CC Minutes 1994 10 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, Charles
Folch, John Rask and Jill Kimsal
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
agenda amended as follows: Item l(a) was deleted and Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Senn had items under
Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman senn seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
b. Resolution g94-107: Accept Utilities in Oak Ponds 2nd Addition, Project No. 94-12.
d. City Code Amendment Concerning Restriction on Temporary On-Sale Liquor Licenses, First Reading.
g. Approval of Bills.
h. City Council Minutes dated September 26, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes dated September 21, 1994
i. RALF Loan Approval, Adelmann Property.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, LOTS 1 AND 2,
BLOCK 1, PARK ONE SECOND ADDITION, OPUS CORPORATION.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This vacation request was received by staff
from Opus Corporation on behalf of the property owners to vacate a common lot line easement of 5 feet on
either side of lot line between Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1, Park One Second Addition. Staff has reviewed this
request. There are no existing utilities within this easement and with the replatting of the property, this easement
will not be necessary in the future so staff recommends approving the vacation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. At no time will the city need any additional easements with that?
Charles Folch: Not for this location...that we do have with the property, we will require the granting with the
rededication of the plat that is in the process.
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there any discussions? Is there anyone wishing to address this item?
Okay. Is there any discussion by Council? Richard.
Councilman Wing: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen, any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a couple fairly non-related questions, just out of curiosity. I didn't realize
that the Opus owned this portion. I thought it was the Press. Isn't this the Press property?
Charles Folch: It is but Opus is representing the property owner on this request. They're actually the
construction manager for the construction work that's going on.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, okay. And do you know at what stage the work is at? When the estimated
completion date is.
Charles Folch: That I don't know but I can certainly find out on that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or Kate, do you know?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, nothing further.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, Michael.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: Do we need to close the public hearing? Have we done that?
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, thank you. I'm moving a little too quick here tonight. We're going fast. Yes. I'd like a
motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Resolution g94-94-108: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Vacation
Request g94-4 for Drainage and Utility Easements on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One 2nd Addition. Ail
voted in favor and motion carried.
2
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
AWARD OF BIDS: STAGE I TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE LYMAN
BOULEVARD/LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY PROJECT 93-32A.
Charles Folch: I have some bid tabs that we have for your information tonight. On Thursday, October 6th of
last week bids were received and opened for the Stage I Trunk Utility Improvement Project which is part of the
overall Lyman Blvd/Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Project 93-32. A total of 8 bids were received for this
project with Annandale Contracting being the confirmed low bidder and this low bid was approximately 9%
below the engineer's estimate of $450,000.00. A reference check was made on Annandale Conlracting and was
found to be favorable. This bid package also includes two alternatives for additional watermain installation
which we are coordinating with one of the developments associated with the project and some additional grading
to eliminate some...pipe installation. At this time both of these alternatives are anticipated to be needed so with
that it is therefore recommended that the City Council award the Stage I Trunk Utility Improvement Project 93-
32A to Annandale Contracting with Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 at a low bid price of $410,890.70.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. It looks like with those, there are some that are pretty close with that and still
a little bit above but those are all fairly decent bids it looks like.
Councilman Senn: Charles, I lost you there on the number. 410 for all three?
Charles Folch: That's correct. $410,000.00 which includes the base bid, Alternate 1 and Alternate 2.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so the 271 and 364 are cumulative.
Charles Folch: That's correct
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Approving this tonight does what? What's the time line on this?
Charles Folch: Well, we expect that this contract would begin construction probably the fa'st of November and
we would try to get in as much utility work this year as the fall weather would allow us to do. Whatever we
don't get done this year of course we'll carry over into the spring and completed probably no later than mid-
summer of next year.
Councilman Wing: I'm just thinking back to Lake Minnewashta and I think after that ordeal we decided that we
weren't going to start fall projects anymore.
Charles Folch: That is correct and we are abiding by that in terms of road projects. This is a utility project and
most of the work will be off road. That's a good point.
Mayor Chmiel: In starting that a little bit earlier, the road condition in that particular area is in pretty poor
shape, is it not?
Charles Folch: In which location?
3
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Well, this will go all the way down to Lake Riley just east of TH 101.
Charles Folch: Actually this will go down to Lyman Blvd. It will basically traverse from Chan Hills, Lake
Susan Drive east to TH 101. It will extend north into the east ditch of TH 101 and then will go up through the
new right-of-way alignment of 86th Street and then head east to Tigua and then head due south from Tigua over
to the future development of the John Klingelhutz property and then will stop at Lyman Bird with this stage.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, good. Any other questions? Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Have we ever done work with Annandale?
Charles Folch: The city has not but we did conduct a reference check with other municipalities that have used
them.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: If hearing none, can I have a motion for acceptance of the bid given to Annandale Construction.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I would move that we award the bid for Stage I Trunk Utility Improvements for
Lyman Bird to Annanclale Contractiitg in the sum of $410,000.00 and change.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Is it 410 or 450?
Charles Folch: $410,890.70.
Resolution $94-109: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded that the City Council
award the Stage I Trunk Utility Improvement Project 93-32A to Annandale Contracting with Alternate 1
and Alternate 2 at a low bid price of $410~890.70. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR CHANHASSEN RETAIL SECOND ADDITION CREATING 2
OUTLOTS AND CHANHASSEN RETAIL THIRD ADDITION, PLATTING OUTLOT B INTO THREE
LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT; SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR
PERKINS RESTAURANT: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 1.800 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR
TACO BELL; LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY $ AND POWERS BOULEVARD AND
WEST 78TH STREET (TARGET SITE); CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER, RYAN CONSTRUCTION
AND RLK ASSOCIATES.
Kate Aanenson: As you indicated there are two aetions...subdivision and the second is the site plan reviews.
You last reviewed this proposal on your September 26th meeting. Asked that it be tabled for further information
regarding the coloring... The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions that the awnings for
Perkins with back lighting. They are a bright yellow. Highway 5 does allow for some coloration as far as
accents... Again, there was a concern of the Planning Commission that the back lighting of the awnings...but we
are recommending approval of the two site plans. Again, we have not had the opportunity to review what they
are...so until we've had the opportunity to review that, we would recommend approval. This is something that
we can compromise...with the conditions in the staff report and site plan approval with conditions outlined in the
staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does anyone have any questions of Kate regarding what she said? Okay if not, will the
developer.
John Dietrich: Good evening Mayor, members of the Council. John Dietrich, RLK Associates. I'm representing
Ryan Construction and Taco Bell and Perkins tonight and with us tonight is Tom Palmquist of Ryan
Construction, Guy Payne of Perkins and John Whelan...who will be able to speak to the specific details of the
Taco Bell building and the elements that will make this building it needs to be for the City of Chanhassen based
on your requests from last meeting. I'd like to just quickly say thank you for allowing us to present the plan...
and I just want to clarify the exhibits that we do have. If you have any quesfions...and we do have the elements
of the Perkins building. It's going to be a metal roofmg...stucco siding and John Whelan also has the materials
that will be used on the Taco Bell building. So if I could quickly touch on these site elements, then we can get
into the... We have 3 sites that are proposed to be included in Outlot B with the city occupying the northwest
and southern side for the future landscape monument for the city. We have realigned the entry so there will be
one main entry and the site proposal at this time is for the Perkins and for the Taco Bell building to be approved
with the site plan approval and we look to have this landscape plan instituted and will meet all the conditions as
specified for the specific plant materials stated in the staff report. We've also provided cross sections that
identify how the buildings would be perceived from Highway 5 in terms of their distance, the height of the
automobiles and the screening of the rooftop equipment and we also have cross sections that look at high points
from both Highway 5 and West 78th Street to again identify high points and cross sections and how that will
lead to the specific buildings so that rooftop equipment would be screened. Perkins has proposed the building to
be a...color stucco finish with accent window panes and ceramic tile on the entry areas and behind the signs.
Individual letters would be proposed and yellow awnings would be proposed on the north side, on both sides of
the entry, and over the windows on the southern side of the building. It would not be all the way around the
building. One request is that the awnings have the ability to be backlit since they are accent items for the
windows and they are not a continuous band around the building. They are...selected locations. The Taco Bell
building I'm going to let John Whelan talk a little bit about how this plan that we presented to you last time was
much of a standard corporate plan and the changes that they have made in order to make it more detailed so that
it would fit with the Ouflot B and the Target PUD so that it would be... And lastly, we do have a perspective of
the site as you would be looking at it from Powers Boulevard to the east identifying how the buildings would
5
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
look with a future restaurant in the foreground so we have these exhibits. We can go into further detail with
them. If you have any questions but I feel the issues are some of the architecture. In terms of the conditions of
approval, we are in agreement with all of the conditions as stated with the one exception of requesting that the
awnings on Perkins be allowed to be backlit and with that I would like to hand it over to Mr. Whelan to discuss
the f'mer detail points of the Taco Bell building.
John Whelan: My name's John Whelan with...Architects. I have a picture right here of the standard corporate
Taco Bell, if you guys want to take it and should I pass it around up there or down here? In general that's the
building that they like to do. There's not a lot of room inside of it to move things around. It's just a
rectangular plan and they obviously would like to keep it that way because a lot of thought's gone into that. As
far as the awning that goes around, I heard there's some objection to the colors there. I have a sample of the
awning right here. It's a plastic backlit type of awning and Taco Bell is willing to forego that. A couple of the
choices that they have would be to use a plain light colored awning which would be backlit or to simply use a
stucco soffit up under the gutters, which they'd be happy to do. It's not what they like to do but as long as the
building can be recognized as a corporate or a Taco Bell, as long as they get to keep their arches, they're okay
with eliminating that awning all the way around it~ I brought some samples of the stucco that we use on the
outside typically, and I also have a lot of pictures of various other Taco Bells we have done, if you're interested
in seeing those. Frankly I think the one you're looking at looks the best. We've done a lot of them in brick and
I think if you eliminate that awning and change the roof tiles just a little bit, you'll have something that in
general is a little bit better looking than your typical Taco Bell. A little more subdued. Now we have done the
buildings in brick before but in general, at least for this site, I think the stucco's going to look a little bit better.
Usually we do brick when we're trying to match the surrounding building and I think since a lot of the
surrounding buildings here are going to be stucco, that the stucco's probably going to be our best bet. The roof
tile that we usually use on the building is this orange colored one here. I've used this one one other time and in
general I think it looks a little bit better. I have a picture of a building where I've used it the one time. It's a
brick building and you can get an idea. These are two more buildings that we've done. Both of them are brick
and you can see the difference between that. On one of them, in the back of the building we have eliminated the
backlit awning and just used the stucco soffit. So at this point, without redesigning the entire building site, I
can't imagine what we would do with it beyond the rectangular building and the arches that go along with Taco
Bell. I think that's what we're looking at for now, unless somebody's got some suggestions on what they'd like
to see.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll walt and see what comes across. There was a, Kate on the one concern, what
item was that with the back lighting on the Perkins? Okay. Are there any specific questions that we may have
in regard to this proposed structure? Richard.
Councilman Wing: I didn't see the Ixash sites. Where are the trash binds? Have you got one that shows where
they are? How they're sitting.
John Dietrich: In terms of the trash enclosure, first part Taco Bell's is proposed to be in the northwest comer
and would be screened with evergreen trees 6 foot high to begin with. Three of them placed about 4 foot on
center. A structure would also be built in that interior of Taco Bell. Perkins would be down in the southeast
comer and that...green plant material placed around the sides of the structure. Again, to match the architectural
style.
6
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: What will you have in front of those to, as you're sitting there and you're having it all around,
or on all 2 sides. The back side you're indicating is screened by some evergreens. What's going to be in the
front? Is that open?
John Whelan: That would be a gate.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Gates will be on it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What type of gates? Wood or chainlink.
John Whelan: Generally we use a painted metal gate and are completely opaque and it tends to hold up a little
bit better over time.
Mayor Chmiel: Painted or anodized or?
John Whelan: No, it's usually painted. The whole thing is generally the same stucco and the same color as the
building so we just paint the gate to be the same as the stucco.
Guy Payne: As far as the Perkins.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone.
Guy Payne: Sure. I'm Guy Payne. Perkins Family Restaurants. Manager of Architectural Services. Our
dumpster enclosure is the same stucco material painted and then it has the chain]ink with slats to visually screen
the front of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. A chainlink fence in itself with slats inbetween each of the segments.
Guy Payne: Yeah. I mean basically all you see is wood all across the front.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Do you have any?
Councilman Wing: John, I just want to say thank you for the drawings and all the issues of the sight lines.
That made it really easy and I also appreciate your willingness to give up on that band. I would just fight it.
Somebody, whether television or the newspapers picked up. They saw a Taco Bell of St. Paul that didn't have
any colored bands and they had to call me to tell me that because they wanted to make sure that I knew it could
be done and I think deleting that is a step in the right direction. So as far as the Taco Bell. One thing I wanted
to pick up on was Mark's comments about fast food in general. Some time I'd love to discuss fast food in
general but that's not appropriate at this point. I think they've done a good job on this. They're services that
the city's going to use and they fit in. With the Taco Bell, deleting the band and going to a neutral soffit color,
I don't have any problem. I would like to add, and ask Council to consider as we've done on others, no window
signs period. I mean just window signs are out period. I f'md Perkins city wide to be subtle and of reasonable
quality. I've never found one that I find obnoxious. I don't have any comments with the Perkins and the Taco
Bell maybe is one that isn't as attractive as it could be but I think they've made some steps here to work with
the city and other than deleting the window sings and the color band be neutral and soffit, I don't have any
comment.
7
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: A couple of general comments. I wish it had gone to staff prior. I don't
understand why it wasn't. The revisions I mean and I also appreciate the work that's been done on it. However,
I still don't know what it's going to look like. I mean we've got pictures of the banding. We've got paintings
with the colored banding and I wish I had a better perception of what the plain stucco soffits will look like but
I'm going to accept that that will be alright and hope we don't have another Abra on our hands. Trying to
improve a building and make it end up looking awful. Let's see. The Irash enclosure, I'd like to make sure that
the Taco Bell trash enclosure also has the wood slats in between the chainlink. I understand the sight lines.
I'm not comfortable that we won't be able to see all the HVAC equipment from Highway 5. Can someone tell
me that we won't or that it will look decent?
John Dietrich: In terms of the Highway 5, we've looked at the high points that you'd come out of the trees here
so that the sight lines would then be directed towards the Perkins. The elevation of the car would be at
approximately a 980 elevation. The elevation of the Perkins is at approximately 953. So right there there's 27
feet. The structure of the Perkins has a wall height of 17 feet so that would give us a 10 foot difference so
potentially the top of Perkins would be at approximately 970. So there'd be a 10 foot difference of looking
down from the top down to the Perkins. We've identified the soffit and have drawn the lines to the other side.
You will see the back, what we estimate the back 6 to 9 inches of the soffit on the rear of Perkins but that still
allows 3 1/2 feet on the west side and a total of 4 feet on the east side of Perkins for that HVAC equipment to
sit within there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thank you. Kate, are we doing the sign tonight as well?
Kate Aanenson: ...concerns about that and normally it will just go through the staff but the Planning
Commission specifically requested to see it. They want to make sure they're architecturally compatible... They
are allowed the one free standing sign from the PUD agreement that would identify all three outlots...
architecturally compatible with those and then each individual tenant is allowed one low monument sign, again
architecturally compatible similar to what Target has right on West 78th.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Was traffic flow looked at Charles? Are you comfortable with the traffic
flow?
Charles Folch: Yes...review and don't have any problems. We went through a lot of iteration to get it to point
where we are right now so.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So there will be no stack up problems with the drive thru window?
Charles Folch: Well, we can't say there never will be but we think this is the best scenario that we have right
now.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I would agree with Richard that as a part of this we recommend that there
not be any window signs. No 59 cent burdto, 2 foot signs in the window. And I agree with staff that we should
not back light the awnings. It's bright enough as it is. I don't see any reason to back light it. That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Michael.
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilman Mason: My concerns have been addressed already. Perhaps maybe with, what's the rationale for
Perkins wanting to back light those awnings.
Guy Pa}me: Well that's basically the only lighting at night that you really see. Our building is so organically
colored that that just gives it the only little pop.
Councilman Mason: Do those fights go, well you're open 24 hours though aren't you?
