geving: I'd like to have that.
Mayor Hamilton: And then how they may be spent as we go through this process
of bonding. I guess I'd like to have Don address that in a few minutes but
there are a couple other questions that you asked that haven't been answered
yet. One of them is, and I think Don you should answer this one, perhaRs Jim
can too, and that's the senior citizen concerru I think just a couple weeks
ago we saw a letter from some seniors wondering why they hadn't had space
allowed in here.
Councilman Geving: I'm not aware of that. Where's the letter?
Mayor Hamilton: It was in our padket.
Don Ashworth: It did go back to the Task Force. I believe it was in the
Council's Administrative Packet that t~ get.
Councilman Geving: I may have missed it. I saw the packet. I went through
it.
Don Ashworth: I met with-Leon Hendrickson and we talked about the
availability of this type of space in this type of a facility and I must admit
there are some differences as to how big or how small this facility should be.
Additionally, the committee had some input from one of it's own members, Dave
Headla. The concern that this should address the ~s of seniors and that we
should be continuing to look at that as we get into actual designs of areas
such as pool, gym areas and maybe even a seniors room. Final response, and I
think it deals with one of your questions, that was the operational cost
issue. That wasn't just used as a selling point. The committee did spend
significant time looking at budgets associated with this type of a facility
and they very much wanted to create a facility that truly is operationally
balanced so that revenues will in fact exceed expenditures associated with the
facility. In every case that they looked at and the most dynamic of those was
the ~den Prarie facility, they found that the one money generater was in the
area of ice. That in fact ice could in fact support other operations in that
facility. It was the quote from Mr. Eastman as a part of his presentation,
that he estimated about $5~,~.~ in savings associated with heating that
facility. Through making ice, reclaiming the heat associated with that ice
making process and being able to...
Councilman Geving: Over what period of time Don?
Don Ashworth: One year.
Councilman Geving: It' s an annual savings of $50,00~. ~0...
Don Ashworth: That's correct. So again, one of the issues that did tie these
two facilities toget/~r was the operational budget side of the question and I
think that was an influencing factor for a number of committee members.
Mayor Hamilton: I had one other question that ~s to be answered and that's
Mr. Davis needs to tell us about his emplo~anent.
37
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Bob Davis: I think it probably relates to Bloomberg Companies. I was
employed by the Bloomberg Companies from 1977 until 1982. I have not received
one dollar in any funds or any reimbursement either trading or bartering or
even a theater ticket from Mr. Bloomberg since I left in 1982. He in no way
has asked me to work with him. He is working with another architect at this
point developing his retail plans as shown on there.
Mayor Hamilton: If I remember correctly you were hired by the committee and
by the City to conduct this plan. I'd like to do something and I should have
done it a few minutes ago. I'd like to introduce the Community Center
Commission members that are here because they've done an excellent job of
going through all this information and spent a lot of time on it. Maybe if
you could raise yours hands. Dave Headla, Bob Robinett, Bill Kirkvold, Jim
Mady, Bill Boyt, Joe Kasper and Pat Swenson is back there. Did I miss
anybody? There were a few other members. It's nice to have all these members
here. I would just also say I have the utmost confidence in the decisions
they have come up with. I think they have done an excellent job.
Jim Mady: One thing I wanted to comment on, Dale asked about splitting the
arena separate from the community center. One of the things, the ice arena,
although it's being considered an ice arena is not just going to be a sheet of
ice. ~nat building will allow us to play indoor tennis in the off-season. In
the fall and the spring prior to putting ice down. We will also be able to
play indoor soccer inside that facility. It will be a large enough facility
where we can have flea markets, different types of things. Tom Eastman, the
manager from the ~den Prairie center says he has 200 different type of events
he can hold within his ice facility so that building, although it's main
function probably is to have ice available for the community, it will be used
for a number of things throughout the year and we will be generating revenue
from that building from those other events.
Councilman Horn: The first question I have is, expanding on your tennis
issue, you're talking about having indoor tennis in the spring and in the fall
but nothing in the winter when you really want indoor tennis. The next
question I have is, what time in the cycle of your study did you look at the
issues that w~re generated by the poll that was put out by the Park and Rec
Commission?
Jim Mady: We issued that early on when we decided what types of programs we
wanted to put into the facility. The Task Force members received a copy of
the Park and Recreation survey which listed the types of facilities.
Councilman Horn: In going through this, it appeared to me that in your polls
and your committee, when it came to hockey uses, it got much higher priorities
than what I see in the poll that was taken by the Park and Rec. As a matter
of fact, in that poll 96% of the households had not participated in youth
hockey in the past 12 months.
Jim Mady: You also see on the survey that I believe it was 42% of the
households participated in indoor skating.
38
Cit¥Council M~eting - ~r 7, 1987
Councilman Horn: But as I read through this poll, .it was not clear to me what
it meant by ir~oor skating. If I were to take this poll ar~ fill it out, I
could interpret that to be roller skating as much as ice skating. There's
nothirg in here to differeniate that to me as a poll taker.
Jim Mady: My recollection when I helped ts give the survey back in March,
when w~ phrased the question, it was phrased as ice skating.
Councilman Horn: So what percentage of the skating rinks used would be used
in open skating and that versus hockey use?
Jim Mady: We did not split out the times and the day. That was not our
function.
Councilman Horn: I'm just looking for a rough percentage.
Jim Mady: Right now the small Bloomberg arena is available to the general
public from 3:00 to 6:00 every day for free open skating and from 6:~ on
during the five business days it is used for ice hockey scheduling, broomball,
scheudling events. It is also available during the weekends, this is by sheer
memory, I believe it's from 4:00 to 6:0~ on Saturdays and Sundays also for
open skating. I think on Friday evenings also. You have to flexible when we
do it when w~'ll have the most skaters.
Councilman Horn: What is the utilization of open skating? What percentage or
how many people are using it? How many people are using it now in the open
skating sessions?
Lori Sietsema: In the little arena? There's anywhere from lq kids on that
rinks during open skating to 3~ or 40. During free skating time we have half
the rink is free skating and half of it is for lessons so we use it a lot for
a lot of things.
Councilman Horn: I guess my concern here is in looking at the facilities and
the requirements, it appears that indoor tennis courts received a much higher
requirement than some of these skating things were and it ~_._--~s to me that
.
merely being able to use them in the spring and the fall is not giving them
justice.
Jim Mady: One of the things we also looked at Clark, indoor tennis, the
number of participates you can have on a tennis court, four total ar~ we just
didn't feel that ~ had enough people using that space without charging a lot.
Councilman Horn: It appeared to me that one of the primary justifications for
the ice time was..~ut in looking through what ~den Prairie has done, they
said that they're biggest money maker was racquetball so doesn't it really
depend on the mix of the amount of available space you have for each one for
whether it's self sufficient? In other words, you can cc~e up with a lot of
different self sufficient configurations. You don't necessary have to have
hockey to make it self sufficient.
39
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Jim Mady: You have to remember that the ice making equipment is going to
generate a great amount of heat which is going to be stored in the coils
underneath the ground. That heat is reclaimed and used to heat the pool.
What we're saying is, if we had to buy the energy to heat the pool, Mr.
Eastman wasn't positive that it was going to be... He initially felt it may
be higher.
Councilman Horn: Why did be make the statement that their system is only used
75% of the time?
Jim Mady: My understanding was that it's used 100% of it's ability but it
only provides 75% of the heat necessary.
Lori Siets~na: They don't _rmcd as much beat in the sun~nertime.
Councilman Horn: So they only use it 75% of the time because of the seasonal
aspect? So they keep their hockey rink open in the sunm~r?
Lori Siets~na: Yes, there's will be year round.
Councilman Horn: But ours would operate?
Jim Mady: We would have a community center manager who would determine what
would be t.he greatest use of the facility. In Eden Prairie they have a hockey
school in the summer. Mr. Eastman felt that probably right there are enough
hockey schools in the metropolitan area that there wasn't a great need for
another hockey school in the area. That was his gut feeling. Because of
that, we looked at other uses for the facility also.
Councilman Horn: The other thing that wasn't quite clear to me was it appears
that they did not really generate their operating expenses in the last two
years and it was a little vague as to why not. I didn't quite understand it.
Jim Mady: With the development of the Flagship Club, they had seem some of
the community pressure to those other facilities. They fully expect that
within the next two years to bring those people back. Also in the past two
years, they put their entire recreational staff over into the community center
so they've increased their budgets over there to handle this increased staff.
All of their programming is done out of that building. Although that is
costing additional funds, they feel it is a very large benefit to the
community in that their citizens now have access to programs they can sign up
for. The basketball leagues, the volleyball leagues, the hockey camps, any
time the facility is open. I believe they're hours are from 6:00 until 10:00
or 11:00 at night.
Councilman Horn: So they're in effect planning their Park and Rec group out
of the facility? I think those were all the questions I had. I do want to
make one comment. I would like to see the two things separated as Dale has
suggested.
40
City Council Meeting - ~r 7, 1987
Councilman Boyt: Having worked on this committee for more hours than I care
to count, I've been through all these issues. I think the questions that Dale
and Clark asked are the right questions to ask. I think there are going to be
a lot of those tough questions asked by the community. I think the Task Force
asked those tough questions. Several of us went into it convinced that we
were going to have to fight it out. I would like to get a couple committee
members to make some comments because I saw them make some swings that were
rather dramatic during our m~e~ and I think that will help the Council see
what we went through. O~e of those people is David Headla who I think came to
the committee with some pretty strong feelings about where he wanted to see it
located and yet voted with the rest of us to put it downtown. David I think
it would help us all if you'd just give us a minute about that process.
David Headla: That's true. I recognized the point and even though people
don't realize, you go west of town in Minnewashta and it's still Chanhassen.
I wanted to get some recognition out there. The rationale, by the time we
looked at where the MUSA line ran~ you run into tremendous... Lake Ann isn't
feasible. We couldn't really find anything feasible out in the areas where I
thought it would be more accessible to the rest of the community. Then we
started looking around here and I think it was Don that brought up the Instant
Webb building being taken out of there .and when we compared the dollars and
cents, that's the only way. If we're going to do it, that seems th~ logical
way.
