2h. Minutes 1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 8, 1993
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened
' with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
' Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch,
' Paul Krauss, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Jo Ann Olsen, and Scott Harr
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: Mayor Chmiel added a Visitor
' Presentation by representatives from School District #112, and Councilman Mason
wanted to discuss an item from the Administrative Section under Council
Presentations. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS; None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
' a. Approve Variance to Construction Work Hours Restriction for MnDot Trunk
Highway 212 and Trunk Highway 101 Overlay Project.
' b. Resolution #93 -14: Approve Resolution Authorizing Exercise of Option to
Purchase Certain Real Property, Tanadoona Drive, Zimmerman Property.
c. Resolution #93 -15: Award of Bids: Public Works Vehicle and Equipment
d. Set Date for Board of Equalization and Review.
' e. Stone Creek First Addition, 8400 Galpin Boulevard, Hans Hagen, Project 92 -9:
1) Approve Development Contract
2) Approve Construction Plans and Specifications
f. Willow Ridge Second Addition, South of Lake Lucy Road 500 feet West of
Powers Boulevard, Lundgren Brothers, Project 93 -4:
' 1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract
3) Approve Construction Plans and Specifications
g. Adopt Senior Commission Bylaws.
i. Approval of Accounts
j. City Council Minutes dated February 22, 1993
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 17, 1993
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 26, 1993
■ 1
■
II City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
II k. Approve Contract for Engineering Services, Fox Path SWMP Project
1. City Code Amendment Regarding Subdivision and Park and Trail Dedication
1 Fees, Final Reading i
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1 H. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -1023, HEIGHT OF FENCES AND
SECTION 20 -1019, LOCATION OF FENCES, FINAL READING.
1 Councilman Senn: I would like to move approval of (h) with one change. That
change is that the front yard fence height be at 3 1/2 feet. However, if they
open or open mesh type of fence is used, it would be increased to the 6 1/2
1 feet. I've had an opportunity to talk to Sharmin about that and I believe we're
in agreement. That that doesn't cause any problems. In fact, I think we both
like it because it in effect encourages people to use more open types of fencing
II versus enclosed or stockade types of fencing. So with that one change I would
move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion?
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I guess when I was reading this I thought, why
can't we do what Maple Grove does and just say no chainlink? I hate chainlink
I fences and that seems to be pushing it even further in the direction of
encouraging tall chainlink fences if you say mesh. How would anyone else feel
about that issue?
I Councilman Senn: Colleen, I guess I'm not quite sure how we differentiate it.
The thing I would like to see more of is the, I wouldn't want to discourage
somebody from coming in with let's say brick or wood columns and wrought iron
1 fencing or something like that. That's what I mean more in terms of the open
or the open mech. If there's a way to delineate that, I wouldn't have a problem
with that myself. Is there a way?
II Sharmin Al- -Jaff: If you want to just say that chainlink fences should be no
longer used in Chanhassen.
II Councilman Wing: In front yards.
Sharmin Ai- Taff: In front yards.
II Councilman Senn: Or I mean they'd be restricted to the, what are they
restricted to now, 4 feet or whatever? Or 3 1/2.
II Sharmin Al -Jaff: Right now they're 6 1/2 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: Front yards basically are 3.
1 Sharmin Al- -Jaff: 4 feet.
II Mayor Chmiel: Or 4. My concern with those more specifically on intersections
or corners. What happens if people want to have some slats put into those
fences? What does that do with the safety aspect within those corners?
1 2
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
Councilman Senn: Well again, they can't put a fence in the, I mean as I
understand the new ordinance, they can't put a fence in the vision angle anyway.
Paul Krauss: That's true. There is a separate part of the ordinance that deals
with that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. So there's no conflict there as I would see it.
I hesitate wiping out, you know I hesitate wiping chainlink, at least myself
totally in a front yard because I think there's probably some cases it's
appropriate where people need to confine children or whatever else. Along busy
streets or whatever and maybe it's the most appropriate. I guess I don't know
for sure. I mean again, it's one of those types of fencing I don't get real
excited about either but I would guess that a prohibition would cause us
problems but I wouldn't have any problem leaving chainlink at the existing 4
feet and talk about other types of mesh or open fencing being. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Just as long as we remove that 1 foot of barb up on top, it's
okay, '
Councilman Senn: Yeah, only if it's electrified.
Councilman Mason: So we need some kind of wording then? To reflect that and 1
then we'll be done?
Mayor Chmiel: I think that'd be right. Do you have some appropriate language
for that Sharmin?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: How about if we leave number 2 as is and then add wrought iron
fences may not exceed 6 1/2 feet within front yards?
Roger Knutson: If that's what you want.
Councilman Senn: How about wrought iron or other open types of fencing
excepting chainlink? Or something like that. Especially if chainlink's in
consideration, let's just except that directly and that still falls under the
other part then.
Roger Knutson: You can just provide that, any open mesh type fence, except
chainlink, shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Chainlink fences may not exceed 4
feet in height.
Councilman Senn: So moved. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have that?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes I do. ,
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the final reading of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences as amended
by the City Attorney adding the following langage, any open mesh type fence,
except chainlink, shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Chainlink fences may not
3 1
II City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
II exceed 4 feet in height; and Sectin 20 -1019, Location of Fences. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II M. APPROVAL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION, CHANHASSEN LIONS CLUB.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Quick and easy. I, as a matter of principle, I don't
want my name being put to approval of a gambling application. So I'd be
II opposed.
Councilman Wing: This is for the 4th of July, a one day permit, right?
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. It's a one day permit which they've had for many, many
years.
1 Councilman Senn: It's basically the Bingo thing?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
II Councilman Wing: Raffles? ...you might ask Mr. Harr specifically, what is this
all about?
II Scott Harr: Gambling?
Councilman Wing: This is pretty standard.
II Scott Harr: An application for pulltabs. Similar to what the Legion does but
this one's at Pauly's with the Chaska Lions. Or Chan Lions, pardon me. Most of
I the regulations, Councilwoman Dockendorf are required by the State and Mr.
Sloss is here on behalf of the group and he's gone through the class and about a
year ago we changed the ordinance to maintain more control over who's running
I gambling operations in town. Requiring a certain percent to be donated back to
the city and making sure that city residents are benefitting from the proceeds.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm sure it's on the up and up. I just, as a matter
II of principle, any gambling application that comes before me, I'm going to do my
small part to oppose.
II Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
II Councilman Wing: Don, I guess I reread this. When I saw the 4th of July, for
some reason I related it to the city and that's not it. They're going to set
this up at Pauly's on a regular basis?
II Scott Harr: Correct.
II Councilman Senn: Scott, is this new or has it been there?
Scott Harr: No, this is a new one.
II Councilman Senn: Oh, it's a new one.
1 4
II
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Scott Harr: Correct. 1
Councilman Wing: The only other one that has it is the Legion right now?
Scott Harr: Correct.
Councilman Senn: This is the first one going into in effect a private, let's
call it a private establishment?
Scott Harr: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Well if I may clarify. They have had it in Pauly's from several
years back and similarly in Pony Express.
Councilman Senn: Pulltabs?
Don Ashworth: Right. Maybe not this particular person but the actual sales has
occurred there in previous years.
Scott Harr: I've not dealt with those specifically but I'm sure that's the
case. But this is a new one for this group.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And I might add that if these are operated accordingly,
it does benefit the city because they often times do different things for the
city such as the Legion has done. Putting up in our Lake Ann Park, our shelter
portion where foods and things can be served and so on.
Councilman Wirig: I need to clarify too, because I can't. This is permitted 1
under State and City ordinance both?
Scott Harr: Correct. 1
Councilman Wing: And only a small percentage can actually go to the
organization. A large percentage has to go back to the City specific, is that
right Scott, or just charitable?
Scott Harr: Well charitable organizations but our ordinance sets forth a
specific amount, I think it's 10% from the proceeds minimum will have to be
returned to the city.
Councilman Senn: How many do we have?
Scott Harr: In operation right now in the City? Just at the Legion.
Councilman Senn: So it's just at the Legion? 1
Scott Harr: Right, yeah.
Councilman Senn: So again, this is the only private establishment that we have.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Correct. ,
Councilman Senn: It has been occurring there for several.
5 1
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Don Ashworth: Chaska Lions operated it I would say for close to 10 years.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Okay, being that you're not for it, I'm going to make the
' motion to approve the Chanhassen Lions Club gambling application. Is there a
second?
Councilman Senn: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
' Councilman Mason: Just a quick comment. I share with Colleen's concerns and I
think clearly now we're starting to, there's some research out there that says
it appears that people that have the least amount of money are spending the most
money gambling and my guess is that people that go to Pauly's and the Legion are
going to be going there one way or the other and spending their money there, so
this kind of thing doesn't concern me like some of the other gambling. Good for
you. I'm done.
' Resolution #93 -16: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the
Chanhassen Lions Club Gambling Application. All voted in favor except
' Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
' VISITOR PRESENTATION:
Mayor Chmiel: We do have Dr. Susan, would you please step forward and inform us
as to what is going to be happening within School District #112.
Dr. Susan Hagstrom: Thank you Mr. Mayor, and members of the City of Chanhassen
City Council. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening to talk to
' you about the needs and upcoming events in School District #112. I would like
to introduce my colleage, Joe Betz. Joe is a member of the Citizens Committee,
affectionately known as our Kid's Committee, and Joe is charing the City of
Chanhassen bond referendum campaign effort and will make just a few brief
comments after I finish the presentation. I would like to use the overhead
projector and the screen if that's possible. Can I take a minute to just kind
of take my slides over there?
' Mayor Chmiel: Certainly.
' Dr. Susan Hagstrom: Thanks. This is a wonderful facility. I've not been here
before.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Dr. Susan Hagstrom: You should be very proud of it. Thank you very much. I'm
a relatively new resident in the Chanhassen area. I moved here in December of
'92. Or '91 actually so I've been here a little over a year and what I've
noticed in just the past one year is that our community in Eastern Carver County
is growing by leaps and bounds. I have a friend who lives in Chanhassen who
says that, in School District #112 we have city traffic on country roads and I'd
like to begin the presentation this evening by talking a little bit about the
crowded conditions in our community that are evidenced most obviously at our
6
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Middle School recently, but very much at School District #112. We are fortunate '
to have some very talented staff members on our faculty and the artistic
renderings you see here are done by David Zander who is an art teacher at our
new school. Jonathan Elementary School, and he shows the problem that we are
experiencing in District #112. Our enrollment is growing by leaps and bounds.
We have a current capacity of approximately 4,616 students and we are expecting
7,000 students by the year 2000. As you can see in 1984 the beeker, which is
School District #112 facilities was comfy, as our School Superintendent Dave
Clough describes it. By 1992, this fall, we are full and nearly full to
overflowing. As a matter of fact, we are really one classroom short this year
but we've managed to move students. Several sections of 5th grade students came
over from Chaska Elementary to Chanhassen Elementary. Some of you may be aware
of that, this past fall. But by the year 2000 you can see that the situation
becomes really very difficult and nearly impossible. When the Board realized '
approximately a year ago that our projections were in fact not as accurate as we
would like to have them be, in the fall of 1991 we were expecting 200 new
students and 400 arrived. At that point we decided that we needed to do
something very significantly different in terms of our projections so the Board
commissioned several pieces of research. The first was a demographic study
conducted by Dr. Barbara Lukerman who is on the faculty at the Humphrey
Institute. She's a very well known demographer in the Twin Cities area and has
done some work for the Metropolitan Council. Her task was to answer the
question, how many students do we have and can we expect in the near future. We
also conducted a facility inventory and that was done by the EOS Architects
firm. They built our Jonathan Elementary and they helped us determine that we
could accommodate with our current facilities approximately 4,616 students. They
answered the question for us, how much room do we really have. We also then put
together an education plan which is kind of a culmination of a number of studies
that had been done in the district over the last probably 10 years and it
answers the question, what do we want to do for students in the future. After
those three studies were completed, the Board appointed a facility planning task
force with a number of staff members, citizens, and city and county officials.
This committee studies for 7 months. They held public hearings and they
actually reviewed 17 different proposals for how to solve the problem. Here's
the solution that they recommended, which the Board of District #112 has
adopted. They recommended that in order to solve the problem we should build a
new High School for grades 10 -12. We should convert the current High School to
a Middle School for grades 8 -9. We should convert the current Middle School
which now houses grades, 6, 7, and 8 to a school housing grades 6 and 7. And
that we should build a new elementary school for grades 1 -5 and update and
repair all of our older buildings. I have some enrollment figures to support
that recommendation. And these sort of surround the years that you saw the
beekers representing. In 1986 our enrollment was just over 3,200 students. We
had a capacity of just under 3,500 at that point. We were very comfortable. We
had some extra space and we had the capacity to grow. We were no classrooms
short at that point. This fall, with an enrollment of 4,648 and a capacity of
4,616, we're 32 students over capacity but we've managed to accommodate that.
Being one classroom short is not a serious crisis but it's changing rapidly. I
should just comment on the capacity change between '86 and '92. '86 was prior
to the rennovation of our Early Childhood Center and also to the building of
Jonathan Elementary. By '96 you can see we will be nearly 1,600 students over
capacity. 58 classrooms short. And by the year 2000, we'll be 88 classrooms
7 1
City Council Meeting -- March 8, 1993
II short with nearly 2,400 students which is more students over capacity than a
very large high school.
I Mayor Chmiel: Susan, if I could ask. If you'd just stay to the far side of the
projector so the camera can pick this up for the TV.
Dr. Susan Hagstrom: Here?
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that'd be great.
I Dr. Susan Hagstrom: I'm sorry. I didn't recognize your sign Don. Here's
another way of estimating, or actually depicting our rate of growth. This year
we expect to graduate approximately 290 seniors. Our current kindergarten class
I however is 441 students. You can see when you have smaller classes leaving the
system and much larger ones entering, that you've got a problem. But the
additional compounding factor is that our current kindergarten class, by the
time the students become freshman in the year 2001, we will have nearly 575 and
I that's taking into account some conservative projections from the demographer,
and I know several of you in the city of Chanhassen have some concerns about how
conservative those projections were. Be that as it may, we still expect to grow
I by that much, including the students who would come into our High School from
the non - public schools. 575 is nearly double 290 and we're very concerned about
that growth. The other concern we have, several people in our community have
II asked, why don't you just tack on some extra classrooms. You'd be able to
accommodate the students then if you add a wing here, add a wing there. One of
the concerns that we have about that is our core facilities. The gymnasiums,
cafeterias, office spaces, halls and media centers were built during a period of
I time prior to the advent of the computer lab and other speciality classrooms
that we use for art and music. 5o they were really built to support the
capacity of the building or less actually. And the computer lab has really
II changed and the use of classrooms for special programs, such as gifted education
and special education has really changed our capacity. So as you can see our
reed is now, by next fall we'll be short 12 classrooms. By '94 we'll be short
27 and by '95 we will be short 41 and '95 is the soonest we could have a new
II elementary school open if the voters approve our bond referendum on Tuesday,
March 30th. That's Tuesday, March 30th. By '96 we'll be short 58 classrooms
and that's the earliest year that we could have a high school open, if the
II voters approve our bond referendum on March 30th. So the need is dire. The
situation is critical. So that's fine but, what will it cost. Here's the cost
breakdown for the school development project that the Board is offering. The
II new high school is expected to cost approximately $28,671,000.00. Converting
the old high school to a middle school for grades 8 and 9 would cost
approximately $1,260,000.00. The new elementary school for grades 1 -5 would
come in at just under $8.2 million. And to update and repair old schools, that
II cost would be approximately $3.85 million. Technology. We need to update
technology in our older buildings so they can have a similar capacity to our
newer ones. We would need a million dollars to do that. And then other costs,
II such as acquiring the site, for both the high school and the elementary school
and then the development costs for the district and various other costs that
relate to preparation of the documents and design, would come in at
approximately $1.6 million. That's for a total package of $46.5 million. I'll
II briefly show you the tax impact breakdown and then I'll give you an opportunity
to ask questions if you wish. Here are the residential tax breakdowns and I
1 8
II
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
won't go through each of those for you because I do have a handout for you and ,
Joe, maybe this would be a good time to give members of the Council and the
audience our official District #112 School Publication that has some questions
and answers and the tax impacts printed inside. An average home in District
#112 is valued at approximately $104,000.00. So I'll just refer you to the
$100,000.00 market value figure on the middle of this table. The annual tax
impact is expected to be $148.00 with an approximate monthly tax impact of
$12.33. You can see for a $50,000.00 home it's just under $5.00 a month. For a
$150,000.00 home, it's approximately $22.00 a month and those figures are inside
on the left page. Page 2. Some of you may be interested in the tax impact on
commercial and industrial property. Here's some cost figures for properties
ranging from $100,000.00 to $2 million. And here we have just the annual tax
impacts. They range from $350.00 all the way up to about $10,000.00. I also
have a slide showing the agricultural property tax impact. Here we show
properties at price points in market values of $100,000.00 up to approximately a
million. Those are the costs for a package that we believe would serve all
learners in District #112 extremely well and with that I thank you for your time
and would like to answer any questions you might have at this time, if that's
appropriate Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Yes, it would be. Does anyone have any specific
questions in relationship to some of the things that she brought up?
Councilman Mason: I have some comments but no questions so I'll wait.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Al Klingelhutz: Are those figures on homestead property or are they only
dealing with non - homestead properties?
Dr. Susan Hagstrom: They're on homestead property. On the agricultural figures
I'm not sure. I would have to check on that. I believe it's homestead but I
would have to check on that to be sure. On the residential taxes it is
homestead. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I guess if there are no other discussions at this time or
Cqusstions.
Dr. Susan Hagstrom: Joe would like an opportunity to just comment for a moment
or two and I thank you for your time and attention and your support. See you on
March 30th. '
Joe Betz: As one of the Co- Chairs for the referendum campaign, I'd just like to
say that it's an extremely important thing for all of us here and for all of our
kids. As someone who's been in Chanhassen for many years and around quite a
long time, we have seen many, many changes take place. This is just another one
that's come along. It's our responsibility as citizens of this community to
provide appropriate and adequate facilities to give our kids the education that
they need. Along with that I'd like to bring your attention to two statements
that are actually in this document we handed out. On the back page is the
question that said, did the State approve the plans that the District sent for
review and comment? The answer is yes. The Commission of Education, Gene
Mammenga has approved the District's plans with the following statement. "Based
9 1
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
on the Department's analysis of the district's required documentation...the
Commissioner judges that the construction and other improvements to be
educationally and economically advisable." And then on the first page, a
' statement by the Board Chair, Marjory Adams says, "The need couldn't be more
urgent. We are out of space and we must build if we are to be able to serve our
students. I think that's the message I'd like all of you to bring to the
citizens of Chan who are also members of District #112 to make sure that we get
' out and vote yes and deliver the kinds of facilities our students will need.
Thank you for your time.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Joe. Any comments by Council?
Councilman Mason: I sincerely hope that the citizens of Chanhassen, regardless
of where they live in Chanhassen, get behind this. As a teacher in Eden
Prairie, I'm painfully aware of what growth can happen if the district isn't
prepared for it. In Eden Prairie, in the 6 years I've been there we've added a
1,200 student Middle School, two elementary schools, continuing remodeling on
the Middle School. Adding onto elementary school buildings. The population
wave is coming out this way and I don't think anyone likes to throw money around
loosely but if we're concerned about educating the children of Chanhassen. Well
not just of Chanhassen. District #112. I see this as very important. As a
school teacher I would not want to be teaching, nor would I feel right about
teaching with a classroom of 35 kids or having 30 kids from 6:00 until noon and
30 more kids from noon until 6:00. It would not be a workable situation. So I
hope we can get people out to vote in the affirmative.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Michael. Anyone else? Education, as everyone
' knows is very important and even though we look at the size of a referendum, the
referendum is going to provide that kinds of education that the children are
going to reed within our school district so I would suggest that everyone who
has any questions, either contact the School Board or some of us on Council and
we'll be happy to get the answers back to you. Whatever they may be. So with
that we'll more right along with our agenda. Thanks for coming. Appreciate it.
Next item is our public hearing.
Councilman Mason: I think there might have been another visitor presentation.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Oh! Okay. I'm sorry. I thought, would you like to come
forward? Please state your name and your address.
Mark Halla: My name is Mark Halla from Halla Nursery. My address is 770
' Creekwood in Chaska mailing address actually. I'm here under Visitor
Presentation to simply discuss something and make you aware of a concern I have.
I talked with you Don earlier today on it. I talked with some city officials on
it. It's in reference to a planned sale of some trees to city residents. It
states in the recent literature that came from the city that the city is
planning to sell trees on a wholesale basis to any resident of the city that
desires to purchase such trees. I have a concern on this because, number one
I'm in the business of selling trees and obviously it effects my business if the
city is selling trees at a cost that I must pay for the tree. I can't make
money and be in business if the city chooses to support...this is absolutely
11 excellent. I'm in the business. My family's been in the business for 51 years
now. I think that in itself says that we're interested in improving the
10
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 ,
environment. That it's been a good business for us. We enjoy it. I enjoy it
personally. There's a lot of good things we can do. I look at businesses and
I think of all the things that I could be doing, this is something that gives me
a lot of self satisfaction and I have an actual, I guess an ablement to improve
the environment and protect it. So I think it's a great business. I'd just
soon continue it. When the city decides that they want to do something like
this, as much as I believe in the cause, I think that's what local businesses
are for. I think the city's out of line to come in and interfere with the free
enterprise system. As a taxpayer I firmly believe that that makes me a client
of the city and that the client is there to serve my needs. They're not there
to compete with me in my daily business ventures of trying to make a profit.
I don't think you considered the full effects of this program on the local
businesses. I think you've looked at it from the standpoint that it is going to
improve the environment. Improve the local aesthetics of the city and I think
that's great. I think there are other methods that that can be done that don't
interfere with local business. Some of the detrimental effects that this would
create for us would be losing those sales of trees. Let's say for instance you
sell 100 trees or 200 trees or 10 trees. Any tree that you sell may or may not ,
have been a potential sale for me. There are other businesses in Chanhassen.
Generally we've found from the information and the clientele that we have that
they came from local. And for those people now to be able to buy those trees at
the same cost that I must pay for them, if they aren't something I grew,
obviously is going to take business away from me. There's no reason, unless I
can compete with your price, that they would come directly to me. That's just
isn't the way it would work. They would go through the city and buy that tree
for the same cost that I might sell it, or be able to buy it for, excuse me.
I've been continually investing money in making my business more suitable to
me €ting the needs of Chanhassen residents. 90% of our business comes from the
local trade. We've grown each year. Last year we did just over a million
dollars in business. We continue to spend quite a bit of money reinvesting in
our company in order to meet those future needs. I think that's evident to '
everyone. We've talked with the city before. We've currently put up some
buildings. We've made a lot of improvements. In the last year alone I've
invested over $120,000.00 into improvement of my business. And it's hard to get
a return on investment when anyone comes along and starts selling my same
product at the cost that I must pay for it. In the free enterprise system, if
Lotus or...Market decides to open their doors and compete with me, that's
understandable. That's fine. That's what keeps prices low for the community
and that's the way it should work. They have to pay overhead and aren't able to
tax clients in order to pay for that overhead and therefore we're going to be
competitive. We're going to charge a fair price and a fair market value for the
goods, yet we're going to be competitive and that's where I think the
competition should lie. It shouldn't be between local businesses which are
paying taxes and supporting the city. We shouldn't be, not only doing that but
then competing with you for the same business. I talked with the city today and ,
I met some resistance from 3 people. Actually I heard them say, fine. Just
give the lowest bid. Then you won't have a problem. You'll get the business
anyway. Like I said earlier, I'm mainly a residential company. 99% or more of
my business is done residentially. What I grow and sell myself are mainly
larger shade trees. When it comes down to the 8 and 6 trees, that you're
talking about selling, inch and a half to 4 inches is what I heard when I talked
with Todd Hoffman I believe it was earlier today, a lot of those I do buy in. I
buy them from other growers and I'm not able to compete. Some of the growers
11 1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
that you're putting this out to bid to are the same exact people that I buy from
on a regular basis. So to come in with the same bid would be saying if I pay so
and so for a tree, then I have to meet that price again. There's no way I can
compete. Not if you're getting bids from the growers that I use. On top of it,
' as I understand it from today's discussions, the bids aren't even going just to
city businesses. They're going to whoever and anyone that's available to meet
the needs for those trees. I disagree with this idea. I think it's out of line
and there's no reason whatsoever that the city should be involved with selling
these trees. If they're going to do it, they certainly should be protecting
local businesses in the process or looking for a method to work with them. We
provide the same products and services but we aren't able to tax our clients and
' able to pay for our overhead. So obviously we would have to sell them at some
margin above our cost. I think it's out of place for the city to initiate,
condone, or help with the sale of anything. Whether it's composting bins or
11 whatever. The city's here to keep things going to help the community be strong
and successful. They aren't here to participate in the sale of these goods.
Whether it's at cost or not, whether they see any profit or not, this city
shouldn't be selling items to the public. They can get I guess what they want
' or make the improvements via different restrictions. Some solutions I have to
the problem, I think I've voiced my concern on it well enough. You can use the
tax money, if you want to improve the environment and you want to improve the
1 looks of things, use the tax money to buy and install trees on boulevards. Come
up with a boulevard tree planting program that the city's land is improved.
Don't improve private residences. That's for private businesses. We're there
to meet the needs of those people. I'm all for you spending my tax money to
improve and build athletic fields. To landscape boulevards. Tree plantings
boulevards. To require more than 1 tree per site on new buildings. You know
these are ways that you can get the same end product without alienating or
hurting local businesses. You can promote the installation of trees by
puhlica.11y expressing their benefits. You can, there's a lot of research on it
and you can puhlically do that. That helps people think about it. It helps
' them desire to purchase the product and then let them purchase it from the local
businesses. I think the city needs to I guess focus a little more on standing
with and behind the local businesses. Get their input. Possibly their
cooperation and work together, not against each other.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, maybe if I could just interject something.
Mark Ha11a: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: As you may or may not be aware, this is the second year that
we've gone through the process and I don't know whether or not Halla was aware
of the fact that we did this last year and had the opportunity to do the same as
the other people who did put those bids in. But I think our main intent within
the Council at that time was to provide trees to people who probably wouldn't be
able to buy them, even though you're required to put one tree in per lot. The
main intent is that many of those trees, at least in my opinion at the time,
people who did want to put a tree in would go elsewhere in other areas. I don't
11 want to use competitors names but normally that's probably where they would go
because their prices are much lower. To get a standard, quality kind of tree
was the idea and concept that we had for this specific reason. And not only
that is that we did want to see trees within our city because we're known as a
city of trees and have had that bestowed upon us by the Department of Natural
1 12
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
Resources already. And so I think that was some of the intent behind it. Maybe
Don can elaborate maybe a little bit more on that as well.
Don Ashworth: The program was a priority of our Tree Board. I think we're
trying to carry out a reforestation of the city. We're trying to do that in a
number of different fashions. I think the Mayor is correct. For those people
who are looking for a discount tree, they may be people that would participate
in this type of a program. I don't think that they would be the same ones that
may purchase from Mr. Halla or from Lotus Garden. Last year's low bid did go to
Lotus. We have tried to insure that we are keeping the bids to local area
people. We have not tried to mass market this thing into a wholesaler out of
Wisconsin. Again, last year's program was by a local provider. We also
literally give away seedlings as a part of Arbor Day program. Again, an effort
to carry our reforestation. Lotus did receive the bid for the reforestation of
South Lotus Lake. You're right. We do require 1 tree on each lot. We're '
bringing about 500 lots to market each year. The Tree Board would like to
increase that to 3 trees. I think right there our local suppliers should really
benefit from those type of programs. And finally, I forgot my final point. Oh,
the point on the boulevards. As the Council is aware, you bring out an
excellent point. We are following an aggressive schedule so this year we will
be planting Kerber Boulevard literally in it's entirety. Audubon. And again,
we hope to be going back to local suppliers to provide those products. One last
point and that is, my congratulation to the Halia's because over the years they
have been very supportive of the city as well. All of the trees around the old
City Hall, which at the time they were put in were relatively large. I would
say at least a 6 inch diameter, were all donated by Halla and I think they've
continued to donate and help the city over the years so I thank you for that.
Mark Halla: Well I appreciate that and that's, I do strongly support the idea
behind it. The method is what I disagree with. Last year, I'll be honest with
;ou, I wasn't aware of it. My people let me down. The people that should have
been bidding it, made me aware of it within my organization didn't do so. As I
expressed to Don earlier today, we would have had this discussion last year.
Obviously a year behind is a little late to come into the game and say hey, I
disagree. No question about that. Had I known last year, I would have been
here last year saying the same thing. I disagree that the people that are
looking for a bargain are going to find this method of getting the same tree or
the people that aren't looking for a bargain are going to come to me because in
the end, people don't realize the differences in trees. People, that's why
Frank survives.
