1l. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 12, 1990
II 1
Mayor Cr iel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. The fleeting was opened
' with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIUIEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Qiriel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwaran Dinner and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori
Sietsera, Todd Gerhardt, Dave Hempel, Jima Chaffee and Elliott Knetsch, City
Attorney
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda amended as follows: Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss
Cthanhassen's Anti-Drug Task Fbrce proposal; Councilman Workman wanted to discuss
the BRA, Heritage Park Apartments and West 78th Street; and Councilman Boyt
wanted to set up a time for Public Safety Commission candidate interviews. All
' voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried.
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor andel drew a nacre for the Recycling Prize of
$200.00.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
II I approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recarmendations:
c. Resolution #90-12: Approve Resolution Amending the Joint Powers Agreement
and By-Laws, Southwest Metro Transit C omission.
d. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Crossroads Plaza, Northeast corner of
' West 79th Street and Market Boulevard, Crossroads National Bank.
e. Accept Donations to Park and Recreation Commission Department frame the
Chaska Lion's and Chanhassen Jaycees.
' f. Resolution #90-13: Approve Resolution Proclaiming the Week of March 8, 1990
as Volunteers of America Week.
g. Resolution #90-14: Set 1990 Liquor License fees.
i. Final Plat Approval for Pleasant Hills 2nd Addition, Kreidberg/City.
' k. Resolution #90-15: Authorize Preparation of Updated feasibility Study
fo r
Park Place Phase II Irprovements (Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th
Addition) , Project 85-13B.
1. Accept Engineering Inspection Report for Murray Hill Water Tower and
I _ Authorize Preparation of Rehabilitation Plans and Specifications,
Improvement Project 89-24.
�. Approval of Accounts. •
n. City council Minutes dated January 22, 1990
Planning Commission Minutes dated January 17, 1990
1
F
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
IPark and Recreation Oa!n►ission Minutes dated January 9, 1990
IIo. Authorize to Purchase Recycling Bins. I
- q. Accept Resignations from Public Safety Commissioners Takkunen and Wing.
IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried.
II A. APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW
PROCEDURES, FINAL READING; AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION.
1 Oauticibran Boyt: Okay, just a couple of changes to it. If you look at page 3.
This is our interim use ordinance. Something that I think we're all looking
forward to having. Section 20-676, item 3 seers to me to be a repeat of item. 1
Iso maybe we can just strike it.
Oaincilwoiran Dimler: Temporary real estate offices?
I Councilman Boyt: Since it's interim uses, they're all temporary. Then I would
like to see in 20-716, the BH, Business Highway district that we allow temporary
farmer's markets so I'd suggest an item 3, Farmer's Markets. In the BH. WS
I allow it in the CBD. It would seer like it would be even more appropriate in
the BR. That's all I had.
' Mayor Ctrr4iel: Okay, with those two changes, can I have a motion?
Councilman Workcran: Is there a reason Paul why maybe we left that out of
there? Out of the BH?
IIPaul Krauss: No Mr. Workman. There really wasn't any intent to leave it out
and we have no probla' including it.
IOouncilwaran Dimler: I'd appreciate seeing it in there.
Councilman Boyt: Why?
IICouncilwaran Dialer: Because we're in the business. I move item 1(a).
ICouncilman Boyt: Second.
' Ca=ilwc:ran Dimler moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment regarding site plan review procedures, Final Reading and approval of
Summary Ordinance for Publication as amended by Councilman Boyt. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
B. APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF
I INTERIM USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE TEMPORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS,
FINAL READING; AND APPROVAL OF St RY -ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess other people picked up on this too but we did talk
II about, I talked to Paul earlier today indicating that this ordinance could be
passed the way it is and we could talk about the signage but I think that we
2
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II . '
should maybe take care of it right away. There are three options given in the
first page after the yellow page. I guess I'll go along with staff
recommendation of Option 3 but I'd like to hear some discussion.
Councilman Boyt: I'd be happy to chime in. I think Option 1 makes more sense
PPI' OP
because it keeps the City out of the sign business. Edina seers to be able to
' do it quite successfully. You notice in your packet, the part of it you just
received this evening, there is Edina's requirements. I think that that to Ire
makes more sense to have the developer take care of this than to have the City
store 20 signs someplace in city property.
Councilman Johnson: For years all over the country developers have done this. A
lot of other towns I've seen everyplace this is for subdivision you know. It's
the cost of doing business and it's not that expensive.
Councilman Boyt: We're only requiring the signs in sane particular situations
that are reasonably dramatic so I think this sort of developer probably has a
sign or is aware of the likelihood of needing it.
' Councilman Johnson: On the issue of 1, 2 or 3. Option 1, 2 or 3, I'll go with
1 right now with 3 in second place and Option 2 I don't like at all. The other
thing is, what are we going to require the signs for.
' Councilwoman Dimler: We already discussed that. Let Ire just explain to you why
I liked Option 3. I think I explained the last time this cane around that we
had such a problem even getting a sign up for the garage sale for Chaska
Boosters because no one could care up with a sign that met the ordinances. Even
though it was a temporary sign, that we finally gave up so I'm saying if our
requirements are that difficult to meet, then it's going to be a hassle for the
' developer to carne up with a sign that will allow then to put up. On the other
hand if the City makes the sign, we won't have that hassle. Apparently we're
going to meet our own ordinance to put up the signs. Then also, it's not going
' to cost the City much because they will be paying. It's just that they don't
have to be responsible for the design and all of that tigamaroll caring up with
the correct sign.
Councilman Johnson: Edina gives you the exact design. 60 inches.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well then the City would have to care up with a design.
iCouncilman Johnson: I'd use Edina's. Why reinvent the wheel? We'd just have
to change Edina to Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Dimler: Paul, do you want to address that? I just remember that
was such a hassle to get a sign, a temporary sign to put up for the Chaska
Boosters wham we wanted to support. They were having a rummage sale. It was a
' very temporary sign and we couldn't put one up just because we couldn't come up
with the proper sign.
Paul Krauss: Well Councilwoman Dimler, if gave criteria and changed our
ordinances if we need to, one of the things we need to do is ask our attorney as
to what structurally we need to do when we rake a selection on this. But if we
required it, the sign could go up without requiring additional permits. The
problem, I think you had with the temporary sign was that you needed a temporary
sign permit under our existing ordinances and those are somewhat restrictive.
3
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 1
The problem that we saw though in requiring the applicant to obtain their own
sign was one of cost and time. They would need to procure a sign each time this
care up. The sign would only be used once and then it would be disposed of.
I!
Councilwoman Dimler: So it'd be a waste? '
Paul Krauss: We think you could expedite if we had the signs on hand:
Councilwoman Dialer: Yeah. Plus they're paying for it. I don't think it's '
going of cost the City much. And we're talking about storing 20 signs? We're
building a big new shed.
Councilman Johnson: When I look at somebody who's got a million dollar
development going and see a $200.00 expense on that million dollar development,
I don't see that I'm breaking the bank. I see we're going to rent the sign to
them for $100.00 and some of these guys can probably get it make for less than
that if they have their own shops and whatever. It's just a big deal. I don't
want, we already do enough. Our staff is plenty busy without having to hire
somebody on to put up signs for developers. It's part of their job. If they
want to develop that piece of property, they just follow the ordinance. We used
to have...
Councilwoman Dimler: But under Option 3, the developer would be responsible for.
even putting it up and removing it. It's just that we'd provide the signs and I
think that's a good use of our natural resources. I hate to see us reinvent the
wheel all the time.
Councilman Johnson: Between 1 and 3, I'll go with 3 as easy as 1 but I still
think that we haven't defined exactly which things are going to need signs.
There are same suggested ones in here but I think we have to decide what will
need a sign and what won't. Like this Shivley Subdivision later tonight. A lot
split into two lots. Do we want to have to put up a sign for that? I say no.
Councilman Boyt: Well you don't under this either.
Councilman Workman: I think if platting resulting in the creation of 3 or more '
lots, even if somebody probably already has a willing buyer for all 3 lots, what
do they care. That gets into a little bit of why we're doing this to let
everybody know but it's kind of a private deal. If 3 people bought 3 lots, what
difference does it make sometimes that it's been done.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, or whether your plat, if you're in a RSF district and
you have this cornfield in the RSF district and you're going to plat those into
15,000 square foot lots. That's what expected to go in there. If you're going
to came in and put commercial buildings in there, then I'd see the sign. I'm
not even sure if replatting needs a sign.
Councilman Boyt: I think it needs a sign because there are all sorts of issues
Jay as you know around any development that comes in. We want more community
involvement. When we mail things to people within 500 feet, many times that's
the squirrels and the rabbits. And so when we put a sign up, everybody that
goes by there at least knows something's going to happen and they can call the
City to find out what. Maybe we'll get a few more people contributing ideas.
4
11
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
11 ' I `Mayor CIriiel: Tar,, do you have anything further? I guess I wouldn't have any
problems with item number 3 either. I think by us having those signs available,
giving then to the developers. Let the developers install then eliminates the
problem with our people having to take that time out to do it.
Councilman Boyt: The City's talking about a $4,000.00 expenditure initially.
Mayor Chmiel: Conceiveably maybe we won't get 20 signs right away either Bill.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want us to move the signs separate from where we
need the signs?
Mayor Ctr.iel: I think so.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so I would move that we adopt under signage option 3.
' Councilman Johnson: Second.
Councilman Boyt: Before we take the vote, I'd like to suggest that there may be
' same logic here in what Edina is saying works for then. Granted we haven't
decided what we're going to require a sign for but I would venture that in the
next 3 years you're going to see even more development when the MUSA line
expands, as we know it will.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a foregone conclusion on that. I agree.
Councilman Boyt: If the developer's responsible for all of it, and really then
it isn't the City's responsibility to see, do we have enough signs. Spare signs
out there. How many rezoning signs do we get versus subdivision signs? We
don't have to worry with that if we go with 1 so I guess for that reason I'd
vote against 3, although I will acknowledge there's a very small difference and
Ursula makes good points.
Councilman Johnson: Well see one thing I would do, if you're using a sign like
this. I'd have the basic sign made and have rezoning on a separate piece of
wood. Subdivision on a separate piece of wood. All the other information stays
the same and then you just bolt on whether it's going to be a rezoning or a
' subdivision so if it's a subdivision, slap that puppy on. We don't need quite
as many.
Councilwoman Dimler: So then that would be better for the City too.
Councilman Johnson: Make it reversible.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I agree. Wonderful.
' Mayor Chmiel: Good points Jay.
Councilman Boyt: I give up.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded adopting Option 3, that
the City provide the signs and charge the developer a rental fee. The developer
would be responsible for erection and removal and for sign replacement if
needed. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 5
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Axe you going to move on to for what purposes we're going
to put the signs up because we didn't vote on that?
1!
Mayor C oriel: I think that's something we're going to have to do.
Councilwoman Dimler: Was that your portion of what you wanted to discuss? 1
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That was my, but we've really just discussed it with
Bill and Bill has convinced me that planning use would, so I'll go with the 5
listed. The 5 reasons listed in the staff report.
Councilwoman Dimler: What page are you on? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Itemws 1 thru 5. It's on the second page after this yellow sheet.
Platting, rezoning, guide plan amendments and conditional use permits resulting
in the construction of new buildings such as a church and site plan reviews.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is there a time limit on here? How long these signs have
to be up?
Mayor C miel: There is a time limitation. Paul, is that correct? How many
days prior to the public hearing must they be up?
