1j. Minutes II
+ .� 5
Ii
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
I REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 14, 1988
' Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Counci
loran Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving
and Councilman Johnson
1 STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann
Olsen, Jim Chaffee, Lori Sietsema and Todd Gerhardt
STAFF ABSENT: Don Ashworth, City Manager
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda as presented with the following additions. Councilman
Geving wanted to discuss Dial-a-Ride and make a recommendation on a longevity
award for a former employee. Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the clock
tower, Heritage Park, architectural drawings and oil disposal. Mayor Hamilton
wanted to talk about insurance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
b. Resolution #88-18: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Church Road
sanitary sewer improvements and authorize to negotiate change order to the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
c. Approval of preliminary plat to replat 5 commercial lots into. 6 commercial
' lots, T.F. James Company.
k. Approval of CORE Application for Fishing Pier at Lake Ann Park.
m. Approve Settlement for Brian Tichy.
o. Approve City Council Minutes dated February 22, 1988
Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated February 17, 1988
Approve Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 26, 1988
' p. Approval of July 4th Fireworks Contract.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
11 CONSENT AGENDA: (F) SCHWABA-WINCHELL SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS OF FACT.
Roger Knutson: They've agreed to rework what they were doing and they would
like the opportunity to come back to you in two weeks so I would recommend that
1(f) be deleted and not acted upon tonight.
Mayor Hamilton: 1(f) then is deleted.
1
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II
CONSENT AGENDA: (A) APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BLUFF CREEK
I:-
DRIVE.
Councilman Geving: We have a resident here from Bluff Creek Drive and she's
asked me to pull this off for a quick moment to get an idea of where that road
will be moved to across from the bed and breakfast.
Diane Gilbertson: I recently purchased 4 acres across from the bed and
breakfast. I'd like to find out what they're going to do with the road and I
see right now that the road on my side of the road is completely washed out and
will have to be repaired at some point. Major repair or fill in or whatever
they're going to do.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's part of the plan. There's going to be some 1
extensive rebuilding of the road by the bed and breakfast, if that's the
property you're considering.
Diane Gilbertson: Are they rerouting that road?
Mayor Hamilton: Not rerouting it but it is going to move to the northeast
about 10 feet.
Gary Warren: • The complete road from TH 212 up to Pioneer Trail is being
reconstructed or proposed to be reconstructed this year with a bituminous
surface. The area from the southern portion of the project will actually have
curb and gutter, storm drainage, sewer installed to take care of the drainage
problems that are out there. Because the current road alignment is very close
to the bed and breakfast, we have proposed slight movement of the road, 5 or 10
feet, the center line in that location to get it further away from that
property. I
Diane Gilbertson: So you're moving it over on mine or no, you're an easement.
Gary Warren: We are in the process of having easement documents prepared and
will be meeting with the property owners to acquire the easements.
Diane Gilbertson: Do you have any of this on plans or a survey or that I could
see it?
Gary Warren: Yes. I
Mayor Hamilton: I guess what I'd like to do is suggest that you call and meet
with the City Engineer. It'd probably be easier than taking up the time now.
Diane Gilbertson: This is all new. I got a hold of a Chanhassen newspaper
yesterday and that's all I know because I'm not on any mailing lists yet.
Resolution #88-17: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve
the Plans and Specifications for Bluff Creek Drive and to authorize to
advertise for bids. All voted in favor and motion carried.
I
11
zlICD
II
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
CONSENT AGENDA: (D) AWARD OF BIDS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT GRASS RIG.
Councilman Horn: I'm wondering what our legal process is here. It seems to me
in looking through these bids, for very little more money we have an
opportunity to get a heavier duty rig with much heavier duty tires on it. As I
' look through the bids, I found out that one of the items that was proposed as
an option on the recommended bid, the $98.00 was crossed out. Had that been
left in, it would have exceeded the bid for the heavier duty vehicle. I'm
' wondering, are we obligated to take the low bid or go through a total
respecification again or do we have an option of saying that for a few dollars
more we'll exceed the spec and go the heavier duty vehicle? We're talking the
difference here between less than $100.00.
Roger Knutson: Does it stay under $15,000.00?
' Councilman Horn: Yes.
Roger Knutson: You're only required to get quotes and if you've asked the
' quotes from more than one person for the same thing, you're okay. You can
award the change.
Councilman Horn: It just appears to me in looking through this that we have a
' good opportunity to get a heavier duty vehicle with a bigger and heavier duty
tires on it for very little more money. $90.00.
Mayor Hamilton: Was that included in the other ones Clark? Was it included in
one and not the other?
t_
Councilman Horn: All of them were 3/4 ton vehicles except for the one. The
' second lowest bid is a 1 ton vehicle as opposed to a 3/4. The price difference
is like $90.00. It's not 10 ply tires on it. Bigger tires. Heavy duty tire
and it's a bigger vehicle.
' Councilman Geving: It's a good point but maybe one of the reasons was that
they wanted a smaller grass rig.
' Dale Gregory: The reason, to explain that is, the vehicles are all speced out
at 86,000 GVW. Chevrolet has to go to a 1 ton which is considered their 86,000
GVW. Chevrolets, when they spec out their trucks, it's actually a 3/4 ton is
only at about 82,000 or 80,000 GVW. That's why they have to bid a 1 ton just
to meet the specs of a 3/4 ton. Actually the truck, the GVW is still going to
handle the same whether it's Ford's 3/4 ton or Chevrolet's 1 ton.
' Councilman Horn: So you're saying the bid from Nelson-Lenzen isn't the low
bid?
' Dale Gregory: No, I'm not saying there isn't that good of a bid but their
truck is equivalent to Ford's 3/4 ton. When you compare the GVW's of both
trucks, a Chevrolet and a Ford, they both come out at 86,000.
Councilman Horn: I'm talking about the bid for a 3/4 ton Chevy Truck. You're
saying that is not a qualified bid?
I
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 '
Dale Gregory: Neither one of them are. Both Chevrolets are P-30's which are 1
ton trucks. They've got 3/4 behind it but it's actually P-30. Both Chevrolets
are actually 1 ton trucks.
Councilman Horn: Okay, so we have a misprint on ours. One was quoted as a 1
ton and one as a 3/4.
Dale Gregory: Right, they're both supposed to be 1 tons. It was a misprint on
there.
Councilman Horn: I noticed that we have a 10 ply all season radials of a
larger diameter for that. What are the other tires?
Dale Gregory: On the Chevrolet? I
Councilman Horn: No, on the recommended bid. They're not speced.
Councilman Johnson: Yes they are.
Councilman Horn: No they're not. It's only size. It doesn't give you the '
plys.
Dale Gregory: The Ford is an LT 235, 85-R. That's what the Ford is. '
Councilman Horn: Co you know the ply? This is other is quoted as a 10 ply
which doesn't seem like a standard tire. It seems like a heavier duty.
Dale Gregory: It's a heavier duty, yes.
Councilman Horn: It seemed like for $90.00 it was probably a good buy. ,
Resolution #88-19: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept
the bid from Thurk Brothers for $14,158.00 for the Fire Department Grass Rig.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: E. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONCEPT PLAN.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item I wanted to have off was item (e) primarily
because I wanted to ask Jim and I didn't get a chance to ask him today, I
forgot. It says in your recommendation that, recognizing that time is a
factor. I wasn't sure why time was a factor involved with this. Also, because
after the referendum I ask talked with the City Manager at some length about
what our next steps ought to be in dealing with each and every one of these
items. Those that had passed and those that had not passed. I don't feel that
I've been answered yet. Consequently, I'm not sure what my options are or what
are the Council's options are at this point in dealing with each and every one
of these items. However, we can move on with the concept plan and discuss it
further down the road. That was my reason for bringing this off. I feel that
I have not been informed as to what our options are as a Council and where we
go from here. I feel that I need to know that before I can start acting on
individual items all of a sudden without knowing the whole picture. I want to
know the whole picture. I
I
.:rr Yid
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
ir-
J' Councilman Geving: Possibly Tom we should have a work session on this whole
thing. We didn't really have a chance to discuss it the night we met to
certify the ballots but I think maybe we should have a full work session and go
through each of our thoughts on just what is our concept now.
' Mayor Hamilton: That's a good idea and that's what I think the staff needed to
put together some information for us on just exactly where we stand. What we
' need to do with those that passed. Those that didn't pass. How do we proceed
with those that passed? That's my concern. I want to know what is available
to us and what is not. Just so the rest of the Council is aware of what my
reasoning is. I wasn't really ready to move ahead with this tonight but
' realizing that the concept plan is strictly a concept plan and there could be
changes made at a later date, I guess I don't have a problem.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Fire Department
Concept Plan as presented. All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: (G) STRATFORD RIDGE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT VARIANCE - FINDINGS
OF FACT.
' Mayor Hamilton: I also asked to have (g) off because I don't agree with the
motion. I don't agree with the Findings of Fact. I find it difficult to
believe that as a Council we can say that there is 31,000 some odd square feet
IF going of space available for these people to have a recreational beachlot and we're
not oin to allow them to have even a canoe rack or a boat or a dock or
a
` anything else. You've got 500 feet of lakeshore. I think it's rather
ludicrous so I totally disagree with our Findings of Fact and our decision.
' Mayor Hamilton moved for denial of the Findings of Facts. There was no second
and motion failed for lack of second.
' Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Findings of
Fact dated March 10, 1988 for Stratford Ridge Recreational Beachlot Variance as
' presented. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and Councilman
Johnson who abstained because he wasn't here for the original vote. The motion
carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: (H) YEAR END FUND CLOSINGS and (L) APPROVAL OF PLUMBING/
HEATING INSPECTOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH HEATING PERMIT AND FEE SCHEDULE.
' Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to discuss 1(h) and 1(1) at the same time since they
are tied together. It's been recommended that we close several of our funds,
which I have no problem with. It's how we use the funds that I was concerned
about. In particular the Plumbing and Heating Inspection on a full time basis.
Again, this is an item that I have talked to the City Manager about many times.
I feel uncomfortable that we are now going to institute a full-time position
without having reviewed all over positions within the city and looking at other
jobs that I think are more important than this one. This could go forward on a
job basis as we have been doing in the past with Hubert Forcier and I see no
' reason why we shouldn't continue to do that process until such time as we have
reviewed all the staff and know what our staffing needs are for the future in
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II
this city. I'm very concerned about that.
"-
Councilman Boyt: I would disagree. The reason is not, I actually find myself
accepting your logic of reviewing the positions in the city to see what we need
but I think we desperately need someone to carry out a qualified heating
inspection. We have gone too long without that and everytime we do, it's a
risk. I think we have an opportunity here to staff this position for a year
with the intent that it would continue but let's get somebody on board who can
work closely with the city staff and develop the kind of relationship that we
want to have with our contractors and make a commitment to this. It deserves a
full commitment.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm not saying it doesn't deserve a full commitment. It needs
to be delayed until such time as we have reviewed all other positions in the
city. We've been doing quite well on a per job basis with Mr. Forcier and I
see no reason why that can't continue for a short period of time, like a month
or so. That's all I'm asking.
Councilman Geving: Let's understand one thing though Tom. Mr. Forcier is no
longer available to use so your concept of having someone like Mr. Forcier is
really what you're talking about. I kind of agree with you. I got the
impression in reading my notes that we've already found an individual. Someone
is working. I'm not so sure that's really the proper way of going about this.
I get the direct impression that, in fact it even says it, we have researched
the possibility of a mechanical inspector to carry out this and we think that
we found this person. I think we need to study it and I would go along with
your feelings on item 1(1) . I know it's tied in with the funding but
regardless of that, I would like to see us approve the funding transfers and
table this particular item 1(1) .
Councilman Boyt: I'm not sure we can discuss an item that's tabled but I would
say that number one, it is my understanding that we have been out and
identified an excellent person for this position. I think that going through
the hiring process is going to take a bit of time but this is not a time to be
fooling around with whether or not we need somebody as a heating and plumbing
inspector. We all agree we need somebody. We have the possibility of an
excellent candidate and I think we need to take all haste to move on this.
This is not a time to be stepping back and risking losing an excellent person
while we rethink this.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Resolution #88-20
the Year End Fund Closings as presented by the City Manager and to table the
approval of the Plumbing/Heating Inspector in conjunction with the Heating
Permit and Fee Schedule. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and
Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
CONSENT AGENDA: (J) APPROVAL OF JULY 4TH BAND CONTRACT.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the July 4th Band
Contract as presented by the City Manager. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
I
CONSENT AGENDA: (N) ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DATED MARCH 14, 1988.
IMayor Hamilton: I don't know what the rest of you had but as I was readin g
through mine, I had 10 pages all exactly the same. I'm not sure how this
happens. I don't know if there's supposed to be 1 page or 10 pages. They are
all the same. I wish we could avoid that in the future. I didn't know if
there was supposed to be more. Does anybody know?
Barbara Dacy: Our accounts payable are handled by Jean and we'll certainly
make sure that it won't happen in the future.
' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Accounts
Payable dated March 14, 1988, page 1 with the understanding that staff will
find out if there were any other pages to be included. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
EVALUATION OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD, LOWELL CARLSON.
Mayor Hamilton: Before we go onto the next item I would like to say that
' anyone who is here for item 9, it is going to be tabled. I talked with Mr.
Carlson this afternoon. He requested that we table that item until two weeks
from this evening and they will be here with a different proposal.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table evaluation of building
• permit application to determine compliance with Conditional Use Permit for a
Contractor's Yard for Lowell Carlson. All voted in favor and motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION:
' John Pryzmus: A few weeks ago I was here and I proposed to have a commercial
building on my recreational site out on TH 5 and CR 117. At that time the
22,000 square foot building was denied. I worked with staff and I worked with
' the SBA and the lenders and at that time I lost my financing but I've come up
with a 75% less in the building that will more conducive to the state homes in
that area and the agricultural zoned thing. I had a rendering of a building,
' what it will look like. It will be a two story home. It will look the same as
a home. There won't be a second floor in it. It will just be a 16 foot high
wall on the side. I think what I need is one of the members of the Council
that voted against it to reinstate it so I can come back with the plans. This
' building would be like a 3 car attached garage and the house would be 3,000
some square feet so it would be like a big home. If I could get someone I
guess, is that what I need to have a councilmember?
Mayor Hamilton: You want us to reconsider the action on your last?
John Pryzmus: Reconsider with a different building and different structure.
Councilman Boyt: 4,000 feet altogther?
John Pryzmus: This particular one has 3,000 some square feet in the house and
then I think a little less than 1,000 in the garage so it would be about 4,000.
I
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Either Bill, Clark, Jay or Dale would need to make the motion
to reconsider.
Councilman Boyt: My concern was, John I don't want to send you down a '
financially expensive trail preparing things if it's going to be turned down in
the end and I don't think you want to go there. I'm really looking to the
other guys. '
Councilman Johnson: Do we need to reconsider his request because he's got a
different request?
Mayor Hamilton: He's asking us to reconsider the request that was turned down
on whatever date so he can have it on the agenda on the 28th, is that correct?
Barbara Dacy: Right. He can request a reconsideration by Council.
Councilman Johnson: That would get it back to us immediately versus going back
through the process?
Barbara Dacy: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so the reason for reconsideration is different.
What's going to come back to us is going to be different?
Barbara Dacy: Right, and the Council would still have that option at that time
whether or not they would want to send that back to the Planning Commission but
what he's requesting now is whether or not the Council would even consider
reconsidering his original request.
Councilman Johnson: I'll move to reconsider it. We have a different concept
here. Considerably different than the old terminal, truck terminal that was '
being brought in to be constructed on this site and used as indoor golf.
Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion. Is there further discussion?
Councilman Boyt: Yes, there is. I just think Jay that the issue here is
bigger than just shall we go back and take another look at this. We can look
at it again and again and again. John is about to put more money into this
thing and he shouldn't put another dollar into that, getting those drawings
made up, if we don't think we're going to pass it so I don't think this is
simply a matter of saying, well let's look at it again. I think if you vote
for this thing, you're really saying that in all likli.hood you're going to vote
to approve it.
Councilman Horn: I think too, if we're going to reconsider this we're saying '
that the reason we turned it down was not because of an ordinance reason and a
land use reason, it was because of an architectural style. All we're doing is
changing an architectural style. We're not changing the intended use of this '
request at all.
I
IIF :.?? a
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor y Hamilton seconded to reconsider the request by
John Pryzmus on his property located at the northwest corner of TH 5 and CR
117. Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Johnson voted in favor and Councilman Horn,
Councilman Boyt and Councilman Geving voted in opposition to the motion. The
motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess what you're hearing is that there are four people here
' who will not consider anything you do.
Councilman Boyt: I don't think that's my position. I just don't want John to
spend money developing this thing unless people are actually going to vote for
' it. As I told John on the phone, I don't know enough about this issue John to
make an intelligent decision.
' John Pryzmus: I've cut it down 75% so all I need is for a golf pro to be there
no more than 5 months a year so he has an office so he can teach indoors. Now
there's no way I can expand it into being a big recreational commercial site.
So by having a small structure there that I can't do all this commercial stuff,
' that keeps in with an interim use, I thought I could possibly get at least a
vote but like you say, you've already decided you're not going to vote for it
anyway and the same with Clark and the same with Dale, I guess yes, you are
t going to save me. I've spent a couple hundred bucks on this and now I would
have to spend another $500.00 so what you are saying is you are never going to
vote for it anyway and the same with Clark, as you already told me and Dale
said he would look at something but obviously he wasn't because if this
wouldn't be acceptable when I already cut it down 75%. . .you would look at
something but you just wanted to look at it if you're going to vote no anyway
so that's where I'm at.
Councilman Johnson: John, one thing I'm hearing from Clark and it's part of
what I was getting at is you've got to bring something different back. Last
time you came in, if you had said you wanted video golf and indoor golf driving
range and then when you got to Council you also had baseball batting and other
stuff tossed in.
' John Pryzmus: Obviously if I can't come back in front of you, I've already
reduced the size of the building by 75% and I can't even come back in front of
you and reduce it because you won't let me even talk to you again. Like you're
' saying, I've already spent $200,000.00 so I can see your consideration that you
don't want me to spend another $500.00 but I've already lost everything of the
200. So now I know you're really worried about my $500.00 but you won't even
' let me come back and talk to you. All the less, I can't obviously put in 8
batting cages and have all that. All I can have is golf pro with some nets and
that's all I can have but you won't even give me that chance.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think we're getting a little past where we ought to be here.
I think John has received his answer and I think he had some options available
to you and that's to go back through the whole process again. Through staff,
through Planning Commission.
John Pryzmus: I don't think I can.
1
:. .A
a
IICity Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Yes you can. You just have to reconsider for batting
cages and the whole works. That was what we just voted on. To redo the exact
!—
same thing over again. That plan doesn't count really.
John Pryzmus: Staff said I had to come to you first.
Barbara Dacy: One of his options was to come back to the Council to have it
reconsidered. Another option was to refile the application. We both had
discussed that issue and we felt that coming back to the Council would be the
first step. He always has the option to come back at any time. Any applicant
does.
Councilman Horn: With a different proposal. '
Barbara Dacy: Somebody can come through the process over and over again with
the same thing if they so desire. '
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know what else to tell you John. I guess all you can
do is try to convince somebody that they're making a mistake.
Jack Brambilla: I'm a taxpayer in Chanhassen. I own a little piece of
property down by the "Y". It's 609 Flying Cloud Drive. I have a note I want
to give to each one of you people. I have two things underlined in my proposed
report tonight that I'm going to bring up. It will be real quick. I have a
piece of property there that I'm trying to rent out. I stood in front of this
Council 11 years ago. I don't know if it's the same members or not and they
authorized me under Ordinance 47-C to put a little used car operation. It took
me one year through your Council to get okayed. I lost all my connections with
my finances. I lost everything. I still own the property. 10 years down the
road I finally own it. I pay a lot of taxes. Now I approach the City and I
have a renter that wants to go into that little piece of property and put in
there a nursery. Under the Ordinance 47-C, commercial greenhouses or
landscaping are okay. Same property. I've been informed by Barbara that I can
not put this man in there. I want to know for what reason. I've got the same
property. The same buildings. Everything's the same. Under item 2 it says
commercial greenhouses and landscaping business okay. Why can't I put this man
right in there tomorrow and he can start his operation? If I wait two months,
the landscaping business is gone. He don't need it in two months. He needs it
now.
Mayor Hamilton: Would you care to answer Barb?
Barbara Dacy: Sure. The reason why is because that ordinance is no longer
valid that you quote. Ordinance 47-C is a former ordinance. As we had talked
on the phone, the City adopted a new ordinance in February of 1987. There are
only five uses that are allowed in your district. All of them are conditional
uses. I had thought as to what we had agreed on doing is that you would submit
an application for your client to submit an application for outdoor display for
merchandise for sale which is a listed commercial use and I'd be happy to meet
with you again and go over this. I just think we've got some miscommunication.
II
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
T
Mayor Hamilton: I certainly would think that staff would give every
consideration and the Council would so all you have to do is go through the
process.
Jack Brambilla: Mayor, if I go through the normal process and I was informed
by Barbara, this would be about a month and a half to two months before I'm
even in front of you. My renter does not need this property two months down
the road. He needs it today for the greenhouse business. In 10 days when the
' weather breaks, he's got to be there to make it. He's got to be there or he
don't need it.
Mayor Hamilton: I understand that business and I guess I would think, if your
renter was thinking ahead he would have been doing this a long time ago if he
was looking at your property. We have a process we have to go through and we
can't change that. We really can't. If we change it for you then we change it
for everybody then there's no order to anything. It's just a process that's
very orderly and one that has to be followed.
Jack Brambilla: Again Mayor, when this was all wrote up to me 10 years ago and
you were on the Council at that time.
Mayor Hamilton: Not 10 years ago, no.
Jack Brambilla: When I received the okay to operate off that it was 10 years
111 ago. I never received in the mail anything to change what I already had bought
and now I'm just asking for what I already own. You're taking it away from me.
I've paid my taxes. I get nobody hounding and knocking on my door. Now I
finally get a chance to put the property to a decent use. The fellow is going
' to clean it up. If you look on the one page I gave you where the City
recognized that they wanted some landscaping done on it. They wanted me to
plant some trees 10 years ago. It was a recommendation. I do have the
paperwork. Now I'm going to do it.
Mayor Hamilton: I would guess if you worked with the staff and went through
the process, I'm sure we can move it through as quickly as possible. I would
be willing to bet that the person who's wanting to move in there, if it's that
good of a location, he's going to stick with you and go along with it.
' Jack Brambilla: Again, do I have to wait the two months? Through the process
here is slow.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd call Barbara tomorrow and just see how quickly you
' can move it through the process.
Barbara Dacy: Maybe the Attorney can help out here too. We're dealing with
State Statute requirements for a public hearing for a conditional use.
Jack Brambilla: When I purchased the land and I was in front of the Council,
the City of Chanhassen, Carver and Hennepin County gave me this paper and I was
informed that this was what I had to abide by. I'm doing it. Now I'm being
slapped on the rear because you changed your ordinance. You never changed it
with me. I was never notified.
I
I
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II
Mayor Hamilton: If you read the papers, it's in there all the time. We went
through a very, very lengthy process to change our ordinances and it's up to
you to keep yourself informed as well as it's up to us to try and inform the
public. We make every attempt to do that but there is some notice on you to
make sure that you're informed when you own property in the City to know what's
happening. This was about a 2 or 3 year process we went through changing our
ordinances. It was all published. There were public hearings. On and on so
it wasn't as if anybody was trying to keep any information from you. We were
hopeful that everybody in town was aware of it and had seen it.
Jack Brambilla: Again Tom, how about if I would have had the nursery in there?
Would I have had to pull it out?
Mayor Hamilton: No. You know that. Life never stays the same. Everything
keeps changing.
Jack Brambilla: Taxes go up. After I bought it was $400.00 and now it's '
$1,800.00 and I still can't use it. I can't believe it.
Mayor Hamilton: That's why I would encourage you to work with the staff and '
get the process accomplished as quickly as possible.
Jack Brambilla: Is there going to be, if I tell my renter that wants to go in
there, is there going to be any major dilemmas? Can I tell him he can print
his literature up and get started on it? It's going to take him 30 days to set
up.
Mayor Hamilton: You can't do that based on anything we're doing here.
Jack Brambilla: Do I have a dilemma here when I get to this point to be turned
down?
Councilman Geving: I think that's the risk that you're asking yourself to take
with your renter. I think, at least I'm sympathetic to what you're asking for.
I don't know how the rest of the Council members feel but it's just that you
have to go through the process and I don't know how soon you can get back here.
I'm just looking at the calendar. I suspect the earliest would be April 11th.
That would be pushing it.
Mayor Hamilton: There are many things to take a look at. Traffic for one
thing and ingress and egress so we can not not look at those items. Those are
very important and we can't... That's a bad intersection as you know.
Jack Brambilla: I went through the traffic. I went through the lighting. I I
went through the advertising. The sign permit. I've been in meetings over
here where nobody even showed up and that's the sign committee. They never
even showed up. If this is going to be another year deal, I can't handle it. '
Mayor Hamilton: I would just encourage you to work with Barb and I'm sure she
has told you it would not be a year deal and if you are not satisfied working
with here, I wish you would get in touch with me.
[1:1!
Jack Brambilla: I can see Barbara in the morning. Thank you for your time.
r
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Barb, will he need a DOT? Will he need something from
' MnDot for access?
Barbara Dacy: He's already got an existing access. It's hard to say right
now.
Councilman Johnson: Local government is hard enough but working with the State
is something else.