Mayor Chmiel: I didn't say it. 1
Mark Halla: There is a difference and that's you know, for instance I can buy
white pine from North Carolina. I can bring them in here and sell them on a
retail level for about $80.00 a tree as opposed to buying them, grown locally in
clay where they ruri $189.00 a tree for the same exact sized tree. There is a
difference. Root stock is a big difference. How hardy it's going to be.
Whether it can stand the types of soils here. So people are going to always
look for bargains. We accept that. We try to offer bargains. As I expressed
to Todd Hoffman, I go to a lot of auctions during the year from businesses that
haven't done well. I sell a lot of items at my place for below wholesale
already. I have I guess about 600...pines that I'm talking $10.00 less than I
13 ,
11 City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
can buy them anyplace. I have deals like that. We publish them. You've seen
II our advertisements. We spend a lot of money advertising. We do a lot of
promotions in order to move out products at a reasonable price and get people
into our store. Your method of doing this takes that even away from us. Not
II only are you selling the trees that possibly I could be, but you're not even
giving me the option of having them come into my environment and see what I have
to offer. If you have to do this, there may be a way that you can work with
II local businesses. Whether it be through a coupon deal where all three of us get
together and say, sure. We will give 50% off to anyone who comes to us with
this city of Chanhassen coupon. We'll give 50% off on up to 3 trees during this
month. Then they at least come to our store. We don't make our mark -up. Maybe
II we break even but they come to our store. They see what we have to offer and
hopefully they come back. Spring is our busiest time of year. If we don't get
the people in the door in spring, they don't see what we have, they aren't going
to come back throughout the season. When it gets hot, they aren't going to come
back in the fall. You know it's a tough business. It's similar to a farm
atmosphere where you're dependent upon a number of other factors like
environment and weather. It can really give you a beating and to have something
II like this cone up, it just seems like a real conflict of interest to me. On one
hand I've got 100 acres that I'm paying taxes on and I support this bond issue
for this school. It's going to raise my taxes quite a bit but I support it. I
1 think touching on that, the only way the world ever improves is through
education. If we don't do a good job of it, we go nowhere. So I support that
and I have no problem paying extra tax money but if part of my tax money is
II going towards the city's overhead incurred in seeing that people can buy trees
at the same price I pay for them, I just disagree. It's unfair to me. It's are
unfair advantage that you have. So I appreciate your time. I think Jay from
Lotus will be up next. Are there any comments or questions?
II Councilman Wing: As the Mayor said, this is the second year on this so the
argument isn't new. I remember meetings upstairs where the local businessmen
II had come in and discussed the same concerns you had. I don't disagree with it
at all. Clearly one of the primary goals here would be education. No question
about that but as the Tree Board this year looked at all the different options,
I think that last year the Park and Rec kicked this off but as the Tree Board
has moved into place now, education is one issue. Working with the local
businesses is the second issue. Whether you offer local residents a discount or
whatever happens but this one shot Arbor Day, Tree Day once a year is sort of
II another plus on top of it. I think just the city's involvement once a year
trying to push reforestation and push the sale of trees, is really to the city's
benefit. I think it's nice to be concerned about local business, and I think we
I are sensitive to that issue but also we've got to progress and progress we want
to make on reforestation. Now in my own case personally, with 3 kids in college
right now, the last thing in the world I would ever do would be come to Halla
and buy a tree. I just wouldn't even think about it. I couldn't afford it. I
II don't want to do it but all of a sudden when the city says, Arbor Day. I kind
of light up. And then discounted and wholesale trees. I just automatically
order one just to participate in the program. So I guess this once a year sell
II trees, let's reforest our city as part of our education process and I think that
as long as we involve the local business in it as much as possible, I have to
continue to support it. But I would like to see the local businesses get
II involved it this to the point where maybe that doesn't, through education and
cooperation of local businesses, that doesn't even have to occur anymore. If
il 14
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
I knew that I could go to Halla as a resident of this city and get a special
deal on trees because you're encouraging reforestation, would alter my thinking
on this a little bit but that's not in place now and I think where you're going
to want to really put some attention is to this Tree Board and sell your program
to them and cooperate with them and let's get a citywide program going. 1
Mark Halla: I agree wholeheartedly. I was never asked. You know if I would
have been. '
Councilman Wing: I'll see that you are.
Mark Halla: Last year I didn't see it so I couldn't do anything about it I '
would love to participate. You know it's for the benefit of all, there's no
question about that. Another thing that I didn't mention earlier is that you're
selling the B & B trees, which they're a high money amount. If you want to do
it and not effect local businesses as much, you could certainly be buying bare
root trees. You could be selling the same caliper trees in some instances for I
guess probably 300% less. So there are ways of working this out and I would
like to but I still, regardless of whether it's one day or not a year, to do it
through local businesses showing support for your taxpayer as opposed to
competing them for their daily support of their business. I don't have anything
further. '
Mayor Chmiel: I think the comment of course that Richard had made, in fact that
just to sit down with the Tree Board and come up with some of the ideas, I like
some of the things you even said. Potentionally, maybe a 50% coupon or whatever
it might be but I'd like you at least to come in and talk to the Tree Board.
Mark Halla: I would be pleased to do so. r
Mayor Chmiel: And get something set on that.
Councilman Mason: Yeah I think, I support the one shot deal also but I also
support what you're saying Mark. I'd like to see staff and Tree Board, whoever,
talk with your industry in town and see if something can be worked out.
Mark Halla: I appreciate that. I keep hearing one shot deal. I was under the
understanding from talking with Todd Hoffman that there was going to be several
weeks of advertising for this. That it was going to be made publically aware to
as marry people as possible and you're hopefully going to sell as many trees as
possible. That's different than a one shot deal to me.
Councilman Wing: Our one tree sale a year.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's just one time. One of the benefits I thought last
year, and I talked to Jay about that, is the fact of getting those people into
your business place. It might be a one time, no money making but it's also
making those people aware as to what business you have and what you have to
offer and sell and coming back for repeat business as well. ,
Mark Halla: Right. Well I agree and that's why you know I'd love to see the
coupon deal or something so at least I get the obvious benefit of having them
see my establishment. So I think that has a lot more merit than just simply
15 1
II City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
II selling the trees, and as I understand it, the city is delivering them as well.
So thank you.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Appreciate it. Jay.
Jay Kronick: My name is Jay Kronick. I live out of the city in Laketown
II Township on Tellers Road. I do own Lotus Lawn and Garden and pay my taxes here
as well. Pay more taxes here than out in Laketown.
Mayor Chmiel: We appreciate it.
Jay Kronick: And if I could vote in District #112, I too would support the
referendum. As was mentioned, I had the opportunity to participate in the
II program last year and was the lucky vendor. Before participating I voiced some
of the same concerns Mark did to the Mayor, to Todd Hoffman and will probably do
so again here tonight. I thought about this program off and on over then. I
guess part of the reason I chose to go ahead and participate was that I thought,
I okay fine. We'll do this. Got a foot in the door. We learn a little bit about
the program and then we're going to go back and fine tune it. And I got a
surprise call from Mark this morning. Jay, have you heard about this? Well, I
I knew about it last year Mark and he apparently didn't. I didn't receive the
newsletter yet so I called up and found out, yeah. The program's planned again
for '93. Same way as last year. Imagine my dismay when there was none of that
fine tuning and talking with some of the interested parties as I had thought
II might happen. I appreciate the opportunity to speak again here this evening and
must also stress that I encourage, as well as anyone else I think in this room,
the goal of reforesting Chanhassen. That's a...and one that we're probably all
II behind in one respect or another. As the owner of Lotus Lawn and Garden, I am
concerned about the program as it stands for two reasons. First, it's my
opinion that the provision of goods, such as trees in this case, belongs in the
11 marketplace and not controlled or organized by any political jurisdiction. The
city does offer what we characteristically refer to as municipal services, fire
protection, road maintenance, etc. but to my quick knowledge today as I was
putting my notes together, the city sells no other goods to residents. And if
II it does, if I've overlooked something, it's probably a good that's not readily
available through the local marketplace or it's not a good that impacts
significantly on a local private sector provider. In the case of this program
I with the trees, there is a distinction. The planting of balled and burlap, high
dollar trees constitutes a significant portion of what ultimately results in the
legitimate profits that businesses like Mark's and mine are entitled to. The
II second reason for my concern is that the practice of selling wholesale, the city
selling trees at wholesale, also runs counter to what we might call established
patterns of economy in this country. Wholesale pricing is meant for qualified
buyers, and I stress word qualified, who buy in quantity. Wholesale pricing is
II not for the individual who needs 1 or 2 trees in their yard. And when
individuals who are not qualified buyers have the opportunity to buy at
wholesale, this has a negative impact on the retail nursery business. Price
II expectations become lowered across the board. A perception develops that the
regular competitive retail prices, and we have those in this area because there
are several nurseries, that those regular competitive prices are too high and
ii
II the long term impact of a business suffers as a result. Boy, Halla's
expensive. Did you see the price of those B and 8 trees compared to what we can
buy the for through the city? Boy, I'm not going to Lotus. That tree's
II 16
II
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
$169.00 there and I can buy it through the city sale next year for $85.00. How
does that impact down the line on the rest of my business when someone comes in '
to buy fertilizer or their flowers. That perception is created. I think you
could even make the argument that the city's intrusion into what is a locally
thriving free market for the purchase of nursery material. There are three
retail nurseries in town now, is a form of reverse price fixing. Whereby the
prices are being driven artifically low on these balled and burlap trees by the
city's process as it stands. Now I want to emphasize at this point I'm not
trying to get rich or rip anybody off. I just want to make an honest living
doing a professional job in a profession that contributes to the betterment
improvement of our natural world. I echo some of Mark's sentiments there. And
I do want to make a living at it. I want my business to be profitable and I'm
not looking for excessive profits however. When I established my business here
in Chanhassen 5 years ago, I was encouraged by the City Council and the people
I talked with in the city. Residents and city officials alike. At that time I
agreed to comply with a broad range of conditions that cost my fledgling
business a lot of money, and still do. You've got some nice ordinances here but
they cost us. I willingly bore those costs and continue to do so to this day
and I realize full well there were no guarantees that I'd have a lock on the
tree and shrub market. I knew where the competition was and I expected that
others would come in. I did at that time, and still expect that the competition
in reaching the residential market would be other retail businesses that at
least on the local level would comply with the same set of restrictions I do.
Not play by different rules. Here it is 5 years later. My business is up and
we're going and I'm glad I've chosen to locate it here. It's a good community
and I've enjoyed really getting involved with the community beyond the scope of
the business. Over the years we've contributed to the 4th of July and Halloween
celebrations. We helped out with the city compost demonstration site. I spent
a lot of time, as well as money, working with the Scout who was involved in
that. We've offered landscape courses, one sort or another, through the
District #112 Continuing Education and we've provided trees for the City Center
Park. We do all these things with no strings attached. No expectations of it
coming back to us or anything, but out of a spirit of goodwill. We like what we
do. That goodwill however rises out of a feeling of being welcome and being a
part of the community, and I'm not sure that a program such as the one proposed
says on the part of city government, local business you're welcome here. It has
the opposite effect. What do I suggest as an alternative? Scrap the program
entirely. Let people buy freely within the context of the marketplace. I'm not
sure that, as some of you have claimed, that the program as proposed, plants
more trees. I think all that it does is make the bigger ones more affordable
and if you have $50.00 to spend on a tree, well sure you buy that 2 inch tree
but it's not, in and of itself, all it's going to do is shift the size of the
trees that are being planted and that may not be the best thing. I'm not sure
that we're getting all that many more trees planted that way. If, on the other
hand your mind is made up, as it sounds like it is and you've got to get
involved in this program, well I guess you're working on private land. My
suggestion would be find some money within the city coffers to finance part of
this. Subsidize the trees. Help the businesses and residents out. There's got
to be some funding out there. Whether it's right within the city. The SBA's
got some programs for cities. A couple years back I called Jo Ann Olsen and
said are we Tree City, USA because there's money through that program for cities
through the SBA. There's got to be some means by which the burden of this
program doesn't fall entirely on the back of the local businesses. I think
17
1
11 City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
we're all working towards the same end and just came out this evening to voice
some of my concerns. I fully would be willing to sit down and talk about how to
restructure this program. There were some comments about the tree preservation
11 board and as you know Councilman Wing, I had applied. I was invited to apply
for that Board. I was not chosen, and that's a nice relief because my time is
stressed too far but no one has said to me since, hey we're for him. Come on
back and participate as a local business person. I'll extend one more effort to
do that as well to help out in any way I can.
Mayor Chmiel: Jay, I might also suggest that with Mark, we're going to sit down
I/ with him. I'd also suggest you probably do that as well. Maybe if there's
another solution to this, you can come up with something better than what we
have. That's something that can be looked at.
1 Jay Kronick: Well, I'm certainly willing to do that. I would like to.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Appreciate it. Any questions?
Councilman Sean: Don I guess, you know I think both these gentlemen are making,
I think some pretty good points. I guess I'm a business person in town and if
11 the city went into my business temporarily or otherwise, I guess I'd be pretty
upset too. At the same time, we all need to support the local economy and as
the city we do a lot to encourage that and do that through broader city efforts.
A good example I think is sometimes some of us make purchases at local stores
that may not necessarily save us money but we do that because we want to keep
those business in Chanhassen. I think this really runs contrary to that. I'd
really like to see these gentlemen sit down with the Tree Board, with the
directive that they define a program that works really well for both parties. I
see the city's role in this as really being one more of education. I mean you
know it's our job to educate people as to the advantages of reforestation or
forestation. I think to use Arbor Day as a key time to do that of course makes
a lot of sense simply because there's a lot of efforts going on at that time
which draw a lot of attention to it. But again, I think our program could be
something different than it is which would use city efforts and city dollars to
educate and maybe in conjunction with our local businesses, establish a program
that saves our residents some money and helps in that effort but again uses the
private marketplace. I would really strongly consider again a directive from us
to our Tree Board and that they sit down with these gentlemen and do that in
conjunction even with the program this year.
Mayor Chmiel: What I'd rather see done is have some discussions with the Tree
Board and come back with a recommendation back from the Tree Board back to us.
Councilman Senn: That's what I'm suggesting.
Jay Kronick: Would it be your intent that we get this going real quick...
Councilman Senn: I think we should do it right away.
Don Ashworth: Well the city newsletter has gone out.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's already out.
18
11
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Y 9 s
Don Ashworth: I think that's what Jay was referring to was he hasn't seen the
newsletter yet. Mark had called him to tell him what was in it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, but there's still some things...I didn't read
the details of it.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know specifically what the requirements are but I think 1
if we would work this as I suggested, as Mark has even indicated, I think we can
come back with something and we can take it from there.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean have we let a contract on this for this year?
Don Ashworth: No.
Mayor Chmiel: No, no.
Jay Kronick: I was told that I'd be invited to bid again and have not received 1
anything.
Mayor Chmiel: First learn what we went through the process and how we did the
process prior to this year. What we did last year and then come back with those
kinds of comments.
Councilman Senn: Don, I understand that but just because we did it before that
wa doesn't mean that's the right way to do it. I'd rather see these guys go
it down with the Tree Board and see if they can come up with a better way to do
it for even this year, if that's possible. But again, the only way we're going ,
tc find that out is kind of put the emphasis that way and ask it to be done. The
w, ,, y of course is to avoid the issue until next year and I'm not sure we
nee, to take the easiest way. 1
Ma ;cr Chmiel: No, and we're not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're just reading in here and this is real general_ 1
There's still time to.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Right.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I think there's time to work together.
Jay Kronick: Should we contact someone on the Tree Board? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Well contact Todd Hoffman.
Don Ashworth: I would like, and I think that's fine. I think have them meet
with the Tree Board and as soon as possible. My concern is that under public
law, we must advertise x number of days in advance that we must take bids for x
amount of period of time and then the official award has to occur by City
Council. So although it appears as though there is time between now and the
proposed sale date, I don't think that we have a lot of time. So if we're going
to do this type of thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Hop on it tomorrow.
19
11
City Council Meeting March 8, 1993
Don Ashworth: Well I would say within the next week we should be meeting.
I/ Mayor Chmiel: Well tomorrow is soon enough. That way we can set something up
real quick.
Jay Kronick: I'd be perfectly willing to do that. Happy to do so. Thanks for
your time.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Appreciate it. Anyone else? Any other visitor
11 presentations?
PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION AND OFFICIAL MAPPING (TRUNK HIGHWAY 41
TO GALPIN BOULEVARD), PROJECT 92 -12.
1 Public Present:
Name Address
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
I Jerome Carlson Galpin
Ed and Mary Ryan 6730 Galpin
Sam and Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin
Bill Engelhardt Engelhardt and Associates
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Our project consultant
engineer, Mr. Bill Engelhardt is here tonight to give a presentation of the
results of the feasibility study and then we can open it up for public
discussion from the audience.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor and members of the City Council, my name is Bill
Engelhardt. Again, we're the consultants on the mapping of Lake Lucy Road and
looking at alignments and alternatives for that particular roadway. It's a
connection between State Highway 41 and County Road 17. The project really
focused on two phases or two halves of the project. The westerly half off of
State Highway 41 serves what's called a Westside Baptist Church property, which
is located right here. And then the Gestach subdivision which is located and
shown in dashed lines as a potential subdivision. Then the easterly half of the
project was basically just an official mapping. Looking at how best a collector
street could be provided between Highway 41 and County Road 17, through the
' Edward and Mary Ryan property. Just for reference to this, Sam and Nancy
Mancino property is up in this area and the Jerome Carlson property is down in
here. The affected property owners would be the Baptist Church, the Gestach
property and the Ryan property. We looked at two different alternatives for
this particular roadway. Our main objective on the west side was to determine
how we could best serve those two properties. The Baptist Church and the
Gestach property. And on the east side we looked at how we could best get
through the Ryan property and make a connection at the existing intersection of
Lake Lucy Road and County Road 17. I think you have to keep in mind that this
westerly, or easterly portion of the roadway is basically just a mapping. No
11
20
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
construction is proposed at this time through that particular area. It's a way
of determining that if this section of the road is built, can a road be extended
through. Can a connection be made? How could it be made and at what cost could
it be made realizing that in the future we may have other costs. We may have
other alignments through that westerly, or easterly property. The two
alignments we looked at, again Alternate 1 was running a roadway along the
Carlson property line. Along the south side of the West Baptist Church property
and then up into the Gestach property. Trying to avoid the wetland areas in
order to get the curves that we needed to meet State Aid standards and in order
to fit, best fit an alignment in there. The second alternative that we looked
at shifted the west alignment to the north and basically held the alignment
through the easterly portion, the same as we had it under the Alternate 1. The
reason for that was that there's a large grove of trees in this area and really
what happened, I drive this road every day and I didn't want to see, see if we
could avoid cutting those trees in there. This alignment does skirt those
evergreens that you see out there. If you're familiar with the property.
There's a row of evergreens through this area and then just to the south of the
evergreens is a hardwood tree area. Again, the only reason for this particular
alignment was to see if we could avoid taking those evergreens in there.
Discussions in the homeowners meetings with the Carlsons. They indicated that
they somewhat preferred, if we're going to have an alignment, to be on the
property line. It would best serve their property. We would not have
additional right -of -way acquisition. These parcels in here would have to be
acquired and they'd be virtually useless. So the city would end up owning that
property. The only reason this was shown again was to see if we could avoid
I/
cutting those trees. As it turns out, there's really only about 2 rows of
evergreens in there. They're not ideal evergreens. The hardwood forest is
behind that. Even with the Alternate 1, we would be staying out of those
hardwoods, and that was important. Mr. Carlson's thought on it was, if we would
take the evergreens, that we'd replant those and actually have a better tree and
a better look than what we have right now. Part of the process for mapping the
alignment was to look at the topography. This is a, it's a very difficult
topography. It's rolling. It's hilly. We have large wetland areas in this
particular area. There's high hills to the north. In the Ryan property there's
a knoll right through here. The Gestach property, we have slopes and hills that
come down and go back up again and right along this side, the church property
slopes down to the pond area which is down in here. Right here. The alignment
again we felt that best served the properties, particularly on the west side was
to keep the road along the Carlson property line. That gave the church area the
largest area to work with for development of their property and to place their
church. And I'll show you in a little bit another overhead that shows the
sanitary sewer line that goes through there, so this property gets somewhat cut
up if we start shifting this alignment to the north. It also best serves the
Gestach property, although there is very slight change from Alternate 1 and
Alternate 2 up in this area. Again we held with the same alignment for the
easterly property focusing on making this at a T intersection with Lake Lucy
Road. I think it was explained to the property owners during our homeowner
meetings that if this property, if the Ryan property were to ever develop,
either by them or someone else, that this alignment could be adjusted through
here to best serve the proposed development but we would ultimately want to end
up at Lake Lucy Road. At that intersection.
11
21 11
1
—"
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Y ,
II Mayor Chmiel= Bill, with the existing Lake Lucy Road and with our sewage lift
station that we have there, that's not going to run directly from one into the
11 other is it?
Bill Engelhardt: Well at Lake Lucy Road we have what's called the water
II pressure station. Is that what you're referring to?
Mayor Chmiel Yes, I'm sorry. Water pressure.
I/ Bill Engelhardt: There's a booster station that's dead center on this
alignment. And during the construction of this particular piece of roadway,
that station would have to be relocated in order to get this to come in at a T
I intersection.
Mayor Chmiel: The reason 1 bring that out is, our previous engineer, when that
was brought up, our concerns were that that was going to be put in a location
II directly across from that and that that particular station would interfere with
the road. At that time we were told, no. It wasn't going to and now we're
going to have to relocate the dang thing.
1 Bill Engelhardt: I think, yeah. If you're looking at this alignment, and the
Ryan's had concerns about, and naturally and I understand their concerns about
platting or actually, we're not proposing to do any construction in this area.
We wart to see if this would work. As far as the Ryan's are concerned, this
could be shifted one way or the other. Our objective and our main focus would
be to get this into a 90 degree intersection because this is a major collector
II that we'd be building. We don't want to bring Lake Lucy Road up to CR 117 and
then have to make a jog down 600 feet and come back up through. You want that
as a thru road. I don't know what the time period on that would be. When that
II would ever be reconstructed or what. But I believe that we would have to do
some work in there, yeah. No question about that. We could possibly try to
shift it a little bit but again, I think if you look at collector street design,
I if you try to bring your traffic start through, and if we had any kind of shift
in alignment in there, we'd be causing a real bottleneck at that intersection
and we'd have some potential problems. If we go to the north, towards the
Mancino property, this is a very steep hill in through here and you'd have
II difficulty building a roadway. It's possible you could come down south and come
back up around. That would be possible. In the study we incorporated some
profiles, just to give you a rough idea of what the topography looks like. This
II solid line is proposed grade. The up and down line through here, the vertical
line is the existing grade so you can see there's some rather steep hills up
through that area. Part of the project also was looking at providing sewer and
water service for petitioning properties, which again were the Baptist Church
and the Gestach property. We looked at the ultimate for sanitary sewer. How
you would best serve the entire alignment. Again, keeping in mind that the area
to the west is not being considered for any type of construction at this time,
II we'd only be looking at the area to the, or excuse me, to the east. Only the
area to the west. Existing trunk sanitary sewer, the Lake Ann Interceptor runs
through the Westside Baptist Church property. Follows along the Gestach
II property and then down into the Jerome Carlson property and basically keeps on
going south along the wetland area. That is the interceptor. That is the sewer
facility that would serve the entire area. What we would do under this
particular project is construct the lateral lines. If you were going to build
II
22
I/
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Y 9 s
the street section at this time you would want to put the laterals in. The
lateral sewer line so you wouldn't have to redo the streets at some point in
time. Water is not that critical. We have not looked at a water cost for it.
The watermain could be put in along the shoulder area of the roadway but if
we're going to do the, if you're going to build any kind of street in there, you
should provide the sanitary sewer. They'd be tied directly into the Interceptor
and then this line, on the Gestach property would serve his development and
they'd be able to tie into that manhole. Part of the street construction would
ultimate have to have storm sewer in it. This is what the green indicates. How
we would storm so the project, the little bubbles indicate catch basin
locations. Where we would intercept the drainage. This particular project
would discharge into the large wetland areas but the new rules and regulations
state that we need to have NURP ponds prior to discharge in the wetlands. No
increase in runoff to the wetlands than what we're seeing right now. So we
would have to do some work to treat the storm water before we discharge in the
wetlands. We'd not be allowed to go directly into the wetlands. The street
section would also have a trail system on it. Trail is planned to be on the
north side of the roadway. Again, only through the Westside Baptist Church and
the Gestach /Paulson property. In the feasibility study we did break out the
costs for the entire alignment. We tried to come up with a cost per foot.
Realistically, what we need to look at is the construction of two phases. For
the Phase 1 would be through the Westside Baptist and the Gestach property and
the coEt for Phase 1, based on a front foot cost, would be $78.32 for street,
storm sewer and sidewalk. $29.69 per front foot for sanitary sewer. That would
I/
be for Alternate 1, which is along the Jerome Carlson property line. Alternate
2 which again shifts the westerly alignment slightly to the north, would have
$70.25 per front foot for street, storm sewer and sidewalk and $50.57 per front
foot for the sanitary sewer. This project is, as a collector has been proposed
as a State Aid street. Connects county road and State Highway 41. Qualifies for
Statr_ Aid funding. In this particular case, the City's policy is that the
individual property owners would be assessed for a typical residential street I/
and the cost over and above a typical residential street would be born by the
State Aid funds. And that's going from a 31 foot street with concrete curb and
gutter, to basically a 44 foot with concrete curb and gutter. And this
particular slide shows you the total project cost of $356,265.00. State Aid and
local share is $117,492.00. Total assessable is $265,776.00 and we have the
sanitary sewer construction, that's for street. We have sanitary sewer
construction of $54,573.00. Sanitary sewer would be a direct benefit to the
property owners receiving service and that would be assessed directly to those
property owners. Our recommended alignment would be the Alternate Number 1. It
best serves the properties to the west. It's the same alignment for the Ryan's
on both alternatives. We have less cost for right-of-way acquisition and we're
able to serve the Carlson property, Westside Baptist, the Gestach subdivision.
It dogs not cut the Westside Baptist Church property up. Right now they have
the sanitary sewer easement going through there so the closer we, farther north
we push this alignment, we restrict their buildability. So the best location is
along this property line. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you
might have or any of the residents...on the property.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why don't we just wait with our questions on Council.
What I'd like to do, as I indicated, this is a public hearing. Those of you who
are intereEted in providing comments regarding this proposal, please come up and
state your name and your address and what your concern is. Is there anyone at
1
23
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
this time that would like to provide any comment? As I say, it's a public
hearing. Don't be afraid to come up. It's just like sitting in your kitchen to
talk to us. We don't bite.
Councilman Wing: I think Al knows that.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Al who?
Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz and my son Brian is involved in this project
I/ and he's out of town tonight so he asked me to come up here and address you
honorable people. There's a few new things have come up and I've talked to
Jerome Carlson about this. At the present time, and I think Jerome would agree
with me, that the entrance should be on the property line on the south side of
the church property. Even if there already is a 60 foot easement through the
church property, to give access to the Gestach /Paulson /Klingelhutz property.
That easement was put in at the time of the sale of the property to the Westside
Baptist Church so there would be sure access to the property behind it.
Councilman Wing: Al, before you go any further. Are you saying that would be
1 alignment number 1 or are you saying...
Al Klingelhutz: I think it probably could be a little bit different than that.
I believe that Jerome has agreed that he would take part of that alignment onto
11 his property so it would push it a little bit further south and make the
feasibility for the Westside Baptist Church property much better than it even is
with this alignment. If we went with the easement across the Westside church
property, I don't know, there wouldn't be too many possibilities for the
property because anything north of the road would get too close to the pond.
And the south side of the road could possibly hold a church or a few building
sites. But it would make it very limited there. One thing I can't quite
understand is why there has to be a collector street through this property to
service the development that's in there. Just about 6 weeks ago I was up here
to a Council meeting and there was another proposed road going from County Road
117 to TH 41. A full two lane road and that was allowed to be put in at a 50 or
60 foot width. Now you want a collector street through this property and
instead of having only a collector street road through, you've got this proposed
road. You've got the one you've already approved for the Lundgren property,
plus you'll have three roads from what would be CR 117 to TH 41 went in about a
mile stretch from Highway 5. It seems a little bit excessive to put that much
land into roads when it can be much better used for other purposes. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Al. Is there anyone else?
Jerome Carlson: Jerome Calson. Maybe I could, want me to use the mic? Can you
hear me?
Mayor Chmiel: We have a mic.
