1k. City Council Minutes February 12, 1996.7
Ik
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 12, 1996
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, John Rask,
Scott Harr and Dawn Beitel
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION - COMMUNITY VALUES WEEK, FEBRUARY 18-24
1996.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a proclamation for Community Values Week, February 18th through the 24th for the
year 1996 and I'd like to just read it real quickly. Whereas it takes a whole village to educate a child, African
proverb, the whole community has the responsibility to work in concert with the home to provide consistent
messages about how we are to treat each other. Whereas, the entire community participated in a process to
identify a common ground of basic goodness. The District 112 communities process involved three community
forums and a committee that reviewed and summarized the input from the community. The values were then
adopted by the city councils, school board and county commissioners. Whereas, the entire community must be
involved. This includes school, business, clergy, law enforcement, social services, city government and service
organizations. This involvement begins with identifying the values and continues by community members
modeling and promoting the values. Whereas, the City of Chanhassen has adopted and promotes the eight
community values of citizenship, environmentalism, generosity, human worth and dignity, integrity, learning,
and respect for others and responsibility. Whereas, the values committee has organized the fifth annual
community values week. Now Therefore, the City of Chanhassen hereby proclaims the week of February 18th
through the 24th, 1996 to be Community Values Week in the City of Chanhassen. As we continue to face the
challenges and opportunities of our society,we, the Council, call on all citizens of the city of Chanhassen to
promote and model these eight values. The City of Chanhassen's commitment and dedication to building a
bright future for all members, but especially the youth of this community remain top priorities. In witness
whereof, I hereto set my hand the 12th day of February in the year of our Lord 1996. Is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the proclamation proclaiming the week of
February 18 -24, 1996 as Community Values Week All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any other public announcements again? If seeing none, we'll move right along with
our agenda.
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Chmiel: There's to be an addition to, well. First of all we are removing item (e) because that's what we
did this past Saturday and I'd like to add to item (e), proposal of the second amendment to the real estate
purchase agreement for the Rottlund Company. Roger, maybe you'd like to just explain that a little bit.
Roger Knutson: Yes Mayor. This is a technical amendment. ...purchase agreement back in November. At that
time there was one proposed plat. One proposed legal description on the plat. Different outlot name. Because
of the way the final plat came down, the lettering of the outlot got changed and so this is the correct... legal
description to conform to the... technical amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any concerns with the consent?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items
pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approve Preliminary Plat Extension, Hiscox Addition.
b. Approval of 1996/97 Liquor License Fees.
C. City Council Minutes dated January 22, 1996
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 23, 1996
d. Approval of Bills.
e. Approval of the second amendment to the real estate purchase agreement with the Rottlund Company.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: We have one item on the visitor presentation. Are there any others'? If seeing none, we'll do
the recognition of the Chanhassen Fire Department Combat Challenge Team,
RECOGNITION OF CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT COMBAT CHALLENGE TEAM.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm really pleased to formally present the members of the Chanhassen Fire Department's Fire
Fighter Combat Challenge Team who recently won the right through competition at a regional level to compete
in the World Fire Fighter Combat Challenge Competition in Florida. Each of these individuals have put
extraordinary amount of effort into preparing for this competition and I would like to ask Public Safety Director,
Scott Harr to introduce them. Scott.
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, thank you. There's so many issues that we all wrestle
with, some that generate significant controversy and when I have an opportunity to present something so
positive that it's absolutely delightful for me. I provided you with a newspaper article that tells a lot about what
the combat challenge team is about and what their accomplishments are and I think it's so significant that they
deserve some special recognition tonight. This group organized themselves to voluntarily participate in a very
1
u
7
[l
1
0
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
grueling exercise program to compete against other fire departments. All but two of the fire departments that
made it to the world finals are full time departments. Chanhassen and one other were the only volunteer
departments that made it that far. They've raised all their own money. They worked out on their own time.
They generated significant department and community support and they've done naturally what the chiefs and I
find ourselves struggling with all the time, and that's to promote enthusiasm and a positive direction in a
business that's often times frustrating. People called upon at difficult hours. Call people away from their family
nights, holidays and weekends. They see horrendous things in the field. It's difficult for the chiefs and myself
to know always what to do to keep up the positive morale. Well this group has done it. And while they started
out to work with their own group of 5, what they've done is gathered up momentum which that's really been
astounding. I saw the sign up sheet at the fire station this morning. More than a third of the department has
now signed up voluntarily to get involved with a more formalized fitness program that this team started. Two
of the members on their own time took a certification program to do much of the fitness programming that we
paid quite a bit to do over the years and there's an attitude that's so positive because now people want to be on
this positive band wagon and they're so proud of what these guys have been able to do. I'd like to ask Nann to
show a brief video and it starts out with a flag ceremony at the world championships held recently in Miami and
then you'll see a number of our fire fighters competing and followed up by the award ceremony where the fire
department was surprised to be recognized as one of the two volunteer departments involved.
(The video was shown at this point in the meeting.)
Scott Harr: Now they're in full gear breathing air out of the tanks. That's 50 pounds by the way... That was
John Wolff before. This is John Murphy. Scott Anding down on the second... fully charged line. 250 pounds.
Now I know what you're thinking. This looks easy. It's not a lot of over acting.
Councilman Mason: No, I'm not thinking that at all.
Scott Harr: Okay, this is Joe Brennan. 185 pound dummy. And this is the awards ceremony where
Chanhassen called up and recognized and really it's something to have a volunteer department to come this far.
And I'd just like to take this final opportunity to formally recognize each with a plaque so if each of you could
come up when I call your names. Also I should mention, Chief Jim McMahon and Chief Bob Moore have been
very supportive of the efforts of this group in every way and appreciate them being here tonight. John Murphy.
John Wolff. Scott Anding. Joe Brennan. And Greg Hayes. I've got to tell you, my hand really hurts. One
final person that I want to make a special note for is Chick Anding. Chick and I have become friends and it's
really been enjoyable getting to know Chick and Chick is noteworthy because he is the person behind the
scenes. I had to have the Chief order him to be here tonight because he doesn't want any of the attention but
he's the one that does all the scheduling. All the coordinating with the city. Helps deal with all the funding
and really does a nice job. Also it's unique because Chick's son, Scott Anding is on the team and his daughter
is on the fire department as well, so Chick.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. And once again, great job. Recognition being done as it is this evening should
have been done a long time ago, even before you succeeded with your endeavors as you've gone to Florida. So
once again from my point, and I'm sure the Council, you're doing a great job for the city and we really
appreciate it. Thanks. Next item. Yeah, you can leave. I was only kidding that you had to stay.
Bob Moore: We appreciate the support of the city as well....
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR COULTER BOULEVARD PHASE H STREET AND
UTILITY IlVIPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PROJECT
NO. 93 -26B.
Public Present:
Name Address
Larry VanDeVeire 4980 Co. Rd. 10 East, Chaska
Rex Lowrance (Pillsbury) 30 Fox Hollow Drive
Lee Borland Bluff Creek Development Group
Brad Johnson Representing Lars Conway
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight we have the project engineer, Mr. Phil
Gravel of Bonestroo and Associates to provide you with a detailed presentation of the feasibility report which
has been completed and with that, I'll turn the podium over to Mr. Phil Gravel.
Phil Gravel: Thank you Charles. Good evening Mayor, members of the Council. I'd like to go over briefly the
proposed utility improvements,proposed street improvements to ... trail and then the updated costs. The
preliminary assessments and finally review a summary of the revenue for the project. First of all the sewer and
water for the project. The sewer and water improvements include extending a 12 inch watermain from the edge
of the school property eastward to the Pillsbury property. Also an 8 inch or 12 inch watermain on the north of
Stone Creek Drive. This east /west connection is pretty important. Right now the city's west half of the city is
only connected to the east half of the city with a connection on Lake Lucy Road and another connection down
here near the railroad tracks. So that's quite important. Sewer construction will include extending a trunk
sewer, the Bluff Creek trunk sewer, which originates down at the lift station on Lyman and Audubon Road.
Northward from it's existing terminus along the creek route and eventually under this project. Under Highway 5
which will provide service to future properties to the north. For those of you that don't know, this sewer line is
intended in the future to continue along the creek to eventually service property even west of Highway 41.
Street improvements will include extending Coulter from it's existing ending near the elementary school,
eastward and connecting to the existing Coulter near Pillsbury. Part of that will include removing a little bit of
the end of the existing roadway because it was initially planned to make a U shape as shown on the plat here
and now it will continue straight and this road could either be a T north /south or the north McGlynn Road could
remain as a cul -de -sac as it is temporarily now. Another major portion of the project will include extending
Stone Creek Drive from the existing end northward to Highway 5. The connection to Highway 5 will consist of
a right -in, right -out connection meaning that in the future when Highway 5's expanded to four lane, there won't
be a break in the median there so traffic will either be able to make a right exit off of the roadway or eastbound
traffic can turn right onto the roadway. A couple other important things with the street construction is ... a
wetland crossing near the eastern edge of the school property or the city property that will involve some
mitigation and we'll work with Diane on that. There's a pedestrian underpass in this location which is being
funded through a MnDot ISTEA project. That will enable a trail that is planned for along Bluff Creek to cross
Coulter Boulevard in a grade separated crossing that's also planned, what's shown in orange on here are also
trails. It's also planned to extend, the existing trail on the south side of the road, to the underpass. Then cross
over and extended up to the school site. I think some of you know there's a future plan to cross Highway 5.
Another underpass and this system could all tie together with that. Cost wise, the estimated sanitary sewer cost
including administrative costs are $373,400.00. That includes extending the sanitary sewer north of Highway 5.