Councilman Boyt: Thanks David. Both of you brought up the question about
ice. I started out feeling 'that the ice arena could get along without my vote
and my support. I was convinced over the course of time that the community
center, if it was going to sell, it was going to sell with a piece of ice
attached to it and so I would support having the community look at the whole
thing. I really don't feel that the ice arena will stand alone nor do I feel
the community center will stand without it. I think somebody who opened my
eyes about the ice arena was Bob Robinett who
made a pretty dramatic point about what had happened to ice arenas in other
communities. Bob, could you give us 30 seconds on what
you four~ about the skating use?
Bob Robinett: I've been involved in the ice arena a little bit through hockey
but since being asked to serve on the Task Force I've taken some surveys and
talked to a number of people ar~ I know that Minnetonka for example has a
very, very active ice skating program outside of hockey. About a month ago I
was in Hutchinson and got to talking to some people that are involved in the
hockey association and also asked them about the overall useage of the
facility. In a community the size of Hutchinson, he said that they've had
over 400 people in skating in different programs. A far greater number than
they have in their hockey programs.
Councilman Boyt: Thanks BOb. That was the point I wanted to make. I think
when we look at tennis, and we certainly did, we had a letter from a member of
the community asking us to consider tennis. We spent a good bit of time as a
committe discussing that topic. It's my understanding that skating will bring
in something in the neighborhood of $60.00 an hour in prime time. I don't
believe there are many people that are going to pay half of that to get out
41
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
on the tennis court and play tennis for an hour. It really comes down to a
dollar and cents matter in terms of revenue generaters in this
situation. Skating seems to be a very good one. Eden Prairie was convinced
they could sell out another ice arena if they had it and they came within a
few votes of getting it I think we already have
people, just on rumor that we're going to build an ice arena, that are
stacking up to get in line so they can get some potential ice time when we
finally have it built. I just don't feel that we can get a swimming pool,
which we desparately need, that we can get gyms, which we are equally short
of, without putting an ice arena on it to generate money and'
those energy savings. The question that I had with the committee was on gym
space which we are very short of in our community and the desire to make the
gyms bigger. Wrestling that out, it was a 5 to 4 vote on the
committee with the 5 saying that they felt the gym space was all we could
economically justify and they didn't want to spend another $100,000.00 to
expand it. I'll support that position but I would also support expanding it
if it came from somebody else on the Council. Something that is a tremendous
selling point to the community, for this community center, it doesn't have
anything to do with what we'll be doing in the community center but that it
will draw potentially $250,000.00 worth of tax generating retail business
downtown. They're projecting with 30,000 or 40,000 additional feet of retail
space, we'll have another quarter million dollars tax money coming into this
city. I don't see how we can turn down the opportunity to generate that sort
of business right in the heart of the city's commercial development, which is
So, I'm clearly in support of this. I think
the whole thing comes together as a package because it offers something for
everyone. I also talked to seniors this Saturday and I think Jay addressed
that point when he wrote a letter to the committee that they responded to and
David brought up the point about the seniors. I'm not sure that the seniors
have really figured out how they would use that space but we felt that it was
our responsibility as a committee to provide it for thsm.
We basically have given everybody in the community
something in this building. I've been tremendously impressed with the
committee and their desire to go out and visit other facilities. ~neir
desire to bring in experts to talk to them and their desire to sort of wade
through the tremendous battles that they had in coming up with this plan.
Thanks.
Mayor Hamilton: I have several comments and one question that I'll get to in
a minute. My comments are, the ice arena, I hear a lot of people say and I'm
glad to see it finally says ice arena on here. I was on the committee for a
period of time and it was always called a hockey arena. I am not a proponent
of hockey. I don't have anybody that plays hockey in my family and I don't
play hockey but I do have children who are figure skaters. I think this
points out what Bob Robinett was just saying. There are a great number of
people who skate and don't necessarily play hockey. I haul my children all
over the Twin Cities. Tney skate at Ausburg, St. Louis Park, Bloomington,
Minnetonka, Eden Prairie. We go everyplace that we can possibly find ice time
for those kids to skate and when you go there at 6:00 in the morning and the
place is full of other kids doing their figure skating and if you're preparing
for competition you know that there's a ~r~cd for ice time and not just for
hockey players. So I think it's something that is needed. Not just to play
42
city Oouncil Meetir~ - December 7~ 1987
hockey for all the other acitivities that take place in that a~ena. About 3
weeks ago Don Ashworth and myself met with the School Board, the Chaska School
Board, School District 9112. This is something that does not appear in your
packet ard hasn't been brought out but in our conversations with them we told
the School Board that we were planning this community center and as a part of
the community center we were considering a sheet of ice. I mean to tell you,
as soon as we said that, because t~ were not aware of this, everyone of them
to a person just went, oh great. They just about came out of their chairs
because there is no place, there is not a home for the Chaska Hawks to play
hockey and that's where our kids go to school. Ail of us who live in
Chanhassen. Not all of us, some go to Minnet~oka but those who go to School
District 9112, they don't have a home rink. So they were very, very enthused
about having an ice arena in Chanhassen and would like to, if it's built, that
would be the home rink for the Chaska hockey team. Another comment the School
Board made was that they are very short of any type of gymnasium space. They
just don't have enough facilities to house all of the events that take place
in the school. They're using the lunchro~n for multi-purpose activities.
The3~re just chopping up, they're using just regular classrooms for
activities, athletic activities. They would like us to put in some gymnasiums
ard they would use those also. Now when I heard that I thought gee, this
is something I hadn't even thought about. Something we hadn't planned on and
here the school is already saying we'll use all of your facilities as much as
you'll let us use ~ because we don't have the space here and we r._~ it.
Chaska was represented at that meeting, the City of Chaska, and they said that
t~ had considered or are considering building a community center and the
School Board's reaction was, that's great, we'll use that space too because we
are so terribly short and t~ don't plan on adding on to their schools right
now. So that's certainly another very positive thing to consider when looking
at building this community center. As far as tennis is concerned, I
personally don't play tennis and I would like to see us at some point think
about ei~ having the City or a private group come in here ar~t put a bubble
over the tennis courts that we have up by the Elementary School.' It would be
ideal. You have four beautiful courts there. If a bubble were to be put over
those, they could be used year around rather than just the few months in the
summer now when it's not raining on a weekerd day. I 'think that's a potential
solution to our tennis problems during the colder months. As far as the
seniors, I visited with the seniors also. These are the South Shore Senior
Center, all of us were there for breakfast on Saturday and there was a few
seniors there from Chanhassen. The seniors in Chanhassen who would like to
use this facility are those that meet at the Elementary School. Everytime I
go over there and meet with them, they meet on Thursdays, they have lup~h ar~
then they play cards and do their craft things together. Everytime I go
there they ask, when are we going to have something in Chanhassen where we can
have our own place where we can keep. our own things so we don't have to share
with the school. Those people dearly enjoy seeing the children walking around
ard they talk to them and they like the interaction with them but they would
still like to have their own facility where they know they can go ard make
their own meals and have their crafts there and do their own projects and have
a little more space of their own and not continually be interrupted by school
functions. So I think the seniors would be able to use this facility and I
think they'd be very happy with it ard could utilize it in a very go~d way.
I'm sold on the plan. I think it's an excellent plaru I agree with the way
43
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
the configuration has come out finally. I didn't agree with it initially. As
things have turned and moved and slid around now, as Bob has said, they seem
to fit together better. Tne one question I do have is, that Bill mentioned,
and that is the space between where the gymnasiums are and the ice arena. It
seems as though that space ought to become a part of the community center. I
think that's what Bill was talking about. The expansion space there.
Apparently there was some discussion on the committee about the cost of that
and that it may be too expensive to add that space at this time. It seems
like if we're going to do it, I don't know what the dollars are involved in
adding that space, but I think we ought to take a very close look at that, in
joining that space in. Still having an entrance coming from the east side but
including that space as part of the gymnasium. I think it makes the gym just
big enough so they're more useable for more types of activities and you can
also get from one gymnasium to the other without interrupting the activities
that are taking place in the gym that's on the further west side. I don't
know what the objectives were about adding that space other than the dollars
so perhaps Jim you can tell me. It was strictly dollars or what?
Jim Mady: We looked at both the dollar impact of adding that space. The
number that was being bounced around I believe was about $150,000.00. It did
add roughly 35 feet onto the gym. It would allow us another large volleyball
court. It gave us a lot more space around the basketball facilities as well
as to turn the courts 90 degrees. It opened up a lot more space in there. We
wrestled with it on two different meetings and felt that we could get by right
now by putting in the configuration as it is for 2.6 million dollars today
rather than increase it another $150,000.00. Although we'd be gaining some
space, my feeling was we weren't gaining enough space to really use it at that
point in time. It was basically dollars but it came to me, my vote was down
to dollars and cents when we voted.
Mike Klingelhutz: I was wondering if the public will have input on the
recreational center. If you're going to open it up to get people's reactions
before you vote on whether you approve it or not?
Mayor Hamilton: What we're doing is acting on the final report from the
committee. We can accept that and I believe it's going to be back on an
agenda it~ for public cor~ent.
Don Ashworth: ~ne entire idea is, as part of the City Council authorizing
this as a referendum item, what they're doing is committee, take this item out
to the public and get their comments before this thing is finalized as a part
of the final referendum. So we're not going to talk about a referendum until
the earliest mid-February so if there is December, January, early February
will be used for that interaction process. This plan is not finalized. This
is not a final document.
Councilman Geving: This is the first time we've seen this Mike. That's why
the Council has so many questions.
Mayor Hamilton: We've been kind of informed as we went along but it's the
first time we've seen the final report frcm the committee.
44
City Council ~tlng - December 7, 1987
Councilman Johnson: A couple of follow-ups. One, is the structure currently
known as the Bloomberg arena, the little barn out there with natural ice on
it. There was some talk at one time of utilizing the same ice equipment as
the new arena to put artificial ice in there. Is that still under
consideration? It seems like an incremental cost increase to your
refrigeration syste~.