Jerome Carlson: What Al was suggesting is that, as I went out and really looked
at this thing a few times, what I discovered. As the result of your concern
11 about the evergreens, which I also can appreciate the beauty of. I wanted to
see exactly how close to the line all these beautiful mature maples and oaks are
and what I think I discovered is that there is, with some understanding with
24
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
staff, which I haven't had the opportunity to do yet, on site. I think there is
room to pretty much split the boundary line, greatly diminishing the number of
evergreens that would have to be taken. And literally not sacrificing I think a
single hardwood. I stepped it off in several areas. I had to take a few extra
steps because of my height but I did make it, and also I would recommend as we
go out there, that we look to turning this a little bit earlier. Perhaps not
quite as sharply or severely, although that certainly isn't, because in one
place there are three very, very large, and they're right on the border. I
don't know if they're mine or the churches, there are three very, very large
mature oak trees that I think could be easily avoided. That would be my
opinion. This routing is going to assess us for all of the footage on here
anyway so frankly, partly in an effort to avoid some of those evergreens and if
we could get out there together I could show you, would avoid the vast majority
of them. Moving that road about 30 or 40 feet to the south. So that would be
yet another alternative that I believe would diminish the taking of trees to the
utmost and would absolutely maximize the use of the Baptist property and it
would still serve our property at such time as we were to develop. We would be
paying this assessment under this plan anyway. Thank you. And I would invite
the opportunity to go out there and walk that with staff.
(Someone in the audience made a comment that was not picked up on the tape.) I
Jerome Carlson: We're talking about a maximum of what? A total of 80 feet?
Bill Engelhardt: 80 feet of right -of -way, yeah.
Audience: And that includes the trail? 1
Bill Engelhardt: Yeah.
Jerome Caisson: What I would like to do, I would enjoy doing, is going out there L
and actually tying ribboning the trees and doing the measurements on site
because it's surprising, when you get right up on the boundary line, that just
off the highway the beginning of the pines is actually some footage north of the
property line. The way they line up. There's a significant distance that you
don't notice from the highway. You have to be in the woods. But I do think
that whether the road is 60 feet or whatever, I do think you would find that to
be perhaps a better alignment. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, could I just comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 1
Bill Engelhardt: Just one second on that. I don't have any problem, and I'm
sure Charles and I could get out there and meet with Mr. Carlson. I think one
thing that I should point out to you why we chose the location. Mr. Carlson was
not one of the original petitioners and his property, even though he would be
assessed, was not part of where we would want to acquire right -of -way. So what
we're looking at is trading the right -of -way basically through the existing
right -of -way or easement area that the Baptist Church has going through their
property for this right -of -way through their property, thereby keeping the cost
1
25
1 City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
of the total acquisition down. But if Mr. Carlson wants to dedicate the
right-of-way along his property line, we'd be more than happy to look at that
because that would reduce the right -of -way that we'd need on the Baptist Church.
The reason for that was to save on the cost of the acquisition. Again, if
that's a real...
Councilman Wing: Bill, before you sit down. A lot of the letters we've gotten
and the neighborhood meeting was concerning the Ryan property and so on and so
forth. And I just want to clarify that anything we do here, I guess at some
point we have to decide for the City's best interest, if there's going to be a
collector street going through, then we have to get an alignment set up for the
future. Whether it's a year, 5 years, 10 years, 100 years. That's maybe
irrelevant. But right now we're concerned about a road that may or may not
serve that proposed development, and was it my understanding that both sewer and
water can come in independently and serve that? The sewer can be hooked up as
is and the water can come in from the north.
Bill Engelhardt: That's correct.
Councilman Wing: So we're no way touching the Mancino /Ryan properties? They're
just irrelevant at this time?
Bill Engelhardt: The Mancino property is definitely out. There's nothing even
planned to be mapped on it. The Ryan property again is a future consideration.
The only reason that we looked at it again was your Comp Plan does identify this
as being a collector street and your Comp Plan does show a line through there.
This war just trying to establish what is a reasonable location and area for
that road to go through and that's all.
Councilman Wing: So then the Ryan's have to assume that at some point in the
future this may be a collector street, but the only issues we're really going to
be dealing with here are going to be the western petition?
Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. That's correct.
Councilman; Wing: Okay.
Councilman Senn: The right - -of -way that exists now, is strictly a trade then
between that and the right -of -way on the church property?
Bill Engelhardt: What we looked at originally was that again, the Westside
Baptist church was a petitioner in the project. Now they have indicated by
letter that, I'm not so sure they're still interested in the project. And if
they're here they can certainly speak for themselves tonight but there was, when
the Gestach /Paulson people sold. They owned all this property and when they
sold this 10 acres to the Westside Baptist Church, they maintained an access
easement through here that would allow them access to their property. At that
time they were looking at possibly doing a 2 1/2 acre lot subdivision because it
was not in the MUSA line area. Well now it's in the MUSA line area and it can
be broken up into large lots, meeting single family size for the city of
11 Chanhassen, and they still have that easement through there. And as Baptist
Church being a petitioner of the project and wanting the roadway, it would
behoove them to have that roadway moved to the south because it gives them more
26
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
buildable area for their property. It's not real clear on this map but what 1
this line is is the pond that you see out there and they have certain setback
restrictions for building on that property, plus if you remember the other
slide, we do have the interceptor coming through here. So they are somewhat
limited on how they can build on their property and by keeping this alignment to
the south, it enhances their property. If Mr. Carlson -is willing to go along
with the project and wants to shift half that right -of -way onto his property,
that makes it even all the better.
Councilman Senn: No, but that still doesn't answer my question. Is the
existing easement a trade -off to the new easement?
Bill Engelhardt: At this time I'm not sure because I'm not sure where the
Baptist Church is on whether they want to do the project or not. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, my understanding, according to staff, they have withdrew
their proposal for this petition.
Bill Engelhardt: So if they were not part of the project, don't want to be part
of the project, we would have to acquire whatever right -of -way we need from
them, we'd have to acquire.
Councilman Sean: Unless we went in the easement?
Bill Engelhardt: Unless we went in the easement. Which would severely restrict
their property.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but I'm just trying to find out the issues, 1
okay.
Bill Engelhard': That's correct.
Councilman Senn: The second question is, coming back into your costing before
though, on your Alternate number 2 you're showing a much higher pricetag. If
there's an existing easement running to the north, why are we showing such a
large price tag on the second one and not you know.
Bill Engelhardt: Alternate number 2 was not on the easement alingment. None of
the, either Alternate Number 1 or Alternate Number 2 were on the easement
alignment.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so the Alternate 2 is not on there?
Bill Engelhardt: No. That was just a matter of skirting around the edge of
those evergreens to see if we could save those. From the north side of the
property. The easement that we're talking about goes more through the middle of
that property.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I could touch on a couple of items briefly. The
idea of...road away from the pond and the south property line was originally at
the church's request. I understand...but the church came to us 6 months ago. 7
months ago. Whatever it was, and said that the road easement, which is not a
public road easement. That road easement that Klingelhutz and Gestach has, puts
27
1
11 City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
their land in such a way that they can't reasonably develop the church they want
to develop. They asked us to look at alternatives to move that road on the
south property line. Now it's a little bit of a funny position...It impacts
their property a little bit less. Secondly, if I could touch on the Comp Plan
issues that were raised a moment ago. I don't have a good overview of this.
This is the Comp Plan that was approved by the City several years back. From
what you can see here is Lake Lucy Road coming across the top and being extended
generally in the vicinity of what we're talking about now. I don't believe this
is a new concept. As I recall, this may have even been in our '80 comprehensive
plan. It is the only possible roadway that goes across the north end of the
city because of the location of the lakes. The other collector road which was
referenced, is this one that's kind of shown as a straight line down here
through the Lundgren property. In our early workings with Lundgren, we
downgraded that from a collector status to a local street that connects from one
side to the other because the grades are so difficult in there, it was concluded
that you just couldn't get a legitimate collector street there and it didn't
have the continuity that Lake Lucy Road did. So Lake Lucy Road is really the
only street that offers, at least a...continuity across the top half of the
city.
11 Councilman Sean: Did Lake Lucy Road used to go straight across?
Paul Krauss: Yeah. The old alignment was right through here and that was
vacated and changed when it was large lot single family through there.
Councilman Senn: And that was done when?
11 Councilman Mason: 3 or 4 years ago?
Sharmin A] -Jail: '03 - '84.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, quite a while ago.
Councilman Mason: What's the distance between Lake Lucy Road and the road south
of there?
Paul Krauss: Well actually this...and it comes through the middle in the
Dolesji...
Charles Folch: Probably, it's almost a mile now.
' Paul Krauss: And again, we downgraded that simply to provide a connection
through so large property...could go through but it's a local street that's
built to a narrow standard that's going to go up and down quite a bit and have
houses along it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the third one that Al referred to?
Paul Krauss: I believe the third one is probably...
11 Charles Folch: I should mention that the Lundgren, what was basically
downgraded with that Lundgren street. The width is remaining at 36 feet, which
is what we build our collector streets to. It's the right-of-way actually that
28
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
was narrowed down to allow for grading and such but they're still building it to
36, which is what we propose to build this extension of Lake Lucy Road.
Councilman Senn: I just, not having the history I have to back up and ask
questions. If what I heard earlier is true where you're going to in effect
bring everything in from the north. Okay, and now the church is not, the
petitioner or participating in this. Why don't we just bring it in from the
north?
Charles Folch: Because the easement that's granted to the north would was
written strictly in favor of the Gestach /Paulson /Klingelhutz property. It's not
a public easement that's been granted to the city. It's just been in, it allows
access, potential access to that Paulson /Gestach /Klingelhutz property. It's not
a public road right -of -way easement.
Mayor Chmiel: What size easement is that?
Charles Folch: 60 foot I believe. 1
Al Klingelhutz: I believe that the three of them could turn it over into a
public right --of -way.
B111 Engelhardt: You could turn that 60 into a public right -of -way easement.
The problem is that at that point you would then have a local street and not a
collector and it's a decision by the city whether you want to have a collector
or a local street. That's basically what it boils down to.
Councilman Senn: Part of a collector. 1
Bill Engelhardt: Part of a collector, right.
Councilman Senn: Because we're not addressing the east, we're just talking 11
about an alignment.
Paul Krauss: ...officially map the route. But clearly, we never advocated ,
building this thing until development warranted it...we'd ask you to officially
map it so that everybody knows where this thing is located and at such time in
the future that development warrants it, we can put it in. But that's the only
action that you would take.
Councilman Senn: But what I'm trying to do is get to the point. Can you
separate the issues? I mean can this project go ahead without that particular
decision being made proceeding it?
Paul Krauss: So in essence you would look to build the western portion and not 1
officially map the eastern portion?
Councilman Senn: No. Could you put in the residential street versus the
collector to service the one residential development you're talking about?
Bill Engelhardt: At that point you've got a residential street and then to go
back in, let's say 10 -15 years from now and you decided that you needed to build
a collector, you would have to increase the size of that street and tear
29 1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
everything out and rebuild it. So again the question is, do you want to, or the
decision is, do you want to build a collector at this time or do you want to
allow just a local street go in and then in the future possibly have to rebuild
that local street when you have people living on it.
11 Councilman Senn: I understand what you're saying but at the same time I come
back to the issue of, if you have an existing easement through there, I still
haven't heard a big reason why we aren't planning on using that easement other
than the fact that it might hurt the use of the church property.
Charles Folch: There's actually two potential problems. One is, MnDot has
control access along TH 41, which means if we go ahead and build just a local
street access along that existing alignment, in the future it's likely that we
have difficulty with MnOot getting another collector access at such a short
spacing to the south of that existing 60 foot easement.
Councilman Senn: Why did you move it to the south I guess the question I come
around to? I mean why can't you build.
Charles Folch: You mean tear out the road in the future and then build it to
the south in the future?
■
Councilman Senn: No.
Charles Folch: I mean if you build the local street now on the existing 60 foot
easement, I would.
Councilman Sean: Why couldn't the feeder go where the local street is?
Charles Folch: Because, oh that's my second part of this is, you get into
wetland issues because when we construct that road through there, you're going
to end up having fill slopes and I think we would be encroaching upon that
wetland along the existing alignment. There was some problem with getting the
alignment and the fill slopes through that area.
Bill Engelhardt: Again, using the 60 foot right -of -way that the church has, or
60 foot easement. Excuse me. 60 foot easement. If we use that right -of -way,
that severely restricts the use of the church property. So the church basically
can't build. When they came and petitioned the city, they requested that that
right --of -way be moved or changed, looked at a different location so that they
could get the building and facilities that they wanted to build in there. Now
if all of a sudden the church doesn't want to build, then we could possibly that
60 foot right -of -way and you can keep it there but it virtually eliminates
construction of what the church wanted to do in there. It cuts that property in
I half.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but when they bought the property the
easement was there. And now you're asking the city to make a rather costly and
11 significant decision forced to a point that it appears that it doesn't need to
be forced.
Bill Engelhardt: The decision by the city is whether they want a collector road
through there or not.
30
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
Councilman Senn: At this time?
Bill Engelhardt: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what Bill is saying, is if you don't put a collector in
now, you put in the regular road at this time, you may have to go back to redo
it and he's saying you're putting good money after bad once you put this in.
Councilman Wing: We're looking at our Comp Plan. I think that years ago we 1
decided we want a collector street going through there. It's been defined. It's
been talked about. It's our northern tier. I think we've got to get it mapped.
I think in fairness to the owners, they have to know where it's going to go.
Now we have the question of the church. Is it this one or isn't doesn't it and
we're talking about easements that may or may not exist. Carlson has come in
and he said he wants it on his property. Good for him. Let's trade it off.
That's fine. I think it's a great idea. His trees. He doesn't seem to be too
concerned about them and mapping of the east, building to the west, mapping to
the east., I'm getting lost. Can we table this until staff has had a chance to
find out who's who and what's going on?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: I'm really confused where we're going with it. I really am.
Mayor Chmiel: But before we table it, we still have some more people who would 11 like to address the issue and I'd like to have those come up yet.
Ed Ryan: Thank you Mayor. My name is Ed Ryan. I live at this little plot of
lard here. There's been a lot of discussion. Did any of the councilmembers get
a ow of my letter that I forwarded to them? Okay. Our concern is a couple
fold. We received notice of a meeting that we attended. A neighborhood
rneetin Mary and I did, where we learned for the very first time that the road
was actually mapped or plotted, whatever the formal description is, cutting
rigs in the middle of our property. My concerns are several. Number one it
was e>plained to us pretty clearly by mapping the road at this time, there's a
fincncia.l incentive that State Aid then becomes available. At this time, as far
as we're concerned, the issue of developing this property is frankly none of our
businPs•s. They need access to access their particular property. A collector
road at this time just seems very inappropriate to us. There is going to be
anoihci collector road somewhere in this vicinity that has been referred to as
the Lundgren property. In terms of what Mary and I have done, we have been on
the property for approximately 8 years. This was the former Brendan property.
We have many children. We have number x on the way and we have talked about
various locations potentially for a home that might accommodate our needs and
our feeling is that this road is basically being driven by the city in order to
establish a collector site now. I guess our opinion is, if Mr. Carlson or the
other property owners would accommodate this road as being a local road at this
time, we feel that would be appropriate. If the development continues in this
direction, at some point in time, perhaps an extension of the collector in this
particular location might be appropriate. This, Paul referred to this as being
the only point. It has always been referred to us as a representation of where
it might be. It's never been said that this is exactly where this point is
going to be. So those are our concerns and I think again, we have no qualms
31 1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
about the development of this property. That's up to them but as far as
designating a collector at this time, we feel would be inappropriate.
Mayor Chmiel: Ed, could you just outline your property, as to where you're at?
Ed Ryan: Yes. We're running along the Mancino property to the north. Then the
line drops this direction to the south and then we abut up against part of the
wetlands here and then continue to CR 117. What this basically says to us is
that if this is going to be mapped like this, it means it's coming. And I
guess I don't see where that serves the city's needs, nor our needs obviously at
this time. So this is where we're at.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else?
I Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin. My wife and I, Nancy are up in this
property here. I've got a couple of questions. One, do we know exactly what
the church warts right row? They withdrew their petition which seems to
indicate that they're not in favor of it right now?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Sam Mancino: Is it possible to build a road right now to specifications at a 32
foot collector status at the right class? Whatever, Class 9.
Charles Folch: The City standard for collector, or standard for residential is
31. The standard collector is a 36 foot roadway. That allows for, gives you
enough room for the lanes and allows for infrequent parking, if it should occur.
I Stalled vehicles and as such. It allows for motorist to count the types of
volumes that are expected to be making use of a collector type roadway to be
able to comfortably and make use of the road. So that's basically where the
basis and standard comes from in that additional width that you have in the
roadway from a 31 to a 36.
Sam Mancino: Does it require bike paths or walking paths?
I Charles Folch: Actually there is, as Bill mentioned, there is an 8 foot
bituminous path being proposed with the project which won't be on the roadway
like the current Lake Lucy Road has between Powers and Galpin. This one will
actually be off in the boulevard area.
Sam Mancino: But my question is, is it required to meet the conditions or the
needs of a collector?
Charles Folch: This has been identified as a standard that we make use of, yes.
Sam Mancino: But it doesn't contribute to the moving of the traffic.
Charles Folch: Yes it does.
1 Sam Mancino: To put in the roadway, the walkway, the bikeway, etc. It requires
that 30 foot easement. You could get by with a smaller easement and a smaller
I road right now that would still be adaptable to move enough traffic later,
wouldn't you?
32
I
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
Charles Folch: Actually the Eastern Carver County study, which was completed in
late fall of '90 projected forecasts year 2010 volumes that may even warrant, at
that point in time or thereafter, depending on development of the community, the
possibility of going to a four lane facility if volumes should warrant. The
trouble with just taking a 60 foot or acquiring a 60 foot right -of -way now is,
later on if you need to go back and build a 4 lane facility, you need to have
the 80 foot right -of -way. Oftentimes you may have some buildings that have
occurred on properties and it makes it much more difficult to acquire the '
additional right -of -way in the future.
Sam Mancino: Okay, thank you. I guess our concern is that it seems that you're
at a point in Chanhassen where you need to consider the default that you build
into all of your decisions. And is the default value that you're going to
facilitate possible development at a future time or are you going to encourage
it? And I think that the time has come for you to start slowing down the
default so that you facilitate it but don't overly encourage it and I think by
putting in a large collector system right now, paving it right up to this point
and in essence telling the Ryans that another road is coming very soon,
encourages or promotes development of that property rather than merely
facilitating it. So we would encourage your default.
Councilman Wing: We've used the word 20 years. Where have we said that Ryan, '
I tried to emphasize earlier that we're only talking about the west. That road
is on the map right now. That road was on the map when they bought it but
they've only been there 8 years. It's been there a long time. It has to be
finalized so in all fairness to whoever deals with this 50 years from now,
realizes that we intend to put a road through there. We're only talking about
the west tonight. As long as Ryan's don't develop their property, it's
irrelevant. We're not pushing the road through. We're not developing it.
We're not proposing it. We're not holding public hearings for that road. Ryan
property isn't even part of the discussion tonight except where the alignment
ma go for further development, whenever they choose to develop or sell or
whatever occurE.
Sam Mancino: But it also impacts the size. It impacts the scale of the road. '
Councilman Wing: Well the collector too is State Aid. A city street is not
State Aid so we're talking about two different issues here too.
Mary Ryan: I'm Mary Ryan. I guess I feel that the Ryan property is relevant
here. I feel that if that road was always said to us that it was there. It was
a possibility. It was kind of a dream. It was a place that it might be
someday. I feel that we can never dream about our property with anything but
that road going through right there. I think that at this point, you know it
could be a smaller road. I guess what we basically have left after that is a
whole lot of wetland. I would like to see it somehow moved down to the south if
it has to. You know if we have to have this long road that connects the east/
west, north end of our city. Or to the north somehow. I also feel that Lake
Lucy Road at this point, I walk it. I run it. I bike it. I feel that it's
kind of a speed trap in a lot of ways and I can see that if the road is put in
this way, it could very well be the same way that way so I guess in so many
ways, it seems like a bad idea to me and I feel that I guess our property, that
cutting it right in the middle like that makes it very, very relevant to us.
33
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
And having it on the books, sitting on file somewhere, even if it is for 20
years, it's still there and we know it and I just feel there must be some other
alternative that we can come up with here. That doesn't run it right smack down
the middle of our property there.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to address this?
Al Klingelhutz: I guess I'll have to say that a trail along the road is very
important. I think it would be great for anybody living in that area to be able
to take a bicycle or walk to what I think is a major resource in Carver County
and in Chanhassen, Lake Minnewashta Park. I know there's a lot of people going
there now and if our young people could get there in an easier fashion, then
walking or biking along side of a road, would be a real safety factor. I think
some of the discussion that's taking place here tonight should probably call for
a continuation of this hearing until 2 weeks from tonight and we could go out
and take a look at what Jerome Carlson has proposed and come up with a more
satisfactory solution for the whole project. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Wing: The only question on that would be, would 2 weeks be enough?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the question. One of the things that I would like to
suggest is that a lot of the questions that were brought up this evening, I
think what we should do is come back with some of those answers. And also look
at some of the other proposals that have been mentioned. Collector or regular
city street. From a city standpoint I understand the collector and because of
the additional funding that would be available, would very possibly cut the
cost. I'd like to know what the difference in the cost are from one to the
other. And I think you can probably pick that up without too much trouble as
opposed from the 31 feet. As opposed to the 44 driven surface that you were
talking.
Charles Folch: 36.
Mayor Chmiel: 36, excuse me.
Charles Folch: I do want to point out though that that roadway system is
already on the City's State Aid system even though it's not been built. It's
actually a paper street if you will so the city has been getting drawing needs
and financial monies, having that roadway system on our municipal State Aid
system so there is no advantage from a funding standpoint to officially map or
not officially map it. It's already on the State Aid system.
Mayor Chmiel: I realize that but I just want to know what the cost differences
are.
Charles Folch: Yeah, sure. No, I just wanted to clarify that with the letter
that came from the Ryans today.
Mayor Chmie]: And then I'd like us to respond to the questions that were brought
up. See if we can't approach it from that aspect. I would entertain a
1
' 34
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
motion...I don't know how much time you would require Charles to pull something
together. ,
Charles Folch: In order to have ample time to actually get the written Minutes
from the meeting tonight and be able to prepare the responses, we wouldn't
really have it ready in 2 weeks. So you're probably looking at the first
meeting in April.
Councilman Wing: I would so move that Mr. Mayor. 1
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Yes.
(The recording quality was poor of the following discussion and Mary Ryan was
speaking from the audience so all of her comments were not picked up on the
taps)
Mary Ryan: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'd like to...
Mayor Chmiel: That would be the only way of going through, as Mark has
indicated. It would be a combination but that...
Paul Krauss: Well I mean clearly, traffic levels would have to build to the
point where...I've got to believe that's...ways off. In fairness too, Mary
and I haven't spoken but I spoke to...and he told me that there's a potential
and again, that there's a potential subdivision up on the property. Not the
development but I guess more for tax purposes. Those are the kinds of things
that we don't initiate action until somebody else does, but if there is a
subdivision, with an officially mapped road, we'd be obligated to recommend to
you that you set aside the right -of -way at that time... It still doesn't mean
that there's emminent construction of this road. I mean clearly the only part
that we're considering building is the part that a private property owner is
willing to defray the costs on. But when the road is officially mapped, we do
know e•ractly where to take right -of -way. It can also prevent people from
building r., home right where the road's going to go. It does give you a period
of time to say that you cannot build in that future right -of -way and allow the
city to pursue acquisition.
Mary Ryan: That's the problem though. If we wanted to build a home...
Paul Krauss: Well again Mary, in fairness to you, that's the point...It doesn't
do you much good to officially map a road and then allow the right -of -way to be
disturbed in such a way that you can't build it anymore...
Mary Ryan: I heard you say that the traffic flows... 1
Paul Krauss: Well there's only two reasons that the city has ever built roads.
The first is that development is occurring and it's needed to serve that
development and get the development to defray most of the cost, or all of the
cost to do that. That seems to be what's happening on the west end. The only
other time the city ever builds anything is when there's a clear and present
public purpose. That the traffic levels are dangerous elsewhere because there
35 1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
' is no alternative route. The fire emergency vehicles can't get through. I
can't tell you, I mean without a traffic analysis when that might occur but it's
got to be a long ways off...for the City Council to do what they're normally
' relunctant to do, and that's to go in and condemn right -of -way and then take the
entire cost of building it...That's really something that's only ever been
considered as a last ditch...and I don't think we've ever done it before.
Mary Ryan: I guess I am hearing though that because of the...
Paul Krauss: Well, it's always been considered a collector road and that's
based on the comprehensive plan, the ultimate development of the city, whenever
that occurs, has always anticipated that that would be a collector road. Now,
the Comp Plan never says it's going to be 32 feet or 36 feet or whatever the
' right -of -way's going to be. That's...but it's always been labeled as a
collector.
Mary Ryan...
Mayor Chmiel: By the same token you may have some developer that may make that
offer so sweet that you may even choose to move from that location or relocate
' from where you're at and sell your property to that developer. One never knows.
It's the same way when I moved into my home and I said, I'm going to live here
the rest of my life. I don't know that for a fact. Someone may knock at my
'
door and say I'm going to offer you x number of dollars for your home. If it
sounds good enough, I may just so choose to do that. But that's one of those
kinds of situations. You don't petition for that road, it's unlikely that it
probably will go through because it's going through your property. But at the
same time, it's going to enhance the property value of that property as well by
having that as such.
Mary Ryan: I guecs I don't see that...and for there to be a huge, wide road
going through it, to me diminishes the value of it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well if you look at a lot of the homes that are in and adjacent
to Lake Lucy Road, it hasn't deterred that aspect of it. With the homes that
are there.
Mary Ryan...
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Okay, we did have action on a motion with a second to
table. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: And hold over the public hearing?
' Councilman Senn: We're continuing the public hearing, correct?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Just one other question. Personally I guess I'd be interested
in just seeing the data that justifies or I guess shows the eventual need or
whatever for the collector street in that area. I look at that area and the
amount of wetlands and everything else and look at the proposed density of the
existing development. Even if you overlay that density on all the remaining or
36
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 '
appearing buildable land I guess, you know I don't know. Again, I don't know
the history. I don't know the difference so I guess I'd like to see that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table action on the official
mapping of the Lake Lucy Road extension, Project 92 -12 until the first meeting
in April, and to hold open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLE. '
Scott Harr: Mayor and City Council. In your packets I have submitted the
results of our seeking quotes on a 4 wheel drive public safety vehicle and the
cost of the Crown Victoria on the State bid. Rather than reviewing the
specifics that hopefully you've had a chance to review yourselves in the packet.
Because the Chevrolet does not meet the specifications that we had established
after reviewing our needs for a 4 wheel drive vehicle, it is our recommendation
that the bid from Win Stephens Jeep, which is the lowest priced Jeep bid, be
accepted, or in the alternative. If the Jeep is not acceptable to the Council,
that authorization be given to purchase the Ford Crown Victoria on the State bid
from Superior Ford.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I have gone over this and I guess the only
difference I see between from what our State bid is as opposed to our proposal
for the Jeep is we're coming out with about $4,364.00 difference. Which is a
substantial amount of dollars, plus the fact it is not 4 wheel drive. The Crown
Victoria. My understanding is that the Crown Victoria would still be functional
for the requirement needs of the CSO to go out and pick up dogs and be able to
keep them within the back portion of that vehicle as well. They have a, what
type of seat? In the back.
Scott Harr: For the sedan. There's a fiberglass insert available for it.
Mayor Chmiel: There's also a containment that can be put within and still leave
room for that CSO if he goes out and picks up someone. It might be a DWI.
They're still able to provide a space to keep that person in the back seat as
well. There's a couple things there that we have to look at. Whereby with the
other...so I guess it's a Council call as to what you think we should go into.
Councilman Mason: Living on a very steep hill in the city of Chanhassen, and
having two cars with 4 wheel drive, I know for a fact there are a couple of
time: that 2 wheel drive vehicles would not have been able to get to some homes
on Woodhill, Ponderosa, if emergencies occurred. I understand the difference in
price and I guess I'm interested in other Council members comments. I'm
certainly leaning, even with the expense in 4 wheel drive, just because I know
the ease in which you can get around in in bad weather and if it saves a few
minutes here and there or if they can get into areas where a regular 2 wheel
drive couldn't get in, I guess I think it would be worth the expense.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we have our vehicles comandeered by the Sheriff's Department
and they've been able to get around...during storms.
37 ,
City Council Meeting - March £3, 1993
Councilman Mason: I notice that and I think that's important as well. If I
can also ask a quick question. How would these cars be labeled? I mean either
' the Crown Victoria or the, whichever we go with. I mean it says, just like all
our other CSO's.
Scott Harr: Well it will say Chanhassen Public Safety on it.
' Councilman Senn: As I understood what we got in the packet, the budgeted amount
for this vehicle is $17,500.00.
' Scott Harr: We had that money set aside last year and it wasn't spent so that
amount's available, although we had originally planned on $12,900.00.