Watermain costs are $275,300.00. That includes the north /south watermain and the east /west 12 inch in Coulter.
in
1
1 J
1
I City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
t And then the street trail and storm sewer costs are $2,156,800.00. 800.00. A ain those include administrative > g s rahve costs and
' that's on Table 1 in the report that }'ou all have. How does this get paid for. Proposed to assess a majority of
the cost of this project. Figure 6 in the report shows the properties that are proposed to be assessed and what
items they are to be assessed for. Two properties north of Highway 5, that owned by the VanDeVeire's and the
other one owned by Dr. Lars Conway are proposed to be assessed for area sewer and water charges. The trunk
charges that we've established for a few years. Those properties had water service last year when the watermain
was expanded along Galpin Boulevard and now that the sewer service is available to those parcels, it's the time
to assess them for their area charges. In addition, the adjacent property owners, the Bluff Creek Partners,
Highway 5 Partnership, Shamrock, Pillsbury and Heritage are proposed to be assessed for sewer and water and
street assessments, which include the street costs and the trail costs. Those assessment charges are based on the
rates shown here on Table 2 which is the middle of this overhead. The trunk sewer and the trunk watermain
charges are pre- determined rates and they're based on the equivalent units which for industrial property is based
' on a formula of around 4 units per acre. Then the other assessment that's associated with that is the biggest
assessment is a street assessment which is around $210.00 per front foot. If you go back to that Figure 6, the
area shown with a dashed line or on here in orange, is the area that's proposed to be assessed on a front foot
basis. So essentially the adjacent property will pay for the cost of the road. Finally a revenue summary. This
is shown on Table 4 in the report, and we specifically broke out sanitary sewer and watermain and street in
separate divisions here and didn't summarize them for a specific reason in that the sewer and water generate an
' excess positive revenue and that's understandable because there's some future costs for things like wells and
towers that this project generates a need from that this excess revenue is intended to be used for and the street
shows a negative revenue. Part of that can be offset by the MnDot funding for the trail underpass, which is a
little over $300,000.00 for that. Then the remainder of that can come from city street funds. And if you want
' me to summarize this, we can go over it. The estimated sewer costs are $373,000.00. A total assessment
revenue from that is $526,500.00, which results in a positive balance of $153,100.00. Similarly the watermain,
the estimated cost is $275,300.00 and the revenue generated by both trunk and lateral charges is $759,000.00
' which results in a net positive revenue of $483,950.00. Again that, those dollars can go to things like city wells
that's under construction now and future towers. And finally the street assessment has a cost of $2,156,800.00
and the assessment revenue is $1,612,000.00 so there's a negative balance there. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Council have any questions? Colleen.
Phil Gravel: I guess I'd also like to mention before that, that I did hear from a number of the adjacent property
owners today. Some of them are here but I wanted to get these comments on record. We heard from Pillsbury
and they were generally supportive of the project. They had two concerns. One was access to their site during
construction, which is a workable concern. And then their other concern was the additional traffic generated by
' the project. Not only to Coulter Boulevard as it goes in front of their business, but as it would affect the
intersection of Audubon Road and Highway 5. I also heard from John Dobbs, who's with the Heritage
development and he also was generally supportive of the project. One of his concerns was, and this is also a
workable thing. The area south of Coulter Boulevard on Stone Creek Drive, if the timing works out such with
his project, since it's all on his property and he feels he can better control things, he'd like to reserve the option
to complete that as part of that project. And his other concern had to do with regional drainage issues and those
are things that we can address later once we get some final grading plans from the affected people. And the
' third person I heard from was Lee Borland who is representing Bluff Creek Partners, and again any of her
concerns we were able to deal with today. I'm sorry, questions again.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Phil, you explained the VanDeVeire and Conway assessments and I didn't
understand. We're not crossing Highway 5 at all?
LJ
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Phil Gravel: Well, as a matter of fact we are and I probably wasn't clear enough on the sewer overhead.
There's a crossing of the sewer right at Bluff Creek. It begins north of the roadway and that will provide access
to Dr. Conway's property. Eventually the sewer's going to go along the VanDeVeire's property following the
creek.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. So as part of this we are, we will be crossing Highway 5.
Phil Gravel: They have the ability to hook up, right. And we are crossing TH 5.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My second question, and I don't know, it's not directed specifically at you but have
we had any, I understand Pillsbury's concern but mine is the opposite concern. Have we had any discussions
with them? My concern is that they're going to be using Coulter, cutting down to Galpin to get over to TH 41.
Have we talked about that with them at all? What ton road is that?
Phil Gravel: This would be suitable for them. It will be a truck road, 9 ton. I think in the long tenn, once the
Audubon Road signal gets, or intersection gets signalized, that shouldn't be a issue.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, in the short term.
Phil Gravel: But I did talk to them about that today. Trying to explain that it would be a benefit and they said
all their traffic goes to the east so they didn't think there would be use on that either way but it's a good issue
and we can talk to them about it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'll talk about it with Scott too.
Phil Gravel: Well, that brings up another transportation issue that, and we'd like to talk to the school
transportation people to see what affect the connection of TH 5 world be as far as their circulation is too.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I thought we were going to...
Phil Gravel: What Mark was asking if no one could hear was whether or not the trail was going to be run to
the new underpass and we talked with Todd about this during preparation of the report and since the underpass
location isn't exactly tied down, he was comfortable with just doing this at this time and they could work on
that when the underpass went in. The underpass as I've seen it on the preliminary plans are right by here so we
plan the sewer jacking to not interfere with that but since they weren't nailed down exactly, the crossing
location, that wasn't going to be part of this project.
Councilman Senn: How will we pay for the trail at that time?
Phil Gravel: How will we pay for the trail at that time? Was that the question? I don't know.
Charles Folch: It would be my guess, Todd was also concerned about having a trail that would stop at the
highway and go nowhere." - People would you know wander off the trail and there'd be no future, or at least no
place to go at this point in time. In the future...
L
1
u
1
I City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
�I
(There was a tape change during this portion of the discussion.)
' Phil Gravel: I can let Charles answer that.
Charles Folch: Actually as kind of shown indirectly. In terms of the road deficit, there's $300,000.00 and some
' thousand dollars that will be coming to offset that $500,000.00 from the federal ISTEA enhancement program.
Basically that $200,000.00 that we have there represents, this basically, the city share of the roadway which
abuts or fronts city property and so we would typically absorb or assume that responsibility just as every
' property owner along that roadway who has frontage assumes those costs. So in terms of the water and the
sewer, positive revenues. Those strictly are intended to offset the future system infrastructure improvements,
such as the tower. Such as wells and things like that.
' Councilman Senn: Haven't we already paid for our portion of the road? Or a majority of the road between
Galpin and where it goes now?
I I
U
I
Charles Folch: The first phase of the road did not actually go to the end of the city property
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I understand that but nobody else participated in the cost. We still got to service
those other people.
Charles Folch: In the first stage of the improvement project there were only two property owners adjacent to
the roadway. That was the city and the school district so those are the only two properties involved in the
project. At that time, as I mentioned, the road did not get extended completely to the end of the city property.
Phil Gravel: I could show you on here Mark, if you want. The road ended right about there so the city
property, or the school property goes up to here so there's this area in here yet that was never constructed last
year, and that's adjacent to city /school property.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but basically that ... share should be $200,000.00 and some thousand.
Phil Gravel: Proportionally.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I've got a question concerning the construction of the intersection with TH 5. The right -
in, right -out. Is there, are you going to engineer any sort of a merge lane or is there simply going to be like
Audubon, a very dangerous intersection?
Phil Gravel: That will be, there's MnDot standards of what has to be done on that. There'd be a right turn lane
for the traffic heading eastbound. There'd be an acceleration lane for the people going north on Stone Creek to
make an east turn. And if MnDot requires, there would be a by -pass lane on the north side. Those would all
be temporary construction. I don't know if under the TH 5 corridor study they laid that out.
Charles Folch: That issue still has to be worked out through our final design process but we received a letter
from the MnDot folks about a month ago addressing a number of intersections along Highway 5. One of their
points that they made was, they had recommended that we consider not opening that connection to Highway 5
until Highway 5 is actually improved with a divided median to protect the people who would try to make the
//
1
City Council Meeting e February 12, 1996
illegal left turns into that roadway, because as an undivided roadway section, it would be very difficult to
prevent illegal left turn movements. So that's something we will work with them and they're highly
recommending that we do not make the connection at this time.
Phil Gravel: Have you seen what the median that they installed to prevent those illegal left turns. They call it a
pork chop because of it's shape.
Councilman Berquist: Where's one?
Phil Gravel: There's one on 82nd and, or there was one on 82nd and TH 41. There's a number of them on TH
41 between here and Chaska. It's essentially, they call it a pork chop because of it's shape and it prevents
people from making a left hand turn.
Councilman Berquist: Ali, I see. Yeah, okay.
Phil Gravel: But what MnDot's point is, and what Charles was pointing out is just because you have this
doesn't mean cars might not stop here and at least think about a turn in and create a disturbance so.
Councilman Berquist: On the other hand, if it's not opened, and the housing to the south as it gets developed
and the traffic knows that it's there, and the traffic begins to flow down Coulter, we run the risk of.
Phil Gravel: Of bringing more traffic on this road.
Councilman Berquist: Right.
Phil Gravel: I think the idea from MnDot was that if this, if Highway 5 is going to be widened within the next
couple years, that it would ... that and that's something we talked to the developer here about as well. And as
Charles mentioned, it's something we'll need to work on.
Councilman Berquist: When they asked you not to connect it, did they intimate the timeframe for construction?
Charles Folch: I guess they recommended that. The impression I got is they still wanted to discuss the issue
with us to see if there was, to make sure that there was no way of accommodating it but we should be hearing
verbally within the next, probably in March to April whether or recent STP application for Highway 5 from CR
17 to TH 41 was approved. And we're all hopeful that we will get approval on that, and if that is the case, then
Highway 5 would be programmed for 1999. Spring '99 letting of a contract.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? If not, thanks Phil. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. This
is your opportunity to come forward. If you have any concerns regarding this project and if so, please state
your name and your address and what those concerns might be.
Lee Borland: I'm Lee ... Bluff Creek Partners. I'm looking ... we talk about the real issue is ... turning onto that
roadway so I guess I would like to be assured that we're keeping that option open ... but we do plan to begin as
soon as we can. We're looking at developing...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
r
LJ
LI
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. I represent Lars Conway. I just have, we support the
program. I have one question. I noticed the Hennesey property is left off of this assessments. Is there some
reason for that? It's the piece just to the west of the Conway property, north of VanDeVeire.
Phil Gravel: It's a small parcel. Less than 10 acres.
Brad Johnson: Is that the reason? Their septic system is currently on our property and we wanted to make sure
that he's aware that service will be terminated. We just found that out.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that would be up to the property owner to notify them as to that situation.
Brad Johnson: We did.
Mayor Chmiel: Did you? Okay.
Brad Johnson: Oh yeah because, but that property currently has some sewer...
Phil Gravel: That's essentially what they've chosen to do with smaller properties.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anyone else? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Bemluist seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carved. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmicl: Steve, any other concerns that you might have'?
Councilman Berquist: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Mark. Okay. Is there, may I have a motion.
Councilman Mason: Move approval to approve feasibility study for Coulter Boulevard Phase II Street and
Utility improvements and authorize the prep of plans and specs for Project No. 93 -26B.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second
Resolution 996 -15: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the feasibility
' report dated January, 1996 for the Coulter Boulevard Phase H Sheet and Utility Improvement Project No. 93-
26B and authorized the project consultant engineer (BRA) to prepare the project plans and specifications. All
voted in favorand the motion carried unanimously.
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN
THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT.