Bob Davis: You'd have plenty of capacity in the cooling equipment if you
wanted to add that one at a later time.
Councilman Johnson: Is the Bloomberg arena big enough for some indoor tennis
or something like that or will we require both ice or indoor soccer in the
winter? Indoor soccer doesn't take much.
Councilman Boyt: They anticipate all the ice being sold there too.
Councilman Johnson: I kind of suspected that. As a matter of fact, I suspect
we'll see ice pretty much year round. Can we make ice on a portion of this
and utilize a portion of it during the summer where we may not have as much
time but I know we play youth hockey straight through the summer. There are
summer leagues. Figure skating is not a winter activity. That's year round.
I really don't see any time when we're not going to be making ice to tell you
the truth. I think we'll fill this thing up and be able to take it year round
on ice, personally from what I've seen.
Bob Robinett: Indoor tennis, indoor soccer and some of these other sports
that are beirg considered as alternative uses for the facility, we'll be
skating and then if we can make it pay for itself utilizing skating, that's
the way to go because the building is designed for skating. Truthfully, and I
think it's ~n pointed out to everybody, a tennis facility is marginal. The
ceiling is only 20 some feet high so it's not inclined for a tennis facility.
It does have some alternative uses...
Councilman Johnson: ..~all this stuff in here, it's quite likely it may be
pretty much an ice arena. We don't know yet. Like you say, if we did this
we'd hire a manager to manage it. I know there is some sentiment in this town
to fired someplace to do indoor soccer in the winter.
Mayor Hamilton: Could I just comment on what you were saying Jay? As I
mentioned earlier, my kids are figure skaters and do compete in figure skating
and in the summertime it's really difficult to find ice. We're going all over
the place lookirg for ice because a lot of arema- do shut down so there just
isn't any. Like ~den Prairie shuts down one month during the year and I think
most of them, like Richfield has two sheets of ice and they shut one down
completely so there's only one available so there just isn't a lot of ice
around in the summertime so I think you're right. There probably would be
considerable demand for summer ice.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I was talking to somebody who knows some retired
North Stars. He believes that they can bring in a North Star clinic in the
summer with some of these retired friends of his. I know that the increase in
size on the gymnasium, I'm with the Athletic Association amd have ~ working
45
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
with them in coaching and stuff. We were always trying, we reserved the
gymnasium at the grade school the day after our basketball ends in the winter,
we put in our reservation for next year because that's how soon you have to
have it in in order to get that and one year we almost didn't get it. We
could probably fill this. There's a lot of sports in this town. We're always
trying to look for this. I think we're really going to have to look at
whether it will be cost effective. A 5 to 4 vote on the committee really
shows that this is a narrow issue. Right now my feeling is, while I think I
would like to have more room for a gymnasium, I would hate to see that be the
straw that broke the camel's back. I'm going to leave it up to the committee
as to what they think after more public input on this. I have support for a
senior center, a senior lounge, a senior drop-in center. I've heard several
seniors have come to me and asked if we can work on getting something closer
than the South Shore which doesn't really have a drop-in center. The South
Shore has only specific hours. There's a group of people who would like to
have a center where they can just stop in most any old time. Not from 1:00 to
3:00 on Thursdays or whatever, where they can drop in and chat with folks of
their own generation. I do believe that this heat recovery from making the
ice will be very cost effective and is something that's pretty standard
industry practice nowadays. Anytime you have a major refrigeration system you
try to recover the heat off of that and utilize it someplace else. This will
be a very major refrigeration system.
Councilman Horn: Is it a conventional method of heating a pool? Do you think
the savings is justified over a heat pump versus this for $50,000.00?
Councilman Johnson: This would be the heat pump. What you're doing is
pumping the heat out of the ice and putting it in the swimming pool. If you
heated your swimming pool with a heat pump, you'd buy a heat pump for the
swimming pool. A heat pump is, if nobody knows what a heat pump is, it's a
refrigeration unit run backwards so you're taking heat out of the air and
putting it someplace else. If you've already got a refrigeration unit, you
don't need, the ice arena needs cooling and the swimming pool needs heating so
you just interconnect the two and you save both ways. That makes complete
sense to me.
Councilman Horn: One final comment. I totally support the idea of a
community center as a referendum item. I still need to know, as Dale asked,
for the information about the $50,000.00 savings. I suspect that could be
made up in other ways. I agree that just about any facility we put in out
here we could more than sell any type of use we had. I don't think it
necessarily has to be an ice arena to do that. I think we have other options
that will give us that and as such I believe this should be a referendum item
and I would support it as a two piece item and let the community decide what
their options are. If indeed there is as much emphasize for an ice facility
as we're led to believe, it will stand on it's own in a referenda.
Mayor Hamilton: One of the things that hasn't been mentioned, as we continue
to build and develop the downtown area, you want to do everything possible to
encourage people to come to the City of Chanhassen and shop and spend their
dollars using our retail facilities. When you have a community center such as
this and you have an ice center attached to it, it generates approximately 600
46
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
trips a week. That's a lot of trip~u If you know of somethirg else that
would generate that many trips, I guess I'm curious to know what it is. It's
just another instance of where this type of facility, with tf~ ice ar~ with
the other facilities available there, make the rest of the co_mm_unity work. It
all kind of fits together. It just rakes a lot of sense to do it that way.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to add a point. The committee wrestled with this
from the very first time it met right up until we made the decision and the
decision was unanimous to present these together. If you're going to split
the ice arena off, and I know the ice arena is very visible. People either
love it or t~y hate it. Some people have told me the~re going to vote
against the whole community center if it has an ice arena on it. Inspite of
that we don't want to offer this as a piece here and a piece there. We want
to offer the whole thirg as a unified community center. That's the way to do
it. Otherwise, let's take the pool and split that off. Let's take the
basketball courts and split those off. It doesn't make any sense unless you
pull it all together.
Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. I agree with you 100%.
Councilman Johnson: We're talking about trips per day and helping 'generate
for our tax increment district, is there any possibility of bringing any of
those funds to bear on this community center if this is going to be an asset
to the district? If it would help pull businesses into town and help generate
business for those businesses?
Mayor Hamilton: Don? I'm not sure the question's clear.
Don Ashworth: To date tt~ position taken by the City Council and the HRA has
been a very conservative one. We will not count any additional dollars until
a structure is actually constructed. We're using the $250,00~.0~ figure. I
think it is a correct one. There are dollars being put towards the community
center in terms of the corridor system and quite frankly there is a high value
associated with the land and the building that are literally being contributed
by the HRA over to the city. They do have an option to sell that building.
In fact we've actually entered into a sales agreement for that development to
go in private use. They're withholding that offer. In othex words,
consummating that sale until after the city makes a determinatioru Do we want
that structure to be used for a community center, in which case they will
void out that sale.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we can deal with this one so we mn move onto the
next.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the Community Genter
Final Report and recommendation by the Community Center Task Force be acce~
and that the entire community center as one be presented as a referendum issue
at a date to be determined. Also, to include additional information into the
report dealing with site reviewed and costs and any other additional
information that has not ~ included that will help to sell it to the
general public. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and
motion carried.
47
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to suggest one improvement to the final report
and that is that information be placed in the report detailing the other sites
that were looked at. Make this report as complete as possible. A good
document to stand on. Talk about why we didn't place it outside the MUSA
line. Why t~ group decided against the other free standing options and what
the costs where. Place that in the report rather than merely referring to it.
Make this report a complete report on all the actions taken by the Task Force.
Councilman Horn: My concern in referendums is that we should give the voters
as many options as we can. I'm going to push for that in all the referendum
items. That we separate them as much to give the people as much input into
this thing as possible. I think by lumping things together we're giving away
those options and I don' t feel that' s right.
CONSIDER POTENTIAL 1988 REFERENDUM ITEM: REMODELING OF FIRE STATION, NICK
RUEHL, EOS CORPORATION.
Jack Anderson: I'll let Jim speak first and introduce the project then I'll
come up and focus on the planning then we'll deal with the questions.
Jim McMahon: 4 years ago there was a recognized need for an addition on
the fire station. However, at that time there were not funds available to
consider that project. Then about a year and a half ago we were informed that
the time was such that we were to review our problems and needs, and propose
an addition onto the fire station. In doing that, reviewing our problems and
needs, we came up with the facts that we needed added room for equipment,
offices, meeting rooms and some type of a fitness facility or room. In
addition to that, we reviewed our situation as far as membership is concerned.
New members as well as keeping those existing members. We've also reviewed
the growth of the city, where the city is going. There has been a lot of
discussion tonight in regards to the new downtown, the community center,
industrial park is growing and our residential population is growing in leaps
and bounds. For example, to date we are up 21% in calls over last year. We
also reviewed what our needs were as far as added equipment at this time and
with all the industrial growth, downtown and so on, we also came to the
conclusion that we now are in need of a aerial platform. This is in
conjunction with industrial growth and residential construction changes,
designs, setbacks in buildings throughout the community. Basically what we've
come up with as far as solutions to some our problems. Obviously we will
cover the room situation with the presentation of the plan that we have for
the building. However, as far as our membership is concerned, which also is
tied into this plan, after visiting with other communities and other chiefs in
the area who have similar problems to us in regards to new members and keeping
members, they recommended that we attend a school seminar that was put on by
an individual out of Cleveland who specializes in volunteer fire departments.
After attending this we also designed into our building and found areas where
we felt we could help fill the requirements as far as membership and keeping
our members. One of the aspects that they pointed was that the overall
picture as far as planning your department you should consider what your
population is, what your membership is, where it's coming from and after doing
that, we've determined that Chanhassen is pretty much now, and moving more so
48
City Council Meeting - ~r 7, 1987
towards a white collar community and therefore, the use of two or three things
that we feel will attract people of that particular standing. We also propose
a Plan A and Plan B to the membership. What you're going to see tonight is
the choice of the total department, Obviously not 1~% voted but definitely a
unanimous vote in favor of the plan that's going to be presented to you
tonight. There was some question at one of the meetings in regards to a
portion of the station which will be addressed tonight and that's our multi-
use fitness facility. In regards to what we would like to recommer~ to the
council, we would like on the referer~um that both the aerial aparatus and the
fire station be a single issue. At this point Jack can go over the planning
aspects.