' Councilman Senn: Okay, so we're at $17,500.00...suggesting in here and the bid
on the Jeep is under that? It's at $16,970.00.
Scott Harr: Correct.
Councilman Sena: It seems to me given the number of times that the CSO has to
drive to Mason's house, that we ought to give him a 4 wheel drive.
Councilman Wing: ...so I wouldn't support the Crown Victoria if it was
$4,000.00. I don't see that as a dog catcher's car, if I can slipping about
that. Because that's clearly what it's going to be used for. It's an animal
control vehicle often times and a Ford Crown Victoria just doesn't fit the bill.
' Mayor Chmiel: Hold on just a minute. We have that happening right now with the
canine with the Sheriff's Department. I'll move approval of the Jeep.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Its been moved and seconded for the approval of the Jeep.
Councilman Wine: Okay, so discussion then?
Mayor Chmie]: Sure. discussion.
Councilman Wing: My only complaint at all would be that I think that to put a
CSO's in a marked police squad, I don't particularly like. I'd like to see, if
it's going to be the strong percentage of CSO's, just the issue of CSO's in a
marked squad doing their job versus a CSO's in a CSO vehicle. On the other
hand, if the most of it's use is going to be police, then maybe you don't want
it marked CSO but I don't see that just ignored. I'm not comfortable with the
CSO in a marked squad doing their job necessarily. If they're not identified
and that may not be an issue...
Mayor Chmiel: I think as he indicated, it would be properly marked accordingly
and I look favorably upon those vehicles shooting through the community because
one who is in a position of saying...likely to look at your house or my house,
might just deter them from doing that, with that vehicle moving around.
1
38
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Resolution #93 -17: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to 1
award the bid for the Public Safety Vehicle to Win Stephens in the amount of
$16,970.00 for a Jeep Cherokee. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously. '
ESTABLISH 1993 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES.
Public Present: '
Name Address
Dan Dahlin 581 West 78th Street
Mayor Chmiel: In lieu of on Ashworth's absence, I will automatically start our
next, establishment of our 1993 liquor license fees. I believe this was tabled
from our last meeting with concerns as to how and what the current fees are as
opposed to changing those and I think we can see there's a considerable amount
of difference between them. I think it's still best for the City to remain on
our evisting current fees and pursue that as we move right along. Here he comes
down the stairway.
Councilman Sean: Don, this is good to see the comparisons...basically where we
stand...terribly hurting us. One of the things I kind of asked, or one of the
things that I guess I was raising the issue over last time when I tabled it was
the issue though that, I sat through a couple meetings where I heard a lot of
concerns about Filly's. The activities at Filly's and all that sort of thing.
I was just surprised to see in our ordinance that we still allowed licenses to
non - restaurant uses. And maybe that doesn't have any real relevancey as it
relater now to approving rates for '93 but is that an issue? Do we want to take
a look at most municipalities...out in this area that I'm aware of that have
switched to a system where liquor licenses are applying to restaurant uses. In
fact they restrict the limitations on that with saying 50% of gross revenue has
to come from the sales of...
Mayor Chmiel: Fight. Don.
Don Ashworth: Over the years we've looked at some of those. And actually the
number of real bar types has reduced. Pony's for years was a constant problem
in that they would, it's very difficult to take and get the records associated
with what the sales are and a lot of places will actually just put in a popcorn
machine or some type of a microwave, whatever to get around the laws. Then the
City becomes more tuned in and then they pass more laws in terms of more and
more of a percent of the business profits have to come from food sales. But it
becomes very difficult again to check all of those. So right now I would say
that any type of stand that you might reasonably take, the Riveria would pass.
Probably Pauly's. The Bowl does serve food. They sell hamburgers, and whatever
else. I'm sure it's not a big part of their business. I haven't answered your
question well but I don't know that there is a good answer except we have issued
non -food service type of licenses forever. Far before I was ever here.
Councilman Senn: But we've also, I mean wasn't Pony's one of the problems?
Problem ones?
39 1
1
II City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
II Mayor Chmiel: It was a problem at a given time.
Councilman Senn: I mean that was part of the reasoning or rationale that went
II into buying it wasn't it?
Don Ashworth: No. Basically just cleaning up that corner.
II Councilman Senn: Well but that use has something to do with cleaning up the
corner, does it not?
II Mayor Chmiel: Well it's probably. Maybe.
Councilman Senn: Let's say probably it does. I mean wouldn't...appropriate on
I our part to look at a further definition of that to keep ourselves out of that
type of situation in the future?
I Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we do have that control right now. Either approve
or disapprove.
Councilman Senn: Well but Don, like at the HRA meeting I went to, when the
II discussion came up about buying Chanhassen Bowl and Filly's, again that was one
of the rationale that was used. The problem. A lot of drinking. A lot of
people hanging out, you know blah, blah, blah. And again it seems to me well
I you have the right to...
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think Filly's is probably as much of a problem as what
the Pony was. Because that attracted a little different type clientele.
II Councilman Mason: I wonder if maybe this is something that we feel the need
should be taken a look at, it can be put on an agenda at a later date and we can
II go ahead and approve...
Don Ashworth: Or potentially give it over to the Public Safety Commission. If
II you'd like to have them review the rationale for restaurant versus bars.
Mayor Chmiel: Because they do normally check them out and check out to see
whether they have any record per se. That would be a good idea.
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can we still move on this?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. We can put that on a future agenda at some time when we
don't have too much and discuss that.
I Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
II Resolution #93 -18: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the
1993 liquor license fees be established at the same rate as 1992. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II
II 40
II
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
SCHOOL /RECREATION ACQUISITION, HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD. 1
Public Present:
Name Address
Dennis Dirlam Highway 5 Partnership
Councilman Senn: I asked this to be tabled I guess. Since then I've met with
Don and with staff and stuff. One of my primary concerns I guess last meeting
when this came up was kind of being the last item on the agenda, it was booked
as an Administrative Presentation and here we were jumping into a situation
where the Council was being asked to take an action to approve the acquisition.
I was real uncomfortable with it at that point and because I didn't have a lot
of the background and the history on it and so, since then I've met with staff
and I think have gotten that. Even with the background and history and
everything else I'm still real uncomfortable with it I guess is what it comes
down to. 1
Mayer Chmiel: Let me try to maybe make you feel a little more comfortable. I
think we in the past, we've looked at this in the past 4 years as a proposed
site. I think what I would really like to see is that maybe we could go through
what I would call a concept approval and probably have Don also discuss this
with the School District regarding their purchase. In addition, also to
finalize and pursue the agreement with the owner. I don't know, how long would
that really take?
Don Ashworth: I feel that I could be back in front of you within, I think 2
weels may be stretching it but I would say within 30 days and have a written
commitment from the School District as to their agreement to repurchase this
property, or at least 20 acres of this site back from the city upon successful
passage of the referendum by the School District. I think that they would also
by willing to pay interest on that... I'm led to believe that that's the form
of the agreement they have with Chaska, although as of tonight I do not have a
copy of that agreement. Getting the signature of the owner, I think if they had
a clear indication this evening that the Council would be approving that subject
to getting this agreement signed with the School District, I'm sure that I could
have that signature within that same timeframe.
Councilman Senn: Don, I guess I'd really like to see one more step added in the
middle there. The step I guess I'd really like to see added is that I'd like to
see really, this issue has I think fairly significant impact on the city if,
let's say for no other reason economically or potentially economically. That's,
the economics of this deal has never really been put out on the table and I'd
really like to see a public hearing scheduled to do that, and I know there were
a lot of public hearings 4 years ago or whatever over this issue but the issue
at that time was land use. It was not the deal we have here, and you know this
is a fairly significant deal with fairly significant ramifications, especially
depending on the outcome of the referendum. I've got a lot of numbers here
since I met with staff that I'd be happy to share with you but maybe that's not
necessary but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we could schedule a public
hearing and put the economics as well as the full deal so to speak out on the
table and then act on it after we've had an opportunity to get public input.
41 1
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if public hearing or having a public meeting. I
guess I wouldn't really have any adverse problem with that rather than a public
' hearing.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to see it sufficiently advertised.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well we can do that. Yeah, we can do that but still we could
call that a public meeting and we could advertise that for the, probably the
12th. The 12th of April which is our next meeting. And with that come up with
' either the final decision and move along with it. I think we're just belaboring
something right here and I think we should consider that. But I'd like reaction
from the Council. Mike.
Councilman Mason: I think you all know my stand pn education and the need for
it. It's my understanding that this land is in the TIF district, is that right?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Mason: And TIF monies are monies that come back to the city instead
' of going to the State coffers and then we can use how we see fit. Is that
correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: And it seems to me by purchasing this land to build a much
needed elementary school in the city of Chanhassen as opposed to anywhere else
it the area, is a fine idea. I don't, I see this as good for the city
regardless of where I live in the city and I'm prepared to move on it tonight.
Mayor Chmiel Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I think your point about belaboring it is well
taken, We discussed this at our last Council meeting and I think we all, excuse
' me, four Council members stated our opinions at that time and it was just, we
were providing extra time for Mark to investigate the issue and I agree with
Mike that r.c're ready to move on it tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: So the motion you would want would be the conceptual approval
of the property acquisition with stipulations as mentioned by the Mayor and with
the inclusion of a public meeting for April 12th. Is that correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Informational.
Councilman Wing: Informational, public meeting. I'll so move that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: What are we looking for in this informational meeting on the
12th? Now is that the same as the...
42
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: We would get to know exactly what the I believe the School
District would feel.
Councilman Senn: We don't even have an agreement.
Don Ashworth: I'd have a written signature back from the School District. We
would also seek to have the seller sign the document and have that in front of
you. I'm sure that the owner would like to take and see that occur for a
meeting 2 weeks from today. But that just can't happen because if I send in the
notice to the newspaper, the first it would have it would be Friday which would
be for publication for the following week which would then come out on Thursday
which would be giving like 2 or 3 days notice in advance of that meeting. So
really the first time we could do this is April 12th.
Councilman Mason: So what's the purpose of the public informational meeting? '
Mayor Chmiel: Just I think to make everybody aware as to what it is and what
we're looking at and put all our cards on the table. '
Councilman Mason: So okay. Because this is a major deal here, what we're
looking at right now, what I'm looking at is voting for or against conceptual
approval to purchase like Richard said, based on a signed agreement from
District and the people that own the land?
Councilmen Wing: Those are two stipulations. 1
Councilman Mason: Those two stipulations.
Ma Chmiel: But before we act on it, I think Mr. Dirlam is here and maybe I'd
like to ju:=t hear an opinion from him.
Dennis Dirlam: I'm Dennis Dirlam. Obviously we're not crazy about another
d la/ and you know, I'm trying to be sympathetic, I am being sympathetic to your
.situation here too. I guess if we have a conceptual idea, you know we're
getting a good feeling on where you're coming from now, I guess we'll certainly
wait until the April 12th meeting. I guess hopefully after that either it's,
you now April 13th either we have something or we don't have something and I
yuese that's where we're. We're just really up in the air right now and we
can't keep putting people off.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think April 12th you'll have an answer. No more delays
that I can see.
Councilman Mason: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, but I'm assuming if District #112 is in
agreement with that. 1
Councilman Wing: It's done.
Dennis Dirlam: I guess the other, the legality thing where you're talking about 1
something signed from us, again I'm not sure that.
Don Ashworth: Typically what the Council has done is to have the commitment
back from the owners as well. Typically has had that in a written format.
43 11
r
II City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
I I Dennis Dirlam: A letter of intent type?
Don Ashworth: Well I'm not quite sure.
II Roger Knutson: A signed purchase agreement. Normally that's the way it works.
We go to the landowner. Have the landowner sign a purchase agreement so the
Council knows exactly what the deal is. We'll bring it back here and say, here
it is.
Dennis Dirlam: Okay.
I Don Ashworth: Hopefully sign it that night.
I Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. I'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to give conceptual
approval for acquisition of the property located on Highway 5 and Galpin
I Boulevard contingent on reaching agreement with School District 1112 wherein
they would enter into a purchase agreement, similar to the one proposed by
Frauenshuh Companies, that would guarantee the purchase by School District 1112
II and obtaining written agreement from the owners of the property as well, by the
first City Council meeting in April. All voted in favor except Councilman Senn
who abstained and the motion carried.
II REQUEST FOR PROGRAM CHANGE, TRIAX CABLEVISION, RICHARD FINCH.
Richard Finch: The purpose of my visit here this evening is to obviously
I discuss the modification of the requirement to carry our regional channel 6,
which is any of you that are customers of ours would only have to turn to that
channel to see the problems that we have with that particular channel. In
II addition, to quickly bring you up to date on some of the changes that have
occurred in the operations since I've taken over the reins of this region this
past fall, and also answer any of the questions you may have. The regional
channel. 6 issue does require a little history. Explanation. Regional channel 6
II was really forced on about 4 years ago at the time that we made the acquisition
of the cable system by another franchise authority that happens to share this
cable system as well. While we didn't necessarily feel we were obligated to
II carry it based on the fact that it wasn't really operational, as opposed to
delay our acquisition, we decided to go ahead and try to facilitate that
request. What we did though is, as opposed to picking it up off the air like
II most anybody else would, because it's an off air channel, is that we looked at
several options and one of which was to lease space on a couple of other cable
systems in the metro area to piggy back this channel to us. Which we have with
King Video and I believe Paragon. I'm not entirely sure of the other provider.
11 So in order to get channel 6 to us, the signal has to travel through 110 trunk
amplifiers in addition just to get into our system before it's ever transmitted.
And the quality of picture is obviously what we get. I'm concerned that the
II channel's on because the quality is just sub par and as an operator that does
not serve our business well when people turn to channel 6 and see this kind of
picture. Additionally, we can't meet the FCC technical standards for this
II channel. And if we can demonstrate the ability to replace programming of that
channel in a similar fashion, that we can come to you and request that
modification. Our proposal is that we remove it until such time that channel 6
II 44
II
City Council. Meeting - March 8, 1993 '
becomes operational. And then we'll bring it back on but in the interim, and
permanently we would put CSpan II, which is coverage of the Senate, as opposed
to just the House, which you currently have now. The problem with channel 6,
and I should revert a little bit to the beginning is that, and I'm not familiar
enough with the downtown buildings but either they're situated on the top of
the IDS tower or the Pillsbury building. One of the two that are downtown. One
of the two, whichever is the largest, is blocking that signal and they transmit
in a radius outward and with that building blocked, we happen to be in those
void of service. So we just can't pick them up off the air. We've had lengthy
discussions with channel 6 as to how they can resolve this problem, all of which
are extremely expensive on their part and they just simply don't have the
funding at this point. However, they have indicated that they are dedicated to
getting it to us but there is no timeframe for that. It could be years before
they'd ever secure that kind of funding. So that's the basis for our request
for the modification to carry channel 6. Our process is that I have a few
franchise holders that have approved it, and then I have a few others that are
all associated with this cable system as well as yours that I need to get that
grant to go ahead and do it. So it will be somewhat of a lengthy process but we
hope that we can do this in the next couple of months.
Mayor Chmiel: This is at no cost to our subscribers?
Richard Finch: That's correct. That's correct. If you'd like, I could answer
any of your questions on channel 6 at this point.
Ma Chmiel: I was looking at some of our comparable service rates surveys
that iv,T've gone through. It looks like we're the second highest of 6 cities
that we reviewed in our cable rate costs.
Richard Finch: I don't know if that survey is entirely accurate. As I was
looking at it, it appears to me that 3 communities, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie
and Aprie Valley's rates that you see in the parenthesis of the third panel are
not inclusive of the 5% city franchise fee. So you'd have to add 5% on top of
th =.t. Bloomington and Chaska, it is included in those rates that you see. Our
rate, I'm not quite sure where we came to $23.19 but I show our rate of $21.99
is our basic rate with the franchise fee of 5% which would take it to $22.99.
So I think that in order to compare apples to apples here, we'd have to
calc.l•afe it in the same fashion and I think that you'll find that we're
extremely competitive.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If I compare apples to apples and look at our basic
service of $14.69 with the expanded service which would give us 23.19 for a
total of 42 channels. And if I were to look at Chaska's, their basic rate of
$0.86 as opposed to, and of course this is different between the number of
channels for that basic rate from 20 to 14 but I'll guarantee you there's a few
channels I never even look at. But are on and I can probably eliminate it back
to 14 or less. But, the point being that expanded service is $23.41 but they
also offer 45 channels which is 3 more than the ones that we have with Triax.
For a minimal difference in cost and the additional price per channel, as I'm
I/
looking at, is even less per each. And I just wonder why.
Richard Finch: Well you know, it's very hard for me to answer what the other
cable systems are doing. I could probably tell you number one they're probably
45
II City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
1 larger than our cable system so the ability to spread out the cost is a little
bit different.
II Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so.
Richard Finch: I don't know. I don't know that for a fact.
II Mayor Chmiel: We're larger than the city of Chaska and I think we have more
subscribers here.
I Richard Finch: Well I think that they service more than just the city of Chaska
or the city of Apple Valley. I'm not entirely sure. I'm not that familiar.
But I think that once again I think that were very competitive. There's going
II to be some differences of channels and what their rates are and what they need
and how they can afford to maintain their profitability and their financial
make -up, I can't answer for it but I can answer that our rates are where we need
to be so we can have an effective and profitable business. I did want to kind
I of run, since we brought up channels, I also looked at your channel survey which
said that we're not carried by Triax and you indicated Bravo, CNBC and a Comedy
channel are not carried and in fact they are. In addition, QBC is a shopping
I channel. Now we have the Home Shopping channel and I don't think too many
people are going to want another home shopping network added to their cable
system. So there are some minute differences. We're really getting into some
II fringe programming at this point that we don't carry on our cable system. As
I looked in the future I think that country music television and sci -fi channel
are probably going to be the next two that will be added in our cable system.
As to whether that comes this year, I've not yet determined that but sci-fi has
I a very likely chance of being added in the second half of this year. And I do
know that we have an obligation to the country music channel and whether that
obligation needs to be fulfilled this year or next year, I know the country
II music channel will eventually be added to the cable system in the near future.
Councilman Senn: Don, I think your comment's well taken. I really wish I would
have brought it tonight because I'm going to say not even 30 days ago or within
I the last 30 days there was a survey published in the paper that showed Triax as
the highe Not the second highest.
II Mayor Chmiel: I was just making it comparable between the ones we just had.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and stuff so I mean I think, I'm not sure that it's a
II fair statement to say everything's comparable. Another question I really though
was, I also looked at least at that newspaper one and some of the other ones
that were a lot lower priced. Oh Minnetonka, Hopkins, etc. I mean they have
community based studios and Eden Prairie. Community based programming. There
II seems to be an effort far beyond what's occurring in Chanhassen at least as far
as I can see. Yet again those franchises are charging, at least in that survey,
a substantially lower charges so that's just I guess in support of your
I comments. I had a couple questions I guess I'd really like dealt with that I've
had people call me on lately. That is that I've heard from several people now
that they keep calling to get cable and they keep getting a different answer
each month as to why they can't get cable. I guess I'm just, if Triax is
I servicing Chanhassen, I guess my question is why can't they get cable when
people less than a block away from them have cable. And I guess if that can't
1 46
II
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 '
happen, and they see these cost issues and stuff, I just am really wondering if
we should be looking at a more competitive situation. I mean I don't know the
answer but I guess I'd like to hear an answer to that in terms of why these
people who have been asking for a month can't get cable.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And as one of those people. I'm not asking for it.
It's the last thing I want but what I really don't want even less is satellite
dishes in my neighborhood and we've been circumvented for years. Going around
us and absolutely refusing to come in our neighborhood and maybe Todd you can,
you know where I live. Do you know an answer?
Richard Finch: What development is that?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Timberwood Estates. '
Councilman Senn: I live in Kurvers Point. I mean I've got it and a lot of
people a block away from me in our development don't have it and.
Richard Finch: And that's a very difficult one to understand. And the reason
behind it is simply that the way our systems our designed, that there are
limitations and that it isn't as simple to, even if they're a block away, that
we can't just quickly run a line down there without some potential extension of
the amplification system getting deeper into the cable system than just say a
block away. We may have to go back to the main trunk station. We may have to
g back and go further so the cost effectiveness of doing that can make a
difference in that. So there is some reason behind it if somebody behind you
has it and somebody a block away doesn't. There is some rationale that I could
explain to you if I knew the particular circumstances and allowed me to take a
look at the maps and so on. But one thing I do want to let you know what I
found when I got here was a real problem with extension of cable service into
these new developments. If anything is clear, if I haven't already gotten the
message by sitting here tonight, is that you have a very fast growing community.
And unfortunately I don't think Triax has done a very efficient job of keeping
up with it. And this year the plans are that I've already alloted money for
ce 'air; p' and I'll be more than happy to tell you which ones those are.
And that I have other projects that are slated and that either by securing
additional funding and /or getting some help from our developers that are in
there doing these developments, to help with the upfront cost associated with
bri'•ir,; these cable service into these markets, we can get cable service to
t-e customers. But it's important to remember that we can't effectively build
and get a fair return on our investment until we approach 30 homes per mile
criteria and that's 30 cable miles, not necessarily road miles. And that is
the mark point where we start to take a good look at and it says, okay it makes
it feasible. But what I had mentioned with Todd is that hopefully within the
next few weeks I'll be able to get together with you and the city and tell you
where we stand on these projects. Let you know which ones we'll be doing. Let
you know where we stand on the ones that when I did my budgeting in November,
that there were no homes there and now I have 7 or 8 there. That we need to
deal with and whether the developer's going to help us out and get it in there
or I've been able to secure additional funding to build these projects this
year. The ones that are absolute that barring any circumstances that I'm
unaware of that would effect our capital. I have Flamingo Drive, Foxford Road,
Countr; Oaks, Kurvers, and Reed Circle all scheduled to be done this year. The
47
i
II City Council Meeting -- March 8, 1993
II ones that we're going to have to deal with, either with the developers or secure
additional funding, are going to be the Bluff Creek Estates, Chanhassen Hills
and 8th, the Ithiliens, which is rapidly becoming a very feasible build. The
I Summit and Willow Ridge. Now those are the ones that we've been able to
identify and I know there will probably be a few more out there. But those are
the ones that right now I don't have any firm commitment that we're going to be
able to do yet this year but I'm sure that we'll be able to do a few of those.
II Mayor Chmiel: With new residential developments that we have coming in, you're
probably going to have 500 more. I guess that's some of the things that I keep
I looking at. One other thing. On your connections within the home. That's
$4,95 a flat fee for, or is it $5.00?
Richard Finch: Up to 4 for $4.95.
II Mayor Chmiel: Up to 4. You know years ago Northwest Bell Telephone had jacks
within the house and wherever you had a jack you paid additional amount of
I dollars for those jacks. The federal government made them remove that cost on
those jacks to them. Why, if we're providing or if we're having that service
given to us, why is it necessary for us to pay up to 4 at that $4.95? And why
II is that charge included into your cost?
Richard Finch: Okay. That happens to be a very common question that we hear
quite a bit of and it happens to be one of the issues that the FCC is addressing
II with this new S -12 that was passed. I don't think they're going to come up with
the same kind of rulings. There's a couple of factors that get involved in it.
Even though you had several jacks within your house for a telephone, you could
I stil]. only pick up and make one phone call. So you only had use of one
telephone at that time, whereas cable television you could have 6 televisions
sets on 6 diffe channels so there's a use issue. There's a value associated
with it. Additionally, there's some FCC requirements as it relates to signal
II leakage that we have to maintain which says, since we're utilizing some
aeronautical frequencies, they have to be contained in the cable system and
frequently when people go and wire their own outlets, which we do know they do,
I the>' don't do it very well and it does leak and so we are held responsible for
that, 50 that's another issue. And another issue comes up is that our system is
designed to drive signal and if I had 10 houses that I designed for say a
I capacity of 4 outlets and all 10 of those decided to have 8 outlets, we would
have to go back and modify the design of the system. It's not like a telephone
line where you just gain access to one of them. So we have to be careful as to
the capacity of that being used because every time you split if off, it's like a
II hose. There's going to be less water coming out at the end. So there is some
reasoning behind it. It's an issue that's going to be addressed. I don't think
they're going to come in and say carte blanche they're going to do what the
telephone company did.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it could take place and the only reason I say that is
because with fiber optics and all the new innovative ways of bringing in a
II picture or another company or Northwest Bell or whoever, could have that
opportunity to pipe into whoever wants whatever they want. And so that was my
main reasoning in questioning as to why. I think to be competitive with the
II outside to what's coming up, I think it would behoove Triax to probably think
II 48
II
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 '
about some of those things to provide their customers with those additional
incentives.
Richard Finch: Yeah, and the key is obviously that we currently depend on that
revenue stream and if you eliminate that revenue stream, you've got to reap it 1
somewhere. And we would certainly not want to try to increase the rates, the
basic rates because of that and hopefully through some of the other acquisition
of pay per view, which we're trying to get more involved in, advertising
revenues that hopefully are going to start to kick in a little bit more, that we
can count on some of those other things. Those other steams of revenues that we
haven't had in our cable system to help defray that, if it does become a
reality. I know it is a major consumer point that they feel they should be able
to do anything they want with their wire because the telephone company did but,
and it's a tough one for most people to understand.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. I don't think that you or I have had a chance to meet
Mr. Finch before. I know that you and I had met with a representative of the
cable company from 3, 6, probably closer to months ago, if not maybe longer.
I think that there were some issues on the table that we probably didn't get
answers to. Resolved at that point in time. It would appear as though we have
some other issues currently in front of the Council that I'm hearing Council 11 would like to see some of the maps as they deal with some of the neighborhoods.
If Mr. Finch is aware that they are going to go through, and maybe some analysis
of those area that the Council has questions why aren't they in a particular
neighborhood. When I first saw the icsue on the regional channel, and I don't
know the current status of Statute and law. At one point in time it was the
recponsibilit; of the cable companies to insure that channel 6, not only would
be dedicated but would be shown. And I think over the years I noted there's a
lo', of jostling between the companies and the regional people in terms of who's
,,t fault. My original recollection was is that the Statute put the onous back
or the cable company to resolve that problem. Now I'm more than willing to sit
dow and cee if, you know maybe it's not resolvable. Maybe the suggestion that
the,'-_ ccmin; hack with is the only one, but I really feel that there's a
nun:L: of issues that are on the table that I would like to have the opportunity
to nit down with Mr. Finch. Hopefully the Mayor will join me. We would bring '
ba.c} up some of the issues we had before. I'd like some clearer answers to this
rec.doric1 charnel 6 issue. I'd like to see what it is that they are proposing to
construct. Why we're not getting into some of the other neighborhoods. And I
would even like to explore some of the, I don't get complaints as to the cost. '
I } .now that Councilman Senn had brought that up. The number one complaint that
I receive in the lack of being able to get certain channels. Specifically,
PSN ,cems to be a real hot one as far, because that's primarily sports and a lot
of that activity. We don't have it. You're saying that you now are carrying
the The Movie Channel, and Comedy. Good. I'm happy about that but those were
two other ones that I continuous got complaints on. '
Councilman Wing: Before we get off channel 6. I'd rather have it blank than
have the Senate hearings myself. What are the choices that 'til you resolve the
local regional issue, what else could you put in there? What else would be
entertaining enough to justify it?
Richard Finch: Well I think the issue is that we want to try to maintain that
goycrnmental channel of some nature and that's why C -Span II was the logical
49
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
choice. I don't know of any other channel that could fill that void under that
same type of programming that's out there. So I really don't know of an answer
for it. Now from an entertainment standpoint, there's a couple other channels
' that we could add, but that doesn't resolve our issue with channel 6 and that
we'd actually be, the mix of programming would be changed and we're trying not
to change that mix of programming, is my attempt.
Mayor Chmiel: Todd, have we acquired the information that we requested on
revenues and things of that nature?
Todd Gerhardt: We should have that by the end of next week, right?
Richard Finch: Yeah, I've got it scheduled for, it should by March 15th. You
' should get a revenue analysis spreadsheet which will break down all the revenues
and the various categories where before, it's my understanding you weren't
getting that. In addition it has an independent audit associated with your
franchise fee payment. So you should get that. That was ordered and they
' should be there by March 15th.
Mayor Chmiel: What I'd suggest is that we take no action at this time and table
this until all these other things get resolved. Comes back to Council.
Councilman Senn: So moved.
1 Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
' Richard Finch: If I may. Could I just touch on a few other issues or did you
want to resolve that issue at that point? I mean did you want to pass your
mntion jUS to I jL'St have a couple of quick issues I'll touch orl. I won't
take much more of your time
' Mayor Chmiel Okay. We'll give you about ? more seconds.