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. City Council reviewed the proposed text
amendment on January 22nd and tabled action to receive additional information as well as to provide more time
for discussion. As the Council requested additional information on the status of landscape nurseries and
arboretums in the city. I won't spend a whole lot of time on this. I think our ordinance is fairly clear. It
differentiates between nurseries and arboretums. Arboretums are defined as a place where plants, trees and
shrubs are cultivated for scientific and educational purpose. It's staffs opinion that the Arboretum is clearly
operating in this capacity. Further, local units of government are restricted on what type of land use controls
they can impose on the Arboretum. Therefore, it becomes difficult to deal with some of those issues. Other
nurseries in the city. Again, we kind of keep getting back to Halla on this. Even though it's an ordinance
amendment that would affect all 2 property but the other two nurseries in the city are quite different from what
Halla's currently operating. Halla has a Garden Center contract, landscape contracting business and wholesale.
Therefore there are going to be some different. You know we try to treat everybody similar and fairly but there
are different uses that play here so it's tough to make a comparison between what each nursery is doing. What
I'd like to do is just take a few minutes to go over, and this is in your packet. It's a table that illustrates the
difference between permitted uses, conditional uses, and interim uses. We put this together at the request of the
Planning Commission to kind of illustrate what the main differences are. Under permitted uses, we say not all
A2 zoned property would be appropriate for retail nurseries. As an example some don't have public facilities.
We'd have for example this illustrates where current A2 property is located and here, the idea is not to strike
fear in everybody's heart that if we approve this we're going to have nurseries everywhere. But the possibility
does exist that if some of this went in, it may eventually, the adoption is there to use it for a nursery if the
amendment goes through as Mr. Halla originally requested. So we have land for example along Galpin that is
zoned A2. If we make it a permitted use, the city has very little say about what goes in there and where as long
as they met setback requirements and so forth. They could operate a nursery out of that location. On our
second point. Retail nursery and garden centers are inconsistent with other permitted uses in the A2 district.
These other uses consistent primarily of agricultural and residential. If it's allowed as a permitted use, we may
allow businesses such as Bachman's or Frank's, which may be in conflict with surrounding properties. Under
permitted uses, if we have, one of our, staffs concerns was if we allow permanent buildings to be constructed
on this site, it's hard to prevent other uses from going in if the nursery vacates. If you have a significant capital
outlay in some of these properties to construct a retail building, to construct parking lots and provide some of
those improvements, it's difficult to convert that property to say residential or to some other use that would be
consistent with the Comp Plan. Another point here is use would be allowed in perpetuity. There'd be no end
date to it and if the zoning changed, it would be non - conforming but basically it would be allowed to continue
to operate. Retail nurseries or garden centers in most cases would be in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
It lists here the corner of TH 5 and TH 41, which is currently zoned A2. This is a map that shows the 2000,
the Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Map which shows the area around the existing Halla Nursery. Halla Nursery
and the majority of the land surrounding it is guided for residential use. It's this land use that allowed Mr. Halla
to subdivide but it's also the land use classification that makes him, that puts him in conflict with the comp
plan. And then going to conditional uses. Conditional uses are very similar to permitted uses. They would be
allowed in perpetuity. The real difference is you could attach conditions to try to mitigate it but there would be
no end date to the use. And then the main difference, looking at interim uses, the main difference here is that
there's a termination date that would discourage the use of permanent buildings. It would encourage the use of
temporary structures. As you recall, we currently have wholesale nurseries as an interim use in this district.
The thought process there is to have a wholesale nursery you don't need a large investments in buildings. You
can have your growing areas, your display areas. Maybe a couple of pole buildings for equipment but it doesn't
10
7
I
Fil
71
I
F;
L
�I
F1
J
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
really involve a large capital outlay to make some of these improvements. When you add retail in there you
talk about a completely different subject where ) have to have some of these improvements. And again, an
interim use does allow you to attach conditions to mitigate any negative impacts. I'd also like to point out that
currently we do allow garden centers in the BH district as a conditional use permit and in the BG as a permitted
use so we do provide for these uses elsewhere in the city. With that staff is recommending that we, that the
Council approve the amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission. At this time I'd be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you John. Any questions of John at this time? I guess I don't see any John at this time.
I know that we have gone through the process of hearing. Do you have anything new or additional to the
previous meetings that you'd like to add at this particular time? Hopefully it's all new. Okay, come on up.
State your name and your address.
Mark Halla: Good evening. I'm Mark Halla. I live at 770 Creekwood ... I would like to see that our letter be a
part of the Minutes... mentioned at the previous Council meeting and that option was that the Council ... and that
they are allowed to construct additional greenhouses on agricultural land ... I'd much rather, as I indicated in my
letter... One other point of clarification is Halla Nursery and Garden Center may be open year round for our
employees but we are a seasonal business. Since December 23, 1995 through today, the books indicate we've
sold $138.20 from our garden center ... and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
Mark Halla: Thank you.
Don Halla: Good evening Mayor, members of Council. I'm Don Halla, 6601 Mohawk Trail in Edina. Maybe
there's other solutions here, I don't know. We've asked to put up a greenhouse... Some people have suggested
that ... maybe that's another business highway... for the business we're in and that would meet I believe the rest of
the criteria for business highway. Another simple solution, rezone us to commercial. All 100 acres or a part
thereof that makes sense to you. There can be many solutions here. All we really want to do is exist as we
have since 1962 and be a good neighbor... city and be able to stay in business and be able to keep our clientele
coming ... thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Don. Okay. Steve, do you have anything that you'd like to add to this?
Councilman Berquist: I don't purport to be an expert on the permitted uses, the conditional uses and the interim
uses in the different zoning districts. I also don't purport to be an expert in retail gardening or the difference
between permanent and temporary structures. I'm not of a mind to impose any sort of regulations that
jeopardizes the existence of an existing business and I don't know that that's necessarily what staffs intent is.
Having said that and already profess my ignorance, I'm going to listen to some of the other questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That table was very helpful John. You know I wasn't here at the last meeting and
tried to get through the Minutes, and I'm getting bogged down between an ordinance amendment and the fact
that this is dealing with specifically one piece of land and one operation and I'm trying to separate the two. It
' seems to me that the business on this specific piece of property, which granted has been there since 1962,
although not in it's current form. I'm struggling with whether it is consistent with the surrounding area, and I
11
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
think it currently is and that's why I have little or no problem with the interim use right now but I see as the
city develops and eventually it will be inconsistent with the surrounding area. Therefore I'm much more
comfortable leaving it as an interim use so 15, probably 10, 8 or 6 years from now, we can I guess I want us to
have some control in not only what happens to this specific piece of property but in other A2 districts. I think
it would be foolish and premature to make this a permitted use within the A2 district because there are other
properties that it would affect. Many other properties that it would affect. Now when we get into the specifics
of, you know is a greenhouse a permanent structure and all of that, I get lost and I don't want to get into that
level but.
Mayor Chmiel: Well just to simply put it, it would be any fixture that is a permanent fixture ... is a permanent
fixture.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. And I don't know what a greenhouse is, you know. I don't know if it has
footings. So I guess I'm inclined at this point to leave it an interim use.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: I, quite honestly could repeat a whole lot of what Colleen just said. I'm struggling with
trying to figure out whether I think the current business is going to be damaged by what staff recommendation
is and if nothing else, Halla Nursery has had staying power in this city since 1962 and I suspect they will
continue to have staying power regardless, quite honestly. I concur with what Colleen is saying about the
advantages to have this be an interim use. In terms of where the city is headed.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: This is going to be harder on me than you, I want you to know that. I thought about this a
lot and I guess I have to say the basis I'm coming from is that I don't think we have in effect the right to, I'm
going to say start affecting a business that's been there for 35 years. I think there's ways to do it that aren't
going to affect the business and not to be argumentative, but I want you to understand. This, if we put an
interim use on this, it will affect the business. The next time the Halla's go to the bank, they're going to have...
time borrowing any money because you know what, banks don't make loans to interim uses. Their fear is when
the interim use gets taken away, they have no recourse and that's a real problem in the lending community.
Kate Aanenson: Can I make a clarification on that point because we still don't, I think there's some ambiguity
in what you're saying there. There is a cloud over the property right now, and that's the fact that it's legal non-
conforming. Okay. And if we pass this, they still have to go through the process. They may choose not to go
for the interim use process and then they stay the way they are and there's still a cloud over the property which
is legal non - conforming. That's why they can't expand. So whether we pass this ordinance or not, they still
have the right to go through the process to expand or not to go through the process and stay the way they are.
They still have a cloud over their property. It's a legal non - conforming. So I just want to make sure everybody
was clear on that.
Councilman Senn: Let me just keep going. That cloud will be there under, yes either one of the circumstances
we're talking about. I'd much rather see us take an action that would eliminate the cloud. You know in the staff
report we started speaking about through the interim use, temporary structures. Come on guys. That's one of
the biggest things we've all been against for years around here is interim structures. Now all of a sudden we're
looking to do something to create them rather than get rid of them. To me there's always exceptions to rules
12
�F-
Lam'
LL�
LJ
C
r-
i
J
Ll
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
�l
�J
and I think 35 years in business in a community has to create an exception to the rule. I'm not the expert on it
' either so I'm not going to purport that it may be the most wonderful solution in the world but you know, it
seems to me that why can't we create an A3 zone and rezone this property as A3, and then it's the only one in
the city that's A3. If somebody else wants to come in and argue before us that they should be moved to an A3,
fine. Let them argue. We can consider each one on it's merits. To me that's a way to leave the ag in place.
Create a new category where this type of a use can exist without jeopardizing other land areas that are currently
A2 and, you know I look at this area. This area to me is rather unique because you know effectively what you
have is you have an operation butting up to a golf course. Nov unless that golf course ever changes, I don't see
' a problem with this operation there. The golf course itself has a very similar operation in a lot of ways. You
know again if you look, if we take that type of approach, the other ones we can look at. If somebody else
comes in on an individual basis but I tell you what, the others one, at least looking at where they're at are going
to have a hell of a lot more time justifying it in my mind because if you look at the surrounding area and stuff,
I mean I think there are some definite conflicts. I don't see a definite conflict with this one. At least not a great
deal of them because of the golf course again. Because the golf course surrounds most of this property. But
again, I do want to lose that in the fact that I really... solution than start from the back into negotiations over
temporary structures every time something needs to go up. And basically some kind of life and death
negotiation for a business every time we get into an issue, which effectively you're going to cause an interim
use. I'd rather see us take a long term approach to the solution and solve it now rather than keep putting it off...
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, let me just ask you a question. As far as zoning is concerned, what ramifications would
there be if we did go to an A3 from the A2? And the other part of that would be the golf course remaining. If
and when that golf course were to maybe discontinue that particular use and put it into residential.