Guy Payne: Well we've gotten away from that now. I don't know exactly here but most of them have been
closing 2:00 in the evening. Stuff like that. We've gotten away from the 24 hours so I don't know exactly if
they will but I think the probability is they won't stay open 24 hours.
Councilman Mason: I'm assuming you'd want those back lit as long as the store was open.
Guy Payne: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: That wasn't from the staff. That condition came from the Planning Commission, to make it
clear on that. As they're going through the Highway 5, the intent was, when you do similar to what Taco Bell
did with the banding is you're trying to create a logo look and...that were was lettering on the awnings. That
was an issue...more of a sign. The overlay zone does allow for architecture differences but there was just a
concern about that sign in terms of the brightness of the logo on it. Just to quote from the...doeument. What
you're trying to do is...franchise and I'm not sure if that really constitutes franchising or if it's, as they
indicated...different type of lighting...Trying to get signs or some of the pictures of...
Guy Payne: As far as our awnings, there will be no logo. All it will be is solid yellow and then in red letters
you have family restaurant on there. There is that but there is no Perkins logo.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I've mentioned before when we were talking about lights, light pollution is an issue
for me and as more things get built in town, more lights are left on and it's getting brighter and brighter and I
think that's something we need to talk about at some point. So I'm done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess the only part of the signage that I have any concern with at all is the free standing
sign with the three tenants on it. Just as I did not like having it on the James project across the street, I think
they're unnecessary but that seems to be a moot point because it was what, in the contract or whatever.
Kate Aanenson: PUD agreement.
Councilman Senn: So that was given away up front or whatever. Okay. As far as the Perkins goes with the
green and the yellow, personally I think it looks fine. Looks great. Adds some character to a fairly earth tone
building. That's not to say that earth tone's bad but it happens to also need some little pizzazz to it and I like
the festive look myself. On the Taco Bell, I have no problems, as I stated last time, with the stripes. Again,
same thing. Earth tone building with a little festive striping and I don't think detracts from it. I think it makes
it a little more cheery. I guess one of the main questions I'd really like to see us deal with, especially since we
seem to get getting a lot into fast food, is I'd really like to see us find better solutions on the trash.
9
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Kate Aanenson: We spent a lot of time looking at that and we couldn't,..thought that that would be appropriate.
Based on the fact that,,.what happened is, we end up blocking somebody's drive thru... But we did spend some
time trying to see if there was an appropriate way.,.
Councilman Senn: Well my own opinion is that trash can be scheduled so I don't get that much into the
conflicts myself but the other solution I guess that I'd love us to really start looking at, and I don't necessarily
want to hold these up as a result of this. I don't know if there's a way it could be looked at or incorporated in it
but I'm a lovely advocate of in situations like this, especially when you have what I call island development,
which is exactly what I call this. Instead of having a trash thing sitting out there, which I think really detracts
from what I'm seeing as nice buildings you have otherwise. I'd rather see it incorporated into the building and
kept indoors.
Guy Payne: If you come up with a way, let us know because we'd like to incorporate it to our building.
Councilman Senn: I can take you up to Plymouth and show you several buildings where it's been done.
Guy Payne: The frequency of use in there just makes it virtually impossible to keep it stored inside and then be
able to get it outside the building,
Councilman Senn: Well but I mean if you look at, I mean I'm not talking about an indoor environmental
contxolled storage, if that's what you're perceiving. Okay, I'm talking about an indoor storage which is part of
your building but not necessarily environmental controls. More or less a separate part of the building where you
trash goes.
Guy Payne: Yeah, just connected to the building.
Councilman Senn: Just connected to the building and it basically becomes part of the architecture of the
building.
Guy Payne: Yeah, and we have done that on occasional sites. Kind of pushed it to happen or something.
Councilman Senn: That's something I'd like to see incorporated more into the island types of development and
stuff because I've seen it done, and have done it in fact, and it's just, I think it works out to the benefit of
everybody to do it. Other than that, no real comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks. Kate. In regards to Taco Bell. Number one, I would like to see if any of the
necessary changes are to the proposed blue line drawings, that those be incorporated and that a signature by a
professional architect be indicated. These are unsigned prints. I want to make sure that it's going to be
consistent and we follow through with that and I think I'd like to see that done also with the Perkins. I notice
every once in a while we somehow slip past that. ff we don't show that accordingly, we can sometimes get
stuck with what we don't really want. So if we can automatically do that, I'd appreciate that and making sure
that the staff reviews that with all those changes that we had discussed. I guess I don't have any other
comments to add to what's already been discussed and I don't want to prolong it. Is there a motion'?.
Councilman Wing: We've got two here again. We've got the.
10
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, two difference basic ones that we have actually going. It's all under one but they're two
different proposals but as it shows here, and under the site plan conditions of approval that we have on our page
16 of our information. That shows all the specific conditions that are contained within. Is there going to be a
requirement with that Kate as to two separate ones or is it to fall under one?
Kate Aanenson: We have one motion for the subdivision, which is actually two...separafing the city property.
And then the second subdivision creates the three lots. The site plans are provided also as one motion. They're
on page, the first mofion's on page 15 and the second one's on page 16.
Councilman Wing: I'll move subdivision approval on g92-5. Do we need any more than that? I don't think we
added anything to that one.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve g92-5 PUD for the Preliminary
and Final Plat for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition and Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition as shown on the
plans dated July 25, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Developer shall petition the City to vacate the old West 78th Street right-of-way which traverses the overall
site.
2. The following easements shall be dedicated on the final plat:
a. A 30 foot drainage and utility easement centered on the existing sanitary sewer alignment through the
site.
bo
The existing drainage and utility easement obtained with the underlying plat of the West Village Heights
2nd Addition shall be maintained. These easements cover the City's existing watermain and one of the
telephone cables.
c. An additional 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be granted along the south line of the
previously described West Village Heights 2nd Addition drainage and utility easement.
It appears that the northwest corner of the Taco Bell building would encroach into the proposed 20 foot
drainage and utility easement and be approximately 5 feet south of the existing buried phone cable. The
developer shall obtain approval from the phone company for this condition and if obtained, a subsequent
encroachment agreement shall be executed for this condition.
4. Provide a permanent landscape easement over the northern 8 feet of the eastern 170 feet of Lot 3, Block I,
Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition.
The developer shall supply the city with a financial escrow in the amount of $5,000. to guarantee boulevard
restoration and protection of the city's infrasu'uctures. The f'mancial escrow shall be in the form of a letter
of credit or cash escrow.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously'
11
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilman Wing: I'll also move that the site plan conditions of approval on 94-6 as shown. Number 15 stays,
which excuse me. Number 13 stays intact then. For Mike, no back lighting. The color striping is removed. I
would add condition number 20 stating no window signs, and Kate can you specify that portion for me. It's not
as formal as I'd like it to be but specifically we want to delete the advertising in the windows. The large
colored signs. No window signs, is that adequate?
Mayor Chmiel: Roger.
Roger Knutson: That expresses it as well as I could think.
John Whelan: What about neon signs that say Drive Thru is Open and stuff like that? They do use those in
addition to the decal ones. They're not very bright but they are lit up at night.
Roger Knutson: Perhaps no advertising signs.
Councilman Wing: Okay, informational signs. No advertising signs. Kate, is that enough?
John Whelan: No product advertising signs.
Roger Knutson: That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Is your drive up closed at different times when it's open?
John Whelan: It varies, and I think that sometimes the drive thru stays open a little bit later. Because they do a
good portion of their business through the drive thru and that's just one of the signs that they like to have but
they're in general pretty small.
Mayor Chmiel: I was just trying to come up with a reason as to why the drive thru would even have a sign
when it is considered as fast food, It just automatically would have that window open.
John Whelan: I don't know. I just know when you get out there, that's one of the signs that gets shipped out.
But I'm sure it would be a big deal for them if it were omitted. But it's really rather subtle in comparison to the
huge 79 cent burritos which you see in the windows.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What's Council's pleasure.
Councilman Wing: The other one's don't have signs saying.,.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I've not seen any. That the drive up is open and I would just as seon see that eliminated.
I don't see the need for that,
Councilman Wing: I agree.
Councilman Mason: Well I'm u'ying to think. Are there any other, McDonald's doesn't have a drive thru sign
does it? Is Wendy's going to have one or not?
Mayor Chmiel: I didn't review any or didn't see any when they presented that.
12
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilman Mason: I could eliminate it then.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'd like to see that also eliminated as part of number 20. Okay with that, any other
discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could I make a friendly amendment to number 9. That we just specify that the
chainlink will be painted with wood slats.
Mayor Chmiel: That's to the back side or the front side.
To the part that's not stucco.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Kate Aanenson: The gate.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
The gate, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: And no one foot of barb.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And no broken botiles or barbwire. I'll second the motion.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussions?
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan g94-6 as shown on
the plans dated September 6, 1994 subject to the following conditions:
1. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development of
this site including but not limited to watershed district, PCA, MWCC, Health Department.
2. All proposed storm sewer and sanitary sewer and water services within the site are considered private and
shall be maintained as such. The sizes and types of lines shall be labeled on the plans.
3. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer drainage calculations and a drainage map for the entire site
showing areas and quantity of flow to the Target pond and to the County Road 17 pond that are consistent
with capacities of the existing storm sewer system.
4. Developer shall indicate any quantifies of borrow material and/or material to be hauled off site including a
proposed haul route.
5. Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with protection of the existing public utility facilities
within the overall site. Developer shall also differentiate on the final site plans which lines are public and
which are private.
6. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained
as such. The developer shall provide cross access easements for the use of the common driveways.
7. The developers shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
13
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Construction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or
Powers Boulevard. The applicant and/or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance
until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface.
Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure.
Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways. All chainlink portions of the
trash enclosures shall be painted with wood slats.
10. A Linden, either greenspire or littleleaf, shall be planted within the permanent landscape easement to replace
the two ornamental trees being removed along West 78th Street.
11. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan replacing the pin oak with red oak (Quercus rubra) and
providing one bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) in the landscape area on the south side of the site entrance.
12. The minimum peninsular landscape island width is 8 feet. One tree per each 250 square feet or fraction
thereof of landscaping area. Each landscaping island must be a minimum of 200 square feet and must
contain at least one tree. The applicant shall install an aeration/irrigation tubing, see figure 11-2, if separate
irrigation is provided, or 11-3, if separate irrigation is not provided, attached, in each peninsular or island
type landscape area less than 10 feet in width.
13. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the
wall area. Taco Bell and Perkins elevations shall be revised to comply with this condition. Only one pylon
side is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The
applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. Monument and pylon
signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No backlit awnings are allowed, signage for
Taco Bell shall be limited to the north and east facia, and no brightly colored striping or bands shall be
permitted.
14. Fire Marshal recommendations:
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations.
Relocate the fire hydrant from the perimeter landscape area north of Perkins to the landscape island east
of Perkins. Add an additional hydrant on Lot l, Block 1, north of the proposed future restaurant.
b. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and paint curb yellow in designated fire lanes. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of signage and curb painting. (See attached schematic.)
A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fac hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,
NSP, NW Bell, cable television transformer boxes. This is to ensure that rue hydrants can be quickly
located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
15. The landscaping plan for Taco Bell, Perkins and Lot 2, Block 1 shall be compatible with the final
landscaping plans that the city implements for Outlot A.
16. Staff and the applicant will develop a pedestrian walkway system within the development and from West
78th Street. A 5' wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided along the eastern property line from West 78th
Street to Outiot A. The sidewalk shall meander around the landscape being provided on site. The planting
14
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
bed being displaced in the northeast comer of the site shall be improved to provide an enlxance feature for
the sidewalk. The final design shall be subject to staff review and approval.
17. The sign package must come back to the Planning Commission for approval.
18. Either provide stormwater pass-through openings in the bottom of the Perkins' trash enclosure, reduce the
size of the enclosure, or move the enclosure west to permit stormwater to flow unimpeded into the storm
sewer/catch basin located in the comer of the parking area.
19. Increase common driveway aisle from 25 feet wide to 26 feet wide face to face and align the access onto
Target Lane with the existing curb line in the Target parking lot.
20. No window signs will be permitted.
AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Wing: Could I just, as a follow up comment, because Mark's really hitting something here that I
think we've got to deal with and I'd like staff to take it real seriously. You've got Mark's comments on the
trash.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Wing: As I drove out tonight looking at the Abra and the Goodyear, trash is trash. I don't care
what you do with it. It's on the highway and it looks terrible and it makes those, it looks like somebody's back
yard and I agree with Mark 100%. I think this is really worth pursuing aggressively. No more of this outdoor,
it's simply trash and it really does take away from what we're trying to do with an attractive nature. And also
remember that we talked about buildings forward. Parking lots and all the stuff on the other side. I wish now
we could redo Abra and Goodyear and de£mitely put the building's forward and the trash on the back because it
really does delract, so I appreciate Mark's comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
CONSIDER REQUEST OF SOUTHWEST TRAIL ASSOCIATION TO UTILIZE SOUTHWEST
REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL TRAIL ROUTE AS A SNOWMOBILE TRAIL.
Public Present:
Name Address
Doug Brown
Brad Blomquist
Guy P.
Frankie Evanoff
Bill Kullberg
David Johanning
Charles Littf'm
Charles Wesffahl
10 Fox Hollow Drive
7141 Derby Drive
7521 Chippewa Trail
1401 Hesse Farm Road
Southwest Trail Assn, P.O. Box 34, Navarre
931 Butte Court
7609 Laredo Drive
6870 Redwing Lane
15
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Kristine Oppman
Rick & Diane Riegert
Ben & Jill Schaefbauer
Rick Halver
Mark & Deana Hagen
Jim Andrews
Jan Lash
Jim Manders
Fred Berg
Gary Delaney
532 Lyman
520 Lyman
621 Broken Arrow Drive
10271 Great Plains Blvd.
7737 South Shore Drive
Park and Rec Commission
Park and Rec Commission
Park and Rec Commission
Park and Rec Commission
Bluff Creek Iun
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. To begin with, this is an aerial photo showing the
trail corridor as it divides southern Chanhassen. The upper right hand comer you start at Pioneer Trail terminus
in Eden Prairie and continue southwest crossing Highway 101, crossing Bluff Creek Drive and eventually
terminating at the southern end in the city of Chaska. You got two additional letters from residents this evening
at your desk. There's also copies of those letters for the audience on the chair around to my left. In addition to
that, Susan and Bruce Breck also called residing at 1180 Hesse Farm Road wishing to voice their opposition to
the use of the trail. Some brief background information. On March 22nd of this year LeRoy Biteler, who is in
the audience this evening, representing the Chanhassen Snowmobilers and Southwest Metro Trails made a visitor
presentation before the Park and Recreation Commission regarding this issue. They did submit a written letter
request dated March 14th in this regard and that was presented to the commission. The commission.., discussion
that evening directed staff to formally place the issue on a future agenda of the Park and Recreation
Commission. That review occurred on June 28th of this year. The Commission reviewed that request. The
item was published in the Chanhassen Villager, as it has been in subsequent meetings. A neighborhood letter
was dislributed to residents in the area of the trail and the snowmobile association was notified. That evening
the commission reached a split decision on this issue with a 3 to 3 vote. With no alternative available,
Chairperson Andrews chose to pass the issue onto the City Council with that split vote. On August 22nd of this
year you reviewed this issue for the first time. That discussion resulted in 17 pages of verbatim Minutes. Upon
taking public comment and concluding your discussion that evening, you chose to table the request of the
Southwest Metro Trail Association awaiting further resolution by the city's Park and Recreation Commission.
On September 27th of this year, at the direction of the City Council, the Park and Recreation Commission
reviewed this issue for a second time and they took the following action. Commission Huffman moved,
Commissioner Roeser seconded to recommend the Chanhassen City Council make the Southwest Regional Light
Rail Transit Route available to snowmobilers during the winter months. No other motorized vehicles will be
allowed. Signage, hours of use, speed limits and other enforcement rules will be worked out with the
Department of Public Safety officials, city officials and other pertinent folks pending City Council approval with
this recommendation. Commissioners Lash, Meger, Huffman and Roeser were in favor of that motion.