Don Krueger: Gentlemen, my name is Don Krueger. I live in Chaska, Minnesota.
' The wife and I built, own and operate the Heritage Motel. The reason I'm here
tonight, I've called planning and zoning of Chanhassen and talked to a lady by
the name of Jo Ann. Told her what I wanted and she suggested I come to this
' meeting and take up a few minutes of your time to tell you. My situation is
I'm not located right on the highway so I have not got the exposure I need. I'm
also covered up by True Value's warehouse and buildings so people coming from
the east can not see our hotel until they are past it. I have a small sign at
the entrance of Yellow Brick Road and that brings in some people but it's not
bringing in enough. I guess what I'm asking, and I've talked to two landowners
along TH 212 east very close to where that man's property is and they agreed
that if I got a variance and approval, I could put up a sign on their property.
I'm asking what procedure do I go through to get something done.
Mayor Hamilton: Jo Ann, would you like to respond to this?
Jo Ann Olsen: I explained to him that he would have to get the variance to the
sign ordinance. He would have to go in front of the Planning Commission and
City Council and once again, they wanted to know whether or not that would be
an acceptable proposal. I explained to them what staff's position was likely
going to be but he also wanted to hear the City Council's.
' Mayor Hamilton: Again, it's a process that we have in place that we need to go
through which we need to follow the same for your case as we would for any
' other so you need to make application with the City. With Jo Ann or with
Barbara and they would be in the office tomorrow if you would want to stop up
and make application for a variance to the sign permit. That would be your
starting place and then you would be placed on the Planning Commission agenda
and then the Council's.
' PUBLIC HEARING: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS ALLOCATION FOR YEAR
XIV.
Barbara Dacy: Staff's recommendation is that for the upcoming Year XIV
11 allocation of $32,197.00, we would suggest that the Council expend those monies
for the South Shore Senior Center for a variety of projects which are detailed
in the memo. Then, Council in the near future would be conducting a public
hearing for reallocation of the Year XIII monies which expire at the end of
1988. As you recall, we had designated those funds for handicapped access for
the Community Center but given the referendum vote, that puts that project in
jeopardy so in the future staff would be bringing back a public hearing request
to reallocate those funds for a housing/rehab project. However again, the
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
action tonight is for Year XIV and staff is recommending that the full
1:-
allocation be for the South Shore Seniors.
Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple of questions. Specifically, we have a senior
center that meets in the elementary school in Chanhassen once a week. I would r
suspect that they may have some needs that we may be able to use some of these
funds for also. I'm curious if that had even been addressed, number one.
Number two, I would be interested to know if there are other uses that we could
put this money to rather than designating the entire amount to the South Shore
Center, which would certainly be a good use. However, they have requested
$15,000.00. I certainly have no problem with that. I think we could use some
of these funds for other purposes within the City and I would certainly like to
see us take a look at, which I have mentioned in the past. I'm not sure how
many of the people from Chanhassen go to the South Shore Center. I know there
are some. I know there are some and I would like to know kind of on a
percentage basis or in the numbers of those who go just to the Jr. High and
don't go to South Shore or can't get there or something. I'm just concerned
that we have two centers going here. We've done, I think a good job of funding
our share of that center in the past and I think we'll continue to do that but
I think there are other alternatives to be looked at for the use of these
funds. It would seem to me that right now would be a good time to do that when
we haven't anything real pressing, let's take a broad look at other uses that
we can put some of these funds to.
Councilman Geving: Tom, I would like to comment at the same time. We have
been a big supporter of the South Shore Senior Center and I think Jo Ann will
agree that we have done more than our share assisting the South Shore Seniors
each year in the tune of $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 so I think we've made that
attempt. We will continue to make that commitment to the center. I too feel
that we have $32,000.00 here tonight and I don't think we have discussed all
the alternatives in Chanhassen. For example, one that I can see immediately
and I hope that it can apply, we're going to be talking about the Dial-a-Ride
system that we're going to install here in Chanhassen on April 4th. One of the
big problems that seniors have is getting to the Senior Center. I'm thinking
that possibly we could allocate a portion of these funds to the supplier of our
transportation services so that the seniors can have pick-up/delivery. Pick-up
at their home and delivered to the senior center and returned each time that
they want to go to the senior center. I don't know if that's an applicable
award item. Maybe you could address that Barbara. You don't have to address
it tonight. The main thing is that I'm going to throw that out as a potential
item because I do believe that transportation, the funding of a van for
example, is not dissimilar to what I'm proposing. I would like to see some of
these monies allocated to our own seniors here in Chanhassen and at the same
time try to look at funding the seniors at the South Shore Center.
Barbara Dacy: I'll let the seniors address the exact percentages. It was my r
understanding that a number of them did participate in the South Shore Center.
In any case, to answer your second question about looking at the alternatives,
remember that the CDBG funds are tied. You have to prove, not only a benefit
to low and moderate income people but there are other tests that Chanhassen in
the past has had. We traditionally had a hard time meeting those tests for the
Community Development Block Grant program. For example, we looked at land
acquisition in the downtown area and $32,000.00 is not a substantial amount of
r
1/ . .
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
ilit money to carry out any type of those types of projects. We can certainly look
into those options with the seniors in Chanhassen. Maybe the seniors again can
help me out here but part of their request is for a van that supposedly is
going to be provide some transportation services for then but I'm not sure
IIexactly what they had planned for that so maybe they can help me out.
Jo Ann: I don't want to differentiate or say the South Shore Seniors and the
II Chan Seniors. The South Shore Senior Center is for and has at least 25% of the
attendance from Chanhassen I would say. However, I can not ever count. It's
very difficult to locate where people live due to their zip codes. Everybody
II tells you they live in Excelsior, 55331. We get some than who live at 55317
but it's an extremely difficult task. The seniors that meet here in Chanhassen
they do not have a senior center. They have a senior club that meets once a
week and they have pot luck or whatever and it's a very valuable social tool
I for them. I would never say anything to the contrary. The South Shore Senior
Center offers many, many things that a senior can not get on a weekly basis.
Going and eating and playing cards so I don't really think you can equate the
I two. Now the van that we're asking the $5,000.00 for, our agency wrote and
received a grant from MnDot for a new van that we heard about last spring. We
hope we'll get it within a year. We need to come up with a $5,000.00 match.
That's their requirement and when Barbara called and talked about CDBG funds
I and where might we use them, that's one of the things that we thought we could
put the money to good use. That van picks people up in Chanhassen. It does
not go to Chaska and many of your people who live within the downtown area of
li Chanhassen do not come to the South Shore Senior Center. They are very happy
with their weekly outing. Going to their club meetings. However, we have many
people who live in Chanhassen further out TH 7 and so on, that come to that
center. The other money that I think we requested when Barbara said there was
I extra money was to be put to use for a possible study of what we're going to do
in the next 3 to 5 years when the school district is going to tear down the old
Senior High School. So we thought that might be a good way to use the funding.
IIMayor Hamilton: I think that we probably have the same concern here that when
the old High School is torn down, we may be looking at wanting to have a senior
I center similar to that in Chanhassen someplace. Not necessarily in downtown
but somewhere within the community so it would be a good opportunity to use
some of those funds for exactly the same study from our perspective. What
happens if South Shore has changed it's location or when the school is gone so
II would like to see us allow the $15,000.00 of the CDBG funds to go to the
South Shore Senior Center and just hold off on the remaining $17,197.00 until
such time as staff has had an opportunity to research additional opportunities
I for us to use those funds. Whether it's to do a study for or with South Shore
on their center, with one in Chanhassen or some other item that we're not
really aware of at this time.
1 Jo Ann: Can I say just one more thing? I would hope that if a center ever
came to be out in this community, that it would not just be a Chanhassen center
but that it would be a combined effort of the unities that we're working with
IInow. I really feel that that would be a very, very thing for this community.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's the approach that we have always taken. That
II it's not the Chanhassen Center. That South Shore is not Excelsior or
Chanhassen or anybody else. It's a combination of 5 or 6 communities and it's
II
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
always fun to go there to have breakfast with the wonderful people up there and
to see the other people from the other communities. It really is.
Councilman Geving: Before we vote on that, is $15,000.00 sufficient for you
now to move ahead Jo Ann? The Mayor has made a recommendation and a motion.
Jo Ann: I believe that would cover the initial request which was $6,000.00
something.
Councilman Geving: $6,668.00.
Jo Ann: And the van. That would not leave much over for a study but... '
Mayor Hamilton: There would be a little excess there and realizing that
there's also an additional $17,197.00 that we need to dispose of here in the
near future and some of that may also be passed onto the South Shore.
Councilman Boyt: I agree that the $6,668.00 portion of the salary for the
Center Coordinator should be given to the South Shore Senior Center for all the
reasons we've mentioned. I think that when it comes to the van, if we're
providing roughly 25% of the attendance in the senior center, it's reasonable
to provide 25% of the amount of money for the van. I'm a bit surprised that we 11 haven't involved the community more in coming up with other ideas for how we
will spend this money. We know that we're going to have the opportunity every
year. Just quickly glancing through it, I came up with one that the Public
Safety Commission has been discussing at some length and that other communities
have had funded is a civil defense siren. There's a pretty strong feeling by
some parts of the community that they would like to have a civil defense siren
cover their area that's not now covered. I think the cost for that is
$12,000.00. Jim Chaffee had that figure but it looks as though he might have
left. I would suggest that that could cover $12,000.00 of that money. A
couple of other quick possibilities. I think that we should approach the
possibility of a neighborhood clean-up. Since rehabilitation is one of the
accepted uses for this money, the City could provide an advertising effort and
some trucks to go around and pick-up whatever people have in their yard that
they want to get rid of. I think that would do a good job to benefit the whole
community. There are several other items but those are just a couple. I think
when it comes to the senior citizen center, we certainly want to participate.
I think we should do our fair share but I don't think we should do a great deal
more than our fair share because it takes away from other worthy projects.
Councilman Horn: I was a little disappointed when I went through this list of
the other cities and their projects, that we didn't see them all because they
seemed to have a lot of good ideas in there. In fact, many of them are related
to transportation. Sewer and water connections and things like that. I would
be relunctant to go along with anymore than the basic request this evening
until we've had a chance to study just what our options are in those areas.
Some possibilities might be some continued funding of our coalitions and that
type of thing but again, we don't know what the options are and I'd like to
just agree with Bill that we make the minimum commitment tonight until we know
what our options are.
C)
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I support the Mayor's motion, to tell you the truth. I
think it puts out to a very vital part of our community, our seniors, which
there is a very large group of. I was surprised when I went to the Senior
Center the couple times I've been there and how many folks from Chanhassen were
' there and they actually knew they lived in Chanhassen. It's a great little
center. I'm sorry to hear that you're going to have some housing problems
coming up in a couple years because that's really going to be a real problem
and I foresee a problem for a senior center for our seniors and we should put
' money that way to help solve those problems our seniors are going to have in a
few years. I support the $15,000.00 at this time and I also think it's a good
idea to hold back and take a broader look at the hotel and all these other
projects that it can be used for. I think Tom's come up with a good fair split
that will immediately start helping our seniors and hold back some for
everything else.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
' Resolution #88-21A: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
allocate $15,000.00 of the Community Development Block Grant Funds for the Year
XIV to the South Shore Senior Center. The remaining $17,197.00 shall be
' allocated at a future meeting after staff has researched additional
opportunities for these funds. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and
Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOTS 1
AND 2, CHADDA ADDITION, BUILDING BLOCK DAYCARE, HERB MASON AND ROGER PAULY.
Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Resolution #88-22: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
Vacation Request #88-2 of the existing sanitary sewer easement located on Lots
' 1 and 2, CHADDA Addition, Building Block Daycare, Herb Mason and Roger Pauly's
property. All voted in favor and motion carried.
' ACCEPT TETON LANE FEASIBILITY STUDY.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we've all had an opportunity to read all of the
information and comments that have gone on about this project. It's been to us
before so we're not unfamiliar with it. I know there are several of you here
this evening who may wish to make comments but we'll have a brief staff report
and then we'll entertain comments from the public.
Bill Engelhardt: I'm here tonight to present the feasibility study for Teton
Lane. Just to briefly update you. This is the Centex Project Phase 1 which is
' under construction. Phase 2 to explain why the feasibility study was done was
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
to try and find a third access for the 2nd phase so that would eliminate the
long cul-de-sac. Three alternatives were studied. Alternative #1 was a
overview of the project in upgrading Teton Lane, an existing gravel road, to a
private drive. Alternate #1 was looked at as a sole development section for
illustrative purposes only. We did go through and run numbers to determine
assessments for sanitary sewer and water, curb and gutter and the full depth
street section. Alternate #1 then would utilize the existing right-of-way of
Teton Lane plus an additional 17 feet of right-of-way that would have to be
acquired from the Donovan property and the full street section would be
constructed. I won't go into a lot of detail. I've got some drawings on
sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer was in this basic alignment. Put the
watermain also in connection into Road G. Alternate #2 was an interim method
we felt that would provide adequate traffic patterns for the Centex
development. It was proposed that existing Teton Lane would be paved. There
would be some minor regrading and reshaping and the drainage would be
controlled with bituminous berms versus concrete curb and gutter. The ultimate
section or the Alternate #1 would only be constructed when the adjacent
property owners determine that they would like to develop and it's been made
very clear in all the homeowner meetings that, at least in the case of Mr.
Donovan, that he is not desiring to do any kind of developing and he can speak
to that issue himself but it was made very clear that he was not interested in
doing any development. The Alternate #2 cost was proposed to be directly
assessed or put back against the Phase 2 development of Centex. We felt it was
a direct benefit to the developer versus any of these people already have
access to the roadway and then to CR 17. The third alternate was a completely
Ell
separate alternate. A way from Teton Lane was providing a connection to CR 17
via the city property. Centex development would lose one lot in there but we
felt that there were some land exchanges that could take place and this was a
viable alternative and that would completely eliminate the use of Teton Lane as
a roadway except for a small portion of it where Mr. Natoli would have access
onto what we call Road G, to utilize the alternate to CR 17 as an
ingress/egress. The Ware property accesses through the Pickard property
through an easement to Lilac Lane and the Pickard property accesses to. Lilac
Lane. The Donovan property, they access onto Lilac Lane in this area. If
you'd like I could go into the costs a little bit and some of the details of
the assessments or if you want we could just open it up to questioning.
Mayor Hamilton: The costs seem to speak for themselves. I don't know if the
rest of the Council wants to rehash them or not. I don't think it's necessary.
Councilman Geving: I think the letter of March 10th is very important to this
whole process. The letter from Centex. Maybe you could address that. ,
Bill Engelhardt: I haven't seen that one. I didn't hear anything.
Gary Warren: We got that at the last minute when the staff reports went out. '
Any specific part of that Dale?
Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure that the homeowners are even aware that I
this letter is in existence. Are the homeowners aware of this?
Donna Pickard: Yes, we got a copy of it today. '
1
1 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
' Councilman Geving: The reason I ask that this be highlighted is because this
is a little bit different scenario than what was presented at the homeowners
meetings with them on the 9th. As I read this now, Atlernate #1, 2 and 3,
particularly in Alternate #2, as I understand it, would the Centex Development
' Corporation agree to pick up all of these costs in Alternate #2?
Gary Warren: That was a proposal that they would do the...
' Councilman Geving: And they agreed to that, is that correct?
' Gary Warren: From what I understand, yes. We don't have anything in writing.
Councilman Geving: Because it seems to me the number one fear that I read
throughout the Minutes of your meeting was the people and their concern for any
' assessments for the improvement of using Alternate #2.
Gary Warren: There was a lot of discussion to explain Alternate #1 and #2.
' There was confusion as to what Alternate #1 was and they were looking at the
assessments as they relate to Alternate #1. We explained that that was sort of
a base start. That Alternate #2 was not assessable the way it was set up.
Councilman Geving: Did you show all of the homeowners your summary of costs
and the feasibility on page 3 for Alternate #1, 2 and 3 so they were totally
aware?
Gary Warren: They have a complete copy of the feasibility study.
' Mayor Hamilton: So we don't need any additional financial information, I don't
believe. Do you have anything else Bill that you would like to say?
Bill Engelhardt: No, unless you have some questions that you want me to dig
' into, I'll do that but like I said, everyone seems to be pretty aware of it.
We've had two homeowners meetings. We've had very good participation and they
were excellent meetings. We had some back and forth comments and it worked out
' real well.
Mayor Hamilton: Do Centex representatives have any comments they would like to
make?
' Tom Boyce: I would, for the most part, I think our letter more or less
summarizes our position. Alternative #3, we did take a little closer look at
' it again this afternoon ourselves. I guess one of the other concerns we would
have with Alternative #3 is that the improvements for #3 don't put in sanitary
sewer or watermain thus one of the questions I would.. .
' Mayor Hamilton: I guess I agree with that. I'm not sure that has been clearly
identified yet. I know there are some residents here that would like to make
some comments. If you would, if you have something that's new that we haven't
heard to this point or if there is one person who is going to speak for a group
of you, I would be more than happy to listen. To have you speak and tell us
what it is that your concerns are.
F 1 F�
C
II
ity Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Florence Natoli: We are the most important people on this. We are the
terrible Natolis. Because of us, you've got a problem. There's one question
which I asked at the meeting two weeks ago and it says that the rights to
Teton Lane, to the property owners abutting Teton Lane at cost. Now what does
that mean? What is this at cost that Centex was going to give the land back to
the people living on the road, at cost?
Gary Warren: It's one of the steps that has to be established. I guess right
now the only thing we know is that Centex has a purchase agreement for the
property at $30,000.00 to $35,000.00 which includes some other work for Carlson
out there. We don't know what the extra cost is on that. That's something
that through these purchase agreements and such, will have to be arrived at.
It will be somewhat less than let's say $35,000.00.
Florence Natoli: Can you force us to buy that road if we do not want to buy '
the road?
Gary Warren: If we would do a 429 Assessment Project for example, that was
acceptable, the City could put assessments against the property.
Florence Natoli: Thank you, that was what I wanted to know.
Donna Pickard: I live on the corner of Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. I guess,
were you the one I was talking about the assessments? The neighborhood
understands that Centex was going to pick up the full cost from Alternative #2
and that #1 was, the way it was presented was that it was presented with the
assessments. The thing that we're concerned about is that the road, if #2, if
that was selected, we are worried that that road would not last. I guess the
life of the road is estimated at 5 to 10 years and that the traffic coming from
the development would then determine that the road would be made a full
development and that the neighbors would be assessed for improvements that do
not benefit the people who live on the roads at all. While we understood the
clarifications between #1 and #2, we were worried that we would have to end up
doing #1 anyway, even if #2 were to be selected now. I think there are the few
of us who do live right on the road would be willing to buy the road at a
reasonable cost if that were to happen but we would also like that to be
determined.
Jim Donovan: I'm on the east side of the road there, the majority part of the '
property. My question is, after reading the Centex letter here, first of all -
the last paragraph where they sort of try to hold a loaded gun to the whole
project. I don't believe that for one minute because they've invested too much '
money in the project as it is right now. They're not going to pull out because
of not getting their way in it. They'll do it. That's not a feasible and a
reasonable statement to make in the letter. I hope that the Council realizes
that. Secondly, on Alternative #3, the first paragraph states there that it's
least acceptable to Centex because no provision is made for assessing any
benefitted landowner other than Centex. Well, as been's stated before, none of
the land adjacent to that property is going to benefit from a upgrading of that
property into a 2 inch blacktop road anyway. We use that road, or the other
people use the road now as is. They don't need it to be blacktopped. The
trips that are made per day on that road, right now the road handles very
easily. With the Curry Farm Development going in there, there will be
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
approximately as in your notes there, showing approximately 215 trips a day
which would be 90% of that, 90% to 95% of that would be from Curry Farms
traffic itself. They would be the beneficiaries of this road. Not the people
who currently have property immediately adjacent so that comment in the Centex
1 letter is not correct. We are not the beneficiaries of that road. It is Curry
Farms no matter how you want to state it. I think that the Council should take
into consideration that that road itself, as it stands right now, is more than
' adequate for the needs of the people who use the road right now. We don't need
it blacktopped. We don't need it to be used by Curry Farms people and a 5 to
10 year use, I don't believe that that road would last 5 to 10 years with
trucks, moving trucks, things like that, going over that blacktop road. 5 to
' 10 years is not a reasonable estimate for the lifetime of that type of road. A
2 inch blacktop road. With 215 trips a day, it would never last 5 to 10 years
with our thawing and freezing that we have here. I believe that that's not a
' reasonable estimate to make. Therefore, that would then become a public road
and as such, a public road would mean that the people immediately adjacent to
that road would be taxed to have it upgraded once again either by storm sewer,
' water, whatever it might be there. We then, not benefitting from this road
once again and Curry Farms benefitting from it, we would be the ones who would
be paying for the cost of this rather than Curry Farms. Now if Curry Farms
wants to pay for the entire cost of that right now to upgrade it to a full
' road, that's a different story, to make it last but as it stands right now,
that road would not last. We would not benefit. I think this letter that
Curry Farms sent that I've just seen today, I just received in my mail tonight,
does not really show a true picture of what the story is.
Larry Kerber: I'm sure Alternative #3 does satisfy the Teton Lane and Lilac
' Lane people. It does nothing for me. It makes my situation worse. These
people, if Alternative #3 is passed, they are allowed to buy total privacy for
the cost of whatever they have to pay for that road easement back. Now I had
objections to the street to the south of me. No one came up with a plan like
' this to offer me total privacy or to buy my way out or a relocation of the
street. Alternative #3 is allowing them to do that. I would like to be given
the same opportunity and I'm not. Alternative #3 does not give me an access to
' my property unless I can buy the land that borders the road to the south of it.
So the Alternative #3 is not going to help my access problem. Now if
Alternative #3 is selected, there's a road to the north of me. There's already
a road that goes to the south of me. In checking with Carver County, I found
' out I can get no further access to my property. I'm bound now by what I've got
there so I'm sitting with a piece of property with no further access out. The
only way I can get an access, like I said, is to buy the land to the south of
' Alternative #3 and then, that would only solve access for a little sliver of my
land, existing land, across that creek that runs through it. It does nothing
to the other 2 1/2 acres of my property. Another point I'd like to make is, I
' think it's point 10 on the proposal there, that if you do select Alternative
#3, this be changed. The cost of that road, if it does go through, should not
be assessed to the abutting properties. It should be a direct developer's cost
like the rest of the road costs are in the development. If we go up there we
11 can see Road H or whatever it is, I don't think Jim Donovan is being assessed
for that now nor is Stu Remer who is benefitting nor is Richard Carlson, Franco
or anybody else. It's a developers costs. Likewise that road going in is a
' developer's cost. The property as it sits, the City property, does not need
that road. It can access directly to CR 17 so I would really like to see that
14
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
changed to be a developer's cost and not assessed to the abutting properties.
Mr. Natoli: What I want to know is who is responsible for filling in the
potholes on Teton Lane and who can we force to do it? The guy that owns it or
somebody else? There are holes in that road right now that my car is hitting
bottom. You can't miss them there are so many of them. You can't go around
than except unless you can go out in the fields somewhere and you can't do that
so I want to know who we can force to fix that road.
Mayor Hamilton: That's not the issue we're dealing with right now and I would
ask that you would talk to our City Engineer and that he will answer that
question for you.
Mr. Natoli: It's an issue to me because I live right on Teton and I'm the guy
who uses it. I have no way in and out except going over the holes. I
Mayor Hamilton: I realize that so Gary, if you'd give him a call tomorrow.
Councilman Geving: It's not a city street. ,
Gary Warren: It's owned by Carlson.
Paul Shervold: I represent Larry Kerber. Presently his property on the north
is low and there is a culvert under CR 17. Now the water that's immediately to
the west of there, there is a dike. The water is ponded there. It now causes
[II
damage to Kerber's property. Any additional development of this area,
whichever alternative you choose, will only increase the damage to the Kerber
property. As recently as a couple of weeks ago the water froze and ponded on
Mr. Kerber's area, on his land and it will continue to do so for the rest of
time and I would ask that you bear that in mind when you develop this area
because it is not a proper disposal system made at this time. This was
explained as long ago as last September with a meeting with your City Engineer
and a person from Centex, a couple of people from Centex, that there would be
problems with water and there presently is. This will only be aggravated, not
ameliorated by your development of this area. I'd ask you to bear that in
mind.
Councilman Boyt: One question I have is, we talk about Alternative #3 would
mean the losing of Lot 15. What's the value of Lot 15?
Tom Boyce: The market value?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Tom Boyce: $25,000.00 to $30,000.00.
Councilman Boyt: So when we look at real costs of Alternative #3, it's
conceivable that we would add $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 to that?
Tom Boyce: Plus I think in cost factors for a watermain in the road which
we've estimated in our office at another $30,000.00. Plus property both north
and south would depreciate...
'�-0
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 '-')
II ---
Gary Warren: The watermain basically abuts the property all along CR 17.
I Sanitary sewer comes through the Kerber property on the south side so it's not
that far away from that.
ICouncilman Boyt: So you're thinking $30,000.00.. .
Gary Warren: I'd say that's pretty excessive.
I Councilman Boyt: We have a potential then of adding maybe $60,000.00 to
Alternative #3 which begins to make Alternative #1 look good in terms of cost. t.
I'm real interested to see how this works out Mr. Mayor. There are enough =
I issues on both sides of the situation it seems. As I understand it, the i
developer agrees to pay all costs of Alternative #2. That one of the questions _
that seems to be raised about Alternative #2 is the life expectancy of the
road. It seems to me the engineering study said 10 years. How does this
Icompare with the typical urban section of road?