Richard Fineh Fine A couple thingc I wanted to let you know is obviously with the
growth, I rcfcrmula±ed our technical staff and added another technician into the
system. Predominantly there ie one that will be an area dedicated to your
community. Your community's activities dictated it. The desire is to decrease
the length of time for installation to under 7 calendar days, not working days
and we've been able to maintain that with the addition of the technician in the
area. In addition, these technicians aren't just going to be doing installs and
disconnects. They're also going to be doing service work whereas before we only
two people that were doing the service work. So we've gone through this
training process and it's continuing in the hope that we'll see a better
response to some of those issues that time of installation and service calls. In
addition a new phone system will be installed. In our main office we'll expand
our line capability to be able to handle calls better and also be able to track
where our hot points are. Peaks and valleys. In addition, some of our
personnel will be undergoing some more training as it relates to customer
1 service. Things that they may not have gone through before. So hopefully we'll
see some changes on those fronts. But I do, in closing just want to let you
know that I'm committed to trying to communicate with the cities better than
50
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
what we have in the past. I think that that's the problem has just been the
lac of communication. The lack of knowledge. Nobody knowing. The developer
not knowing. The customers not knowing. The city's not knowing. What was
occurring as it relates to their development and that's what I hope to try to
bridge this year. And I look forward to meeting with you.
Mayor Cihmiel: Good. Appreciate it.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the request for ,
program change by Triax Cablevision for further discussions. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, TECHNICAL INDUSTRIAL SALES, 16,410 SO. FT. OFFICE /WAREHOUSE
BUILDING, NORTH OF PARK ROAD, EAST OF PMT.
Public Present: ,
Name Address 11 Jot; Hciding r 1240 Ottawa Avenue So, 55416
Mark Undeetad 8800 Sunset Trail
Sharmin Al-Jaffr This is a very simple site plan. The applicant is proposing '
to construct 16,410 square foot office /warehouse...located along the north and
east part of the site. The architecture of the building is fairly simple...is
the main material. There is some glazed tile for accent. Metal pitched
el`rc_ nt : have been incorporated into the facade of the building. The
le dscaping is of high quality and we are recommending approval of the whole
plan. Tkcre are two points that I would like to two conditions if I may, I
weeld like to adc' to the conditions of approval. First one is that the
1._rdecapihe a.lcrig the south of the property be staggered. And a parking space
right hsre, along the northwest corner be striped rather than turned into an
i' ian '. Th you
May.r Chmiel Thank you. Is the applicant here?
Marl- Und.:-tad: Ma :k Undcstad with Eden Trace Corporation, the architect of the
Derr and the items that Sharmin has just gone through. We have made the
ch3ngc._ on f hr. renderings here and they'll be made on the building permit plans. 11 Thic sh: v we did make the changes on staggering the trees in the front there...
Mayer Chmiol: Se you're in agreement basically with what has been said by
st,rf? Just one question. Being this is going to be a combination office/
warehouse facility, what's going to be contained within the warehouse itself?
My concern is chemicals.
Undestad: ...from TIS here, he can explain that. 11
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
I/
Jon Heidinger: Mr. Mayor, I'm Jon Heidinger. I'm an outside director of TIS
and it's a manufacturing rep organization and primarily the only thing that will 11 b: stored in the warehouse are some cast iron valves that are manufactured by
51 1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
II
FMC that our major customers are Koch Refining, NSP, Minneagasco, things like
II that. Light, maybe 8 people total will be in the building. That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Any other questions? Discussion.
I Could I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of site plan review for Lot 3, Block 1,
Chan Lakes Business Park, 5th Addition.
I Councilman Wing: Second.
II Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Sena: A question if 1 could. Under the section on property is
expected to receive tax increment financing assistance through the City's
II Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Is that the normal sewer and water?
Mayor Chmiel: That's the norm.
II Todd Gerhardt: In this case they would qualify for special assessment write
downs and ..3 year tax increment policy of the HRA.
II Mayor Chmiel: That is the norm with each of the people that are contained
within that area.
II Todd Gerhardt: It's a large building and there was approximately $32,000.00 a
year so you would qualify for about $105,000.00 worth of assistance. And I
think E'pecials are somewhere around $40,000.00 so they would see about
II $50,000.00...
Mayor Chmiel: hearing no other questions, I'll call the question.
II Councilman Macon' Just for the record, do those two conditions need to be on
there even though the;'ve already been taken care of?
II Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes please.
Councilman Macon: I'll make that as a friendly amendment to my motion.
II Mayor Chmiel: Doe, the second accept the friendly amendment?
II Councilman Wing: Sure.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Site Plan Review
#93 -1 as shown on the site plan received March 4, 1993, subject to the following
conditions=
1. The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of proposed signage. A
II separate sign permit is required.
2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit as outlined in their attached memo dated February 4, 1993.
II
II 52
II
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
1
3. All disturbed areas should be seeded or sodded immediately upon completion
of the parking lot. The City's boulevard along Park Road must be sodded.
Vegetation along the north shall be replaced with a mix of conifers and
deciduous trees.
4. Connection to the City's storm sewer system shall be in accordance to City
standards. City staff shall inspect and approve the storm sewer connection
prior to extension onto the site. The applicant's contractor shall contact
the City's Engineering Department for an inspection 24 hours in advance of
the proposed work. At the time of building permit issuance, the applicant
shall escrow $500.00 with the City to guarantee the proper installation of
the storm sewer and payment of any inspection fees incurred by the City.
5. Meet all conditions of the Fire Marshal as outlined in his memo
dated January 26, 1993.
6. The landscaping along the south of the property shall be staggered. ,
7. The parking space along the northwest corner shall be striped rather than
turned into an island.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AFFIRMATION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY
NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 BETWEEN POWERS BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 41.
Public Present: 1
Name Address
Ja., flcl j_.; 6961 Chaparral Lane
LEE !/Erber 1620 Arboretum Boulevard
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is one of the first products of the Highway 5 Task '
Force. Many of you were in attendance last week at the Planning Commission
where- this was heard. The Highway 5 Task Force has worked along lines
established by the Comprehensive Plan and Bill Morrish to develop an access
boulew. d system north and south of Highway 5. These are often times called,
well boulevards. They're called an extension of main street. They're called
lots of things depending on who you ask. But clearly the idea for the northern
one, which we'll be focusing on tonight, is to allow development to occur. To
allow trips to occur such that anybody north of Highway 5 can access a variety
of public facilities in the downtown and employment centers without having to go
onto Highway 5. Highway really is for more long haul trips. The design
Standard has been established of, I forget what the exact right -of -way width is
but it's relatively narrow right -of -way width with the trail and extensive
landscaping. The Council established a goal of making sure that consideration
of these roads does not derail the Highway 5 construction program. Also I'm
sure you're all aware of the fact that MnDot has agreed to cooperate with the
City on this north access boulevard, agreeing to share the construction costs
and agreeing to consider sharing some of the right -of -way acquisition costs.
The condition was that the City undertake the required environmental assessment
document, which we are in the process of doing. Two alternative roadway
53
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
1
concepts have been developed. I think you've all got those roadway concepts
laid out in your packet. I've got a very long one here that if need be I can
1 open up but I don't have it on an overhead. Basically you have two
alternatives. There's a northern alternative and a southern alternative and
there were several crossover points. So in essence you can kind of have a
I Chinese menu by picking one from Column A, one from Column B. The Task Force
tried to whittle down some of these alternatives prior to the start of the
Environmental Assessment. They found that it was a little bit of a cart and a
1 horse situation. That until we had all the information on land use decisions
that were going to be made, they felt that they couldn't chop these back any
further. So we worked with our consultants to make sure, or to be assured that
II these alternatives can be carried through the study process. When this EA is
completed, you will then have an opportunity to select the preferred route. So
you will have to conclude this at, I think it's by mid- - summer we've been told
the EA, would be done. At that point you select your preferred route and it's
1 that preferred route with the EA that's forwarded to MnDot and the Fed's for
funding assistance. So in essence we're keeping our options open and not
precluding anything at this point. The two alternatives that were developed are
1 based upon existing and proposed lard use patterns, environmental opportunities
and constraints and input, as I said by the Comp Plan and the Morrish study. In
a lot of cases there really aren't, well in most cases there really are
II virtually no viable options beyond those two that are being shown. You either
run into a wetland or some other major impediment. And in some areas it's clear
that you only really have one alternative. For example when you skirt the city
park, not running through the park property. Then there's needs to offset
1 interser+ion- to safety sake and what not. We did not have the consultants
here tonight to give their spiel again. We felt that time could be better used
to be workin; on the next phase of the Highway 5 stuff. This is pretty much
I stuff that a lot of you heard last week and most of the folks I see in the
audience I thin have been through that as well, at least on several occasions.
We a -e recom r,7!ing that you affirm the alignment alternatives so that the EA
can b, '_farted Until we do this, the consultants can't go forward with the
1 Environmental s;see sment. In affirming the alternatives, you're not picking any
one over trio other. You're just saying that these are the viable options that
should be studied and you will, as I said, have the opportunity to pick the
II preferred route when it's over. With that I'll cut this short and respond to
any questions you want to ask.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
I address an at this particular time, or has any questions regarding what
we're doing?
1 Lee Kerber: I'm Lee Kerber and I'm going to lose my house. Are you going to
pay me 3-4 years ahead of time so that I can go look around? You charged me 2 -3
years ago for ari assessment, which I haven't been able to use. How do we work
1 those sort of things? And why do you need to come all the way up, according to
the drawing I saw last week. Why do you need to come all the way up to my
house? What advantage is there in having it way out there and going right
through the middle of my property rather than staying next to the highway? And
II how long after the highway is done, are you going to put in the frontage road?
Paul Krauss: Well, I can respond to the last question. I kind of lost, maybe
II Don can add some to the first. This frontage road would be, or access boulevard
II 54
City Council Meeting - March £3, 1993 1
would be construction concurrently with Highway 5. In fact there's some 1
discussion, I think it hasn't been determined, about building it slightly in
advance of Highway 5 and thereby allowing the use of it to off load traffic on
Highway 5 when that's under construction. The timeframe for this periodically
slips back a little bit but it is a scheduled project. Don, do you recall what
the current timeframe is?
Don Ashworth: Well, 1995 -96 and I would put money on '96. And they allow 2
years prior to the letting of the contract is the start of the acquisition
process to insure that the acquisitions are completed prior to the actual
construction. So if that were the timeframe, I would anticipate the State 1
negotiating with owners, such as Mr. Kerber, starting in 1994.
Mayor Chmiei: In other words what he's saying Lee is that you would have
probably 2 years lead time to meet or have negotiations with the Highway
Department and give you that opportunity to find something within the city or
wherever you choose to go. If this all goes through once the EA is completed.
Councilman Wing: But that assumes that we're going to take his house. The EA
might says we don't want to take his house. We're going to move this 50 -60 feet
north and leave the homestead. That could happen too, is that right? '
Mayor Chmiei: That's a potential, but that does then split his property there.
Don Ashworth: Do you like one of the two alternatives or are you against both?
Lee KFrher: Well according to my house, there is no alternative. You're coming
straight across Highway 5 right up to my house and then they're going to go west
and then there's a possible of going further one way or another south or north.
...m\ douse there is no alternative as far as I can see.
MR.VCT Chmicl: Yeah it goes right, _rust about right through. Yeah, and that i
could possibly change.
Paul Krauss: ...alternative in that area, we're kind of hampered by the fact 1
that Audubon Road is here and no matter what you do, you need to provide
adequate separation for that intersection which boots the road back up which
pats it square in the middle of that home. ,
Lee Kerber: Here you've got an alternative coming down part way and that's the
only way. ,
Paul Krauss: The only way to avoid it really is to eliminate the intersection
with Audubon, which has actually been talked about from time to time.
Mayor Chmiel: That was something that was discussed at one time in making that
into a cul -de -sac portion and utilizing the south service road then to have
access back onto TH 5 down farther, right.
Councilman Wing: Paul, according to that we really can't go much further north
either because then we get into the ravine, isn't that right?
Paul. Krauss: Well you start getting in the ravine.
55 1
11 City Council. Meeting - March 8, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Right where we feed the deer right Lee?
Lee Kerber: From there you go, I saw 3 of your deer out there looking for more
apples today...
Mayor Chmiel: I've got some in the garage I'll bring over tomorrow.
i Paul Krauss: I'm not certain but there is the State sponsored right -of -way
acquisition loan fund that is administered by the Metro Council. We haven't
used it in Chanhassen and I'm not sure if this road would qualify but since it's
basically serving a frontage road function for a State Highway project, it
might. So it may offer, we may be able to offer you an early buyout through
that program but if, I can speak to you about that directly Lee. I'll find out
more information about that. If you're looking to do it earlier, that may be are
option.
Lee Kerber: We're not looking to do it at all but I don't think we'll have a
whole let of choice.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what you could do is get back to Lee and let him know.
Lee Kerber: Pardon?
Mayor Chmiel: What Paul will do is get back to you and let you know whether
there jc. that kind of alternative to offer you some money up front prior to
that. If the EA, the environmental assessment even dictates that that's where
it's really going to be.
Lee Kerber: Co I have to buy him off...I've finally got it almost like I want
it and it on'c, oui the tube.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I realize that. Thank" Is there anyone else?
11 Jay Dol_c-j :. i: My name is Jay Dolejsi. I own property west of the golf facility.
I've br_;, attending the Highway 5 coalition meetings. I'd like to bring my
conc for the Council. Both of those alternatives that are going through my
properly ire going to severely impact the property. Both are going to be doing
' d,-mags to P/ property more than just the width of the right -of -way. Of the two
alternctvec, I prefer Alternative 2 which I think will do less, have less of an
impdct. The other concern I have is the uncertainty of the situation. You're
11 talking about Lake Lucy Road and the people having a road scheduled sometime
into the future on their property being upset. Well I know this one's coming.
It's not a matter of somewhere in the future. My property was put into that
1995 study area somewhat arbitrarily I feel in that it's an island so to speak
and I'm wondering how this is going to be assessed back. Who's going to pay for
it. How you benefit property that has no utilities to it. Well these are the
concerns that I have as far as this project.
Mayor Chmiel: We don't really know all those answers but hopefully after the EA
is done, we may have some answers from that because we can't say one or the
other roi.tte is going to go, I just look at the routing in itself and I sort of
like that Alternative 2 myself rather than Alternative 1. But, that's just my
opinion. Any other discussion?
56
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 ,
Councilman Mason: Something like this is very painful, particularly for people 1
that are directly in the path and I would hope that the City and the people that
the City hired for consultants and engineers take a real hard look at that
property and see if there is a way we can accommodate the concerns, particularly
of Mr. Kerber.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree with that.
Councilman Mason: If in fact, well I just hope that's, it's one thing for an
engineer to draw some lines, and I'm not demeaning that in any way, but they're
not the people that have to deal with watching their house get bulldozed down
and moving after someplace they've been in for 35 years, and that's a whole
other issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that was one of the things that I made a suggestion to 11
Paul at the time is potentially maybe having a cul -de -sac on Audubon Road and
not having that access out onto that highway, only because if someone's going to
be going westbound and making that cross through, to me that could cause a lot
of problems. A lot of accidents as well.
Councilman Wing: The problem is Lee's in a bad position because no matter what
we do, I mean let's just make the assumption this road is going through but
whether we put it right next to the highway or he's still an island and right
now he has this plot of land that he's enjoyed for 35 years. Along comes
progress and no matter what we do, he's going to be in the middle of nowhere
here between two major roads, and that's a concern for him. So he in fact may
choose to move to more peaceful areas but the worse thing is for all the owners,
becausE this is so conceptual, we can't answer any questions right now. That's
the hard thing for me is to recognize that we can't even tell them what's going
to happen to their house because it's so conceptual, But I think it's important
that their concerns be known so that they're the top of the head the whole way
here.
Mayor Chmiel: Good point. Okay. Anyone else? If not I would entertain a
motion.
Councilman Wing: I'll so move the affirmation, because these are the
established roads. We have to make no decisions so other than to continue the
progress on this, I will move affirmation of alternative alignments and without
favoring 1 or 2, because they both have to be done anyway as part of the EIS.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, EA.
Councilman Wing: EA. -
Councilman Senn: Couldn't we take care of Lee and move it north through Don's
house instead?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. He can come and see me and we can put the apples in the ,
backyard but I don't think the deer will come there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second the motion. '
57 '
r
II City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
II Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: 1 just have one question. When did it get named
Arboretum Boulevard? That's a new one on me.
Paul Krauss: Well actually that was something that Morrish talked about. It's
II been called, like I say it's been called a lot of things. I think if you look
at the Morrish study, he called the south boulevard Arboretum Boulevard and
the north boulevard Chanhassen Boulevard or something like that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it makes more sense.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, how did that happen?
11 Pau.]. Krauss: Well we realized that the south boulevard didn't have the
continuity that the north boulevard had so the north boulevard got the fancier
II name.
Resolution #93 -19: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
II affirm the draft alternatives for analysis in the Environmental Assessment
document north of Highway 5 between Powers Boulevard and Highway 41. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVISION 17.2 ACRES INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; REZONING
FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, EAST OF COUNTY
ROAD 117, ONE -HALF MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, ROTLUND COMPANY.
II Public Present:
Name Address
Don Jensen Rottlund Copmanies
Bret Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd.
II Jo Ann Olsen: This is a pretty simple subdivision. As you said the applicant
is proposing to subdivide into 35 single family lots. There is really no
II significant features of this site. It's been farmed. It's just a rolling
topography. There's no wetland, vegetation or anything. Planning Commission
did recommend approval with a couple of changes to the planning staff's
recommendations. We are recommending that the City Council adopt approval with
II those changes to the conditions and the other staff conditions as were presented
to the Planning Commission.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Jo Ann. Is Rottlund here this evening? Would
you like to just give us a few words of wisdom.
II Don Jensen: A few words of wisdom I'm not sure I can impart but Don Jensen,
Land Development Manager with Rottlund Company, 5201 East River Road, Fridley.
We've reviewed the staff report and all the various recommendations. We accept
those recommendations as good conditions. We have a couple of issues with items
II number 3 and 4 of the report on page 8 that we received. We have been
discussing possibilities of temporary access and the future ponding that are
going to be required to the property to the north. Bret Davidson is here
M
58
11
March 8, 1993
City Council Meeting ,
tonight to listen and for his own particular issues and clarifications. Part of
the drainage for this particular project goes off site in two different
directions and the city is asking by condition that the Rottlund Company put
temporary holding ponds on up to 3 of the lots, as well as pay cash in lieu of
future downstream ponding. We would just like the ability to work with staff
and the Council as you decide what the downstream ponding charges are. It's a
little bit ambiguous by the condition as to what the cap on those amounts might
be and we would just like that to be specific to the lots on our plan perhaps
that do not have the ponding provided for. The western portion of our
development does have a NURP pond and does control rate of release downstream.
So that's our main concern is conditions 3 and 4. Otherwise we are fine with
all of the conditions, including the ones that were extended by the Planning
Commission, number 22. We would like to see perhaps a sunset to the temporary
ponding on the various lots. At such time as the city makes some downstream
ponding available or that there's some type of timeframe that is attempted, so
that for the lots, if we do have lots where the building pad is taken out for
temporary ponding, that there is some due diligence or obligation on the part of
the city to continue to moving forward as quickly as progress allows for that to
happen. And alho, if in fact Mr. Davidson to the north is successful with his
application, that as soon as a final plat for that property occurs, that
ccnditione placed on this subdivision for temporary ponding would be removed. I
chink the staff report was written not contemplating what's going on immediately
around us and to the extent that we have a condition that is at least removed
when new development is ripe, we would prefer that. I have no further comments
or questions, unless the Council or staff has those.
Mayo Chmiel: Jo Ann. With item number 22, there should be 22 conditions
contained and it shows 21 the Council should move on. And to put that drainage
e3aPment must be granted for the pond located in the southwest corner and other
t em;: erary pondin!, arcas is necessary.
Jo Ann Olsen' Right. And on page 10, we're showing the changes and 22 should
he added as the changes to 1 and 20.
Mayo; Chmiel= Council action should take the 22 conditions rather than 21. 11
Jo Ann O1ccn: Right. And the changes to 1 and 20. And as far as what Don has
hr7Ju;h' ur we can work with that prior to final plat approval. That's really
more for engineering to answer and I don't see any problem with it. I don't
kriciw that we can put a cap on the fees. We can maybe, like you said, tie it in
with certain lots. 1
Don Jensen: Well we just wanted to get a chance to work with staff. It's
difficult to figure out what your end price is to assign values to homes and
lots if you ultimately don't know when the Council is going to act on the
particular program that you're contemplating. The only other recommendation we
could have is, as solutions are brought, we would prefer that staff and the
Council look at conditions that might be tied to building permit rather than the
very front end. So if the lot is taken out for temporary ponding, that we're
not paying a fee for future downstream ponds, which this temporary ponds provide
our a:s.istance for and pay for everything up front. Whereas if the city can
find a solution, only when those lots come through for building permit.
r
59
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: I think staff can probably discuss that with you and come up with
a conclusion.
Don Jensen: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Can I have a motion?
Councilman Sean: I move approval.
Couniclman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Move approval with all 22 conditions of Subdivision #93 -4 and
Rezoning #93 -1 for the Windmill Run Subdivision.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Subdivision #93 -4
and Rezoning #93 -1 for Windmill Run Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Elevation of the southerly cul -de -sac should be adjusted to provide better
grade continuity for the future extension of Windmill Drive to the south,
and additional contour data shall be obtained to optimize the vertical
alignment of Windmill Drive.
2. The water quality /retention pond proposed in the southwest corner of the
development shall be increased to provide a wet volume of 1.2 acre /feet.
In addition, an outlet restricting flows shall be limited to 4.5 cfs at the
high water level.
3. The applicant shall design and construct temporary holding ponds for storm
runoff on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 4 and 5, Block 3 to maintain the pre -
developed runoff conditions. In addition, the applicant shall pay into the
Cit Surface Water Management Program for future downstream water quality
improvements. The specific amount will be determined by the City's storm
water consultant.
r 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water trunk fee to be
determined by the City's storm water management consultant to contribute
towards the future extension of storm sewer downstream.
5. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
the City's 1993 edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Street construction shall also include a drain tile system behind the curb
to accommodate household sump pump discharge.
6. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations
verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be
designed and constructed to handle 10 year storm events. Retention ponds
shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface
water discharge rate from the subdivision at predeveloped runoff conditions
for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent
with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practice Handbook.
11 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the
regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed
60
11
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
District, DNR and Carver County Highway Department. '
8. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial j
security to guarantee construction of the public improvements and
compliance of the conditions of approval. The development contract will be
subject to City Council approval.
9. The applicant shall provide at a minimum a right turn lane along County
Road 117 and any other improvements required by the Carver County Highway
Department.
10. Both temporary cul -de -sacs that are proposed for future extension shall be
provided with a turnaround that meets city standards with a barricade and
eignage stating that it is a temporary cul -de -sac and this road will be
extended in the future.
11. The preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council ordering 11
the public improvement project No. 92 -5 for the trunk sanitary sewer and
water improvements through the development.
12. The applicant shall dedicate the necessary drainage and utility easement
for the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer and possible storm sewer over -
Lot 1, Block 1. 1
13. Lot grades throughout the development shall not exceed 3 =1 slopes.
14. The applicant shall dedicate temporary street easements for those areas of
the temporary cul -de -sacs outside the dedicated right -of -way.
1�. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house
pad on the grading plan.
lf. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of the
pd, end elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general
:c li report for the development should also be submitted to the
Inspections Division.
17. C. ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street
lamps, trees, shrubs, NSP and Northwestern Bell, cable boxes, pursuant to
city ordinance. 1
10. No housing construction beyond Lots 12, 13, 16, and 17 may start until fire
apparatus access roads are provided. These access roads shall be designed 11 to the city of Chanhassen Engineering standards, and meet the approval of
the Chanhassen Fire Department pursuant to Uniform Fire Code 1988 Edition,
Section 10.207(f).
19. The street named "76th Street West" is unacceptable and must be renamed.
The reason being that the city already has a 76th Street and 76 does not
line up with the city's grid map system. 1
20. The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which provides
61 1
City Council Meeting -- March 8, 1993
landscape species recommended by staff. A landscaped soil berm shall also
be included subject to staff review.
21. Meet conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission.
22. Drainage easements must be granted for the pond located in the southwest
corner and other temporary ponding areas as necessary.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REVIEW PROPOSED HIGHWAY 41 REALIGNMENT IN CHASKA AND RELATED ISSUES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ron Erickson MnDot
Harold Hesse
Paul Krause: Mr. Mayor, I don't know who is in the audience that's present for
this one tonight. We do have a representative of MnDot here. Chaska was
supposed to send us a representative but I don't see one. You will recall that
this was an issue that was raised by, I think it was Bill Meyer at a Visitor
Presentation. He became aware of the fact that Chaska was proposing to
officially map and reserve some right-of-way for future realignment of Highway
41. We were not originally informed of that. We became aware of it at a late
11 hour and found out about it in advance of the City Council but you asked us to
return to you with information. Basically the proposal is in the Hesse Farms
area. Generally, here is the Highway 212 alignment that goes on into Chaska.
The proposal is to route 41 down here and across the river, which is shown in a
little bit more detail. If you look, key on these lots right over here. This
is that area in somewhat more detail with the Hesse Farm lots being right over
here. The Chanhassen /Chaska city line is right there. This is the Highway
alignment that's been aligned for two lanes. This however, an interchange where
this would be a highway to highway interchange. Northbound TH 41 to eastbound
212. The other one over there. We found out that there was in fact a lot of
information on this routing from time to time. I was just informed tonight too
that there wa: apparently some environmental workup that was done on this in the
vary early 70's which is really, must have been one of the first EIS's because
the law was only approved I think when Nixon was President. But basically
you've got a highway that has been talked about conceptually for quite a period
of time but there's a difference between conceptually talking about a highway
and it's ultimate realization. We did find that Chaska really did make a, I
mean this has been on Chaska's docket for some time and we haven't necessarily
been a party to it but this is not something that Chaska just came up with.
There was even some documentation that the Metro Council looked at the 10 top
river crossings in the Twin Cities region, I think it was in 1989 and labeled
this as number 7. With a star. I found that very surprising. My understanding
is, because I don't have the whole report. I excerpted some of it in here.
That of the 7, or the 6 on top of it, either they're under construction right
11 now of in serious planning stages and I think they've built number 8. So that
would imply the Metro Council thought this had some importance. We looked into
it in great detail and we have some sensitivity to I guess not wanting to rock
62
11
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
the boat extensively where Chaska is concerned, but this is one that really has
us worried. We do not see in any kind of conceiveable time horizon, the need
for this road. We understand that Chaska wants to get the trucks off their main
street, and that's a reasonable thing to do. But this is a phenomenally
expensive way to do it. I also have a difficult time seeing that it's warranted
given that it took 15 or 20 years to get the Bloomington Ferry Bridge done, and
that was certainly much more in demand and the Shakopee Bridge is being upgraded
at this time too. The concept is one of doing a bluff to bluff bridge and the
only thing I can think that parallels this is the Mendota Bridge, which is
obviously extraordinarily expensive. It passes through an area that we now know
in pretty significant detail is one of the most pristine wetland complexes in
the southwest suburban area, or anywhere in the Twin Cities. And we have a
difficult time seeing how it's warranted. Not again, nobody's actually
proposing to do the highway. It's not on the MnDot 20 year plan. MnDot is here
tonight and can comment on it. Don't look to shoot the messenger, if I could
ask you that. MnDot wasn't pushing this forward but they have been working with
Chaska at Chaska's request and this is something that they've been talking about
for apparently a couple decades and may talk about for another couple decades
before any kind of need surfaces. Chaska apologizes for not directly contacting
us, or the residents. They did try and take some of what they perceived our
concerns to be into account. One of the things that they did is this dashed
line here is the original line that was sketched up by MnDot...The city line is
right here. So essentially that alignment booted the highway directly into
Chanhassen, at least one of the northbound lane and pretty severely impacted
EE'Mc lots in Hesse Farms. What Chaska asked MnDot to do, and MnDot did do is
the moved the alignment further to the west so it's entirely located within
Chaska. Now Chaska has a development proposal in this area right in here and
what they wanted to do is reserve the right-of-way so that it doesn't get
develored, and again Chaska thought in their view of the world that they were
doing u: a favor and the people in Hesse Farms a favor because they possibly see
this highwr. as inevitable. And if it is inevitable and MnDot wants to build
this thing in 10 years. It's a lot easier to blast it through Hesse Farms and
take out homes, in their view anyway, than it would be to... But Chaska did
Make a good faith effort to have it moved. There is still one area that impacts
Chanha:scn directly and that is this ramp design over here cuts through this Lot
10 in coming up there. MnDot did tell us that they would start a little bit
latcr and came that way to avoid directly impacting those lots. So that is a
pcssibilit>-. 'you're not being asked to do anything. I mean there's nothing on
the agenda:. We did have some residents that asked that this be clarified.