Commissioners Berg, Manders and Andrews were opposed. The motion carded with a 4 to 3 vote. Tonight I
asked the City Council, in order to bring this nearly 7 month process just one step closer to a resolution, that you
render a decision in this regard. As you are aware in the events that a motion in favor of the snowmobilers is
forwarded and a formal request from the City of Chanhassen must be, for winter use of the trail must be
submitted to Hennepin Parks in order to utilize the section of trail under their jurisdiction. The outright
ownership of the entire corridor down to Highway 212 and then slightly beyond is held by the Hennepin County
Regional Rail Authority. The ultimate purpose of this corridor is for light rail transit at some point in the future.
In the interim Hennepin Parks, Hennepin County Parks, regional park providers, signed on with an agreement
with the Rail Authority to utilize the trail down to Bluff Creek. They were at f~t going to terminate it at
Highway 101 because their real intention was to get south to Shakopee and to travel down to their southern most
16
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
parks at Murphy Hanneran and Cleary Lake Park. However they felt Bluff Creek, where there's wider fight-of-
way and more subtle grades at the crossing was a better location for the terminus of their section of the trail.
They have constructed a parking lot,..trailhead identifieafion; The city's seen the advantage of the nail system
and then picked up an agreement with the City of Chanhassen with the City of Cha.qka and completed the
segment from Bluff Creek to Chaska. Now Chaska this fall will continue it at TH 212. It will not cross over
the bridge at TH 212 as is the case at TH 101. That bridge will be replaced next year but they will travel north
half of Highway 212 at that point and connect with downtown Chaska. So again this request has to go to
Hennepin Parks. Hennepin Parks has the authority to say yes or no. Even if the City Council approves the use
this evening. And again, Hennepin Parks in their agreement may grant such approval or they...not. We do have
members of the Park and Recreation Commission present in the audience this evening, if you would wish to
receive input from them or have questions of them. Otherwise we're looking for a decision from the City
Council this evening.
Mayor Chmiel; Okay, thank you. Prior to opening this up I just wanted to mention two things. Number one,
we have had an opportunity to read all of the information that is contained in these two documents. Secondly,
that if there is someone wishing to indicate something new that has not been discussed, we would be more than
happy to listen to that presentation. What I'd like to do is to try to limit this to probably at least 3 minutes each
to indicate your concerns, one way or the other. And ff it's repetition, if you'd please just stay seated unless you
feel there's something new, as I mentioned, that you'd like to inject into this. Then feel free to do so. So with
that I would like to open the floor for anyone who has something new that we can listen to at this time. Yes.
Please state your name and your address and come up to the microphone.
Franlde Evanoff: Good evening. My name is Franlde Evanoff. I live at 1401 Hesse Farm Road. I'm fight off
of Bluff Creek Road. I've been snowmobiling for, since 1969. I've lived in Hesse Farms for 15 years. All of
our trails have been taken away and this is just one opportunity for us to get from Point A to Point B. I've
snowmobiled elsewhere on railroad beds and it's, we don't go off of them. It's just a way for us safely to get to
where we're going. And as far as noise where I live, to be truthful ! will never hear that noise. I don't see any
other way there possible for some of us in the neighborbood...snowmobile to get to Chanhassen or Chaska with
all of the housing developments. So this would be a very easy way and a safe way. As far as the property that
goes down to the tracks, I don't know if you've ever walked that railroad bed. Most of those homes are on
bluffs. As far as snowmobilers going off that trail and going onto private property...I can't imagine anybody
going off at that point into the neighborhood...some of the people who have voiced a concern, they live on the
other side of the road in this development. Quite a ways away from that railroad bed. They would never hear
that noise..Even the 18 wheelers that are coming up Bluff Creek Road, that's more of a noise than these
snowmobiles would be. I hear a lot of traffic from that road and that's...traffic so I think that this should go
through. I think that the snowmobilers should have a right to use this trail, Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else7
Gary Delaney: My name is Gary Delaney and my wife and I, Ann, own the Bluff Creek Inn which is just off of
Bluff Creek Drive. This afternoon I had a chance to make a few calls to check with some of our neighboring
communities and I checked with Eden Prairie to see how they had dealt with this issue and you folks probably
well know already that they declined it. Second of all I spoke at length with the Deputy Assistant to the Sheriff
of Carver County, Mr. Jim Casfleberry and Jim classified the problems in working and txying to make sense out
of the existing snowmobile trails throughout Carver County and Chaska, which you probably know he's a City
Council person within Chaska also. And from the law enforcement standpoint his quote is, it's a nightmare. He
said it's very dangerous. What happens is that it's not the responsible parent that works with their machines
17
City Council Meeting - October i0, 1994
nicely and correctly but it's later on when the teenage kids frequently get a hold of them and off they start
roaring. He referred to it as completely unable to cope with the problems which they have with snowmobiles
throughout Carver County. So that led me to check with Scott County, which I did. Scott County, unlike
Carver County, has an enforcement police force and two deputy sheriff groups and I'm not sure exactly how it
works but they also own snowmobiles and they have organized trails that go from Shakopee to Belle Plain that
are well staffed, policed and are maintained. But what we're talking about here is 2 or 4 miles that's kind of
isolated that would require, I hope, some kind of policing that we don't have available within Chanhassen since
we contract with the County to do this enforcing. And also from out standpoint at the Bluff Creek Inn, we have
many guests at all times of the year that are walking that trail and if it's during the winter, what we have found,
and ourselves, we walk that trail. If you folks have done it since you've been on that trail since it's been paved,
it's marvelous. It's beautiful. It's a major asset to this community. There are snowmobile trails in this
community already...some problem for folks. I think it'd be nice to get a chance for our community to have
some ambience with some well groomed ski trails. What Eden Prairie is doing is they're waiting to see if the
community asks them to accept the ski trails down and to groom them and they've done, just kind of sit back
this first year. What we would be doing is going right into the middle of the system. Chaska, according to what
Jim said, would not be in favor of having this motorized traffic on it but there is no parking. I'm sure that there
is 1 or 3 people that might have snowmobiles that would love to use it. Well, you would be bringing in trailers
with the big snowmobiles on it and a small parking lot that's made for bikers. And that, trying to unload them
and then the logistics of thinking that it would only go from sun up to sun down, as I understand that was one of
the proposals. I don't know that that would really work so I think it's unenforceable. It would be setting a
precedent and as far as I know, it's the only suburban community that has taken one of these abandoned railroad
tracks and allowed a portion of it, or all of it to be used for snowmobiles. The Luce Line trail which I think
you're all familiar with, and other abandoned raikoad tracks throughout the suburban Twin Cities area, do not
allow this and there are hundreds of miles of trails that are close by within the outlying areas, the suburban
areas. A major one right over here in Scott County. I don't think we need this. I think it's premature to decide
to allow it and the trail's only been there a short time and we would like to think that all of us would be able to
use it for some peaceful, tranquil uses that the ambience of this community should be fostering rather than trying
it into a semi commercial... Appreciate your attention.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Todd, in regard to the city of Chaska. What position has the
city taken on that right now?
Todd Hoffman: The President, LeRoy can you maybe respond to where they're at.
LeRoy Biteler: Yeah, the city of Chaska, both Park and Rec and the City Council have approved.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Yes.
LeRoy l~iteler: I do have some comments. I'm LeRoy Biteler, Chanhassen Snowmobile Club. A couple of
things to address Gary Delaney's comments. Scott Harr, and I thought he might be here this evening but I had a
discussion with Scott Hart with respect to the potential of policing this trail and other trails in our area simply
because the situation with the bike patrol came up that we had this summer. We had a person patrolling our trail
systems by bicycle and I also am aware that Carver County has two snowmobiles. I asked Scott I4_arr if it's
possible that this person that's on bicycle might be able to police our trails a few times this winter. He did
comment to me, he did get back to me and he said that he had had some discussions with Carver County. I
can't name those particular people that he discussed it with because I don't know but he did say that there's a
good possibility that we may be able to accomplish some of this kind of policing with that kind of personnel.
18
C~ty Council Meeting - October I0, 1998
Also in the past, as I reiterated to you before, we have called Carver County on their snowmobiles and we have
been out policing our trails with them in the past. It's been done. As we mentioned, Chaska has approved the
railroad beds. There are railroad beds in our community. One that goes between Victoria and Shorewood which
we have snowmobiling and walkers on. The other thing that I'd like to address, and this being new information.
I have come to find how far or how close some of these houses are to the railroad bed. That seems to have
been a question that has come up. How close are they? How far away are they? In looking at the aerial map
we were able to determine by scale, that we have one house at approximately 135 feet. We have two houses at
150 feet. And we have one house at 200 feet and the rest of them are at 200 feet or more away from the trail.
Without giving you more information, of which you've already received, I want to reiterate a couple things. The
testing that's been done on snowmobiles is 50 feet away. At 50 feet away the snowmobile at 40 mph is a
decibel of 78, That's machines that are 1980 or newer. Highway traffic at 50 feet is 70 decibels. An
automobiles stepping on the gas at 50 feet is 78 decibels. The decibels of the traffic in front of Shorewood City
Hall at 50 feet away, 75 decibels. Now these sounds were all taken from out of doors. The point I'm trying to
make here is that this snowmobile tmiI is 3 times the distance away from 50 feet. 50 feet, the homes are 150
feet away, most of them. And their windows are closed so to speak, most of the time in the winter time. The
sounds of the snowmobiles on this trail is not an issue. It is going to be less than the sound of the traffic
crossing the highway. That's the new point that I wanted to make to you. As snowmobilers, this is a public
trail. We pay taxes on this trail system, like the rest of us. There's 462 registered sleds in Zip Code 55317.
We feel that they have the right to use that trail in the winter time and this Club will provide the service to the
community and those users of snowmobiles on that trail. We're not creating 35W, as some of you make it
sound. There's going to be a few users during the week and more users on the weekend. I don't know those
percentages. As a matter of fact, there's going to be no sleds on there if there's no snow. Our proposal to you,
as we've talked a little bit before and in the letters that I've written. We would like to see a 40 mph speed limit.
We'd like to see a curfew during the week at 10:00 and possibly 1:00 on weekends, but that's up for discussion,
as I'm sure the rest of this is. We would sign and take care of this trail and maintain it. The fact that we're
packing it down may also allow for people to have more of a desire to walk on it. If nobody's maintaining it,
I'm not so sure how much they're going to even walk on it. Basically that's all I have to say. You may have
some questions of ourselves from previous meetings. I'd be more than happy to answer those.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Let me ask you one question. Have the balance of those easements yet been
gotten?
LeRoy Biteler: It's been difficult to secure the easements on a cross country basis because we had to tell people,
well we haven't got a trail yet. We're working on it and we describe the situation that we've been working on
for 7 months. Our trail at this point, to access the railroad bed will be down CR 17 ail the way to Pioneer Trail.
We will take Pioneer Trail eastbound until it crosses the railroad bed. We will pursue our cross counu'y path
should this be approved and we have contacted some of those homeowners. Or not homeowners, landowners
already.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Anyone else?
Councilman Wing: Could I just ask a question on access. Another thing we're working on tonight on Lake
Minnewashta is what used to be your access off the northwest comer of the lake along the creek. Homeowners
and the new development's coming in are, I'm assuming are going to say no to that. Have you got an access,
cross counlry access off that lake or a new one or a different location?
19
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
LeRoy Biteler: We are aware of that. We've been spending so much time on this issue, we haven't hit that
issue as hard as what we would like to. We're looking at a couple options. As you cross the lake, if you can
visualize it as you cross the lake from Lake Minnewashta Park. We hit that reservation area. There's another
little finger, I think it's to the north of there where a section of water comes in. We're looking at getting off the
lake right there. We're also looking at the possibility of going, coming onto the lake from the park and going
directly towards Highway 5. Taking Highway 5 out.
Councilman Wing: Okay. That's what I was curious about.
LeRoy Biteler: But we realize that we're not going to use that reservation, or that area this winter.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else?
Rick Halver: My name is Rick Halver. I live at 10271 Great Plains Blvd, down close to the trail down there.
I've lived in that area for 37 years and I find it real interesting that up until a year and a half ago, nobody paid
any attention to this strip of land. Raikoad track at all. None. The concerns of noise. Of snowmobiles. It
didn't seem to be an issue when they built homes along them with freight trains going by. What's louder, a
freight train or a snowmobile? And as recent as a year ago, I was down on that track when it was pieces of
broken ties, weeds, engine blocks, nobody cared at all about that strip of land. Suddenly somebody improves it
and people are coming out of the woodwork deciding who is going to be able to go on it~ That's self serving.
It's for everyone, isn't it? It's for everyone in the community and to not allow everyone in the community to
use it, assuming there's going to be problems, isn't fair to everyone in the community. If everyone would work
in a positive fashion, you could accomplish all sorts of things. If you go to Shakopee and run the state trail,
which is an abandoned railroad bed. It runs through Shakopee to Chaska. They walk their dogs. They ride
horses. They cross country ski and snowmobile on there altogether. It doesn't seem to be a problem. Suddenly
a small group of people come out of the woodwork and decide who's going to be able to use this and who's not.
Not everyone fides a bike. Not everyone cross country skis. And not everyone walks. And as a community it's
only right for everyone in the community to appease everyone in the community to have an equal right. If
there's a problem down the road, you deal with the problem as it comes up. But to disallow it, assuming there's
going to be a problem, just isn't a positive move for everyone in the community. And I just can't imagine that
this would even be an issue until it's tried because you never get anywhere unless you try. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Rick. Anyone else?
Ken Dun':. My name is Ken Dun:. I have property on the northwest corner of Lake Minnewashta. The
gentlemen here was referring to the reservation and I didn't know this subject was going to be on the agenda
tonight. As long as it is, I'd like to make a couple of comments about the misuse of property by snowmobilers,
particularly on the northwest side of the lake. I've owned property there for a number of years. I own the
reservation that has been referred to tonight with snowmobiles have been exiting Lake Minnewashta for a
number of years. We have put up no trespassing signs. We put up no snowmobile signs. We even fell a tree
across the trail and put up signs. Some came with chalnsaws and cut the tree away and removed it and
continued to use it. We put haybales across. They've been removed. There's been complete disregard of
private property. If that is the way that snowmobilers are going to use properties in this city, I think it's
something that should not be considered because I tried for several years to control snowmobilers on my
property to no avail. And I think there's complete disregard for private property. I had discussions with one of
the people several years ago who indicated he was the Chairman or the some capacity in charge of snowmobilers
asking if they could use that property. I said, no. From a liability standpoint, and just the standpoint of bringing
20
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
people out there to see the property, we didn't want that activity on it. The activity never diminished. It
continued just as though never was ever discussed. Nothing ever said. Signs removed. Complete disregard for
property. So I hope that you people will conlxol what is done, at least on my property, 20 acres of land along
the shore of Minnewashta that has been misused over the years.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Ken. Anyone else?
Jill Schaefbauer: My name is Jill Schaefbauer and I live at 621 Broken Arrow Drive, and I agree with you sir
snowmobilers should not trespass on people's property. My husband and I, we like to bike ride in the summer.
Snowmobile in the winter and we're feeling restricted. There's nowhere to go. The paths are being blocked off.
Even right in Chanhassen on the main road by Target. There were signs went up last winter saying we weren't
allowed to go that way. We had to fmd another route to get around to get to where we want to go. I feel we
should open this path up and we shouldn't restrict people... I don't feel that snowmobilers should get a bad rap.
...into this community because they're hungry. I mean they drive in to the town and they want to eat. Also last
winter we experienced in Excelsior on the lake, somebody had a heart attack when they were ice fishing and the
cops were asking, they pulled my husband and I aside and said, can you please stay here and be available...