Gary Warren: I guess we would hope to get 15+ years out of a typical urban 1
IIsection.
Councilman Boyt: Could you tell me what the difference is? What gives us 15
Iwhere you expect 10 here?
Gary Warren: Basically we're not proposing to go in on Teton Lane and do any
major sub-base correction work. Grade it out, compact it, put it a 2 inch
bituminous lift on it versus a 3 inch, for example for a standard urban
section.
II Councilman Boyt: If we did that, didn't put in the concrete curb but we put in
a 3 inch asphalt base, what would that do to the cost of Alternative #2?
Gary Warren: Increase them.
IIBill Engelhardt: I don't think the difference between a 2 inch mat and a 3
inch mat, you're probably talking in that stretch maybe $5,000.00 at the most.
IICouncilman Boyt: What kind of life expectancy are we talking about with the 3
inch mat?
IIBill Engelhardt: The key is not necessarily the thickness of the mat but it's
the depth of your rock base. If you 2 inch or 3 inches, we'd still be using
the standard section of 10 inches of rock base in the city standard section and
I that's the key to the whole thing. Getting 5 years or 10 years, if you
sealcoat it every 3 years, you might stretch that life out 15 years. So the
blacktop thickness is not the key, it's the depth of the rock base. If we put
I a sufficient rock base in it so the 2 inches or 3 inches doesn't make any
difference.
Councilman Boyt: Then let's start with the rock base. If we put a sufficient
rock base in, then are we approaching the cost of Alternative #1? Is that the
heart of Atlernative #1's cost?
1
1
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Bill Engelhardt: The heart of Alternative #1 is also curb and gutter. That's
very expensive. You're talking about a wider road. You're going out to the
full width of a typical urban section.
Councilman Boyt: Let me propose an alternative then that has a 33 foot wide
road with the full gravel base that you're talking about and the 3 inch asphalt
but an asphalt curb. Give me a feel for the cost of that.
Bill Engelhardt: It's going to be essentially the same as what we're proposing '
with the 2 inch. You're talking very few dollars extra because of that 1 inch
thickness.
Councilman Boyt: I'm not on the 1 inch of asphalt. I'm on the 10 inches of
rock underneath it.
Bill Engelhardt: But what 'I'm saying is, in the proposal that 10 inches of
rock is in there.
Councilman Boyt: In Alternative #2? ,
Bill Engelhardt: In Alternative #2, yes.
Councilman Boyt: So we have the full rock base we're looking at for a regular
city street so the only difference we're talking about is another inch of
asphalt really and that's a $5,000.00 cost.
Gary Warren: And the width is less.
Councilman Boyt: So we narrow the road and we get about the typical city life
expectancy for a road for $39,000.00 to $40,000.00.
Gary Warren: That's about it. Plus we're not improving anything on Lilac. '
Councilman Boyt: Given that and where the City of Shorewood is coming from,
which they say they like Alternative #3, I would be interested in the
neighborhood's reaction if one of their concerns is Teton Lane not being built
to city standard, if we build it to a city life expectancy standard, does it
then become an acceptable alternative?
Donna Pickard: I don't like you using our neighborhood as an access point to a
development that's easily, I don't know how far away it is but it's just a
development in our neighborhood. It is a development down the road that is
using Teton Lane only because of cost and ease. It's an existing dirt road.
They don't have to do anything major but throw on an asphalt mat on. It's easy
for than to do and I just feel kind of cheated that because of our location,
that's why they're using it. They're not using it for any other reason.
Councilman Boyt: Mrs. Pickard, then what you're telling me is that the key
issue for you is not the life expectancy of the road but the increase in the
traffic?
Donna Pickard: Not only that. I'm on the corner so now am I going to have to
bear future assessments on Teton, if there are any and by your definition your
' L,
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
I saying with this improved roadway. ... but Lilac Lane is not a very good road
at this point and they would have to possibly, Shorewood or Chanhassen would
possibly have to, on that side, put an addition so we're looking at double
' assessments.
Councilman Boyt: You're telling me it's not the road surface. It's not the
assessments. It's the traffic.
Donna Pickard: It's not primarily the assessments, it's also the traffic.
Sure, I've got two toddlers, I don't want to have cars zipping down. You can
' put 30 mph posted on that highway there but you know they're going to zip down
there going 40.
' Councilman Boyt: I understand. I'm just trying to get straight on your issue.
Donna Pickard: That's my issue. The other homeowners may have other issues.
' Councilman Boyt: Then I would gather that even if we included some sort of
upgrading to the road surface of Teton and added another $10,000.00 or
$15,000.00 for that, we're still talking about $55,000.00 to $60,000.00 takes
' care of the road in terms of building it up to an acceptable like expectancy.
That's all the questions I had Tom.
Councilman Horn: I support that alternative also. My major reason for that is
II don't necessarily see it as the easiest access but I see it as the only
reasonable access from this development. If we put in Alternative #3, we've in
effect precluded any rights that the Kerber property has with access onto CR
17. Besides that I think we have to try in all cases to try to minimize our
number of accesses. Whether they County dictates than to us or not, it's only
prudent traffic management to do that so I would support a modification to
Alternative #2 to make the road more substantial.
Councilman Geving: This is a difficult situation. I've probably -spent more
time on this issue, as we all did on it over the weekend, than we normally do
on any one single item when we have 16 or 17 items to discuss. I really had to
go to the site twice over the weekend and once even this afternoon one more
time to look at the potential for Alternative #3. I haven't been out to your
' place for a while Larry but you've got quite a few more neighbors now than you
had a couple of months ago when I drove out there. The road that's on the
south side of your home has certainly impacted on your development there. I
' was looking at where that potential alternate road #3 would come in, the
Alternate #3 to the north of you, and of course that would completely landlock
you with a road on the north and a road on the south. Probably prohibit you
forever of getting other access to CR 17, if you ever wanted to do anything
with your 2 1/2 to 3 acres there. I was looking at the trees to the north of
you and I noticed that Alternate #3 happens to be a fairly heavily wooded area.
We'd be taking a number of trees to put that road in and that kind of turned me
against that alternative. I have a number of comments but it seems to me in
looking at the neighbors concerns in the Minutes that I was able to read, they
seem to be very concerned about cost, potential cost for any assessments is
Alternate #1 or #2 were to be selected. The more I looked at all of our
alternatives, I too kind of came to the conclusion that I didn't like Alternate
#3 for a number of reasons and just how far to take this Alternate #2 led me to
I
a
h_ Lc�•
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
believe that if we did a substantial amount of roadwork, building up the base
and the contractor now has agreed to pick up these costs which alleviates the '
homeowner's concerns, I don't believe we would be adding a whole lot of new
traffic onto Teton Lane. Most of the people who are going to be using an
improved Teton Lane would be the 7 homeowners that presently live there and I
suspect some of the new people from the Curry development certainly would come
out that direction but Lilac Lane isn't the best road in the world either. My
feeling is they would probably drive south and come out south of Kerber's
property there and come out to CR 17 if that was the direction they were
heading. I think we're looking at what I'll term to be an intermediate
solution to a very long range problem. Nothing ever stays the same as it was
10 years ago and if we could predict that this road could go in and we could
upgrade Teton and it would last 10 years, that's about all we ever get out of
any street in Chanhassen and I've lived here 22 years. So 10 years is a pretty
good lifetime cycle for any street. If we could do it at a cost that would be
minimal to the homeowners and looking ahead to what may happen to Mr. Donovan's
property or the Ware's, the Natoli's, we all understand that things change.
Places where I never thought there would be homes have homes on them today.
Larry Kerber can tell you that 2 years ago he looked across his pasture and
Rosilee Dodd had horses on top of the hill. It's changed a lot so in 10 years
I could see some of these 7 homeowners selling and redeveloping their
properties. I'm looking at the potential for you to have the least amount of
impact and still have the kind of street that Mr. Natoli talked about earlier.
Certainly one that he could drive on without hitting his car in the ditches and
bumps. Now I'd have to assume, if we were to take Alternate #2, the City would
[II
take this over as a public street. Is that correct Gary?
Gary Warren: If it was brought up to our standards.
Councilman Geving: We bring it up to standards. We would take it over as a
public street and then we would maintain it from that time on and it would
still be meeting all of our rural standard for that roadbed. '
Gary Warren: It's actually in the urban service area so concrete curb and
gutter is our standard for the urban roadway.
Councilman Geving: Would that go in there? You don't have room for it.
Gary Warren: The discussion we've had now is some compromise with bituminous
curb.
Councilman Geving: I can see that compromise would be a very fair one at this
time because in the future if the land does develop, I suspect that would be
the next thing we'd do. Thinking in terms of sewer and water and upgrading the
entire roadbed. I an very much in favor of Alternate #2 for a number of the
reasons I've stated. I still believe it alleviates the homeowner's concerns.
We will get 10 years wear and tear on this road. It's the best alternative
that I can see in the three that's been presented by the feasibility study.
Councilman Johnson: This is probably the toughest issue for the night. I see
Alternate #3 as the developer taking care of his own problem his own way. Not
his own way but not affecting other people. He affects the city of Chanhassen
property there. He has some effect on Larry Kerber. Alternate #2 though, from
I
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
lit my feeling on a public safety standpoint provides for slightly shorter
cul-de-sac distances on Road H there but probably about equal if not slightly
longer for Road G. Actually it does provide two different ways to get into
Road G better than Alternate #3 would because Alternate #3, you're dependent
upon Road E to get you into Road G. Now you have Teton Lane to get to Road G
and Road E which is a plus for me for Alternate #2. What's also interesting
with this one is later on tonight we're going to theoretically approve a change
to another ordinance that would say Alternate #2 wouldn't be allowed. That any
street within the urban service area has to be to full city standards. I guess
if we're going to do Alternate #2, we better do it before we change the
ordinance a little later on tonight which to me doesn't make a whole lot of
' sense either. I do believe that your cost estimates don't include the
$12,000.00 for 12 inches of subgrade on Alternate #2 that they do on Alternate
#1 so if we do the subgrade corrections putting in 12 inches of modified Class
V is about $12,800.00 more dollars. We're probably pushing up into the upper
20's to do Alternate #2. Is there a possibility of leaving a strip of outlot,
very thin along the edge of the road to where the property owner on 2 is Curry
Hills? You give yourself a 50 foot strip of land to put a 28 foot road in
generally.
Gary Warren: We only have 33 feet in Teton Lane right now.
' Councilman Johnson: How wide were you going to put Alternate #2?
Councilman Geving: 33 feet.
Councilman Johnson: No.
Councilman Geving: That's all we've got.
Councilman Johnson: Is the road going to go edge to edge?
' Gary Warren: No.
Councilman Johnson: How wide is the road?
' Bill Engelhardt: It's roughly 22 to 23 feet wide but we build within that 33
foot strip. Just center it within the 33 foot strip.
Councilman Johnson: So the City would own property on either side of that 33
foot strip which is the normal boulevard?
' Gary Warren: It would be less than a normal boulevard.
Councilman Johnson: What's a normal city street, concrete width?
Gary Warren: We're 28 feet gutter line to gutter line. 31 feet back to back
with curb.
' Councilman Johnson: So we're going to have a 5 foot narrower road?
Gary Warren: It's the same issue with Church Road where there's a 33 foot
right-of-way and we're asking for 17 additional feet so we can have more than 1
*,#'1)
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
foot on each side of the back of the curb.
Councilman Johnson: But what we're planning on building here is a 25 foot road
for 210 cars a day that's narrower than most other streets in the City. I
don't like to throw another halfway done street in and I guess in order to do
it, we have to buy 17 foot of property from Mr. Donovan to put the right street
in there. Is that what we're looking at here?
Gary Warren: We would like to obviously have a 50 foot right-of-way consistent '
with our standards.
Councilman Johnson: What would it cost to put the normal 28 foot wide street
in there?
Gary Warren: Alternate #1 basically, $40,000.00 plus road cost is the total
urban section with curb and gutter.
Councilman Johnson: And the cost estimate curb was $8,400.00, curb and gutter,
so we did the bituminous curb for a couple thousand than we're at $30,000.00 to
$28,000.00 road cost to put a 28 foot section in this 33 foot area with
asphalt. That gives us a road that's safe, not just durable. We need the
width in the road to be safe also because people are going to be walking on
that road, on the edge of the road, whatever, just as well as any other place.
The long and the short of it is, there's a lot of problems with using Teton
Lane. I prefer to solve their problems internally and use Alternate #3. The
water comes off of CR 17 and the sewer off CR 17, he doesn't have those
problems. Unfortunately that does something to Larry but it doesn't create
another substandard road in this City.
Mayor Hamilton: I just have a question on the property to the north of Road E.
Has Centex purchased all of the Richard Carlson property that shows on our map
as the exception? You have not purchased that? It seems like you could do a
lot of people a big favor if you purchased that. The Shakelton, Cameron,
Bransell and the Winsor property, most of which is for sale. The road
alignment could be changed considerably and that whole area could be developed
and cleaned up a tremendous amount.
Tom Boyce: We looked at that at one time and basically the prices were
astronomical. Mr. Carlson wanted in the neighborhood of around $200,000.00. '
Mayor Hamilton: What about the Bransell and Cameron and the Winsor property?
I know all or parts of that are for sale right now.
Tom Boyce: There's one house for sale on the lot. We looked at that at one
time. If you put them all together, they ended up being $400,000.00 to tear
everything down. We just couldn't make sense of it. We looked at the City
property at the same time. It also gets very hilly and wooded back in there.
I think development costs in addition to tearing things off and tearing houses
down would add some value.
Mayor Hamilton: That was my first thought that there couldn't be some way that
land could be purchased and be made a part of the Centex development. That
would certainly clean up that entire area, which needs to be cleaned up. It's
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
' cm
a mess back there. I see this very similar to the Pheasant Hills subdivision
I where the road going through Pheasant Hills 4th Addition and out to Yosemite
has not been approved by the Council. It's exactly the same situation as this,
I feel. Development attempting to drive a road through a residential area that
' currently exists and the neighborhood doesn't want it. I'm certainly not in
favor of using Teton at this time for the Centex development. I guess I
haven't seen a good alternative but I'm certainly not in favor of trying to
' mess up Larry's property anymore than it already has been. But I'm not in
favor of running the traffic down Teton, forcing Mr. Donovan to sell part of
his property that he doesn't want to sell in the first place and then utilizing
a substandard street on Lilac that couldn't handle 210 trips a day at any rate.
' So I don't know if there's another alternative. I'm not sure how to handle
this because I don't like much of what I see I guess other than to not use
Teton and to not use Alternate #3 which means everything is going to have to
' flow out to the south and to the east. I don't know if it's good or not. I
guess I can't make that decision. There's two ways out. Teton is a private
street at this point and I don't see that we ought to be forcing development in
' there just for a development. If the Council decides that they want to use
Teton, I would certainly not be in favor of anything other than the developer
paying for all the expenses of it.
' Gary Warren: That is the overview perspective of what we're left with because
there's no access here or here.
Mayor Hamilton: There's one access going to the east out to CR 17 to the south
I t_ of Kerber's property and then there's another one going south out to Lake Lucy
so it's not as if there's only one access. There are two. It still is a long
' cul-de-sac, that's true. There's no question about that.
Councilman Boyt: We can't support that.
' Mayor Hamilton: Well, I won't support Teton so unless you can find me another
alternative, I won't support going through Teton.
' Councilman Horn: Would Teton, as it exists today, serve as an emergency access
to this if we didn't allow Alternate #3 or the upgrade of Teton? Really what
we're looking for is an emergency access to a long cul-de-sac.
' Gary Warren: We're looking for a secondary access and an access that we can
rely on to get in there as far as being properly maintained from a service
condition standpoint.
' Councilman Horn: Apparently the Natoli's have to rely on this access.
' Gary Warren: And you heard the comments.
Councilman Horn: Yes, but they're going in there with a car. Most of the
heavy equipment we would bring in there would, I assume be a little heavier
duty than the average passenger car. Looking at it as a temporary situation
that would still allow us access. I tend to agree with the Mayor on this. I
don't see a good alternative here either.
'
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can offer an alternative. We take Alternative #2 and
the as the developer has suggested, a fourth alternative where Road H comes in
we put in, off Teton Lane we put a cul-de-sac of sorts and a barricade. The
cul-de-sac would be designed so that a snowplow could sweep right in front of
the barricade and the barricade would be there to prevent through traffic. We
would have Alternative #2, which would be an upgrade of Teton Lane with at
least a paved surface. I'm concerned that if we really need to have an
emergency access, that Teton Lane really doesn't fit the bill if we leave it
alone. I agree with what's been said about the difficulty of increasing
traffic through a neighborhood that doesn't want it and maybe that offers a
possibility.
Councilman Geving: I'm confused by what you just said. You indicated that you
would like to see a barrier on Teton Lane with a cul-de-sac for a turnaround of
our snowplowing vehicles. You also indicated though that you said that you
would allow the developer to improve Teton Lane. Isn't that what you said?
Why would they want to do that?
Councilman Boyt: They would want to do that because we can't use, I don't
think we can use the existing 17 foot wide questionable roadway as an emergency
access. By the very nature of it, when we need to get in there, the conditions
of travel are generally not going to be good and to put it on a road that's
already questionable, I think doesn't provide that area with any increased
safety level. They can increase it with a minimum amount of $34,000.00 will
get us a 33 foot wide roadway which will allow the plow to get in there. Put a
cul-de-sac at the end of it, the plow can swing around and now we've got, all
we need to do is break through a simple barricade and we're onto Road H. Then
if at some point that land develops, we're sitting in pretty good shape to come
in there and finish the road off. If the Donovan land develops or the Ware or
Natoli or some other significant chunk of property. I'm striking for a
compromise Dale between having a 17 foot wide road that really doesn't give us
emergency access. '
Councilman Geving: If you accept the $34,000.00, you're accepting the
maintenance of that road. Teton Lane. If you put that barrier there, I just
don't understand what you're really buying.
Councilman Boyt: What we're accepting is the maintenance on a road that's
going to get very little wear. It's going to have basically three families
using it unless we need to break through the barricade to access it in an
emergency.
Councilman Geving: Where, for example the snowplow, how would that happen if
we tried to maintain Teton?
Gary Warren: We would access off Lilac Lane then. What Bill is addressing, I I
guess he's got some value in that we get the upgraded road to an interim
standpoint so we can rely on it. My concern I guess is that it's travelable,
especially in emergency situations and yet we'd have a barrier at the end of it
so it would not be used for normal ingress and egress. Thus addressing the
neighborhood concern that it's not a thoroughfare type of arrangement.
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
I
Councilman Geving: You didn't address this do nothing in the feasibility
' study. The do nothing option. What are your comments on that?
Gary Warren: The do nothing concept I think goes contrary to city standpoint
on other long cul-de-sacs. Lake Riley Woods. Those issues where we have said
that this is too long of a cul-de-sac. That it should have a secondary access.
Councilman Horn: I guess I don't see that as a do nothing alternative. I see
that as a wait alternative until the rest of this area develops. It's very
similar to what we had in Chanhassen Estates and many other areas. It doesn't
provide an immediate secondary access but it will provide that in the future.
I think what we're saying is, if we had some of these of these other properties
developed we could get a more acceptable access at that time.
Councilman Geving: I have no problem with the alternative. I think it's
probably a good comment.
Mayor Hamilton: Alternative #3, can that swing any further to the north? Bill
can you move that?
Bill Engelhardt: That drops off.
' Councilman Boyt: I think if we leave it as a 17 foot wide roadway, we run the
. risk that the people who live on Road G and H, there's just a few there I
lit} suppose, but those people are never going to want that road to go through. If
we put that 33 foot wide strip up there on the other side we're pretty clearly
saying that someday that road's going to go through.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think because you don't do it now you're not saying
it's never going to go through.
Councilman Boyt: I know that but I also know that people get used to living on
a road that doesn't go through. I think we have a chance to have the developer
pay for paving that road. We can put a barricade up and still manage to plow
in front of it so we can get access. I like the alternative and I make that
motion.
Councilman Johnson: I suggest that instead of making that motion without any
' engineering being done yet, that a more viable motion would be that we do that
to see if that thing is feasible.
Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that.
Larry Kerber: What are you going to vote on now? Are you going to close off
Teton Lane?
Mayor Hamilton: The motion is to make Teton Lane a 33 foot wide paved road
with a barrier to be placed someplace, I'm not exactly sure where, and a
11 cul-de-sac placed on there so emergency vehicles can get through there but
there will not be through traffic.
Larry Kerber: So Centex's traffic will not be using it?
1
z1
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. i
Larry Kerber: They will pay to upgrade? Okay, now that is going to be
bringing a lot of additional traffic past my place. When we originally went in
here, we were looking at three accesses and I expressed a concern. Now,
where's that traffic going to come out? It's going to come out, I'll have a
lot more past my place. Mine is the quickest route.
Mayor Hamilton: Either to the east or to the south. I think we're aware of
that. There's only two places.
Larry Kerber: I just wish, if they're going to save any money in this, Centex, '
and I'm certain they are, if they're just to upgrade that road and put a
barricade there, that something should be appropriated, some type of blocking,
screening, something for my place there. I just really feel with all the extra
traffic now. When we went into this, I had no idea. At that point we said
three. Now we're down to two accesses.
Councilman Horn: You've got no more traffic this way than you would if you had 1
Alternative #3. Then it would all move past your place on one side or the
other.
Larry Kerber: Yes, but we don't have Alternate #3.
Councilman Horn: That's right but if we did choose Alternate #3, which was one
of our options, you'd get just as much traffic as you're getting this way only
they would be buzzing around on both sides of your property.
Larry Kerber: Okay, but what I'm saying, if there's any money savings for the ,
developer...
Councilman Horn: There won't be. '
Larry Kerber: But we've still got an unaddressed screening issue at my place.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a separate issue. '
Larry Kerber: I realize it is. I just wanted to reiterate on that.
Councilman Geving: I think that maybe we have to accept the feasibility study.
Mayor Hamilton: What we're doing is looking for another alternative within the
feasibility study.
Councilman Johnson: Let me understand the motion is to increase the
feasibility study to include an option #4?
Mayor Hamilton: Which is as Bill outlined which the staff will come back to us
with additional information to see if it's feasible.
Gary Warren: This is not a 429 feasibility study so really you can do with it
as you want as far as the motion. I
11
1 -City Council Meeting March 14, 1988
Ii,
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to increase the feasibility
study to include a fourth alternative which will improve Teton Lane to a 33
foot wide paved road with a barrier placed at the end to provide for emergency
access only. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion
carried.
Jim Donovan: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask, could you please put that up there.
I was disturbed by something I saw there. This road here, Road H, that's a
' cul-de-sac on my property.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, it's not on your property. Wherever it is, it's not on
your property.
' Councilman Johnson: When he final plats it, he can't do that.
' Donna Pickard: Can I ask just one quick question? The cul-de-sac they were
talking about putting onto Teton Lane here. We're talking about where the
barricade would be. Are we talking about being able to access by Natoli's or
putting it closer down here?
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's one of the things we're asking staff to
identify for us is where that cul-de-sac should be and how it should barricade.
I3
APPROVAL OF DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CHANGE ORDER, SHAFER CONSTRUCTION.
Councilman Geving: I think, first of all, when I saw that this was a change
order for $291,000.00, it seemed to me there were a lot of things in here that
were very questionable to me. Were all of these changes, and they were
' substantial, I see them all the way up to 47 on one part. Items on the C
Schedule up to 43 and on the E Schedule up to 48. I don't know if these were
consecutive or how they were arrived at but who approved all of these and
' authorized these changes as they were done in the field?
Gary Warren: The changes that you've seen here, some of them are quantity
changes. For example it is a unit priced contract so in example, I guess the
72" RCV pipe, there we just got a bust in the quantity that was in the original
bid schedule so we're making a correction from that standpoint. The contract
did say that we will pay as we consume this.
Councilman Geving: Could you miss on the aggregate base, for example, by
13,000 tons for a total of $79,000.00? Is it possible that someone really
' missed that when they bid this or the specs for the bid were really that bad?
I can't imagine 13,000 tons of aggregate at a change order.
Gary Warren: This addresses the sub-base that we ran into on the West 78th
Street. The actual granual material that was out there was quite extensive.
We did do some salvaging and we had a decision because the soils actually
turned out to be worse than what our borings had showed us. We made a decision
' that we would use more granual material based on our soil consultant's
recommendation for what he saw.
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 '
Councilman Geving: This was in the roadway now and in the parking lots? '
Gary Ehret: Dale is referring to the aggregate base.
Councilman Geving: I'm talking about the aggregate base of the basin, number
5. This is item number 1 on bid schedule B. How could you possibly have
missed it by that much? '
Gary Warren: That is material that we used for the parking lot here which
actually was retrievable as a part of the downtown parking lot improvement
project. The north side project that the Council has accepted the feasibility
study on. In an attempt to address the business access issue and such, we went
ahead and there was some discussion in an earlier agenda item here with the
Council that we were going to be utilizing granual base to establish a good
parking lot area for the businessmen to have while they're working on West 78th
Street. Some of this would be retrievable when the actual parking lot
improvements were going to be done so it was not estimated originally because
we didn't think we were going to need the parking lot aggregate.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you another question. On the granual bar, I'm
suspecting that this is all related, that's a $48,000.00 item, is this related
to the same item that you mentioned on the road and parking?