Paul Krauss: The ordinances I've seen required 9 days prior to the public
hearing. I would personally, we have a month notice when something cares in. I
would personally prefer that we use that.
Councilworan Dimler: Okay, but should we specify in here up to 1 month or do we
need a time restriction? I don't know if I follow.
Councilman Johnson: I think 2 weeks. That gives us 2 weeks to get the sign up.
You say it's 1 month from when they bring it in to us until it comes before the
Planning Commission.
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Johnson: So we're not going to get it up exactly the day it comes in
here so you need, I would say 2 weeks prior to the first public meeting on the
action.
Mayor Chmdel: Yeah, I think that would be fine.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just as long as there's something time wise. 1
Councilman Boyt: Where should that go in the ordinance?
Mayor Chndel: Where would that fit in Paul?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, what we need to do after we get your direction tonight
is to sit down with the City Attorney and figure out where exactly in the
ordinance we have to make these changes or if we can just do it as a procedure
without changing the ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: However this is the second reading.
6
1
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Paul Krauss: No, the thing that's for the second reading tonight is for the
site plan review ordinance itself.
Mayor Chgiel: Okay. Jay, we have a motion on the floor. 1 thru 5.
Councilman Johnson: I will. I'll move that we add reasons for the sign as 1
thru 5 and the signs should be up 2 weeks prior to the first public meeting.
' Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to discuss a little bit what our bottom
end on this thing is as far as 3 or more lots and what maybe Jay or Bill,
somebody can give me an idea about the type of impact that we're going to be
' averting if we require that. I think that's a little bit smaller time.
Mayor Chriel: Well if people within their areas are still concerned as to
what's happening in and adjacent to theirs with what's being developed within
that specific area.
Councilman Workman: But even for 3 lots?
Councilman Johnson: Well if you're sitting in an area where everybody's got 1
acre lots and somebody decides to convert his 1 acre lot to 3 15,000 square foot
lots. His neighbors would be very concerned about that. Theoretically he could
' if he had just slightly over an acre, convert to 3 lots.
Councilman Workman: I agree that could happen but covenants usually provide
against something like that you know. Timberwood is an example probably. Well,
you couldn't break those down into less than 2 1/2 acres anyway but.
1
Councilman Johnson: No. Not until sewer comes in.
Councilman Workman: But I'm saying, I don't know. Maybe it's hurting nothing.
ng. �J nJ•
It's going to put a burden on a small split I think. You talk about the trillion
dollar deals.
Councilman Johnson: You see so few small splits. Usually it's either 2 or a
' bunch. What number are you thinking? 5? 4? 12? 50?
Councilman Boyt: There's a good argument for why we don't want it to be 2.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Everybody lot splits.
Councilman Boyt: But up from there, where do we go? I don't know what's magic
' about 3 but I don't know where to stop either.
Councilman Johnson: You can probably argue 4 as well as 3 and 5 as well as 4.
Councilman Workman: You know I don't like to argue. That's fine. I guess I
still haven't heard any reasons why but that's fine.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to remove it out of there?
Councilman Workman: No, because I don't really have an option. I don't have an
option up from 3. I don't have a logical point to stop.
7
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
Mayor Chmiel: I think 3 or more lots is a good place to start with it.
Councilwoman Dinler: I do have a question on number 3. Paul, could you give me
an example of a guide plan amendment?
I!
Paul Krauss: Oh, it's a change to the land use plan. If somebody had a high
density residential site and they wanted it to be commercial/retail.
Councilwoman Dimler: Wouldn't that be covered under rezonings? '
Pual Krauss: They could theoretically ask you to change the land use plan
before they ask you to change the zoning.
Councilman Johnson: Then they can cane back and say the land use says it's
supposed to be commercial. You have to change my zoning for me.
Councilman Boyt: I just thought of something. We're about to change the land 1
use plan. Does this mean that the City has to run out and post the City?
Paul Krauss: There are practical limitations to that. No. '
Councilman Boyt: But we are changing. We're proposing to change the land use
in several areas. Can we handle that as a blanket for the whole city and we
don't have to get into, I would like to think that we're not creating a
situation in which we're suddenly going to litter the highways with...
Paul Krauss: We had no intent of doing it. If you'd like to specifically 1
exclude that, that would be the way to do it.
Councilman Boyt: Zell me, do we have to specifically exclude that to keep the
City from having to be concerned about the land use plan amendments?
Elliott Knetsch: NUrber 3 only? '
Councilman Boyt: Right. And it makes sense if a developer wants to cane in and
change the land use plan, that's pretty remote but if they wanted to do that,
that that be posted. But what about when the City changes the whole land use
plan for the City? -
Elliott Knetsch: The way it is right now we would have to post signs. You '
could distinguish between private and publically initiated projects.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, except during the Comprehensive Planning process? Would
that exclude it?
Counciiman Johnson: I will take that amendment as a friendly amendment and
change guide plan amendments except for during Comprehensive Plan modification
or wording thereof. I'll let you work that out with the Attorney if my second
will accept that change.
Councilman Boyt: Who's your second?
Councilman Johnson: Ursula.
Mayor Chdel: You haven't got a second.
8 1
,City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
Councilman Johnson: I thought Ursula seconded it.
Mayor Chmiel: Not yet. Do you want to second it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Mayor Ch Biel: Any further discussion?
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adopt that all signs
be posted 2 weeks prior to the first public meeting for the following reasons:
1. Platting resulting in the creation of 3 or more lots.
2. Rezoning.
' 3. Guide Plan Amendment except during the Comprehensive Planning Process.
4. Conditional Use Permits resulting in the construction of a new building,
(such as a church) .
5. Site Plan Review.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1111 Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we need action on the ordinance itself.
' Councilman Johnson:• I move item 1(b) .
Councilwoman Dimler: As amended?
Councilman Johnson: Well actually what we did didn't even amend item 1(b) . It
had no affect on item 1(b) .
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the second and
final reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Division XI regarding Site Plan
review procedures, and approval of the ordinance surmary for publication. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
H. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE EXTENSION OF LAKE DRIVE
WEST FROM COUNTRY ROAD 17 TO AUDUBON ROAD, REDMOND PRODUCTS, INC..
Councilman Workman: I only want to say that, and I'm not sure if the dimensions
here for the Redmond Products construction which is going to be rather Immense,
does appear as though it's going to be right near and across from Lake Susan
Hills. Gary, do you have an idea about at this time, as infant as it is, any
idea about the impact on that neighborhood? They have a very large facility
now. I know they're going to double or triple it.
1 9
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Gary Warren: Well there is a separation between Lake Drive West and the actual
single family residential in Lake Susan. There's a multi-family area that
I!
hasn't been developed there.
Councilman Workman: We're going to have multi-family there right on Lake Drive
West across from this?
Gary Warren: As proposed, that's correct.
Councilman Workman: That's really all I wanted to know. That seems like a
tight fit there and not probably.
Councilman Johnson: That's why we put R-12 there versus single family. ,
Councilman Workman: R-12 are people too.
Councilman Johnson: I know.
Councilman Workman: I just want to start getting a little bit of an idea of
what the impact is going to be. It seers like a tight rub for commercial and
residential. I would move approval of item 1(h) .
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Resolution *90-16: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Study for the extension of Lake Drive
West from County Road 17 to Audubon Road, Redmond Products, Inc. pursuant to the
City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ,
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: SENIOR CITIZENS YEAR END REPORT, JOANN KVERN.
Hazel Johnson: Good evening. I'm Hazel Johnson and I'm a Chanhassen resident
but I'm representing the South Shore Senior Center. I'd like to have about 5
minutes of your time to read this report. The Senior Center has been a part of
your community for 6 years. It will be 7 years this next September and thank
you for your support. This year we want to highlight same of the activities
that our center in 1989. One of our goals of the center is to inform senior 11 citizens of issues pertaining to the older adult. We sometimes call ourselves
the recycled teenagers. Here are some of the programs that we had in 1989 to
accomplish this goal. Medicare and the new catastrophic health care act. Long
term care insurance. What is it? Do you need it? A funeral insurance plan.
55 alive driving course. We had one each quarter. The elder hostile program.
Fraud and scams aimed at the older adult. Modern day hospital procedures. The
living will. Your diet and cholesterol. Arthritis and what you should know.
Diabetes Association. How to control. And funeral preparations. A second goal
is to provide interesting educational programs. We had the following at the
center in 1989. A series on hobbies that might interest the older adult. Bird
watching. Norwegian rosemulling. Gardening for small spaces and textile
painting. We had two travelogues. One on China and one on Frace. History
programs. The Lake Minnetonka area. Book reviews. Reading and discussion
group meetings. The third goal is to provide an excercise program twice weekly.
We had the following at the center in 1989. Blood pressure screenings twice
monthly. Over 50 and fit exercise class meets twice weekly. We had a health
10
city CouncilMeeting - February 14 1990
I ' fair in the spring sponsored by Waconia Hospital which covered diabetes,
glaucoma, pulmonary function, cholesterol and blood pressure. We had a hearing
screening put on by Courage Center staff. A fourth goal is to have programs
that are entertaining and fun. We had the following at the center in 1989.
Monthly birthday celebrations with entertainment. Holiday celebrations with
entertainment. Spring was celebrated with an ice cream social. Summer was
celebrated with a picnic. We have bingo parties. Weekly 500 card tournaments.
Weekly bridge touranments. Monthly trips to plays, restaurants, points of
interest. Our center has a variety of programs geared to attract a variety of
' people who's age range is from 55 to one of our older participants being a lady
of 93. A fifth goal is to serve a noon meal. We served 6,249 meals at the
center in 1989. That averages out to be 42 meals per day each day that we are
open. A sixth goal was to have a transportation program. In 1989 we provided
5,620 rides to the center. To grocery shopping. To major shopping centers and
to medical appointments. A seventh goal is to have retired people involved as
volunteers at the center. In 1989 we had 63 people donate their time and
' talents to the center. Over 5,000 hours of volunteer work went into the center
in 1989. Thank you again for your support in our program.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much.
Councilman Johnson: I heard that there may be a problem with facilities at
South Shore. Can anybody address that for me? I heard that you might have to
Imove or something.
Ezra St. John: I'm Emma St. John and at the present time we are using some
I! rooms in the old Excelsior high school which at one time was used for classrooms
and then the enrollment declined in the district and other people have moved in
and are paying rent. Well now the school enrollment is going up again and they
are very pinched to have more space and we don't know what this task force is
' going to come up with. Either building or it's talked about that they want to
tear the building down or use it in another way. We just don't know. We're
just keeping our fingers crossed that we'll have a place to meet.
' Councilman Johnson: So you're going day to day right now?
' EMma St. John: Day to day, right. And thank you for your support.
Councilman Johnson: I think everybody here has been there at one time or
another. They invite us annually for various things and it's really, the
enthusiasm going on in that place. The people that are working and the arts and
crafts are just magnificent.
' Hazel Johnson: I'd like to invite anybody to carne anytime and visit us. Just
let us know if you want to cage for a meal and let us know a few days ahead of
time.
Councilman Johnson: And these ladies can cook, let me tell you. I've had a
meal there before.
Mayor Chmiel: Especially their desserts. Thank you very much for coming. We
appreciate it. Is there anyone else wishing to make Council presentation at
this particular time?
I
' 11
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
Jeff Dipwik: I think this is the right time. My name is Jeff Dipwik, 10300
Great Plains Blvd., Chanhassen. I guess I have a question as much as anything.