Snowmobilers help police. They help the ambulance. They help the fire department. We're not here to hinder
people and as far as noise levels. I lived in an apartment right next to the railroad tracks... I did not wake up in
the middle of the night when a train went by. Other people...I was used to it. I don't...wake up to a
snowmobile going by either. If they do put a restriction on time limit, we should follow it. I hope you can keep
paths open and let snowmobilers go through. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Jan Lash: My name is Jan Lash. I'm on the Park and Rec Commission and one of the things that I thought
could help clarify. I know that we had a close vote with it being 4 to 3. In the Minutes I'm sure you read my
position was that I felt that we were providing a recreational activity for the residents of Chanhassen and that is
what our mission is as a Park and Rec Commission. It was a close vote and I don't want to speak for any other
commissioners but I know that they are here tonight and they may address it themselves but also in the Minutes
I think you'll see there was discussion on an annual review of this and it's my understanding, and again I don't
want to speak for everyone but it was my understanding that the people who were in opposition to it, were in
opposition because of that particular point. It wasn't the general philosophy of the use. It was that particular
point that caused them to have the nay vote. And if I'm mistaken, I'd certainly be happy for any of them to
come forward and state their vote.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Jan. Anyone else? Okay. If not, we'll bring it back to Council and have
discussion in regards to this and any questions that might incur that any of the Councilmembers may have. If
you would come back to the microphone and address those specific questions that you may be asked. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well we've certainly looked at this long enough now for my sake and I sat through the Park
and Rec meeting the other night and was able to listen to all those opinions and I think the club agrees that
snowmobiles are on their way out. They're certainly not compatible with the city as it grows but the thing that
really hit me, and let me make it real clear too that all these letters that came in and the two phone calls I got on
this, they weren't lost to me. I don't have a snowmobile. I don't like snowmobiles. To me they're just another
motor that bums gas and makes noise and they're the winter time, and I'm going to be insulting because, they're
the winter time jet skis and we've certainly dealt with those things in the past. But Janet's comments that we
have a responsibility to provide recreation for everybody in this city, as long as it's compatible and can be done
21
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
safely, really hit home to me. I think the facts are that snowmobiles exist. Snowmobiling exists. They're here
and I don't think it's up to us to just shut them off over night. I think they're going to take care of themselves
as we grow and I think this particular request is reasonable. I don't have a problem with the noise because
they've toned them down so much. The safety issues, you know we've got a lot of what if's but nobody's
showing me any facts and being up on public safety here, we're not having problems. Checking on the
Shorewood trail, Deephaven, all the way on out. The real issue isn't access for joggers or walkers in the winter
time are because of the snowmobiles. I mean that's, they pack it down and then you can jog and walk on it.
The problems they have on the trails has been in the summer between the bikes and the pedestrians because the
bikes come tooling along and then the pedestrians are there 2 or 3 abreast so the only conflicts I'm aware of,
even with myselfi have been bikes and pedestrians in the summer. I have not seen a problem on the Shorewood
trail with the snowmobiles because they're very isolated incidents if you will. They're heavy on the weekends
and weekdays, week evenings, I just don't see a problem. Limited use in the winter. Snow conditions have to
be right~ Winters are short so as much as I really weigh with the neighbors and that's how I feel, I feel I really
have to side and vote with the Park and Rec Commission to allow this. The question to me becomes what to do
to keep this thing reviewed. The public safety issue Scott Harr can handle. If we need patrol out there, he'll get
it but I don't think consistently that happens. I like the idea of the speed limit. I think it makes people think.
Are they all going to adhere to it? No, but at least there's a limit there that we can kind of keep an eye on.
Hours, I'm not sure what reasonable ones are. I don't like to hear those things going by at 1:00 in the morning
and to me 11:00 seems to be a reasonable time, if this is a sensitive issue but again, I can leave that to Council.
So I guess the big issue to me is not so much is this right or wrong. I think it's a responsibility we have to try
this as part of our Park and Rec overall plan. It's the review process and my thinking was, if this was given a 3
year permit with a review at the end of 1 year by Park and Rec, that we can go over safety issues. Go over
noise. Go over neighbor complaints and if in fact it's not working, it's time to cut it off and I have no trouble
then in good faith saying, we gave it a try. The neighbors are right. This isn't a good deal. On the other hand,
that is an isolated area down there. Much more isolated than the Shorewood trail and there are no complaints
coming off of that one. So given the fact that this is a little more of an open area, I guess I'm assuming it's
going to work better than the Shorewood trail, and that one has been fairly successful so. I support Park and
Rec's recommendation with the exception of the issue of hours and how to review this for the best interest of the
neighbors.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Wetl as usual, you eloquently stated my position as well and Jan, I appreciate you
coming up and talking. I was going to quote you anyway about the mission. I clearly stated my opinion at the
last meeting. Was rather disappointed that we pushed it off because I know Hennepin County wouldn't deal
with it but I am glad that the Park and Rec Commission did talk about it again. The issue for me comes down
to, are we suburban or are we still small town? And with every subdivision that we see and with every road
improvement I fight that. The growth in this city and the realization is we're going to get the point of Eden
Prairie where we're going to have to abolish snowmobiling altogether and I'm just not ready for that. I have the
same position in regards to hunting. I don't like either of these, hunting or snowmobiling. I don't partake in
either activity but I recognize that that's part of this town's heritage and I'm not ready to cut it off yet. One of
the problems that, or one of the concerns that I do have is the dual use in terms of allowing snowmobilers and
other walkers, skiers, etc to use the trail at the same time. I think the only thing that we can do is post it as a
snowmobile trail and people, other people will use it at their own risk. I haven't seen any documented cases of
problems coming about with that. No other motorized vehicles allowed. That's already been dealt with. The
curfew, again I'm thinking 10:00 to 8:00 at night on a weekday and probably until 11:130 or midnight on the
weekend. 40 mile speed limit and annual review I think is a good idea. And again I think we have to realize
22
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
that part of our mission is to allow uses for everyone in the community. This will be used 3 to 4 months of the
year, at most. That's 1/4 to 1/3 of the year for these uses so I think it's reasonable to continue the use. Or to
allow the use.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: A lot's been said and quite honestly, I think Mr. Halver stole some of my thunder tonight.
Sound is an issue. I don't think that's the only issue. Some notes I jotted down here were fights of individuals
versus the rights of the community. Snowmobiling now, past and in the future. Heunepin Parks is an issue but I
have a hunch Councilman Senn's going to talk about that so I'm not going to say anything. 20 years ago I was
as avid an anti-snowmobiler as I suspect snowraobilers that saw me cross counlry skiing felt the same way. I
know it because we didn't get along. That was 20 years ago. Every, I view the Chanhassen Snowmobile Club as
a very responsible organization. I do know some of the members. I still do not snowmobile. I've been on a
snowmobile once in my life and I, for some of the same reasons that Councilman Wing has stated. However, I
think with more trails, usage has become a lot more responsible. And as a sidelight to that, for people that cross
country ski, the skate skiing, I know for a fact doing both, that snowmobile Wails are nice to skate ski on. They
do much for diagonal stride. In fact they're no good for it but I guess I don't see that as an issue. I think we
do have a responsibility in Chanhassen to allow recreational uses for all kinds of recreational use. That doesn't
sound right but I think you know what I mean. I am not a snowmobiler and quite honestly it's tough for me to
support this because I have some philosophical differences but I think the Chart Snowmobile Club, with ads I've
seen and people I've talked to, are doing what they can to be a responsible group of people and I think that is
good citizens and as good Council people, that's all we can ask for. Curfew is an issue. I think 10:00 p.m. is
too late at night. I said it at the last meeting, I've been chewed out because I'm cross country skiing a half hour
after dusk at Carver Park, which I still don't understand but those are those rules. I don't know that dawn to
dusk is reasonable but I have trouble with 10:00 and 1:00. I'd like to have some sort of discussion with that. I
think the year review or however, just so we can maintain some sort of handle on what's going on on the trail,
I'd like to see some sort of review. But I agree with what Colleen said. Snowmobiling 10 years from now
probably won't be happening in Chanhassen. It will be too big. There will be too many people. But I guess I
see that there is, they ought to be able to use that wail for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Mike. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't know, I guess I've gone out and gone down the trail. I think the snowmobilers make
some good points and there's good and bad snowmobilers everywhere I'm sure. The neighborhoods make some
good points too. I hate to say it but for me really it's an issue that still remains beyond all that, just as I said
last time. I think the issue here is Hennepin County to develop a park use plan for this trail and it should be in
harmony and consistent My sense is that the rest of the Council doesn't agree with that and I feel that if we go
ahead and pass this, all we're going to do is once again take the pressure off Hennepin County, who I may add I
don't think much of anyone holds responsible for much of anything. Because once we take the pressure off,
nobody's going to bug them about this either so once again they're just going to side skate out of it and I'd
really like to see the trail corridor as a major, I'm going to say regional resource. But in doing that I think it
needs a mc use plan to accomplish that and this type of piece meal approach I think really is counter productive
to achieving that so if we're going to push this to a vote tonight, I plan on opposing it for that reason because I
think it's a piece meal approach. I think the pressure should go back and we should see the regional approach as
it was I believe designed to be. Otherwise I guess I would think that we have ownership and control of this
little segment of it, which we don't. So that's I guess where I sit.
23
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. In looking at basically what everyone else has said, what always come back
to me is the last person and I hope...indicate some of the concerns that I have too with this. One is the speed
limit. 40 mph. If that were to be restricted to 20 mph, what does that do as far as snowmobilers are concerned?
I know that I live in an area that's in and adjacent to Lake Ann and Lake Lucy and living right on a comer I
have snowmobiles going past my home and have had for 17 years, and probably I or 2 of my 3 sons at least
have used snowmobiles but they had a time restriction that they had to be home as well. So time is another
concern that I have. I think everybody should have a certain amount of use with this and I, myself have put up
with this for, and our bedroom faces directly to that street side. And if we have had one snowmobile go by,
we've had 15 to 20, maybe 25 in a given evening. The 2:00 a.m. and the 3:00 a.m. sometimes disturbs you a
little bit when you're sleeping but with me, you'd probably have to have something fall on the house as well as
shake me out of bed. But if I were up, or I decide to get up to look around and see what things are happening,
you can hear those but they're not that loud either. In the early or mid to late 70's those things were not really
creating that much of a disturbance but still they're there. But I would like to see some changes in the speeds.
I'd also like to see the usage during the week to be until 10:00 p.m. And in addition to that I'd like to see that
stopped somewhere about 12:00 p.m. on weekends. Enforcement with the times that we're talking and speeds
are going to be a problem, and I don't know how we're going to do that and whether we have enough
snowmobile members who will do that patrolling within. And I think that's all well and good but the ability to
ticket, we can't do that. It has to be a certified police officer. We can't even use our CSO's, if we so choose,
because they can't write tickets. They can call for an officer to come but that's about the extent. And I know
there are good operators of snowmobiles and there are some that don't take people into consideration when
they're traversing through their properties such is happening over on Lake Minnewashta. The only suggestion
there is put up a chainlink fence that's 6 feet high and maybe that may deter but they may have cutters to open
it up and go through if they've done all the other things that they've done, which I don't agree with. That is
private property and private property is you cannot trespass on that. But I do believe that I see the City of
Chaska has approved it. The City of Eden Prairie has not approved that portion going through their community.
My understanding is if we do allow this, they may take another look at this next year. See whether or not their
people could utilize that as well. So with that I would like to bring it back to Council and for us to come up
with a position on this and somehow bring into discussion as well the enforcement aspects of this and let it go
from there. Now I know that one other thing too. Some have indicated the littering problem and I know the
snowmobile club does do that part of it as well in picking up so hopefully that shouldn't happen. If it does, the
next time they go down that particular path, they will look at that and take care of that. So with that I would
entertain a motion for this proposal and to consider some of the things that have been discussed.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Well, let me take a stab at it. And let me preface it by saying, I really whole-
heartedly agree with you Mark except it's not going to get us anywhere as a matter practicality. We can push it
off to Hennepin County and they won't do anything with it so for this year it will be foregone. I just don't see
that as a viable alternative unfortunately. So I would recommend that we approve the use of snowmobiles on
the, let me get it right here. Southwest Regional Light Rail Transit route with the conditions that it be limited to
8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 12:00 midnight on weekends. The speed limit maximum 40 mph and we do an
annual review to see how it's going.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Before we get a second I'd just like to ask in regards to the speed limit of 40. If that
were brought down to 20, and of course how do we police that as well. But if we brought it back down to 20,
what's the difference between the decibel ratings at 40 as opposed to 20? And also the 8:00 p.m. on weekends.
Councilman Wing: Weekdays.
24
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Or weekdays, excuse me.
Councilman Mason: While that information is getting looked up, could we consider, and I know some people
are going to, well let me finish. Could we do something with the speed limit around that area where the homes
are? And yes I know, let's face it, laws are for honest people. I mean people drive 80 on the freeway but.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. And that's why you have locks on your doors.
Councilman Mason: Right, fight. And I wonder if we're talking about speed limits here if it would even be
worth it to consider lowering the speed limit in that what, quarter or half mile stretch.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that was one of the reasons why I was suggesting lower speeds.
Councilman Wing: You know what Scott wouM say, is it number one enforceable. And number two, if it's a
50 mph road, you can't post it 30. You can post any road you want 25 but if it's a 50 mph road, that's what the
traffic's going to go.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know how that applies back to snowmobiles though.
Councilman Wing: Well I guess if you've got a straight away, it's just an easy place to tool along at 20 mph...
Councilman Mason: I think that's tree but I know, I bet there are some places that you go the speed limit where
other people don't because that's the speed limit and if it would slow traffic down, if it would slow any traffic
down around Hesse Farm, maybe that's a legitimate compromise.
Mayor Chmiel: Have you found that?
LeRoy Biteler: Yeah. There's some information, if you'll just distribute those and I'll talk about it. As long as
I can give you my thoughts. Your question was with regards to the sound decibels at 20 mph versus 40 mph.
The best scenario that I can give you I think, if you'll look at this piece fight here. See which one I'm holding
in front of me? The Shorewood decibel test. Have you got thaff Found that. On there it talks about 20 mph,
30 mph and 40 mph. And let's take Sled #5. I'm taking Sled #5 because it seems to be one of the louder ones.
Yet in 1985, at 20 mph, it's average decibels were 75. At 40 mph it's average decibels were 78. At 30 mph,
76. Between 20 and 30 there's not a whole lot of difference. Again I reiterate, these houses are 150 feet away,
not 50 feet away as was this test taken. The other thing that I'm going to reiterate with respect to the speed
limits. This trail is very straight. There's not curves and winds in it. A snowmobile does make enough noise
that if you're walking on that trail, you do see it or hear it coming as opposed to a bicycle, which can be fairly
quiet if a bicycle were to roll up behind someone.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's another one of my concerns is if people are going to use this for jogging or
walking, or even skiing, cross country skiing, I guess my concerns are for those people as well and it just not
being termed as a snowmobile trail. And that's why I'm talking the speeds of a little lower miles per hour.
LeRoy Biteler: Yeah, I kind of knew that's where you were coming from. I can understand that to a point.
That's why I mentioned the motor does make enough noise when you're outside so people know you're coming
when you're on the same trail. From a speed standpoint, there was some discussion as to having a speed limit at
one particular place and a speed limit at another particular place, That can be done. A little more difficult I
25
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
think to police. A little more difficult for everybody to be certain that it gets understood. That there's two
different speed limits and we will be posting it, whatever you decide. As far as the time limit, again a time limit
such as 8:00 and 12:00, a little harder to police. I would sooner see you use a carte blanche 11:130 curfew. That
is what Chaska has is an 11:00 curfew.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good point.
Councilman Wing: Shorewood's 11:00 too.
LeRoy Biteler: I'm not sure, Bill.
Councilman Wing: It is.
Mayor Chmiet: I think to be consistent with that, it would probably be best to hang in with those kinds of
numbers.
LeRoy Biteler. Enforcement Mr. Mayor, we have had our groomer out on the Shorewood trail late at night.
Lights on, stopping people. If we see problems or violations, we have a telephone there. We call up the
authorities and we take care of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is that it?
Councilman Wing: I wish Scott was here. You know on all these trails, and even the Shorewood one, I'd like
to do away with half the signs they've got and simply a great big one that says all snowmobiles yield to the
pedestrian traffic or foot traffic so there's a clear differentiation between someone on foot has the right-of-way
and the sleds slows down and, how come we've never done that?
LeRoy Biteler: How come we've never done that?
Councilman Wing: Yeah. Because we don't have a trail... I just think this is a brilliant idea but anyway, for
what it's worth. I think that the real issue here with everybody that spoke is if there's foot traffic, they've got
right.of-way and they've got priority and it'd be nice if we could have that marked as such. Because then if you
have a complaint you can say, I got run down and I didn't appreciate it and here's the rules. Let me get out of
that one. It's like a bike going by me too fast and I'm jogging. It irritates me. I think as a jogger I'd like bikes
to slow down. Make sure they have my attention and then go by. That's what I'm trying to say here.
Jan I_ash: Could I make a suggestion?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Jan Lash: We were faced with this same thing and.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I read that.