Gary Warren: That was what I was addressing. '
Councilman Geving: Okay, so those two items were approximately $140,000.00 are
really needed. How about the clearing and grubbing of 200 trees at $50.00 per
tree. I don't even know if there are that many trees in the downtown area to
begin with but to charge $50.00 for each of those 200 trees. Now I've looked
at those trees. Those happen to be just brush behind Pauly's and behind the
Pony Express. I can't imagine paying $20,000.00 to clear that area. I do that
much work in a weekend. I can't believe this. I've seen that brush and that
stuff that's behind there. When did this happen?
Gary Ehret: I couldn't identify for you Councilman Geving where every tree was
but what I can tell you is this. $50.00 a tree was the bid price by the
contractor for clearing and grubbing of the trees. The reason there are 200 on
there is that when we did our bid take-off at BRW we came up with approximately
225 trees that were cleared and grubbed. When the bid take-off was put into
the final form and went to the contractor, we made a computer error. It was
entered as 25 instead of 225. There were 225 plus or minus trees that were
cleared and grubbed. There's very defined criteria for clearing and grubbing.
We use the State spec on what is defined as a clear and grub tree and that is
defined as any tree with a trunk diameter of 4 inches or greater. Believe it
or not, there were that many trees. Not just behind Pauly's but down on the
pond. Down by the bowling center. Wherever. I can tell you, not tonight, but
I could tell you where every single one of those trees was. ff
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you one other question. You have shown in here
a hook-up for the new bank to our system here. Could you explain that? Why
that was done. I
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
lir
Gary Ehret: Sure. The new bank roof drains come down in a 12 inch pipe that
comes out, if you're standing on West 78th Street say looking west, it comes
out at the east bank very near their drive-up teller. It comes out of the bank
' with dumping into the ditch section. Those ditch sections are no longer there.
We hooked up that 12 inch pipe that takes all of the roof drains and connected
it to the storm sewer system.
' Councilman Geving: Don't you think the bank should have paid for that?
' Gary Ehret: It's no different, in my opinion, than dealing with the water
generated for every single business. However, one of the things we can do as
they go through this is identify items that the City has paid for through the
project that are attributable to specific properties and they can be assessed
to those properties.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you another question. I notice in here there
' are a number of signs that were purchased for the project. My assumption is
that these signs belong to the City of Chanhassen when the project is over. Is
that correct?
Gary Ehret: No, that is not. It depends on which item you're talking about.
Councilman Geving: I'm talking about the barriers for MnDot at the railroad
detour for example.
Gary Warren: The J barrier is the property of the City.
' Gary Ehret: Yes, that would be item 25 of Bid Schedule B.
Councilman Geving: I just want to make sure that when we pay for these items,
' they are left behind when the project's completed.
Gary Warren: Yes, we're watching it.
Gary Ehret: There are 3 or 4 signage items that you really do have to be aware
of. One is a fairly big item. It's like $7,300.00. That is not what we spent
to date but I included additional dollars in this change order to cover what we
may spend next spring. That item is all of the specialty signs that we put up
throughout the whole are for the purposes of directing people to the downtown
businesses. Another item on there is about $8,300.00 and that is what it is
' costing us to rent the detour signage because the railroad did not get in and
put in their crossing. That is not a retrievable cost. That is a monthly
rental for the signs that you see out there as it sits today.
' Councilman Geving: Okay, I have no other comments except to say that I really
was surprised when I saw this $291,000.00 amendment to the contract. I think
it's excessive and I don't think that we're watching the project as it was
proceeding along. The only legitimate expense that I saw on here was the
overtime expense.
' Gary Ehret: Every, I would say, to address that, 50% of the items on there are
bookkeeping items. As an example, when we went through and did the utility
_f.J _)
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
hook-ups for the downtown, you have absolutely no as built records of what was
built in this downtown whatsoever. As a specific example, we had to assume
because nobody knew that service to, let's say Bernie's Lawn and Sports was a 4
inch clay pipe sanitary service. That is a bid item that we put in the bid
documents. When we got out there, we dug up the street and we found a 6 inch
service. So the contractor needed say a 6 inch PVS bend to make that
connection. What I have on that change order is the add of, for example 1-6
inch PVC bend because we did not have a bid price for it. The flip side of
that coin is what that change doesn't reflect is the fact that we now have a 4
inch PVC we didn't use. Further in my letter I noted that this change order at
this time does not address deduct or underrun items which we do have a
considerable amount of.
Councilman Geving: It always amazes me when I see a contract. Someone gets
the low bid and then they turn around and give you a big amendment to the
contract after you've been in the process for 6 months or so. Probably
wouldn't have gotten the bid in the first place if all of these things had been
considered. Do you have any comment to that?
Gary Ehret: If you like, I really don't feel that's true. All of the items on
that list are either bookkeeping adjustments where we're adding some now and
will be deducting them later. What we're trying to do is the very specific
with exactly what you're paying for. As an example again, the PVC bends.
We're deducting one but it doesn't show from that change order. It will show
up at some point.
Gary Warren: Dale to address your concern here. Gary and I have been putting
together and we're in the closing stages of the total summary of the project
that recognizes the deduct quantities and also that addresses the Phase II and
the Phase III projects that are on the books for the future. It does show, as
Gary is saying, I agree 100% here that there is nobody out here trying to
extend the project more than what we are actually needing out there. - It's a
matter of it's a unit price contract and this type of flexibility is very
common for a project of this magnitude where you have some things that you
thought you were going to use and you didn't. Likewise, some things that you
didn't think you'd need that you have to have.
Councilman Boyt: First I would like to say that I think it would have affected
all bidders equally because they all bid on the same package and we've changed
it. What I think we need here is we need to know what the costs of our actions
are. I recall last summer that the Council did encourage the City Engineer to
take every action necessary to get the project completed in a timely fashion
and minimize inconvenience to businesses. Doing that costs money. I think we
need to know up front what these costs are likely to be. Then we can make a
reasonable decision. I think looking at it after the fact and saying it's
surprising that we spent that amount of money is a position I don't want to be
in in the future.
Councilman Horn: It appears to me that even if you take the deducts out,
you're at least 8% over. What bothers me about that is this is called Change
Order No. 1.
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
IF.
IGary Ehret: We have tried to cover all change order items that we are aware of
completely as a result of the construction last year right up to date. I have
projected a minimal amount of additional change orders next year but we had
$700,000.00 of the contract to go, roughly. I don't know exactly where we're
going to end up. We could have pluses. We could have minuses. We have not
made any significant scope changes in here that should dovetail into additional
' changes next spring.
Gary Warren: We're above ground which helps. We're dealing with surface
things. Things we can identify now. The biggest I know, as Gary related, we
' didn't have, for whatever reason, an as built system underneath the ground so
there were a lot of things that just, even with the best insight, could not be
anticipated. Now that we're out of those areas, we've got the storm system all
t connected and the watermain and such, it's much more a known entity so we're
not anticipating any further surprises.
' Councilman Horn: So we can expect less than an 8% override on anything that
remains in this contract I would assume?
Gary Ehret: I would hope that when this contract is done and constructed, we
tare 10% or less of the original contract amount.
Councilman Johnson: I noticed one of the biggest things in here is probably
the parking lot that wasn't in it at all. On the back street there. When I
started looking at the numbers here, the rubble excavation and a few other
things, we're probably up over $100,000.00 right there for that parking lot.
' That's the main part of this 13,000 tons of aggregate. That's $79,000.00 by
itseld. The rubble excavation, $6,000.00. That's money we're spending here
that we're going to spend in the future to build municipal parking lots in
basically the same place. This rock is going to be able to stay there? Will
' it be able to basically utilize this 13,000 tons again?
Gary Warren: That's our intent. There is some contamination that occurs just
' because of the vehicles that are traveling on it but we're anticipating to be
able to use it.
Councilman Johnson: It was properly sub-based and everything in there? The
' bad dirts removed and now we clean it up and throw the asphalt over it, we've
got the parking lot. The permanent parking lot.
' Gary Warren: Rather than just throw some gravel out there, we dug out all the
footings and rubble we found. We corrected the subgrade and we put in the
proper amount of rock to construct that parking lot.
' Mayor Hamilton: I just wante to say, I think some of the comments have been
unfair and I think you're doing a great job Gary. You and your company and I
I[__ think Shafer Construction is doing an excellent job. Bud Shafer has been on
the job everyday. He's had to answer my questions almost on a daily basis as
has Gary and I haven't always been the easiest person to deal with on the
downtown and I think Gary would tell you. Both of them will probably because I
come in here yelling and hollering about things that are going on so it's not
as if they're going unwatched or unchecked and I think they've done a heck of a
j
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
good job and they moved along extremely well last fall to get as far as they
did so I'd like to commend you on the job that you're doing. I think it's good
and I hope you can continue to do as good a job for the rest of the project.
Gary Ehret: Thank you. Maybe the one thing I could add is that, how we
arrived at what you have seen tonight, BRW, we keep what we call an item record
account. On this entire job I can tell you where you spent every single
dollar. We keep track of every single fitting. Every single hydrant. Every
single piece of pipe and we sat down with Shafer Contracting for about a day
and a half and hammered out every single one of these items. Where they went.
Should we pay for it or shouldn't we so I guess if it's any comfort, any single
councilmember can feel free to contact me and say I want you to tell me where
I'm buying any single one of these items and I can do that.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Change Order No. 1 in
the amount of $291,201.66 as itemized in the March 9, 1988 correspondence from
BRW and establishing a revised contract estimated ceiling of $2,725,772.96.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
NORDQUIST SIGNS, DATASERVE LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE EAST, ON PROPERTY ZONED
IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT:
A. VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-PREMISE {I
DIRECTIONAL SIGN.
B. APPROVAL OF SIZE (12 SQUARE FEET) OF AN OFF-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGN.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant has requested that item B be addressed first. The
ordinance requires that the City Council approve the size of an off-premise
directional sign. The applicant is proposing to locate the sign just south of
the McDonalds site. This is TH 5 and McDonalds and they're proposing to the
directional sign approximately south of Lake Drive East. The directional sign
will be 12 square feet in size. Staff is recommending that 12 square feet is
acceptable for this purpose. The purpose of an off-premise directional sign 11 can be confusing for people who have to turn off of TH 5 onto Dakota and then
know where to turn so we are recommending approval of the off-premise
directional sign.
Councilman Boyt: What's our ordinance say about the size of the sign?
Jo Ann Olsen: It says nothing. It just says it's for Council approval.
Councilman Boyt: Any size sign at all?
Dan Ryerson: I represent DataSery tonight. I don't have much to add to
staff's report except a primary concern here, after discussing this with the
other property owner, who I might add to staff I now have the signature, has
been primary the amount of traffic that we feel probably will stray down Dakota
and end up in the residential neighborhoods. Some of this would be truck
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
traffic. A way of illustration, I guess this would apply to the next item too,
just very briefly a graph that shows the growth that we have experienced and
projected in DataServ's employees. As you can see from 1987 to 1990, that
almost doubles. Approximately one-fourth of these employees projections are
going to be in Chanhassen. If that 70 acre site is further developed it could
be more so we're looking at 750 employees alone on this site and the need for
' some traffic control starting out at the end of Dakota...
Councilman Johnson: In the drawing of the sign they're proposing, they utilize
12 square foot of signage. About 6 square foot of it and the rest of it seems
to be just plain blank sign. Why do we need that much blank signage? You can
put in a 6 square foot sign. The bottom half of this is just plain white.
Dan Ryerson: I think the answer to that, and we do have one of the artists who
was involved a little bit in the actual design but I think the answer has more
to do with the height of the sign to catch the attention of the driver. I
' suppose that bottom could be simply open air but the design of all of these
signs that we have asked approval for, is very similar in the shape and the
construction which would be standard on these signs. The main reason is to put
the height of the name and the indicational arrow.
Councilman Johnson: Right, which you do on the top 2 foot.
3
Mayor Hamilton: But you've got to get it up there somehow.
1-
Councilman Johnson: There's lots of ways to get it up there without putting,
I'm not sure what color or whatever I'd like the bottom half to be that's
unobtrusive as possible. What I see is room on this sign for future signage.
I see the whole bottom half of this sign is sitting there. Now this may be a
good added point for future businesses or whatever who may develop out that
' way. It seems to me that what we need at that corner is a directional sign to
the business park which currently only has DataSery in it as the only person in
it. What I see as every business that ever establishes out there; we've got a
' lot more land that could possibly be developed out there, is going to want a
sign on this corner. Very soon this corner is going to have six 12 square foot
signs on it for the six people living there. I'd rather see Business Park East
' or whatever the name of the business park is there pointing that direction and
then below that say DataSery and have room for whatever as other companies go
into there.
' Mayor Hamilton: I like the design of your sign. I think Jay may have a good
point. If the bottom part, perhaps the City at some time could approach
DataSery and say, may we put on there "Drive Carefully" or "Speed Limit 30" or
' something. "Caution, Children in the Neighborhood". Something that would be
of a community value rather than just leaving it blank so that may be something
would be beneficial to the City as well as to your own company.
Dan Ryerson: Certainly we're not ruling that out at this time. I guess we
don't know right now what direction future development might take.
Mayor Hamilton: I just had a question on the arrow that you have on there.
It's awfully small. Is that going to be big enough for someone to see?
r
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
1::
Dan Ryerson: I guess wiser heads than I have decided it is. Somebody designed
this and I know they've done this in color. I believe that the lettering is in
red and the sign itself is blue, is that how you describe it?
Ann Rolling: The sign is gray. The size of the arrow and the size of the
letters are according to specifications. '
Mayor Hamilton: What color is the arrow? Does it kind of stand out so the
driver sees it?
Ann Rolling: It's maroon.
Tim Erhart: On this particular thing I was going to suggest to make the sign
temporary...businesses down the frontage road, you can put four signs like this
with the business park sign. Make this a temporary one feeling there are more
businesses. .. '
Mayor Hamilton: Temporarily permanent sign.
Councilman Boyt: First I agree with that. It makes a lot of sense. The other 1
point is, you say specifications on the arrow. Who's specification?
Ann Rolling: It's based on legibility of the sign...
Councilman Boyt: The Uniform Sign Code says a 3 inch letter?
Dan Ryerson: That's what we understand.
Councilman Boyt: Let me understand your logic. You've got a big sign, or will
have off TH 5 in front of your building saying DataServe similar to what's in '
Eden Prairie. Is that correct? Okay, that's an easy to see sign so they're
not going to have any trouble knowing geographically about where you're
located. Then the reason for this sign is because we in fact all want to keep
semi-trailers out of a residential neighborhood and other business traffic so
we want them to turn here. The smallest thing on the sign is the arrow. That
doesn't make any sense to me. The only reason we want that sign there is so
they'll know to turn. '
Ann Rolling: How big should the arrow be?
Councilman Boyt: I would say, if it was me, make the arrow the biggest thing
on the sign.
Dan Ryerson: One other thing, we actually looked at the placement of the sign '
because as you are going down Dakota and Lake Drive is the way you'll turn.
The sign is on that side next to Lake Drive. If the sign was across the
street, then I would agree that the arrow might be a lot more consideration but J'
you're going that way, you see that road and the sign is there on that side. I
think the very placement of it is a strong indicator of that's the way to go.
Councilman Horn: I think it's their sign and it's their arrow.
1
I : ' ,;
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
I Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the 12 square foot
size for the off-premise directional sign located as shown in Attachment #2.
All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt who opposed
II and motion carried.
A. VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-PREMISE
IIDIRECTIONAL SIGN.
Jo Ann Olsen: They are proposing three on-premise directional signs. The
1 Zoning Ordinance allows them to be a maximum of 4 square feet. Staff is
recommending denial. The Planning Commission also recommended denial. We felt
that a typical 4 square foot directional sign will still be, even though it's a
I large site, will still be able to be used because there will be more traffic
that's driving down the road and it will be driving at a slower speed and will
be able to see the parking to turn into. We felt that the 4 square feet would
II still be appropriate for a DataSery sign and did not feel there was a hardship
to grant the variance.
Dan Ryerson: I think at this time, and I don't know if this is the appropriate
II to do it or if we would have to go back and make another application but I
think perhaps the original application was unfortunate in that it asked for a
f variance on size which otherwise are automatically permitted up to number 4. I
believe that instead of asking for that variance, that there's another section
of the Ordinance that we would come under where we would be allowed two of
I these signs as low ground level business signs on-presmise. That is a
permitted use and if we would be so permitted to amend the application, I would
II drop the request for a variance and simply ask the Council to grant at this
time those two signs on-premise under the classification of the low business
sign. These would qualify in size in every way. Actually they are considerably
I smaller. The requirement of the actual sign surface starts 2 feet up and goes
no more than 8 feet high and we would be well within that. We could live with
the two signs on-premise. Again, on-premise, although I don't know that the
sign category that I've just described would limit us as to the content of the
I sign but it is doing some of the same things that the directional sign would
do. There really doesn't seem to be any limit as to what we can put on it. We
do feel a strong need because there are several roads going to employee parking
I lot, visitors parking lot, shipping and receiving and many of the same concerns
about not putting the business and truck traffic through the residential
neighborhood may apply. The safety concerns of not having it go straight to
Ivisitors parking and employees parking.
Mayor Hamilton: I just wanted to ask Barb, I don't have a copy of the
ordinance with.
IJo Ann Olsen: The ground mounted is only one permitted per street frontage.
Technically you just have one on TH 5. Also, that big sign that you do have in
II the front, I know we were discussing whether or not that was a directional but
actually that's a ground. That was 80 square feet was the maximum.
II Dan Ryerson: I thought that was a development identification sign.
II
City Council Meets ng -
March 14, 1988
Jo Ann Olsen: Development identification is more for like Chanhassen Lakes '
Business Park.
Dan Ryerson: I understood that the permit, and that sign is under permit, was 1
the sign in that category.
Jo Ann Olsen: Was the ground low. Actually when we checked it out, the ground '
low profile, it was.
Dan Ryerson: To the extent that we're asking for a variance, I guess I would
ask for the extra sign as a ground low profile business sign.
Jo Ann Olsen: But then you would only get one on-site diretional sign. '
Mayor Hamilton: I think you have to decide what it is you want and then
perhaps come back to us.
Dan Ryerson: I guess the question is, do we have to come back or could we
simply remove the variance part of the request that's come up here because the
ground level business sign is simply a permitted use... '
Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest for purposes of this case that the
Council go ahead and act on their request. If it is denied, then you would
have the right to come back anyway. Staff feels uncomfortable with the
proposal that the applicant has made tonight. At first flush it doesn't appear
appropriate but I think the Council should make a decision and then you can go
from there. '
Councilman Horn: Could we further be willing to say that we would approve a
sign that does not require a variance? '
Barbara Dacy: A sign that does not require a variance, we would just-process
it anyway.
Councilman Horn: So as long as he's got that, he doesn't have to come back?
Barbara Dacy: I don't want the applicant to be walking out of here with the
impression that they're going to be able to have another sign because we'r
reading the oridnance the way he's proposing as he can't.
Mayor Hamilton: We should act on it as they requested this evening and then '
you and the applicant can arm wrestle over how you're going to go from there
because if a variance is not needed, you'll have your sign anyway.
Dan Ryerson: We'll be happy to come back if this is too confusing.
Mayor Hamilton: It's just difficult to change at the last minute. We have a
[171!
proposal before us. That's what we had prepared for and to change at the last
minute to something when we don't have all of us have an ordinance in front of
us to review it ourselves, is not proper procedure as far as I'm concerned.
11
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
IIDan Ryerson: I think we've addressed the questions on the requested variance
is that this particular signage, considering that this is a 70 acre site, I
' think that is an argument in favor of having a slightly bigger directional
sign, if we went at it as a directional sign only, because it's quite a long
drive that goes in there. I think just as a matter of scale. It's not as easy
to see a sign that's sitting in a big open area as it is to where there may be
' many buildings or shops or other driveways. Again, the person entering on Lake
Drive covers quite a distance before he actual comes to the DataSery parking
lot where he turns. Again, this particular signage is really quite unobtrusive
when you consider the size of that parcel.
Councilman Johnson: I'll comment and motion at the same time. I think the
request is totally inappropriate. There's no other facility in the area.
' There's only one building you're trying to get to. There are only two roads
going in. You don't need 12 square feet of sign to get in there. I'm
surprised that they would even request it coming into town here.
Councilman Boyt: I seconded it for a different reason. I think you probably
have some very good business reasons for wanting those signs. I'd like to see
you try and do them in the context of the ordinance for 4 square feet. I think
you can do that and I'd sure like to see you give it a try.
Mayor Hamilton: I think if there's a problem with the size of the signs, we
z ought to take another look at our ordinance and see if it needs to be adjusted.
I have absolutely no problem with this as it's attempting to advertise with
their logo on their place of business. We're trying to encourage businesses to
come to town. If you can't put up a sign that says you're here, what's the
sense of being here? It just really kind of bothers me. We've gone through
this other times when people don't want to put up signs. We ask a business to
come into town and as soon as they say yes, we'll come, we say but you can't
put a sign up. I don't agree with that at all. I think if it's needed, we
should change our ordinance. I think perhaps out of this, that's what we may
do. End of my comment.
' Councilman Geving: I certainly agree with you Tom. I don't want to frustrate
anybody that comes in here trying to build a business in Chanhassen.
' Mayor Hamilton: We're happy to have you here.
Councilman Johnson: By the way, the arrows on the typical 4 square foot sign
are bigger than the arrows on the off-site sign.
' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to deny the variance to the
Zoning Ordinance to permit a 12 square foot on-premise directional sign for
DataServ. All voted in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL
OF GRADING PERMIT, B.C. BURDICK.
Roger Knutson: Is this in the form set forth here in your packet?
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
I'
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. '
Roger Knutson: What is the security amount in that blank? That's blank there.
Do you know what it is? '
Gary Warren: No, we don't have the estimate for the grading.
Roger Knutson: So the number that will be filled in there is the estimate for
the cost of grading?
Gary Warren: Yes. '
Councilman Geving: The only comment I had is that, I thought from time to time
we asked the developer to tell you, Gary, 24 or 48 hours before the grading
actually begins.
Gary Warren: Actually, the Watershed District has that requirement in there.
Councilman Geving: Don't you like to know when they're going to start the
project?
Gary Warren: Yes, definitely. '
Councilman Geving: That was the only addition I was going to make that the
developer inform the City Engineer 48 hours before the grading begins. Would
you add that into your motion as item 10 or make an 11th item? I think it's
important that the Engineer knows that the grading is going to start tomorrow
or the next day or sometime. '
William F. Kelly: I'm here representing Mr. Burdick. I had merely one
question. I didn't hear Mr. Knutson's comment. What is the security that's
going to be required? I couldn't hear that, I'm sorry.
Gary Warren: 110% of the cost of your engineer's estimate of the cost of the
grading. ,
William F. Kelly: And I assume then that that is the same security requirement
of every applicant is to put up? '
Mayor Hamilton: That's correct.
William F. Kelly: And that is a cash bond or a letter of credit? i
Mayor Hamilton: That is correct.
William F. Kelly: And you do not accept Performance Bonds?
Gary Warren: We do not accept Performance Bonds. We do accept an alternative
[171
of loan agreements.
William F. Kelly: And would that be available too?
11
' City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Gary Warren: That would be available.
William F. Kelly: There are two phases to this. There's Phase I and Phase II.
' It will not be done until the fill is available for Phase II. Will we be
required to put the entire cash for both phases up at one time or can we do
this in two phases?
' Gary Warren: You are receiving a permit for Phase I grading so it would only
apply to Phase I.
' Councilman Johnson: It's a shame that they have to take out all those trees up
there on that west end but that's the way it goes.
' Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Phase I grading
plan for Burdick Park 2nd Addition dated November 19, 1987 as prepared by
William R. Engelhardt and Associates with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a grading permit with the City (attached)
and provide the necessary financial securities called for in the permit
prior to initiation of construction.
2. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of
construction and the temporary sedimentation pond shall be constructed
4 first.
114— 3. Positive drainage shall be provided throughout the site at all times during
and after construction.
' 4. The City's sanitary sewer located along the north boundary of the property
shall be protected during construction and all manholes shall be raised or
' lowered to the finished grade at the applicant's expense. These manholes
shall be clearly marked in the field prior to the initiation of
construction and the applicant shall maintain a minimum of 6 1/2 feet of
cover over these utilities.
5. The applicant shall take special precautions to keep dirt and debris from
leaving the site especially on West 78th Street.
6. The applicant shall inform the City of his plans for disposal of the
existing building on the west end of the property and comply with any City
requirements relating to this demolition.
' 7. Any tmeporary stockpiling of material on the site shall be properly
protected with erosion control.
8. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the attached Watershed
District permit especially as it relates to seeding and restoration of
11 vegetative cover.
9. The applicant shall pay the City's grading plan review and permit fee prior
to the issuance of the Phase I grading permit.
1
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
10. The applicant's engineer shall submit a revised grading plan which shows
the temporary ponding and erosion control details, existing manhole rim,
invert elevations and proposed manhole rim elevations.
11. The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours prior to commencement of any '
grading on the property.
All voted in favor and motion carried. ,
SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 7,277 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED
PUD-R, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 251 LAKE
DRIVE EAST (LOT 1, BLOCK 7, HIDDEN VALLEY) , FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH.
Councilman Boyt: A couple of quick questions. Gary, are you convinced there's '
enough parking here for the people?
Gary Warren: I defer that to Larry. '
Larry Brown: Yes, it met the requirements from a planning standpoint.
Councilman Boyt: As I understand it then, the lighting is covered in terms of
there was some discussion at the Planning Commission about this being on a bit
of a hill or the other houses around it being lower. What kind of thing are we
doing to shield the lighting from the homes?