I read here a couple 3 weeks ago about this problem over at Moon Valley and
G & T Trucking and I guess I'm a little confused. All of a sudden the last
couple of weeks I see belly dumps running down CR 14 in a steady stream.
There's a sign on TH 101 where I live watch for trucks. I did a little research
and find out that they're hauling clay out of the corner of CR 17 and CR 14 over
the landfill. Maybe I'm missing something.
Mayor Ch oriel: It is on our agenda and we're going to discuss it under our I
AdMinstrative Presentations. That's under 16(b) which is Moon Valley Aggregate.
Councilman Boyt: That's about midnight. • I
Councilman Workman: Is that right at CR 17 and 14?
Jeff Dipwik: I believe. I saw then working there this fall and I thought maybe I
it was a housing division or something. Is there housing going in there? Okay.
I'm not sure exactly where they're caning from but I just did some research.
Councilman Johnson: Looking at this intersection right here?
Jeff Dipwik: Yeah, that was my assumption and I'm not positive that's where
they're coming from but I just know they're going over. They're hauling the
clay from there over to...
Councilman Johnson: That's actually the City of Chaska. I
Councilman Boyt: No. It's in Chanhassen. It's 20,000 yards but it will
probably be best discussed along with Moon Valley. I
Mayor Ch iel: I think maybe Gary can address that right now.
Gary Warren: There's maybe 2 sites that Mr. Dipwik is referring to. We do have I
obviously CR 17 where there's sane work as a part of the subdivision. The other
property which I think more directly addresses his belly dump issue is the
Jeurissen property off of CR 14 near our westerly border. There's an '88 permit
fox, actually for repairs that was pulled by the property owner for replacement
of a culvert that was washed out during our great storm of 1987. As a part of
that work there was 21,481 curbic yards of material of excavation that was a
part of that permit. So it was under that permit that they've been doing the
work. It's confined to the current 200 x 200 foot area and there's some overall
master plan that involves the Sever Peterson property and others that I think
maybe clouds the issue but there's been no approval for them to go beyond this
initial permit that was issued. And in fact, they may be interested to do that
but that would require a full Council permit and probably conditional use permit
to proceed. In a nutshell, that's where we are with it. I
Councilman Boyt: There's more to it, if you want to talk about it now. If they
pulled that permit to reconstruct a culvert, then they've gone way beyond the
intention of that permit because they're selling that land to Eden Prairie
landfill. That clay.
Gary Warren: That's why I said the original permit was approved for 21,000 some
odd yards of excavation material as a part of that '88 permit.
12 i
I
7
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Jeff Dipwik: They've taken a lot more than that because they've been running
steady for at least 10 days on that road.
Gary Warren: We've been watching then and the quantities are definitely within
the permit requirements.
Councilman Boyt: The City's also just required than to put up sane erosion
control to try to protect that and we're reviewing the whole nature of mineral
excavation this evening.
Mayor Chmiel: That will be discussed later on.
Councilman Johnson: Or early tomorrow morning.
Mayor Qiniel: Yeah, very late. Anyone else wishing to make a presentation?
Bert Notermann: My name is Bert Notermann and I'm from Shakopee, Minnesota. I
' came to this meeting because I understand somebody's been defaming my integrity
of the Tri-Y Drive In for the last couple weeks. I understand that this
individual has been defaming sane of the businesses in the area and thank
goodness this is not Russia and that we have laws that protect the City and us
property owners. I just want to give you a little history about the drive-in.
We bought the drive-in and ran it for quite a few years my wife and I. In fact
Tam Workman, I think that's probably his first job when and I hope that we can
be part.
Councilman Workman: No.
Bert Notermann: It wasn't your first job.
Councilman Workman: I was child labor.
Bert Notermann: Child labor. I hope we had a part in making him be as
successful as he is today. But anyway, I also own the Lion's Tap in Eden
Prairie and obviously that keeps me quite busy so we closed the drive-in down
several years ago. And at that time we contemplated turning it, destroying it
but because of the fact that the State of Minnesota was contemplating buying the
1 property for a while and then the Federal Wildlife was also contemplating buying
it and using it as a resting area so that's the reason we did not tear the
building down. And of course because of the fact it's probably, or it was I
should say, one of the older landmarks of the city of Chanhassen. I was
hesitant about tearing it down because as you know, a couple years ago without
my knowledge the zoning was changed without my knowledge and since that time of
course they changed it back to business fringe. %bile I was out of town about a
11 year ago, the property was torched by some little hoodlums. They never did find
out who it is and of course since that time I've been wanting to tear it down
but basically I felt that I didn't want to tear it down until I got sane
' directive from the City that I would be assured that my zoning would not be
taken away. I did get the letter last week saying that this would not infringe
upon my zoning so therefore I want you to know that the property was leveled
this afternoon. That's probably as quick a directive as you've probably ever
had done before but it's leveled and so I just say that probably not on the tax
rolls now but the building wasn't worth that march but hopefully in the next 6
months to a year we'll be able to cane up with same type of building to put up
13
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
there. Some type of business to bring in same more tax dollars for you. I just II
wanted to let you know that it's down and the landmark is down. It kind of
bothered me that somebody would care up and defame the integrity of that
landmark. Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think anybody's trying to defame anybody's
integrity. It was a building gutted by fire that to the citizen it appeared to
be a safety hazard. It was an unboarded up building and abandoned building and
he was asking the City to do something about it and the right action has now
been taken.
Bert Notermann: ...safety hazard if that individual or individuals trespassed
and walked on the property, obviously then.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. And sitting abandoned you generally don't
leave those open. The windows should have been boarded or something but now
it's taken care of. You've done a good job. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bert. Is there anyone else wishing to make a
presentation? ,
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF BALDUR AVENUE, LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
JUST EAST OF 6607 HORSESHOE CURVE, JOHN AND ANN DANIELSON. '
Paul Krauss: The applicant is requesting vacation of Baldur Avenue south of
Horseshoe Curve. The street's a 15 foot wide undeveloped right-of-way. It
serve no real public function as it deadends at Lake Lucy. It serves no real
haresites and is basically too steep to accommodate a public street in any case.
We only need to retain an easement to protect the sanitary sewer which runs down
by the lake. The applicant for the vacation owns the property located west of
the street and presumably would try to get title to it. Issues concerning the
street were recently raised during the proposed subdivision for Sathre and
that's the property, Robert Sathre, one lot to the east. That lot is quite
unusual in that there's actually a finger of that lot that wraps down around
Baldur Avenue and this area over here over which we have a permanent easement.
While the its were discussed with the Sathre subdivision, the Sathre
subdivision is currently on hold at the applicant's request. We see no reason
to withhold action however on the vacation request. The City Attorney tonight
though raised an issue that we had not dealt with and that is that, I believe
there was a change in State law a while ago that requires that when properties
are vacated around public water bodies, public bodies, that the DNR be notified.
What we'd like to recommend is that we add a condition of approval tonight that
the land not be released until the DNR has been notified and we receive same
comment back from them. With that we are recar:rending approval.
Councilman Johnson: Or should we table it as a different alternative?
Elliott Knetsch: I don't think that's necessary in order to comply with the
statute to notify DNR. Just make the vacation contingent on notification of the
DNR. If they did raise a concern, the reason behind it is so that in case they
want to acquire the property or they have same use for it. If they indicate
they have no use for it than the action to be carried out so it's really your
option. If you want to table, you could do that or you could act tonight on
notice to the DNR.
14
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
I
Mayor Chmiel: I don't find any reason why we should have to table it. I was
I f out there and looked at it on Saturday and it is just a tip as it shows there.
I think we could just proceed with that as far as that's concerned. Is there
anyone wishing to address this? This is a public hearing.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
' Resolution #90-17: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve a resolution for Vacation Request #90-1 for the vacation of Baldur
Avenue with the following conditions:
1. A sanitary sewer easement should be retained/conveyed to the City over the
portion of the existing sanitary sewer line.
2. No tree removal shall be permitted on Baldur Avenue.
3. The land will not be released until the DNR has been notified and the City
' has received their comments.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: TEST WELL AND OPTIONAL OBSERVATION WELL FOR WELL NO. 5, SOUTH
LOTUS LAKE AREA, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 89-4A. •
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to award the contract to
Ben Ervin Well Company of Oliva, Minnesota in the amount of $7,595.00 for test
well construction for Well No. 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSIDER LIMITING THE SALE OF TOBACCO FROM BEHIND THE COUNTER ONLY.
Don Ashworth: The Council asked that this ordinance be drafted at your last
meeting. The City Attorney has forwarded a proposed ordinance. It is in a
' shell format meaning that staff is assuming that the Council will either add or
subtract from the ordinance as it has been presented. We were not quite sure as
to the type of controls Council is looking to and again, as first reading, the
Council should feel free to instruct staff in whatever form seems appropriate.
Councilman Johnson: As you know, I brought this up originally and I gave my
ideas to the City Attorney and he's pretty well implemented their. I don't know
how many, I think a lot of people here in the audience are here for this issue.
I don't know how many copies of this have been distributed as to what we're
actually doing here. In your introduction you said limiting to behind the
counter only. Well that's not exactly what this ordinance does. It defines
what self service merchandising is as a means. Self service merchandising means
open display of tobacco products that the public has access to without the
intervention of an employee. Vending machines equipped with locking devices
constitute self serving merchandising. I had actually, I said that we would
leave that part of it out but oh yeah, right. It does constitute self service
15
N_
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
merchandising if it's a vending machine so the vending machines would still be I
prohibited under this. And then the ordinance then goes on to basically i
prohibit self service merchandising of tobacco products. It allows remotely
controlled devices that an employee can work with such as a cabinet. That you
have a button behind the counter and the employee can allow the cabinet to be
opened and the cigarettes removed but it does not allow the personnel, the
people, buyers to just pick up a pack of cigarettes or carton of cigarettes and
walk to the counter and buy those. Or what we're actually trying to do is
prevent people from picking up a pack of cigarettes and walking out. The whole
intent here is to limit who can get their hands on cigarettes. We're not trying
to prohibit anybody over 18 from getting cigarettes. I reviewed all of our
convenience stores in town so far and the one that would be impacted the most is
probably the SuperAmerica up at TH 7 and TH 41. They're the biggest
merchandiser of cigarettes around here as far as their cabinets. Very
interesting article on the editorial page today too, if anybody read that. The
Star and Tribune on cigarettes but the cabinets at the SuperAmerica could be
retrofitted with a device. The doors would have to be changed. Then the
counter people can control and despite what the manager says, he has total
control over there, at the time I was in the store there was only one employee
and he was facing the opposite direction so if that's control over cigarettes, I
don't know what is. The cigar products again are down underneath towards the
front and not readily- visible unless a tall person, such as the guy who's
working tonight at the store who is quite tall, is standing right at the cash
register. That's the only time you can actually view the cigar products there.
The City Attorney's put in some things that if you're in violation of the
ordinance you lose your license for 10 days and the second time 20 days and
third time one year. Things like that are in here. It's a pretty good
ordinance. They did a good job of looking at it.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a few minor points. Under, let's see the first
page, item (c) . It's Section 10-127, 1(c) . I'm not real sure I'm► real pleased
with the wording on that where it says the present legislative method of
prohibiting sales of tobacco products to persons under the age of eighteen (18)
and prohibiting sales by vending machines has proved ineffective in preventing
such persons from using tobacco products. I guess I would rather have it read
something like prohibiting sales by vending machines is not totally effective.
Go to the positive on that rather.