Roger Knutson: Well, if the property was zoned A3, you haven't decided what the rules are for A3 but
assuming you allow wholesale and retail nurseries there as a permitted or conditional use, or whatever you
decide. As long as it's zoned that way, they would have the right to continue in business and expand as long as
they met the rules that you set forth. So they could continue to grow in size. Intensify their use.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Kate, let me ask you a question.
Kate Aanenson: I just wanted to add onto what Roger is saying. That's the struggle we had because it was in
conflict with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan has this guided residential so if we're now going
to say retail is a permitted use in the agricultural district, that's a substantial change in our comprehensive plan
and as John indicated on the map.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's part of the things that I was eluding to as well.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure if Roger wants to speak more to that.
Roger Knutson: Well Mayor this is, if the A3 zoning would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, then
you cannot adopt an amendment to your zoning ordinance until you've also amended the comprehensive plan
because you can't adopt, you can't...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: Can I hear that again please?
' 13
i
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Roger Knutson: It's a mouthful. This is a law that just went into effect. You cannot adopt an amendment to
your zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with your comprehensive plan. So if your comprehensive plan has it
guided for whatever use it is, and until that document is changed, and that takes Met Council approval, you
can't change your zoning ordinance.
Councilman Berquist: So in other words an A3 district as presented, without a guide plan change, is not a
doable thing?
Roger Knutson: It's in violation of Statute...
Councilman Senn: No, you'd have to amend the comp plan first.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Have we had any complaints from that particular area in relationship to outside
speakers. Things of that particular nature.
John Rask: Yes. Over the years we have.
Mayor Chmiel: The only reason I say that is one time I was driving by and of course the windows were down
and that speaker came on and that's the only thing that came to mind right now.
John Rask: Yeah, over the years we have. We did notify the neighbors of this proposed amendment. I don't
believe any of them are here, or have attended the other ones. They did call and voice some concerns to staff
regarding the proposed amendment. One of the issues brought up was, they built out there thinking it was, it's
guided residential so they also make an investment in their property under the assumption that it's going to be
residential land use around them. Obviously they're aware of Halla Nursery was there but the long term plans
for that area did show residential. So they did bring up some of these concerns. They also brought up some
concerns over noise and traffic.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve. is there something that you'd like to?
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm just trying to put myself in the landowner's position. If in fact I was in that
position and I had the city in which I live coming to me and saying, you've owned this land for going on 40
years and now we're going to attempt to limit your ability to continue to grow the business as we see fit simply
because of where we are, I'd be mad as hell and although I can understand where Kate and the staff are coming
from in trying to bring things into some type of long term conformance, I'm reluctant to impose a restrictive
caveat on anyone who has been there for a period of years and anyone that owns the land on which they do
business.
Mayor Chmiel: But there are also conditional uses that were established with that business at that particular
time as well.
Councilman Berquist: At the time the business was founded?
Mayor Chmiel: Is that correct Kate? Or am I.
14
I
I
11-1
L
�I
1'1�
Lq
�I
11
r
r
J
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Don Halla: That is totally incorrect sir.
Kate Aanenson: No, the fact of the matter is that, it had been non - conforming and it continued to expand that
and we've, there's been other ongoing issues regarding that which we've been trying to resolve so it has been
expanding illegally in some respects. That's where we're trying to get some sort of resolution on this. Kind of
a global aspect here. It's not all of a sudden today we decided. This has been an ongoing issue.
Councilman Berquist: No, I understand. I mean I know this isn't just something that's been out of the blue. I
mean this has been going on for a number of years. I remember when Don Halla called us down at Merit and
said I want you to bid on this job and I said geez you know, you've got a permit. No, we don't. We're in ag. I
said I don't think so but go ahead. And that was 5 years ago. 4 years ago. I know it's been a thorn in
everyone's side since at least that time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't know where we all sit right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I get a little concerned, just some concerns as to allowing and making this change and
other people coming in and wanting to make those changes too within the A2, agricultural. And there's other
pieces that are out there. I guess that's one of my only concerns. The only way you can do the clarification is
what Mark had brought up but that's going to take a long time before we can go through the changes that we
have to do, and it's probably getting to that point where that comp plan should be updated as well.
Councilman Berquist: That's within the '95 study area, isn't it?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Some of those other A2's.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But you're not getting around the issue if it's a PUD then.
Councilman Senn: ...negotiate all those specific issues out...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But aren't we negotiating them through the interim use permit regardless? I mean
you're not taking the cloud away by making it a PUD. Not at all.
Councilman Senn: No, but once you put the interim use on, ,vhat ... do you have? They already know they're
stuck with that. I don't see...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't see what a PUD would buy us.
Councilman Senn: If you do A3 and then ... PUD with an A3.
Councilman Mason: People that are looking for less government to all of a sudden go through zoning
something for A3 for one particular area, I would hope that's not our only option here. I mean that's a lot of
time and a lot of effort and a lot of money to do something like that knowing what we have to do to the comp
plan and this, that and the other thing. You know I, well yeah. Knowing what is probably going to be
happening in that area and knowing the ongoing history with that area and with all the people involved, this is
certainly not going to destroy anybody's business. And I can't you know, and Steve you made, that comment
15
H
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
you made, you know I kind of see you weighing mightily the values of the landowner versus you know what
the city can or can't do. And maybe values isn't the right word but you know, we struggle with that I think any
time as the city grows and grows and grows. That's a constant struggle and that is a real tough one and in
terms of orderly development and in terms of how this city is expanding. I mean at some point that area, unless
we make some major changes in the comp plan, is going to be surrounded by residential. I mean that's just a
matter of time. And I guess I'm a little loathe to tell anybody in that situation that because you've owned the
land for 35 years, you can do whatever you want to with that little island even though, you know. So I'm not, I
mean I'm not weighing it against what you're saying but I guess I'm not sure where that balance is either and I
guess that's why I'm leaning towards the, you know going with the interim use because I think we do need a
handle on that area. And over the years quite honestly it's been quite a struggle to get a handle on that
particular area and if this gives the city, without destroying a business, a chance to do that, I think it's
worthwhile. But that's a real tough balance.
Councilman Berquist: Well at the risk of listening to a lot of the same things again, is it practical to get a
dissertation from the Halla's as to the impacts, negative and positive, that you feel an interim use would provide
your business in a short 3 or 4 paragraphs?
John Rask: This came up also at the Planning Commission where they were asked to do the same thing and
their response was they did not want to apply for an interim use, therefore they wanted to do with the
development of this ordinance. So we have not gotten any feedback from them in any manner on any of these
proposed amendments.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Then I withdraw the question.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Mark Halla: I'd like to comment.
Mayor Chmiel: We still have the Council and we're still discussing it so you'll just have to wait a little bit. I
guess I would look to receive a recommendation on this and, but before I do ask that, there are a lot of things
that we'd have to consider by getting w
some additional information as to hat you just suggested and what the
validity of that might be. But let us go to that and maybe if you'd like to give us a few quick comments.
Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well that's fine. But obviously, I mean I guess my concern was something like that and
I'm certainly not faulting anybody but that's going to be a pretty biased viewpoint.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that was the point.
Councilman Mason: And I guess I, if we're going that route I would like to find a way that we could get some
sort of neutral analysis.
Councilman Berquist: Well I understand that it would be biased and I think we're intelligent enough to weigh
the bias.
L
I
f'
n
F
I City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Councilman Mason: Provided we have all the information. I mean I uess I would like to find a way Y we can
get some sort of neutral analysis of how an interim use permit would affect them as well. I mean fine, you
know.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the intent statement as shown on page 3 where it says the intent statement as adopted by
Council read as follows. The intent of allowing an interim use to allow the use for a brief period of time until a
permanent location is obtained, while the permanent location is under construction and to allow the use to, or to
allow a use that is presently acceptable but that with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the
' future. And that's part of the things that Michael had brought up as well. What's going to be there in the long
run?
Councilman Mason: Now if we so choose, if any Council so chooses with an interim use permit, things may or
may not be approved, is that not correct?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Depends on the negotiation.
' Kate Aanenson: Right. That's the thing. First of all they have to choose to go through the interim use permit.
They can continue just illegal non - conforming. Secondly, you attach conditions under the interim use permit
that are reasonable.
Councilman Senn: Interim uses are generally for short periods of time and are renewed... future Council could
decide...
Councilman Mason: Well like would be the case with any future Council regardless of what we do or don't do.
1 Councilman Senn: Well not necessarily.
Councilman Mason: Well sure. Ordinances can change.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything can change as long as you get a majority vote.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, there's nothing that I've done here that's so important that it's going to last. So
knowing that there are still options involved with this, I guess I'm not, well I'm still open to any discussion but I
don't see as though the options are shut down. They're limited, as I think they should be but they're not shut
down.
Councilman Senn: Well I heard one statement earlier about the golf course and, unless society is substantially
revamped, I can't understand how a golf course use would ever change. I mean golf courses are...
1 Mayor Chmiel: I've seen it.
Councilman Senn: Well, in the past. But since they've become profitable in recent years, I see more people
looking for land to turn into golf courses than ones they can take out of it.
`Mayor Chmiel: - 'I rue. At a certain point but yet the situations do occur. And it has happened in a lot of
different communities where they've moved a golf course from one location to another.
1 17
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996 1
FII LJ
Councilman Senn: Yeah, moved it or whatever but generally they don't get rid of them.
Mayor Chmiel: But they did get rid of it and they allowed that to develop as residential.
Councilman Senn: To relocate to expand the golf course.
Mayor Chmiel: And they moved out to a farther portion and that's the city of Fairbault.
Councilman Berquist: The Mayor mentioned something, if in fact we were to approve a conditional use. You
said that there are many others. You used the word many. That would be coming in asking for similar changes
made to their land. Can you give me some examples of that and how big or how deep is this can of worms?
Mayor Chmiel: Anything that's probably.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, anything under the A2.
John Rask: This one may be helpful too. This shows where the existing nurseries are in the city. 3 would be
Wilson's. 5 would be, 5, Tim Erhart has some sort of tree growing operation. I don't know the extent of it. 8
would be Halla. 3 is where I believe Wilson's currently does a limited amount of retail sales. 7 is Holasek's.
That's an industrial, guided for future industrial. They do a limited amount of retail now. I believe during
Christmas and in the spring. Then you've got the Arboretum on there. Mike Gorra. He has a tree farm. I
don't know, I haven't seen many trees ever move out of there but.
Kate Aanenson: Just so you're clear. Right now it's listed as wholesale. So right now it would open up and
allow them to do some retail if we amended the district. Now all they have to do to expand beyond what
they're doing right now so whether it's interim or conditional, they may come in and apply. The concern that
we had, if you have conditional, it goes out in perpetuity and we're saying, if it's in conflict with the
comprehensive plan, then you should have a definite date on it. That's a concern that Halla's have with it.