Mayor Hamilton: Could you repeat what you just said? You want to have the
aerial with the station? You want them to go together? I just want to clear
on that.
Jack Anderson: I'll start out with the lower level. Basically, the existing
building there is about 7,~ square feet and the new would be about 15,~
square feet. The lower level, the green area is where you come in, pile
storage, training officers, womens and men's locker area, courtyard, exercise
area that could be used as a racquetball court or multipu~ uses. The
intent was to design it so a second floor could be put iD. With this four
across here, there could be some expansion in offices in the administrative
area here and down here, expansion of the exercise area and additional
storage. ThiS exercise area down here... On the first floor, I'll start out
with the apparatus area. That essentially has grown twice as large ar~ as you
can ~, this is basically, putting the aerial here... We maintain a back
access. There's an emergency generator, I think the plan previously said to
not have it. This would be an emergency generator here and this would tie
into the City Hall for emergency power. This is the existirg building
presently goes from here and goes like this. ~e office, the more
administrative part, one of the key planning aspects was this manned
conference dispatch located centrally between the chief ar~ other offices,
entry with dispatch lookout into the appara~ room. It also gets the
dispatch out of the traffic which it presently is in right now. It's a much
better planning for that ro~m. Then, the chief's office here, assistant and
an additional office located there, a lounge area in the upper area of the
courtyard. Parking is up front, predominantly in hack and then alorg the side
over here. I guess that pretty much takes you through. You had expressed
some concerns about cost. We have indicated a skylight area here ar~ some
additional orientation of the local post tower, those came to about $42,00~.00
and we could look at those as an alternate.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything else you wanted to present Jim?
Jim McMahon: No, I think that's pretty much it other than the fact that I
forgot to mention one of the things involved in the multiuse fitness room...,
one of the things at the entrance was the fact that we attended three meetings
in the last year that were attended by OSHA and OSHA has on all three
occasions stressed an emphasize on the need. and the fact that they will be
enforcing fitness programs as far as fire fighters are concerned and they
expressed an interest in seeing to it that many new stations building
49
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
additions will include some type of a fitness facility for their fire fighters
as it's ~---n determined on a national numbers, the number one cause of fire
fighters fatality is heart attack from physical exertion. Our multiuse
fitness room includes a program for strenuous cardiac exercise program.
I might also add, this facility will be open for police officers that are also
under the same requirements as we are. Other public servants that would fall
under that requirement.
Councilman Johnson: I don't have many questions on here. I have looked at
this. I work with OSHA regulations and are familiar with the requirements
here. I see the entire need for this. Tnis is probably one of the most vital
services that this city provides to our citizens. It's an excellent fire
protection system, our fire fighting. We're working more with our fire
marshalls and everything to get fire prevention going and the entire facility
I believe is totally necessary if we want to continue providing our citizens
with this current level of service. With the changing demographic nature of
this city, we are going to have to have something that will attract more fire
fighters into the area. We're going to need more fire fighters as we are
growing. The r~=ed for the aerial truck I believe is there. It's past due.
You have to fight fires, it doesn't necessarily mean a tall building to fight
a fire in. It would mean a wide building. If you want to hit a fire that's
in the center of a building like United Mailing or Instant Webb, the Press,
you can't reach those from the ground. If you have to get into the attic of a
building that has a high pitch on the roof, it becomes very dangerous for the
fire fighters to try and negotiate those pitches. With the, I call it a
cherry picker type ladder truck here where you have a platform that people can
stand in, they can go right up onto those high pitch roofs and fight their-
fire. You look at Near Mountain. A lot of those houses have a high pitch
roof in it. I have a neighbor near me that probably has at least a 1 to 1
pitch on his roof. It's almost an A-frame. I think it's due and I'd like to
see this go to referendum. I'd like to see our citizens pass this and get
this project built because I think this is an essential service that we must
have.
Councilman Boyt: I can save us some time. I'm for them both. I got no
questions and no comments.
Councilman Horn: The only question I have is just one minor one. I believe
in our packet you talked about the space being available to city employees.
Are you referring only to public safety employees or all city ~mployees?
Jim McMahon: It would be available to all city employees. It's important for
the City. When we have looked at facilities that have been built in this
town, Instant Webb, they have an exercise facility for their employees. The
Press and what they've found is one, they keep people on the job. Two, they
get less people missing work because they are physically fit and their
performance is better. So whether or not everybody will use that facility, it
will be available to ths~ and those who do use it, will be better workers as
far as the city's concerned.
Councilman Horn: I just have one more comment. It should be obvious to
everybody here that if we buy an aerial truck we're going to need semeplace to
50
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
put it so if we get an aerial truck with no facility, we can't get an aerial
truck. Again, in this case, I think there is an option of expanding the
facility without an aerial truck. I don't think that that's a good idea to
put them together.
Councilman Geving: I've been h~re for many years and I can tell you that I've
always appreciated what the fire department has done for our community. For
the most part we've tried to take care of their ~s with good equipment and
supported them wherever it was ~ed. The proposal that I see before me
tonight is one that's highly important to our community. We have not had any
expansion to our fire hall since it was built. Our community has probably
doubled in that time. We know that the ~ is there for a command center.
We need to have additional office spaces as we mentioned when you were here
last time. We ~ to have the additional two hays for the pl .acement of our
vehicles that are pretty well crowded in there now. I don't think we need to
be embarrassed about asking for a recreation room or an exercise facility.
That goes with the department and if it's a ~ that's goin~ to be placed on
us by OSHA and we recognize that it's for the good of our firemen, let's call
if a fitness facility and let's use it for that. I highly endorse this whole
proposal. I'm more concerned about where we're going to get our additional
firemen and I think the two go har~ in hand. If you have good facilities, you
have good equipment, you're going to attract additional firemen. At least
you're going to attract and keep the people that we have signed u~ I
ur~erstnad we've lost some people. Maybe these are the kinds of things that
will hold them if we do have a good facility but it's highly needed. It's
absolutely essential to the community. As far as reciprocal agreements
between our communities, whenever we have a major fire or catastrophe, we have
an agreement to have an aerial truck c~me in from Excelsior or ~den Prairie
and we don't have anything to reciprocate with other than our good will so I
think down the line we're going to have to have an aerial facility. As we
build our community it's absolutely essential. The thing that I think about
however is how best to package this in a referendum. I believe if I were to
give my priority of the three or four items that we're going to talk about
tonight, I'd place the fire department's ~s first. That's my number one
priority over the community center, over an ice arena, over trails. To me
this is where it's at because this is something I can feel, I can touch, I can
see. The need is here now. I believe we can get alorg with s~me of the other
proposals later but this is a ~ that should go to the referendum and people
I think will support it. I think that you've done us a favor in identifying
some of the .things that we probably would have asked you to delete from the
plaru Originally there was s~me skylights in here that I know we all asked
questions about and Clark asked that the items be enumerated and you have done
that. I believe that the skylights could go. Whether or not we finish off
that exercise facility, I guess I have to ask the question from you, if we put
in the exercise facility in the lower level, would we build 'an upper level
over it with office space? Is that the plan?
Jack Anderson: Not right now.
Councilman Geving: You w~uldn't c~plete that?
Jack Anderson: It w~uld be an ope~ space right now.
51
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Geving: Okay, I didn't understand that. I guess I have a
difficult time trying to put all these packages together. Where I'm coming
from is whether or not to package the aerial ladder truck with the facility
itself, with construction of the expanded fire station. I happen to realize
that two years from now when we really need the aerial truck and somebody says
let's go buy it, we won't have the half million dollars that's needed to come
out of the general fund. We just won't have it. We may not even have the
levy authority to buy it so the strategy and I'm going to have to look to Don
for an answer on this but it seems to me that the only smart way to package
this is to put it all in one. Then if the need is absolutely essential and
two years from now, or a year from now, whatever it happens to be, the Council
decides to go ahead with the truck, we will have had the referendum approval
from the people to go out and do it. Whereas, if we don't package it that
way, we won't have the money so that's the real strategy. I guess I've given
you most of my comments except to say, I think you guys have done a nice job.
The fire department is unanimously behind this proposal and I hope we can get
it for you. That's all I have.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I can take the easy way out and not make any comments
either but I'm goir~ to continue to be honest with you as I have been right
along to say that I do have a lot of concerns about what you're asking for. I
think there are a lot of questions that we don't have the answers to so we can
deal with this issue effectively yet. For instance, we talked about the need
for equipment, additional equipment, a $500,000.00 piece of equipment but when
we look at developments and the building of new buildings we continue to put
more and more restrictions on the building. Putting in sprinkler systems, new
sprinkler systems, up in the roof, up in the rafters, then lower, then
everything has to be with all the bells and whistles on it so the alarms blow
in the central location someplace so it can respond to it in an instant. I
think we've been told when you start adding those things to buildings, that
you don't r~-----~ the equipment or as much equipment or personnel that you would
need if you didn't have those things. Then we immediately turn around and we
have a request for a $500,000.00 piece of equipment. Maybe it's needed. I'm
not saying it's not needed. What I am saying is exactly what I've said to you
before is, I think it's time that we find out what is r~ed. I think there
are ways to do that and that's by having a consultant coming into the City.