Councilman Boyt: Might I suggest that we just strike it altogether? '
Mayor Chmiel: I would think the word vending machines, they're eliminated
within the community. '
Councilman Johnson: We eliminate (c) altogether is what you're saying?
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. Would you be open to, I would think this is a little '
less moralistic if we take (a) , (b) and (c) out.
Councilman Johnson: (a) and (b) establishes intent. What they're trying to say
there is that the current prohibitions aren't adequate to prevent. Even the new
provisions don't prevent using tobaccos. We're trying to prohibit, we're just
trying to make it harder for children to get ahold of them.
16 ,
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilman Boyt: I don't think it's our position to say that cigarette smoking
I is dangerous to human health. Other people can do that. I gather that all you
were trying to do is control one more point of access for tobacco products.
E Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I didn't write this section.
IICouncilman Boyt: I would encourage us to drop those.
IICouncilman Johnson: (a) , (b) and (c)?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would like to keep (a) and (b) and remove (c)
because I do think that as a city we can uphold what our health and human
Iservice department tells us and they have come out with these.
Councilman Johnson: We can modify (a) to say that the Surgeon General of
II the United States has declared that cigarette smoking is dangerous to human
health to where we're not declaring it as a scientific body we are.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: That's true.
Councilman Boyt: Do we have any other ordinances that you can think of off hand
where we lead into then with a preamble?
IICouncilman Johnson: We put intents in other ordinances, yeah.
I Elliott Knetsch: The zoning ordinance has an intent section. Just maybe to
explain why that's in there. In order to regulate in this area, the City
Council has to be acting for the health and safety of it's citizens. That is
fthe specific municipal power that we're relying on to regulate in this area. In
r order to establish that it is a health or safety measure, these findings have
been put in which would lay the foundation for the action. However, I would
agree that (a) , (b) and (c) are not absolutely essential to your findings
II because I think that the primary intent of the Council is probably anti-shop
lifting ordinance is what it's getting down to. I could be wrong about that
too. I'm not trying to tell you what the intent of the Council is.
rCouncilman Johnson: You hit it. Anti-shop lifting by youth.
Councilman Boyt: I think that you find that if you want to get an intent, you
II can easily go back and read the Minutes to get intent. I just wouldn't put it
in there.
II Mayor C oriel: Let nee throw it open to the public. Is there anyone wishing to
address this particular issue at this time? If so please state your name and
your address please.
1 John Cason: Good evening. For the record my name is John Olson and I live at
690 Conestoga Trail, Chanhassen. In addition to being a resident of Chanhassen,
also the director of government affairs for the Minnesota Grocer's
II'm
Association. A statewide organization which represents over 15,000 wholesale,
retail and supermarkets and convenience stores as well. I'm here tonight to
li voice my opposition to the proposal to prohibit any self service tobacco sales
within the city of Chanhassen. At the outset I want to make one point
absolutely clear and that is, our association does not under any circumstances
support the sale of cigarettes to minors or theft of cigarettes by minors or use
II17
\II
,City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
of tobacco by minors. I want to make that abundantly clear at the outset. Our I
association has spent a great deal of time educating our members on the
importance of this and why they need to be vigilant when making any tobacco sale
to a person of questionable age. We look at the proposed ordinance as one which
attempts to tells our industry how it can and cannot market it's products. Not
as a tobbaco issue. We feel strongly as an industry that businesses ought to be
able to make their own merchandising decisions. Businesses make merchandising
decisions for a variety of reasons but most of all to differeniate themselves
from other businesses. That's what we call competition. Adopting a
merchandising ordinance such as this sends an anti business message to any
potential investor looking at locating a business in this community. I have the
impression from living here for 2 1/2 years that the City of Chanhassen would
covet a full service grocery store. Certainly many residents would welcome such
an addition to the community as well. However, passage of an ordinance of this
type seers to send the message to potential developers and investors that maybe
they ought to be looking at making their investment elsewhere. If an ordinance
is passed which regulates the marketing of one product, it does seem reasonable
to assume that other products will surely be regulated in the future. Secondly,
it is our feeling that the combination of the existing ban on cigarette vending
machines coupled with the gross misdemeanor law passed by the 1989 legislature
would seem to be adequate in keeping tobacco out of the hands of minors. It is
interesting to note that in the legislative intent section which you were just
discussing here a moment ago, Councidmember Johnson seems to be implying that
the vending machine ban has been ineffective in reducing access to tobacco by
minors and could also be construed to imply that Chanhassen has a problem with
minors who shoplift. It is our view that given the limited number of outlets
where tobacco products can be purchased in Chanhassen, the vending machine ban
and the gross rdsdemeanor penalty provide adequate restrictions to minors
already and that requiring all tobacco to be behind the counter will not have a
major affect. Dr. Jean Forester from the University of Minnesota presented a
study which was discussed before you several weeks ago relating to access to
tobacco products by minors. In her study she fails to even mention theft of
shoplifting as a source of tobacco for minors. At this point we have been
unable to locate any imperacle data which supports that claim that minors are
going to resort to theft to get tobacco products. Third, most if not all
existing stores in Chanhassen lack the space behind or underneath the counter to
store cartons of cigarettes. While it may be feasible to try and force stores
to redesign their check out areas, there are other operational concerns which
need to be addressed. A number of activities already take place on the front
end of a convenience store. In the next two months other tasks are going to be
added when the first instand lottery tickets are sold in Minnesota. There are a
number of tasks which clerks are going to have to do in the course of handling
the sale, redemption and accounting for those lottery tickets. The bottom line
here is that while the...under the counter other produts may be stolen. One
example would be increased drive offs of customers who fill their gasoline tanks
and leave because the clerk is too busy ducking around underneath the counter
looking for a carton of Brand X cigarettes for a customer who wishes to purchase
them. Worse yet, some stores may be forced to keep some of their products in
the back room which means that instead of one person having their back turned,
there's going to be nobody in the front. That could create an even greater
security problem for us. Current displays are designed to be convenient for
customers. The cashier or clerk usually has the display in clear sight to
reduce the risk of theft. A carton of cigarettes is probably the highest ticket
item in most stores. Certainly in a convenience store aside from a person
coming in and gaming say $30.00 worth of gasoline. A $16.00 or $18.00 carton
18 1
IICity Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
of cigarettes, whatever they cost these days, is probably the single highest
ticket item that they have within their stores. No store is interested in
merchandising a high ticket item like a carton of cigarettes in an area where it
cannot be monitered easily in an effort to reduce theft. They are going to
moniter it closely. Requiring all product to be behind or under the counter
would pose a real challenge to any future grocery store that may want to build
in the Chanhassen area given the design considerations and the fact that each
check out lane cannot be equipped with the proper displays, what have you. Our
industry strives for efficiency. We want all customers to be able to purchase
those products they want in as quick and efficient a manner as possible.
Mandating that all tobacco products be behind the counter will make the front
' end less efficient for employees and customers alike. Finally a word or two on
shoplifting. While there is certainly concern about the theft of cigarettes,
particularly among manors, we are more concerned and no one is as concerned
about shoplifting as the owners and manager's who actually operate these stores
because it's their bottom line that's at stake. Responsible managers are
continually working to try and reduce shoplifting of the products in their
stores. Tobacco products are just one of those items that they have to moniter
within that store to try and cut down on theft of those products. Providing
special treatment for tobacco may remove one symptom but it certainly does not
provide for an overall cure of the shoplifting problem. One very effective took
for reducing the incidence of shoplifting is through prosecuting those who
shoplift regardless of age. We would strongly urge Chanhassen to work with the
local merchants on prosecuting those minors and adults who are caught
shoplifting tobacco products or anything else for that matter, if they're not
already doing so. Shoplifing is something we also take very seriously as an
industry. Solving an undocumented theft problems by penalizing businesses does
not focus on the real problem. Publicizing the prosecution of shoplifters may
not be flashy but it certainly sends a positive message to the present and
future Chanhassen business community that the City is very concerned about
shoplifting and is willing to do something about it. In closing, we feel that
' the ordinance fails to achieve it's goal. There's a lack of credible
information which points to a problem with manors stealing tobacco products now
that the vending machine ban is in place. While same may question the legality
of an ordinance of this type proposed here, our feeling is that this proposed
ordinance is an anti business, anti-convenience store ordinance which attempts
to mandate how businesses merchandise their products here in Chanhassen. I
thank you at this time and I'll try to answer any questions that you have.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you John. Does anyone have any questions? I guess there
are none right now. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this
issue? Hearing none, we'll bring it back to the Council for further discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want me to start?
Mayor Ch iel: Sure.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of the other things that I wanted to look at
' the ordinance before I bring up these points is under Section 10-132. Under
penalty, it says a person convicted of any violation of this article shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and I'm wondering if that shouldn't be gross misdemeanor
to be in. Should that be gross misdemeanor to be in compliance with our State
law?
19
City Council Meeting - February 12; 1990
Councilman Johnson: That's a different controlling thing. We can't do gross
I!
rasdereanors as a City.
Elliott Knetsch: Maximum penalty for a city ordinance is masdemeanor_. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Don't we have to comply with the State law?
Councilman Johnson: They're not selling tobacco to a minor here. I
Elliott Knetsch: We could prosecute under the State law or we could prosecute
under the city ordinance. So if the State law provided a greater. penalty,
they'd be prosecuted under the State law. This section will really...
violations of the ordinance that aren't related to the State law in which a
gross misdemeanor to sell to minors.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so now we're just, our ordinance is masdemeanor
only?
Elliott Knetsch: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. My comments then are, I guess I would like to
reiterate that for me this is not a shoplifting ordinance. It has always been
the issue of limiting access of tobacco products to our minors. It sounded to
me that people believed that shoplifting only began when the vending machine ban
started and that is not true. Shoplifting was going on before that. I have 4
teenagers. They all have friends and you won't believe the stories I hear. I'm
not at liberty to disclose them because they'd all be arrested but anyway, it is
going on. I don't want anybody to think that we're making this up. That
shoplifting is occurring of the tobacco products. I don't know what else is
being taken. However, tobacco products are one of the favorite its to be
shoplifted. I guess I just wanted to bring that out. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ta' , do you have anything at this time?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. I guess first of all the ordinance would need for me
to be happy with it, would need to have their Section 10-129 removed completely.
I'm considering 10-128. I'm not sure how that would fit in. Maybe the Attorney
can answer me how that fits in with vending. Maybe it doesn't. We've removed
vending machines from the city and we've had the argument on remotely controlled
devices on the vending machines and the Council has decided we're not going to
use them and I don't think that ought to be a part of this.
Councilman Johnson: Vending machines with locking devices are a self service
merchandising so they would be prohibited under this ordinance. That's under
the definition of self service merchandising. I
Councilman Hoyt: Not as 10-129 reads.
Councilman Workman: 10-129 reads to me that those are completely allowed. I
Councilman Johnson: No, this would not be vending machines. Look under (d) .
Device shall not be coin operated. A vending machine is coin operated. This
would be the cabinets.
I
20
1
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilman Workman: Okay. Nonetheless, I'm not for any remotely controlled
device on any kind of a machine.
Councilman Johnson: Why?
Councilman Workman: Well my comments are clearly stated in the record from the
past meeting I guess. I think it's just another inch back towards a precedence
that we didn't want to get into the last time. In regards to that, Section 6,
Items (g) , Inspection fees. If we struck Section 10-129, (g) probably wouldn't
be needed.
Councilman Johnson: Correct.