They don't want a definite date. That's what hurts them financially is having that date on there. And that's, our
position is it's still cloudy right now because it's not conforming. So that's the heart of the issue for them. Is
'
having a drop dead date. But what we said is that, whatever year we put on, whether its 100 year or 5 years,
and we come back and we say let's give them another. Let's give them another extension. But what we want is
some limits. Right now we have no. It's just they're non - conforming and we try to get some of this stuff back
'
into. It's not the same as it was in 1962. That's the issue, and I think you've all hit on that. That's why we felt
strongly, being in conflict with the comprehensive plan, that the interim use was the best way to approach it.
They don't want the time frame...
,
Councilman Berquist: In looking at it from again, if I put myself in their position. The only sure thing is death
and taxes and now all of a sudden there's a third sure thing. The city can pull my use at some point. I may be
here now. I may be here 10 years from now but I may not be here 11 years from now. I can understand the
consternation that they feel.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Yeali, Roger.
18 1
I City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Roger Knutson: Just to comment on your request. If you pass this ordinance, this ordinance itself doesn't have
that effect. If you pass this ordinance, they can continue in business as a non - conforming use forever. The
only time it would have, it's only if they wanted to take advantage of the opportunity offered by this ordinance
that it would be based with a termination. Passage of this ordinance itself will not put any termination date on
them.
Councilman Berquist: But they're also restricted in their ability to grow their business as they see fit. Insofar
as putting up a structure, temporary or permanent.
j Roger Knutson: They already have that restriction.
Kate Aanenson: They already have that restriction.
Roger Knutson: That's in place now because they're a non - conforming use.
LJ
u
Kate Aanenson: This provides a mechanism for them to do that. It also provides the city to have a mechanism
to put some controls on that. That's where we're trying to come to that.
Roger Knutson: This would offer that mechanism. They wouldn't have to accept it or use it. If they chose not
to, and I understand they've said they have no interest in this. After you pass this ordinance, they were non-
conforming before you passed this ordinance they're non - conforming. If you do nothing, they're non-
conforming.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would entertain a motion.
Councilman Mason: I will move that City Council approves amendments to Sections 20- 576(1), 20 -1, and 20-
257 to permit both wholesale and retail uses in the A2 district as an interim use as outlined in the staff report
dated November 27, 1995, with specifics stated in the staff report.
John Rask: I'd make one correction. It should read February 7th as presented tonight.
Councilman Mason: Okay, scratch November 27th to read February 7, 1996.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second. Any discussion? Additional discussion.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve amendments to Section 20- 576(1),
20 -1, and 20 -257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries in the A -2 District as an Interim Use, as outlined
in the staff report dated February 7, 1996. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
19
1
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 20 -267 REOUHUNG INDIVIDUAL DUffNSIONAL
LETTERS AND TO ALLOW A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN, 7901 GREAT PLAINS BLVD GARY
BROWN.
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The City Council reviewed the variance request on January 22nd and tabled
action to allow additional time to consider other alternatives. One alternative recommended by the Council was
to have the applicant consider combining the Amoco property with the car wash parcel to provide frontage.
You'd be actually on Highway 5 by the south elevation of the building. This would allow a second wall
mounted sign on the south elevation. However, a variance would still be required from the ordinance provision
which requires individual dimensional letters for wall mounted signs. We did look at the possibility of
combining those parcels. What we currently have out there, the two car washes sit on the same parcel as it is.
Therefore they could technically have two wall mounted signs. However, these red dashes here indicate where
the signs currently exist. The existing car wash has one on Great Plains so what we're saying is, they can have
two. If the Council wants to consider a variance to allow them to pull off the one on the existing and put it on
the new car wash, that would be an option to consider. However staff feels, staffs under the opinion that they
should have, or be limited to the signs as allowed by ordinance which would be two in this case because of the
frontage. Regarding the design standards which require individual letters. This was something that was
discussed quite a bit when we went through the sign ordinance. The reason being was we were trying to create
some uniformity in signage throughout the city, and the way we did this was by requiring individual letters for
signage. We did not regulate colors or styles or materials or the design of the sign. However we did want it to
maintain that uniformity throughout the city and have some consistency there and that was the reason we
eventually adopted the ordinance requiring the individual letters. And so with that staff is recommending denial
of the variance for the individual letters and for the variance for the south elevation based on the findings
presented in the staff report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Council have any questions of John?
Councilman Berquist: I'm sorry, I missed part of your report John. You participated, I'm assuming by the tone
of your comments that you participated greatly in the sign ordinance revisions.
John Rask: Well it went on for 3 years so I was at the tail end of it though.
Councilman Berquist: I talked to a business owner today who was instrumental, that ended up doing a lot of
work on it and I asked him had there ever been any discussion over the word ownership of the land or control
of the land and whether or not control and ownership were construed within the ordinance to mean in essence
the same thing. And I cited Brown's example. The fact that he does not own the land that the pumper is placed
on but he owns the adjacent land. In effect by leasing the station on a long term, 100 year lease or whatever.
However long it's leased for, he controls the land. And the gentleman that I spoke with intimated that in fact he
thought the flavor of the ordinance was intended to allow for the control to be used in conjunction with
ownership. That the two words would be synonymous. Do you recall any such conversations or the flavor of
the discussions that took place?
John Rask: No.
- Kate Aanenson: I can address that question. That came up specifically under when we had PUD's such as
Market Square or Byerly's. We do have, if you recall, Kinko's is under the same lot. Two buildings on that
one lot and we did discuss that. We do have similar situations in the city where you have maybe one owner
20
1
�J
C'
I City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
who leases buildings. That happens in different areas of the city. So that discussion did come up. There may
have been some misunderstanding by some people but we did discuss that issue.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: With the conclusion that it is one and the same? Control and ownership should be
considered the same?
Kate Aanenson: That they're two separate parcels. Is that your question? Just because there's one ownership of
all of Market Square doesn't mean that each one is treated as an individual tenant because they lease the space.
They get one sign for that particular development under one ownership.
Councilman Berquist: Right, but none of the individual tenants really control the land or the space as such...
John Rask: Yeah, I don't know. There was a lot of discussion obviously over the 3 years but I know the intent
was to provide it on the street frontage. Whether or not common ownership or lease agreements came into
consideration at the time, I don't really know but I do know that the intent of it was to provide that opportunity
to advertise on the street frontage so we didn't have signs on every elevation of the building. Obviously there's
some great benefit to some businesses to have some of these additional signs, or so they believe. But we want,
that was one of the things we looked at was where do we draw the line and it was thought at the time that one
sign on a street frontage was certainly appropriate to attract attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and that
anything else we could probably live without.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, there's so many nuances that arise after things are passed and discussed that you
cannot ever forecast them all, and we're in one of those right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Colleen. Do you have any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I have...
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: One. How, on what basis then did you recommend that the Council pass the signage as it
relates to the Byerly's center ... each building have their own signage. Okay ... so that doesn't seem to fall within
the same definition that you're giving now...
John Rask: Well where we identify wall signs in our ordinance and what's permitted, we say wall business
signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. And then we go
on to define the size in the table. I don't know specifically about Byerly's. How that all came about. I know
they have a couple, I believe two monument signs on the premises. I don't know if there was variances granted
1 for that or not.
Councilman Senn: Well if there was, then we've already done a variance.
21
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Kate Aanenson: They have two frontages. They have frontage on Kerber and they have a frontage on West
78th. And they have a wall on both of those frontages.
Councilman Senn: Wall signs...
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that's what they're allowed is one free standing sign, which they have.
Councilman Senn: Right. And then each of the other tenants have signs and the other one on the other end
has.
Kate Aanenson: Which they're all allowed a wall, if they have a street frontage, they're allowed a sign on that
frontage which they have.
Councilman Senn: Could you place any of this signage on, how many sides?
John Rask: I believe two.
Councilman Senn: Correct. And where's the road?
John Rask: Well there's West 78th.
Councilman Senn: Where's the side street that allows the second?
John Rask: I don't know. They got a variance for that elevation.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so Nve've already... okay. Where does the pylon sign come in as it relates to pylons at
both at the entrance... Is that another variance to allow... correct?
John Rask: I believe so.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so we aren't setting any new precedence.
John Rask: No, that was under the old sign ordinance so that came about. That was the reason, based on some
of those criteria we developed this new sign ordinance so it's tough.
Councilman Senn: Byerly's was under the old sign ordinance?
John Rask: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: It sounds like I've heard this before.
Councilman Berquist: It was because it was one of the first things we did when I got here was to pass the dang
sign ordinance and Byerly's was already done. So yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And they got a variance for height too for their arches.
Kate Aanenson: Well then we were hung up on the food and fine dining.
22
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, open 24 hours. That was...
Councilman Mason: There were a whole lot of different issues involved there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Alright. Gary, is there anything that you'd like to say today? We
have the Minutes here and I was looking through. Since that last one I put another 5 bucks in.
Gary Brown: Thank you. I couldn't hear from back here and I apologize... Are we still having a problem with
having a sign on the front and back of the building? Is that what I heard ?...
John Rask: In a nutshell, that's correct yes.
Gary Brown: Okay. Alright. The only thing I wanted to address along with that fact is the city, Market
Square. Okay. They've got them on the front. They've got them on the back.
John Rask: They have frontage on Kerber, they have frontage on 78th, the have frontage of Market.
Gary Brown: ..pardon?
John Rask: They have four frontages technically. TH 5, Market, 78th and Kerber. And that's where the
problem comes in.
Gary Brown: Because they have one in the front and one on the back. If it's good enough for them, it's good
enough for me.
Councilman Mason: Well unfortunately the ordinance changed in the meantime though Gary. That's kind of
the issue we're grappling with here.
Gary Brown: ...I listen to all this and you guys don't even know how the ordinance reads. How in the world is
a business person supposed to learn how it's supposed to read? You know.
Councilman Mason: Well I'm not so sure we don't know how the ordinance reads and I think that's why we're
dealing with this issue right now. To be honest with you Gary.
Gary Brown: Okay. Alright... Do what you've got to do here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good, thanks. Okay, any additional questions? You're a little closer to Highway 5 it
would have been a lot simpler. Or to what John had indicated too. Put up that one cp that you had of the two
parcels and just hit that one more time.
John Rask: What that's showing is the existing car wash building and the new one. The Amoco building is not
on that site.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. The Amoco would be directly to the south of the car wash, which now faces sort of
north and south. Is that right?
I John Rask: Yes.