Jan Lash: We spent a lot of time trying to figure out the in's and out's. I think the Park and Rec Commission
would be happier, at least some of us would be happy to work with members of the snowmobile club and
residents and public safety could come together with some guidelines as far as curfew, speeds, signage,
26
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
enforcement, all of that and put together a package that may be a reasonable compromise for everyone and send
that onto you to review.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it'd be a good idea. But I think at the same time there may be some movement here to
proceed with what has been brought before us with some stipulations.
Jan Lash: Well you could make the decision on the usage and then we could, basically that's what we did. We
made the recommendation and then we just figured we'd iron out the details later because that can be very time
consuming...
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Can I revise my motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly can. It wasn't seconded yet so you can.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would simply move that we allow snowmobiling in the Southwest Light Rail
Transit, whatever it was, transit route. Details to be worked out by Park and Rec. However, I would stipulate
that we do the annual review.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded, Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: I'd be interested in Mark's comment about the overview. Todd, if you ever get a chance to
just on an administrative memo on the big picture. To me this is a local issue of local control situation. This
particular request and what we're doing tonight, but the big picture intrigues me a little bit. Where are they
going and what is their intent?
Todd Hoffman: Hennepin Parks?
Councilman Wing: Yeah.
Todd Hoffman: ...their intent was to get to, they don't like to do business in Carver County.
Mayor Chmiel: We're well aware of that.
Todd Hoffman: ...overall parks program. They have parks with a joint powers agreement in Scott County that
they want to get this regional transit because thoy were in essence their hands were tied. They had to force it
down into Carver County to get across into Shakopee...
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Additional discussion. Michael.
Councilman Mason: How will this work with details to be worked out with Public Safety and Park and Rec and
whoever? Does that then come back to us again?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you feel more comfortable if it did come back to us with those stipulations?
27
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilman Mason: Well I understand what's being said about everyone else has an 11:00 p.m. curfew. I think
during the week that's pretty late, and I don't like that. I mean I can go along with everything else here but I,
well I said my piece.
Councilman Wing: Pick a time. What do you think? What's a reasonable time?
Councilman Mason: Well I already said during the week, I don't know. I still like 8:00 but I can see that's not
going to fly. 9:00 or 10:007 I don't know. I just think that's a late time to be out making noise and I'm not, I
feel the same way for parties down the street. I mean there, our noise ordinances says until 10:00 p.m.
Mayor Chmiel: Unless you're invited.
Councilman Mason: Well okay. Alright. But I'm getting older you know. I'm getting older so I just see the,
you know everything else aside here, I see the noise at t1:00 p.m. an issue for people. But other than that I'm.
Councilman Wing: Then let's send that direction. That we want it, I mean I'm happy to go along with that.
And you stated 8:00 so I think...
Councilman Mason: Well that's what I...
Councilman Wing: ...acceptable for weekdays.
Councilman Mason: Well that is for me but.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let it come hack to Council for review.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, please.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor. This might become somewhat cumbersome in the fact that this recommendation
needs to go from the City of Chanhassen to Hennepin Parks. If we forward it to Hennepin Parks without having
the stipulations as to speed limit, they might ask the question also. We're not going to review this until you tell
us what.
Councilman Mason: Well f'me, not to exceed 40 speed limits. Will not exceed 40 mph.
Todd Hoffman: And then Hennepin Parks will have to make that decision whether or not they're going to grant
the...
Councilman Wing: And I'm going to suggest midnight on weekends and Friday and Saturday and 10:00 on
weekdays.
LeRoy Biteler: Could I interject one comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
28
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
LeRoy Biteler: The comment that I would like to interject is that we need to make timely decisions so that the
snow isn't on the ground and the ground isn't frozen and now we have to, number one manufacture signage.
Appropriate signage and try to drive stakes into the ground.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Todd Hoffman: Sum.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Can Park and Rec deal with it at the next meeting?
Bring it back at that following Council meeting.
Councilman Mason: With any luck at all there will be 2 feet of snow on the ground by then.
Mayor Chmiel: But it still may not be frozen.
Councilman Mason: But it won't be frozen, good point.
Councilman Wing: Did I second Colleen's motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes you did.
Councilman Mason: Does that include the not to exceed 40 mph so we can have Hennepin County take, would
you accept that?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will accept that.
Councilman Mason: Thank you so much.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Would the second accept that?
Councilman Wing: He did. Any other discussion?
LeRoy Biteler: One last comment.
Mayor Chmiel: You keep getting up.
Councilman Mason: Don't push your luck.
Councilman Wing: Do you want us to pull the motion back?
LeRoy Biteler. We'd like to get the statements on the map in terms of speed limits and times so when people
open a map, they can get that information when they look at this trail. Again, it's a timely issue. That's what I
wanted to comment. If we could make some decisions this evening, it would be great.
Mayor Chmiel: Well if you feel that there's some areas too that should be posted at a lower speed, and specific
areas of concern, maybe we can let you work with staff to come up with that as well. Okay, we have a motion
on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
29
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the request by the Southwest
Metro Trail Association to utilize the Southwest Regional Light Rail Transit route as a snowmobile trail
with a speed limit not to exceed 40 mph, an annual review, and additional details regarding curfews and
enforcement to be worked out at the next Park and Recreation Commission meeting. All voted in favor,
except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Todd, you will get back and let us know too as to what's la, anspiring on this.
Todd Hoffman: We'll forward the action of the City Council to Hennepin Parks and we'll take this back to the
Park and Rec Commission...
REVIEW RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO
CONSIDER A 1995 PARK, OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
REFERENDUM.
Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to mention something before we go into that one, which I think we should
probably have a work session on this to take into consideration some of these acquisitions and the referendum.
And I think along with that, at that particular work session, I think we should work that out so we can as well
have them bring their 1995 goals in with that so we can combine those two things, or maybe even three there
might be. All in one ball so we can move from there. So with that Todd, if you'd like to just touch on that.
Todd Hoffman: I'll require about 5 minutes... Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I would like to just
explain on behalf of the folks in the audience how we reached this point and why the Park and Recreation
Commission... Over the past few years, ask the Council, the Planning Commission, anyone in this city has seen,
we are increasingly more aware that the City of Chanhassen has to be visionary and proactive in the area of
open space acquisition and preservation being with all the development that is taking place in the city. A
number of lost opportunities for acquisition of open space continue to mount as the pace of development
quickens throughout our city. However, the more exciting issue is the number of opportunities remaining.
Those are what the Park and Recreation Commission needs to see and to take advantage of. The Park
Commission initiated an update of the recreation section of the Comp Plan nearly 2 years ago due to the rapid
pace of development in order to assess the city's future in the areas of park, open space, trails and other
recreational facilities. Ironically that efforts been put on hold a number of times due to the pace of development
reviews which both staff and the commission... However, the commission quickly determined through a detailed
study of the vacant lands remaining in Chanhassen, that without some action being taken, the future of our open
space system would be jeopardized in the city. We looked at the lessons learned in other communities farther in
and we also looked at their victories which other cities have attained over the years as a part of the inspiration.
The Commission openly acknowledges that a major land acquisition effort will require the support of the city's
residents, the City Council, and other community organizations. It is clear that the commission unanimously
advocates a referendum, but they are not positioning themselves to jam it down anybody's throats. On the
contrary, the Park Commission and staff stand ready to administer a referendum explaining the present status of
development in the city and how the future of parks and recreation stands to benefit or be harmed by that
development. Clearly none of the individual groups named, citizens, City Council members, Park and Recreation
Commission, staff members, other civic organizations, can accomplish this initiative alone. However, united all
those groups can help secure the city's future of the city's natural resources. At this time I'd like to present the
City Council with a framed copy of a page from the October 29th, 1969 Chanhassen Maverick newspaper.
Appearing on that page is an advertisement from a citizen group advocating a park referendum in 1969 in the
amount of $250,000.00 to fund the initial acquisition of portions of Lake Ann Park and to complete other park
30
City Council Meeting - October I0, 1994
improvements. I'll put a copy of that on the overhead as well. This is a document that we didn't just happen to
have lying around. It came in...one of the neighbors who works for the city of Chanhassen parks department and
thus we recall the referendum of 1969. After passing that referendum initiated the legacy of the city's most
cherished park, that being Lake Ann Park. I wonder, without that action being taken what that park would be
today. Perhaps more residential development in addition to highway business on I-Iighway 5. At the request of
the Park and Recreation Commission, that f'LrSt park referendum occurred 24 years ago. If we peer 24 years into
the future of the city as we talk tonight, or maybe even 10 or 15 years into the future, the opportunity for setting
aside a separate park at Lake Ann or Bluff Creek or a Bluff Creek preservation District, or a large tract of land
for recreational fields or to preserve a large stand of maple forest will be gone. The city's Park and Recreation
Commission does not want to look back 20 years from now and say they did not try to save some of the city's
landscape in the change. They recognize such an effort will be a tough sell just as it was in 1969 but they also
remind themselves, as we look back and reflect how wise it was to invest $250,000.00 in 1969, to do something
good for the community, so too would future generations look back on a successful referendum of today. The
recommendation which the Park and Recreation Commission forwarded to the City Council in this regard was a
motion by Andrews and seconded by Commissioner Lash to recommend that the City Council investigate a 1995
park, open space and trail acquisition and development referendum of a scope yet undetermined and to proceed
to appoint a task force to initiate this process. I'm sure the members of the commission here this evening would
be willing to amend that motion to work in the Mayor's comments that this be brought down to a work session
instead of being appointed to a task force at this time. That motion was approved unanimously. At this point
the members of the Park and Recreation Commission are here this evening if they would like to comment in this
regard, I would like to welcome them to do so.
Jim Andrews: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I appreciate this opportunity to enthusiastically speak in
favor of this concept. I made some notes here this evening about why we need this referendum. Todd made a
comment about active versus reactive and in the 5 years, I think it's been 5 years that I've been active with the
Park Board, I think that most of our actions have been reactive rather than active or proactive. Typically our
annual budgets run about $150,000.00 a year. Most of those budgets are completely absorbed with ADA
upgrades and maintenance and do not provide us with the necessary dollars to preserve lands. Usually what
happens when developments come in we're presented with the leftovers and the tidbits of usually undevelopable,
isolated or too small to provide a true preservation parcel. There are some other issues that again make it
necessary for I think a referendum to create a larger capital fund. One would be to develop Bandimere Park.
We have 33+ acres that to this point we have not been able to do anything with and...such as this to continue to
benefit proaction on that property. We also have, as Todd mentioned, areas of trees and the Bluff Creek
corridor. All of these are unique assets to our community and if we don't take action to preserve those, they
will become asphalt, concrete and manicured lawns. We also have other park improvements which require large
amounts of money. One is the new park planned for Lake Minnewashta. The Stockdale property, which is a
property that we're looking at purchasing. We would have no funding to develop that. And the Park
Commission has been attempting to identify properties south and southwest which would serve future populated
areas of Chanhassen so we need to look at acquiring sufficient parcels there for active areas. Other areas of
need would be trails. Highway 101 being one, and other key segments that have been missed or inadequately
constructed. Another issue is the equipment. We have the new school property which will be coming on line
which will require improvements. There are other parks in our system which have either no equipment or
adequate equipment and as you've seen with some of the budget items that have come across your tables, the
cost of the equipment is unbelievable. We used to be able to put up a very nice play structure for well under
$10,000.00. Now we're faced with a situation where if we touch a park, we're usually looking at $20,000.00,
$30,000.00 or $40,000.00. As each neighborhood comes on line and again as I mentioned under a funding
system that we now have, we're taking out of one pocket. Robbing Peter to pay Paul and really as a park
31
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
commission, we do not have the ability to preserve right now. All we have right now is the ability to maintain.
So to me this is a very, very important issue. I again, agree with what Todd said. That is that 20 years from
now people will be looking back at this time as an opportunity to preserve some beautiful parts of Chanhassen
and ff we fail to take action now, that opportunity is lost. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. Fred.
Councilman Mason: We've got to get the name on that sweatshin changed Fred.
Fred Berg: I've been working on that.
Mayor Chmiel: It starts out with the right two fa'st letters. Or three.
Councilman Mason? Sorry. I'm sorry,
Fred Berg: There's really nothing I can add that hasn't been stated by Todd or Jim. I just wanted to be here
tonight to demonstrate my strong support for the motion that we passed onto you folks. You know the need.
We don't have to tell you what that need is. Hopefully you'll see fit to at least get together in a work session or
appoint a task force to at least investigate what we think is a very great need so thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
Jim Manders: My name is Jim Manders. I'm a member of the Park Commission and briefly stated as what was
already stated by Jim. That there are many areas that we need funding and consideration for but to me if you
break it into two pieces. One being the outfitting of a lot of these facilities. We're short on that, but that's an
issue that can be dealt with further down the line. To me the key issue is preservation. If we don't deal with
the water corridors and the land needs when they get developed, we don't have to worry about outfitting these
places so it's preservation that I'm most concerned with.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. I know that was one of the discussions I had with Mr. Hoffman today in regards to
some of those concerns and some of those properties that will eventually be brought into the MUSA line. That
working has to be done between developers to make sure ff we need something a little bit bigger, to work two
parcels or two developers together so we can get one parcel for those kinds of parks. Jan.
Jan Lash: I guess that's the key issue for me too and I've never been a supporter of a referendum. Of us
pitching for a referendum because I know that a lot of people in the community are not receptive to increases in
their taxes. Actually most people aren't receptive to that. But last winter we crawled around on our hands and
knees in this room where Todd had supplied us with big aerials like that of the whole city and we crawled
around and tried to look for spots that we could earmark that could be used that hadn't already been platted out
or spoken for by some developer. And we came up with about I think the most 3 spots that we thought could
even be up for consideration and that's kind of like, I think 1 or 2 of them are already gone. So we, that really
drove home to me the need to at least be able to acquire some property for future use and if we don't do
something now, it will all be gone and like Jim said, there's nothing we'll be able to do about it and we won't
have to worry about trying to have money to outfit it. There won't be any land Now unless there's some way
that you guys can stop all the developers...land, you know that's up to you.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No it's not, unfortunately.
32
City Council Meeting - OCtober 10, 1994
Jan Lash: I know and that's what's really hard. It's really...rales and it's out of control and the only thing we
can do is try and look out for the future. So I think that means we need to get some money to get some
property and then try to move forward so I guess I'd like to see us at least have some message from City
Council that you're open to us investigating some possibilities and trying to get financing for some of these
projects.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. So with that, can we have a recommendation back to the Park and Recreation
to sit down with them and discuss this proposal as well as also looking at their 1995 goals and I think we could
probably do this sometime maybe in November. Early part. Somewhere in that particular time.
Councilman Wing: I don't care about their goals. I want to have a work session to discuss this item.
Mayor Chmiel: Well rather than to have another one, I think we could work two into one rather than just that
one. I'm just trying to free up your evenings. So if someone would make a recommendation.
Jim Andrews: After consultation with the other members, I volunteered to speak for them. I personally feel
that this issue deserves separate attention...! would recommend that it be given that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I appreciate that Jim but with the amount of meetings that we go through, I'd like to see
this put the two together and yet still address both of those particular issues.
Councilman Wing: Well Jim, just make sure this is first.
Mayor Chmiel: That's fight. Put your goals second.
Councilman Mason: I think we can work the two out and I understand what you folks are saying but I do think
if this comes first, I bet your goals will go pretty quick. But I definitely, this definitely needs to be take a look,
it's not even 10:00 and I can't talk. Well, yeah. Let's do it. This needs to be looked at and I too share the
concern of all the park commissioners that have spoken tonight on parkland in the city of Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is that a motion?
Councilman Mason: Sure. That it go to a work session.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion.
Councilman Wing: I'm not sure if this is in order.
Mayor Chmiel: Try it.
Councilman Wing: I want to be on record as saying that I strongly support this. Of all the tax dollars that I
spend and have taken from me, that is used for good purposes and bad and if I ever take a hit in taxes or the
city has to raise my taxes, this is so long term to the future of this community that this is one item that I want to
support. Kind of like a charitable contribution if you will. I watched the argument over Bluff Creek and what's
happened down there. I watched the Lake Lucy watershed, or the Lake Ann watershed disintegrate under
33
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
housing and I said, why didn't the city have the foresight to buy that. So from Lake Lucy all the way down to
Lake Ann Park, that watershed stayed open. Well now there's, well it's all paved over now. And then Lake
St. Joe. One of the big pictures at home is my family on our bikes with the sun coming up on Lake St. Joe and
the hill in the background. Now I just checked with staff a couple weeks ago and that hill is gone. It's all
houses. You know what are we doing? What a mistake so what we're doing here is no longer forward thinking.