Councilman Workman: I don't know Jay. My vending machine ordinance was so
simple. That's why. I think Bill and maybe I and the rest of us don't want to
rake this thing too foggy. Mr. Cason, I found your comments very interesting
and I know that the cigarette industry is taking it on the cuff and now perhaps
' the convenience store, grocery store operations are taking it a little bit on
the cuff. We do have the grocery store complex coming into town. I don't know,
as Bill would say, I don't know if coveted is the word but I think most would
agree that a grocery store is needed in the city of Chanhassen. I don't think
Mr. Cooper's going to turn back and say well, I can't sell cigarettes in this
manner so I'm not interested. He's going to have an opportunity just like other
convenience stores in town to sell cigarettes. Your philosophies on
merchandising and merchandising decisions. Penalizing businesses. For many,
many years I think the merchandising industry has merchandised these things
aimed at all ages. I think they are hugely guilty of also marketing those
It things to youths. Driving up TH 169/212 up by Flying Cloud today, there's a
huge billboard. Orange. It's as big as it can get I think. I forget the brand
of the cigarette but it was a packet of cigarettes and one big word. Flavor. I
can go hone and suck on one of my gym. socks.
John Olsen: Mr_. Mayor and Mr. Workman. Those are decisions...
Councilman Workman: Excuse me. Excuse me one second. When you say
merchandising decision, there's many reasons why merchandising decisions are
made as you say. The free market all of which I believe in and everybody else
' here believes in. One of the big reasons for putting those cigarettes and
bombarding the front ends of your counters are to get everybody that's passing
by an opportunity to buy those. We understand that. That's why Target puts the
toenail clippers and everything else there. It's very smart to do that. We
understand that. I think what we're trying to do is differentiate this product
from all other products. I'm not concerned about, as I stated before, about the
stuffed olives at Brooke's being stolen or anything else. I've indicated before
I'm not going to concern myself in the vending machine issue with the inventory
at a local bar because perhaps a bartender or somebody else might be able to
steal them more easily. I do recognize that as a problem. That's something
that I think for the greater good can be managed and handled. With some
modifications I am for this. Again, I don't think anybody here is denying
anybody the right to sell cigarettes. We're asking you, since probably on your
own you probably would not do this on your own.
John Olson: Mr. Mayor. Councilman Workman. I think there are two issues here.
One is the cost of having to retrofit a front end of a store to try and
I
21
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
accommodate this. And secondly, frankly the grocer/convenience store operater
is equally concerned about having that jar of olives shoplifted as much as a
pack of cigarettes. The reason that you have cigarettes on the front end is
that yes, in fact they can be pilfered but when you put them up front, they are
in an area which is controlled by employees where they can be monitered almost
continuously and at this point I'd like to ask Mike Jong from Brooke's
Supermarket if he can come up and talk a little bit about what might be involved
with some of the issues that he has to contend with over there. Mike.
Mike Jong: As John told you, I'm the manager at the Brooke's right across the
street. Jay's been in my store. A lot of you have been in my store. I do have
cigarette displays. They're on my counter. The furthest distance any of those
cigarette displays are from my cashiers is 3 1/2 feet. I measured it this
afternoon so I could tell you this when I came tonight. Now my cashiers are
always at the register when I have a customer in the store. My displays are
high. In order to reach one of my cigarette displays, you have to reach like
this. Well any cashier standing at a register with a drawer full of money is
going to get real nervous when they see a hand coming toward their face. So
they're going to see that hand. It's very difficult to pull a pack of
cigarettes off of that rack without that cashier noticing that hand going up.
We do cigarette inventories every day. Every single night those cigarettes are
counted. Every single pack in the store. We maintain controls on them. We
watch the youth in the store probably more carefully than we do the adults which
is probably part of our problem. It's easier for an adult to steal cigarettes
from us than it is for a youth because we're looking for the youth to steal.
Our cigarettes are also lined up with our candy aisle. When we have a theft
problem, a lot of our theft problem is our candy aisle. The kids like the
candy. That's where it goes. It's easy to pocket. So when they're watching
the candy aisle, they're automatically watching that rack of cigarettes at the
sane time. All my employees are trained thoroughly on all the regulations on
selling cigarettes to minors. I teach them to check ID's on anybody who's even
remotely questionable. They've checked ID's on people who have gotten very
angry and stamped ont who were legal to buy cigarettes. We follow all the legal
laws we need to. We exercise as many precautions as we possibly can. We don't
have a serious problem with it. We never have had a serious problem with it and
we don't have any reason to believe that we ever will have a serious problem
with it. We're concerned about the kids having cigarettes but your major
problem with the kids getting the cigarettes is not shoplifting. Your major
problem is other adults coming in and buying those cigarettes for the kids.
We've seen it happen at our stores. We can't stop it because they have a legal
right to buy the cigarettes but that's where your problem comes in. We have not
seen a shoplifting problem. We never have and I don't have any reasons to
believe we ever will. Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Where are your cigars, your chewing tobacco and pipe
tobacco? Is that in plain view of your employees? Is that at a high area?
Where are your cartons of cigarettes? Are they at a high area where you have to
reach for them?
Mike Jong: I'd be happy to answer your question if you give me a chance.
Councilman Johnson: Well, I had to finish it. Okay?
22 1
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
I
Mike Jong: Okay. My cartons of cigarettes, 98% of my cartons of cigarettes are
behind my counter as it stands right now. The percentage of cigarettes that I
{ have outside my counter are also within 3 1/2 feet of my cashier in a direct
line with the door. Okay? The rack is a very snug rack. It's very difficult
to pull a carton of cigarettes out of that rack. You couldn't do it quickly if
your life depended on it because I tried. It can't be done. As far as my
cigars and chewing tobacco and that, they are down in front of the counter but
again they're solo. That unless you're a 4 year old, you can't conveniently
111 reach then without bending down and they are exactly in front of the cashier.
They're not off to the side of the cashier. They're right in front. If someone
i bends down, the cashier will look. They are in front.
' Councilman Johnson: TO the left. From where the person, when you put you money
up there, to the left is the cigars. I mean I ca'ie in every morning.
1 Mike Jong: I work every day.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, but it's not directly. The cash register is on the
far side.
Mike Jong: When you're paying for your groceries, you're standing in front of
them. Okay? It's the only place you can stand because there's a display on the
other side of wire so you couldn't stand there if you wanted to. Okay? They
are controlled. You can see when someone is reaching for them. They are
inventoried on a regular basis also and we have not had a problem with loss on
them. I have very rarely ever have seen a child out smoking a cigar. It's not
a real common occurence that I've seen anyway. Can I answer any other questions
for you?
' Mayor Ch iel: Any other questions?
' Councilman Boyt: Sure. How many have you lost?
Mike Jong: I'm not at liberty to give out an exact number but the amount I've
lost would constitute anything per volume.
Councilman Boyt: Well I have no idea what you sell.
' Mike Jong: Am I at liberty to give out the numbers?
Councilman Boyt: Well you take an inventory every day. Give me a ballpark. Is
it more than a case? Less than a case?
Mike Jong: It's less than a carton which constitutes 10 packs of cigarettes.
Councilman Johnson: A day? Or a month?
Mike Jong: In a two week period. It would be less than 10 packs of cigarettes.
Councilman Boyt: How about the other tobacco products?
Mike Jong: Cigars ah.
I I Councilman Hoyt: Smokeless tobacco. How much of that do you lose?
23
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Mike Jong: Smokeless tobacco is behind my counter. It's not reachable at all.
Never has been.
Mayor Cr iel: Okay, thank you.
John Cason: I also have Jeff Steel who is one of the manager's from one of the
SA stores and I'd like to have him came up at this point and put in his two
cents worth on this as well.
Jeff Steel: Mayor. Councilmen-bets. I am the manager of the Super America at
TH 7 and TN 41. I have been the manager there since the store opened up on July
the 24th of last year. We do not have any theft problems with our tobacco
products. Now maybe I'm very fortunate alright but we have not had any problems
and I do not foresee that we're going to have any problems. When Mr. Johnson
came in the store, he asked questions about the shortages and the shrinkage of
cigarettes. I told him at that time that we did not have any problems in that 11 store and that we had tobacco under control. I reinforce that statement to you
at this time. That we do not have any problems.
Councilman Boyt: Where is it on display? 1
Jeff Steel: All the loose packs of cigarettes are inside the checkout on racks
above the cashiers. The carton racks are alongside the check-out approximately
3 feet from the check-out visible from the elevated register stands that we have
by employee at all times.
Councilman Boyt: So the difficulty for you with this ordinance is that you'd
have to find a place for the carton of cigarettes?
Jeff Steel: That would be very difficult sir, yes.
Councilman Johnson: Work with some kind of, as it's written without the
modification, removing the remote control or put a device where you have control
over those, physical control versus visual control and you only have visual
control when you're looking at it. I've put a thing in here for having a
remotely controlled cabinet so to say. To where the doors can only be opened on
the cabinet by the control of your employee. So if somebody wants to open the
cabinet and get a carton of cigarettes, your employee has to allow him to do
that by some peens. Electrical means or mechanical means.
Jeff Steel: That would be very expensive. 1
Councilman Johnson: It may add some expense.
Jeff Steel: And it's an expense to cure a problem that does not exist.
Councilman Johnson: The other problem that does exist, which this is addressing
sideways, is the entire merchandising of tobacco. The fact that to buy anything
at a lot of these places and Brooke's is one of these that when a child comes up
to buy a candy bar, he is surrounded by tobacco. On that one side of your I!
counter, you cage up to buy something. You're surrounded by tobacco. Your
children are surrounded by tobacco and this is more saying tobacco's okay.
Tobacco's good. You can get a deck of playing cards. You can get sunglasses.
24
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
I! It's more enforcing that tobacco is good for you. To tell you the truth; part
of my intent on this is to continue to tell the children of this world that
tobacco is not good for you and that we don't want you to start. There's been a
lot of work done saying that if you start as a child, that you're going to do a
' lot of smoking. If you don't start as a child, you may not ever start. I'm
trying to prevent people from starting to smoke.
' Jeff Steel: We're not encouraging people to start smoking.
Councilman Johnson: No you're not. But you're surrounding them with saying
tobacco is good. The whole merchandising of tobacco in this country, not just
this city. This whole country is not a good thing. It's way beyond our control
but anything we can do to stop one child from smoking is worth it as far as I'm
' concerned. This is just one more thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
John Cason: Perhaps in response to Mr. Johnson. Your statement is correct.
You may not be, and I'm paraphrasing you now. You may not solve it here. When
a person walks up to the front end of a check-out. They're there to purchase
whatever product that they may have in their hand. They don't typically look
around and go oh geez. Here are all these cigarettes. I think I'm going to
start smoking today. Mr. Workman talked about the billboard that he saw on TH
169 and he can't even remember the name of the particular brand. People
selectively block these things out of their mind. The reason those things are
on the front end, again is to prevent shoplifting of those its because they
are small. They're easily concealed. You can grab one quick. Throw it in your
pocket and walk on out the door. At this point I'd like to call on Colleen
Lapel who is a district manager for SuperA erica and she can talk a little bit
more about perhaps same of the merchandising aspects and what they're doing.
' Colleen Lapel: Hi. My name is Colleen Lapel and I'm an area manager with Super
America. The Chanhassen store directly reports to me. First of all I'd like to
' say that SuperAmerica is committed to making sure that minors do not purchase
tobacco products from any of our stores. Tonight I'm going to discuss three
aspects in which we ensure that this does not happen. First of all through
signage in our store. Second of all through the training of our employees and
third of all, through the follow-up on our compliance procedures. We at Super
America have put together a signage package that has been installed at all of
our stores. These signs can be found in various locations throughout our
stores. I've brought together a package of the signs that we have in our stores
and I'd like to share them with you this evening. For those of you who can't
read this, I'll read it to you. This one says, Dear Customer. Please do not
be offended if we ask for ID for beer or cigarettes purchases. It's the law.