23
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yeah, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well I'll tell you what my problem is with this. If I knew that it was just this one issue, I
quite honestly wouldn't have any trouble at all granting the variance but we all know that if we grant this
variance, how are we going to tell Tires Plus and Cheers and anything else on 79th Street, that they can't have
additional signage? I guess, and I know Gary's caught in the middle on this one. If the car wash was the only
issue, fine. I don't have any trouble with it but what's Tires Plus and Cheers and whoever else coming down the
pike going to want there? I guess that's my concern and I don't know how we're going to deal with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Giving a variance or either redoing the ordinance on that specific portion, and that was the
question I asked of John this afternoon when I was in talking with him. What problems would this cause and
how many more people would be standing in a row to get those additional signs in on their respective buildings.
And that was one of the ones that, I think you mentioned that Cheers has indicated that if that goes through,
they're going to be right in here standing at the door requesting another sign so they have more signage from
Highway 5 at their respective building.
Councilman Berquist: I would be in favor of ... language of the sign ordinance. Look into how it's worded as far
as, again I go back to the control of the land issue. I don't know if that's workable. I don't know how the
ordinance reads.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm not clear where you're going with that.
Councilman Berquist: Where I'm going with that, if you look at that overhead, which John just turned off. The
two car washes that are there, is property that Brown owns. The land that is immediately contiguous to the
south of that land, to that parcel is land that Brown controls. Arguable there is no difference in the way we
should look at it from a frontage point of view.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Therefore.
Councilman Berquist: Therefore he's entitled to a frontage sign talking about a car wash on Highway 5. Or
facing Highway 5.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that would be a leased portion on the, you're saying the Amoco.
Councilman Berquist: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But he's saying if it's, he essentially controls it...
Councilman Berquist: If in fact there was another tenant there, if he shared tenancy with some other business I
wouldn't be advocating this but in effect the land is controlled by him, as are the car washes. And therefore you
could look at it as one piece of property.
Councilman Mason: Is that viable from a planning standpoint?
Kate Aanenson: It'd be interesting to know what Roger has to say.
24
r
1
it
11
u
1
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Roger Knutson: I'd respond by posing a question. What happens if he sells off the intervening lot? Does the
sign come down ... render?
Councilman Berquist: If his lease with the landowner, in this case Amoco American Oil Company were to
expire, and they chose to lease it to someone else or he chose not to re -lease it, then yes. He loses control of
the land and the associated signage that goes along with that. Which arguably it's one business now. You've
got a car wash. You've got a car wash, you've got a pumper, you've got a car wash. In essence it's three car
washes over these and a pumper. One of the car washes is on the property that is owned by American Oil
Company that he leases. The other two car washes are adjacent to but he controls it all.
Roger Knutson: Once you have a sign up, or once you have a use in place, you become non - conforming
normally because something happens subsequent to that sign going up. You normally would not make the sign
go away. You just couldn't expand.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well and I don't think that's the intent. You're just looking for a loop hole so we
have an argument for people who are standing in line to say this is a different situation.
Councilman Berquist: That's certainly an angle, yes. But it also makes sense from ... as far as control of the
land.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the word control, as opposed to ownership, is the thing that I guess I get a little hung
up on. With controlling the Amoco portion but is not the fee owner of that property.
Councilman Berquist If you lease a, if you're leasing adjacent property for 30 years, or whatever the term of
that lease is, you're not treated as your own.
Mayor Chmiel: It wouldn't make me feel like it's my own but you certainly do the maintenance and upkeep on
it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The bank owns my house for 30 years but I feel like I own it.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: One of the situations I would see, and this has nothing to do with ... just the concept. Let's saw
a shopping center or whatever it is. Group of commercial lots and on day one, I own two adjoining commercial
lots. I put up, and I know I'm going to sell the other building on the other lot. I just happen to own two of
them... I know I'm going to put up and then sell that second commercial lot... If I put up, under what you're
talking about, I would be able to put up that sign today because I own from here to the highway but, because I
own that lot neat to me. But tomorrow you know, even though I've got the sign up, I'm going to sell that lot.
Or I could. I'm just trying to flush out, that's what you want. That's what you get. We can write an ordinance
that does that.
Councilman Senn: But you don't have to. Why can't you just, I mean we're allowed to attach conditions to a
variance, are we not?
25
!I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Then why don't we simply grant the variance and list the conditions, okay that so long as
he's in occupancy of the property to the south, the variance applies. You're not getting into all kind of weird
definitions over lot ownership and control and all this kind of crap. You're making it very simple. As long as
you occupy the property to the south, you can have your sign facing that way.
Roger Knutson: I think you can do that. The only small concern I would have is, I don't know how we can
track it administratively. You know this is in the front of our.
Councilman Berquist: How do we track anything?
Roger Knutson: Often with great difficulty. I mean some of the things I always worry about when you attach
conditions to anything is, you know this is in the forefront of our conscientiousness now. 20 years from now
when that property's sold... remember why that sign was there. Or care for that matter.
Councilman Berquist: Now...only reason things are removed is because someone sees fit to complain.
Roger Knutson: I think Councilman Mark's comment, you could do it that way. You could do it that way.
Councilman Senn: And that protects us against the "onslaught ". Because we're making this specific variance on
a specific condition and who's going to duplicate the condition?
Councilman Mason: But would that be viewed by somebody that's coming in as capricious'?
Roger Knutson: Only if they couldn't get away with it.
Councilman Mason: Well, and I guess, I mean if we can do that, that's great but is somebody going to say,
now wait a minute. I mean this is kind of like gerrymandering here.
Roger Knutson: If someone came in similarly situated, I would expect you to treat it similarly. And I would
recommend that you do so.
Councilman Mason: How do you view then a Cheers or a Tires Plus? We just simply say, different deal.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Different situation.
Roger Knutson: In that situation I would ask, do you own the contiguous lot out to the highway out to the
street. If you can meet that condition.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Those three properties are essentially the same business.
Councilman Mason: Oh, the Amoco is? Gary's? Oh yeah. Oh no. I guess I'm just trying to think beyond
that. I mean if legal counsel says why not, I mean there's an option.
Roger Knutson: You're not telling me to...
26
1
ll
e
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Councilman Mason: Oh no, no, no. I would never assume our legal counsel to do that Mr. Knutson.
Councilman Senn: Well in a few more minutes I'm not going to be able to say it so I'm going to move the
variance with the condition that, so long as he occupies the property to the south, the variance stays in effect
and he also has to bring the sign into conformance as it relates to the standards of the ordinance.
Roger Knutson: And if he no longer, you should say occupies or controls... ownership the sign comes down.
Mayor Chmiel: The sign comes down.
Councilman Mason: So now I'll interpret for Councilman Senn here. What I believe he said was, is that he'll
move the variance as long as Mr. Brown continues to owns contiguous property and that sign that's on the south
side has to come into compliance with the current standards for signs.
Councilman Senn: Not owns, occupies.
Councilman Mason: Occupies. So one of the variances will be accepted and one of them will be denied.
John Rask: So if I understand this correctly, you would approve the one to have two wall signs and deny the
one for individual letters. So in essence both signs come down.
Councilman Senn: No. I'm saying, I'm making a motion to allow the variance to allow him to keep the third
sign, okay. But he needs to bring the signs into conformance with the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what John is saying.
John Rask: Yeah, they're painted signs now so they'd have to go individual letters.
Councilman Mason: And with the correct verbiage, conditional verbiage right?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the variance to Section 20- 13 -3(3) to allow a
second wall mounted sign on the south elevation as long as he occupies the Amoco property to the south, and to
deny the variance request from Section 20 -1267 requiring individual dimensional letters. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
DROP -IN DAY CARE, CHAN1 ASSEN RECREATION CENTER
Dawn Beitel: Thank you Mayor and Council. This item has come up due to probably being the most
requested item at the Chanhassen Recreation Center nest to can we get a pool. Up until now, what has
currently been done is that we have just had initial planning meetings with facility supervisors on site, including
myself and doing phone surveys to other communities /recreation center facilities to find out what they are doing
27
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996 1
�I
�J
and how they are accommodating the public. A survey was done, based on your request, by Todd Hoffman to
other child care facilities. Private. And as you can see in the report here that 3 out of the 5 centers do accept
drop -in's, depending on staffing levels. The fees however are quite high, is what he found out. He did speak
with everybody and confirmed what they could do or what could not do. Our recommendation though is that
you approve the implementation of the drop -in daycare at the recreation center in order to provide a convenient
and affordable place for people to come and work out. Whether it be aerobic classes or the fitness room or the
open gyms, while allowing them to bring their children to a safe place and remain on site
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Dawn. I had one just one question. I think it's a good idea and in reading all
the child care survey things that are in here, it seems like all those who had gone through really would like to
see that take place. What about liabilities on this?
Dawn Beitel: As far as licensing goes, we do not need to be licensed as long as parents remain on site. So we
would be similar to a nursery at a church where as long as parents are on site you don't have to be licensed.
Your staff does not have to be licensed. As long as they're, although we did go through the school district to
find out how they operate their before and after child care programs. To talk with them and they had some
recommendations and that was to have, make sure that staff, as far as liability wise, have some type of related
field degree, especially your person coordinating the program. Whether it be early childhood or elementary
education. Something similar. I haven't checked into all the legal responsibilities. We've only done
comparative studies to school districts in other places.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, maybe I can ask you. Does our existing insurance cover the liabilities that could
happen, or if something were to happen? Would that be covered under the existing one?
Roger Knutson: I'd have to review your policy to make sure that you did... It probably is but unless there's a
specific exclusion to this type of activity. I'm not aware of such an exclusion but we would certainly check
that.
Dawn Beitel: We would conform to several of the items which is there needs to be two staff on site so that you
wouldn't have children using the restroom on their own. There'd be someone accompanying them. There'd
always be someone in the room. Some of those kind of things but.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve, did you have any questions?
Councilman Berquist: The last chart, child care survey. I'm assuming that I can read that it's Monday through
Saturday. The 0 through 35 is the number of respondents that indicated they would be using child care on a
given day? That's the only thing I can imagine it is.
Dawn Beitel: These surveys, we're still taking them so there's more people and I've taken several comments.
Are you referring to sheet 1, chart 2?
Councilman Berquist: Sheet 1, chart 2, right. So on Monday we had 32 respondees that said they'd be using
Monday.
— Dawn Beitel: - Right. Yes.
Councilman Berquist: What was the total number of respondents that this represents?
28 1
Ll
�n
t
1
r
1
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Dawn Beitel: How many surveys were filled out?
Councilman Berquist: How many surveys was this complied against?
Dawn Beitel: Everything that was included in here, and as I said, we received additional ones and numerous
phone calls as well.
Councilman Berquist: So these three surveys, these three graphs are reflective of.
Dawn Beitel: What is enclosed in your packet.