It's reactive. We're either going to preserve the land and some of the amenities, or it's going to be gone.
That's the decision and I'm not saying that we're going to vote to save the land and the amenities but I just want
to be on record as saying I am very enthusiastic about this and if you're going to raise my taxes, this is where I
want them raised.
Mayor Chmiel: As long as you're going to write that check for $250,000.00, we'll accept it.
Councilman Wing: Anyway, thank you for letting me make that comment.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded that the City Council will hold a work session to
discuss the 1995 Park, Open Space and Trail Acquisition and Development Referendum. Ail voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA
LANDINGS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KEN DURR.
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members. My name is John Rask. I believe I've met you all at
one point or another but it's probably been a while. This beachlot is a part of a Minnewashta subdivision. I
believe you saw this last, it received final plat approval on March 28th of this year. At the time of the
subdivision approval, Ouflot A was ~uided for a recreational beachlot. However, no formal application was
submitted at that time so that's why the applicant is here before us this evening. I'm going to just briefly go
over a few of the improvements to be constructed on the beachlot and give you a general overview of the
beachlot. There already has been a pond constructed on this site. This pond was constructed for storm water
management purposes. The applicant has proposed that a fountain be constructed in the center of the pond. A
gazebo has been proposed towards the center of the lot. Staff has recommended that a gazebo not be allowed as
Section 20-263 prohibits structures on beachlots. This item was talked about extensively at the Planning
Commission. The Commission agreed with the staff's interpretation. However, they would like to see this
Section of the Code amended to allow for gazebo type structures on beachlots. In addition there's a toilet
facility proposed on the beachlot. It will be screened from view with a fence screen and landscape plan as
shown on the site plan here. Service contract has been provided. The applicant will be required to get an annual
permit and remove the chemical toilet from this site on an annual basis. All requirements of Section 20-263
must be complied with also. The applicant proposes one dock with a maximum of 3 boat slips. Access to the
dock will be provided by a paved surface trail. The whole area will be sodded and an irrigation system installed.
The proposal also calls for 4 canoe racks to be located between the pond and the lake. All the natural vegetation
as shown on the site plan will be preserved and additional landscape plans will be added, at least in the number
shown on the plan here. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 21st to review this
beachlot. The commission unanimously recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the 5
conditions. I guess in general the applicant has demonstrated the proposed use to...requirements and standards of
the ordinance. The beachlot preserves the natural vegetation as well as provides additional landscape to buffer
the site from surrounding properties. Staff believes the beachlot will serve as an attractive entrance to the
subdivision and is thus recommending approval of it. We're here to answer any questions.
34
City Council Meeting - (3ember 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Is the applicant here?
John Rask: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything you wish to say from what's already been said?
Ken Duff: I guess the only thing that I'd like to address is the gazebo. The Planning Commission I know felt
very strongly that it would be a great asset to that beachlot. As much as anything provides a design element
almost like an arbor or a trellis or some piece of design element as much as anything else and it would add
immensely to the appeal and the character of the area. We can live without it but it's something that we feel
would just do it up a little bit better.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I would just go with the staff recommendations with the exception of number 4.
Specifically to allow the beachlot and instruct staff to go ahead and change that ordinance accordingly. And is
that going to open the door for other ones? Kate, the only warning I think is that whatever gazebo goes up, it
should be of a quality smicture because other ones that may come in and want it, and frankly I think it's a good
idea.
Kate Aanenson: ...conditional use, they have to come in and demonstrate, just like they do the chemical toilets.
They have to be anchored...different criteria. That be architecturally something be done with the structure. I
think when this was developed it was the intent that people didn't pull their ice houses and store them on the site
and that sort of thing.
Councilman Wing: And a gm'age.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly. I think what Mr. Durr is trying to do is develop it as pan of the beachlot so I think
we can develop some...
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I would approve it with the gazebo. Also number 5. I think when we look at the
Choctaw problem where we had that beach coming up on the curve and cars parked and dropping kids off and
all the problems we had there, I think that if it can be worked out, at least a mm off is really a good idea.
Looking back on that Choctaw problem we had with that beachlot there, where there's no parking.
Councilman Mason: Even a widening in the road.
Councilman Wing: Whatever. Yeah, I don't care.
Kate Aanenson: A slip off ma...
Mayor Chmiel: That's pretty much as I...go ahead.
Ken Dam. The concern I have in widening the road, that we may encourage off site, invite for use of the
beachlot. We want to discourage that as much as possible and in our covenants we're discouraging street
parking entirely in the covenants there. So that we don't want somebody just pulling off Minnewashta Parkway
and saying geez, this is a neat place for someone to go down to the lake to have a picnic, which would be I
35
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
think a real hazard. So widening the roadway there I feel would not be advisable. The slip on as was
mentioned by the Planning Commission for dropping children off or bringing something down to the beach, I
think we could accommodate very nicely. However we're not encouraging heavy use of that. The covenants are
discouraging heavy use. It's a way of, what we're trying to do, we designed a very attractive element for people
to walk down to the lake. Not necessarily to spend the whole day there with the family but a pleasant place to
come down, relax and enjoy...the lake. We don't want it to be heavy usage.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Ken, also on the swimming raft issue. I was thinking of suggesting that we change that to
one permitted but given the angle of the beach, I think a swimming raft out there ties up an enormous part of the
lake and I'd like to see that one adhered to and a swimming raft not be part It's, a swimming raft is not part of
this but for future thinking, I think it should remain that way. I think a swim raft out there really would tie up
the lake and it's a very awkward position because of the lay of the lake right there. So just for your future
thinking on the swimming raft. I think not having it is in the best interest of everybody.
Ken Durr: I agree. We didn't ask for a swimming rail I don't see anything wrong.
Councilman Wing: Good, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: No comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: No. No comments and point well taken about widening the road there. My only concern,
so how, I agree. I think the gazebo would look very nice there. However the code, how does that work out?
Kate Aanenson: Right now we can't do it. We'd have to amend the Code to allow it. So if we approve this,
the recreational beach permit tonight without the gazebo, you'd have to go back and amend it so we'd
recommend that you table this at this time and go back to the Planning Commission and ask that the ordinance
be revised to allow for a gazebo and then bring that forward so they're both tracking together and we can
approve this permit with the conditional use in one motion. We had notes on the gazebo. We weren't sure how
the Planning Commission was going to react and they recommended favorable...at that point so we wanted to get
your reaction too. If you wanted to...I'm not sure what Mr. Durr's timing on this is but I wouldn't think that it
should be an issue...
Mayor Chmiel: I think the amendment to the Code is something that probably should be done by the Planning
Commission and then it brought back to Council with that and I guess we don't see any real problems with
what's here unless there's a time restriction but I think legally.
Kate Aanenson: I think what Roger's saying is, if we approve this though, you'd have to go back and amend
your recreational beachtot permit anyways so we might as well hold this as long as there's no pending.
Ken Durr: Can I ask?
36
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Ken Dun':. The only thing I can see with that is if it went that we are marketing the property and the statements
that we would make to perspective purchasers. We do not know for certainty that we could say that we have a
recreational beachlot or know at this juncture. Would it be possible at all to approve the recreational beachloff
Okay, Fmc.
Kate Aanenson: You've got to go back and amend to put the gazebo in it so.
Roger Knutson: What you could do ff you wanted to, and this is Mr. Durr's concern. I think what Kate says,
procedurally it's less fussing but you could, if you wanted to, approve it tonight and then simultaneously you
would have to apply, fill out another application to amend this conditional use permit. Have a public hearing on
that amendment. Plus a hearing on the amendment to the zoning ordinance. If he wants to, you can do that.
Mayor Chmiel: It sounds like it becomes a little more cumbersome.
Councilman Senn: Why don't we just approve the recreational beachlot tonight and hold the processing of the
paper until the ordinance is submitted? I mean that doesn't create any additional work for anybody. He's not
asking for the paper. He's just asking for the approval.
Kate Aanenson: He's asking for a vote of confidence.
Councilman Senn: No, I think he's asking for the approval. I mean he can't go out and market to residents
based on a vote of confidence. He could get sued real easy if it doesn't come through.
Kate Aanenson: Well what Roger's saying is you're going to have to go back and amend the beachlot so we'll
have two hearings...
Councilman Senn: Well we have to do another hearing regardless.
Councilman Mason: Can you hold the paperwork like Mark said? I mean is that.
Roger Knutson: That's tabling it, yeah.
Councilman Senn: No, I said approve it but everybody's just saying let's hold the paperwork so nobody has to
go through extra work on it until the ordinance is amended.
Kate Aanenson: But to approve it you still have to go back.
Mayor Chmiel: You still have to have it done beforehand to make it even approval with acceptance of it, is that
right Roger?
Roger Knutson: It's unusual. I suppose what you could do, what Councilman Senn is saying is the motion
would be to approve the conditional use permit yet hold the application in front of you to consider the condition
of the gazebo at such time as it comes through for public hearing from the Planning Commission.
Councilman Senn: Nothing wrong with that is there?
37
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Roger Knutson: No, I guess not. I guess you could do that. It's unusual.
Councilman Wing: Well if it's cumbersome, why don't we just delete the gazebo on number 4 and approve this
and then let the process mn it's course and then just amend this on the consent agenda if we have to.
Roger Knutson: The concern someone might have is if you want finality to the process. If you're saying you
approve it subject to changing the conditions within the next few months, as soon as it comes back in front of
you, then if you could change that condition you can change other conditions and the applicant wouldn't have
that certainty as to what he's getting.
Councilman Senn: Plus this has already gone through the public hearing process and everything with this there.
Roger Knutson: The gazebo?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah but technically you haven't held a public hearing on changing the code.
Councilman Senn: Changing the code I agree but we don't need another public hearing on this if we take that
other approach.
Kate Aanenson: But you do if you...
Roger Knutson: Yeah, you need that hearing. So I guess the motion would be to approve it but to hold open
the issue of imposing a condition on the gazebo pending the hearing before the Planning Commission and just
roll it to you.
Councilman Wing: So before we...we should move that.
Councilman Senn: Move it.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What he'd say?
Mayor Chmiel: It's only 10:00 but that's alright.
Councilman Mason: I know and it feels like midnight. What just happened here?
Roger Knutson: The motion would be to approve it in the form presented by the Planning Commission subject,
holding the condition open on the gazebo following the public hearing before the Planning Commission and
recommendations you wanted to see on that issue when it's in front of you,
Councilman Mason: If everyone's in agreement.
Mayor Chmiel: That should give you some kind of a certainty...We have a motion on that. Second that.
Councilman Mason: If there isn't, there is now.
38
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion with a second. Any other discussion as per Council's recommendation.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit g94.$ to allow
a recreational beachlot on Outlot A in Minnewashta Landings Subdivision, subject to the following
conditions:
1. All provisions of Section 20-163 pertaining to recreational beachlots shall be adhered to.
Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. The dock must be within the dock
setback zone. The dock shall have a maximum of three (3) boats docked overnight with a maximum of 18
canoes stored on shore.
The applicant shall apply for a permit from the city on an annual basis prior to installation of the portable
chemical toilet. The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day to Labor Day and
shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of the year. The width of the trail and the location of the
landscape plantings shall be designed to allow for the annual removal of the toilet facility.
4. The Council shall hold open the issue of imposing a condition on the gazebo pending the public
hearing to amend the City Code before the Planning Commission.
5. Consideration should be given to the consauction of a pull off lane so as not to create a traffic problem
along proposed Landings Drive.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF DUTCH
ELM AND OTHER ARBOREAL DISEASES WITHIN THE CITY.
Jill Kimsal: Good evening Mayor and Council members. I'm Jill Kimsal, the forestry intem...Staff is
recommending an ordinance that covers diseased elms...The ordinance basically helps for the removal of...what
can and can't be done by the homeowner and whether... On September 21st the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended the adoption of this ordinance. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Jill. The question I have, and in going through the ordinance under Section
13-28, Forester. Thereby creating a position as a forester within the city. I'm not in agreement with that. I
don't know if we really need a city forester on a full time basis. I think there are other ways that we can do that
kind of review with county or the DN1L
Kate Aanenson: Or a part-time intern.
Mayor Chmiel: Or a part-time intern. That could come on board during the given year.
Kate Aanenson: We do not..xequire a full time position...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but it doesn't really read that way.
Jill Kimsal: Well it does give an option. City forester or u~ inspector...
39
City Council Meeting - October i0, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that then I don't have any real problem.
Roger Knutson: Just as the city has a weed inspector...
Councilman Mason: Now I've never seen him out in our neighborhood.
Mayor Chmiel: That's fight because I delegated... Questions, Richard.
Councilman Wing: Yes. I think that this can be very costly for people. Including people like me and
sometimes burning if necessary, which brings up our Fire Marshal and all this State rules and regulations that a
state measure and I think sometimes maybe we have to, I'm concerned about the burning permit. If we go by
the book in just rendering in black and white, there isn't anybody in the city that can burn. I mean this stuff's
going to have to be burned. There comes a point that somebody's yard may have to bum some of these. I'm
concerned about those burning permits. I'm concerned about the cost to the community and the need to bum
and if we're going to bum, the incompatibility with fLre code. I'm not sure how to go about that. I was going to
say, I would tend to be flexible and give and take on this issue a little bit. And I don't know how we would
approach the Fire Marshal on that.
Jill Kimsal: Yeah. A lot of, you know the number of diseased trees in this city is significant but not
overwhelming by any means...chop them up into firewood...
Councilman Wing: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Normally what you do is chop them up and set them outside and set them by the road and
somebody will come by and pick it up and you won't have to worry about it.
Councilman Senn: And spread the tlisease even more.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anything more Richard?
Councilman Wing: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't have any questions on this ordinance but Jill, as long as you're here,
maybe you could answer a question for me. The txees on the south side of Highway 5, right across.., what is the
condition of those?
Jill Kimsal: ...the street supervisor and Diane Desotelle, the Water Resource Engineer, nobody really has a real
straight answer on it but the latest I've heard is that there's a drainfile behind...block up. Therefore all of that
has become flooded and it's slowly increasing because that draintile's blocked up so...a few more txees are going
to end up...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks.
40
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilman Mason: I don't have any questions about the ordinance. I want to know, and I don't need to know
now, and I can't. Councilwoman Dockendorf won't let me use proactive anymore so I'm trying to think of
another term but.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: That is untrue. That is so untrue.
Councilman Mason:' What are we doing about oak wilt?
Jill Kimsal: What am I hearing about it?
Councilman Mason: No, no. I mean what is the city, and I don't need a half hour tonight but are we taking a
stand? I mean is there anything that can be done about oak wilt? I mean there are a lot of oaks in the city.
Jill Kimsal: Yeah, fight now in this city I don't know of any infected oaks. I haven't seen too many dead oak
trees either which leads me to believe that it hasn't been a problem in the past either. What this would do, and
the usual process for...is to trench around that tree which disconnects it roots from anything else connected to it
thereby stopping the mmsmissions to other oaks...cut down that tree. This is kind of pwactive or preventive in
the...if that is a very problem area...but otherwise, without the homeowners...
Councilman Mason: Sounds good.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess, I don't know if it's a question or ff it's a concern but my understanding is that most
cities that I'm aware of that have passed ordinances like this, have had some type of provision in them related to
economic hardship and I don't see that in here at all. That really concerns me because again, I mean I've seen
these in other cities and there's always a provision there which has a situation set up to deal with that where
either the city does it or there's some participation by the city or there's some method to do it. I mean there are
a number of people on fixed incomes who can't physically go man the chainsaw and cut it up for f'aewood or
whatever. We under play the severity and I mean sometimes it can be very severe. I mean you can have a half
a dozen trees hit in the same yard very quickly at one time and thai really concerns me I guess and I'd like to
see that issue addressed in whatever we push forward and at least from my standpoint I'd like not to see this go
forward unless that provision's in there.