Look at what the needs are of the fire department and the police department
and then to evaluate what is said in that study and then to make some
adjustments from there. Just because our town is growing and we have
additional population doesn't indicate to me, nor does it to the experts that
I've talked to, doesn't indicate that you need to add additional people to
your fire department, to your police department nor do you need to add
additional equipment. One of the things you need to look at is response time
to calls and you have to come up with a response time that you feel the
community can live with. If you can meet that response time on a consistent
basis and if the people in the community are happy with that and with the job
once you do get there, you don't need to keep buying equipment. You don't
need to keep adding people. OSHA, I'm sure it's true that they're looking at
[~hysical fitness for fire fighters but do they say that it's the city's
responsibility to give them facilities to use to keep themselves in physically
good shape? When there's a community center proposed for about 3 blocks away
that can be used by all members of the fire department at no cost, I find it
52
City ~ouncil Meeting - ~r 7, 1987
difficult in goirg alorg with the proposal to put a racquetball court or
what's now being called a multipurpose court in the facility for the use of 30
people. One of the things I~ mostly concerned about is I know there is great
need for the expansion of the space. You need more room. Whether it's office
space. You certainly need more bays for your equipment. I~ concerned if you
package this whole thing into one lump, that you may end up not getting
anything. At least not for a period of time so I guess I was surprised that
you wanted to put the aerial tru~k on with everything else that you wan~ to
do. I think that might be an invitation to not have it pas~ I think you
~ to think about that. I really think you ~ to have the expansion of
the facility and I suspose you can split those things off but I think it's
just absolutely essential that you get the expansion space for the station but
not necessarily all the equipment and some of the other goodies that you've
added on there. I guess those are my comments. It's the same thing I've told
you before and I~ going to continue to say it and I think until I have more
information to deal with the issue, I'm not sure I can change my position.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to support the placing of
the remodeling of the fire station and acquiring of an aerial truck on the
referendum ballot as one item. Councilman Boyt, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Horn and Mayor
Hamilton voted in opposition to the motioru The motion carried with a vote of
3to2.
Councilman Boyt: Clearly the~re going to go out-to the community. If the
community tells them we think you ought to split it, then we've got time
between now and the referendum to come back and split them but to me, it makes
sense to go at it initially as one package. It's all related to the same kind
of thing so my motion would be to present the aerial truck and the fire
station r~modeling as one it~ on the referendumi
Councilman Horn: I'd like to comment. I'm not opposed to these as a
referendum item. I don't like bundling referendum items. People can make
that choice.
Mayor Hamilton: I think you ~ to come back to us with some information
because I really am afraid that by putting them toge~, it's an invitation
to lose the whole works.
Jim Mc_Mahon: We appreciate your comments and we will review the whole package and as
Bill stated, we do have some time to come back after a little study and
possibly asking some of the residents their opinion.
CONSIDER 1988 REF~UM ITEM: TRAIL PLAN AND LAKE ANN IMPRO~EM]~TS, PARK AND
R~CREATION ~SSION.
Mark Koegler: I think you're familiar with the basics on this one so I'll run
through it very quickly. It was referenced earlier tonight about the survey
that was done. I think you're well aware that of the top 10 responses, five
of those, particularly 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10 were trail oriented. Being either
skiing, bicycling, walking, whatever so there was a strong public sentiment
53
City Council M~eting - December 7, 1987
that trail related activities were something they wanted in Chanhassen. As a
result the Park Commission and the Recreation Plan Amendment that they've been
working on has come up with a trail plan that was presented to you, I think
probably first and formally on the 7th of October at the joint session at
which time there was some general discussion. Since that time the alignments
that are shown that are on the board right now really have not changed.
They've remained substantially the same. Tnere are some policy things that
the Park Commission is doing with the text to reflect some of the comments
that the Council provided on things like snow removal, useage and making
trails somewhat independent of the alignments themselves. The ultimate system
total cost is about 2.1 million dollars. The Park Commission did review and
approve what they recommended to you as a first phase of the trail plan is
shown on this exhibit. Total construction cost of those segments that are on
that map are 1.341 million dollars. Of that total, all of it is funded from
either proceeds such as referendum proceeds, tax increment financing, park
dedication monies, and in some cases Chapter 429 assessments. But the bottom
line is, the outstanding balance rmc~s to be funded potentially be a
referendum is $868,000.00 if that system is to be implemented. I believe
that's the recommendation that's been offered to you from that group. So with
that, I'd be glad to answer questions you have or move onto Lake Ann or
whatever you instruct me to do.
Mayor Hamilton: Why don't you hit Lake Ann.
Mark Koegler: The Lake Ann Park, you all know the history of the Lake Ann
Park, I don't need to review that. I recall specifically 8 or 9 years ago
first working with Bill and Ed Dunn on trying to get some land to expand that
facility. His development didn't happen. In fact no developed really has
happened to the east but the city has been successful in acquiring that land
which now has been slated for the past few years as an expansion for the
park's active facility. There was a site plan in your packet which is
something I~n sure you've seen time and time before which shows additional
ball diamonds, soccer, parking facilities to be located on that part of the
park. There were some cost estimates that were done early on which were
relatively crude in the neighborhood of about $300,000.00 to put in the
facilities. Since then we've had some better grading information which
allowed us to take a more definitive look at the grading aspect. Tne total
cost for the expansion is shown as $237,000.00. Again, that is roughly the
level that has been recommended by the Park and Recreation Committee for a
possible referendum item.
Councilman Johnson: I see on the October 13th memo, a number of $500,000.00
for the Lake Ann expansion. What's the additional $260,000.00?
Mark Koegler: ~ne numbers that were bannered about at that meeting were not
accurate. I think that comes from the fact that there had been such a long
period of time. $300,000.00 was roughly the figure we were looking at. Tne
first phase during applications that we had submitted for LAWCON were in the
neighborhood of $100,000.00 to $500,000.00. Since that time, as I stated,
we've had better information for grading and it reasonably can be accomplished
for under $240,000.00.
54
I01
City fbuncil Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Johnson: For Phase 1 and Phase
Mark Koegler: For both Phase 1 and 2, correct. Treat's all three of the
develounent facilities.
Councilman Johnson: For the Council's information on the letter I put out for
work on this same project, I haven't gotten any. repsonse back. I wasn't able
to contact them today. I'm in favor of this. I don't have a lot of questions
on it other than I'd like to see, we may be able to get the Reserves Or
somebody to do some of this grading and site work for us. I~n not sure how
far they're developing. Hopefully before Christmas I'll have s~me kir~ of
information fr~n
Councilman Boyt: My concern, and Jim. Mady dealt with' it very nicely on about
the next to the last page of the whole report in his October 13th memo. It's
my understanding that the Park and Bec Commission was looking at acquiring
lar~ in the south part of Chanhassemfcr a major park in that are~ We need to
be thinking about that. I think the referendum is a very good opportunity to
find out if the community supports that. Either as a separate item, as I
suspect Clark would want to see it, if he supported it at all, or together as
an entire package. We're really saying to the community by this referer~um,
give us direction for the next several years. Clearly we ~ to be thinking
about a major park acquisition. The lar~ will never be less expensive than it
is now and what a great opportunity so I would really like to see us include
another $30~,~00.00 to do that.
Councilman Horn: My position on a referendum is always let's give the people
as many options as we can so I have no problem with including that. One
question I ~o have, Mark you said that it's not necessary to update the trail
plan per se before w~ go through with this? Is that what you said?
Mark Koegler: No, I said that in terms of what the Commission has done since
the joint meeting you had, the alignment that's shown on there is essentially
unchanged. I think it's important to again emph~-ize that those are, as was
talked about in this meeting earlier, planning alignments. W~ we get into
detailed feasibility and focus specifically on where they go relative to
placement along ~ street, off the street, which side of ~ street and so
forth.
Councilman Horn: And specific use?
Mark Koegler: Yes, ar~ multi-use versus single use.
Councilman Horn: That won't be necessary to be completed before the
referendum?
Mark Koegler: It will be.
Councilman Horn: That's really the only other question I had.
Councilman Geving: I think this is the first time I've ~ the Lake Ann park
expansion packaged with this proposal with the trails. I like it. We bought
55
City Council Meeting - Dec~mber 7, 1987
this property some time ago, the additional 20 acres and we haven't been able
to do anything with it ar~ I'm afraid that it's going to take a big chunk of
money like this so it's got to be a referer~um issue. So for the first time I
see something that really makes sense here in terms of putting the trails
together with this Lake Ann expansion. I certainly do agree with adding
additional furz~ing for expansion to the south for future parks. That's kind
of a nebulous thing though. Tne voters kind of like to see something concrete
and very positive and unless you have a site, a specific area that you're
looking at, I don't know if that's such good strategy to just add $300,000.00
to your proposal just for something that you might want to do. I think the
Lake Ann expansion and the trails are something that the voters will vote for.
Again, I don't know how to package this. Whether it's good strategy to put it
together as a 1 million dollar package or two packages of 8 and 2.
Councilman Horn: Three packages if w~ include the park acquisition.
Councilman Geving: Yes, or a third one so I guess it's a matter of strategy
but I'm in favor of all three of those components. That's all I have.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm certainly in favor of the Lake Ann expansion. Lake Ann
continues to get more and more use we just never seem to have enough space
down there. Tne ballfields are always used. There's not adequate parking.
The beach seems to be shrinking each year. We just don't have enough
facilities there for everyone to use. I think anything we can do to expand
the Lake Ann Park I'm all in favor of. The other parts of the trail part are
just following up I guess.
Councilman Geving: How do you see that vote Tom in terms of putting it to a
referendun issue? Is this three pieces or as one package?
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I do.
Councilman Geving: Leave it together?
Mayor Hamilton: I guess if I was consistent I'd say put them all together but
I guess that's what I was saying to the firemen, I didn't agree with leaving
that all together. I think it should be separated because I'm afraid they're
going to lose it and I think you run the same risk here. If we run them all
together, we certainly run the risk of losing all of it and could get parts of
it.
Councilman Horn: If you do, that tells you that you had something that you
shouldn't have had. That's why I'm totally in favor of separating them. Then
we'll find out what we shouldn't be putting in there but we won't lose the
whole thing.
Mayor Hamilton: Right, I wouldn't want to do that. That's certainly a
concern so I guess I'd be in favor of separating them.
Councilman Boyt: If it becomes difficult and I don't have much experience in
this area, I would guess though that as a voter going in and seeing nine
choices in front of me is going to make it fairly difficult. Maybe not so
56
City(k)uncil F~ting - ~r 7, 1987
difficult to make the choice. It's difficult to keep straight what .choice I'm
making. Seeing three items, much simplier and yet I agree with you, it would
certainly ~ as though the more we lump together, the more likely we are to
find someone who will vote against the whole package because they don't like
one part which is I think what Clark b~, been saying all evening. So
surprisedly enough I guess I w~uld support separating these' items out.