Mayor Chmiel: 30 surveys. Is that pretty close?
Dawn Beitel: Right.
Councilman Berquist: And how long was the survey, you're still collecting them.
Dawn Beitel: We're still collecting them just as a means of people saying, we want child care. How do we go
about it? We've asked them to make sure they filled out a survey and we've continued to collect them but,
right. These graphs were done based on what is enclosed in your packet.
Councilman Berquist: Did you get any information as to what kind of rate they would be willing to pay?
Dawn Beitel: I don't believe that was asked on the survey, no. The rate that we have looked at, being $3.00 to
$4.00 an hour is based on being able to pay for staff and also based on surveying other recreation community
center type places.
Councilman Berquist: So this is based on recovering costs?
Dawn Beitel: Yes. We feel that if we can accommodate people with the child care portion, that they will come
to, yeah the profits will come in the recreation center itself with the workout.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Since we don't need to be licensed, there is no teacher to student ratio type thing
that we need to conform to. Or do we have any self imposed ideas about it?
Daum Beitel: The ideas have come from the school district on what they require and we would follow closely
with that. The room we're using really can only, they would recommend, and that's based on another drop -in
child care center, no more than 12 children in there at a time. However, there's no rule. You could expand that
if you wanted. It's based on square footage.
`_Dawn Heitel:`We would be looking at putting it into Room 4, which is the room right next door to the fitness
equipment room. Just for closeness to locker rooms and restrooms.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. What room is it, and is it being utilized currently?
PTO
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that currently just a meeting room that is not being utilized.
Dawn Beitel: It's being utilized.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sporadically.
Dawn Beitel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Based on the survey, I just want to make sure that this isn't 5 or 6 very
vocal people wanting this as opposed to a real need in the community.
Dawn Beitel: I would say there's probably not a day that goes by that we don't have a half a dozen people,
different people asking when are we going to get it and why don't we have it yet.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And why the times? Is that the heavy peak usage?
Dawn Beitel: We do have a, I think when people have children going off to school and they maybe have some
siblings at home and nowhere to bring them or the morning time seems to be the biggest workout time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we have done some type of cost benefit analysis in terms of covering our
costs?
Dawn Beitel: Right. A range was listed, just because we're still working on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: We're talking about, you talk about customer service and all kinds of different things here.
If that's true, I'm not saying it's not. If a half dozen a day are asking for it, I certainly think that's something we
should provide. Certainly it's got to, it seems to me it makes sense. It would mean increased usage. Let's do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I saw on another survey I see people asked about taking care of infants too.
Dawn Beitel: We had said, I believe it was 6 weeks to 6 years.
Mayor Chmiel: 6 weeks up to age 6.
Dawn Beitel: Yes. But you are limited. I believe you can only take, or it's recommended that you only take I
believe 2 infants.
Councilman Senn: And have one full time person to...?
Dawn Beitel: You need to have, I think it's the ratio. I don't know if it goes just strictly for infants and then
over that or not. The ratio that I was told is per, is I person per 6 children. I'm not sure on the exactness of
that.
W
I City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Councilman Senn: ...ratio for infants.
Dawn Beitel: And that may be private, you know care centers. Licensed care centers.
Councilman Senn: But just because we're not licensed, you don't think we need to follow those?
t Dawn Beitel: Those are certainly guidelines that we'll try to adhere to. We want it to be a safe place. We
want it to be a place, the other, you know the one issue is that parents are on site, which is a different. You
know the infants are in there but the mom or the day is right next door. So accessibility to the parent is a little
easier.
Councilman Senn: What's going to have to be done to modify the space, anything?
Dawn Beitel: No. Basically we can do a, we can wheel in a cart and do a portable daycare. As far as
equipment goes. We need to do a crib. We'll have to do a portable crib but it can be broken down and we can
i use that room for the afternoon for meetings or whatever else is going on.
Councilman Senn: When we built the meeting rooms in the first place, the need was emphasized that we had
this ... meeting space. Now we're taking out the meeting space for child care. What's that going to do for the
demand for meeting space?
Dawn Beitel: Well we feel that the meeting space is currently being most used in the evening time and we've
still got three other rooms for the daytime. And if we've got large meetings that are utilizing all four rooms, as
long as I think one of the conditions that we had talked about was, as long as the meeting was booked, we
would just try to find another place for child care that day. Whether it be in the gymnasium, which we do have
some open time in there. Although it's not the most ideal location for, but it could be used on an occasional
basis.
Councilman Senn: You talked about the $3.00 to $4.00 an hour, and I think you're talking about covering the
cost. I assume you're just talking about staff costs...?
Dawn Beitel: Yes. I did put it into my budget for equipment costs. Start -up costs buying toys, cribs,
equipment. So the operating costs we're looking at are mostly staff.
Councilman Senn: We will be buying, so what I'm saying is the $3.00 to $4.00 an hour is not paying for toys.
Dawn Beitel: No.
Councilman Senn: It's not paying for replacement... or equipment.
Dawn Beitel: No. It's paying for operating.
Councilman Senn: It's not paying for the facility costs in relationship to it?
— Dawrf Beitel: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
1 31
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Councilman Berquist: How Long is the client, someone that's there for a fitness program, how long are they
generally on site? Is it an hour and a half? An hour and 15 minutes? Two hours?
Dawn Beitel: Anywhere from 1 to 2 hours. Our aerobic classes typically last 50 minutes to 1 hour. And a
workout program, you know that depends on just the level of the participant but it can be anywhere from a half
hour to 2 hours.
Councilman Berquist: I've really got mixed emotions about this. I understand that it's probably a needed
service for us to provide but when I hear you say that your budget is for costs only, and it doesn't include any
entertainment items for the kids. You talk about 1 crib. Yeah, you're not going to be able to put, you're going
to have to have more than one crib. Your initial capital investment is probably going to be $300.00 - $400.00.
Yeah, it's not a lot of money from the city's terms but it's money that's going to have to be repaid somehow or
another. This is kind of a scary item for me insofar as it sets us up in a business that we're not really geared to
provide, the way I see it. The City of Chanhassen is not in the daycare business. The City of Chanhassen has
provided a recreational center for the citizens to use but we are not in the daycare business and, did you give
any thought to how long this experiment, if you will, would go on before we looked at it and made a decision
as to whether or not it in fact increased traffic. And if it in fact increased the overall goals of the rec center?
Or is this sort of an open ended thing that we'll try until whenever?
Dawn Beitel: We could certainly put, you know a one year trial basis on it.
Councilman Beitel: I'm thinking more in terms of 3 to 6 months. I mean 3 to 6 months, you should have a
fairly decent idea as to whether or not it's doing some good in terms of attendance or whether it is just a
logistical pain in the tail.
Dawn Beitel: I'd say from a programming standpoint, we generally give things at least a 6 month shot at it. It's
taken some of that time just to get the group that we have attending certain open gym functions or whatever. It
takes time to at least get the word out. But I can tell you that just from the response that I have seen, in the
times that I've been there, I don't believe it will be something that would fail. I think it will be something that
would be full.
Mayor chmiel: I think winter it would probably be more utilized facility than it would probably spring, summer
or fall. So rather than just 6 months, I'd rather see it go a little longer.
Councilman Berquist: You're right but we're talking about 6 weeks to 6 years. You're probably right to a point
but I think less so with the age group of the children. I
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's brings up an interesting question you said about winter. Would there be, on
site are you talking about in the building?
Dawn Beitel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: They have to be in the building?
Dawn Beitel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So when summer comes and they want to play tennis.
32 1
LJ
1
1
i
1
41
f
1
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Dawn Beitel: No. They need to be in the building. They need to be accessible.
Councilman Senn: In the building is defined as by the rec center?
Dawn Beitel: As the recreation center, yes.
Councilman Senn: Not the school.
Dawn Beitel: No.
Councilman Mason: How about putting, I'm not going to say limit but a year timeframe on this with a 6 month
checker.
Dawn Beitel: Sure. We could certainly report back with response. We would be able to have, that'd be real
easy to, you know we'll be taking attendance. Taking names. Charting budget wise.
Councilman Berquist: Tracking revenue.
Dawn Beitel: Sure.
Councilman Berquist: Expenditures, incoming and outgoing.
Dawn Beitel: It's all going to go into the computer.
Councilman Senn: How much have you budgeted up front...?
Dawn Beitel: I believe I budgeted $700.00 for equipment costs.
Councilman Senn: Geez I don't know the cost of toys...
Councilman Mason: Well your kids are older. You're talking old kid toys.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Before we do, if we're going to do this, can we set this up as an enterprise fund and actually
track it that way so we know all the expenses going in and we know all the revenues and we can track.
Mayor Chmiel: Todd's nodding his head yes. It can be done.
Councilman Senn: ...the attendance on February 2nd and they stayed for these hours and this was our revenue
for the day so we can track the use by days and hours.
Todd Gerhardt: When we go through the budget process this summer, I mean you'll get the revenues and
expenditures associated with the rec center when Todd and Dawn, well Dawn won't be here. When Todd comes
back and asks for his I997 budget for the rec center. You're going to at that meeting say well, how does this, I
don't want to call it a daycare. It's a nursery in my view. I mean daycare, I take my son to daycare.
33
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996 1
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'd call it a drop -in center.
Todd Gerhardt: ...and I think we're getting hung up on a daycare. This is a nursery. Most of the kids aren't
going to spend over 2 hours there. And we can give you the revenues from open gym. People that attend a
gym function. We can tell you the revenues associated with going into the aerobic room and the exercise room.
We can tell you revenue on the use of key locks. We charge for key locks. We can give you the whole break
down on those revenue sources.
Councilman Senn: I understand but I mean this would be a specific one by itself.
Todd Gerhardt: Sure.
Councilman Senn: And we'll put all the expenses and stuff in it because I mean we have a rec center there that
people come and pay to use. Okay, and it's supposed to be set up on the basis that it pays for itself. I don't
think it's real fair to have the taxpayers to say you're subsidizing drop off daycare. The few people who want to
use it at the rec center and that's effectively what I'm hearing. Unless we keep track of it and see it, what I'm
hearing is we're not planning to recover. The taxpayers are going to pay part of the cost. I want to see this
program either self sustained or I don't think we should be in it. That's just my own opinion.
Todd Gerhardt: You've got to remember our side of it too where we haven't run this facility in a year. I mean
we're doing a lot of things, you know on the come. We're marketing the thing hoping people will go down
there and use the thing and if Dawn's only going to spend $700.00 on toys and things like that and charge $4.00
or $5.00, or $3.00 to $4.00 per person to use that facility for an hour, I mean I think she can probably get those
toys paid for in a year.