' This we have lamenated to our check-out counters directly where a customer will
bend to write their check. Our manager signs right here. It's a commitment
from him that he and his employees will not sell to minors. On our cash
' register itself, we have this sticker. We put it right above where the door
will pop open and it says, remember to ID cigarette sales and it's a constant
reminder to our cashiers that this is the law and we intend to comply with it.
The sign here says, if you're not 18, don't ask and I guess that's self
explanatory what that means. This hangs on our front doors as you're entering.
No cigarette sales under 18 years of age. Excuse me. This is the one that
hangs on the front door. This is the one that we hang on our pack rack so as
25
\I!
,City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
our cashiers are reaching to sell a pack of cigarettes, they're going to see
this sign and it's going to be another reminder for them to ID. This also is
either placed on our carton rack or somewhere in the check-out area. Legal age
to purchase cigarettes, alcohol. We want to protect you, the employee. You
could be assessed a $3,000.00 fine. We hang this in either the break room or
the back room where the cashier would hang their coat or take their break. And
again, here's a larger sign of the first one that I showed you where the manager
has signed the bottom stating that we are going to ask to see your ID and please
do not be offended. Through the training, all new employees are given an
orientation and are required to read a training kit. Inside the training kit is
a supplement which covers procedures and policies. Several pages refer back to
the sales of tobacco products. In addition the cashier has signed a statement
acknowledging they understand and will comply with all policies and laws. Our
Minneapolis zone has gone a step farther and has added a second page that they
have the cashier sign stating that they will comply with all laws. Within the
first month of employment our cashiers will attend a cashier training class
given by myself, the area manager and other areas managers. One of the topics
that we discuss at that time is the laws of selling tobacco products and again
it is reinforced at that time. I just would like to make one note that one
thing we do show is a tape taken from our store. From our video cameras showing
the theft of cigarettes and I'd just like to make the comment that on this 3
minute tape, not one of the thefts is taken by a minor. They are all adults.
The last thing I wanted to talk about is what we have at SuperAmerica to make
sure we are complying with the laws. We have 3 particular ways in which we do
this. First of all our auditor from our corporate office is sent out and he
goes to all of the SuperAmerica stores with someone who is 18 years of age. Just
barely 18. Looks real young and sees if we're carding for alcohol. Excuse me,
for tobacco products. It is then passed down through the area manager back to '
the store manager so we know if we are complying with the laws. The second way
we do that is through the zone level. We as area managers go out and check out
stores and check other stores with someone who's 18 years of age and then also
each area manager has got stores doing other stores. Making sure that we're
following up that people are carding for tobacco products. That's all I had.
Mayor Chmael: Good. Thank you. '
John Olson: I think given the discussion here, I think you've got a clear sense
that (a) , our industry is committed to trying to keep cigarettes out of the
hands of minors as much as possible. I can't stand up here and say that's going
to happen 100% of the time. That would be foolish but we certainly make a
concerted effort to try and do that and we're going to continue to try and do
that as much as possible. The real issue here is merchandising. We feel very
strongly that it is not the appropriate role of any government body within
reason to cams in and tell us how we can or cannot merchandise those products.
Our goal is to make sure that we can cut down on shoplifting of all items. Not
just one item but all items within that store because frankly shoplifting costs
all of us money and higher prices. Every day. It's our goal as an industry to
make sure that that is cut down as much as possible. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you John. Appreciate it. Any other further discussion?
Councilman Boyt: I've got a couple items. I've been sitting here thinking about
this. I'm not quite sure how this is different than the vending machine
ordinance we looked at. I'm sure there are same differences and maybe we can
26
T
City Council Meeting - February 12; 1990
I! ' talk about those but one of the things that occurs to me is, they display
cigarettes so they can advertise cigarettes. That would be the reason. By the
cash register is a reasonable place. Everybody goes by there. Naturally you
see it. I have no idea what the profit is involved in selling a pack of
I cigarettes but the State certainly- rakes a lot of money off of them. But it's a
balance between their desire to advertise their product and losses of the
product because of ease of theft. I don't see eithei one of those as our issue.
II I think our issue is access to the product. I'm not sure if it adds anything to
our insight to this matter but I find myself wondering why don't we sell liquor
in convenience stores. I haven't figured out the answer to that yet but somehow
II along the line we decided that we wouldn't do that. Sane of them. Not all of
them but some of them can sell beer but somehow we decided that it wasn't
appropriate. Someone decided that it wasn't appropriate for then to sell
liquor. Well we're saying it is appropriate to sell cigarettes and our question
II is how do we want those accessed. I'm not sure what the answer is but I find
myself struggling with something that usually one of the others of you bring up
and I'm trying to counter it but I'll sort of toss it out for this discussion.
II How does the market make this decision? If theft is too great, they're going to
put that behind the counter and lock than, up. So it's a balance between theft
which same of that say is very minor and I would suspect that in Chanhassen
theft would be very minor and their desire to make the product visible. So I
I haven't, as you might tell, there's a lot of quandries here. I haven't figured
out really how to vote. I definitely believe in controlling access to tobacco
products. I think Jay is onto somewhat the right track but I don't know what
the right ordinance is for that.
Councilman Johnson: To say a word about what Tom wanting to eliminate 129,
remote control device. What that does is puts a real crunch on Super America as
far as that 7 and 41. The other stores, and also on Total down here because
they also have the large cabinets. Brooke's, 95% of his cartons are behind the
counter and the other displays are quite minor. Kenny's is almost all behind
I the counter. Just same minor displays. Super America down on TH 212 has
nothing out in front hardly. It's almost no impact on thee. Really the store
that's the biggest impact, Cooper Super Value being impacted where they can
1 design because they're in the design stage. So that can be designed into the
design of the store. But my primary reason for putting the remotely controlled
device is so that we don't as badly impact Super America at 7 and 41 and Total
I which are the two that have the largest displays of cartons. As far as
displaying the on the counter, put a clear lexan shield around then to where
you can still display them. You can still see then. They're still there. None
of the things I'm doing, you're still displaying that in the exact same spot.
I All I'm saying is that I don't want the citizen to be able to grab those without
the assistance of an 18 year old adult. You can still see, yeah. Earlier I
said I don't want to see then but at this point, I'll cross that road later. At
Ithis point, I'd rather have than not there at all.
Audience: You're contradicting yourself.
II Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I'm contradicting myself. I am because I'm trying to
be reasonable. Okay? I'm trying to say that while I would love to see
li -
cigarettes eliminated from this country. I really would. It's killed too many
people. It's going to kill too many people in the future. I think that the way
the country is, that's not a reasonable thing to do is just ban it. You know we
tried that with prohibition in the 20's and it didn't work then. What I'm
I27
11
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
trying to do is control one small aspect of it. You know I'd like to go a lot
further than this but I've tried to put this remotely controlled devices section
in here that you're against Tam so there's a reasonable way for the people to
merchandise their product. They can still have it up there and it will still be It
visible but it won't be self service. So while I do say my total intent would
be to eliminate it altogether, this is not the purpose of this ordinance. The
ordinance is to limit access. I would love to eliminate cigarettes but I'm not
going to do that in my position as a city council members for the City of
Chanhassen. Eliminate cigarettes in the United States.
Mayor Chndel: Anybody else? Tom, do you have anything?
Councilman Johnson: That's my pitch to keep the remote control device included.
John Cason: Mr. Mayor, may I add one comment please and that is that the 1
implication sears to be that a lock-out device or whatever exists. Unfortunately
no such device exists. You have interlocks on vending machines which are
relatively new but there is nothing out there in the marketplace that one of my
members can install on the front end of their store to interlock say a carton
rack for instance. It's not there.
Councilman Johnson: No it's not. '
John Olson: It's awfully hard to try and comply with an ordinance with a piece
of equipment that doesn't exist.
Councilman Johnson: That's another point I was going to bring up later is that
for that particular instance, we're going to have to put some time frame in here
so that device can be designed. It's not going to take a rocket scientist to
design this thing. It's not that big of a deal. There are other remotely
controlled devices in other industries that do exactly the same thing and it
wouldn't be that hard to find one. Interlocks are not that difficult.
Microwave ovens have interlocks.
John Olson: But by the same token, a microwave also allows the user to be able
to pop that open. I guess the other concern we would have is if such a device
were to be created, on the interim we still have the problem of retrofitting the
front end of any one of the convenience stores to try and accommodate that and
obviously th at's an enormous expense. Then all of a sudden down the road we're
being asked to retrofit again for something completely different. This cares in
light of the fact that, you know we've heard from 2 convenience stores in this
town who have told you that there frankly is not a problem.
Councilman Johnson: 10 packs every 2 weeks.
Audience: Who's stealing them though?
Councilman Johnson: Who knows. I
Jeff Steel: I would say that 90% of the theft of cigarettes is adults or more.
Mayor. Qhmiel: If you could address the chair. Thank you.
28
1
l
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
I
II John Olson: And I think that point is also well taken that the merchandising of
cigarettes on the counters, that's designed for adults. It's not designed for
kids. They are staffed front end and frankly that's one of the tasks that the
i people that work in our industry have as a responsibility because it's the law.
IIMayor andel: Okay. John, thank you. We've got a few things to keep moving
here. Appreciate that.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: I'd like to ask Jay a question. Jay, if we omitted
Section 10-129 and subsequently then the section on (f) and (g) from Section
10-126. Because the device is not available right now, pass the ordinance
II without those two and then after the device was invented added it in? I guess
r y main concern is that I want to make perfectly clear and I think this does it
although I'm wondering if it can't be misinterpretted that this does not include
1 vending machines.
Councilman Johnson: It's perfectly clear that it does not include vending
machines by the definition of self service merchandising.
UCouncilwoman Dimler: Yes. I read that. Is there any possibility in the future
that someone would care along under this remote control device and have a
II vending machine that is not quite operated and be able to put this device on
there? It's a possibility. I mean there's just a small loophole.
Councilman Johnson: It depends upon what you want to call a vending machine.
I;
If you define a vending machine, anything that vends a product, then anything's
a vending machine just about. I mean if they have a lock on it.
If Mayor Chmiel: One of the concerns that I have Jay is there's something that's
not available right now to even do.
1 Councilman Johnson: I almost brought in same designs but I was too busy working
this Lake Lucy project this weekend. I was going to draw up sane designs for
how to do this at these various stores because it's not that tough. I would
II imagine, and it's not going to be that expensive. If your thing is going to
cost you $100,000.00 to retrofit your doors with a couple of magnetic interlocks
and a button, to say this is going to be an enormous expense I think is
ludicrous.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: Well would you go for it though if we left it out now and
added it in later when the device is available?
ICouncilman Johnson: I think that really presents a hardship on the people who
have the very, you know Super America at 7 and 41. They do a lot of business on
cartons. They have a very large display. All of a sudden that, I don't know
II what percent of his store that is but it's a big part of his store. Must be 30
foot long counter of stack of areas that's all of a sudden going to be very
vacant. I'm trying to be reasonable and trying to give...
IICouncilwaran Dimler: You think this will help them to merchandise it then?
1 i Councilman Johnson: Yeah, this could allow them to continue merchandising the
product and especially if we throw in a section where we give them some time.