Jill Kimsal: True. I'm pretty familiar with a couple others in diseased tree ordinances. I know that this was
based on the State and a few other communities existing ordinances. Now there wasn't that condition in any of
those in there and I can understand that tree removal really adds up. However, you know the elms I see around
here, they are small and I can understand you know, usually what can happen is the homeowners get in direct
contact with me and if I know they need help cutting down trees or something like that, I'm sure we can find
volunteers to do that. The real expenditures are going to come if we ever have oak wilt because those are
generally larger trees around here. As far as economic hardships you know, I'm not sure how much...make a
budget for this or...
Kate Aanenson: I think that's something we could look at. We do have money in the budget for reforestation.
That's...petition the Council and put together...
41
City Council Meeting - October I0, 1994
Councilman Senn: The other thing I had was related somewhat to what Richard brought up as it relates to
burning. Have we investigated the possibility at all with the County or whatever in terms of a central chipping
site or anything on this stuff? Again, some counties or some cities have done that.
Jill Kimsal: Yeah. I haven't investigated it but that would be an idea that would be very helpful for people to
know if they're going to get that done...but I'm not aware of anything in place right now...
Councilman Senn: I know Minnetonka has a set up like that. I know St. Paul does.
Jill Kimsal: I've talked to the Street Supervisor and he wasn't very positive about the extra work load that that
poses...
Kate Aanenson: We can work with Carver County on that certainly...
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, anything more?
Councilman Wing: Tell me about that hardship again, because I'm thinking of one tree next to my house that's
going to cost $1,000.00 to get out of there. It's just, what if I'm retired on a fixed income? How do I come up
with $1,000.00 to get that tree down? That you're requiring.
Councilman Senn: That's the program we're talking about. The program I've seen Dick even gets more
extensively, I mean there's act~mlly, I mean some houses get hit with 6 at the same time and 6 substantial trees
and they maybe are not an elderly person on a fixed income. It's still a real financial burden. I don't know if
they still have it but I know St. Paul had a very extensive program to do that as well as I think they even had
some built in deals too where they could have it put on a no interest assessment thing and pay it off over time.
But they had some direct subsidy or direct grant types of things too and stuff so I thought we should really look
at that and incorporate it.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I'd like to see this tabled until that's identified.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree with that because I know a certain person who had 17 trees on their property and
13 of them were bad. Consequently that was a bundle. And that's when Dutch elm disease was still going.
That's a lot of dollars and those are things I think we do have to look at. So with that we have a motion on the
floor.
Councilman Senn: I move to table.
Mayor Chmiel: To table with the recommendations and suggestions and ohl Before the second is put, I would
like to also put into Section 13-28, the position of a part time city forester. Well, maybe we should put a full or
part time into it. That way we don't have to come back and amend the ordinance, if we have to. I'm not in
agreement with the full time.
Councilman Senn: But if we table this tonight, can't we discuss that at the budget?
Mayor Chmiel: But I want them to bring that to the attention and bring it back as well.
Councilman Wing: Well just clean up 13-28(a) and maybe it says it all right there, I don't know.
42
City Council Meeting - O~tober 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, a motion on the floor. Is there a second7
Councilman Mason: Yeah second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table an amendment to the City Code relating
to the control and prevention of Dutch Elm and other Arboreal Diseases within the city. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The item was tabled.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, Consent items (e) and (f).
I(E). CITY CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING LEGISLATIVE SALARIES, FINAL READING.
Councilman Senn: I pulled item (e) for a reason and the reason is I guess, if the City Councn, or let me preface
this by saying, what's being suggested for an increase I think we all well deserve and we all put in a lot of hours
to get it. So I'm not taking issue with that. What I'm taking issue with is the public process. If we're going to
raise our salaries, I don't think it should be on the consent agenda twice and termed something like city code
mending concerning legislative ~laries. I don't think a citizen in this city has the foggiest idea we're doing it
and I think they ought to have the opportunity to comment on it if they want. I hate to say it but first reading
slipped by me gang. And I thought...reading and to me that's not right. I think we ought to.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you didn't look at your packet.
Councilman Senn: Again, it's just, it's a public process issue but I think it's something that shouldn't be buried
on the consent agenda twice in a row. At least if you're going to do that, at least say raise City Council ~laries
or something so they know what the heck we're talking about. That's my only point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I've had discussions with a few people within the community and those who I thought
probably would raise voices the most hard and they didn't have any real objective and they said, is that what you
really make. No, you know. And no, no. I'm just saying because ! felt the same way. I wanted people to
know that this is really taking place. But with that, depending upon the balance of Council, whatever your
feeling is, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think you're absolutely right Mark. It does smack of sliminess. I think it was, I
think it's accurate to say it was hidden in what it was called and I'd be open to putting it on the full agenda next
time.
Mayor Chmiel: Put it on the next Council meeting agenda.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, if that's what the balance of the Council wants, I don't have a problem with
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, sounds good. Would you put it on the next Council agenda meeting.
Don Ashworth: Sure.
Councilman Mason: Fine. But I personally don't think it's slimy. We don't, well okay. I can accept that it
may not be good public process but you know, that is a real tough one because who, giving yourself a raise is a
43
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
real tough thing and I ara not ashamed to say that I currently make $200.00 a month for what I do for this city
and it doesn't even come close to covering expenses. Not even close. So the fact that salaries are being raised
to about average with cities of this size, I don't have any u:ouble with that at all. None whatsoever. And I'll be
happy to say that in front of 100 people or nobody or whatever.
Councilman Wing: I tended to let this go, although I wanted to have it on the record tonight that it was in the
Minutes and Mank took care of that for me. I think this was an administrative move. Here's what the norm is
and here's where we are. I think just as a straight administrative move and discuss pay raises. It's embarrassing
and it's to me it was something the City Manager made a decision to do and he did it. We didn't go above the
norm. We just went up to the norm. So I guess I was comfortable with it but I concur with Mark and Colleen.
I don't think it's.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Poor choice of words.
Councilman Wing: Well I'm not, yeah that's the point. I think it's good that this go on the front page of the
paper. Council's going to do this and da, da, da and if somebody doesn't like it.
Councilman Senn: Sorry, he left already.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, he gets the full packet and I'm sure he goes through it so he knows what's there.
Don Ashworth: I think the last time it was a little clearer because right in the title it had adopt average city
salaried level or rate or something to that effect. I think this one is a little more less understanding exactly what
it is.
Councilman Senn: It was even called two different things in this hearing.
Mayor Chmiel: That's akight. We'll get it on the agenda. Next agenda.
Councilman Senn: So can I move to table that to next agenda? For it to be put on the regular agenda rather
than the consent agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Mason: So where does something like this go on the agenda?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Mason: Unfinished business? New business?
Mayor Chmiel: It would be unfinished business because it's already gone through the fa'st reading as it has and
I think it should be under unf'mished business.
Councilman Wing: Can we get this published so it's up and up? I mean it's going to be on the agenda but can
we get it published in the public notices that this is occurring.
Don Ashworth: Do you want it under the regular notice section?
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilman Wing: I think so. Well if nobody agrees, then at least it's on record. It's there for the public to
see and then if anybody wants to address it or complain they can be here at the meeting.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the City Code Amendment concerning
legislative salaries until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I(F). APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH T.F. JAMES COMPANY.
Councilman Senn: I wanted to ask that a provision be added to the contract, similar to the provision which was
added to the HRA one which would say that there would be no further public assistance to those parcels. And
asked for that differentiation because I-IRA has one set of funds and the city has another set of economic
development funds and I believe that's the understanding but it's not in the city's agreement. If it's not the
understanding, I guess I'd like to know.
Todd Gerhardt: Are you talking about the economic development districts that the city controls?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Todd Gerhardt: His property isn't located in it.
Councilman Senn: I understand. The boundaries can change. Whatever. There's other forms of public
assistance but isn't the theory here that he gets no more?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So why don't we just say that? Because we're part of the public assistance package
too.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but if it's not part of one, does it really have to be clarified?
Todd Gerhardt: Well he couldn't receive any fund under economic development dislrict because it's a
commercial property and economic development funds have to be used for office warehouse type uses. So
commercial property is going to qualify for...
Councilman Senn: But there are other forms of public assistance other than economic development funds.
Todd Gerhardt: Sure. The City could apply for grants and things like that. General fund dollars. They've
never done that before but you can make all kinds of...
Mayor Chmiel: I think I was just overhearing something Roger was saying. I think that.
Councilman Senn: Speak louder Roger so we can all overhear you.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Roger.
Roger Knutson: Don and I were just musing. First, in the future Mr. James or anyone, or Mr. James is not or
T~F. James Company is not entitled to any future financial considerations from you unless you agree to give it to
45
City Council Meeting - October 10, 199,*
him anyway. So you have to subsequently agree to give it to him or he's not going to get it. So putting it in
here is frae.
Councilman Senn: Closes the door.
Roger Knutson: No it doesn't because you can always change your mind. If you put it in here, you can still
change your mind. The Council can change it's mind and give it to him anyway. What you contract, you can
uncontract. You can amend this contract, or a future Council can. But if you don't put it in here, he's not
entitled to anything and unless you agree to give it to him in the tin-st place. That was just. My conclusion was,
from my perspective, putting it in here is time. Putting it not in here is just as fine.
Councilman Senn: Okay, I'll accept that. Second point I'd like the reference to the earlier approval on the gas
station deleted. I think it's immaterial to the agreement and I think it does nothing other than open the door for
somebody to make an argument later. I know it says that we don't have to approve it.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Councilman Senn: I still have a hard time with this unless that's deleted.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that was one of the things that I wanted to see from what was there previously so
there's more clarification to what there is than there is now, or was previously as opposed to what we have put
in there now. What he'd say?
Councilman Senn: Well my understanding is the HRA...
Mayor Chmiel: That it's consistent'then with HRA's portion which has already been approved. So that was the
other reason.
Todd Gerhardt: Well the reason the HRA deleted thews was they don't grant approval of site plans or City
Council actions. So the HRA took action to delete that. Number 3 on page 4. But it still is in City Council's
agreement and what Charlie James, through negotiations with Mr. Fuchs wanted it in there is just to reference
that he did have approval for gasoline over on his other site and just wants in his own mind to know that he has
approval and that you know that you did give him approval.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, but then we won't have to take the approval away 100%. Why don't we just delete
that as requested?
Councilman Senn: That's what I'm just saying. Delete it out of here. It has no reference point in here at all.
Todd Gerhardt: And Roger would say that it doesn't mean anything but in Charlle's mind he at least knows that
he...
Councilman Senn: Oh in Charlie's mind I think it means something.
Roger Knutson: I can't really comment because I didn't participate in the negotiations but I'll just tell you and
obvious, you all negotiate items. If the other side wants something that in my own mind has no meaning or is
absolutely insignificant and in their own mind makes them feel good and fuzzy.
46
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilman Senn: Well I'll tell you what. It makes me feel real unwarm and fuzzy. How's that? And I'm
only one vote but I'm not going to vote for it as long as it's in there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Well I think staff does a good job of running the city and this is no put down to Mark
whatsoever. I mean...taken out. On the other hand, if staff and legal is comfortable with it as is,..
Roger Knutson: I think the first statement is factually accurate as far as I know. I mean assuming that's
factually accurate. You just, you can only deal with one. The only thing you're doing is agreeing to take into
consideration without making any promises.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If someone would like to move item (f).
Councilman Wing: Well is it easier to take it out or approve it as is?
Mayor Chmiel: I think he just said it just previously before that.
Councilman Senn: I don't think it makes any difference. The HRA took it out and it didn't cause any problems
there did it?
Todd Gerhardt: The reason it fell into the I-IRA's is that it came from the City Council. Roger took the basis of
the City Council and try to incorporate that into the HRA and never got it deleted out. So we tried to reference
the I-IRA agreement to deal more with the money side and taking side and the City Council's more with the
approvals of the site plan and that. So it was more of the process on the City Council side which the HRA does
not grant approvals...where City Council does approve, or did approve gasoline on the site...
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If not, I'll at least try for somebody to make a motion to approve item
(f). Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Settlement Agreement with T.F. James
Company. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote
of 4 to 1.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: I put down that I wanted to just talk about a couple things. I had given that, I think information
to, do you have that Don? Okay, he put that in his handy dandy packet. Just a couple things that I wanted to
bring out. Here we're talking about low income kinds of housing. Things that we can look at. I was going
through a magazine and just recently found this and found that, in fact it was in Better Homes and Gardens.
Starter kits which are kit homes, such as the one that you see here and it's the kind that can be anywhere from
$40,000.00 to $70,000.00. But they indicate this that the cost of the lot and the garage and some extras are not
included in it at that particular price. But it's something that I think looks fairly decent and I asked Don if he'd
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
try to get some additional information on that through Better Homes and Gardens. One other thing too that I
came across. This is in the...newspaper. They're talking about versatile and attractive metal buildings and of
course we had some real concerns regarding metal buildings. But there are some metal buildings that they've
put up. I'm not sure whether I'm real enthusiastic about metal buildings but they have changed the appearances
of these so that they're ugly no more and I thought maybe we could start looking at some of those kinds of
buildings to see whether or not they warrant.
Councilman Wing: You're fight. This Wal-Mart looks a beck of a lot better.
Mayor Chmiel: But anyway, those are the two things that we had gone through on.
Councilman Wing: That house you had for $70,000.00. If we put that on a.
Mayor Chmiel: 20 to 70.
Councilman Wing: If we put that on a 20,000 square foot lot, that's going to be a big, what's the minimum lot
size that house would rake? I don't suppose you looked at that.
Mayor Chmiel: Square footage isn't contained in there.
Councilman Senn: 7,000.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. You had something regarding a report.
Councilman Senn: Oh yeah, you and I showed up for a meeting on, for a follow-up meeting on the audit report
and I guess mainly because we didn't get notified of the cancellation or whatever.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we were there.
Councilman Senn: But as I understand it, when the rest of the people were contacted they said they didn't really
have any questions or whatever. I'd still like the follow-up meeting. I haven't heard anything more on it. It's
been a while so I guess, I had a number of questions I'd like to see addressed so I don't know. I mean are we
going to do that still as a work session or aren't we? If we aren't, I'll bring it up in a regular Council session.
Ask questions and you can get them back to me later. I don't care.
Don Ashworth: What I heard the Council saying when I talked to each of you individually, that they felt pretty
well comfortable with everything as it had been presented. What I could do is contact Cliff. See if he would be
available. I'll get a hold of you fa-st. Verify whatever date we pick out and then put out a memorandum to the
rest of the City Council advising them that Cliff Hoffman will be meeting Monday, such and such, starting at
5:00 p.m. with Councilman Senn. Any other Council members wishing to join can come on in. Something like
that?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean, I'm not trying to put anybody through a lot of work if nobody's interested. I
can get a hold of what's his name, Cliff what?
Don Ashworth: Cliff Hoffman.
48
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilman Senn: I can get a hold of him and sit down with him and ask him my questions. I mean that's not
a problem. If nobody else has any questions or is interested in it. I'm not trying to suck you into another
meeting so. I mean all we had time for in the work session was basically his presentations and we had to run to
Council and I did have a list of questions so that's all. I'll meet with him ff nobody else is interested.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And if there are issues that you think we should be concerned about, please bring
them up under Council agenda. Council presentations.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A, SET WORK SESSION DATE TO DISCUSS CODE OF ETHICS AND CITY HALL EXPANSION~
CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: Administrative, set work session dates to discuss code of ethics and City Hall expansion. I
don't know if you have your calendars out. Or if the calendars that are in front of you. You might want to
circle the 7th. So these are dates that you've already set up for work sessions. The 7th of October. The 17th
and 24th are already taken. In November, you've already selected November.
Councilman Mason: You're in the wrong month here Don.
Councilman Wing: Okay,what's going on.
Councilman Mason: october 17th and october 24th.
Councilman Senn: Are both taken.
Councilman Mason: Right, and November 7th.
Don Ashworth: In November you've already taken November 1st, 7th, 14th and 28th.
Councilman Mason: Isn't the 14th the Council meeting?
Don Ashworth: Right. I'm giving dates that you've already.
Councilman Senn: Work session. Work session. City Council.
Don Ashworth: In December you've already selected December 7th, that was an optional date so we probably
will never meet on that date. But that was your optional budget heating date. And the 12th, which is your
regular City Council. Generally we only have one Council meeting in December. So and I know that Richard
really doesn't like Mondays but if you're looking at Mondays, that means potential open dates and you already
said you didn't want to meet on October 31st. That's Halloween. So that would leave November 21st and
December 5th and potentially the 19th. Then again ff you wanted to go into any other work date, that's up to
the City Council. I mean a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.