Larry Brown: I'm not aware of any specific proposal. Maybe the applicant
would like to address that.
Dean Brown: You're requiring a 6 foot berm and bushes across the back of our
lot so there will have to be 6 feet of something between our lot and the people
behind us as well as the required. A lot of trees. There's quite a bit of
shielding along the back there.
Councilman Boyt: The lights themselves are shielded to direct down? '
Dean Brown: Yes.
Barbara Dacy: Right, there should be, I guess the term is cut-offs but that's
an apparatus used to shield the glare and direct the light down.
Councilman Boyt: I saw the 6 foot high bushes that are going to be planted '
along, I gather it's the east side of the property?
Dean Brown: Yes. It's our understanding not 6 feet of bushes but 6 feet of
berm and bushes. Is that correct?
Barbara Dacy: Right. The ordinance requires a 6 foot screen between parking
areas of a residential area.
Councilman Boyt: How do I read this when it says 6 foot shrubs at property '
line? That's one the east edge or the top edge of the property.
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Barbara Dacy: To me that means that they are installing 6 foot shrubs in
height at planting.
Councilman Boyt: And that's on top of the berm.
Dean Brown: As in accordance with your landscaping regulations.
' Mayor Hamilton: I was wondering if you are well aware of the proposed change
alignment of TH 101 and I didn't see that as it was laid out, that didn't
' really show. If that alignment ever goes through, which is fairly unlikely.
Barbara Dacy: I think the church is painfully aware of that alignment. We've
had several meetings with them. The actual design of that is still under
' consideration by MnDot but we're satisfied with the change that they're going
to make on the driveways is going to accomodate those design changes.
' Dean Brown: We're making two accomodations for that. One, we're actually
moving our entrance down for the future proposal as well as in one of the
recommendations that we're agreeing to is that we will not develop on a certain
corner of our land with the idea, the possibility of that the reroute will go
through there.
Mayor Hamilton: We'll probably be finding out within a couple of weeks what
the disposition of that may be. Since we met with the Urban and Local Affairs
' Committee last week, they approved the realignment and the expenditure of the
funds out of the tax increment district. It does have to go to the tax
committee who has a lot of questions. The feeling of the committee was that
the tax committee will not pass it.
Larry Brown: In the staff report there was a letter from Fred Hoisington
addressing the possibility of the concept plan that would accomodate their site
plan so I think that's being addressed.
' Dean Brown: I'd like to compliment the staff. They've done a real good job
and we've really enjoyed working with them. They've been very informative in
going through. Second of all, what you brought up about the realignment of TH
101 and TH 5, as Barb knows, we're very concerned about it and we want to make
you very aware that when those things do come around, that it's important to
think that what we're building now is the first phase congregational Church
that will expand to a second and a third phase. Those accomodations are
' assuming that we can use that whole lot for both our building and parking lot.
As the realignment comes through, it's very important, as Bill brought out,
that we want to make sure that we have enough parking so that any realignment
' at this point, we're building this again under the full assumption that we can
go to our 2nd and our 3rd phase so we can have our full parking lot. If that
realignment occurs different from what we're understanding everything to be
right now and it drastically reduces our lot, it negates everything that's
it__ going on so it's real important that when that comes through that we all have
an understanding of what that does. I think there are a number of options that
Barb and I have talked about but that's something we want everyone to be aware
' of. The second thing that we're agreeing to but want to bring to your
attention is the amount of fire protection that is required for our individual
I
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
building. We're sprinkling the building. We're connecting both the fire route
from Chanhassen Estates as well as the one besides us and we're putting on two
fire hydrants with a third one when it's put in, as well as providing a second
access for emergency vehicles. Extensive fire protection, which we're glad
that as a Council you're concerned with but at the same time we'd also like you
to realize that it is an expensive proposition. We're spending almost
$45,000.00 to $50,000.00 on just fire protection for our particular building
and that's a lot. Again, we're agreeing to it because that's the way it reads
but we wanted to bring it to your attention that that's something that a lot of
people are concerned about. A lot of residents that go to our church, a lot of
Chanhassen residents go to our church, are almost appalled by that to say why
do we need a fire department if we have to do all this maintenance stuff so we
do want to bring that to your attention. That it is a concern.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the site plan for
the Family of Churst Lutheran Church as shown on the site plan dated January
28, 1988 with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide details on type of shrubs proposed along the
east lot line and provide 1 foot of hedge along the west property line
between vehicular access and Lake Drive East.
2. All open areas disturbed in the first phase shall be covered with sod or
seeded.
3. Two additional handicapped parking spaces will be provided with the second
and third phases or as required by the State Building Code.
4. The future phases shall preserve the additional right-of-way required for
the TH 101 improvement. '
5. The proposed access to Lake Drive East shall be relocated 60 feet to the
south.
6. A second access to Hidden Court shall be provided and approved by the City
Engineer. y
7. The applicant shall receive a sign permit for the proposed sign which
shall not exceed 24 square feet.
8. The steeple shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the ,
Uniform Building Codes.
9. The hydrant located in front of the proposed sanctuary shall be relocated '
to the south corner of the entrance from Lake Drive East.
10. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and
shall provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper
installation of the utilities.
tCity Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
' 11. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District Permit.
' 12. A 6-inch sanitary sewer cleanout shall be provided on the sanitary sewer
service and shall be located 12 feet west of the easterly property
boundary.
' 13. Plans and specifications for the installation of the sanitary sewer,
watermain and storm sewer shall be submitted for approval by the City
Engineer prior to commencement of any grading.
' 14. The plans shall be revised to show a 16 foot wide Class V driveway between
the west access onto Lake Drive East and Hidden Court. This access shall
' be constructed of a 6 inch Class V section. The location of the access
onto Hidden Court shall be located a minimum distance of 100 feet east of
Lake Drive East to allow for proper traffic movements.
' 15. A drainage swale shall be located east of the building pad to insure
proper drainage away from the building and to the south.
' 16. The proposed "courtyard" area as shown on Attachment #4 shall be revised
to maintain proper drainage away from the building and shall provide an
adequate buffer from flooding during a 100 year storm event.
A 17. The southwest corner of the site shall be revised to insure 111-- drainage away from the primary access and to the stormsewer system.
' 18. All fire hydrants shall be located a minimum distance of 30 feet away from
all proposed structures. All hydrants shall have a 6 inch gate valve
between the hydrant and watermain.
19. An acceptable erosion control plan indicating the location, type of
erosion control and the City's standard detail for installation of the
erosion control shall be submitted prior to final site plan approval.
20. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement
of any grading and once in place shall remain in place throughout the
' duration of construction. The developer is required to review erosion
control and make the necessary repairs prior to the onset of spring
runoff. All of the erosion control measures shall remain intact until an
' established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time removal
shall be the responsibility of the developer.
21. Hay bales shall be placed around all storm sewer inlets.
' 22. Wood fiber blankets shall be utilized to stabilize all disturbed slopes
greater than 3:1.
23. Erosion control check dams shall be placed at 100 foot intervals in all
constructed drainage swales.
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
24. Working hours shall be between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with
no work allowed on Sundays and Holidays.
25. The developer shall promptly clean streets, on and off site, of all dirt
and debris that has resulted from construction work by the developer, it's
agents or assigns.
26. The lights proposed on the site plan shall be shielded so as to not impact '
the neighbors.
27. The proposed watermain should be extended from the existing water service
on the east property boundary to the existing 8 inch diameter watermain
located south of the site on Hidden Court. The diameter of the proposed
watermain which traverses the parcel should be a minimum of 6 inches while
the extension of the watermain along Hidden Court should be 8 inches in
diameter.
All voted in favor and motion carried. '
Councilman Horn: To give you perspective, at least my priorities, the
realignment of TH 101 is probably second only to improvement of TH 5 in my mind
of priorities that we need. The only thing to prevent us from doing that is if
we can't get funds to do it. Otherwise it will happen.
CODIFICATION, SECOND AND FINAL READING.
Barbara Dacy: On the codification we have three ordinances for Council '
consideration. Ordinance No. 83 merely adopts the new book. 84 amends various
sections of that. Ordinance No. 85 is the specific amendment amending the
language to the Park and Recreation section.
Councilman Boyt: As I understand it, Ordinance No. 83 is the big black book,
right? '
Barbara Dacy: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Are we actually going to talk about any specifics in this or '
is the thought just take it all and correct it later? I happened to stumble
across something that is pretty nit picky in our animal ordinance. Is this an
opportunity to change it quickly or I'm looking for the sense? Do you want to
discuss it or should we move along? I'll tell you what it is. It's two cats
and two dogs. That may seem like an awfully minor point but I think we should
have something that says to people you can have two animals. I don't want to
be living next to a kennel. Do we want to discuss this or not?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't.
Councilman Geving: Not tonight.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe Barb can put it on the next agenda. '
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
1l
3
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve to adopt the
' following Ordinances: Ordinance No. 83 as represented in Attachment #1,
Ordinance No. 84 pertainng to various amendments to the Chanhassen City Code,
' and Ordinance No. 85 pertaining to amending the Park and Recreation Section.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, SECOND AND FINAL READING.
Councilman Johnson: Roger, I need some clarification on this. Part of this we
haven't had the first reading.
Roger Knutson: You can waive the first reading if you want.
1 Councilman Johnson: It's just that we're now doing the construction of metal
buildings in the industrial district and satellite dishes and antennas.
Waiving the first reading and having only a final reading.
' Councilman Boyt: I think we've discussed it haven't we?
Councilman Johnson: I wasn't here last time. That's how it got on here is
that you were discussing it last time.
Councilman Boyt: On metal buildings, what we're really saying here, outside of
we don't want polebarns is that somebody can basically put up a metal building
and paint it. I think the intention of the motion is stated pretty clearly.
That we don't want a polebarn in our business area. Had we been restrictive
' enough to simply say you can take a steel building and paint it and that's good
enough.
' Mayor Hamilton: I missed your point I guess.
Councilman Boyt: In point a, Section 7(a) , no galvanized or unfinished steel.
It says just above that, to avoid polebarns. That means I put up an all metal
' building and put paint on it, it now is no longer unfinished steel but it can
still look just exactly like a polebarn.
Barbara Dacy: It's my understanding that that's not necessarily true. The
polebarn has a more corregated exterior whereas some of the metal exteriors
don't necessarily look and have that corregated texture to the exterior of the
' building. The galvanized or unfinished steel is the materials that polebarns
are typically made out of. There are metal buildings that are aesthetically
appealing. They can have the sheetrock interior but metal exterior so we
wanted to leave that flexibility in there.
' Councilman Horn: So we couldn't have a building like is on Highway 13 which is
an unfinished steel building. The architectural styling is letting the outside
rust.
Barbara Dacy: That's the 410 steel I think, the ones that rust.
I
I
City Council Meeting March 14, 1988
Councilman Horn: That's not unfinished? That's not classified as unfinished
steel?
Gary Warren: 410 steel? It's a natural oxidizing metal just like aluminum.
Barbara Dacy: We had language in there about 410 steel. I wonder what
happened to it.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe we should take our time on that particular one.
Barbara Dacy: I'm getting a little confused because the Commission started out r
with actually no metal buildings and then when it got to the Council they said,
well, we don't want to be too restrictive so we found the Lakeville's ordinance
and that seemed to go right down the middle of the road. That we don't want
polebarns but we can allow a metal exterior.
Roger Knutson: Just a brief comment on it. I'm no expert on it, I'll just
pass on what I have found. I sat through a long presentation on this subject.
There are some very, at least in my opinion, some really outstanding metal
glass buildings that look nothing like polebarns or sheds. If you ban all
metal buildings, you're really banning a lot of good stuff.
Mayor Hamilton: Basically the exterior is metal but the interior is the same
as a block construction or a stand-up concrete construction. r
Councilman Horn: So how do we eliminate that painted metal green stuff like we
have?
Roger Knutson: I don't have 86.
Mayor Hamilton: Can you rework it? Can you leave that section out for right r
now and recompose it? I think we just don't know. Maybe Roger can supply some
of the information that he has.
Roger Knutson: Something was left out.
Councilman Johnson: We need to define polebarn better. The intent is to
prohibit polebarns. Let's say what we're prohibiting.
Barbara Dacy: That's galvanized steel. I don't know. This is what the
Inspector is telling me. Whey they say polebarn, that means galvanized steel. '
Councilman Johnson: Otherwise we can just paint it.
Roger Knutson: It's still galvanized steel. '
Councilman Johnson: It also says galvanized or unfinished aluminum buildings.
Roger Knutson: If you slap paint on galvanized steel, it's still galvanized
steel. It's still prohibited.
r
IICity Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
I Councilman Johnson: But some of these buildings you're talking about are
galvanized that are painted. There's no such thing as a galvanized aluminum
building anyway. You don't galvanize aluminum.
ICouncilman Geving: Let's just table this.
Councilman Johnson: Table Section 7.
IIBarbara Dacy: How about if you just said delete Section 7?
II Councilman Boyt: One other quick question. The last page of this talks about,
I don't know where it came from. This thing about building sizes and lots.
We're not passing anything related to that are we?
IBarbara Dacy: That's right. There should have been an attachment from the
Lakeville Ordinance. Alright, I'll admit it.
II Councilman Boyt: So that's background information but is not something that
we're passing this evening?
1 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the second and final
1 reading of Ordinance No. 86 excluding Section 7 for reclarification. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT AND SELECTION PROCESS FOR REFERENDUM STUDY COMMITTEE.
IMayor Hamilton: I made some comments earlier about this process and I an not
sure that we have all the information yet that we need. I think Don has
II started with some comments here but I guess I would prefer to have a session
with the Council with the staff and try to figure out just how the heck we
should situate this whole thing. I think we need to have some direction before
we just start selecting a coinaui.ttee because I think we want to look at the
1 business people. We want to look at schools. We want to look at the clergy in
town. We want to look at service groups and I don't think we know yet where we
want to go. So we select a committee and then all of a sudden we're stuck with
Itrying to figure out where we're going to go with this.
Councilman Geving: I think we're better off taking a little bit more time and
II having a work session some evening where we can relax for an hour or so and
talk about where we're going and not rush into it. We don't need to do this
tonight. Hopefully we can have Don with us. He's got some thoughts on this
and unfortunately he's not here.
IIMayor Hamilton: There's a lot of people interested and that's good.
it__ Councilman Horn: Are we going to advertise for this?
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's something we need to talk about. We don't know
that yet I guess.
II
r
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make one point and that i.s, I think that I may be
reading something into Don's memo that's not there. However, I think it's very
important that we send a clear message to the people who were on the Community
Center Task Force that they did a good job of gathering information and
presenting it to the public. As I read this memo, I didn't read that. i
Mayor Hamilton: I agree completely.
Councilman Horn: I think he was addressing a different issue.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table consideration for the 1
establishment and selection process for a Referendum Study Committee. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
Todd Gerhardt: Can we try to set up a night, long range, 3 weeks from now or
something so we can meet with these people because I'd sort of like to get it
while it's still fresh.
The Council set up the date of Monday, April 4, 1988 as a work session to
discuss this item.
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS AND SOUTHWEST METRO El
TRANSIT BOARD.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to appoint Jay Johnson as the
Council's representative on the Southwest Metro Transit Board. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to appoint Willard Johnson, I
Carol Watson and Dale Geving be appointed to the Board of Adjustments_ and
Appeals. All voted in favor and motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Geving: The reason that I want to address this issue, I want to '
have it appear over our public video. The Southwest Metro Transit Commission
voted at it's last regular meeting to provide dial-a-ride service in the City
of Chanhassen starting April 4th. This will be a pick-up at your very own '
residence at any time from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. for anyone who wants to go
to work, to school, shopping, anywhere in the community and I'm making this
announcement because I think it's really a big thing. We've come a long ways
and it's giving people the opportunity to do their shopping and getting to work
without having a second car for example. To our business park. It's something
that I know Tom was working on when we were with the Southwest Metro. We've
had it in Chaska now for several months. It's gone over very well. It's gone
over very well over in Shakopee and we said, hey, how about trying it in
0:1!
Chanhassen. I'm sure that we're going to get a lot of residents who are going
to pick up on this. Especially those people that want to go shopping. On the 1
second page I've given you also a copy of the schedule and the amount that it's
I
II'
iY Council Meeti.n g - March 14
1988
IF ,
I going to cost you. It's very reasonable and how you can subscribe to this.
I just want to make this public announcement for the people that are listening
into the video.
I Mayor Hamilton: Just a thought, if it's going to start on April 4th and we
have a council meeting that night, maybe to kick it off we could meet at 5:30
and we could all take dial-a-ride to City Hall. We could just have some
I pictures. Why not? Perhaps Mary could take a picture for us and that would be
kind of a fun way to get it started. Might as well publicize it.
ICouncilman Geving: I heard previously that Hubert Forcier was going to resign
as our Plumbing Inspector and I called Hubert last night and he said, after 27
years of service to the community he had to resign. It's on doctor's orders
I and as much as enjoyed working for the City, he just couldn't go on any
further. He's 86 years old. I thought it would be appropriate if the Mayor
could present to Hubert a plaque. Maybe not this sort of plaque but some sort
II of recognition award. A letter signed by the Council. Anyone that serves 27
years for the City should at least get some kind of a presentation in front of
the Council.
II Mayor Hamilton: I think that's an excellent idea and I have already asked the
Chamber of Commerce to present Hubert, I hope he's not listening, with the
7 Senior Citizen of the Year award which they give each June at the Jr. Miss
pageant. He's a heck of a guy and I have a lot of respect for him and he's
1 s
done a great job for the City. I think it would be nice to honor him through
the Chamber. I hope we have the opportunity to do that. I would certainly
II thing that the City ought to present him with the Maple Leaf Award and have him
up here one evening.
Councilman Johnson: I discussed this earlier today with Jim Chaffee. Jim, I
' think is starting the paperwork on this to see what is available.
Mayor Hamilton: We have the Maple Leaf Award which we haven't issued any of
IIrecently. It's a little plaque and it's saying thanks to him.
II Councilman Boyt: I'd like to talk about oil disposal first, if that's alright.
Talking to Jo Ann about this matter, we've talked in the Council before about
this and the last time we had the discussion, it ended up with the prospect of
examining the potential for requiring all retailers of oil in Chanhassen to
II also provide for collection. I would like to get a sense of the Council that
we would like her to pursue that.
IMayor Hamilton: It's a good idea.
Councilman Horn: I agree.
IICouncilman Johnson: Yes.
�-- Mayor Hamilton: We've talked about it before. I don't know that we've ever
1 known that we had the power to tell than they had to do it.
Councilman Johnson: There's a State Law like that for used batteries. If you
II
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
sell batteries, automobile batteries, you have to accept batteries back from
them. It's a recent law that went into effect I believe just this year. With
used oil all you have to do is have a sign or have information telling them
where they can take it to be recycled. That's tough because most people don't
know where. You go to Super America and ask them, they're not going to know.
I totally agree with what you're saying. Everybody ought to do it or maybe, if
Brown Standard is doing it across the street from somebody else, it may be
better that these people can just say that Brown does it or something. There
has to be a little flexibility in there. We don't want to start getting drums
of used oil laying around every little shop.
Mayor Hamilton: The problem is, and I think Bill said it, you get someone like '
Super America who sells it. They don't even worry about collecting it. They
don't change oil so what do they care? It goes out their door and it's gone.
They don't have to worry about any additional expense of disposing of it. I
don't know how we can accomplish that. If there's a surcharge you can put on.
There must be someway that we can recover something from companies that sell it
but don't do anything with it other than sell it. I think that's a good idea.
We should look into it.
Councilman Johnson: There used to be a market for it but now the market has
gone to pot. 1
Mayor Hamilton: We could have a collection facility in the City also where
people could bring it and dump it and then we, based on the number of gallons
E_I
that's collected, charge it back on a distributed, store rated basis back to
all the sellers. I don't know if that would be legal but it would certainly be
worth trying. We have to pay to get rid of it. If we collected it, we'd say
we'll dispose of it somehow but we're going to distribute that cost back to
those who sell it.
Councilman Johnson: Unfortunately where it's bought may not actually be '
Chanhassen. I buy a case of it when it's on sale someplace.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, but you may also buy your oil at Super America and then
go to Eden Prairie to change your oil so it probably will even out, I would
think somewhat.
Councilman Horn: I think we want staff to give us a recommendation as to how 1
we can handle this.
Councilman Boyt: Number two, architectural drawings. I just want to touch on
this briefly. In working on the Community Center Task Force I was surprised to
find that an architectural drawing that's watercolored is $500.00. The City
pays for that. The Planning Commission this last meeting, one of our downtown
architects brought in a couple of these, about $1,000.00 worth, to show them
what it would look like if we had a consistent sign system. Nice idea but we
didn't $1,000.00 to show that idea to the Planning Commission. I think that we
have to take a position that staff needs to be very careful in how they
regulate the landscape and development architects who are doing work for the
City, in controlling what we need to see in order to make a reasonable
decision. I don't think we need to pay $250.00 to see it in color. That's my
I
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Ilt--
II point there. Then working up the ladder here, the clock tower. It seemed like
an appropriate time to bring it up. It's in the Administrative Section. The
materials we were given, some were in about the middle of it, has a request to
' seek bids on the clock tower and the entry monuments. It's my opinion that we
should not build the clock tower or the other entry monuments. I guess during
Council presentation is not appropriate to make a motion to that effect but I
' think this needs to be considered again and it would be my intentions to see it
put on a future agenda.
Councilman Geving: Can I ask you why?
Councilman Boyt: We have it sitting up there in front. I guess my main reason
stems out of what I see with the old City Hall. I have not talked to one
person, outside of the architect who drew it up, who thinks that that's a good
location for that place. I don't want to have another dramatic statement that
I'm personally uncomfortable with and so I just want to be on the record as
saying that I'm very skeptical that the community wants a clock tower designed
' as we discussed it a year ago and those entry monuments. I'm quite skeptical
that they're going to say that that was money well spent.
' Councilman Horn: I have a question.
7 Mayor Hamilton: Dealing with the clock tower?
Councilman Horn: Regarding the procedures. Is that an HRA decision or City
Council's?
' Mayor Hamilton: Probably HRA.
Councilman Horn: I think so.
' Mayor Hamilton: It should be HRA. You can probably go to an HRA meeting and
present, you probably should if you feel that way, should go to an HRA meeting
' and tell them that.
Councilman Johnson: Bill, I would support you on the clock tower. At the
point that they were trying to attract the Clock Tower Hotel and stuff, it made
a little sense. Right now I don't think the clock tower makes that much sense.
I like that tree that's there, where the clock tower is going to be. It's
pretty nice and that's kind of what Chanhassen is. It's more that. The neon
' clock tower, I never was really heavy on. The entry monuments I think are
pretty passive deals. They're not too terribly fancy. I think they're more in
trend with what the City is. I think we really do need to relook at the clock
tower. With the current development and from what I understand, they're no
longer projecting that we might have a Clock Tower Hotel. There was some where
we would have another clock tower on the other side of town so there was some
continuity between clock towers. Now there doesn't seem to be that. That's my
comment.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like it would be a mistake, I think, to turn back
' from a position we took some time ago in looking at an overall plan that took
years and years to develop. To turn back now from the focal point of that plan
I think would be the wrong thing to do. We budgeted for those things. We knew
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
what it was going to cost. I've had a lot of really good comments about the
downtown. People from Chanhassen. People from other towns who think that what '
we're doing in downtown Chanhassen is just really nice and they like it a lot
and to all of a sudden stop and not follow through with the original plans we
had, I think would be a mistake. Once things are done, I think it's going to
look really nice. Of course, you're always going to have your detracters who
are going to say I don't like it or it was a waste of money but I think
Chanhassen, maybe we won't get it, but I think for once Chanhassen needs
something they can be proud and that they can look at and say, this is a part
of a plan that we came up with and it's something we followed through on and we
did it and we finished the whole plan. It's going to be a very nice downtown
area.
Councilman Johnson: Of course, with that little blue building behind it, it
may not look. .. '
Mayor Hamilton: That's not going to be there forever hopefully.
Councilman Johnson: In the near future, when the clock tower goes up, it's '
still going to be there.
Councilman Geving: I kind of agree with what Tom is saying. We worked awful
hard and we spent really hours looking at all of these plans. I'm not
satisfied with the old Village Hall and it's the butt of a lot of jokes and
I get a lot of comments from people that don't like it and I don't like it
myself but I do believe that I'd like to see us carry through on this whole
project. I particularly like the monuments. I do like the entrance monuments.
I think that will be a very nice appearance. It's low key. It's done nicely.
It has a lot of flowers in there and it can really show up pretty nicely as you
come across that railroad tracks and see Chanhassen. I'm not totally sold on
the clock tower. That's something that I never really was too much in favor of
with the plastic with the panels but I do believe that it's important for us to
maintain the course. Stay on the course that we had worked on and let's see
this thing through. I said that when we looked at the dangerous intersection
that I think we created at the corner of Pauly's and Great Plains Blvd..
I held my comments and my criticism of the area in front of the Pony Express.
I still feel that's dangerous. I got a call the other evening from a young
lady that was almost killed on that corner. As far as the clock tower is
concerned, I'd like to see us keep it. '
Councilman Boyt: Last comment is about the Heritage Park. I think, and again
this is going to be an HRA agenda item I suspect, I think we should not finish
the area in front of the old Village Hall. I personally don't think the old
Village Hall is going to stay there a long time and to put more money into
something that I think already is a mistake, would be a further mistake.