Mayor Hamilton: So far we only have two. If it remains as it is on the first
two issues, they're going to be lumped and it's going to be two, one of each.
So here we're looking, if we lump, we've only go three issues for people to
vote on or if we separate parts of this to see where the lar~ issue, we er~ up
with four or five.
Councilman Johnson: On the separate issue, I believe this one lends itself to
separation better than the other two. The intermix of people making a choice
on what a professional fire station ~s are versus what their personal
desires are for a park ar~ trail system, sc~ething they use and depem~ upon, I
believe that the people can speak for themselves on that. ~hey have the
technical qualifications to know whether they want parks, trails and more park
expansion. Where we as the city fathers, as it may be, should be reviewing
the issues and making recommer~ations for the other, more complex issues of
putting together a fire department, etc.. I would like to see this one go in
three pieces. Lake Ann, trails and future southern park expansion which
doesn't really ~ to be on the table.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to split Lake Ann, trails
and the southern park expansion into three items on the referendum. All voted
in favor ar~ motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: Now I'd like to have Don go back over and explain again so
it's clear to all of us, or maybe I'm not the only it's not clear to, if
everything remained as it is right now, how would the dollars filter out?
Maybe you can paint some scenarios with different ways the vote might go and
what w~uld happen and how far out are we looking to ~lish all of this?
Don Ashworth: I haven't pull the report up for quite'a period of time so the
exact numbers may not fall right into place but the financial report that we
had before basically showed the city is levying approximately 8 mils for a
debt return. During the course of this next year, through literally
restructuring a portion of that debt and certain debts that will fall off the
side. In other words, we put additional levies on in support of bonds of'72,
73 ar~ those will be dropping off. SO the total we can look to, approximately
$250,~00.00 dropping off of existing debt schedules. What that amounts to,
you as a taxpayer in this community, is approximately 3% to 4% of your tax
bill. If you vote against all of the items in this referendum, you will be in
a position to reduce your taxes associated with your hc~e by 4% of the bottom
line of your taxes. On the other side of the coin, the city has a debt
limitation. That debt limitation approximates the current 8 mils so as
as that we can not really exceed the amount that's going to be dropping off.
That will support, in other words, just being able to continue the existing
debt level will support a referendum item of about 2 1/2 to 3 million dollars.
57
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Just the new growth that we know is already in place but we will not see for a
1 to 2 year period of time, we will be able to support, in other words, the
way the formula works, you apply the 8 mils against the total face valuation
so right now the most we could take to incur in debt is roughly the 2 1/2 to 3
million dollars. We would have to wait for an additional year at which time
it's projected that an additional debt amount of about 1 million will go on.
The following year an additional mil. When I put those numbers, I think you
should realize that they could go into two year spans so you could be talking
about 2 1/2 million, as far as a legal limit in 1988 and somewhere between
1989 and 1990, an additional milli6n. Between 1991 and 1992, an additional one
million. So if you add all of those up, you've got about 4 1/2 to 5 million
dollars. That would be paid for because again, you're not putting this
additional valuation on until it in fact occurs and you would be .taxing that
in a similar level to what you are taxing currently. Therefore, as you would
add those additional million-million and a half in the timeframe of 1989-1990,
1990-1991, you would create no additional taxes from where you are right now.
You will not achieve a goal Dale, that you have continuously stated you would
like to see, and that is a reduction in overall taxes. The only thing I can
offer you in that area is we r~ to continue to look to our operational
budget. Continue to examine that and say is the approximate mils levied
required for general operations generated by this city enough.
Councilman Geving: Maybe tonight is not the night for it Tom, but I think in
terms of the referendum though, if we propose, I don't know, we haven't added
all of these up but they appear in excess of 5 million dollars, we have lumped
all of these into approximately a 5 year or 4 year timeframe Don. In 5 years
it's possible that all of the items we talked about tonight, would all of
them go into a referendum even though they didn't get voted very highly by the
citizentry but were ranked? Could they still come on line in 19927
Don Ashworth: As long as they maintain 50.001% of the vote, more than half of
the vote, they could come on line in 1991 and not have to go back to the
voters.
Councilman Geving: That's exactly the question I wanted to ~cc. So we
wouldn't have to go back for another referendum?
Don Ashworth: That ' s correct.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ISSUES, DISCUSSION:
B. CONSIDER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR AME~I~NT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask if maybe we could amend the agenda so we
would handle 8(a). I know that's of some significance to some specific
people. Defer 8(b) to a future meeting which I think is not impacting on any
particular group of people tonight.
Mayor Hamilton: Does it make any difference to you? Were there things you
wanted 8(b) considered for any particular reason?
58
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table considerirg
miscellaneous items for amendment to the zoning ordinance until a future
meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton stepped down from chairing the meeting and Councilman Geving
became chairman for the next it~n.
A. CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A .RURAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Councilman Geving: Does anyone need any input from staff? Clark? Jay? Then
let's go right to the issue. Jay, would you like to start off please.
Councilman Johnson: I would go with the Planning Commissien on this one. I
believe the current ordinance handles contractor's yards quite well and I
don't think we need to put more intensive use out into the rural area. That's
about the whole side. I don't like to see putting 4 or 5 or multiple
contractor's yards in here. It does everything opposite of what the intent of
our contractor's yard ordinance is, as far as I'm concerned. Is to disperse
them to where they have minimum impact. When you start trying to group them,
then we've crested an industrial area. If they want to do that, then they can
move to the industrial area. We design the highway systems ar~ everything to
support the traffic that will be involved.
Councilman Geving: I know that several of you attended the Planning
Commission meeting and I know all of you read the notes from the meeting. I'm
familiar with ~ myself. I've read several things. I think we can move on.
Bill, what are you c~mnents on this issue?
Councilman Boyt: I think that looking at the options on page 5 there, the
staff update, that I feel that a contractor's yard, as I read our ordinance
and I wasn't here when you developed contractor's yards as a part of our R-2
area. As I see contractor's yards, they are intended to help people who had a
business running basically out of their home. In a rural, agricultural area
they were storing vehicles on-site and using them someplace else. I would
like to see contractor's yards continue to be defined that way. On the other
hand, I think that item 2 of the options available to Council on page 5 which
says a rural industrial zoning district can be created allowing s(m~e sort of
use as proposed here, and I think we ~ to find a different name t/man ..
contractor's yard, as a conditional use, would be appropriate.
Councilman Geving: As a permitted use.
Councilman Boyt: I crossed pemitted use out and put cor~itional use. I
think that this is something that we would want to review for all the reasons
we talked about earlier tonight on the business highway district. These
things ~ some policing. But what I heard in the Planning fbmmission was
that there seemed to be a r~ for this. I think we r~ then to provide that
opportunity but we ~ to provide it in a controlled fashion. Something
where we can react to the individual requests. Set up the standa~ that are
appropriate. I personally find, I don't think one person cabinet shops can
survive in any new building. I just think they, by their nature, have to find
the' lowest overhead possible to provide a profit margin but I think what the
59
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
developer is after here is an opportunity to pursue certain types of
businesses that we just don't have a place for right now in Chanhassen and I
w~uld support working to that end.
Councilman Horn: I agree with that too. I think we need some type of
facility for these. However, I don't want to leave it up to a particular
individual to allow this type of thing, to use his judgment. We've heard the
testimony that Mr. Volk rejected several businesses for good reason apparently
but I don't want to leave that up to an individual. I think that should be
our option under conditional use. I totally agree with you to allow a place
for these people.
Councilman Geving: I kind of agree with that. I read thoroughly Tom's
comments and his introduction of the item and I understand where the group is
coming from. ~here are people who are in business that are no longer going to
be able to remain in business if we don't provide someplace for them. I
thought the Planning Commission attacked the problem. They spent a lot of
time on it. Came back twice on it in fact. I think they came up with the
answer I was looking for. So I'm kind of unanimous with what I'm hearing
from the Council here tonight. I think we have to act on this one way or the
other. A motion is in order.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to have an opportunity to speak on it.
CounciLman Geving: What level are you speaking from now?
Mayor Hamilton: I'm not speaking on the Council. Obviously you're chairing
it. I'm speaking as a representative of Merle Volk.
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me for interrupting but I think it would be
appropriate if you stood out there.
Councilman Geving: Well, I think you can speak from here Tom but I think
there is a point here that Bill is making that we are seeing a different
proposal being made here tonight by the Mayor who happens to be in the realty
business ar~ sometimes it's difficult to determine which side that you're on
at one point or the other.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, I'm not voting on the issue so I think it's clear what
I 'm doing.
Councilman Geving: It's difficult for me, and now I'm speaking as a council
person, to see the proposal for something that you as the Mayor voted on as a
part of the downtown project and then on the other hand, turned arour~ as the
realty agent for Lotus Realty and are presenting back to the Council and to
the Planning Commission as the sole representative for a developer. I'm
beginning to see a little more of a conflict here Tom than I had seen
previously. I'm not going to call it a conflict but I see that there's a hint
that you're being put in a position where you're the sole representing, the
sole representative in fact as a realty person, for moving a person in the
downtown area who is being displaced, to someplace in what we'll call the
proposed industrial zoning district in our rural. Tnat's why I'm having
60
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
personally a little bit of trouble fielding your comments even as a private
person or as a representative-for the Mr. Volk but w~ will hear your coaments.
Mayor ~milton: I think you're way off-base in your comments about t/~
conflict. I don't have anything to do with the downtown redevelopment.
Because I happen to know some of the businesses that are down there ar~ know
that they're being displaced, I think has absolutely no conflict whatsoever.