49
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Now for each of these dates that you're bringing up, what are we going to discuss on each of
those?
Don Ashworth: Well you said that you wanted to take and have a work session for both the Code of Ethics and
City Hall expansion and I think, did we just add to that one more? Yeah, the park referendum issue. If we want
to handle that before the end of the year.
Councilman Senn: I thought we were going to do the park referendum with the budget session which is
scheduled for the 17th for Parks and Rec. Did I miss something here?
Don Ashworth: Well generally that's just an opportunity for Todd to take and walk through the budget request
forms. Generally the commissions aren't present at those meetings.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's not the same as goal setting, is that what you're saying?
Don Ashworth: No, no. That is what has been requested by the Park Department for their 1995 budget. So
he'll walk down through commission, administration, all of the changes that they're looking to in Park and
Recreation as far as the 1995 budget. I think generally if you take two departments a night, that's a pretty full
schedule generally.
Councilman Senn: When would the goal session be, referenced earlier, normally be then?
DOn Ashworth: In the past we've done it after the f'~t of the year. We've gotten into February-March. I know
the Mayor has...
Councilman Senn: I thought we were going to start doing that before the year.
DOn Ashworth: That is correct.
Councilman Senn: I mean we talked about that at length last year. So maybe that's where I was
misinterpreting but I thought the budget sessions this year were going to be...
Mayor Chmiel: ...at the last one. That we should have that accomplished prior to the fa'st of the year.
DOn Ashworth: As it would deal with your interfacing with the commissions, I think we can. I think last year
the commission told you the things in their budget that they felt were important. This dealt with the park
acquisition fund type of thing. But I still see that as separate from the evening where Todd Hoffman would
walk through each individual department and go through each of the functional areas that he's responsible for
and why he is requesting monies in 1995 for each one of those.
Councilman Wing: $o what you're saying then is that you, we need another date for City Hall expansion, ethics
and the park. Actually we need two additional dates for the referendum and the expansion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you said November 5th was another date.
Councilman Senn: I don't know Don, maybe you're satisfied. I'm sorry Don, I thought we were going to set
goals and budget for the goals. I mean how can you set a budget for '95 and then come back after you've set
50
City Council Meeting. October 10, 1994
the budget and determine your goals for the year? I mean that's been, excuse me, the you know what's it called,
Ass backwards way that we've been doing it. But I'm sorry.
Don Ashworth: I'm saying that ff you select a date to meet with the park commission to talk about their goals,
and I'll call it commission concerns over the budget. The commission has a bigger picture. They look at the
budgetary process and that will consume one evening.
Councilman Senn: But haven't the commissions, when Todd sits down to _~alk to us about what he wants to do
next year, hasn't the commission already given an input to his budget for '95?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay, well in doing that, haven't they set some goals already for 19957 So why can't we
get both of those pieces of information and we don't need to meet with the commission but at least consider
them in unison and if we have questions, go back and ask the commission you know at a later date or
something. Maybe that's the problem. We're making the process too cumbersome. I don't see a burning desire
or I mean I don't see a burning need to sit down with the commissioners to review goals, objectives and budgets
if they've already done that and passed a recommendation on.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's already done. We're talking about referendum was the additional thing that we were
entering into.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But I think what Mark's getting at.
Councilman Senn: I'm getting at the budget process.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. The referendum portion still has to be contained within that budget and they've
already indicated that their desire for $250,000.00 is there now. And it's already within their proposed budget.
Councilman Senn: Well and see that to me is why that should be combined.
Mayor Chmiel: Their proposed budget but the referendum is the point that we have to look at and come up with
a conclusion whether or not we're even going to do that because of the standpoint of where we are with our
bonding, and our rating that we have with Moody's, we have to be darn careful so we don't jeopardize what we
have. I've like to see us move up on our rating rather than even where we're at with the BAA1.
Councilman Senn: We just went down didn't we?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Senn: With the last issue. I thought we went down.
Mayor Chmiel: No. No. We're s011 there.
Councilman Senn: Okay. But if we do the budget and the goals, okay dealing with that aspect, I mean I wouM
love to see the referendum come in with that and then mesh it all together at a future date but it's hard, in my
mind, to imagine just considering a parks and rea referendum. I mean I've asked this question before. I'd like
51
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
to ask it again. How many of those types of needs do we envision coming at us in the next few years? Is it
parks? Is it City Hall? What is it? I mean let's put them out on the table because I think the Council should
decide what issues that it wants to basically use existing resources to fund and what issues we want to go out to
a referendum on. There's never been any discussion or determination on that at all. And stuff and here we are
thinking, well let's run into a park and rec referendum.
Don Ashworth: To the extent possible I'll, see the first, we've got to send out in the next 2 days the agenda for
next Monday night, which is really the fa-st of our budget work sessions. And I've already talked with
department heads about including in their packets the i995 goals.
Councilman Senn: Then .we're all set. It seems to me.
Don Ashworth: Well, I don't know as it applies to the f'~t set you're going to see this next Monday, whether
or not he will in fact have that done. So that may not be with that first work session group. But it would be
completed by the time that you would meet with the Park Commission. If you would select a date this evening
to meet with the Park Commission on referendums, goals, and budget.
Councilman Wing: As conceptual, just conceptual approval on that. All we're doing is trying to, are we going
to move ahead towards this referendum. It's almost not related to anything else in my mind. Okay, what about
City Hall expansion? What night am I supposed to be here for City Hall expansion?
Don Ashworth: Well again, open dates for you.
Councilman Senn: The f~t date's the 21st.
Don Ashworth: If you're going wis Mondays. Are the 21st, 5th and 19th.
Councilman Senn: November 21st.
Councilman Wing: November 21st we're meeting on for City Hall expansion and Code of Ethics.
Councilman Mason: I do not know that I can make it on the 21st.
Councilman Wing: I don't either but we've got to set a date. You're a teacher, you've probably got that time
off.
Councilman Mason: Well but see, my wife has conferences that night. So I don't know. Yeah, bring the kids.
You know I can probably work it out but that may be a conflict that night.
Mayor Chmiel: Take them over to my house.
Councilman Wing: Okay, then what was the other one? We need to work with Park and Rec. Their
referendum. And that should be an independent meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we should have both of those there.
Councilman Wing: That's fine. That's fine. And what was the other option? Open night that's available.
52
City CouncU Meeting - October 10, 1994
Don Ashworth: Now you're going up into like December 5th and the 19th but when you start getting into let's
say the 19th and you've already adopted the budget on the 12th.
Councilman Ma.son: Well maybe we need to meet on some nights other than Monday.
Councilman Wing: Maybe a Saturday morning.
Don Ashworth: Or maybe you want to go the other way and put the Park and Recreation one on the November
21st and the City Hall on December 5th.
Mayor Chmiel: That's fine.
Councilman Wing: Can we get Park and Rec in earlier than that? Because if we're going to support it, they
want to know that. If we're not, then we might as well stop wasting their time. They want to get a task force
going if we're going to support it.
DOn Ashworth: Then you're going to have to pick something other than a Monday night.
Councilman Wing: Saturday morning. I'll come up for an hour or two. Probably be gone anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Bring your money.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, let's just pass that raise tonight We're looking at 12 days here.
DOn Ashworth: So I've got Code of Ethics for, whoops wait a minute. You wanted to do Park and Rec earlier
than November 21st
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's get those dates thrown out and when we get this all pulled together, send everybody
a list as to the dates and the things that we're going to discuss.
Councilman Wing: Yeah.
DOn Ashworth: Well Park and Rec usually meets on a Tuesday evening. Do you want to look to one of, so
they should pretty well have that date open. DO you want me to just pick one out and say.
Mayor Chmiel: They meet on the 25th.
Councilman Wing: Have them cancel their meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: They meet on the 25th of October.
Don Ashworth: The 18th is too soon for staff. November 8th appears to be a holiday or something. I don't
know what holiday.
Councilman Senn: Do them on the 21st Have them come to that meeting.
Councilman Wing: Why don't we do it on the 8th.
53
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilman Mason: November 8th? That's election day.
Don Ashworth: Well, you're going to have to meet on the 9th to canvas election results. Do you want to do...
Councilman Senn: What time is that one?
Don Ashworth: Again up to Council. Usually 5:00-5:30. And Mike is right, it's a 2 minute meeting.
Councilman Wing: I'm not writing this down. We've got your dates picked for budget and you've got two that
need to be assigned for Park and Rec and I forgot what the other one was. City Hall. Can I get this in the
mail?
Yes, I made that request.
I mean like a Thursday, November 10th, Or the 3rd. You're already meeting the 1st. How
Mayor Chmiel:
Don Ashworth:
about the loth.
Mayor Chmiel:
That's the joys of being a council member.
Councilman Senn: I keep every Monday night open. Religiously.
DOn Ashworth: Okay, the way I have it right now is, discuss code of ethics on the 21st. City Hall expansion.
Of course those two can be moved back so let's leave City Hall expansion to November 21st. Code of Ethics on
December 5th. And then you want me to pick out the 9th or 10th for your Park and Rec meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: What time on the 21st?
Don Ashworth: Both of these would then be at 5:30.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and then what's the next one? After the 21st~
Don Ashworth: December 9th or 10th, which would be meeting with the...
Councilman Mason: No. You mean November 9th or 10th, don't you Don?
DOn Ashworth: Yeah, November 9th or 10th. Yeah. So whichever the Council says to me. 9th or 10th. You
will be coming in on the 9th but for 5 minutes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm here so.
Councilman Senn: So then let's just do it if we're going to come here.
DOn Ashworth: Okay, November 9th.
Councilman Senn: At 5:30? And which one's that now?
54
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Don Ashworth: Park and Rec.
Councilman Wing: And one of these nights, can we have a full turkey dinner.
Mayor Chmiel: It's getting close.
Councilman Wing: Would you see that Karen drafts this out real nicely and neatly and the dates and everything
so I can put it right on my desk. I'm not even going to write it down. I'm just going to put it on my wall.
Don Ashworth: Okay, I will do that.
B. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AGREEMENT AND MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT, SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT. CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: Project Development Coordination Agreement. We had our last work session and that really
wasn't a good forum to talk about this thing. I'm suspecting a majority of the City Council members would like
to take and see me go to an RFP process. The only thing that I'm really fearful of is that we potentially will
lose 1995 as a construction time frame and we'll move into '96. That's just, I mean if you're waiting until
January to select somebody to coordinate that, then the next thing is going to be the architect selection process.
Then you have to move into a concept plan. Back to Planning Commission, City Council. Probably won't be
an easy hearing type process. So you're probably into May-June. And then you're going to start plans and
specs and the public bidding process. You're not going to be opening those until September-October.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What kind of dollars are we talking about for this?
Don Ashworth: Assuming that he would carry the thing all the way through, it's 3% of the construction
contract. So if this is a $5 million facility, it would be $150,000.00. If we lose a construction season though,
you're going to add 3% to 4% on top of the contract itself. So you know.
Councilman Mason: Who else is out there other than Dunbar?
Don Ashworth: Really the list that Gary had given. Gary Fields, are really the only ones that, at least that he's
aware of. And as I put in mine, I've interviewed 10 people for this project, 10 Cms, and every one of them
wanted to build something just like we've got over here. Meaning that they wanted low and moderate income as
a part of the facility. They did not want to take and see what I'll call the senior group. They wanted to have
ownership at the end of the mortgage period.
Mayor Chmiel: You know one of the other things too that Sherol Howard from the Senior Commission
indicated, that they have met Mr. Dunbar and gone through the process and they feel very comfortable with him
as well. Whether that means anything to you or not. But I think that they feel fairly reasonable and comfortable
with that. I've been a strong advocate that we go through the processes of looking at least as many as we can in
this in the field of where they're at. I guess I don't have really any...
Councilman Senn: You know you said we have to go through a selection process on this person and then also a
selection process on the architect. Why don't we just do them simultaneously and do our fees on both of them?
I mean then we'll have them both on board I mean and going. It seems to me then you're saving time. Not
causing more time. I mean I don't think when it involves hundreds of thousands of dollars that we should be
55
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
doing it without going up to an RFP and involving, at least not giving other people the opportunity to take a look
at it that our bond consultant doesn't know, who he exclusively works with I'm sure.
Don Ashworth: Part of the fee that you're going to pay over to a project manager is really the selection process
for the auditor. So I mean if you throw that in as a front end load for staff, that you're bringing for something
that you're not getting.
Councilman Wing: At this point in the meeting Councilman Wing r/tn from the Chambers screaming.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I don't like to circumvent the process and $150,000.00 is not neglible. However,
as a percent of the total amount and given the fact that it may delay the process and that from what we can see
this person is clearly a leader in the field, I would suggest that we go with Dunbar for the Project Coordinator.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that in the form of a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendoff: If you'd like it to be, sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: I'll second it for discussion and ask Don, is that what you and staff were recommending?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Wing: Are you comfortable with that?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Wing: Then I don't have any problem with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I would, my preference is to do the RFP process. However, I think we have a City
Manager for a reason and I think everyone on Council knows my faith in the City Manager. My sense is that if
he thinks this is the way to go, I'll go along with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. You had a RFP. You're still sticking with your position?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I'm going to say one of the major reasons why is this isn't an issue over
$150,000.00. If you read through this process, this is hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Because
whoever this project coordinator is, if you read through this documentation, is almost a shoe in to a management
contract and all kinds of things that are very lucrative and axe going to in effect produce over a half a million to
a million dollars in a very short period of time to whoever the person is. I mean it's right down to percentages
on every service that a senior citizen buys. And hey, that should go through the proper public process. In fact,
with these dollar amounts, I don't know. Is it legal or not legal? I don't know. I'd love to know.
Roger Knutson: You don't have to bid these things.
56
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Councilman Senn: You don't have to bid anything huh?
Roger Knutson: No, you don't have to bid these kinds of services.
Don Ashworth: You are making no commitment to long term management and I cannot comment as to whether
or not that long term management is over the course of it.
Councilman Senn: Don, I can bring out your previous staff report that says it should be. I mean come on. I
mean your staff report before was not only that we agreed to hire Dunbar for this but for the whole process all
the way tl~ough.
Don Ashworth: I would disagree but.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we've belaboring a point here.
Councilman Senn: I think there's some real issues we have to deal with too because we cut that off the other
night and I'll tell you what, I saw every jaw in the place drop when you started talking about $600.00, $700.00,
$800.00 per unit and I don't agree with the staff response. Don't worry,they're all going to be subsidized
bemuse I don't agree with that response. It's not me and then also to make a commitment in that meeting that
our future CDBG dollars are going to go for subsidy, I didn't care for that either. So I mean there's a number
of questions I think relating to the fundamental basis of this project going forward that I think.
Mayor Chmieh Well I think that those funds can be, those CDBG funds can be directed towards that without.
Councilman Senn: Can be. But that's not the way it was presented.
Mayor Chmiel: No, but it can be done. So I don't want that to be misled one way or the other.
Councilman Senn: No, I'm not saying that.
Mayor Chmieh But you're probably right in the total amount of dollars of 3%. I went through the same process
with the Carver County jail and justice center and there are a lot of dollars to consider in going through that
particular process. I think this is something that we've been looking at for a long time. I know that I have real
concerns if we all said this, there's another increase that would be coming along as well over and above what
we're talking about and some time ago we went through that same discussion. I think you changed some of our
minds, and that did cost us a few bucks. As far as the city was concerned. So I think I'm looking from the
standpoint of which direction are we going. We do have a motion on the floor and I'll call the question.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Dunbar Development
Corporation to act as the City's Project Coordinator for the Senior Homing project. Ail voted in favor,
except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Don Ashworth: Just a clarification. The only approval you gave was just for the project construction phase. So
again, the long term management is a separate issue that will be addressed at a separate time.
Councilman Wing: We're just trying to get this going.
57
City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Okay with that, is there an adjournment? Oh, before we do. Just to mention Don, the
Fire Department is having an open house Sunday, October 16th. Hopefully you'll get back to the newspaper
early in the morning about it to make sure they get that in the paper so we have proper coverage, if it hasn't
been taken care of already.
Councilman Wing: I'm sure Mark's already inserted that.
Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
58