That was the one thing missing from here was the time. When is this going to be
II29
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 1
effective. How soon are we going to expect them to comply with this. With the
vending machines it was several months in the future because it in January 1st.
That hasn't been discussed yet.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to propose something.
Mayor Qr3.el: Zbm had something he wanted to say. '
Councilman Workman: Jay I guess what's happening is, and I think I explained
it. The heat was going to up on this issue and the heat's definitely up. I
guess the only thing the Council can do is apologize to the people of Chanhassen
for keeping the lights on so late here over this cigarette issue. We've been
made to feel guilty, us have been made to feel guilty for wanting to keep an
illegal product out of the site and reach of manors. I don't feel guilty for
that. This is a product that for years has been misused. Missold. In vending
machines. At quick stores. At supermarkets and everywhere else and everybody
who's sold them has seen it and has done it. I can guarantee you of that. I'm
not going to feel sorry for this issue. The only question right now is are we
going to go with one reading like we did with vending machines. I'd like to
move approval unless you would like to, of this ordinance scratching Section
(a) , (b) and (c) on the first page. Section 10-129 on page 2 and (f) and (g) on
page 3.
Mayor Qrdel: Take completion of Section 6... I
Councilman Workman: Yeah, Section 6.
Don Ashworth: Section 3 and 6. '
Councilman Workman: So I guess there's many a folk buried 6 feet in the ground
from this habit and there are professionals a plenty in this roam fighting for
the right to continue doing this. That's the issue. Inventory. No way.
Subliminal messages to youth that it's okay, yes. You're on the right track
there and I think it's time we all took the initiative on this and moved on with
it.
Mayor Qrdel: Okay. Any further discussion? Bill, did you have something? ' I
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, there wasn't a second. Maybe we ought to find out if
there's going to be a second to this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second with a friendly amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: You may a friendly amendment.
Councilwoman Dimler: Keep (a) and (b) in under Section 10-127.
Councilman Johnson: Do we want to modify (a) to say the Surgeon General of 1
the United States has determined cigarette smoking is dangerour to the human
health.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
!!
Councilman Workman: I'll accept that. 1
30
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
Mayor Chmiel: And (b) also?
Councilwoman Dimler: And (b) . But take (c) out.
Mayor C1iriel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: Right. What about, I know this makes it more complicated.
I know that's what Tan's going to tell ire but if we establish something within
reach or eyesight or in some way control of the person at the cash register, we
' haven't pretty much accomplished the control of access. I ask that question.
It complicates it.
Mayor Chmiel: Restate your question Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. My question for us is, if we put, if this is written
instead of behind the counter which I think is what it says now. To mean within
' the sight and control of the counter person, have we given them sane flexibility
and accomplished 95% of what we want to accomplish?
' Councilman Johnson: How do you define it? Okay. Some people define sight and
control as they're visible if somebody's looking. I mean it's only visible when
somebody's looking at it. The 7 and 41 station. There's two sides to the
counter. Cigarettes are on one side. I don't know was it the east side, and
the west side, there's another cash register. If there's only one person at the
cash registers at the time and they're at the west cash register, then nobody's
looking at it. So it's out of control. It's in sight but it's only in sight if
you look at it. I think it'd be almost unenforceable. I don't know how you
would enforce a statement like that. If you're tall enough you can see the
stuff that's low. It's a raised platform, yeah. That's why all those guys look
so tall to me. I'm short in the first place but now I know why all your
employees are so tall. They're on a raised platform. I thought you only hired
basketball players.
Councilman Boyt: I think that it would be certainly open to interpretation.
Granted someone could chase us around a bit on this. On the other hand, there's
some situations where it's just obviously not being in their sight and control
' or maybe we have our attorney define what that means. I'm looking for a little
flexibility. If it's the desire of the Council to make this real clean, then I
don't suppose you want that flexibility.
Councilman Johnson: Well there's another way to do it too. The cartons may not
be a shopliftable item. Not an easily shopliftable item. While they're there
and the displays are there. These stores are in plain view, I haven't seen any
' open cartons at any of the convenience stores here in this town. I have seen
them at Target in Eden Prairie. When you go where their cartons are where it's
completely out of the view of any employees, several of their cartons, the ends
are open and there's packs of cigarettes missing. I don't know if they're
selling then, if they allow them to be sold individually. Since I don't buy
cigarettes, I don't know. Maybe that's the way their merchandising is you open
a carton and you take out how many packs you want and then you take them up to
the cash registers. I tend to believe that that's not what's happening. I tend
to believe that somebody's open cartons and shoplifting them and I don't know if
those are children or not. I do know children do steal cigarettes and I do know
1
31
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 II
of a child who once stole same cigars and got very sick.
Councilman Boyt: Let's try to amend it here and see if it goes. I would move
that we amend this and direct our attorney to construct language that would
indicate that cigarettes and other tobacco products must be within the sight and
physical control of someone at the counter.
Councilwaran Dimler: Wait a minute though. We have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Boyt: No, I'm amending that. I think it's all in order to attempt
to amend a motion and I'm looking for a second.
Councilwoman Dimler: Which section are you amending?
Councilman Johnson: He's asking for the attorney a whole reword.
Councilman Workman: I guess I would suggest, if this is going to be the first
of two readings, that we pass it basically as we had it with instructions to the
attorney to look into those modifications.
Councilman Boyt: If we think there's a possibility that it will pass, that '
makes sense. If there isn't, then we might as well face up to it. So I would
move that we seek to investigate the appropriateness of adding within the sight
and physical control of the counter person. 1
Councilman Johnson: Physical control. That means that the counter person can
physically touch it? ,
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. Sight. I want some possibilities here that give us a
little more flexibility than strictly behind the counter.
Councilman Johnson: Within sight you can have a mirror up here that looks down
an aisle and they could be way down that aisle and they're within sight.
Councilman Boyt: Direct sight. I don't know. I don't know Jay. If you don't I
want to pursue it, I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't either. I think we should start moving on it.
Councilman Johnson: I think we'd have a real problem with that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have an existing motion on the floor.
Councilman Boyt: So there's no second to that? i
Mayor Chmdel: I don't see one caning.
Councilman Boyt: Well I've got one other comment then and then I'm ready to do 1
whatever you want to do on this and that is, I'm confident that the State
legislature in their wisdom is going to attempt to take this completely out of
our control because of what I see happening around us with this issue. I
Mayor Chmiel: That could very well be. But until then I think we're sitting
back and trying to protect the youth of our city. I think that was the basic 1
32 1
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
intent of what we're proposing. So we have a motion on the floor with a second
to remove item (c) under Section 1, and change (d) to (c) and item (e) to (d) .
Councilman Johnson: And modify (a) .
Mayor Ch iel: Yes. And modification to item (a) . In addition to that,
removing Section 3 and removing Section 6. Call a question.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just a point of clarification. What did you say under
Section 10-127.1? Are you making (d) (a)?
Mayor Chmiel: Under those particular items with modification to item (a) . (b) .
(c) is struck. Rather than having it as (d) , just move it down to (c) and (d) .
Councilwcan Dimler: Okay.
Councilman Johnson: No, (b) 's not modified. (a) is modified.
Councilman Bout: Mr. Mayor, this is a first reading so those people that want
to get on the public record can come at us 2 weeks from today.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first
reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by
adding provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products with the following
fi amendments:
Amend Section 10-127.1 to read as follows:
(a) The Surgeon General of the United States has determined that cigarette
smoking is dangerous to human health;
(b) The National Institute on Drug Abuse found that cigarette smoking precedes
and nay be predictive of adolescent illicut drug use;
(c) Open display makes tobacco products easier to shoplift and therefore more
accessible to persons under the age of eighteen (18) ; and
(d) The enactment of this ordinance directly pertains to and is in furtherance
of the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City,
particularly those residents under eighteen (18) years of age.
Delete Section 3 and delete Section 6. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. This will be on in 2 weeks from today.
33
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Gary Warren: I don't know if I follow you. This median would be a part.
However, we arrive at our final configuration as a part of the TH 5 plans.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's what I'm saying. For the access onto TH 5.
Gary Warren: But it would be city control after the project gets built and TH
101 is designated. That's correct.
Mayor Cbmdel: Right. Anyone else. Al?
Al Klingelhutz: I guess I was rather surprised when I got this big fat envelope
in the mail last Friday evening. This came up to the Council March 29, 1989.
The opening in the median was approved at that time and the median was supposed
to be put in with the opening and if it caused any trouble in the future, you
would take another look at it. I was really sort of shocked that I would have
to even care back here tonight. Before the median was installed like it was
approved by the Council back in March 29, 1989. I guess I have to disagree with
Gary about the people going in the Dinner Theatre. Firstly, at the times that
I'm at my office, which is usually from about 8:30-9:00 in the morning until
5:00 in the evening, I've never had any problem. I've never been rear ended and
it's almost a year now. I think that was one of the indications of taking
another look at it. I've been driving in and out and my clients have been
driving in and out. There hasn't been an accident there. Not as many as up on
main street. In fact there wasn't any at that intersection. You all probably
got the same Minutes that I got. I'm not going to take a lot of your time
tonight. I still feel that the access should remain open. I even understand
that the HRA recommended that it stay open besides the City Council. What more
can I say. I do need the access. If I don't have the access, I think it's
going to devalue my property. I kind of recall, this was about 2 years ago when
this little diagram was shown to me. Showing the parking lot and the entrances.
Not showing a median. That's when we sold the City the property. Taking the
frontage away from our property, putting a parking lot back nearly on our
doorsteps. The closest on one end of our property to the street at the present
time and this wasn't drawn up by me. Let me see here. Set back from new TH
101. That means new TH 101 is 40 feet in the closest place. The setback from
the furthest distance from our property is approximately 150 feet. If taken
direct highway frontage away fram commercial property. We sold that property in
good faith at a very reasonable price. Not expecting to lose access to this
property but in good faith thinking that we were doing the City a favor by
selling this property to them and letting them put in the parking lot that they
could put in. Now I find that I'm going to be penalized, Jack Barnes and I for
being good people. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Hearing none we'll bring it back to
Council.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want me to start?
Mayor Chmiel: If you'd like to, be my guest.
Councilwoman Dirtier: Okay. I guess I'm real surprised that this is under
unfinished business because I thought it was finished business. I'm wondering
who's bringing it back. I can't see any need to make any changes. The fact r{
that he has an alternate access which is not very desireable, I guess I could
36
1
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
1
say the Dinner Theatre has an alternate access as well. I think that the point
11 the Mayor brought up about the time when the Dinner Theatre is most busy. The
business going into Cravens is probably, if there is any at all, it's quite
diminished.