I think anybody here could do the same thing. Ih~ in an unusual position
because I see both sides of the street at the same time. I'm on the street
everyday and I know the people who are in this community and I know the people
who certainly would be an asset to keep in this community so I think I can
weigh quite well coming back to the Council and proposing something such as
this to keep businesses in the community. Ika certainly not going to propose
something be done in the community ar people stay in here that would be
detrimental to the city. I've worked too hard to do that type of thing and
I'm not about to do it. You may not believe that and I guess that's your
problem that you'll have to deal with somehow but I have and I do represent
Merle Volk on his property. This issue came up with expanding some of the use
on his property simply because not only the people downtown but many people
had called Merle and wanted to use some of his property, rent it, buy it,
lease it, whatever they could do, to put their particular use on a piece of
land where they could continue to operate in the city of Chanhassen and do it
in a reasonable price. Merle actually called me and said he wasn't sure what
to do and how could he proceed so we thought perhaps this would be a logical
way to proceed. In looking at both sides of it again, I think it is a logical
way to proceed. There's no reason why you can't take a parcel of land and
make it and again I think sometimes we get hung up on semantics. Calling it a
40 acre contractor's yard may not be the correct term. As Bill said, I'm not
sure exactly what you call it but what differer~ does it make. The uses that
would be there are those that you have read about in the Minutes from the
Planning Commission. It was always proposed and I always said from the outset
that it was fine with us if you made each use a conditional use so anytime any
additional business was going to go onto that property, it would come back to
the Council, to the staff, to anybody who wants to look at it, as a
conditional use. Look at it one side or the other, tear it up and apart, it
doesn't make any difference. Merle does not want to have any uses on his
property that are going to be detrimental to his property. It's a pretty
simple, straight forward request. There's nothing hidderu There's no attempt
to do anything that would be detrimental to the City, to the land, to the
surrounding area. It is an attempt to use, for him, to use his land to get
more use out of it and of course, to ge~%erate more income off of his property.
It was an attempt by myself, in wo.rking with Merle, to keep some of those
businesses in this community and attract others that either aren't here now or
are here and I feel should stay. It really isn't any more difficult than
that. I think a lot of people are making a whole lot more of it than what is
really there. It's very straight forward. It's a short term thing. It's not
like it's going to last forever. Someday all that land is going to be
commercial and industrial and the uses that will be put there now will be
gone. You'll ~ big buildings being built and this area will be sewered
hopefully and we'd have a nice addition to the industrial park. That's really
all I have to say. I think it's ~ blown out of proportion and I think it's
more straight forward than some people realize.
61
City Counci 1 Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Geving: Thank you Tom. The issue then before us tonight is, a
potential zoning ordinance amendment is being proposed and whether or not we
would create a rural industrial district.
Barbara Dacy: I'd like to clarify something and provide a point of
information. There was discussion that you had referred to how the Council
was heading on this item was consistent with the Planning Commission action.
The Planning Cc~ission recommended not to create the district.
Councilman Geving: ~nat's right. Why do you make that statement, that our
comments were not consistent with the Planning Commission?
Barbara Dacy: I think maybe you're trying to, when you were talking you had
said that that was consistent with the Planning Commission. I just wanted to
make sure for the record that that was right. As your planner and zoner,
sometimes I make recommendations that are not as popular and I appreciate the
Council's concern for keeping businesses within the community so please
understand that I'm speaking to you as a planner and zoner. Both the Planning
Commission and the staff did have concerns about permitting what I guess for
lack of a better term, non-contractor's yard uses at that location. The
current zoning and land use on the property now is A-2, agricultural. Our
concern was non-contractor's yard uses would be permitted on the property.
In essence we would be encouraging a commercial establishment to occur on site
that would not be agricultural in character. That activity would be
occurring, not necessarily retail but manufacturing, assembly, uses of sign
painting, caterer's, boat repair and so on and from a land use standpoint, it
brings up an issue that piece is no longer agricultural but really is
commercial and industrial. Our current Comp Plan says that we shouldn't be
having commercial and industrial uses in the rural area unless there's water
and sewer service available. That was the basis for the recommendation from
staff and the Planning Commission. I would recommend if a district is going
to be created, that it be limited to contractor's yard uses only and that non-
contractor's yard uses would be prohibited.
Councilman Geving: But again, I think your comments are very appropriate and
we've heard them but the proposal before us is whether or not we're going to
consider an amer~iment creating this rural industrial district, That is the
issue so at this time I'd like to...
Councilman Johnson: Could I make one quick comment? When I run through this
list, fiberglass repair, auto racing garage, sign painting, antique repair,
welding, blacksmith, caterers and coffee distributers. The last three of
those won't require a hazardous waste license from Carver County. The first
four would from my knowledge of these types of operations. I do not believe
that hazardous waste generators should be in the A-2 area. Anybody requiring
a license, I'm really against that. I'd rather keep them within the
industrial complex. They're easier to maintain and keep an eye on.
Councilman Boyt: Jay I agree with you.
The A-2 is not appropriate for what we're talking about. I think what we're
talking about is changing the zone. It's not going to be A-2 if we go through
with this and I guess the steps, as I would understand them and I'd like Dale
62
City Oour~il Meeting - Dec~ber 7, 1987
or Clark or someone to correct me on this, is that the first thing we do
is decide that we can have a different zoning district anywhere. That we
just say we're now going to create a new category. .The second thing we would
do is say where are the logical places to put it. Then if we end up with a
logical place, being where the applicant would like it to be, the third step
is we decide on conditional uses. Does that sort of floW?
Councilman Geving: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: When I say A-2, I should say outside the MUS~, I believe
these uses are industrial uses.
Barbara Dacy: The process that you outlined is correct as far .as step by
step. My comment was that we have a land use plan and that our lar~ use plan
should be consistent with the zoning district that is placed on the property.
If it's limited to a contractor's yard under the current definition, it's just
a place for storage of equipment and vehicles and so on. There's no activity
conducted on the site. The activity is conducted elsewhere, wherever it is.
I'm saying to get uses that do not fit that classification, then you're
crossirg that line to commercial with quasi-industrial uses that are on the
site. That raises a potential ~ use plan application and Met Council
review ar~ so on.
Councilman Geving: I personally don't have a whole lot of problem with Merle
expanding on what is already there. We've got a couple of uses out there now
that are contractor's yard. ~hat's a big area. It can stand a lot more
density as long as the uses would remain pretty much with what he's got there
now. A contractor's yard. Just like the intent and the definition stated,
people store their vehicles, their equipment, their supplies there. They show
up in the morning, pick up their equipment ar~ they go off to the work site
and return in the evening, store their equipment and go home. That is
working. It's working on that site. Absolutely. To expand at Merle's
facility, I see nothing wrong with that as.long as the uses are conditioned as
what he's attempting to put out there and we would have an opportunity to
look at those before they were in place. I have no problem at all with that
proposal. The proposal in front of us is to create a whole new district with
yet to be defined uses for that district_ Now I have problems with that and
I'm sure we'd have a lot of debate over what goes in and what goes out but as
far as Merle's property is concerned, he's got a lot of property there that
can be utilized for contractor's yards. I'd rather have them there,
concentrated in one spot than spread throughout the community with a little
bunch of backhoe diggers and construction equipment in various locations
throughout the community. Outside ar~ under various kirks of equipment stored
wherever. I'd rather have them out in F~rle's place. I think he's got the
right idea and I think Merle personally has the right idea as to the kind of
people and the kinds of activities he'd like to -_"~c there. H~ doesn't want
the painters. He doesn't want the polluters. I give him credit for that so
in terms of my own personal biases, I would say what Merle's got going out
there is good. Basically good because he's brought some businesses into town
which we wouldn't normally have and put them under a roof. And if he's
proposing a 9~0 square foot building, so be it. That's an asset to the
community. From a tax standpoint it's also good so I don't have anything
63
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
wrong to say about what Merle is proposing. I'm only looking at this proposal
tonight and what's being proposed for us is the rural industrial district
being created. To amend our zoning ordinance and that's the problem I have.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd just like to respond to what Jay said because it's
totally wrong. What you're saying Dale is correct. Merle does not want any
uses out there that have any type of significant or even minor water use. He
doesn't want to use water. He doesn't want to have people using water. He
wants nothing that would be hazardous material being used out there. He wants
uses that are consistent with what he's got out there now. It's very straight
forward as I tried to tell you. He wants to have similar type uses that he
has, primarily equipment storage. I tried to make up a list of contractor's
yard uses and I submitted that to the Planning Commission and it turns out to
be a mistake since all of a sudden I guess that's cast in stone or it's the
gospel but there are some things in there that obviously don't belong in there
but there are a number of contractor's yard uses listed that are legitimate
contractor's yard uses. Sc~e of those things should be crossed off.
Councilman Geving: I think whatever list you created, there would have been
items on there that someone would have questioned.
Councilman Horn: I'm questioning Barb. You said you were concerned about
having uses that could be looked at as commercial in the non-sewered area.
Would you consider car restoration one of those?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Horn: That's going on out there. I think all we're doing, and I
don't think there's anything wrong with that. People can do that in their
garage but I think what we're asking for here is to allow things like that
that you might consider commercial to go on this site. Whatever we have to do
to allow that to happen while still keeping it under control for the pollution
kind of things, I would support.
Councilman Geving: Let's go ahead with this item. We're getting late. I
think I've heard enough from each of you in terms of testimony. I'm ready for
a motion on this. Bill, do you want to make a motion on this?
Councilman Boyt: Well, I haven't figured out what will pass yet Dale.
Mayor Hamilton: It was for discussion only so there really doesn't need to be
a motion.
Councilman Geving: Is this just a discussion item? There's no vote?
Barbara Dacy: There were three options presented. The Council does have the
opportunity to direct staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to create
a district or you can direct staff to leave the current regulations as is.
Councilman Geving: I think we have to take a vote. I'd like to be definitive
about things like this so the Merle Volk's know exactly where they stand on
their proposal. So that Tom can go back and tell Merle that it either flew or
64
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
didn't fly or just what.
Councilman Horn: What I would like to propose is Option 2 which says the
rural industrial zoning district be created allowing, and I'd like to change
the word contractor's yard there, as a conditional use. I don't know what
term I want to put in there but we want to have some type of industrial uses
for businesses displaced but I don't like that term contractor's yard. I
guess I'd look for some help in what we'd call it ar~ then call them a
conditional use. That would be my reco~m~dation.
Councilman Boyt: So basically two with s(~e slight modifications.
Councilman Geving: So you're willing to create a rural industrial zoning
district and this district can be any number of locations throughout the city?
Merle Volk just happens to be one that's being proposed.