Mayor Hamilton: You mean just leave it dirt?
Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that I don't think we should put a concrete pad in
there and patterns and plantings and that sort of thing. Maybe we need to do
something to temporarily take care of it but I have a hard time believing that
that building's going to be there 3 or 4 years from now.
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: What's going to happen to it? Burn down?
Councilman Boyt: We're going to find a better place for it.
Mayor Hamilton: Then why have we gone through this whole plan? That's been
kind of a focal point for the downtown to put that building there and then all
of a sudden in 3 or 4 years we're going to move it?
' Councilman Boyt: That's not the focal point that I want people to see when
they come downtown. Not the way it's sitting right now.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you've got a better vision than I and I thought mine was
pretty good but when that thing is done, I don't know how you can say that.
It's not done and I think you have to wait until you see the final product.
Councilman Johnson: In the future when we get the old depot back and stuff,
there may be a point where we'll want the historic buildings, the railroad
depot and whatever, within a park setting that's more of a museum type area and
' that thing may get moved. I don't know what we're going to do with it. I
don't like it. That's rather obvious that the trapezoid is not one my favorite
areas but I don't think we need to totally stop that area. Hopefully they've
' relooked at the concrete patterns and stuff there. I think they really hadn't
looked at it much.
-7
Mayor Hamilton: Again, that's an issue for the HRA so Clark can carry those
thoughts back.
Councilman Horn: I've already carried the thought about the clock tower.
' I was 100% in favor of the clock tower as a concept until I saw the neon type
of clock tower that was done so I have mixed feelings about that myself but I
don't think we can back up. As far as moving our historical center, I don't
' think we're going to move the old St. Hubert's church. That is the core reason
that that's where we have our heritage center and I don't think that can
change.
' Councilman Boyt: But how can you put it on an angle like that Clark? It
doesn't fit the church at all.
' Councilman Horn: That's not the point. What you said is that we'll have a
historical park somewhere else. I disagree with that. The historical park
will be where old St. Hubert's is. The angle's a totally different subject.
Councilman Boyt: Don't we want to settle that angle before we put that
concrete pad in?
Councilman Geving: I'd be willing to make that. Whatever recommendation the
HRA can take. I'd rather spend the money now and do it. Let's do it right.
If the angle's the problem, let's change it.
11
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is insurance. I just wanted to bring up the
subject and see what everybody thought about it. At the beginning of each year
we appoint various people to do various things. The Auditor and the Attorneys
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
and all these different types of things. Joel Jenkins approached me the other
day and had mentioned insurance. He's in the insurance business and he was
curious what we do in the City insurance wise. As we talked, he was explaining
different programs to me that he felt would be a benefit to our employees here
that they are not getting at the present time because we don't have anybody on
our staff who is an expert in insurance. I think it would be a good idea for
us to look at the possibility of somehow having a person in the insurance field
as a staff consultant such as an attorney or as an accountant so we could go to
than and say, on an annual basis or whenever we need to have it done and they
can tell us you need to have your programs upgraded. There are some benefits
here for the employees that they don't have currently that you should consider.
I just think that we're not doing our employees a favor the way we're doing it
now because the manager looks at it and if he doesn't have time, nothing ever
gets looked at so I would like to just get everybody's feelings as to whether
or not they'd like to even consider doing something like this. I don't know
how it would be done. I don't know if it'd be on a fee basis. I have no idea.
Councilman Geving: Did he give you some ideas of some of these areas? What
are some of the areas that he mentioned?
Mayor Hamilton: Health insurance for one thing. I don't think the City has a
good health insurance plan and he said there are some real good things
available that our employees don't have that they could have for little or no
additional cost. That was just one.
Councilman Geving: I agree. I think we should keep looking at these things.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think we should look at somebody who is selling
the plans as our advisor. It's amazing how, when somebody is selling a
product, that that's the product that ends up being recommended.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think you want to ask an attorney to be your insurance
rep. You've got to have somebody who's in the business.
Councilman Johnson: There may be people who do consulting who don't necessarily
sell the plans but do consulting.
Mayor Hamilton: That's like saying we need to have an accountant but we don't
want an accoutant to do it because he might want to charge us for it.
Councilman Johnson: I'm looking at a fee basis like a consulting engineer that
comes in and does work for us. BRW. They're not out there actually digging up
the dirt.
Mayor Hamilton: It was just brought up as an idea and I think we'd have to
have some people in to give us their thoughts on how it should be done anyway
so maybe we can pursue that.
TH 212 TASK FORCE UPDATE.
Mayor Hamilton: No action is required but you've got some information before
you about what's been happening with TH 212. We've been getting a lot of
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
information on it recently so if you have any questions, call your local
II • legislator. Anybody have any quetsions?
Councilman Geving: I guess I was kind of curious about the make-up of this
' group that met. I was surprised there weren't more people other than the 3 or
4 that came to Carver. Is this just our own Carver County group?
Barbara Dacy: The Task Force was created by a Joint Powers Agreement between
all of the participating communities. The Council appointed a staff person
and Mike Mulligan as the citizen representative and appointed Jay. Chanhassen
is the only one that has three reps. Everybody else only has one so we're well
represented.
Councilman Johnson: We only get one vote though. The three of us get
' together.
MERLE VOLK LAND EXCHANGE, CITY OF CHASKA - CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CITY MANAGER.
1 Mayor Hamilton: Don was going to speak to us about this. He's been working on
this project.
Barbara Dacy: Chaska is proposing two parcels to be swapped into Chanhassen in
exchange for the deannexation of Merle Volk's property. The two parcels that
# they propose is an 18 acre piece adjacent to the Gedney property and a 22 acre
piece that's adjacent to the Arboretum property and north of 82nd Street. This
111- piece would iron out a little jog in the municipal boundary. As you note,
I think the main point of Don's memo is in the last bullet. He strongly feels
' that if these two, especially the Gedney piece because that could be expanded
into by Gedney and therefore a larger tax base, Don feels strongly that if
these lands remained in Chaska, Chanhassen would not receive benefit from those
' lands as well as with the Merle Volk property, the westerly 40 acres of which
is over here. If that land remains in Chanhassen, because of the A-2 zoning
and the development regulations, Chan would not receive the benefit that it
would if it is built upon. The only way it can be constructed to industrial
' uses if it is deannexed into Chaska. At this point, at least under the
Manager's recommendation that the Council consider this type of land swap to
deannex Merle Volk's property and accept these two pieces in exchange.
' Councilman Boyt: I can see why the Chaska City Manager would feel that they're
Council would quickly approve this were they given the opportunity. I don't
' think we're talking about comparable values here. It may be a good place to
start. I'd like to see if they can't offer us something that offers the
eventual economic potential that the Merle Volk property is going to offer.
' Councilman Horn: Something probably closer.
Mayor Hamilton: Closer to what?
Councilman Horn: To the downtown area.
Mayor Hamilton: How can they give us property closer to our downtown area?
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Councilman Horn: Or closer to the MUSA line?
Barbara Dacy: Unfortunately, the MUSA line is too far north in Chan.
Councilman Geving: The parcels that they're trying to give us, I feel are of
very little value to either Chaska or potentially to Chanhassen. That parcel
south of the Arboretum, I could see would eventually just be gobbled up as an
extension ofthe Arboretum and be a non-tax stated item anyway. It's of no
value to the City of Chanhassen. I see us wanting a piece of property at least
equal to the parcel that we're giving up which is a 40 acre contiguous piece of
land. Hopefully in the northern part of Chanhassen, north of Lyman Boulevard.
Again, reiterating some of the earlier comments of potentially the same
economic value as the piece that we're proposing to deannex.
Councilman Johnson: I agree. I don't think that this is an equitable swap at
this time. I don't see where we're breaking even on it. I just don't see what
we're gaining.
Mayor Hamilton: I've represented Merle Volk on this piece of property with the
City of Chaska on a previous meeting and what I did was to show the City of
Chaska what Chanhassen would be giving up in potential development and what the
taxes that would be derived off of that property would be should Chaska go
ahead and develop it commercially. I can't remember the exact numbers. It
seems like it was something around 4 million dollars in taxes annually off of
that property and I used a very conservative figure. At that point I suggested
to Chaska that they go back and relook at their proposal and find property that
was more valuable than what they were proposing for us to swap with them, even
though I was representing Merle and he was very agreeable to that. He said,
that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. The only thing that would make
me change my mind is that the only way that that property is going to be
developed, if it's going to do anything, is to go to Chaska and the taxes that
would come off that property of course would help the entire County. I think
that's something we need to consider. That's, I guess two issues. They should
be willing to swap something with us that's of a little more use, a little more
value to us and I had asked them that and got no reply from them and I'm happy
to hear everybody here saying the same thing. I do think it would benefit the
City of Chanhassen, I don't know how you could measure it but if that 40 acres
went into Chaska's Industrial Park, the taxes that that generate would
certainly help the whole county some. It would help the school district some
and you have to believe that some of the people who would be working there, in
whatever, off the 40 acres. If there's like a million square feet or
something, under a roof, there's going to be a lot of employees there. At
least a percentage of them are going to live in the City of Chanhassen and
they're going to do their shopping and some buying in the City of Chanhassen so
we'd certainly benefit from that standpoint so I think it's important to
consider all aspects of it but I would like Chaska to relook and dig a little
deeper and find a piece of property that might be a little more value than the
piece of the Arboretum that already is in the Arboretum and isn't going to be
taxed. We should be able to benefit something. The Gedney Pickle Plant I
think intends to make some expansion so that property may be a very good piece
for us to pick up.
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
II Councilman Geving: Except I'd really like to stay out of the flood bank. That
area is potentially a flood area.
Barbara Dacy: So Barb you can carry that message back. It would be fun to
have you talk to someone in Chaska that has some authority. I think you should
talk to someone who can at least do something or make a decision.
' Councilman Johnson: It doesn't actually have to be 40 acres exactly for 40
acres exactly but the value's got to be the same. If they want to give us 40
acres that are a quarter of the value, then they better be looking at giving us
' 160 acres at a quarter of the value so we end up with the same value. Same
potential value. It's a long range off. There's a lot of area there still to
develop. Because Chaska gets this 40 acres, doesn't mean that somebody is
going to immediately it's value to it. It may be 10 years before they get
' around to putting something there.
Mayor Hamilton: They'd put the roads in immediately and the sewer and water.
' They'd do it right away. They are running out of space. They've got their
plans already drawn, amazingly enough, for that 40 acres. They've got the
roads all drawn in there and sewer and water going through it. It's all done.
HIGHWAY FUNDING, CITY ENGINEER.
Gary Warren: I think the document is pretty concise. The City Engineer's
Association is trying to encourage cities to formally support the
recommendation of the Transportation Finance Study Commission concerning the
' additional 3 cents gas tax and the increase in the motor vehicle excise tax
revenues to 35%. I thought I'd pass on the recommendations of that committee
to the Council as a sample resolution if the Council is interested in
officially going on record as supporting participation. I guess we've all been
' very familiar with the need for the funding. Especially as it relates to TH 5
and TH 212.
' Mayor Hamilton: I wish the Resolution was complete so we'd know what the rest
of it says.
' Gary Warren: The part that's missing is the specifics on supporting the 3
cents increase and the increase of the motor vehicle excise tax to 35%.
Mayor Hamilton: So that's what the, Now, Therefore, be it Resolved would say?
' Gary Warren: Right. That we support the recommendations of the Transportation
Finance Study Commission specifically with charging the 3 cent increase and the
35% additional.
Resolution #88-23: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adopt the
Resolution to support the recommendation of the Transportation Finance Study
Commission as outlined in the City Engineer's report. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
1
City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
e . • I
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 2, 1988
' Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 45 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad and
David Headla
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Brian Batzli. and James Wildermuth
' STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst.
City Planner
' PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT AMENDMENT OF 41 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 18 ACRES TO 51
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 23 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON
' THE WEST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF HWY
5, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
' Chairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comment.
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to close public hearing . All voted in
favor and motion carried.
' Headla : Just as a philosophy first , if they go ahead and build those
homes and then a decision is someday, I want a fence or a hedge
between our property lines right next to a road, do they have to come
in and get approval for a fence?
' Olsen : They have to get a building permit for a fence.
' Headla: They do have to get a building permit for a fence?
Olsen : And if it ' s over 6 1/2 feet they have to get a conditional use
permit.
Headla : I was just thinking like a 4 foot hedge or 4 foot fence
they
would have to get a permit?
Olsen: For a fence .
Headla : So if there ' s any type of sign that they'd put in, they'd
have to get approval so they'd fall under the regular ordinances for
that?
Olsen : Yes .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 2
I
Headla : PUD doesn' t go around that? Okay. The first thing when I I
was looking at the plan and we' ve been driving that direction and once
in a while we bounce back to it but we go ahead again. We' re going to
have 50 homes on one road, a deadend road, and I see Madden didn' t ask
for it, is there any reason why we shouldn' t ask that that road be •
continued back to Powers Blvd.? I could just see an emergency vehicle
couldn' t get back to an emergency because something was jammed up near
Powers Blvd . .
Olsen : Again, that was reviewed by staff and they did not feel that
was necessary at this time. But the road will be extended in the near
future with the additional phases .
Headla: What' s the definition of near future?
Olsen: In the next 5 years .
Headla : In the meantime we've got 50 homes that could be in jeopardy.
I feel that we should ask that the road be extended, just for safety
sake. There ' s agreement they were going to put in a park right?
What' s the schedule for that park? Are we going to let him get
everything built in the park that ' s the last item or what ' s the
phasing of that?
Olsen : No , the park will be developed as a part of the future phases .
The necessity for that park would really be determined upon the number
of homes once it reaches a point . We have it specifically in that PUD
contract. Whenever the Park and Rec Department wants that park, they
can have i.t.
Headla : You've got that pretty well . . .
Olsen: Yes, it' s up to the city to determine.
Headla : The roadway that goes through there, it ' s 35 feet wide?
Olsen: The paved surface is.
Headla : It' s 35 feet . That ' s curb to curb? Then a 5 foot sidewalk
is going to be in addition to that so it would be 40 feet?
Olsen: It would be off-street sidewalks so it won' t be on the street.
It will be a separate sidewalk from the road. It will be outside of
the curb area .
Headla : But there will be a place for the sidewalk but that will be
within the 60 feet right-of-way?
Olsen : Yes . I
Headla : What side of the street does that go on? The sidewalk?
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 3
I
Olsen : I believe it ' s going to be on the north side. The Park and
Rec Commission didn' t determine which side . They just wanted to make
sure that it was on the same side on either side of Powers Blvd. .
' Headla : You know, a while ago we talked about it and then we backed
away. We've got over 50 homes now but we' re going to have a lot more
homes there and when we go on the east side, there' s going to be an
' awful lot of homes. We' ve got a park and can you imagine in 10 years
the traffic on Powers Blvd. , people crossing that? I don ' t know if we
backed away from a tunnel or a bridge. I don't have a position but
' I 'm concerned about that. Do we look forward to a stop sign there?
Is that the practical thing to do or should we be asking for something
else? I ' ll give the rest of you a chance to think about it . Do they
put in street lights?
' Olsen : Yes .
' Headla : I didn' t see that spelled out.
Olsen: That's in the development contract.
Headla: On item 18 , if you look at the 20 foot utility goes between
Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1. Was that to be a continuous line down to
Susan Hills because the next easement is over between Lots 17 and 18 .
' It looks like it took a jump shift. I 'm looking at page 1.
Emmings : On the third page down.
' Headla : You know I looked at that page and I didn' t even see it .
Okay, that' s the answer. That looks fine. On item 6, I don' t
understand that compared to the engineering memo where they talked
' about the 7%.
Olsen : This is just a landing area . They want a level area where the
' cars will be waiting.
Headla : No , I 'm talking about the engineering memo where it says
' roadway.
Olsen : A typical standard for a road itself is a 7% slope.
Headla: I didn' t understand that.
Olsen : That' s our maximum slope of the road itself.
' Headla: It said to the City' s recommended standard of 7% and that
didn ' t seem right . Go to the Engineering memo, page 2 about the
' middle paragraphy. See where it says, as compared to the City' s
recommended standard of 7% .
Emmings: Should that be recommended maximum?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2 , 1988 - Page 4
Conrad : It' s maximum is what they intended .
Headla: 7% maximum. Alright, then this other one makes sense. If we
approve what you 've got here, and then I look at a note on the drawing
on page 1, and we talked about this before, all dimensions are
preliminary and subject to change on the final plat. Doesn ' t that
just open up a can of worms? When we approve something, don' t we
approve it based on the date of this print?
Olsen: Yes, but they come in with their final computerized
calculations . Instead of 92 feet wide it might actually be 92. 5 or
something. The actual dimensions really don' t change.
Headla: Where do you draw the line on changes?
Olsen: If it ' s a major change, if the lot comes in with a totally
different area.
Headla : But your opinion of major and somebody elses opinion can be
different. How do you control that?
Olsen : We review when the final plats come in to make sure that they I
conform with the preliminary plat. It' s always very, very minor. A
couple of feet.
Headla : You' re saying with this note , you ' ve never had any trouble in
the past and if somebody shifted stuff that you hadn' t. . .
Olsen : If it was a 90 foot wide lot which was required and it came in I
at 89, then we wouldn ' t permit it. It wouldn' t be acceptable. It' s
usually just minor .
Headla : Alright, so you haven ' t had a problem with that?
Olsen: No.
Headla: Okay the last one then is , where you have on here page 4,
just above your recommendation, could you just explain that a little
bit more . On the very top where the Park and Recreation also
requested.
Olsen : Okay, the 50 foot for the outlot? '
Headla: Yes.
Olsen: Outlot B is leading into where the park area will be developed I
in future phases so they are preserving an access for the subdivision.
That was a part of the first plat they had in.
Headla: Okay, that ' s all I had .
IFPlanning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 5
1
Ellson : I had a quick question on lots per acre, units per acre . Is
that the same measurement? In here we write units/acre net density of
2. 32 and on the blueprint it says net density of 2. 68 lots per acre.
' Olsen : When you' re talking single family then yes , it' s the same. If
it 's multiple or two homes on one lot. We always go by units.
Ellson: There' s a discrepency then.
Olsen: Right, it's real close. I went through and calculated it.
' Ellson : I just have another question on the type of landscaping that
you recommended. I wouldn ' t begin to know what you ' re talking about.
' Olsen : They provided the detailed landscape plan for the other
preliminary plat and what that is is additional landscaping along the
intersections Lyman Blvd . , along the main streets and it tells you
' what kind of landscaping it is and what types of vegetation so we can
approve that. Normally that is presented as a part of the preliminary
plat.
' Ellson: I didn' t know if it was that detailed or if it was up to them
and I thought, how can that be?
' Olsen: What happens is normally with subdivisions , all they do is the
development contract just requires one tree per lot. With this PUD,
as a part of the PUD approval we got additional landscaping so as you
' turn into the subdivision there might be an arrangement of trees
around the sign or something so it ' s added vegetation rather than just
the one tree per lot.
' Ellson : They have their streets , I think it was like 60 feet wide and
we wanted to change them to 50 and the reasoning was because of our
regulations for that?
1 Olsen : Right , the urban street is only 50 feet wide right-of-way.
They are providing a wider road along Lake Susan Hills Drive because
' it is such a major roadway. The shorter cul-de-sacs really only need
to be in 50 foot right-of-way for urban standards.
Ellson : I disagree with Dave about another entrance. I think that
it ' s when you get all these entrances onto a main road like Powers
Blvd . that you get more traffic problems because everyone is trying to
come out at once and if there were development on the other side they
' could share one intersection but if there' s an intersection here and
then someone' s got to stop again later on. I think that' s where you
get more problems with people pulling out rather than having one
designated area. If they will eventually extend it, I would be
satisfied not to expand that entrance.
Conrad: Just so you know Dave' s concern is that for emergency
purposes . We have a standard and staff inforces it in all cases that
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 6
there be two entrances to anything for fire , for police. I think that I
was Dave' s main point on this one. We don' t know when the rest of
this will be developed and therefore you have 50 houses that have one
access which can be closed off by one tree. So the point is, are you
comfortable with the safety for the end of the cul-de-sac basically or
do you think anything temporarily should be done to provide a second
access? Staff ' s recommendation is no.
Emmings: Has staff looked at whatever these poor soil conditions are I
just to see if it impacts any other aspect of the development or any
other future developments?
Olsen: The Engineering Department really looked at them closely
because still the utilities were going to be going through there. He
has some certain stipulations to help protect that .
Emmings: I ' ll jump in on the road issue because there's no doubt in
my mind that we would not approve this and that we have specifically
not approved others on the basis of not having a second access. Five
years is an awful long time to me and I think there should be a second
access here. I guess maybe one way we could handle it would be, the
Fire Inspector said that there is no problems with this meeting the
fire code and I don' t think that' s what we' re asking. I think it' s a
different question and there ' s no indication that that was considered ,
either by the City Engineer or by the Fire Inspector. Maybe what we
could do is just ask that the appropriate person look at it between
now and Council and come back with the reasons why we should or
shouldn ' t require a second access but I certainly think we should .
That ' s all I have.
Olsen : Do you feel like just having a secondary access going. . .
Emmings: Back to Powers Blvd. .
Olsen: Right but coming back here and swinging back to Powers or
would you. . .
Emmings : Whatever is easier for them to do. If they want to put a
temporary roadway back out there, I think that would be fine.
Conrad : I agree with the road issue . That ' s my only comment other
than clarification of one issue. The engineer Larry Brown says, under
drainage, a more defined drainage swale- should be created. Staff says
a more pronounced drainage swale . In terms of how the developer takes
those comments, what does that really mean? Are there engineering
aspects to what we' re asking them to do or are we talking about
digging it a little bit deeper and there' s no standard for digging it
a little bit deeper? We' re just saying dig it a little bit deeper?
Olsen: I believe that ' s right. They just have an idea that they want
it to be more pronounced . I don' t believe that there' s any specific
standards between swales. I could double check. They work closely
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 7
1
' with the developer when they go into the detailed plans and I think
that 's when a lot of those are figured out as to exactly what they
mean.
' Emmings : Does it sort of go without saying that if we put something
like this in that it has to be done in a way that satisfies the City
Engineer or should we put that language in there?
Dacy: In his paragraph, Larry refers that the final plan and
specification approval . That is approved by the Council and that plan
is the construction drawings. That would show the depth of the swale
and Larry was referring, based on the calculations of the amount of
water going through there, they use that to determine how deep a pond
should be or how wide it should be and the volumes going through that
so it 's one of those detailed items .
Conrad: So those calculations by the developer , get reviewed by Larry
' Brown?
Dacy: That' s correct .
Conrad : I don' t have any other comments other than I think we should
put in a point 19 that staff should advise City Council as to the
safety of having a cul-de-sac this long without a secondary access .
Any other discussion?
Headla moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
' approval of the preliminary plat amendment as shown on the plan
stamped "Received February 12, 1988" subject to the following
conditions :
' 1. The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which
provides for additional landscaping on the addition of Lake Susan
Hills Drive and Pelican Court .
2. The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver County
for the proposed access from CR 17 (Powers Blvd. ) .
' 3 . A five foot wide concrete off-street trail/sidewalk shall be
constructed along Lake Susan Hills Drive and the trail shall be
placed on the same side of the street in both neighborhoods so as
to match at the Powers Blvd. intersection.
4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and shall
provide the necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement
for completion of the improvements .
5. The applicant shall enter into a revised Development Contract with
the City to reflect changes to the platted area and update the
financial security.
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 8
6. The plans shall be revised to include a landing zone being a
street grade of 0. 5% for a minimum distance of 50 feet prior to
the intersection of CSAH 17.
7. Type II erosion control (staked hay bales and snow fence) shall be II
placed as check dams at 100 foot intervals in all drainage swales.
8 . All utility and roadway improvements shall conform to the City' s
standards for urban construction.
9. A revised grading plan clearly delineating the limits of area with
poor soil conditions shall be submitted for approval by the City
Engineer .
10. Plans and specifications indicating details for installation and
supporting utilities in poor soil areas will be required prior to
construction. The revised plans shall address the comments
contained within this report.
11. The proposed right-of-ways for Pelican Court and Egret Court shall
be reduced to 50 feet in width.
12. A more pronounced drainage swale shall be created at the rear of
Lots 1 through 7 and Lots 11 through 23 of Block 1 to convey
backlot drainage to the proposed storm sewer . I
13. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
commencement of any grading . Once in place they shall remain in II place throughout the duration of the construction. The developer
is required to review erosion control and make the necessary
repairs promptly. All erosion control measures shall remain
intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at
which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer .
14. Sidewalk/trails shall be included in the construction documents as II
required by the PUD agreement.
15. The road section for Lake Susan Hills Drive and Heron Drive shall
be 35 foot back-to-back.
16. A 20 foot wide permanent trail easement shall be provided along
Powers Blvd. for Lot 1, Block 2. 1
17 . Lot 4, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4 shall take services from Lake
Susan Hills Drive sewer and water .
18 . A 20 foot utility easement shall be placed along the storm sewer
pipe which runs between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 and Lots 17 and 18
of Block 1. 1
19. Lake Sugar Hills Drive shall be continued back to Powers Boulevard
unless the Public Safety Director can show to the City Council 1
r
IF
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 9
1
that a secondary access is not necessary.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Emmings moved, Headla seconded to approve the
' Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 17 , 1988 as
amended by Ladd Conrad on pages 6 and 37 . All voted in favor and
motion carried.
DOWNTOWN SIGNAGE CONCEPTS .