Cha.,F.a has applied to the Metro Council for RALF funds. The Metro Council, I
asked the Metro Council, did we have a right to intervene in this should we
decide to, and they basically said no. But this raised some policy questions
for them and they were going to have a meeting and I haven't heard the outcome
of that meeting. They view this, I mean there was some talk at the Metro
Council staff level that if this project is really over a 20 year time horizon,
there's a lot of other highway projects that are a lot closer and probably could
warrant the use their funds. But that was really going to be their decision to
make.
Mayor Chmiel: Is this through Ken?
Paul Krause: I'm not sure about that Mayor. I know Tab was responsible for
that river crossing, or at least that was reviewed by them so it wouldn't
63 1
1
11
City Council Meeting - March 0, 1993
surprise me. But this is it's been so hypothetical that, I mean I remembered
that I saw a concept that kind of drew a big dashed line on a map when I was
11 working with the County Engineer in the Eastern Carver County traffic study and
I even remember commenting that isn't this a little bit different. I mean I
don't see the need for this and they were adamant that it's been in the hopper
for a long period of time and I just dropped it thinking that it would never
resurface. Well, these things have a habit of coming back to bite you and this
one showed up. However, I think it might be useful to do a couple things. This
road could go away for another 20 years and, or 10 years or whatever, and
11 whoever's sitting in these chairs at that point in time, is not going to have
any kind of a paper trail that this was ever considered. Or any kind of a
status report on what the City's position was. I think it might be prudent for
you to consider adopting some sort of a resolution stating that you have some
concerns with this proposal and those concerns can be conveyed to MnDot and the
Metro Council. The second thing is, in light of the design that MriDot sketched
up, should this ever really happen, Mn0ot's indicated that they could skew that
acces.z ramp over. We think it might be prudent to ask them to do that even
though you're objecting to them doing the highway in the first place. The whole
thing's a little squishy but I've talked to at least one of the property owners
down there and he seemed to understand that we're really not in a position to
put a road block up against a project that's not being proposed by anybody. But
I think that that would be a legitimate course of action to take at this point
in time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul. Does MnDot want to say anything at this
particular time? I know we said we'd have you on about 9:00 but I was talking
about tomorrow morning.
Pon Erickcor: I'm Ron Erickson, Predeoign Engineer in the metro division. My
office is in Golden Valley and I think Paul has quite well e'plained the
project. MnDot does recognize that this is a long ways off. It's not in our 20
year plan. I guess we would support the opportunity to protect the right -of -way
because of the Met Council plans and though the river crossing plans did show
the proposal in that area, and if you look at the river crossings, it's a rather
limited area. The studies go back quite a ways in here and I don't want to take
a lot of time because it's late but basically there was a study in about 1970.
It included 169 and 212. Some alternatives were picked for 41 and at that point
Chanha did concur with it at one of our public hearings that we had for it.
This is 20 years away. We feel that there is a risk. Obviously Chaska is very
interested in protecting that. They have threat of development now so they
would like to do that protection and I guess we support that. But we can't back
it financially and if it's 20 years, I would say it's not going to be 10 years
for sure. I know it's not going to be 10 years. It will be more like 20 years
before we're looking at that roadway but some of the difficult problems that you
had here today was because of landowners already building houses in those area
and this is, if we can plan to reduce the amount of development, then it would
be a great asset to us to build a road. I realize that's a very difficult one
with the river crossing. It is very difficult.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
Councilman Wing: It sounds like if they stay out of our city we don't have a
problem right?
64
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: I believe we might have just one question.
Ron Erickson: ...It's my understanding the RALF funds are to be able to use
under that concept...I don't know what the Met Council's going to decide in this
situation because I know that they've got mixed feelings about spending them on
this corridor. I don't know what they've decided...
Paul Krauss: Well if I could, the RALF funds are appropriated by the State
legislature and dispersed direction to the Metro Council, they don't go through
MnDot so it's not as though MnDot is advocating or not advocating the use of the
RALF funds. It's really going to be a Metro Council decision.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. I would look hopefully to make a recommendation for us
as we have in front of us requesting MnDot redraft their maps to take the
proposed access ramp out of the area not contained in the Highway 212 official
map. Thus if this issue really comes and resurfaces in the future, at least
there will be some common understanding regarding that particular route.
Councilman Senn: I'll move staff's recommendation. 1
Councilman Wing: For both?
Councilman Senn: Yec.
Ccel Wing: Both recommendations. In all cases, stay out of Chanhassen,
that . rnpr i 'd?
Pat.:_ We'1, actually I don't think it's, the concerns that I have are to
th- Lluff 1_ne and to the wetland environment and to the river valley and that's
r rr : =: of wherever they.
Cr.unCi'_m<<- `Tenn tic I understood it, the opposition is (a), to the project. 1
(L), if the project does proceed even over our opposition, then that the
intersection realignment occur to minimize it's effects so that's in effect the
mc' icr, I wa making. 1
Counc lmar, Wing: I second Mark's motion.
Harold Hesse: Yeah, I'm Harold Hesse and you can understand, I would be opposed f
to it because it's adjacent to the lots and it will be detrimental to them.
Ever, though it isn't, if it would maybe be hitting them, it's better than just
bypurl_ing them and receive the damage from the road noise. So I guess I'd just
sa.. T would like to see it moved a bit farther away... So I just wanted to go on
record that I am opposed and I would like to receive any support I can from the
Chanh ' :-en Council. 1
Ma Chmiel: I think we've already given you that support in recommending the
two different positions.
Harold Hesse: Yeah, I understand and I just wanted to go on record as
requesting it. And I am sure you received the letter from my attorney that I am
opposing it. So I would like to see it just go away and have been a nightmare
and not sec it go out there.
65 1I
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Would it be a benefit for us to also adopt a resolution portion
with this contained in it?
Paul Krauss: Yes, that would be ideal. If you will authorize a resolution, I
can put the wherefore's together for your signature.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Okay -, let's do that with the recommendations that have been done.
Paul Krauss: By the way, before I forget too, we did give you a resolution on
the previous item on, it escapes me, on the access boulevards. I'm just going
to fill the blanks in on that too.
Mayor Chmiel: That was part of the motion as well. Accepting the
recommendations.
Resolution #93 -20: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded that the
Council adopt a resolution asking MnDot to redraft their maps to take the
proposed access ramp out of the area not contained in the Highway 212 official
map. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE AUTHORIZING ANIMAL CONTROL PERSONNEL TO EUTHANIZE ANIMALS
WHEN NECESSARY, FIRST READING.
Scott Harr: I hope this was worth the wait.
Mayor Chmiel: I would so move this. Is there a second?
I/ Councilman Wing: Second.
Ma;•c Chmiel.: If we have additional discussion, we can do it at our net
11 mPPting. It'_ getting late.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the first reading of an
amendment to the City Code Section 5 -74 authorizing the animal control personnel
to euthanize animals when necessary as presented. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS, AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS,
FIRST READING.
Scott Harr: I want to thank you for the support on those last two items. I'll
make this brief. After discussing this issue with Councilman Senn and
Councilman Wing earlier, I think we've really come up with a neat idea to avoid
having to pick one or the other and that's to combine the two. And I'd like
1 permission of the Council to bring this back to the next meeting with a combined
ordinance that would protect the people that don't want to be bothered and give
us regulations over the people that are in town soliciting and peddling.
Mayor Chmiel.: Can't we just put a sign up saying no soliciting?
Scott Harr: Well that's alternative number 2.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That was my question. Can we just say no solicitors?
66
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993 1
Councilman Senn: In the city you mean?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: In the city.
Mayor Chmiel: ...the Cub Scouts and the Girl Scouts. 1
Councilman Wing: Well they're exempt.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they are. 1
Councilman Wing: When my daughter's at home, I don't want anybody knocking on
that door that Scott hasn't personally gotten a permit and checked their
background. There's too many safety issues anymore to have people running
around ringing doorbells so I want the sign on my door to be protected. I also
want anybody that should come to that door, to have been through Scott's office
so I like your idea but I really want the teeth in there too. As long as Scott
feels he can administer it.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the whole crutch of this. S
Councilman Senn: I think Scott feels he can and the other cities that have done
thic, I mca to be honest with you, stick the regulation in and the permit fee
in there and that eliminates 9/10 of it right there.
Mayor Chmiel How much in fees do we acquire?
Scott Harr: Well right now, I don't know what the total is. It's only $10.00
at this point because all people have to do right now is register. So it's just
a matte- of filing the papers but I'll have to review it.
M ; o - Chmiel' Do you get 10 of them a year?
Councilman Senn: No, we talked about it being a lot more significant than that 1
and actually reflect the cost of the new.
Mayor Chmiel: $1,000.00? 11
Councilman Senn: Scott is going to look at it and come back.
Scctt Harr: $1,000.00 did you say Mayor? I'll review it.
Councilman Mason' So we're tabling this for 2 weeks? 1
Councilman, Wing: I'll move tabling.
Councilman Mason: Second. 1
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table action on an amendment
to the City Code regarding peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants until
the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
67 1
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
11
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
II LEGISLATIVE UPDATE, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Councilman Wing: And could I, I realize this is out of order, but there is sort
II of an emergency situation I would just like to ask your opinion on. You can so
strike but you have normally not done that. That's why I felt comfortable in
asking.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Who's going to do our legislative update? Don? And Paul?
I Don Ashworth: Paul.
Paul Krauss: We are spearheading two legislative initiatives on behalf of the
City and like minded communities. The first one I've told you about from time
1 to time is on the wetlands, State wetlands law. I have been speaking out about
it around the State. Roger and Jo Ann and I participated in the early drafting
of the law. The law was perverted by the legislative process that at about this
time a night on the last day of the session, crams a bunch of bills together and
calls it a law and it really doesn't accomplish environmental goals or
administrative goals. The current law, while we all agree with the no net loss
concept and have developed our own city ordinances which are held up as the
II example to follow, the State law as is currently written is very destructive to
our ability to effectively...no net loss and to manage the community. It really
takes away a lot of local ability to control situations. So we put together a
II coalition of cities, watershed districts, and developers which is really taken,
they took notice of it because it's very rarely did all three groups can work
together and we petitioned, well we put testimony in to the hearing judge on
I/
rules. There are some changes that came out of that. Not as significant as we
would have filed, and we really didn't expect the hearing judge to change the
rules substantially. We have now moved onto the next phase, which is the State
legislature. The State legislature is re- hearing the rules and possibly may
II open the door again. We hope they will on the law itself. We'd like to get
some fundamental changes to the law and we've, through the Urban Wetlands
Management Coalition, are basically using Larkin - Hoffman as a lobbyist to
II represent us and to get those changes to occur. I'll keep you updated as to the
progrese. Things move fast in the legislative session I've found. The second
item that we're actively involved with is on the series of bills that have been
II submitted by Myron Orfield. Representative Orfield has very astutely defined
the prcblenF for Minneapolis and St. Paul. Unfortunately solutions don't deal
as well with tho •ae problems and basically he has a very well intentioned effort
to burn what he calls the fertile crescent, which is you guys. We are part of
II the fertile crescent in question in Orfield's vernacular. And you're fair game.
And what they're looking to do is basically to stop any further development in
this area. To snake it extrorbinately expensive to develop in this area. He's
II in cahoots with the Northern Mayor's Conference and outstate folks they're
cutting deals with. The Northern Mayor's Conference basically wants suburban
development as long as it's in Blaine or Brooklyn Park. Orfield doesn't want
I anything anyplace outside of Minneapolis or St. Paul. But there's a lot of
support in the legislature for those bills. We've heard that he's pretty well
got the horses to do what he wants to do in the House of Representatives. The
Senate is somewhat open to more conjecture. Through our Southwest Community's
Coalition, John Boylan represents us. We've asked John to serve as a
II 68
II
City Council Meeting - March £i, 1993 1
representative of the group for the State legislature, and I just wanted to
update you on that because this is a new role for him. I want to keep you
versed on exactly what he's doing but basically we've developed a number of
policy positions for him to carry forward that say, look. We agree that the
region needs to address urban core problems but this sure isn't the way to do it
and propose some alternatives. There's been some chinks in his coalition
showing lately. East Metro appears to be divided with St. Paul breaking off
from all the other suburbs out there over some issues with the farmland
preservation trust I believe which is causing some difficulties out there. So
we'll keep, and we've also heard that Dakota County has hired a lobbyist on this
as well. And also, frankly I think the news of the last couple weeks has really
severely hurt Minneapolis' chances of bringing home the bacon on this one. It's
kind of hard to argue that a city that blows $31 million in a lawsuit and has a
school district that seems to be falling apart at the seams, and all of these
are probably unfair hits to take, but that's the public perception. That it's
kind of difficult to convince a legislature that want you need to do in those
cases is twist suburban arms to give them even more money so they can continue
on the same course. We'll keep you posted on both actions but as I say, things
break pretty fast there. If you have any concerns you want me to raise, just
let me know and I can pass them onto our lobbyist and we'll keep you posted.
Councilman Senn: Paul, I thought that was kind of being reordered at this
point, especiall> on Mondale's part to the first tier suburbs.
Paul Krauss' Well, that's one of the things that they've done to split the
r; and I regard it as real unfortunate. They're trying to balkanize the
region. The Metro Council played some really heavy duty games with statistics.
What th= Metro Council did and that Orfield uses for his data sources is staff
at the Metro Council. They say that the developed area, it's the developed area
again_1 the suburbs, okay. The developed area is not just Minneapolis and
St_ pcul. It includes things that you might want to think should be in there.
Maybe a Columbia Heights and a New Hope and a Fridley. 1
Councilman) Senn: It's really redevelopment versus development isn't it?
Pa,:' Kra-a: Well, but it also includes Bloomington and Edina and Golden Valley
and Rc-_ville and Orfield comes out with these statistics that say, school lunch
demands are up through the roof. Unwed mothers are climbing like crazy so he's
Niintin2 Edina with the same brush that he's doing Selby /Dale and it really is a
misu,=, of statistics. But what that does is it says this region is divided
50'50. That 50% of the population lives in this urban for that he's trying to
protect theoretically. 5O% doesn't. The reality of the situation, I mean I can
play gamer with numbers too but by my count I think 3 out of every 4 people in
the Twin Cities don't live in Minneapolis or St. Paul. You know so we are a
region of suburban dwellers and I've been making the pitch for severals years at
the Metro Council that instead of trying to fight the trend they ought to
understand what the region really is like and deal with those situations.
Councilman Mason: What a refreshing concept. 1
Paul Krauss: Yeah, but it hasn't gone over very big.
1
69 1
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
Councilman Wing: I just turned my taxes in today and this is all I need. More
government.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, you don't have anything?
11 Don Ashworth: No. Just to make you aware that we also are working at the
Federal level trying to reinstate our community development block grant funds.
Mayor Chmiel: Sent another letter out today to Rod Grams to support us as well.
Also received a letter from Wellstone saying he can't do anything for us as far
as legislation is concerned but he's willing to continue his approach through
11 HUD to make sure that something happens.
Paul Krauss: Well, and I didn't see that letter but I know that Welistone's
people, when I contacted him. Yeah, Don told me about it. But Wellstone's
people when T contacted them after the election in November kind of said, just
you wait and see. After January we'll be able to have a more receptive hearing
at HUD. Now I don't know that that's the case or not.
Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion is get a hold of To Lappic and see if he's...
Paul Krauss: I could do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Cou.n _ilman Mason: Quick things in the Administrative Packet. Number one, I
think kudoe for Charles and his staff for standardizing the engineer's
contracts. I think that's a real good idea. I'm glad to see that. I also want
I/ to compliment Paul for catching the NPR thing and firing a letter off to Paula
Schroede . T did not get the opportunity to hear it but after chatting with
you, I also thank you for your letter to Peter Olin. Keeping on top of things
like t' := I thank that's an important part of the deal. Speaking of Met
Council, and I really., I had to kind of laugh as I was going through the
Administrative Packet and they're writing to Don, City Manager for
Transportation Advisory Board projects they will and won't pick. And I do want
to quc,tc wht the; say h cre . Due to funding constraints the Board decided to
only fund thr highect five graded projects. Innovative projects did not receive
a priority eating. So I guess we don't go for innovation at Met Council. My
own comment. But then it does say later, criteria considered included
innovative in it's transferability. I admire you continuing to chat amicably
with the Metropolitan Council, I really do respect that. And one thing I think
Council needs to get pointed out. We, at our last Council meeting voted to do
11 this 7:00 shot and then on the work session we decided it probably wasn't
necessary. Do we then need to make a motion to rescind the other motion? Or do
we let it slide?
Mayor Chmiel: We could make a motion.
Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll make a motion to rescind the motion that was made
concerning meeting at 7:00 to go over the agenda.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
1
1 70
1
City Council Meeting - March 8, 199' ,
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to rescind the motion
to meet at 7:00 prior to City Council meetings. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard, quickly. 1
Councilman Wing: Yes. However, for both Todd and Don, because this is not
funny anymore. The Mayor and myself have not received an abundance of phone
calls but I did go out this weekend and start contacting local people. Ask them
how they're doing and Z can assure you from the tip of Lake Minnewashta to the
other end the people are furious. And I mean furious. I mean never been madder
at the city in it's life. The area is unuseable. And what they're basically
saying is that staff may have made mistakes or the engineers, but the buck stops
here. Our liason is the Council. Minnewashta Parkway is for the most part
inparsable. It's unuseable. It's a screw up and it's a bad one and I'm tonight
accusing engineering, wherever it lies of poor judgment. I think they started
the projEct too late. It got all muddled and now we're leaving with it.
Clothing. Stains on clothing. The roadways. Cars that can't be washed.
CarE.gec that can't be cleaned. The conditions are unreasonable. So I guess
whet I'm suggesting here is that we really can't allow this condition to exist
for another 2 months. It's not fair. It's not reasonable, and we created it.
T!: solLtinn, I'm asking engineering for a solution. I don't care if you have
t.; come and pare it. I don't care if they have to come in and regrade it. I
dc c- i you have to come in with a trillion dollars worth of stuff, but
I c r.'j t`:.-,k those people can live under the conditions they are for 2 more
months. Dcr you've been out there. Every single day is the same. We don't
want to take the fire trucks out because it takes a hour and a half to clean
thcn Our drain, we can't wash them because we plug our drains with the crud
U al comes off. It's goo. It's cement. It's not gravel. It's not a passable
road. Enough's enough. Engineering should come up with a solution and deal
with the cost and I think we have to deal with it. I don't think it's
reas:!.a.':le to expect that road to continue for another day.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we've learned something from that as well. That if we
h,-o a project to go, that September, the end of September be the cutoff date.
B`ca.:r,_. of problems that we've encountered two times in a row with October and
of the snowfall it really has goofed us up. If they would have had a
few ^•e - e da >s...because of the timeframe. 1
Councilman Mason: Richard talks about blaming engineering. I said this last
tirnr am maybe I should ask someone on staff to find the Minutes but we were
told by Mr. Engelhardt that that would not be an issue.
Bill Engelhardt: He's got mud on his face and a black eye.
Councilman Mason: And that I think is something that perhaps needs to be deal 1
with because I remember asking him point blank. And he said, no. That won't be
a problem.
Councilman Wing: So I don't know what action the Council would choose to take
but I'm asking staff to react to this.
71 1
1
II City Council Meeting - March 8, 1993
II Don Ashworth: I'll put the item onto the next agenda. Have Engelhardt present.
Have him, I think there's a couple of issues. One is, how did we get to where
we are? Were there alternatives? And what are we doing to make sure it doesn't
happen in the future and then finally, Councilman Wing's point of what can be
II done right now.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can we do it any sooner than 2 weeks because we're,
I yeah. These people have gone on long enough. Is there anything we can do in
the interim?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I talked to Charles about that and he's saying that by
11 April 15th, which is also tax time, that they're going to start putting curb in.
Once they get curbs in, it will only take them a week.
1 Councilman Wing: I don't believe him.
Mayor Chmiel: If they don't have any real problems as far as weather.
1 Councilman, Wing: That's 2 months from now. I came in from Waconia last night
and I missed m;' turnoff or Rollings Hills. I got down to Minnewashta Parkway
and I went all t hc way down to TH 41 and back around. I wouldn't drive on that
II damn road come hell or high water.
Mayor Chmiel: I did the other day again and I had to go get the car washed one
I more time.
Councilman Wang: Well enough's enough. We dumped on them and now I think we
II ought to fix it. It may cost us some money but we made the mistake and I think
we have to 1i'e uF, lo it and I'm asking staff to move rapidly and faster than 2
weeks. In my opinion. I'd be willing to call a special meeting to deal with
this. T`,at'r hc:0; severe I think it is. I didn't know the anger was there until
11 recently. Where I went out and those people are just besides themselves. But
they've been gentlemenl; about it. But they are really mad at us. They are
really furious at the city of Chanhassen, and I think they have every right to
II be. Thank you for listening.
Councilman Senn: How about Don, did he have anything under Administrative
Presentations?
1 Mayor Chmiel: No.
I Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40
p.m.
il Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
II Prepared by Nann Opheim
II
II 72
11
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 3, 1993
1 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Brian Batzli, Nancy Mancino, Ladd Conrad,
Jeff Farmakes and Matt Ledvina
MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Senior
Planner; and Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 16,410 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE /WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON
' PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PARK PLACE AND PARK ROAD, LOT 3, BLOCK 1,
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION, MARK UNDESTAD /EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION. TECHNICAL INDUSTRIAL SALES.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the
public hearing to order.
Mark Un-de- stad: - - I ' - m Mark - Undestad with Eden Trace. Brought this back a
little bit ago. What we've gone through, I wish we would have brought the
first time. This design is more what we like to put out here...very nice
looking building.
Batzli: Okay. Did you, apparently the staff is making some requests.
Have you seen the staff report, and do you agree with those changes?
1 Mark Undestad: Yes I have and actually we've already made the changes...
We've staggered the trees along the front there. We've added some...to go
back here...
Batzli: Sharmin, do these changes that he's showing us right now comply
with what you were talking here earlier?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Batzli: Okay. So this is the final plan we're looking at?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Batzli: Okay. Okay, we may have some additional questions for you later
as we go around among the Commissioners. Thank you. This is a public
hearing. Is there anyone else present that would like to address the
Commission on this issue? If there is, I'd like you to come up to the
microphone and give us your name and address before you address the
Commission. Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
1 favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Ladd, do you want to start off?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 3
' 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of proposed signage. A
separate sign permit is required.
2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
' Watershed District permit as outlined in their attached memo dated
February 4, 1993.
3. All disturbed areas should be seeded or sodded immediately upon
completion of the parking lot. The City's boulevard along Park Road
must be sodded. Vegetation along the north shall be replaced with a
mix of conifers and deciduous trees.
4. The northwesterly parking space shall be striped to allow trucks to
back -up into the space. The most northwesterly stall shall be
' deleted.
5. Connection to the City's storm sewer system shall be in accordance to
City standards. City staff shall inspect and approve the storm sewer
connection prior to extension onto the site. The applicant's
contractor shall contact the City's Engineering Department for an
inspection 24 hours in advance of the proposed work. At the time of
building permit issuance, the applicant shall escrow $500.00 with the
City to guarantee the proper installation of the storm sewer and
payment of any inspection fees incurred by the City.
6. Meet all conditions of the Fire Marshal as outlined in his memo dated
January 26, 1993.
A11 voted in favor and the motion carried.
(Matt Ledvina was not present to vote on this item.)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated February 17, 1993 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Batzli: Kate, do you want to do a report from the Director or do we want
to get Paul down here?
Aanenson: Stone Creek received final plat approval for the first phase.
The development contract was pulled. It will be on for the meeting next
Monday. Gateway East was also approved by the City Council. That's
the Hanus building. That's clearing up the lot lines based on the Rapid
Oil. Interpretation of the conditional use, that was quite a lengthy
discussion at the City Council meeting. I think what the Council felt was
that there needed to be some interpretation and gave time for the
applicant to come back and go back through the process and do some more
11 research on exactly what the history of that was.
Batzli: This wasn't the one where they were going to store telephone
utility poles on the site was it?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 4
Aanenson: Well, there was a question as to whether or not there's been II
continuous use of the property since the building was never done and it
was alleged that the building wasn't put up because the Building
Department made certain requirements of Code and it was a rather lengthy
matter. Their attorney representing them. The Council decided that they II
needed time to look at this again. They even talked about getting another
6 months to review it so they asked that it be brought back and we do more
staff research on it. Exactly what happened on that. The Abra /Goodyear, '
that item was tabled. Kind of moratorium issue kind of came up again.
The Council I met tonight to talk about the Highway 5 Task Force. Where
it's going. How long it's going to take.
Batzli: They tabled it again?
Aanenson: Abra. They didn't even consider it last Council meeting. It
going to be on, not this Monday because we didn't put it on based on the
fact that they were meeting tonight in a work session. They're meeting
right now to talk about how long it's taking with the Highway 5.
Rearranging priorities to make sure that Task Force can move along.
Batzli: I attended the first moratorium meeting. This is after that one.
Aanenson: Right. They didn't go forward with that but they did give the
staff some direction. They may go back and do, they talked about
temporarily doing an overlay zone or maybe rezoning everything PUD. Even
looking at, I think what the final consensus was was putting in a, lookin
at all the conditional uses or making conditional uses, that seemed to be
the sore thumb was fast foods and auto related services so they're asking
staff to look at that and come back and making those conditional uses so
there's more control there. Because it was felt, even with the PUD or the
overlay zone, yeah you can make it prettier but the use is still there so '
that doesn't really solve the problem. And also we felt as a staff, we
really need to look at the whole corridor. We can't really go back. They
wanted the staff to come forward with specific pieces of this done. We
felt uncomfortable doing that because the whole study is really, each
piece is a part of the bigger puzzle and we're not sure how it all relate
together and we felt it really needs to come together as a comprehensive
package to you and to the Council so I think that's what we'll be looking
at and they want that on the next, not this Monday but 2 weeks from next II
Monday in March. The second meeting in March to actually looking at the
conditional uses. Maybe making fast foods and auto related conditional '
uses. 5o maybe we can say, maybe it's appropriate here but not at this
location kind of thing. That was a directive tonight. Boley. The City
Council recommended approval of that preliminary plat. Again, that's
contingent upon what Victoria does so that was going to sit until we get
recommendation from Victoria. School acquisition site, that was tabled.
There was concerns raised by Councilman Senn. Again, that's something
that Council's meeting on tonight too, talking about that. And Moon
Valley litigation. Paul was in Court on that last week. Still waiting til
see what happens as far as with Judges.
Ledvina: I had a question on that. Did they ever excavate the clay?
That was the last proposal that we heard.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 5
Aanenson: It's my understanding he's going forward in saying, to balance
the site he needs to excavate from the other side.
Ledvina: No, but we had a specific proposal in front of us for the
' excavation of 200,000 yards of clay.
Batzli: From the northern side?
Ledvina: Yeah, on the northern side and then they were going to redo
those ponds. Did that ever happen or no?
' Aanenson: I'm sorry Matt, I'm really not sure on that. My only
understanding is that to balance it he needs to work both sides and we're
saying no. He can't work both sides.
Batzli: We approved it.
' Ledvina: No we didn't.
Batzli: It went to Council without with our approval?
Ledvina: No. It didn't even go to Council. I think we sent it back to
the staff to iron out some questions. I think you had some questions on
ground water contamination.
Batzli: No, it got up to Council.
Ledvina: Did it?
Farmakes: I wanted to see it back and I was in the minority.
1 Ledvina: Okay. So it did get sent up?
Batzli: Yeah.
' Aanenson: And it was that they could only work the one side and that's
what he's contending now. That he's found he needs to balance it and so
that's why we're back in court trying to get that resolved.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. We have administrative approvals, and I assume
that we have none to talk about tonight. We're going to, with permission
of the other commissioners, jump over our open discussion items for just a
minute because the Council isn't down here and Paul isn't and I assume
they're going to be involved. Were either of these other two things in
t the pack to the Highway 5 Task Force. The letter from Don, Mayor Chmiel.
What is this about? I don't understand.
Aanenson: Well what happened on that is, you'll be hearing more about
11 that tonight. That's part of what we'll be talking about, the northern
frontage road alignments. The Task Force made a recommendation as to the
alternatives and in looking at that, the staff felt, and in speaking with
the consultants, that maybe there was a possibility for some crossovers.
We'll be talking about that in more detail tonight and I think that Jim
was feeling that the staff kind of usurped the Task Force in going ahead
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 6
and making some alterations to that. And then there was also some concern'
about the direction the Task Force was going in itself. That meeting was
kind of bounced all over the place. I think we're kind of back on track.
The last meeting we put together some goals and policies. Maybe Nancy ca
comment or Jeff, that were at the meeting. And we felt that we were kind
of back on track. We realized that by not having goals and policies,
everybody didn't have a clear understanding of where we were going and
what we're trying to accomplish and I think our last meeting, I got a lot"
of positive feedback and I think we're kind of back on track. So we put
that in here so you can see what the status of that I think that was
what the Council was also concerned about. Making sure that we do have a I
clear purpose and we're sticking to the task at hand.