Councilman Senn: ...I think most of them will be broken within 3 to 6 months. I mean kids toys, come on.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think we're getting too detailed.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think we're getting... alright. Well it has to be a paying proposition and that's what
we're all saying. With all the clarifiers that you want to put on there, I don't think that, you know. It's
absolutely... it has to be a paying proposition.
Councilman Mason: I would move approval of the implementation of the drop -in daycare at the Chanhassen
Rec Center with 6, how should that be worded? For ... with a 6 month review and then to review it at that 6
month and at that year.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the implementation of drop -in
daycare at the Chanhassen Recreation Center for a one year period, with review after 6 months. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
34
I
u
I
�r
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
ESTABLISHMIENT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
Kate Aanenson: Do I need to say more on this issue? We've talked about it twice before.
Councilman Mason: I don't think you need to say anything.
Councilman Berquist: We have? Was I gone?
Councilman Senn: It was supposed to be at the work session but nobody showed up.
Councilman Berquist: Oh that's right. That's right. You two were the only two there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, and we disagreed so.
Mayor Chmiel: And I got there a little late.
Kate Aanenson: Again, there's three separate groups floating out there and we saw this, we've been asking you
for the last couple years in the budget process to put these under one group. We see this as, the purpose would
be to help direct the management resources of the city. Again they'd be doing policy formulation, advising
management. Obviously all of that comes back through you but it gives the staff some direction. When Jill's
working on a grant proposal and we're trying to do some streetscape, it get some feedback. Prioritization of
streets and again this is going back for your final approval but it helps us putting these things together. Special
event activities. We've got a resource there for Arbor Day, those sort of things. Special recycling days.
Getting the word out. So it's, there's money in the existing environmental resources budget for this. We're not
asking for any revenue. Again we just want to take the existing people that are on those three ... and make it one
group calling it environmental instead of having three. We're certainly not looking for an extra night meeting or
anything. Extra work load but we believe this does provide another forum for some of these to be addressed,
instead of under... perspective, to have people that have kind of a more universal agenda and giving us some
better feedback and hopefully as we go through the process, giving better recommendations to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions?
Councilman Berquist: I wrestle with this insofar as that I, creation of commissions just leaves me cold. When
was the last time the Tree Board met?
Kate Aanenson: The reason they haven't been, we put the tree ordinance together.
Councilman Berquist: Not the tree ordinance. When was the last time the storm water management people
met?
Kate Aanenson: They could have been meeting. I've been reluctant to meet with them. Again, I feel like they
got off on a, we kind of swung way over and got very narrowed minded on some of these issues and I was
concerned about that and some of the... Again, you're looking at things in a vacuum without looking at the
implications of passing this ordinance. How it relates over here. That's why we felt strongly. This goes back
to when Paul was still here to, the formei Planning Director, to look at them and we've been asking that in the
budget. We certainly could be using their resources. There's some people with some very creative ideas.
Again we go to the collective waste. The recycling group there. There were some people that have some good
35
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
resources there. We should have been using them on the most recent landscaping amendments and I heard from
some of them that they felt kind of slighted that we haven't been using them. Again we were just concerned
that sometimes their view gets a little narrow.
Councilman Berquist: So the three committees that you're talking about consolidating would, the members that
chose to continue in some role would formulate the environmental commission.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Within the next year. You've already mentioned a few things that they could have
possibly worked on. Within the next year, what would you charge them with? Are we creating something, I
don't want you to take this wrong because I don't mean it in the way that it may come off. But are we creating
something that is truly not needed? I'm not certain that...
Kate Aanenson: No, I understand your question. I certainly don't need another advisory group to be putting
agendas and attending night meetings, nor our staff does, but we believe that this commission, or if you want to
call it a board or whatever, would provide assistance on such activities as like Arbor Day. To get the word out
on the collective waste thing. We do have money for tree reforestation. There's a memo in your packet on that.
To help get some priority for that. Get the word out. Also as part of the budgeting process, and looking at
prioritization of some of these issues. Again... meetings and sometimes it gives a better feel for what's
happening out there issues. So is it something that we need to meet every month? No. Is there a group that's
available that again has some broader perspective that we can call together? That's kind of what we're looking
for. There has to be some continuity of meeting but I don't see us meeting twice a month certainly like the
Planning Commission.
Councilman Berquist: Give me a grasp on this. You thought this through and you think this is a wise move?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. I'm not looking for extra work.
Councilman Berquist: I understand. And from m}' point of view, just because there's money in the budget to
do it doesn't mean it has to be done.
Kate Aanenson: Certainly. I understand that issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think a difference in this commission, than some of our others, is that it is '
more of a project oriented as opposed to like the Planning Commission which kind of reviews stuff and passes
ordinances. This is more of a, like the Centennial Committee that does some work outside of the commission
meetings and advocates for like you mentioned, Arbor Day. I don't want you to get more involved but it's a
different role than our other typical commissions would do. I think it saves us some money in the long run in
terms of, you know we created the Tree Board. We created the Recycling Committee and they were all very,
you know project oriented and there were start up costs, advertising in the Villager. If we had a stable
commission that could, that was already in place. Could react to issues if we did have time constraints, I think
it just makes sense.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
36 r
r
e
L
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Councilman Mason: I agree with Colleen.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess I'm just going to ditto most of Steve's thoughts
Councilman Mason: I will, oh go ahead. I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. As this came up before the Environmental Commission, I was against it because I
thought too we were just creating another kind of commission. And then after we discussed and talked about it
and through the past number of years, I think it can be a benefit for the city, but along with that I would also
like to, there's a lot of people within the community who can provide the expertise in some of these areas and as
you've indicated or Jill has indicated in her memo, we should publicize it as to see if we can get some
additional people within the community to serve on this.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to see us stick to our policy
Mayor Chmiel: That is our policy.
Councilman Senn: Our policy whether to automatically appoint two member from each one of the boards or if
it'd be an open application process.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it should be an open application process with a courtesy call.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, right.
Kate Aanenson: That's kind of what we were thinking. Certainly it's your decision what to put on there but
that's kind of what, the direction.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Kate Aanenson: Just because there's some history there.
Councilman Berquist: How many members were you looking?
Kate Aanenson: Not more than 6 or 7.
Mayor Chmiel: Max 7. Okay, is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second'?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason mowed, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded for the establishment of an Environmental
Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
37
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996 1
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. SET FUTURE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATES, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: As the work session dates. Initially I had considered the, our hotel would like to take and be
able to serve liquor. As a part of that Roger Knutson has researched various ways that could occur. Kind of
an initial question I had was one of, should we do this as a part of a work session or a regular agenda item and
I was also going to have Roger make a short presentation this evening. However, the real question really
becomes one of, do you want it as a part of a regular agenda or should we do it as a work session? My
personal belief at this point in time is, let's simply place it onto, let's say the nest regular agenda and have the
thing debated at that point in time. I think we do have a gentleman in the audience who is here for this item
but again, anything that might be said tonight is simply going to be repeated when we would hear it. I think
what he is most concerned with is to ensure that it would be brought back to the City Council. That it would
at lie would have an opportunity to make a presentation on the item. But again, I
be publically debated and th
think any presentation this evening by either Roger or the hotel, we would just hear again when it did go on
regular agenda. r
Mayor Chmiel: Right, I would concur with that.
Don Ashworth: So I would recommend that the City Council act to set this item as a regular agenda item.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Don Ashworth: Presumably at the nest City Council meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any thoughts?
Councilman Berquist: Well I want to know what the, off the cuff I don't have a big problem with it but I'm
curious, are we going to bring drinks to the guests in the rooms? Are we going to set a bar up? This is part of
the addition that's going on. There's some conference rooms and an adjacent bar, isn't there?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: There are conference rooms.
Councilman Berquist: Isn't there a bar as a part of that? There's not?
Mayor Chmiel: No...
Councilman Berquist: Not supposed to be. Let me rethink my plans. Well let's talk about it later.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, let's talk about it next meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why don't you do that. Set that up.
Don Ashworth: Just have it on the next regular agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And the next agenda would be February the, today's the 12th. Add 14, the 26th. Okay. gg
38
a
1
1
1
1
t
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Don Ashworth: Since we have had this on this item, can I put that item then on as an unfinished business item
so that, I think Mr. Shackley?
Mr. Shackman: Yes, Mr. Shackman.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. How about for John is not here. Kate, do you want to take John's portion?
Don Ashworth: Shackman. Doesn't have to wait until 10:00 or 11:00.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. It's kind of a housekeeping item. Technically you have to re- appoint the Board of
Adjustments. I guess the staff is looking at some direction. It's difficult to advertise at the end of the year.
We ... other ones after the first of the year. I guess we would recommend that you re- appoint the current people
until 1997 and that we go ahead and do a code amendment, which you're required to do based on the section of
the code. The Planning Commission would have to hold a public hearing. And then move that to state that
they'd be filled in April, or until their successors are appointed. We're just looking for some feedback because
technically their terms expired in January.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Okay, let's get back to, any other thoughts on that?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I agree with Kate.
Councilman Mason: I don't have, yeah I concur.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's it. Good.
Kate Aanenson: Okay so, do they need to make a motion then for the re- appointment?
Roger Knutson: To re- appoint they need a motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that Carol and Willard be re- appointed until March 31st of 1997 and
I guess we have to include Mark too...
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to mappoint Carol Watson, Willard Johnson
and Madc Senn to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals until March 31, 1997. All voted in favor and the
motion carved.
Councilman Senn: Let the record show that nobody else wants to do it.
Councilman Mason: It's just the history is there.
Mayor Chmiel: There's one more portion that I missed on the work session dates. Steve, you wanted to say
something about the population growth trends?
Councilman Berquist: Well a while back, when we had that Mike Miller from the Met Council come before the
— 131utf Creek group and talk. I wondered if perhaps that would be a work session that would be of interest to the
Council and the Planning Commission in general. And I thought you were going to follow up on that and see if
it was feasible for us to do that.
921
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1996
Kate Aanenson: Well I'm sure he'd come out. I just, you know if you want, if the rest of the Council wants to
do that.
Councilman Berquist: Has anybody here heard that talk? This gentleman is from the, his name is Mike Miller
and he's from the Met Council. He came out and provided a very dry, but very interesting presentation on the
growth, the history and trends in the metropolitan area. The way I looked at it...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to hear it because I think it directly affects how we look at our, you know
the 1995 study area. Our Livable Communities. Our goals that we want to be setting. I think it's fabulous.
Kate Aanenson: What I'd probably do, if he comes out, is kind of dove tail that, we were just finishing doing
our updates of our population growths and some building permit activity. I think there's some real interesting
information there, to share that with you.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What are we up like 16,000? 16,500?
Mayor Chmiel: 17,021.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought that was by the end of '96.
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion for adjournment?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
40