' Dacy: While Jim' s setting up I ' ll just start. For the three reasons
that I stated on the first page of my memo, staff wanted to look a
little closer at the issue of signage in the downtown area and for the
' reasons of the aesthetics issues for downtown redevelopment and
improving the streetscape of downtown and the visual image as well as
trying to create a consistent form of signage in the downtown area we
' thought we'd put this before the Planning Commission to see what your
ideas were because you have in the past expressed opinions about
signage into the community and into the downtown area. As we began
looking at the downtown and the redevelopment projects that were
' occurring , we noticed that the developments were taking shape into
smaller areas which we have labled on here as districts. Retail West
right across from the new bank, the Kenny' s building over on the east
' side, the proposed Medical Arts Building Center, the whole area on the
west side of Market Blvd . side. So these little nodes started
appearing and we thought, what a good way to use that to our advantage
and create what we' re calling district signs to focus traveling
' motorist into what that particular node or commercial development is
doing . The first part of our proposal is to create these district
signs. They would not have any advertising or business names on them
' but they would just state a name . For example, Chanhassen Square or
Chanhassen Government Offices.
Headla : That would be where the red stars are?
Dacy: No. The district signs are those located and proposed as the
small black dots to identify that node and what' s occurring there but
' not necessarily saying Q-Suprette and Dominoe' s Pizza, etc . . What
this means is that in creating district signs , what happens to the
other signs by individual property owners so a couple of issues are
' there. One is , this means not allowing anymore new pylon signs . For
example, not allowing Kenny' s the ability to have an individual pylon
sign of the Daycare center to have another pylon sign. It would mean
solely that these signs would satisfy what we call street level
identification of that node . There would be a lot of wall signage of
course and we' re looking at some performance standards with that to
act as a compliment to the district signage. Down on the West 79th
Street area, that poses maybe as a bigger issue because we do have
r
Planning Commission Meeting ,
March 2, 1988 - Page 10
several free standing buildings, existing buildings. Do we want to go II
so far as to go back and remove those existing pylons or take the
approach of when these uses leave or burn down to occupancy changes,
do we want to request that they remove the pylon? Again, opt for a
district sign, one sign denoting what this node is. So that' s one
issue, the district sign issue that we' re asking your input on. The
second issue is what Dave asked about , the red stars , the entry
monuments. You talked a lot about this about a year ago when the
Chamber came in and through some other development requests so we
wanted to create another type of sign that would say "Welcome to
Chanhassen, Dinner Theater this way" or whatever that type of message I
would be on the sign. We wanted to look at locating those in
strategic points when you get into the downtown area. What we ' re
looking at initially is one located at the intersection of Market
Blvd. and TH 5 and one up here on West 78th Street at the base of
Kerber Blvd . . One as you cross the railroad tracks on Great Plains
Blvd. in front of Klingelhutz ' office building and future entry signs
at , the Chamber sign was allowed to be up for 5 years . The Council
put a condition on that so after 5 years, that sign could come down
and we could have an alternative form of signage at that location and
another future sign at the new intersection here when we realign TH I
101 into TH 5 at West 78th Street . The purpose tonight is to talk in
general terms, from the Planning Commission' s standpoint, if this
should be pursued any further . Staff ' s recommendation is that we
really feel stongly in the central core area of the downtown of the
district signage and the entrance monument signage is a worthwhile
project to pursue. We think it does compliment our overall effort to
create an uncluttered and appealing streetscape when you get into the
downtown area. That 's our recommendation on that. So that ' s the
first issue that we need your comment on. What do you think of all of
this and then the second issue that we need your comment on is, do you
think we should expand this concept to other commercial areas of the
City? So if you say no to one, that answers two but if you do say
yes , that does have some implications for other potential areas .
Maybe I ' ll ask Jim maybe to just briefly describe the district sign
approach with the complimenting wall signs .
Jim Lasher : A couple of quick notes about signage. What a lot of
communities are doing is going to a more performance oriented signage
code and not the standards which is what most often really Chanhassen
has now. You get so many square feet of signage for so many square
feet of developable space or facade area. By going to a performance
type signage ordinance you are encouraging a lot more creative look at
how you' re going to sign your building and it requires a little bit
more aesthetic appeal from the people that work at staff to be able to II
look at these kind of issues but you' re opening up a lot of
opportunities for people to do some exciting things . You' re also
opening up an opportunity for somebody to do something really ugly so
it' s definitely a double edged sword . One of the things that has been
used in the past and we' re thinking about using in the downtown area
is a signage band for a strip type of commercial establishment which
we' re getting a couple of them downtown. Usually it' s a continuous ,
r
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 11
' band along the face of a building . One of the statements is that
these signs are generally based on a solid color that' s continuous all
the way along the building edge and the signs are separate layers that
' punctuate that color. What that does is allow the signs to be read
but it doesn ' t interrupt the building movement all the way along the
facade. It maintains it instead of having a box of one size that
maybe you use backlight fluorescent and then a smaller box that' s
' maybe a neon and it gets to be a little bit of a hodge podge so we
allow to have a continuous sign band . Generally the sign band is
about two feet high. In this drawing and in a lot of performance type
' codes , they are allowing the sign bands to get larger when businesses
are set off of the street, if in fact they meet the criteria for
height about the sign band . What that does , if you can picture what
this building would look like flat with a 4 foot high sign band and
' then think of putting another 7 or 8 feet of roof above it in a 4 foot
high sign band, you' re going to get a much better, cleaner looking
building and the signs are not going to look out of scale. So that ' s
' what we propose. We ' ve been working with the developers of both these
buildings, the Colonial Center and I ' ll call it Retail West because I
haven' t heard the new name yet, but work with them because they did
' want to get a larger sign bands. We worked with this roof structure
to try and get that up a little higher to give a better proportion to
our sign area . What that also allows them to do is to put larger
letters that are read from farther away. One of the standards is that
' for each 1 inch height of letter you have in a sign, it ' s legible from
50 feet. So if you have a 12 inch or 1 foot high sign, you can read
it from about 600 feet . That ' s a signage standard. So with a 4 foot
' high band, you can comfortably get 1 to 1 1/2 foot high letters still
keeping some space above and below. They are legible from 500 or 600
feet and if they' re lit, it' s even better . That' s the ideas that
we ' re working at for developing a new ordinance , is some kind of
' performance criteria for design. Back to the district situation where
once again as Barb described , we' re trying to make a cohesive
development out of certain areas which break up either by grade or by
' just actual splitting of the railroad tracks . It just breaks into a
lot of scenarios. Right now it would good if we could take advantage
of that and I think that ' s what we' re here tonight for is to get some
input _from you about the general idea and whether you see it as what ' s
bound together .
Emmi.ngs: I think node is a funny word . That ' s one comment I have. I
t think this is an outstanding idea. I just love it. I think it' s the
first thing that I ' ve seen for signing the whole downtown that made
any read good sense. I think it ' s terrific. That ' s all I have to
' say about that . The other thing I noticed in the packet is the Mayor
taking us to task for our comments to Gary on page 15 of the Council
meeting Minutes of January 12, 1987 . I thought that was kind of too
bad. He was disturbed with the comments we made about the sign. It
t looked like an attempt to knock him down without giving him a chance
to say anything or having any respect for their wishes. I guess my
view is different from the Mayor ' s so I don' t know if we should
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 12
dedicate ourselves from not having opposing views or what but I just
wanted to mention that.
Ellson: I like the idea of the individual little district names .
Sometimes I see these strip type things and it gives me the impression I
of generic . I can' t necessarily recognize a familiar store because a
lot of times they' re not using the lettering that I 've seen B.
Dalton ' s use and things like that . I 'm not sure if that type of thing I
had to change or not . I don' t think I would want it so generic that
it 's one after the other. I 'm picturing the one by Southdale. It ' s
like Yorktown or whatever and they've got that type of thing and I I
hate it. I can' t find the store because it' s not lined up under it' s
thing and I can' t read one from the other very well . I drive by there
and it just bugs me. I know there are stores over there that could
probably help me and I could buys things there but I don' t like that
and I wouldn' t want this to come away with that. If you have like
Peck and Peck or whatever ' s there , I 'd like them to be able to use
their letter style that they use in all their stores. Maybe even the I
colors that you' re used to seeing Peck and Peck have in order to
recognize them. I notice that' s the problem I have when I go some of
those other strip malls. It ' s not the B.Dalton' s I know. It ' s like
McDonalds couldn' t their arches or something. ,
Jim Lasher : One of the things that a lot of buildings in the past
have done, have set up a very strict guideline of you have to use a II white letter against a brown background and it has to be this high and
it can only be this long. That' s a standard and they didn' t allow any
of the businesses to project any of their image at all and they didn' t I
allow anyone any creativity. So just by having something that says
you can have 40 square feet of signage if you have 3, 000 square feet
of businesses. Those are good places to start but we have to allow
the businesses to really be a lot more creative than just doing the
standard old white sign on a brown background. I think if we can
pursue something like this a little longer we can come up with a new
ordinance that allows that to be done. One of the best cities in the
nation that does that is Carmel in California . The best signage
probably in the nation. The strongest and the best written
performance guideline and really working with a copy of that to try
and get a sense of how they will accomplish that. It' s a wonderful
place . I ' ve been there . The signs are great . There are a lot of
overhanging signs and in fact, they try and get more of those to come
about because they' ve used signage where you don ' t have any words.
It' s pure symbols. The signage manufacturers have started to realize
that the days of the sign with the shoe on it meant shoemaker and it ' s
still true today. For some reason, all the words you want to write in II
the world just doesn ' t get that point across . This guy makes shoes
and it' s coming back. That' s the kind of thing we really would like
to be able to work with in the new ordinance.
Ellson: That 's what I was more concerned that it would get to that
generic look which I just hate . Like you said, some people have
creativity and this is the way they market their building, their signs
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 13
I
' are no big deal . I do like the idea of continuity. I don' t like the
Hardware Hank sticking out up there and he' s the main guy in the
Bloomington strip or something like that . I like the idea of each of
the areas having a thing. Would one dot be enough? What if someone
' is coming in from the other direction? Sometimes that' s the only
thing I think of. Like the one on 79th, you've got it located in two
places . Both entrances . Is that usually the way it would be?
' Jim Lasher: What we did is because this was one district and there
were two entrances to that district, we gave them one on each side.
' This is such a large area that we gave one at most logical points
here. The way we see this developing , which may or may not happen
because we don' t have a true site plan yet is, we see a main entrance
to this development off of Market Blvd . . There could in fact be a
' curb cut and a full right intersection up in here which we may have to
take another look at that but with what we' re working at right now, we
have this development, the bowling alley and the bar which has one
' entrance at this point so that ' s kind of where we started off at. Is
looking at the grade split here and knowing that these two will never
adjoin unless there ' s a parking ramp/hotel which may or may not
' happen. The rest of these are more of a just get them where we think
people are going to see them upon entry into the district. That ' s how
we picked it. It' s a good point. This one just happens to need two
because it has two main entrances .
Emmings : I think too on that, if that ' s the only thing that ' s out
there , instead of having a whole bunch of signs , if just that thing is
' out there, it ' s going to be that much more visible. It ' s the only
thing there ' s going to be to look at that ' s different than a tree.
Headla: I like the concept. I think it ' s very good. I 'd like to see
' it applied to all our business districts . The district nodes I like.
I really the question the information we ' re going to put on the red .
If you' ve got somebody tooling down TH 5, you don ' t want them reading
' a sign that says businesses here or there. I think you really have
got to stress what street you ' re on and in your notes you had
something about the City Hall . A couple of civic places but I think
that ' s all that should be there. People come and they know they' ve
got to turn on Market Street or whatever , make that be the main focus.
Conrad : Some good comments . Mine may not be totally in sync with
' what you've heard. I totally agree that the individual pylons should
be kept off the street from different companies . There ' s just no
doubt. I think that ' s critical . I totally agree with Annette ' s
' comment that individual shops have their own characteristic logo types
or signage or color. Absolute. There' s just no reason to standardize
the names because we take something away from the individual
companies. I do like the continuity of the stripe or of some way to
' fit the signage in on the store fronts . I think that' s smart also .
I 'm not convinced of the pylons in front of each shop. To say Retail
West says nothing to me. We ' re not designing a southdale here. The
one shopping center has a daycare center in it and something else.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 14
I 'm not sure that we need a pylon to say something that really
doesn' t have much meaning to me. If I were a retailer , I 'd be more
interested in having my name out there . Very much like what the
Chamber of Commerce has done out on TH 5. That is not an appropriate
place for that type of signage. However , having a pylon in front of a
shopping center to maybe help identify what' s in it, may appeal to the
retailers a little bit more. Somebody could possibly make a case two
ways on this one and I 'd listen to them. One, we' re going to have too I
many shops in there and therefore we can ' t put everybody' s name out in
that pylon. I could understand that . Two, if somebody could claim
that Retail West or whatever has some meaning or will ever have
meaning and therefore the kids at home say, dad let 's go to Retail
West, then I ' ll listen to that case but I ' ve got to be real critical
of those . I think those are just things that I 'd have to mull over in
my mind. If I were a retailer wanting to move into this community and I
I deal with them all the time, the names are key. The signage is key
and we' re taking away their pylons. Therefore, we've got to give them
something on the storefronts and we also have to help traffic make I
decisions on whether to turn in or whether not to turn in. I think if
there' s a sign that says daycare this way out by the streets so I
don' t have to be jerking around to look and see, that may be
beneficial . I guess I ' d be real interested in pursuing both
alternatives and staff making a recommendation, whichever they feel .
I think we' ve got to be sensitive to retailers who want to locate out
here. Other comments relating to the big stars there. Whatever we' re I
calling those things. The entry monuments . I think we were talking
before about the major monument in Chanhassen being moved east so that
people knew they were coming to Chanhassen before they got to
Chanhassen and they just went by it. So that first monument, we' re
going to replace the Chamber sign but I think when we talked about the
Chamber sign, we were talking about before saying here it is. Get
ready to turn. That ' s now what the sign would say but it might say
Welcome to Chanhassen, Home of the Dinner Theater or whatever we' re
the home of. But I like the thought of that . I think that ' s real
important. I also think there should be one on the west side of town
close to CR 17 and TH 5 because if you ' re coming from the west ,
there' s a good chance you' re not going to loop back into Chan. You' re
going to by-pass or else we' ve got to get them to turn before.
Jim Lasher : That' s a good point and maybe that's something we can
pursue in that one of the things that affects all our signage in this
entire corridor is that there will be an additional 50 feet of I
right-of-way needed and required for the expansion of TH 5. There' s a
lot of stuff on TH 5 right now that ' s not going to be there when this
road is rebuilt . Some of the pylon signs . Certainly the Chamber sign
is closer than 50 foot back from Kerber right now. I don' t know when
that ' s going to happen but it certainly will at some point . We can
pursue moving say this particular monument down the road as long as we
can start looking at the future plans of this road and find out if
there's any property for us to build on. It ' s tough up in here as far
as who ' s land are we building this on . Do we have to get State
Highway approval to build in that right-of-way? The same down in here I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 15
I
' as well . It' s not as critical because the bridge will not be
expanded, at least to my knowledge it ' s not going to be expanded. So
we probably have the same amount of right-of-way in this area . About
50 foot additional all the way along this side of the road so that ' s
' something we ' ll have to look at if you want to stretch out down a
little bit and we' ll look that way too. Buying land . It just so
happens that now having a little piece that in 5 years the bulldozer
' would knock it down.
Conrad : Conceptually, think about what I just said in sort of making
' of the announcement that Chanhassen' s coming up and I think that' s
what we want to do. Not just say it to them when they happen to be
stopped at the stop light but say it to them before they actually get
here so ah yes , maybe we should turn off . That ' s the idea .
' Jim Lasher : Plus with the expanding right turn lane, they' re going to
have to make the decision to come up this road probably somewhere back
in here and if they get up in this area they will not be able to
negotiate that turn.
Conrad : My other comment is on the Highway Business District and I
' guess people locate in highway business districts because they are
actually taking people off the highway and are funneling them right
back on and they really don' t want to go to Chanhassen to begin with.
' Pylons , and I really don ' t like them but pylons is a real important
function of highway business district useage. If you can ' t tell
somebody that there ' s a gas station, the Standard station from 300 to
1 500 feet away, they' re not going to turn so I guess my comments would
be not to apply the same standards to the Highway Business District.
They may be applicable to other districts but a Highway Business
District , for all the clutter , it is essential for them to tell people
' that they' re there and tell them from a distance away. If there ' s a
solution to that , I would sure pay attention but I don ' t think the
average owner would feel there is a solution to that.
' Jim Lasher : Barbara , is this district presently split now from
General Business to Highway Business? Isn' t there a line?
' Dacy: Yes , it follows generally the Market Blvd . alignment and where
the pond would be too.
' Conrad : I 'd like standards for those pylons and I think we have some
of those standards in effect right now so we don ' t have those pylons
150 feet in the air , rotating . I want to control that but I don ' t
think taking them away is going to serve their needs or our needs and
therefore I 'd like to apply the standards in other areas . At least
that ' s my personal opinion. Anything else?
' Headla : I liked your comment about putting it out by CR 17. You' re
going to bring in that whole district then.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 16
I
Jim Lasher : Maybe we can just discuss for a minute , we' re going to
have business running all the way down to CR 17 now, do you see any
need to expand this concept out of the purer CBD area or do you feel
that this is where it works best and let the rest of this deal with
your signage as it' s been dealt with in the past?
Ellson: I would see continuing it. Especially if you have another
small group of the same thing .
Conrad : I think it should be out to where TH 101 intersects, the new
intersection. It should go down to CR 17. I think a sign at CR 17 is
real important or things in that area .
Dacy: Okay, to summarize, the Commission liked the idea of the
district signage and the entry signage but you would like us to look I
at a business directory sign option for the district signs and look at
the option of having a little more detail on the types of uses .
Conrad : I think you should give us a couple alternatives to look at . '
Dacy: Second of all to keep the ability on wall signage for
individual enterprises to have their own unique color scheme and logo
but keep a consistent size sign band or location on the shopping
center. Moving the entry signs farther east and west. The last point
that I heard was, look at eliminating the Business Highway District
restrictions on pylons.
Conrad : That ' s what I said.
Emmings : That would be the only place you'd be looking at pylon
signs.
Conrad : That ' s the only place I think they are needed .
Emmings : Let me ask you something else about your notion. On this
one on the right you' ve got a thing out there that looks like a little II
house. A little bird house or something. That' s going to say Retail
West on it or whatever it says? When you say look at the business I
directory type of alternative, would it be again something in the same
place, one sign that would have the names on it?
Conrad: Right. 1
Emmings : I guess my point would be this . Wouldn' t it be easier for
someone who 's in that building to say I 'm in Retail West to a customer
who wants to find them?
Ellson: Once you get to know that that ' s where Retail West is , right .
Emmings : Or even if they' re coming into Chanhassen for the first
time. All I ' ve got to do is find that thing that says Retail West on
it to find the shop. Now if the name of the shop is out there on that II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 17
sign , they still have to look at the building to find the shop. Is it
easier to just to find something with a general name on it than to
find it in a list of 15 or 20 names or however many there may be? It
' might be kind of a nice idea to just be able to identify yourself to
an area of town and then they can find the shop because even if the
person' s name is out there on the curb, unless it' s right in front of
their store , they still have to scan the whole building to find the
' daycare or whatever it may be.
Conrad : I 'd like to agree because it would be a nice way of doing it.
' Emmings: I think it's kind of a novel idea .
Ellson : What about the drop-ins that were going by and say, oh there
' is a Hardware Hank there. I guess I 'd go pick up whatever , the
impulse type buyers and realize that because there' s a drug store
there then I will go to get something versus I ' ll look it up in the
' Yellow Pages and then try to find that person.
Conrad: Practically speaking, it breaks down. If a third of our
' traffic is from the Dinner Theater or whatever it is , Retail West
doesn' t mean anything because they' re not reading any ads. A sign
that says Hardware Hank has meaning so from a retailers standpoint,
they' re not going to be wild about this and our retailers right now
' are not real energetic advertising wise and I don ' t see them changing
that posture a great deal and spending money saying we ' re over here .
That ' s nothing that you really want to say. You really don ' t want to
' tell people where you ' re located. You want to tell them what ' s
beneficial about their product . Not where they' re located . That ' s
sort of a boring scenario of advertising .
' Emmings : Could this allow them to have a group identity that will
allow them to share advertising? Could they advertise as a group?
Ellson : Absolutely. A booklet of Retail West coupons .
Conrad: I agree with that Steve. It could.
Emmings : Maybe if you set it up that way, maybe they' ll use it that
way.
' Jim Lasher : I think the easiest way to solve this is to do a design
of two or three different scenarios and take one and put a simple
Retail West . I think there will be about eight separate stores in
' here or at least from the original plan that ' s what I recall , about
eight, and see what size lettering you could get . Where we could put
the signs. Would they be legible from the street and just see if it
makes sense . We can tell this just from a scale drawing and that
' should answer all our questions .
Conrad : The other practical thing though is , I think on eight you can
but there ' s going to be other parts of town where they' re going to be
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 18
15 and it breaks down. We can' t do 15 there.
Jim Lasher : The comments about becoming a part of the whole is real
important in retail . That is when you' re in Southdale, you ' re in
Southdale and you don' t tell people you ' re on France Avenue. I 'm in
Southdale and you like to be known as a part of the larger entity so
that' s where this makes sense but from a pure small retailer, the only
thing that makes sense to them is that people know where their
business is. So we' re really working with two diametrically opposed
type of systems. It would be great if they would advertise and become
excited about their district or whatever name you end up having. That II
would be a wonderful scenario.
Dacy: Just one more note on process . We had thought , depending on II your reaction tonight which appears to be favorable, that we would go
to the City Council also and present this and if a favorable action
there, then we would have some type of informational meeting with the
Chamber or the property owners to make them aware that this is a II process that is being considered by the City and they become a part of
the process . I think you all have a sense for how controversial this
can grow into. As a part of that, we had been talking about doing
some slides and doctoring some of the slides to take an existing
picture of free standing buildings and pylons and airbrush those out
and placing in a proposed sign. Would you like to see that type of
presentation before we go to the property owners? We want to make
sure that the Commission feels comfortable with what we ' re about to
head into. We can do a lot of neat things graphically to help portray
the pros and cons of these issues . '
Conrad: You will come back and show us some alternatives so we ' ll
have another chance to take a look at this . Really what you ' re II asking, after that it's a matter of selling the Chamber of Commerce in
my mind and the local businesses and I know where their minds are.
They' re not going to be real wild about restricting signage and
therefore to sell is really what has to be done. Typically you can
sell them on the fact that they' re not spending 10, 000. 00 to
$20,000. 00 on a pylon . That ' s what a pylon sign costs . If you can
say that the competition is not going to be getting a jump on you,
that you ' re going to be the equal of, you can save them money. What
I 'm saying is you need a way to go to the Chamber and talk to them
about the benefits . If that means airbrushing and showing pretty
pictures or whatever is necessary, I think you have to do that but I
think facts are as important as picture. I think you have to echo
some of the ways that it ' s not taking away but adding to .
Emmings : Could you get pictures of this example in Carmel that you ' ve I
seen?
Jim Lasher : I know I can get a copy of their document and I have a
friend who works in Los Angeles that I may be able to coerce into
driving down there some afternoon and just taking a bunch of photos .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 19
1
Emmings : I think showing an example of where this has been done well
and where it 's worked . . .
Ellson: Is a real good sales tool .
Conrad: I don't know that Carmel is the area we want to use. Some
non-descript place. . .
MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ISSUES.
' Dacy: Metal Buildings. We found, I think an excellent example from
the City of Lakeville that I thought really summarized the
Commission ' s intent on the metal building issue and I included that so
' at minimum we' re recommending that the ordinance be amended to state
as printed there under (a) . Then second of all, I am proposing to the
Commission whether or not they want to go a step farther and adopt (b)
' and (c) as a part of the Lakeville ordinance. (b) is just a general
statement which I think can be included . (c) gets a little more
detailed as far as the type of materials. That has some pros and
cons . With a list of items you ' re really saying what you want to see.
' The con is, if something different comes along then it' s not a part of
the list . I think at minimum, (a) gets at what the Commission had
intended to do in the first place.
' Headla : What are you saying in (a) ? Unfinished steel? So if I paint
it then it ' s permissible?
' Dacy: I think the key here is the galvanized steel or the aluminum.
That type of construction, it' s synomous with the term polebarn.
' Headla : I can put up a polebarn by this because that ' s baked on
enamel paint and that' s finished steel .
' Dacy: No, it says no galvanized or unfinished steel , galvanized or
unfinished aluminum buildings .
' Headla : But baked enamel is finished steel . Baked enamel on your
sheet metal , that ' s finished steel isn' t it?
Emmings : If I had that same corregated metal that you put on a
' polebarn with a baked on paint finish, I ' ve seen it.
Dacy: When I spoke to the building inspector , he said that the term
' galvanized is what we want to prohibit because that' s the material
that polebarns are made out of .
Headla : No , they aren' t . I ' ve got a couple. I take it back. One of
my polebarns is galvanized. The other one is baked enamel .
Dacy: Maybe then what we need to do to solve your concern is add some
language saying that you just don ' t want a galvanized building
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 20
painted . '
Headla : Sheet metal I guess is what we' re really against .
Dacy: Okay we can add the sheet metal . '
Emmings : I guess I was going to suggest that we add a second sentence
to what you have there that just said, our intent is to avoid the type I
of construction commonly used in polebarns . Just come right out and
say it. Why fool around? As a second sentence to kind of cover the
guy who comes in who' s just going to slither around this by putting I
paint on steel or something like that. Just say that our intent is to
avoid the type of construction commonly used in polebarns .