Farmakes: I think part of the problem perhaps might have stemmed from th
fact that there is a subgroup within the Commission that had been working
on it for a year. And they, in their own discussion, for some of the
catch words, Main Street and so on, perhaps discussed it among themselves
but in using it in discussion among the larger group, was much more
subject to interpretation and I think that there was some confusion as toll
what the overall goals and policies were. But in the issue of the EPA
study here, I think that occurred when we were trying to eliminate some
possibilities of route and there were some crossover areas from the top tc�
the bottom. You can see where they cross over. I believe, correct me if
I'm wrong but I believe what they said was, you have to pick one or the
other and the issue was, that you may like part of one. Like the
1
crossover to the upper one but the problem was, is that the way they
worded it, you couldn't consider the crossover. You had to pick one from
Column A or one from Column B. That's where the problem arose. I think I
Paul responded to that. Basically we're talking about a half of block
worth of difference of physical space. I mean it wasn't, if you were
looking at it as an EPA study, it probably wasn't going to be a
significant difference. If it would work for one than studying the other"
Aanenson: That's really the heart of the Highway 5 discussion that we'll
be having in our open meeting. The consultants will be here to talk about
those two alternatives.
Batzli: Okay. Don needs to upgrade his address. Jim doesn't live in my
neighborhood anymore. Okay.
Aanenson: If you'd like, I think the consultants would like a chance to
maybe pull some of the things around. If you'd like to maybe take a
minute and look around and rally the troops. They've got a lot of
information to maybe look at before they start their presentation.
Batzli: Okay. So we will take about a 3 minute, 5 minute break here. '
(The Planning Commission took a break at this point in the meeting to
review the information on the frontage road alternatives along Highway 5.
Chairman Batzli turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Conrad at this
point.)
Planning Commission Meeting
' March 3, 1993 - Page 7
INFORMATIONAL MEETING REGARDING PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR A FRONTAGE ROAD
NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 BETWEEN POWERS BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 41.
Public Present:
' Name Address
Barry Warner Barton - Aschman Assoc.
Deborah Porter Barton - Aschman Assoc.
Jaynes Unruh Barton- Aschman Assoc.
' Jay Dolejsi
Vernelle Clayton 6961 Chaparral Lane
422 Santa Fe Cricle
Gene Borg Highway 5 Task Force
Thomas J. & Sharon Eischens 7460 Hazeltine Blvd, Excelsior
Pat Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd, Chaska
Doug Kunin Eckankar
Marlene Bentz 7300 Galpin Blvd.
' Mike Gorra 1680 Highway 5
Ray & Lisa Notermann 1450 Arboretum Blvd.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item and then Vice Chairman
Conrad asked for the consultants to give their presentation.
Barry Warner: My name is Barry Warner. I'm a principle with Barton -
Aschman who lead the land use and landscape architecture planning areas of
the company. With me tonight is James Unruh who is a civil engineer and
Deborah Porter who will be writing the Environmental Assessment for the
' north access boulevard. I'm going to very quickly and concisely give you
an overview of what character this roadway is going to likely accommodate.
James is going to talk about some of the specific alignments and then
Deborah will highlight very quickly the procedures in the Environmental
' Assessment. As Paul pointed out, and I'm going to quote from a document
put together by the University. They had done some study early on for the
access boulevards and they make the statement that an objective should be
' adhered to to make boulevards not frontage roads but connect into the
community network. For example, the proposed roads, Chanhassen Avenue and
Arboretum Boulevard kind of expressed local character and identity. With
that being one of the guidelines, and working with our civil engineers,
landscape arc traffic engineers and environmentalist as well as
staff, we put together some specific criteria or design objectives which
we hope the access boulevards will adhere to. This specific purpose is
1 two fold. To facilitate local trips. That is traffic movement between
sub areas or neighborhoods within the city and second, to provide local
access to those parcels abutting and in general proximity to the corridor.
I might point out that the access boulevards are viewed to be different in
function and design from traditional frontage roads, specifically from a
visual standpoint. They may vary in some cases from the alignment of the
Highway 5 mainline and they certainly will have a different visual
11
character. In addition, the access boulevards should provide both
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A couple of specific design principles
that we've tried to adhere to. Number one, the access boulevard should
' include corridor landscaping in establishing unique roadway character
unique within Chanhassen. Boulevard trees and landscape treatments should
occur at intersections and where possible, where the roadway abuts the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 Page 8
Highway 5 mainline. There should be distinctive signing. Distinctive
lighting, and as I pointed out, there should also be some specific
amenities for rest areas and potentially overlooks. Number two, the
roadway alignment, both horizontal and vertical layout should respond to
the lay of the land. That is the topography, the wetlands, vegetation an
c�
so on. Number three, access to the abutting parcels should be provided
but in a manner that is consistent with the designated land use type.
I might point out that we are not intending to provide immediate access II
from specific single family parcels. Number four, proper dimensional
setbacks from the Highway 5 mainline to the access boulevard intersections
should be designed to provide for traffic operational purposes. Number
five, a buffer should be established between the 5 mainline and the access'
boulevard where it occurs, and that can occur with earthen berms and
landscaping. And the last item is that we're trying to in all cases
remain sensitive to wetlands, drainage areas and so on. With that, the II
specific criteria that the roadway will likely adhere to includes a
classification of a high density roadway type. A design speed that would
likely be about 40 mph, although it may be signed at something less.
Perhaps 35 mph. The Highway 5 Task Force took a look with our assistance,
at four different cross section alternatives. In their December meeting
they looked at and agreed that the most appropriate alternative was one
that allowed for a 32 foot wide top of the roadway within an urban
section. That is it includes curb and gutters. That would include two 1
foot travelways and two 4 foot shoulders and the roadway therefore would
occur within an 80 foot right -of -way. This also would allow for adequate"
space for landscaping and for a 10 foot bituminous trail that would run
the length of the access boulevard. It also would allow for boulevard
plantings or other natural type plantings to occur. As I pointed out
previously, specific access to individual single family homes would not bell
allowed for. However, obviously subdivisions and so on would be. The
roadway would be designed to a 9 ton classification. Parking would be
prohibited from the roadway itself. Right and left hand turn slots would'
occur at intersections and where large users abut the access boulevard.
The access boulevard should also accommodate bus traffic and transit
opportunities and designed within the 80 foot right -of -way should be
public utilities. Obviously storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water. So
those are some of the broad parameters or design objectives that we tried
to adhere to and James Unruh is now going to highlight some of the
corridors so we can get a better idea as to the status of those corridors
and where they specifically occur.
James Unruh: Thanks Barry. I just want to work mostly over here and give"
you some specifics as to how we got to the alignments that are shown on
these maps right here. One main factor in getting to where we're at now
was the various comments we got from the Highway 5 Task Force. Each time
we've come before the Task Force we've gotten some very good comments and '
we've incorporated those into subsequent versions of these layouts. I
just want to touch on Alternative 2, first of all. How did that come
about, and some of you correctly surmised that it's mostly from the
Morrish study that's hanging on that wall over there. Patterned very
closely after that. How did we get a separation distance from the access
boulevard to the highway? We tried to fit a 5 foot mound inbetween the
access boulevard and the highway. Obviously you could separate them more
and put a higher mound inbetween them. Between the actual, from curb to
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' March 3, 1993 - Page 9
curb is 47 feet is what you need to get about a 5 foot mound in. An
11 example of that is a frontage road on the south side of Highway 5, just
east of Mitchell Lake, and MnDot participated in that frontage road and we
did get a 5 foot mound inbetween those two. So that's where the criteria
I for the separation distance comes about. For example this separation
distance at this west city street was dictated by I tried to minimize
impacts to the stand of trees here and also to get adequate stacking
' distance for vehicles turning on that crossroad. At Galpin Boulevard
here, we wanted to get as close to the creek as we could, to Bluff Creek
that is, so that this, as much area and this parcel here would be able to
be developed. That's how we got this location here. Again we come back
' to the butting up against the main line and then there's a small wetland
in here that we swung back around to minimize impacts and then back around
to Audubon Road here. The offset for Audubon Road is dictated by these,
when you get right about here, the slope starts dropping off pretty
significantly. So we tried to minimize construction costs by this
separation distance here. Our traffic analysis will tell us if this is
' too close or not. It may have to get pushed back a little bit but then
you increase impacts to trees and some different things back here. Here's
Lake Ann Park. We wanted to minimize encroachment into Lake Ann Park so
that's why the frontage roads, or the access boulevard stays close to the
highway. Right in here there's a small hill which basically we're just
going around with the frontage road, or the access boulevard to keep it
separated from the main line. Any questions on specifically Alternative
' 2? I just want to give you a background as to how we got to what we've
got here specifically.
Farmakes: The abandoned farmhouse there, the distance from the highway to
1 the abandoned farmhouse is?
James Unruh: Let's see. About 400 feet. 300 or 400 feet. Something
' like that. So it's pretty tight.
Farmakes: That includes the right -of -way?
James Unruh: I'm just going from the edge of the lanes. Pretty much from
the edge of the lane, which actually the existing right -of -way is at
exactly the edge of this lane right here. So it is as an existing right-
of-way.
Batzli: When you cross the creek, how do you do that?
James Unruh: Probably with a culvert underneath the roadway. With just a
culvert underneath the roadway. Right now there's a 48 inch diameter
culvert crossing under Highway 5. That's probably what the size of the
culvert underneath the access boulevard would be. Underneath Highway 5
we're thinking either we'd have some kind of a pedestrian tunnel or a
pedestrian tunnel with a creek crossing incorporated in it. But MnDot is
not real high on putting bridges on Highway 5 in this location and the
frontage road. The cost is about twice what this pedestrian culvert is
and maintenance costs get pretty intensive over the years.
1 Farmakes: You showed us several, I believe those drawings there for when
you refer to a culvert. Did you bring those drawings with you? They had
11
11
Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 3, 1993 - Page 10
those at the previous meeting.
James Unruh: We have some of those.
Farmakes: Okay. I was wondering because when you say culvert, some
people might tend to think that it's a cow culvert out here or something.
James Unruh: For pedestrians we're looking at a couple of different
sizes. One of them is a 13 foot wide arch culvert and I know that some o
you have seen those drawings already. But that would be about the width
is a 13 foot, up to 20 foot wide arched culvert. And I'm sure all of you '
have been on pedestrian trails where you've seen those types of culverts.
So it's called an arch culvert. That's where the terminology comes in.
Maybe that's a little bit, puts a bad impression on it. To carry the 11 water underneath the highway or underneath the access boulevard would
probably be just a 48 inch, round culvert. I just want to touch on
Alternative 1 here as well. And there we look at what kind of land use
could fit in between Highway 5 and the access boulevard. That was one of
the first criterias is what setback do we need to get a decent developmenll
in there. So that was a starting point for how far back you go with
Alternative 1. The second criteria that we looked at then was basically
the topography and the lay of the land. And we tried to not go through a 11
big hill or right over a real dip in the land but tried to match the land
as best we could and we've done some fairly detailed work on that and
that's what you see here. The map behind you is a topographic map that
shows contours on it and the City of Chanhassen needs to be commended for
that aerial photography with the contours. That is a goldmine as far as
design standpoint is concerned. You can really get a, as a designer you I
can have a 3 dimensional model almost. You have to visualize it but a
model of just how this roadway would look and you have to be almost up
against it to see the actual roadways but that was the starting point of
looking at the topography and aligning the roadway to fit the topography.
The only other comment I want to make about Alternative 1 is here at
Galpin Boulevard, we wanted to again come as close to Bluff Creek as we
could hut stay far enough away from Bluff Creek that we didn't cause any
adverse impacts. From a design standpoint, I really can't say that one o
these is better than the other one, as far as geometrically and as far as
what happens at these crossroads. I really can't say that there's
anything that's better about one than the other. They both have positive"
points and negative points.
Mancino: I have a question. On the Alternative 1, west of Galpin. Does"
that go right through a house?
James Unruh: Yeah, that one would. Well, the house is actually here andil
these are two barns here. But that is one of the environmental impacts o
socioeconomic impacts that will have to be analyzed and certainly this
alignment doesn't do that. Alternative 2 doesn't cause the impacts. We ,
really, it's hard to tell but it looks like that would pretty much
jeopardize this whole operation if you take those two buildings out.
Mancino: And on the east side it comes close to a house also but not.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 11
James Unruh: It comes pretty close. We don't know for sure yet at this
point if that would mean taking that house or not. It might be
uncomfortable. Uncomfortably close but that's part of the environmental
assessment is to analyze that. But the problem is, if we go closer to
' Bluff Creek, we're almost into the ravine.
Farmakes: The more secluded version of the cut -off there with the natural
topography would be the northern route? The cross over. If Alternative 2
' went to Alternate 1? On the north side of Bluff Creek.
James Unruh: Let's see. Over here?
11 Farmakes: Yeah. No, the other way.
1 James Unruh: This one.
Farmakes: Come up from 2 to 1 coming from the east to the west. There.
Now come up, that would be the north side of Bluff Creek versus the south
1 side. If you were driving on the highway, would the topography more
seclude the road behind, I believe there are trees there and so on. Would
that from the highway more seclude the road...?
1 James Unruh: Oh definitely. Definitely because there's a good stand of
trees all the way through here.
Farmakes: And how much elevation is that lowered?
James Unruh: It's about, from here down to here I believe is about 20 to
25 feet.
Farmakes: So it's quite a bit.
1 James Unruh: Yeah, it's quite a bit. This trail that goes along with
Alternative 1, that's why it's colored blue here, would kind of snake it's
way through the trees somehow and then come down to some kind of a
crossing of Highway 5.
Mancino: And it's a 10 foot wide trail.
James Unruh: Yeah, right. We show it on here, actually a 30 foot wide
trail corridor easement though it'd probably have to be purchased. Maybe
it could be something less than that. We don't know for sure.
Farmakes: With the trail in consideration, would the southern crossover
or the northern crossover have any advantage over one or the other?
James Unruh: Either way, that's a good point. We have assumed that the
trail would be on the north side of each of these alternatives. So to get
over to this crossing here, you would have to go all the way to Galpin
Boulevard and then cross. And the same with Alternative 2. It
essentially does the same thing. Now obviously some people are probably
1 just going to jump across the roadway here and here. I don't know how you
avoid that but that is a good point. You still, either way correctly you
have to go over to Galpin Boulevard and then cross the frontage road and
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 12
II
then down to the crossing of Highway 5. These crossovers that you see aril
all color coded too so you can see that they stand out from the
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. But you could do any one of these
combinations. You could come from Alternative 1, cross to Alterantive 2 ,
and it's obvious all the different things that you could do. And that's
the good part of the flexibility of this plan.
Scott: Doesn't it have a major, significant impact on the cost of the
II
environmental assessment because instead of talking of Alternative 1,
Alternative 2, we've got 1 and 2 and then we've got a couple of different
options where we mix the two and obviously the environmental assessment
has to be taken into consideration of the crossovers. But that's
basically what we're getting is 1 and 2 and the effect of the crossovers
and then we have to distill that impact based upon which combinations we
take.
II
James Unruh: That's correct and maybe that's a good point for me to break
and give it over to the person doing the environmental assessment work.
Any other specific questions on how we got to these alignments here?
Mancino: I just have one other question. Not how but Alternate 1 where II
it comes into TH 41 there. I stood there, or sat there in my car and
actually could not see to the right of me. I mean if I came out of that
road, I couldn't see around the curve on TH 41.
II James Unruh: Previous versions of this layout had Alternative 1 coming i
right about here. It doesn't look like it's going to make a lot of
difference moving this maybe 100 or 200 feet one way or the other. But
based on some comments that we got, and then I did go out there and drove II
it several times back and forth to figure out just where a good place
would be. So we moved it to the south side of this row of evergreen tree
here so that we're quite a ways south of where it previously was and feel
a lot more confident that that will not be a severe sight constraint.
Because that is very crucial. I mean you've got to be able to sit here
and see if traffic is coming from this direction. So we've made some II modifications to accommodate that.
Mancino: And Alternative 2 will give enough stacking on that intersectioll
of TH 41 and Th 5?
James Unruh: That's another one that previously we showed it coming in
closer on a previous version and based on some comments that the Task
Force, we've moved it up about 200 or 300 feet from where it previously
was and we're comfortable that we should have enough stacking distance
between these two right now. Again, we'll have to analyze those in the II
environmental assessment but from a design standpoint, we're fairly
comfortable with it.
Scott: Does the environmental assessment take into consideration the
II
potential, the one land use that I think we're all particularly aware of
is the land use on the northeast corner of TH 5 and TH 41. If we use the
Alternative 2, does that negate the possibility of putting a Mills Fleet J1
Farm type operation on that corner because I think, was that 500 feet? I
that what the setback is?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 13
James Unruh: Actually it's about 700 feet. Yeah, the previous one was
about 500 feet and they moved it back.
Scott: Does the environmental assessment take into consideration what
financial impact that, various alternatives are going to have on people
who have property and have planned land use for that property?
' James Unruh: For that I'm going to turn it over to Deb Porter. She is my
associate doing the environmental assessment.
11 Batzli: Let me ask you one question before you turn it over to her. The
Alternative 1 at the break between the two boards you've got behind them.
Right here. You're at about 992 there and you're probably inbetween two
hills at about that point. What do you do to get down to the creek
elevation? I mean the creek is what, at about 950?
James Unruh: Well, it's on the map behind you.
' Batzli: Yeah, it's at 950. I'm asking but it's at 950.
Farmakes: It was a trick question.
Batzli: It was a trick question. So you've got a significant difference
there as you're heading down towards the creek and then it climbs back up
on the other side.
James Unruh: Right in through here.
Batzli: Are you filling? Are you grading? What are you doing to the
land right there to get down to the creek level or at least the edge of
the ravine or what have you?
James Unruh: I've just been working on that the last couple of days and
you almost have to split the difference. You cut about halfway through
11 the hill and fill about halfway through the ravine. I could not, what
you're saying is there's a hill here and then there's a low point right in
there. And I couldn't bring it up, or bring it down quick enough to hit
the bottom of that ravine and then up again high enough to hit the top of
the hill. So I cut pretty much through the two of them and try to split
the difference so that you're half filling in half of this and cutting
half of this hill.
I Batzli: What does that do to the corridor right there? Our creek
corridor by doing that to landform right there?
James Unruh: On that topography map, I show the exact construction
limits. How far out the fill will be and the cut and maybe that's
something, it's on a green line which is a little bit difficult to see.
But that's maybe something we can look at afterwards. It's very
appropriate you ask that. I've just been working on that to determine the
exact construction limits. You know how far out are we going to be
filling on each side of this road, and it isn't as severe in really any
locations as I thought it would be. But maybe we can look at that a
little bit later, and that's something we're still working on. But Deb
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 14 1
Porter is from Barton- Aschman is going to talk to you about the
environmental assessment.
Deb Porter: I get the feeling that James has done a lot more work on thi�
at this point than I may have. What I'd like to go over tonight is this
two page handout that I think was part of your packet and we have copies
here this evening too entitled, Arboretum Boulevard Project Review. And •
what this is is a very brief overview of the purpose and scope of the
environmental assessment. We go over some of the possible funding source
and what the expected schedule is for the access boulevard and how that
relates to Trunk Highway 5. The environmental assessment document, for
those who may not be familiar with the process, is somewhat less formal
than an environmental impact statement, an EIS but it will cover a full
range of impact issues. It will be prepared for the federal, state and
local agency reviews as well as the general public and it will identify II
the impacts of all the alternatives that we're looking at here tonight.
The Alternative 1 and 2 corridors and the crossover options. You asked
how that will be addressed in the document and it could be cumbersome if II
you're looking at all combinations, permeatations of those corridors but
think the way we plan to handle that is looking at Alternative 1, the
norther corridor, Alternative 2 and then the crossover segments of A, B,
and D, which are anywhere from I think 500, 800, 900 feet in length. And
kind of handle those separately. To combine them as an Alternative, we
may do in some kind of table format. It's a little awkward but I think
we'll be able to get a look at the total impact of each segment. You'd II
have to sort of add those up to get the full picture I guess. In terms o
impact studies, and mitigation plans, that's also required. Any impacts
we identify, we'll need to offer some type of way in reducing or possibly"
even eliminating some of the adverse effects of the project. The impact
studies themselves, it will be a wide range of studies. The impact to the
physical environment will include things like, what we've already been
talking about. The wetland basins. The storm water runoff. The erosion!'
control. Other water quality issues. We'll look at air quality. Noise
impacts. Land use development will also be one of the impact studies.
We'll look at the visual changes and the landscape of the corridor, and
also the traffic study is important in that that will look at, or estimate
the future traffic volumes both on Highway 5 and the different alternative
corridors and how that might impact the major intersections along the II corridor. We'll look at the level of service along there and the whole
traffic operations between Highway 41, Powers Boulevard, and how that ties
in with the central business district of Chanhassen. We'll also be
looking at all mitigations for any type of impacts that we identify there"
Once that's been put together in a draft form, we forward that to MnDot.
They will review it and if satisfied, then we'll issue it for a public
review into all the regulatory agencies. We plan to hold a public hearinil
so there's an opportunity for comment from the general public and the
agencies. I guess our guess right now would be mid -year 1993. We might
be ready for a hearing at that point. Once all the comments have been
received, and responded to in writing in the document, it becomes
formalized by MnDot. They issue something called a negative declaration,
meaning that an EIS is not needed at that point is their position. It
then is forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration who is really the
ultimate sign - off authority on the document. And they issue what's calle
a Finding of No Significant Impact, or FONSI I guess is how we generally
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 15
refer to it. At that point the environmental process is pretty well
' completed and for this project, assuming that we begin work on this soon,
March of this year, we expect to be done by the end of this year. That's
the typical timeframe for an environmental assessment for a project of
this length is 9, 10 months to a years time. I think that pretty well
covers the EA process. I mean it's somewhat involved. I haven't listed
every topic that we'll be covering in the document. There's probably 20
' or so different impact studies. Are there any questions about what we
plan to cover in that document? I guess I could have brought some
documents but...bias what people may be expecting later on. But it's a
fairly comprehensive document. It should allow you towards the end of
I that process to identify a preferred alternative based on the range of
impacts and advantages, disadvantages of various alternatives.
Batzli: Paul, did you say that the City's paying for the EA?
Krauss: That's correct.
Batzli: And what is the impact of doing a second alternative route and
all these crossovers as far as monetary impact to the city?
Krauss: It's in there. I mean it's part of the process that's already
been approved.
Deb Porter: I think if there's other questions we'll be here later this
evening to talk about that. Another point here that I want to go over is
the schedule for the project, and Paul has already gone over that
somewhat. That's on the second page. We've outlined a time table
' actually and I guess what we want to make sure everyone's aware of is the
fact that this access boulevard project is closely coordinated with the
Highway 5 project. MnDot views that as one design package. So in that
regard then we need to look at the program construction date of Trunk
Highway 5 which is February, 1996. So that would also then probably
become the construction date of the access boulevard. Backing up from
that then, from February, 1996, we've identified as you can see here, a 2
year time period for right -of -way acquisition and final design work. And
that again is typically what's required for a project of this size and the
number of parcels involved. So that would bring us back to February of
1994. At that point we need to have construction limits established for
the preferred alternative. We'd be through with the environmental review
process. We'd be into the permit application phase, and that essentially
gives us then the remainder of this year to finish the environment
process. I think that it's very doable and a lot of the design work, as
James is talking about, is already progressing and as soon as it's really
spring, we'll be able to do a lot of our field work too. I think you can
expect to see a draft EA this June, I would imagine for your review. It
will be coming before the city staff and City Council prior to being
released to the public so it's something you find acceptable. So I think
in the memos and so on that I've read from the city, they've stated that
very well in terms of how critical it is to keep this project on track
with Trunk Highway 5. Now as far as funding is concerned, as Paul
mentioned, the construction costs are primarily through federal funds and
then supplemented somewhat by the city and MnDot. And the right -of -way
acquisition costs at this point will be some mixture of city and MnDot
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 16 1
funds and it is somewhat dependent on the location of the access
boulevard. As Paul said, MnDot's prior commitment in upgrading TH 5 was
to provide some short, what would have been frontage roads to some of
those properties on the north side of TH 5 that would no longer have
access to the highway. So their commitment then is tied in with that.
You know what they had promised in the past is something they plan to kee
to and possibly supplement in areas like through the park and so on. But
the farther away an access boulevard becomes from the main line, the less!'
they may be interested in funding because at that point that may be
setting a precedent of MnDot pays for city street construction, and that's
not the case. So I guess that's something that needs to be kept in mind.
Are there any other questions, either on the schedule or the EA or any of II
those topics?
Mancino: Deborah, when you just said that MnDot is sharing the cost of II
the access boulevard depends on where it's placed...acquisitions of land
or actual construction?
Deb Porter: No, that's only as far as right -of -way acquisition costs are II
concerned. The construction costs I think are probably as much as 800
federal dollars and the remainder being city and MnDot. But this II negotiation or further discussions on right -of -way acquisition, that
certainly would have to go on with MnDot and it's for right -of -way only.
Conrad: Brian, do you want me to continue... '
Batzli: Yeah, go ahead.
Conrad: Or do you want to take it back over? II
Batzli: No. I'm going to have to leave in a few minutes, so please. '
Conrad: Paul, anything else? It is an informational meeting and we have
a lot of people here. It's not a public hearing but my understanding is,
what we're doing right now is, as Paul's pointed out, we're affirming that'
these are the alternatives to study. We're not making a recommendation
which ones we like tonight. We're saying these are the ones to spend our
time looking at. I think if anybody has some comments that is here
tonight, I think we'd be interested in them. Again, we're not taking a II
vote on which ones you like. That's going to be later on but our role
here as a Planning Commission is to make some comments in terms of what
we, if we feel these are the right ones and then move that up to City
II
Council. Are there any, yes ma'am.
Pat Kerber: The home that we own...
II
Conrad: Would you give us your name.
Pat Kerber: Pat Kerber.
II
Batzli: Can you hear her for the record?
Conrad: Would you step up to the microphone. II
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
11 March 3, 1993 - Page 17
Pat. Kerber: Okay, I'm Pat Kerber and we own 3 acres of land. We are
abutted on the east side by Lake Ann Park. The tree farm. Now here in
this diagram it shows that it's going back by the creek evidentally. And
we own from the highway to the creek. What are we going to do? Do we
stay there or do we get bought out completely? I sure don't want a road
on each side of me. When Highway 5 gets to be a four lane.
Scott: Excuse me Mrs. Kerber. I want to make sure I understand exactly
where your property is. So you're going to have to speak very slowly for
me.
Pat Kerber: Okay, it's right on.
Scott: Okay, I see Lake Ann Park. I see the tree farm. And it looks
like there's a.
Pat Kerber: And Audubon Road as it goes north would be right beside our
I house.
Scott: Okay, and your house is located very close to the Highway 5?
Pat Kerber: Well go back, I don't know. We built back far enough...
Scott: It looks like there's a very long drive and then your property is
due south of Lake Ann about 100 feet?
Mancino: On the north side of TH 5.
Pat Kerber: It's right in here.
Scott: Oh okay. So very close to Highway 5. Okay. You can see your
house from the road when you just get past Lake Ann on the right.
Pat Kerber: It's a red house.
Scott: I got you.
Pat Kerber: But I'd like to know, do you buy us out completely or what?
I don't want to sit there with a half acre and a house between two roads.
Scott: I got. you.
1 Conrad: Paul, do you have a?
Krauss: Yeah, if it's the property that I'm aware of. I understand the
concern.
Pat Kerber: Well my husband was born and raised on that farm.
11 Krauss: And I've heard talk from time to time about acquisition of the
property relative to the park and different things. So if I'm
11 understanding right, your hourse would be basically on that island of land
that's created.
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 18
Pat Kerber: Between the two.
Krauss: Yeah, that's really something. We don't know the exact answer to
it but the likely answer is that, when you isolate property like that,
typically it becomes part of the right -of -way acquisition, unless there's"
some legitimate way of saving it but you're severing, when you're doing
that you're severing a house from it's natural environment.
Pat Kerber: That's right.
Krauss: And we recognize that and MnDot recognizes that. It's something"
that's going to have to be developed as part of the EA. I think we'll
have to make some guesses in the EA as to what's likely to happen but just
looking at it now, it looks likely that it would probably be considered a
part of the right -of -way acquisition.
Scott: And the right -of -way is 80 feet so.
Krauss: No. The right -of -way itself is 80 feet for the roadway but in
areas where you bump the road north to set it back for sufficient stacking
distance, you may be creating a.
Scott: A berm or something like that.
Krauss: Right. Right. 1
Conrad: One of the purposes of going through what we're doing the study
right now is to understand a little bit more what would happen.
Pat Kerber: Well I wasn't at the last meeting but my husband couldn't be
here tonight so. And I was interested. I mean that's his homestead.
He's been there for 72 years. Or a few years he was in the service and
that and we acquired the land from his father. And built the house and
we've been there since 1958. Now to get moved out, or sit there with just
a little piece, I don't want that.