Councilman Geving: Could be. Might not even qualify.
Councilman Horn: We'll have to study that when we get into it as to what we
would set up.
Roger Knutson: Since this motion is just to direct the staff to proceed with
this through the process, it only requires a simple majority vote but to amend
the zoning ordinance, when it comes back to you if that's what happens, that
will require a four-fifths vote.
Councilman Boyt: So that means 100% of the voters?
Councilman Geving: Yes, because Tom will not vote. Let's get the discussion
in now because we're trying to give staff some direction. Now if you don't
believe, you truly don't believe that we can achieve a four-fourths of the
vote, 10~%, even after all this work by staff when it comes back to us, then
forget it. Why waste our time? That's where we're at.
Councilman Boyt: I seconded it because I think it will work. It's not my
plan to throw a rock in it.
Councilman Johnson: I5~ going to take a lot of convincing to ~ that
industrial uses should be down in the non-sewered area.. In a non-watered
area, what are we going to fight our fire down there? Guys down there use a
couple of hundred gallons of flamable materials operating a paint sl~p.
Mayor Hamilton: There is not going to be a paint shop. Jay, how do I have to
explain it to you. That's not what the use is going to be. Apparently you
can't__~--~ that.
Councilman Johnson: If we're talking about what's being displaced, y~s.
65
City .Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Horn: Look what you do in the agricultural area. You store gas,
you have equipment, you have machinery, you have potential for all kinds of
things. The point is that you don't have a large percentage of people down
there. These are small numbered employee types of things. It might be a
farmer and a hired man type of situation. Equate it to that. Not to a 3M or
a Honeywell or something like that, or even our larger businesses here. We're
talking about small things that are really variation of the farming operation
to a large degree because there's a lot more to farming than goes on in the
farm operation. You repair and all those other kinds of things. They paint
their tractors. They do all of these things on the farm.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded that a rural industrial zoning
district be created allowing businesses being displaced as a conditional use.
Councilman Horn and Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the motion. Councilman
Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion. The motion
failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2.
Mayor Hamilton returned as chairman of the meeting.
CHANHASSEN PIONEER CEMETARY, UPDATE REPORT.
Don Ashworth: Staff members really wanted to see something occur down there
arzt have really been trying to put something together. I didn't like any of
the alternatives I brought back to the City Council. For the lack of a good
solution, I'm recommending that we not further proceed with looking at
expansion at the existing site. If the Council wishes to give direction that
it should take a look to another 5 to 10 acre site somewhere else in the
community.
Mayor Hamilton: It's a little disappointing I think that the landowners
haven' t been more cooperative.
Councilman Johnson: They've got their motives. They have to make their buck
where they're making their buck and everything else and I think I'm totally in
agreement with Don here. I think it's time to cut and run and let's go look
s~mewhere else.
Councilman Geving: I'm really disappointed. We worked awful hard on this and
we spent a lot of time. Don, specifically has really worked hard on this. We
wanted it badly and it's the only opportunity we're ever going to get to
expand that cemetary. It's a historical thing and gosh, I'm just really
disappointed. I know where Don's coming from and I believe everyth'ing you've
written here Don. You've given it the best shot you could and I agree with
you wholeheartedly. As much as I hate to give up on it, let's go get another
5 acres someplace else. Maybe get Brian and your dad to get out there and
find a nice piece of ground for us somewhere but I hate to give up on it. I
guess I'm going to have to. I'm disappointed.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with Don.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think I wouldn't give an inch on Otto/Hartung. I hope
we can restrict whatever building they do out there as much as we can. We
66
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
don't need a motion for you to do s(~ethirg. You know how everybody feels.
HERITAGE SQUARE, CONSIDER ESTABLISHING Rf~DGNITION PLAQUES.
Don Ashworth: T~n had come back to me and has over the course of the past
year I guess I've heard where people have wanted to look to some form of
recognitioru Dimler's, Klingelhutz', Pauly's, a number of people that have a
rich heritage for our community. In looking at this item, there is a
possibility to include as a part of the heritage square, tt~ ability to put
a plaque or some other form of recognition right into each of those exposed
aggregate panels Feedback I~ gettir~3 back sounds good but it's just an idea
and I guess I would look to Council's reaction.
Mayor Hamilton: At the risk of havirg more conflict of interest that doesn't
exist, I'll say that when Market Blvd. was named or the contest came up to
name it, there was mmme sentiment from some of the local people that they
wanted to have the street named after their family. Then we kicked the-idea
around a little bit with several people. We thought well, once this square is
developed, why not call it Heritage Square or Pioneer Square, whatever the
heck you want to call it ar~ if somebody wants to put a plaque in the ground
or do the type of thing that they do at the Arboretum. When a family buys a
bench out there or a tree or a shurb or s~ething, they make up a nice plaque
out of brass or something and they stick it in the ground that says this tree
was given by tl~ so and so family and then it's there forever. The same type
of thing could be done here. If somebody wants to put a picture of Grandpa
Henry in the square ar~ they want to pay to have it put in there and put a
little plaque there and they say, he was one of the founders of this
community, let them do it. If it makes them happy, I see nothing wrong with
that. It would be kind of nice additior~ ~nat was where the whole idea
generated from and then Don came along with this idea and I think it makes a
lot of sense. As long as it doesn't cost the city anything and those people
want to pay to do it, let ths~ do it.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to go on record on the Council tonight to name
this Heritage Square once and for all officially. We've never really given it
a name but I think we might as well do that. Ot/Terwise, if you don't, there's
all kinds of hassles about people in the community, the Horns and all the
other people who want to name it sc~=t~hing else.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to officially name Heritage
Park at the site of the old City Hall. Ail voted in favor and motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Johnson: Many times we' talk about reviewing conditional use
permits and I've never seen one review done yet. We have several different
conditional use permits. What I'd like to propose is that our code
enforcement people start putting out letters to people with cor~itional use
permits. Start with contractor's yards amd nurseries and I'd like to
establish some kind of schedule. In my mind I'd say that by December 15th
67
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
have letters out to every contractor's yard and wholesale nursery listing what
your conditions are and stating that you will be inspected by code enforcement
against these conditions between January 1st and January 15th and then go onto
the other conditional use permits we have. Get back to Council and tell us
how, we keep saying that we want to control conditional uses but it never gets
reviewed. Last February we directed staff to review one of these conditional
use permits. It's never been reviewed. We've never gotten the feedback from
that. I want this to happen now. In particular Merle Volk, who we've been
talking about tonight. I've got the same stuff that I pointed out to his
attorney last February, about this same equipment sitting out back there, the
same pile of rocks sitting out there. He's moved new stuff in and out. He
has not ~..n within the confines of his conditional use permit all year. We
should have been taking action. I don't want to pick on one. I want all of
tkmm.
Councilman Horn: All of the beachlots can be included in that. They've never
~_n reviewed either.
Barbara Dacy: ~hey w~re reviewed last sum~er.
Don Ashworth: I recall the list on the conditional use permits as well.
Staff will prepare a report and return that to you.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see us do some enforcement action. Give them
a warning.
Councilman Boyt: No later than February 1.
Councilman Johnson: For everybody to be reviewed.
Mayor Hamilton: Or the first meeting in February.
POSTAL SERVICE CHANGE UPDATE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.
Councilman Geving: Here's what we need to do, we ~ to develop a letter to
all the addressees. We need to set up a meeting with A1 Rickter and Todd's
got to tell us about that. We need to develop a survey format and return
postal card format. We need to schedule meetings with homeowners in the next
several weeks and I'd like to have all of you a part of that. The important
thing Tom, for you as the Mayor I think in this whole process, because of your
position, it's very important for us to meet with A1 Rickter on an informal
basis and lay this all out for him. I think the position of a mayor is really
key to this and that's where we've developed the strategy for implementing the
whole process. Maybe you could tell us, if you could, Todd where we're at.
Todd Gerhardt: I talked to A1 Rickter last Friday. We have set up a meeting
for December 22nd at 4:00 here at the City Hall. I will be drafting an agenda
and have that out to you before that meeting.
Mayor Hamilton: I work at 4:00.
68
City Council Meeting - December 7~ 1987
Councilman Geving: That o~e you've got to make Tom. Beally, your position as
mayor I think is the whole key. We just need to give it tt~' big push now to
get this thing rolling.
Councilman Johnson: ~hat do we ~ for the m~cting with Mr. Rickter?
Todd Gerhardt: I'll draft out an agenda and list out our goals and
objectives. What we want to see done. F~w we're going to do that and make up
a list of things that we're expecting.
Councilman Geving: Have you got anything lined up with homeowners in the next
two weeks?
Todd Gerhardt: I've ~-cn trying to contact them. It's hard to get them. They
work during the day. I've ~ trying to get them in the evening. I k~----~p
plugging away. I'm waiting for people to call back.
Councilman Johnson: What happened to this January 1 deadline for having the
people surveyed by January? I had heard that at one time.
Councilman Geving: That was my aggresive date not knowing all the problems of
getting Mr. Rickter and the homeowners associations but the dates aren't as
important as the actions that we have to take.
Councilman Johnson: So there's nothing magic? We don't lose our chance?
Councilman Geving: No, that was just a date I had picked.
Todd Gerhardt: The quicker you can move on this, the better. The ~ck
I'm getting from Mr. Rickter and fr~n the post master is that the sooner we
can get this set up, the better.
Councilman Geving: This is just strictly an informal _m~cting?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes, and then there will be a second meeting on January 7th.
Mr. Rickter felt that you should have follow-up meetings and stay on it. At
4:~0 also.
Councilman Johnson: Could this be at the same time as our referendum? A
question?
Councilman Boyt: I have a question and I guess it gets hack to Tom's thing
about 4:~0. Why can't these people meet outside of nomal business hours?
Recognizing that it is the federal government and all, but why do they make us
leave work?
Todd Gerhardt: I guess we worked around 4:gg because Dale and I thought about
4:gg but I would talk to him and see if later in the evening would be better
for him because he is busy all day long. I left it up to him.
69
City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987
Councilman Geving: Let's see what w~ can schedule but let's keep the date.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m..
Sukmit~ by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
70