Headla: Does that mean we can't use wood beams now?
Emmings : I don' t know. Dave, you can go on like this all night . We
really can.
Headla : We want it to do the job though.
Emmings : Try and make an intent statement that will be broader than
this specific statement . So we tell people the reason we' ve got this
is, we want to avoid polebarn type structures. That is what we' re
doing here and that is our objective to avoid polebarns being erected II
here.
Headla : I thought we were against sheet metal surface fronts .
Emmings: No, I don ' t think so. I think the last time we kicked it
around we said, there may well be uses of metal buildings such as
aluminum siding that looks like wood siding . No one would object to
that I don' t think. Like you use on a house. Just regular lap siding
that ' s made out of a finished aluminum or steel and no one objects to
that. What we' re trying to get rid of is polebarns . ,
Dacy: Right , and some can be vinyl coated into a different series . . .
Emmings: It' s a hard thing to get a handle on and I think what we
wanted to do was do something that would eliminate the polebarn type
structure and then see where we go to refine it from there. Right now
we don ' t have a restriction on that . '
Conrad: Do you agree?
Headla : To what? '
Ellson: To his addendum.
Headla : I don ' t think we solved it yet . You 've got some good points
and it's probably a lot more nebulous as we talk back and forth on and
how do we really do that .
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 21
I
Dacy: If there ' s anyway that I can reassure you. We went to building
inspectors and in-house, we reviewed this ordinance and reviewed this
language and we felt quite comfortable with this is enforceable in the
I commercial districts. This prevents polebarns but yet it will allow
metal construction with a vinyl coating or a nice appearance.
IHeadla: How would you prevent a polebarn with baked enamel paint?
Dacy: I guess I 'm going to have to claim a little ignorance on the
baked enamel .
I
Headla : If you can get around that , I like the wording .
I Dacy: So what you' re after is some type of language that eliminates
pole barn construction that ' s painted . Is that what you' re saying? I
still unclear as to what you want.
IConrad : If you changed the words. If no galvanized , if you put
material right after galvanized, would that solve the problem of how
that material may be painted? If you said no galvanized material?
IDoes that take us out of how the galvanized steel is treated?
Emmings : You don ' t galvanize anything but metal do you?
IConrad: Right.
Headla : It ' s a little more selective than that .
I
Emmings: Is steel the only thing that can be galvanized?
I Headla : Yes . I like what you got worded here but I keep coming back,
what ' s going to prohibit a polebarn like mine because I 've got
finished steel and we don' t want that sheet metal construction.
IEmmings : But Dave, what ' s wrong with just saying our intent is to
avoid polebarn construction.
IEllson : Then when a guy comes forward with a plan that ' s blatantly a
polebarn you say, didn' t you know the intent was against this?
I Conrad : I think that sentence makes it very clear what we' re trying
to do.
IIHeadla : Alright . I don ' t have a better suggestion .
Ellson: He 'd be pretty bold to come forward after reading what the
intent is and then try to come in with a loophole like that .
IConrad: Let' s take a look at the section (b) on the opposite page
there from Lakeville . Buildings in all zoning districts shall
Imaintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 22
with surrounding properties to insure that they will not adversely
impact the property values . Do we want that in?
Emmings : It ' s so general it' s almost meaningless .
Ellson: Things like high standard of archituect, whose standard is
that being based on?
Emmings: Again, it' s one of those catch-all intent type statement '
that in the case where you've got something really horrible going on
that fits , you might be able to lean on this . It might be good to
have.
Dacy: What you' re suggesting is put it in a preface or an intent
statement before the specific rules? '
Emmings : It could be in all districts . This could be true of any
building in town and yes, I think having a catch-all like that, you
might ask the City Attorney if having something like would ever be
anything we could rely on. If it fit our code in every other way but
was something that was just awful , could we use this to deny
something? I really doubt it.
Ellson : Someone might be able to prove that it impacted their
property value but it would still be hard if it hasn' t gone up yet.
Conrad : Item (c) , do we want to dictate?
Ellson: I don ' t think so. I think that' s real limiting. I think
what we' re really trying to get away from is that ugly looking metal
and I think there' s a lot more than 8 things that might even be able
to be done . Like you said something new coming out that' s going to
limit that.
Emmings : I crossed it out too .
Headla: I guess I don' t have any comment on it .
Conrad : I had to eliminate it . Barbara , what would you like us to do I
with this item tonight?
Dacy: If you feel comfortable on recommending approval , we would
correct it as you have instructed and then it would go to the City
Council . If you want to see it back again, that' s fine also .
Conrad: I think we could send it along . '
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 1
approval of Section 20-902 Building Construction in Business, Office
and Institutional , and Industrial Office Park Districts .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 23
I
I (a) No galvanized or unfinished steel , galvanized or unfinished
aluminum buildings (walls or roofs) shall be permitted in the
Business , Office and Institutional , and Industrial Office Park
Districts. The intent of this section is to avoid the type of
Iconstruction and materials commonly used in polebarns .
(b) Buildings in all zoning districts shall maintain a high standard
I of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding
properties to insure that they will not adversely impact the
property values of the abutting properties or adversely impact the
Icommunity's public health, safety and general welfare.
All voted in favor and motion carried .
I
SECTION 20-915, ANTENNAS, SATELLITE DISHES AND AMATEUR RADIO TOWERS.
IOlsen : We went through the whole thing and hopefully came up with
something that solved everything. The first thing we did was state
that Satellite Dishes , Television Antenna and the Ground Mounted
IVertical Antenna shall be permitted accessory uses within all zone
districts . What we did was specificty each of the different types .
Before it just said satellite dishes and antennas . With all this now
I we' ve differentiated between towers and satellite dishes and antennas .
We stated that they were permitted as accessory uses. Amateur radio
towers were a conditional use permits . We stated that with last use,
I wanted that only one of them be permitted per lot. A satellite dish,
amateur radio tower or a ground mounted vertical antenna . This was
taken from the old ordinance saying that a satellite dish shall not
exceed 15 feet . Number 5 went through the ground mounted satellite
I dish, amateur radio tower or ground mounted vertical antenna shall be
located within the frontyard setback and sideyard setback. So again,
we' re just pointing out each of the specific one so it' s clear .
I Number 6 went through that they shall be set back an equivalent
distance to the height of the dish, tower, or antenna. That was
pretty much taken from the old ordinance . Then we added the next
I sentence because as we found with Jim Tyson ' s request was that he had
his tower attached to the house to where it would only fall down a
certain distance. We tried to come up with a sentence that explained
if a tower was going to be attached to the building and only 20 would
I fall down, then it could be only 20 feet away from the property line
if in fact the tower was actually 40 feet . Number 7 is just from the
other ordinance. It stays the same . 8 is the same. 9 is the same .
I Then we came up with definitions for an antenna which is just a system
of wires that receives and transmit. Communication and transimission
tower and then amateur radio tower which is what the antennas are on.
Then a ground mounted verical antenna .
IHeadla : I think that ' s a real improvement over what we had before.
I
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 2, 1988 - Page 24
II
Ellson: I thought that one part in 6 was really rough but I can see I
how it was hard to write. I can picture what you' re doing. Only the
part that ' s not attached to the building . You mean the extended part
but I just thought it was kind of rough to read and I didn' t know if I
that could be rewritten . The portion of the tower is fastened or
secured to a building, then the only portion which is not attached to
the building will be used to determined the setback. I don ' t know.
I could live with it because I know what you' re talking about but I
I just thought it was on the rough side. But believe me, I agree. I
read this thing and boy, I know this was a lot of work. Does it
bother any of you guys? I ' ll live with it if you guys thing it' s good '
enough.
Conrad : I know what it means .
Olsen: We were definitely going to still work on that and confer with II
the City Attorney on how they wanted that written. They can always
come up with something . We definitely understand that that ' s kind of '
rough.
Headla moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I
approval of Section 20-915 for Antennas, Satellite Dishes and Amateur
Radio Towers .
1. Satellite dishes , television antennas and ground mounted vertical I
antennas shall be permitted accessory uses within all zoning
districts . I
2. Amateur radio towers shall receive a conditional use permit in all
districts prior to installation.
3 . In all residential districts , only one of the following are 1
permitted per lot:
a) Satellite Dish I
b) Amateur radio tower
c) Ground mounted vertical antenna
I4. A ground mounted satellite dish shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet
in height above ground level .
5. No ground mounted satellite dish , amateur radio tower or ground I
mounted vertical antenna shall be located within the required
front yard setback or side yard setback.
II
6. Ground mounted satellite dish, amateur radio tower or ground
mounted vertical antennas shall be setback from all adjoining lots
a distance equivalent to the height of the dish, tower or antenna . I
If a portion of the tower or antenna is collapsible or securely
fastened to a building, only the portion which can fall will be
used to determine the setback from property lines . Location shall I
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 25
I
' not adversely obstruct views from adjacent property.
7. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any
' satellite dish, amateur radio tower or ground mounted vertical
antenna. Building permit applications shall require the
submission of a site plan and stuctural components . When a
satellite dish or radio antenna is located on the roof of a
' building , the applicant shall furnish the City Building Official
with building plans and structural components displaying the means
of securing it to the building . The Building Official must
approve the building plans before installation.
8. Each satellite dish, amateur radio tower and ground mounted
vertical antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural
' lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code
as adopted and amended by the City.
' 9. Satellite dish, amateur radio tower and ground mounted vertical
antenna, electrical equipment and connections shall be designed
and installed in adherence to the National Electrical Code as
1 adopted and amended by the City.
All voted in favor and motion carried .
1
Headla moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
' approval of the following definitions to be added to Section 20-1,
Definitions :
Antenna - A system of wires , poles , rods, reflecting discs , or
' similar devices used for the transmission or reception of
electromagnetic waves , which system is internal to or attached to
the exterior of any building or tower .
Communication Transmission Tower - The structure on which
transmitting or receiving antennas are located which are used for
commercial transmissions , including but not limited to radio
stations and dispatch systems.
Amateur Radio Tower - The structure on which transmitting or
receiving antennas are located which are used for non-commercial
transmission .
Ground Mounted Vertical Antennas - An individual vertical antenna
which is mounted in the ground .
All voted in favor and motion carried .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 26
SECTION 20-904, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. '
Olsen : What we' re proposing to do now is, number 1 just states that
no detached garage or storage building in any district shall be
located in the required front and sideyard . Number 2 would
essentially be for RSF and R-4 districts where it would say, In RSF
and R-4 districts detached garages . . .and then add the remainder of
this where it was talking specifically about RSF and R-4 with the
1, 000 square foot and maximum of 30% of the rearyard and put that as a II
paragraph under 2. Then make number 3 as another section under number
2 because this will be pertaining to the RSF and R-4 districts .
Number 4 then is also for the maximum height will be applied to the
RSF and R-4 district. If you feel that you want these also for the
other districts, we can also add that under number 3 that we added for
multiple family commercial , industrial districts stating that they
shall have a rearyard setback of 10 feet. Essentially we've got one
as a condition for all districts . Two would be RSF and R-4 . Three
would be multiple family, commercial and industrial districts. Then
we tried to further define a tennis court and swimming pool , where
they can be located and where they can not. When you look at the
ordinance now they are considered an accessory use but then you use
the accessory structure setback so we came up with specific
requirements for those . (c) is the same.
Conrad: What did we decide? City Council didn' t like the 1, 000 foot I
building right?
Olsen : They wanted different setbacks and Bill is here to be sure.
Emmings: That' s been incorporated already.
Olsen : Right . '
Conrad : They literally said in either point 1 or 2 , they did not want
a garage or a building as large as 1, 000 feet. Not that I agree with II
them but that was what they said.
Dacy: They did talk about 800.
Conrad : What are you thinking Bill? Let me give you our logic ,
I think when we went through it a month or two ago. Tom didn' t call
on me for our logic during our meetings so I ' ll share it with you. We
really took a look at what it would take for a 3 car garage and also
what it would take to have a little shop in there and then Steve added
a 10% fudge factor or something and we came up with 1, 000 feet. We
basically looked at garage stalls to be a key there . I think 800 feet II
probably would work too. I don' t know if there' s a great deal of
difference between 800 feet and 1, 000 feet in our mind but when II I heard City Council talking, I heard numbers that were significantly
lower than the 1, 000. Bill , do you have any comments? Anything to
guide us on this thing based on what you heard?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 27
' Councilman Boyt : I remember saying at the meeting , when we first
discussed this and I think what I could live with is if the out
building was never to be larger than the main structure. In a sense
' that we don' t require a house, the minimum house size is less than
1,000 square feet . I 'd like some means of avoiding the situation
where a person has a 850 square foot house and 1, 000 foot outbuilding
15 feet from the lot line . I have a really serious problem and will
' probably vote against this if we come up with 1, 000 square foot
building and put it closer to our rear lot line than we now allow a
850 square foot house to be. I think that' s inappropriate.
' Headla : What about a little Sears sheet metal utility shed?
Emmings: That' s under 200.
' Conrad : That ' s under 200 so there ' s no problem with that.
Emmings : That's why we put that in there was that concern for that .
Councilman Boyt : If I might just comment one more thing about that
item, when I think of a single car garage, which is what I had
' envisioned about 200 square feet to be, and see that 5 feet from a
back lot line, I get nervous about that too. What I see as an out
building is something where a person can store a lawn mower or a few
' tools and I know staff was going to check into what a typical size of
an outbuilding is . What is a typical size of an outbuilding?
' Olsen: It' s always an 8 x 10, 10 x 10, 10 x 12 and he said up to 200.
Then I always checked around with other cities and 200 was the cut-off
point for their small buildings and 1, 000 was the typical maximum.
' Dacy: That' s in the Building Code too . The 1, 000.
Councilman Boyt: That the 1, 000 is a maximum?
1 Dacy: For a garage. Tim Erhart had come up with 1, 000 for a 3 car
garage also.
Olsen : We first had 800.
Dacy: Then Tim carne up with 1, 000.
' Councilman Boyt : I 'm really here to listen so take it away.
1 Dacy: That' s the concern about the accessory building be larger than
the principle building . I think that goes right in with (c) and is a
logical extension of that as far as when an accessory building is
constructed . I think that' s easily accomodated if the Commission
wants to pursue that. The only exclusion to that would be if you were
in an A-2 area and your barn would be obviously larger than your home
but that can be excluded.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 28
Conrad : The districts that 2 applies to, RSF and R-4 . '
Emmings: Tim wants to expand that in his letter to RR-1 and A-2 if
they' re 5 acres or less .
Headla : And I think we' ll want to make that 10.
Conrad: I agree with Tim in those larger lots that we' re allowing
that are residential in nature. I agree . I think we should .
Emmings: I think the record should reflect that we all think Tim
makes much more sense when he' s not here than when he is .
Conrad: He's much more agreeable.
Headla : Which point are we going to discuss here? We' ve got
different ones. If we' re going to talk about Tim' s memo, I don' t
think it should be 5 acres . I think it should be 10. Look on the
west side of Minnewashta, you can put up an awful big building there
and it just doesn ' t fit into the area . I 'd be affected by it but I
really thing that' s for the good of Chanhassen, that' s the way it
should be.
Conrad : Is there any logic we can use? I hear what you ' re saying . I
think the 5 acres . . . '
Dacy: I think the 5 acres , all the Hesse Farm lots are approximately
5 acres and all the cluster subdivisions are below that. If you would '
raise it to 10, it would probably include some of the other separately
described sporatic parcels throughout the city.
Headla : So we'd knock all but one out in our area . i
Dacy: Your area is zoned RSF so you ' re going to fall under the
maximum of 1, 000. '
Headla : Even though I 've got 10 acres?
Dacy: Right. What we' re proposing to do is regulate it by zoning '
district. Tim's concern is out in the rural area . Your zoned RSF.
You have 10 acres. You have a maximum of 1, 000 square feet .
Headla : That accomplishes what I wanted .
Emmings: It's funny about 5 acres, it just kind of feels right but I I
don ' t really know why.
Conrad : It feels right but I didn' t have a good logic . I didn ' t like
the 10 but I do like the 5.
Emmings : I 'm wondering why in the old number 3, now it ' s assumed
under 2, it says detached garages but storage buildings is left out of I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2 , 1988 - Page 29
there. Is there a reason for that?
Dacy: Yes. Our concern was that we had a difficult time trying to
' enforce that condition on, for example 120 square foot Sears building
or one of those . When we talked to Tim more about it , he said that
was his main intent also, was to make sure that the garages at least
looked the same as the house then .
' Emmings : How about saying detached garages and storage buildings over
200 square feet? Because if they' re going to build a bigger building ,
' wouldn ' t we want them to be?
Olsen: A lot of times those are still polebarns .
' Emmings : Can they build polebarns in the RSF?
Dacy: Yes .
' Olsen : But when it ' s a garage. . .
' Dacy: You do need the thicker walls obviously but Building Code
purposes .
Emmings: The other thing I 've got is, number 1 says no detached
' garages or storage buildings in any residential district shall be
located in the required front or side yard . Down under tennis courts
and swimming pools, you ' ve put in some special language for riparian
' lots . Again , not I 'm getting kind of worried about my own situation
here a little bit but it does come to mind . This would prevent me
from building a garage on the side of my house away from the lake
without a variance, would it not? What is my rearyard?
Dacy: The lakeside .
Olsen : So you have a 75 foot setback for any structure.
Emmings: Yes, but my frontyard is away from the lake and you ' re
saying I can ' t build a garage back there when the road is back there,
my car comes in there. I 've got to put my garage now. . .
Headla : It' s the old story, which is your frontyard .
' Dacy: The ordinance defines the frontyard as that part that abuts the
street. Your case , because you ' re on a private easement.
' Olsen: You still have to be 30 feet back and that ' s the frontyard .
You could still , if you house was 50 feet back, you could still have
your garage in the front .
Dacy: Are you calling your lakeside your front?
Emmings: I 'm asking.
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
March 2, 1988 - Page 30
Dacy: The ordinance defines the lakeside as a rear but it can' t be as II
close as 75 feet. Between 75 feet and your house you could have a
garage.
Emmings : This says I can' t build a detached garage in the front and
my front is by the street but that is where I would logically build my
garage.
Olsen : You can ' t have it within the setback of the front .
Emmings: What you' re saying is I 've got to get a variance . '
Dacy: If you want to build a garage in the frontyard , you ' ll need a
variance. ,
Emmings: But why should we make that necessary on riparian lots?
Ellson: How many people will that affect? ,
Conrad : Quite a few.
Emmings : Everybody who lives on a lake.
Dacy: Especially in the older platted areas . '
Headla: We talked about this before. We still don' t have a
definition of a frontyard and you were going to go back and look at
that for me.
Dacy: The ordinance defines frontyard as that part of the lot that
abuts the public street. ,
Headla : But that ' s not good enough. YOu 've got double frontage lots .
You 've got lakes. '
Dacy: We define a double frontage lot also .
Emmings: My point is this, you' ve gone to the trouble down for tennis I
courts and swimming pools of distinguishing what you do with riparian
lots and why not do the same thing for garages and storage buildings?
Dacy: That ' s fine .
Olsen: On riparian lots?
Emmings : Yes .
Olsen: The Shoreland Ordinance prohibits that within 75 feet . Is
that what you' re talking about?
Emmings : No it' s not . 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 31
Dacy: All we 'd be doing is repeating what the Shoreland Ordinance
says .
' Emmings : All I want to say is something like, on a riparian lot they
shouldn' t be allowed in the rearyard.
' Dacy: Your intent is to prevent the ability of somebody to construct
some type of storage building between the principle structure and the
lake?
' Emmings: And to allow it in the frontyard in that situation.
Ellson: You don' t want a Sears thing in the back that has life
jackets in it and things like that?
Conrad: We don' t need a lot of variances coming in here with people
' who live on lakes and 20% of the people in Chanhassen live on lakes .
Emmings: I 've probably got 250 feet down to the lake from my house.
' I don' t have any trouble getting back 75 feet . Not that I would ever
build a building there. No one in their right mind would but why
can ' t I just get a permit to build it in my frontyard in that
situation? Why do I have to get a variance?
Dacy: Let me explain this . The intent to permit an accessory
structures in the front and side yard is, in the case of the sideyard
' to not block and access between two lots . The frontyard is to
maintain a safe distance between the public right-of-way and any type
of structure for safety reasons . Like in your area along Horseshoe
Curve or the Red Cedar Point area, there are a lot of those older
' garages that are right on top of the road . I think everybody knows
that that ' s not the best safety type of situation also so this
accessory buildings not being able to be located in the frontyard ,
' that' s a typical requirement in most ordinances. Maybe it should be
looked at through a variance procedure in some special cases because I
think to allow it outright may be creating more problems than it' s
' worth.
Emmings : Just think for a minute . If we allowed it on a riparian
lot, when they come in for the permit they' re going to have to meet
' all the setbacks . If you allow it in the frontyard on a riparian lot ,
you ' re not going to run into the Red Cedar Point type of situation.
' Conrad : Steve, why don ' t we table this? There are a lot of things
here and I guess I 'd like to have staff come and bring it back next
time that we meet and work in these considerations and just think
about it a little bit more in terms of riparian and that kind of
' stuff .
Emmings: I think we all kind of like, can even speak about Tim' s , but
the rest of us seem to think that Tim had some good things that could
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 32
be incorporated too . '
Dacy: I understand he won ' t be able to make the meeting on the 16th
either .
Headla : I don' t think we want outbuildings on the lakeside allowable. I
Dacy: We' ll bring it back. '
Headla moved, Emmings seconded to table action on Section 20-904 ,
Accessory Structures. All voted in favor and motion carried .
REVIEW PROPOSED STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION.
Dacy: If I could just bring you up-to-date where it is with the
legislature . It is in committee from what I understand now and
various communities have been testifying pros and cons on many of
these issues . My main intent of bringing this to your attention is so
that you' re aware of this proposed law because it does have in some
instances, very significant implications on how planning commissions
will be operating in the future. Minnesota I think is unique in
taking this approach of looking at it' s enabling legislation and doing
a complete revamp. Looking at other laws like the Metropolitan Land
Use Planning Act and looking at how cities relate functionally with
counties , etc . . For example, if you noted on page 30 for conditional
uses, I ' ll just bring the example to your attention. Something that' s I
easily identifiable. All the language that ' s underlined is what is
being proposed. What is being proposed is that the planning
commission is getting a little more authority on conditional use
permits. What it 's saying is that the City Council has to consider
that Planning Commission' s recommendation and over two-thirds of the
Council must abide by the Planning Commission' s recommendation or by a
two-thirds vote override that . So for example, that is different than I
what was law up until this time. Another issue in here, this doesn' t
affect the planning commission necessarily but the composition of the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals. What ' s being proposed is that
councilmembers are not going to be permitted to sit on the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. That is current practice in Chanhassen so
that takes a different approach . There are other larger issues that
we could go on and on about as far as consistency between
comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances and so on, but again, my
main intent was to get you familiar with this so you understand that
this has direct impact on how you decide issues and what you can and II what you can' t do. If you would like, I could have Roger Knutson come
in and highlight the chances a little bit more. Because on why they
did this or why they did that, I 'm not up to speed on. I don' t know
the history or the rational but Roger could give that . '
Headla: One point I 'd like him to comment on is Chanhassen going to
have liability on us then like they cover the Council? Right now they
IF
Planning Commission Meeting
March 2, 1988 - Page 33
' don ' t carry liability on our decision making because all we do is make
recommendations .
Dacy: I don' t think this law, at least I didn' t see in here anything
on that type of issue but I ask.
Headla : On page 30, the Council has to have two-thirds to override
' us, isn' t that giving us some clout and if we have that clout, doesn' t
that potentially make us liable?
' Dacy: We do have employees and some commission and the Council
members do have insurance. I don't think this makes you any more open
to that but I can ask Roger .
' Headla : I thought we were not covered because we only make
recommendations .
' Emmings : I think that ' s basically right. I don ' t think we' re sueable
as people that don' t make final recommendations and I don't think that
this would change that because the City Council would still be making
' the final decision whether it ' s to go with what we said or to change
it.
Headla : Even though it would take two-thirds?
' Emmings : Yes, but we'd want to find out about that. We want to make
sure that Roger agrees with that . I was interested in this notion of
' impact fees and I 'm totally unfamiliar with what it was . I read the
little bit in here on it . It sounded kind of interesting . Could you
tell me in 25 words or less what it is?
' Dacy: It ' s synonomous with the ability to charge park dedication
fees. Impact fees would enable the community to charge a specific fee
for transportation improvements which has been a popular mode in the
recent past.
Emmings: Sewer improvements?
' Dacy: Right. Storm sewer. Drainage improvements .
Emmings : That sounds terrific.
' Headla: How about fire engines?
' Dacy: That can be classified under a general generic term of
community facility or public services . It gives the City the ability
to charge an impact fee based on a broader area . For example, maybe
' to use a comparison with the park dedication fee, you' re identifying
what the park needs are for that subdivision. Impact fees , the city
has supposedly gone through an analysis of what it needs for
transportation , fire services , police services , etc . . This law gives
' the communities the ability to do that .
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 2 , 1988 - Page 34
I
Emmings: We can' t now?
I
Dacy: Right. The only mechanism that you could probably use to do
that would be to somehow negotiate with your PUD agreement or
II
something . But even there it' s kind of shakey.
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in II
favor and motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 9: 45 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy II
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1