Conrad: I'm sure we'll be working with you on that. Any other comments?
Again we're looking at, are these the right alternatives to look at.
Planning Commission comments.
Scott: Yeah, could I ask. There's a comment from.
Tim Keene: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. M
name is Tim Keene and I'm with Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren and here
on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm. Just a couple of questions. One as it
relates to the design alternatives and the other procedural. I guess I'dll
like to hear from the engineer how much flexibility we have as it relates
to the western terminus and the location of Alternatives 1 and 2 to move
those around. We're a little bit handicapped in evaluating this as it
impacts the property because we don't have exact spacing distances on a
drawing that isn't scaled. We could estimate them but that certainly does
impact the property depending on what the spacing and separation are and
so we'll reserve our comments for later in the process when we've had an
opportunity to take a look at that. And that relates to the second
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 19
I question I had. At what point will we, as property owners have to
provide the most meaningful comment and address our thoughts as it relates
to the alternatives? Will that be when the environmental assessment
document is put on the street in June?
Conrad: I assume that's coming back to us isn't it?
Krauss: Well, it will but I think there's going to be two opportunities
here for Tim to make specific comments and deal with something that's
being offered in some specificity. The EA document's going to come back
before the Planning Commission, City Council and we'll have a formal
public hearing at that time. But I'm expecting that even before that's
done, were going to have a draft document and we're going to try to feed
that back in to the Highway 5 Task Force. They've already said that they
want to have public information meetings because they're making decisions
based not only on what they're going to hear back on the EA but also what
in their vision is the best, the most appropriate land use. The most
sensitive way of developing and other things. So we need for those two
processes to come together so again, I think there's going to be public
informational meeting at the Task Force on that and there certainly will
be a public hearing ultimately on the Highway 5 plan and again on the EA.
Tim Keene: Thank you very much.
Conrad: Anything else? Planning Commissioners.
Scott: Gene Borg is here and you're the Co -Chair of the Highway 5 Task
Force. I just have a question. Is there a position that a majority of
the Highway 5 Task Force has as to which alternative they believe or you
folks believe is the best one based upon all the factors that you're
taking into consideration?
Gene Borg: No.
Scott: Okay.
Gene Borg: That's about the plain truth. There's as much disagreement on
which way... We were rushed two meetings ago trying to choose an
alignment...
Conrad: Well that opens up the next question. As this is going on, what
else is happening?
Krauss: Well the larger Highway 5 corridor planning process is happening.
They have been charged with not only looking at these access boulevards
but also inputting into the main line design of Highway 5. Giving
proposals on land use changes in the corridor. Defining environmentally
sensitive areas and means for protecting them. Developing a strategy for
how the Highway 5 corridor should be developed. Developing an overlay
district ordinance. They're tying together a lot of stuff.
Conrad: How do the cost implications get wrapped into this Paul? I see
the Alternative 2 and some of the things we talked about in terms of
landscaping. When the EA comes back to us and we start making some
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 20 II
decisions, are we going to know all the cost factors at that time? Does II
the EA, does that wrap up some but are there missing? Are we going to be
missing pieces and is that a charter of the Task Force or?
Krauss: I honestly don't know the level of detail that we're going to II
have. I mean we're going to have some ballpark cost estimates in terms of
acquisition and development. I don't think at that point we're going to 1
know specifically how many dollars are the Feds kicking in. How many
dollars is the State going to kick in. I mean those things need to be
worked out on an ongoing process. We will provide as much information as
we can at the time we have it certainly. It's been my experience that
those kinds of, do you protect the forest. Do you spend a few more II
dollars or, that's a difficult one for a resident or a citizen based task
force to grapple with but it's certainly one that the Planning Commission
and also to a very large extent the City Council are in a position to dea
because it's the City Council utlimately that's going to have to cut
the deal with MnDot. It's going to be their name on the dotted line. So
all that information will be available at the time that decision is made. 1
I'm just not certain how much of that the Task Force is going to be able
to digest.
Conrad: You talked about zoning issues. Can we really zone before we get
the EA back?
II Krauss: Well again, you have a cart and horse situation. We're under a
great deal of pressure to produce the Highway 5 plan and we're really not
in a position to say well let's wait 6 months and see what the EA says.
I mean this is an outgrowth of what we've done to date. It's an iterativ
process. I mean one of the things we spend lots of time on is running _
back and forth between our consultants, MnDot, the Task Force, the
Planning Commission, the City Council trying to pull all these things 11
together. I think we're honing in on decisions of the Task Force. As
more information becomes available, they will make some determination. For
example, I mean there is a very significant question, Joe you raised it
about the Fleet Farm ownership on the corner, and Tim Keene spoke to that
That's certainly no secret. We've known for the past 4 or 5 years that
Fleet Farm has owned it. There's never been an active city policy, one
way or the other pro or con on it but clearly the Task Force is going to II
have to make, first of all they're going to have to make a recommendation
as to whether or not it has any merit at all, and I think they're going to
approach that as a land use issue. Then you also have to put in which, i
you decide it is okay, then probably there's only one road alternative
that supports it. If not, you go with, you have either of the other
options and will take it on their own merits. Again, it's an iterative
process. It's not clean. We're just not going to have everything in II
front of us at any one time to make all those decisions.
Mancino: Not only Fleet Farm but...that whole study area and looking at II
that for land use questions that come up.
Scott: What is the study estimated to cost? The EA.
Deb Porter: I think our budget is between $120,000.00 and $130,000.00. II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 21
Scott: Is there an implied time line based upon the fact that the
alternatives need to track with Highway 5 with MnDot's schedule. Is there
an implied decision point at the and this is a question I guess for the
Chairman or for you Paul. When we have to come to a decision on this. I
' sense that there's a very tight timeframe here that hasn't been
articulated. I'd like to know precisely what's expected here.
Krauss: Well, I mean clearly you're going to have to, the City's going to
have to take a position on a preferred route. Deb has made it very clear
to us on a number of occasions that we can't go to MnDot keeping all the
cards in our back pocket and say well, we're not going to tell you which
one we want to do but we want you to pay for it nevertheless. We have to
make those decisions in that timeframe and that seems to give us another
5 -6 months I guess to get it together on that. I think we really have an
opportunity here, and it's an opportunity that we saw slipping through our
fingers. When we started working on Highway 5 issues a year, year and a
half ago, MnDot's initial position was, don't bother us. It's all done.
I mean we've already planned, we designed it years ago. You really have
' nothing to input. Well, with a lot of hard work they've moved off of that
to working with us on a lot of things but it's imperative that we keep to
their timeframe or all bets are off. So I regard this is as a window of
opportunity. Yes it's rather time, the constraints are significant but
it's opportunities that we didn't think we'd have 6 -8 months ago.
Conrad: Let me go back to this point. I asked you before Paul but when
the EA is done and it comes back here and we get this informational
meeting_, one alternative's going to have some highway acquisition costs.
Or not highway but just Alternative 2, if we want to do something like
this, there are other costs there. Who's developing those other costs?
That's going to effect how we perceive one alternative versus the other.
Where does that come from?
Deb Porter: Well I think as Paul said before, ballpark estimates. That's
generally a part of the EA or EIS. We would look at approximate
construction costs and approximate right -of -way acquisition costs when it
comes to the corridor itself. That still is something that, as I have on
the schedule, that really doesn't get finalized until we have construction
limits, MnDot has the...and so on. It's very easy to make a wrong
estimate on right -of -way costs. At time you may think, well we'll just
take a quarter of this property and as it turns out because of access or
an unwilling seller or whatever, you end up buying the entire parcel. So
you could be plus or minus a few million off on that cost. That's really
beyond the scope of an EA. We'll come up with the construction costs and
estimated right -of -way so you can feel comfortable with it but the number
you're looking for I don't think is going to come into this document. Not
as a definite number.
Krauss: We are probably also going to have to work with Barton - Aschman
too in developing a cost projection for all those non - covered items. I
mean you could well have a budget that says we're going to have 3,000
overstory trees and we're going to pay for brick paver treatments here and
there and the crossings and all these other things that are the city's
option and develop a cost package for that. We clearly would have to do
that and present it to the City Council and HRA to gain their support.
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 22 1
But that's beyond the EA process. Probably something we're going to have,
to do in addition.
Conrad: But it's got to merge. When we start looking at alternatives
here, that's a parcel, that's part of it. Okay. But thanks.
Deb Porter: While we may not be able to give you an exact cost figure, we
will look at, under the relocations and right -of -way impacts, we will loo ll
at the number of parcels. Number of landowners and what we estimate as
being complete and partial takings of properties. So that should give you
some gauge on cost but yeah, as Paul's explaining to you. Everything
involving with landscaping, purchasing that additional corridor for
berming and screening between the highway and the access road, that could
get into a wide range of costs.
Mancino: ...those estimates will be in the draft that we get in June?
Deb Porter: The construction estimates will but the right -of -way costs II
are something we'll have to talk about in a more qualitative way rather
than quantitative I think. We'll be discussing it with MnDot. They
should be able to give us some input on what they think is needed in term
of the access road, at least closer to the highway.
Krauss: If I could Mr. Chairman. Barry Warner and I were just whispering,
back and forth. Barton- Aschman's worked with us on the first phase of
Highway 5 and the public improvements for that and we developed a cost
package that was taken back to the HRA. It's quite likely we're going to
have to add a work task program that's independent of the EA but to
develop these costs. I mean obviously we need to get that information an
have experience working with them to do just that.
Scott: So basically what we're looking at then is sometime between Augus
and November of this year we'll be, we and others are going to be ■
determining which alternative is going to be presented to MnDot?
Krauss: Yes. ,
Conrad: And at that time we will have the other costs developed?
Deb Porter: ...need some input from you on a tenatively identified
preferred alternative. That needs to be in the draft EA before that's
finalized and brought to the Federal Highway Administration. 1
Scott: Is that June?
Deb Porter: June I think is more when we're looking. June -July. It's I
not an absolute, definite decision at that point because you haven't had
your public hearing yet or all of your agency comment but in order to
issue that document and to give the agencies and the public some idea of
what you're thinking, rather than here's all the alternatives. We don't
know yet. We like to do what's called a tentative identification of
preferred alternative. And that gives people something a little more to
react to instead of you know, all the issues and all the potential impact
still being out there considered. It narrows it down somewhat. And it
1
1/
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 23
can be changed if something comes up that was unforeseen. Not considered.
Generally doesn't but.
Conrad: So then Paul we're going to be developing some additional costs
that will be bundled into that package? Okay. Other comments? Anything.
Again, we're reacting to are these the right alternatives to study.
Anything else?
Gene Borg: I'd like to make one comment about choosing an alternative
route. You get the cart and the horse...do the land use first and then
place the road around it. Something's got to come first. It sounds like
the road placement is going to come first and then we're going to
recommend zoning to fit the road.
Krauss: We've done some preliminary investigations working with Barton -
Aschman and our other consultant Camiros on how drastic an impact the road
placement has on the uses. And it's really not as great as we would have
11 thought. I mean it clearly in one or two instances has a major impact but
beyond that, it really didn't. So I think we'd like to keep working with
the Task Force on the land use issues and we can feed that information
back into Barton - Aschman.
Conrad: Okay. Anything else? Need a motion just to recommend that we
affirm that these are the right alternatives to study.
Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission affirm the draft
alternatives for analysis of two alterantives in the Environmental
Assessment document.
Farmakes: Second.
Conrad: Any discussion?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission affirm the
draft alterantive for analysis of two alternatives in the Environmental
Assessment document. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
DISCUSSION OF ENTRY MONUMENTS - TODD GERHARDT.
Conrad: Is Todd here?
Barry Warner: Mr. Chair, he delegated it to me so I'll pick a couple of
boards up and highlight those things for you.
Conrad: Okay, you want to discuss the entry monuments?
Barry Warner: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. The panel that you
see in front of you tonight is the panel that Jeff had assisted staff and
ourselves in looking at. A monument sign at Market, adjacent to Highway 5
to serve as an entrance into the downtown area. It shows some of the
metal work and so on top of a limestone radius wall. This is a more
updated image of that same scheme with exception of this does not show the
metal work. What is being suggested is the metal work would be bid as a
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 24
part of the sign when it is sent out for construction bids so that we
would have prices on both the wall and the metal work intact. So in
essence I'm filling in for Todd tonight so if there's any specific
questions that I can respond to I'd be very pleased to do so. This has
been something that's been ongoing for the last few years and I think wit
f'
Jeff's assistance, we've been able to advance forward with it and are
looking forward to taking it into construction bids and potentially
constructing it this spring if we can still obtain the landscape work
during the spring construction season.
Ledvina: A question. You mentioned metal work. Did you mean the letter"
or?
Barry Warner: The metal work that I was speaking to was the ornamentatio
that is on the top and on the other side.
Ledvina: So they'll bid both parts of that? Not necessarily construct
the metal work at this time.
Barry Warner: I think that that would be the city's perogative once the
bids were received.
Ledvina: Okay, so that would be an option that they'd exercise if it was
a real favorable situation?
Barry Warner: That's correct.
Ledvina: Okay. That's reasonable.
Mancino: What are the letters made out of? What is the medium?
Barry Warner: It would be metal. 1
Mancino: The letters? Is it a black metal?
Barry Warner: No, they would be a bronze colored metal that we would
select a specific color with a contractor but it will have, it's a metal
letter that will be an anodized material so that it will appear as a
bronze color or something similar to that.
Farmakes: It depends on the cost of materials. There's bronze. There's ii
brass. There's copper. It depends on the staying factor. The
maintenance. And whether or not the economy as to whether or not you go
to an electroplated steel. The idea is I believe it would be painted
green with...
Mancino: What's behind the lettering? The Chanhassen lettering? What's
the?
' 1 a change in the same type Warner That's merely g YP e of material. It's
a limestone but this would be a smooth face and this is a rough cut
material. So it is the same material, come from the same quarry. It
would have the same color but it would have a different relief. This is II
course texture block and this is a smooth texture san finish.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 25
Farmakes: I talked to Todd a little bit about that. What we had
' discussed in the meeting that there were some differences of opinion as to
that stone. I still feel a Kasota creme colored limestone or the Chaska
golden color limestone was better for the rough treatment and a whiter
limestone behind the lettering. We're talking about the same quarries.
Same limestone but different types of limestones.
Barry Warner: That's correct. It's basically how the material is
quarried.
Scott: Where is this going to be located and what is the orientation
going to be relative to the?
Barry Warner: It's in the northeast quadrant of Market and Highway 5.
And there will be some landform that will be required. Some grading work
to allow the sign to be situated so that it can be seen and there is going
to be some landscaping behind it.
11 Scott: So it's going to be oriented, so if we were to look at this.
Barry Warner: If you're westbound on Highway 5, the sign is going to be
facing you.
Scott: Okay.
' Mancino: And if you're eastbound?
Barry Warner: You're still going to be seeing it because it's a round,
it's a radius wall and that expression is going to be seen for traffic
that would be on westbound as well. If you're westbound, I'm sorry. I've
confused you. If you're eastbound on Highway 5, the sign's oriented
11 towards you. If you're westbound, you're still going to be picking it up
but to a lesser degree.
Farmakes: The one thing that I didn't understand, and it was a recent
petition, is the extension's coming out from the wall and I understand
that the purpose was to blend it into the contouring of the landscaping
that they were going to do. But what I don't understand, it's difficult
11 to assess what that is achieving when it's cut up like that on the drawing
and the overhead. There's an overhead and the illustrative drawing here.
It's cut off. You're not seeing it in any relationships. I guess the
illustration isn't really achieving the purpose naturally for me anyway.
Barry Warner: Well let's state to what the objective is rather than what
the graphic is saying. The objective is to make the monument sign in
scale with the area. The comment came specifically from Bill Morrish and
he felt that if the radius sign would walk around in a stepped fashion and
walked back into the adjacent grade, that in fact it would appear more
11 comfortable with the area. So that's what we're 'trying to respond to.
Farmakes: The one thing that's missing off of here in relationship is
11 there is landscaping in front of that sign. It appears to be more massive
here than.
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 26 1
Barry Warner: In front of the sign or in back of it?
I
Farmakes: In front of it. Isn't there flower plantings in front of it?
Barry Warner: There's flower plantings, right. 1
Farmakes: How much height from the baseline that you're showing here?
Barry Warner: Well it depends on the variety of flowers that we put in 1
front of it but I would imagine you're looking at 12 to 15 inches.
Mancino: Barry, what kind of plantings are going in behind it?
II
Barry Warner: There are canopy trees, maples that are kind of frame if
you will the image to the church tower. In fact if you sit, if you're
eastbound on Highway 5 and you're sitting at the intersection, the II
plantings through the sign will actually frame the church tower.
Scott: We're talking about two structures? II
Farmakes: These landscaping plans that you're looking at here are not th
ones he's talking about. That is not relevant to what he's talking about
Scott: This has nothing to do with that?
Farmakes: Correct. II
Scott: Okay.
I/
Farmakes: The only thing, the wall itself that you're looking at there is
relevant to scale to what is being discussed.
Conrad: So this shows the relationship though to the highway? 11
Scott: This is by Holiday and I have no idea.
II
Conrad: I'm real interested in how that's oriented.
Scott: Yeah, I don't know yet either. 1
Farmakes: The confusion is that there's two signs. Two locations. You're
dealing with the one on Market. This is the scaled down version. It's
really the last page is all you should be looking at.
Scott: Jeff, if we were, let's take that radius view of the top. If
il
that's an aerial view, is it south?
Farmakes: It'd be southeast. No, excuse me, southwest. Yeah, slightly
southwest. 1
Barry Warner: For your orientation, Highway 5 is shown at the bottom.
Market Boulevard is oriented to the north. If you can imagine, if you're "
sitting eastbound on Highway 5, this is in the northeast quadrant and the
sign is oriented to you. But the question was before, if you're going
II
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 27
westbound, can you still see the sign? Yes you will because you'll be
staged at this point. This exact traffic island currently exists. And
the question about the landscaping, I believe that this isn't quite the
1 current drawing but in essence there would be massings of maple trees that
would provide and frame a view of the church steeple.
Farmakes: The long term thinking for this signage was that there'd be,
these sign repeated in east and west entrances of downtown. So what
you're looking at here is the center sign on Highway 5
Conrad: And the orientation Jeff is really to the west?
Farmakes: It splits the difference. The orientation that they have here.
11 Conrad: It's really not good for anybody driving east to west.
Farmakes: Correct but if you have been driving from the east, you would
11 have passed one...but that's one of the sites that's in consideration.
Barry Warner: That's correct. In fact I think that the Morrish group had
just presented, as you might remember, to the Highway 5 Task Force, the
notion that there might be another type of monument at that point. So for
traffic that is going from east to west, that would be one of the
locations. You might remember back some months, actually a year ago we
took a look at both quadrants and this is much more accepting of some type
of a monument because if you look at the west side, you have a wetland
basin that's situated there and that would require significant filling to
make any type of a platform on which the sign would be situated.
Councilman Wing: This isn't an east /west orientation of this sign. Market
Boulevard and TH 101 is the main road coming from the south. For the
south entryway monument and...so this really isn't oriented east and
west... Is that correct? That's how I remember it.
Farmakes: I think also, eventually isn't TH 101 will wind up coming up
through there? Coming from the north so it's kind of splitting the
difference but you have to view this as in use with other signage. With
other monuments so you actually get a repeat impression. The purpose of
this is not to be a 360 degree reading.
Barry Warner: That's correct Jeff. And the other thing you might recall
11 is that when the Target parcel was applied for, there were provisions made
in the outlots adjacent to County Road 17 and Highway 5 that there might
also be some type of a some monumentation adjacent in the northeast
11 quadrant so think of them as Jeff is doing it. There's a series of these
announcing and providing monumentation for the city.
Conrad: Take us back to the other diagram please. The scale is real big.
The height of that is 10 feet?
Barry Warner: That is correct. But one needs to also keep in mind that
the grade is dropping off so that the sign from a vehicle is not going to
seem massive by any means. The grade is dropping off. The sign is set
back into the northeast quadrant and also it's a fairly generous parcel so
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 28
we believe that because of that, the scale is more consistent. Actually II
at times in the, this sign has really gone through a significant
evolution. I mean it's been around for 3 years? In varying forms and we
believe that this is the strongest candidate because it has been reduced
in size from what we even had pursued a few months ago. It's more in
keeping with the parcel. The way it steps. Is consistent with the
topography and so on.
Mancino: In the final construction, who's actually overseeing, who's 11
picking out all the materials and...?
Barry Warner: Well I can't answer that entirely, but there's really three"
groups of people that are involved here. Jeff, staff and ourselves. It
has gone through a number of iterations. Our specifications at this poin
have been written and I think there needs to be more dialogue in terms of
what specific quarry the material's going to come from.
Conrad: Jeff, you're comfortable with the scale? You've been part of thll
process.
Farmakes: What I had suggested in the site is that there still needs to 11
be some site evaluation with sizing. The letters are 2 1/2 feet high.
You can see a 2 1/2 foot high letter. You can get one. You can take it
out to the site. See what it is in relationship to the height. Obviously
giving that kind of mass is going to be difficult. You can peg off where ll
the 65 feet is going to be. As far as the width goes and you can put up
on a, stand on a ladder with a 6 x 9 leaf or piece of styrofoam so you can
see the relationship of mass to the size. This is a very opened up area.
There's a large expanse of highway on one side. There's a wetland there.
And the Americana Bank is set quite a ways back from where it is. There's
a wetland on the opposite side. A lot of open room there. So although i
looks large here, because it's confined within this drawing and it's
actually being cut off on the drawing. There's a lot of area around it.
Conrad: I guess my concern is, just for perspective. A Naegele billboar�
is 10 x 36. The big ones are 14 x 48. This is longer. This is big.
Farmakes: It is set. It's not as high as a Naegele billboard.
Conrad: Right. But it's big and again, that's why site evaluation is
critical. We could, I don't know. It's bigger than what I thought it wa
going to look like.
Farmakes: It's actually smaller than what was originally proposed.
Barry Warner: This is smaller even than it was. 1
Farmakes: I think actually a 2 1/2 foot letter really would be a minimum"
size...
Barry Warner: To help you understand the situation. This is the scale of
an individual right here so I think that gives you some perspective of
what this is going to appear at. However, if you can imagine yourself inil
an automobile, stepped back some significant distance from the sign as we
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 29
have shown in this plan view, to where the vehicle's actually situated,
it's a substantial distance.
Farmakes: The overhead actually is, that's an extension that they've
added to the wall. The wall really is where that gray area is there or
he's shadowed it. Anything above the pink there. The pink is the
planting in front of it so it's only a part of that. So you can see in
relationship to the property, it's quite small. Can you just point out
with your finger, just run it down where the actual wall would be.
Barry Warner: The actual wall is right in here.
Farmakes: The wall, without the little extensions coming off that little
one foot high.
Barry Warner: These are the wing elements that are literally I believe 18
inches in height. They're more of a seeding wall if you will.
' Conrad: What's the drop from the road back to that? How many feet do we
lose?
1 Barry Warner: In terms of elevation?
Conrad: Elevation, yeah.
Farmakes: About equal elevation. Right on the ridge and then it drops
off.
1 Barry Warner: There's about an 8 foot drop. From this point in back.
Farmakes: Once it gets to the planting though on that ridge, they're of
equal with the road height.
Scott: So it kind of dips and comes back up? So you're going.
Barry Warner: There's a swale that comes back in through here. We have
to carry water across the face of the sign. That's one of the reasons the
swale is in.
Farmakes: The elevation that they show here is not the elevation
currently that's on the property, particular as it heads towards the
1 wetland. They would have to build that up a bit.
Barry Warner: There is going to be some filling in this portion of this
basin to accommodate the sign. It's a moderate amount.
Conrad: So from Highway 5, I don't want to belabor this. Let's get out
of here but from Highway 5, it's the same elevation so basically we're
1 going to look at from here to the ceiling is the height of this sign.
Barry Warner: Actually the face of the sign is 6 feet lower than the back
of curb. So it is depressed. Even though it's perched up a little bit.
Farmakes: And the wall is of varying height.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 3, 1993 - Page 30
Conrad: I'm really worried about blocking.
Farmakes: Originally the wall was one flat wall.
Conrad: Yeah, and I like how this has been... 1
Farmakes: It's stepped down so in reality the width really just forms
around the 2 1/2 foot letters. Which again I think are a minimum so
that's, there's no more wall there than...
Conrad: Yeah, I like the lettering...I think that's fine and yeah, I likli
the change in the.
Farmakes: And again, I found that the metal work, again the materials in
the...effect has a lot to do with budget that remains... But the wings
added onto it I guess the verdict's still out as far as my opinion for
that because I'm not, it's difficult to assess based on this particular
drawing on an illustrative approach built into the landscaping. It's
difficult on the overhead for me to assess that that is a good thing to d
versus breaking it up with some smaller plantings. Versus running the 18
inches into the, directly into the ground. I know that in a previous
reincarnation of this, there were I think it's in there, there were sort
of little plantings that sort of followed in a straight line and I don't
think that that would have been right either. It makes it very...
conternporize the feeling of that. This is really a continuation of what
was done up here on Great Plains. The material that's being used in the
oval there for the Dinner Theatre. This is similar to that type of
material. Which is sort of indicative of this area.
Scott: Chaska's got a monument that sounds like it's quite a bit smaller
than that but of similar look. '
Farmakes: Well they have a historic church up there that's made out of
the same material.
Conrad: Okay, any questions for Barry? We don't need to vote on this do 1
we?
Ledvina: No, I like it. 1
Conrad: We're just looking at it. Okay, anything else? '
Scott moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim 1
1
1
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING
i MARCH 11, 1993
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bill Bernhjelm, Dave Johnson, Don Chmiel, Craig
Blechta, Dave Dummer, Brian Beniek
' COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Eldon Berkland
STAFF PRESENT: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
Steve Torell, Building Inspector
Sgt. Julie Boden, CCSO
Bob Moore, 1st Assistant Chief
1 Chairperson Beniek opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Chmiel motioned, Commissioner Johnson seconded, to approve the 2/11/93
' minutes as written with the correction of Commissioner Beniek not attending the Highway 5
Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion passed.
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
Commissioner Beniek, in Chief McMahon's absence, reported the Relief Association is
asking for a benefit increase for retired firefighters. More meetings are to follow with the
Mayor, City Manager and the Fire Relief Board.
Bids have been mailed to six companies for the refurbishing of Truck #210. The truck is
1 expected to be out of service about 6 weeks for this repair.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Sgt. Boden reported the weight restriction signs should be posted within a week. A Weight
Enforcement Officer will be covering the Chanhassen area. The fines for weight violations
constitute a generous portion of revenue.
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
Building Official Steve Kirchman reported about 600 inspections were conducted in
February. The inspectors recently met with the representatives of the proposed weather
station. The government contract requires occupancy of the station by February 1994.
1
1
I Public Safety Commission Meeting
March 11, 1993
1 Page 2
1
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
I Commissioner Johnson (unable to make last meeting) discussed the latest information
available to him on the Highway 5 Committee update was in the packed.
I Public Safe ty staff will work with Commissioner Berkland to submit a report for The
I Villager concerning carbon monoxide.
The issue of stop signs on West 78th Street has been tabled.
1 Building Official Kirchman reported the DNR had established check points along the
snowmobile trails in Chanhassen. Most contacts with snowmobilers was informational with
I positive responses.
Building Official Kirchman and Inspector Torell reported on the Inspections Division's
I preparedness for Emergency Management. Existing EOC and 4 wheel drive vehicles are
integral parts of Inspections Division emergency preparedness. Training of personnel and
continuing the process of equipping vehicles are priorities at this time.
1 Inspector Torell showed a 15 minute video of a past segment of 20/20 concerning
inspectors, contractors, housing and difficulties experienced in Dade County, Florida, after
I hurricane Andrew. Following the video, he answered questions from the Commission.
Inspection Torell thanked the Council, Commission and Director Harr for the support
shown to the inspectors.
Commissioners were reminded of the standing invitation to ride along with the inspectors.
Steve Torell will arrange a tour of the Target store for the next meeting.
I Inspector Torell is drafting a "Welcome to Chanhassen" letter to new homeowners, and
informing them of permit requirements, landscaping requirements, etc.
I Commissioner Bernhjelm commended the inspectors on behalf of the Commission for the
P
I good job they are performing.
in Official Kirchman reported that the Council approved g O p pp roved the bid for the new CSO
I vehicle - a Jeep Cherokee, 4 door, 4 wheel drive.
Regarding the proposed solicitors ordinance, the Council also asked the Public Safety
I Director to draft an ordinance that is a combination of the two different ordinances already
1
1
Public Safe ty Commission Meeting 1
March 11, 1993
Page 3 1
1
drafted. The proposed ordinance would require some level of registration of solicitors and
voluntary property owner placed signage. 1
Commissioner Blechta motioned, Commissioner Johnson seconded, to adjourn the meeting.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1