' Councilman Johnson: I agree that I was a little surprised it came up but I do
understand. I voted against it the first time. I had a problem with the safety
of it. I agree that the timing may to our advantage here. I have an alternate
2(d) which still is not real great but at certain times it's going to be
difficult to make that left turn southbound into Al's back parking lot but with
the 200 cars trying to make the left turn into the Dinner Theatre, they need
' more room, then what was provided in the alternate 2 that was shown. What I was
looking at is taking the back median and making that into a half median so you
can stack same cars back here and that during that rush period, 6:00 to 7:00. I
1 forget what the stage time is. When you have to be there but I know it's not
like 5:30. That basically would be very difficult for somebody to make the left
turn unless somebody's nice enough to let them go through. So basically the
left turn lane would go all the way across the curb cut so at certain times of
' the day when there is that big rush and we'll give the 175 feet we need and Al
will get his access. The main problem with it is that the southbound cars, if
somebody stopped to make that turn, they may get rear ended. I have a back and
' shoulder injury that's going to be with me the rest of my life from when I got
rear ended 3 years ago and I know what it feels like. That's my main misgiving
is that we may be creating, but alternate 2 already created that hazard. As far
as I'm concerned, Alternate 2 was passed over my objection. It was a 3 to 2
vote. It was passed and this would almost have to be a reconsideration. Not
unfinished business. As I read the Minutes here, it was a done deal. But I
would like to change Alternate 2 a little bit to give a little more stacking
space for the Dinner Theatre because without that we're going to have cars in
the driving lane on both sides of the street. Now talk about a problem. We're
creating a problem on the southbound side by occasionally, if somebody happens
' to want to turn into the Klingelhutz building at the rush hour of the Dinner
Theatre, that they would have a potential rear end problem. But with the 2
design, you've got a potential rear end problem on both sides of the street as
' people are stacking in the main driving lanes to turn left into the Dinner
Theatre and in the driving lanes to turn left into Klingelhutz' . So that's what
I'd like to see if somebody would like to vote to reconsider this and change the
curb cut. If that's what we actually have to do is reconsider.
Councilman Workfian: You want to change it to what Jay?
' Mayor Chmiel: Change it so you can get more stacking.
Councilman Johnson: I've drawn it sort of on mine here in the black.
Mayor Chmiel: This sort of cuts down on that center portion.
Councilman Johnson: I made that back island narrower so now you can stack 3 or
' 4 more cars there.
Councilman Boyt: Makes it entertaining when you turn across where that person's
trying to make a left.
Councilman Johnson: Yes it does.
1 37
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilman Workman: But it shouldn't be a conflict.
Councilman Boyt: It should be confusing though.
Councilman Johnson: I've seen worse turns. But see that'd be quite rare but as 1
alternative 2 is right now, that is what we passed last year, we could possibly,
from what I'm hearing, have cars stacked up in the driving lane both northbound
and southbound with what's been passed as of now. This way maybe we'll only
have somebody stacked up in the driving lane southbound.
Al Klingelhutz: Which one are you look at Jay? 2(a) and 2(b) or 2(c)? '
Mayor Chmiel: It's a modification to 2(a) . It would be termed as 2(d) .
Al Klingelhutz: You're saying from the divider by the railroad tracks to the '
one past...
Mayor Chna.el: That would still give a left hand turn lane in there? '
Gary Warren: The question is this nose here I guess. We've showed the standard
width here, I think it's a 4 foot width that could be shrunk down somewhat. We
could possibly use some of this for stacking. It's not the most desireable I
guess because of the smaller the nose here the less visible it...
Councilman Johnson: We'll plant a tree there. I
Gary Warren: Well there won't be a sign. It'd be marked there I guess. A
number of you I guess have raised an issue of why we brought it back and I guess
I have to take the responsibility for that. In reading the Minutes I guess it
said to have it studied and re-evaluated.
Mayor Chmiel: After the operation. After once it's in. '
Councilman Johnson: It never got put in.
Gary Warren: We went from that to considering, and Al I think had actually
mentioned it. If we could do back to back turn lanes. That was the 2(b)
alternate. See how that would fit in I guess. Maybe I misinterpretted and I '
apologize if that's the case.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, the bottom median's already there. The southern most
median's already there.
Gary Warren: We went and put in a, I'll call it a temporary median so that we
could get the railroad crossing open. Part of having this whole issue resolved
so we actually drilled dowels in the road and did a raised median section that's
basically temporary. I mean it will last for...
Councilman Johnson: So it doesn't have the normal big foundation?
Gary Warren: No. There's no curb and gutter or anything. It's all on surface.
So it can be modified.
38 '
Councilman Johnson: Are they having a stacking problem now with that median as
it is?
Gary Warren: Well the median only goes up to about this point so there's no...
We haven't been out there to study to see if there's anybody waiting to turn
into the Klingelhutz property while the Dinner Theatre is there.
Councilman Boyt: Why can't we leave it open?
Councilman Johnson: Can we leave it as is and observe it and see if we're
having same of these problems you're trying to predict that we might have?
' Gary Warren: We can, any of those. Any of the above.
Councilman Johnson: What does that do to TH 5? I don't understand how this,
north of the railroad tracks affects TH 5 at all.
' Councilwoman Dimler: It doesn't.
Gary Warren: Well it affects TH 5 only from the standpoint that the State is,
based on our original layout of approvals, incorporating the interchange designs
for Great Plains, Dakota, Market Blvd. into their plan study...so this was an
element that it doesn't have to be. I don't mean to imply that it has to be a
' part of TH 5 construction. It's just that we're at a point now where they're
finishing up the preliminary design and if we're going to get it in as a part of
that, instead of having to let it at contract, this is the time to do it.
That's the only reason.
Councilman Boyt: You're saying the State would pay for it if we didn't act?
Gary Warren: No.
Councilman Johnson: No. They just build.
Gary Warren: It'd be worked on our cooperative agreement.
Councilman Johnson: So we're going to pay for it and whether it's through the
State or through the City bidding it ourselves? I wouldn't be surprised if we
do a better job bidding it.
' Gary Warren: I don't like the back to back turn lanes so I don't think 2(b) is
a feasible alternative. Maybe you can open, instead of that, that is the best
position at this point. Recognizing we do lose a little bit of protection on
the turns but maybe that's not a bad compromise.
Councilwoman Dimler: What are you saying, leave it open?
' Councilman Boyt: Leave it the way it is now.
Gary Warren: Leave it the way it is but we can stripe it to show basically a
!! double cross for turns in both ways. Both directions.
Councilman Johnson: I've got no problem with that.
39
I
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
II
Councilwoman Dimler: Let's leave it as it is then. I move that we leave it as
it is now with the striping.
Mayor_ C oriel: I don't think we have to move anything on it because.
Councilwoman Dialer: Yeah we do.
Councilman Johnson: Actually the last motion last year said we've got to put a
curb in.
Gary Warren: Alternate 2 which would be with a cut. '
Councilwoman Dimler: So we would be making a change...
Councilman Johnson: It's close to what was alternate 3 or something. '
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dirtier: With the stripe. '
Mayor Chrr1iel: With the striping is that Gary had indicated.
Councilman Johnson: Well do you want that median that's there to be made
permanent to continue with it temporary? Take it out. The southern median,
there's a short version of the southern median that is there but it's a '
temporary median that does not have a foundation underneath it.
Councilwoman Disler: Shall we remove it?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Leave it there.
Gary Warren: We can always replace it if it goes kapoohy. '
Councilwaran Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve leaving the
median that exists on Great Plains Boulevard at the Soo Line Railroad Tracks as
is with striping as recommended by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
I/
REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A SHED THAT WAS A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE AND RECONSTRUCTED AFTER FIRE DAMAGE, 620 FOXHILL DRIVE, JIM AND PEGGY ,
MCALLISTER.
C uncilman Boyt: Could we get a minute on why this was tabled? '
Jo Ann Olsen: They were questioning whether or not, he was claiming that he had
a general permit. '
Councilman Boyt: Cot it. Okay.
Councilman Johnson: We want to review the documentation. We were not given a
complete file.
40 ,
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
II
SUBDIVISION OF 3.9 ACRES INTO ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT OF 1.49 ACRES AND AN OUTLAY
OF 2.42 ACRES, 2150 CRESTVIEW LANE, THOMAS AND JEAN SHIVLEY.:
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL.
B. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting to subdivide a lot into two lots. One
lot to contain the existing single family residence and then the other, the main
' portion is an outlot. The Planning Commission reviewed the item and staff was
recommended that the applicant provide right-of-way for the extension of
Crestview Lane in a cul-de-sac and that they also provide extension to the south
for future subdivision. The Planning Commission recommended approval with staff
' conditions except that they changed it to only provide the extension of
Crestview Lane and that it not connect to the south. Another item was the trail
easement on the north of the property. The Planning Commission did pass on the
recommendation of the Park and Recreation for a condition of a 20 foot trail
easement along the northern portion of the property. Those are just really the
two major issues. Other than that we're recommending approval with the
' conditions from the Planning Commission.
Mayor Chtiel: Would you like to say something Jean?
Jean Shivley: Members of the Council. I'm Jean Shivley, the property owner and
I hope that you've read the come.ents made at the Planning Commission because
this has been going on long enough and I don't think you want to hear anything
more that I've got to say except that if you intend to consider the extension of
the road to the south, again I would ask that I be given another opportunity to
address the City Council. Basically I have no objections to the recommendations
that have been placed before you at this time. The property purchaser is here
and would like to comment on the trail issue. I personally don't care. I'm not
going to be there. The trail has been functioning informally very well for the
4 years I've resided there and I don't see the need for anything further and my
neighbors all complained about it the last time we were here. The only comment
I would like to make, I think there are two. First of all, there is a memo here
to Mr. Ashworth from Jo Ann that states that on January 17th the Planning
Commission recommended approval with the following conditions. I personally
attended that meeting on the 17th and to the best of my knowledge, number 3 was
not a recarmendation of the Planning Commission. There was certainly discussion
and the discussion as I recall it indicated that at any time that Outlot A was
' to be platted or redeveloped, that the City Council would have another shot at
the extension of the road to the south. But at no time was it trade a condition
of the subdivision now that the Outlot could not be replatted or developed until
' surrounded area was in the MUSA line. The entire parcel, the 4 acres as it
currently stands is in the MUSA line. With the extension of Crestview, as
indicated on Exhibit B, the variances are addressed. The potention subdivision,
at least as far as access is addressed and they'd still have to came back in
here to you to do anything further with the property so I would object at least
to the representation that this was a condition of the Planning Commission. And
just as a short explanation regarding the paragraph on the bottom. The surveyor
asked the City of Chanhassen how to show the extension of Crestview to serve the
outlot and was asked to label it as right-of-way. As I understand it, you're
now asking that that be dedicated. My only explanation is, it was drawn
originally as requested by the City. Thank you.
41
L1 G & J19 LL, 177w
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? II
Councilman Johnson: Well I'd like to hear from the purchaser on this trail
issue. The trail issue is very near and dear to my heart.
Michael Schultz: Thank you. Members of the Council, my name is Michael
Schultz. I am the purchaser of Jean Shively's property. I would concur first ,
of all with what Jean said and I was also at the Planning Commission meeting and
I would agree that the condition that the MUSA line be extended was not
discussed, at least to my recollection at the Planning Commission. As far as
the trail goes, it's interesting because I had gone to the Park Board meeting
where the trail was discussed and none of the neighbors were apparently notified
and none present. There was no discussion to any degree about the trail and the
neighbors did not express their will at any time at the Park Board. Bnt then
when the Planning Commission met...there was considerable number of neighbors
that appeared and none of them opted for that trail. One of the premises that
was expressed at the Park Board was that the trail was wanted by the neighbors
and that this would service the neighborhood and it doesn't appear that that's
the case. I had the opportunity to go out and look at the property and I could
see no established trail. It didn't appear to my view that this trail has been
used, at least to the extent to have a beaten path. As far as I know, the
neighborhood kids were as likely to use other existing trails on other property
just as they would to use the Shively's property. In fact, to use their
backyard rather than the wooded trail proposed. At any rate, I think many of
the concerns about the trail were expressed in the Planning Minutes and I think
if Council looks at those, they'll see my arguments. I would add though that if
in fact the Council does opt for a trail, that that trail be a nature trail and
not be developed. No trees cut. No blacktop put in. Thank you.
Mayor Ctnael: Any discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to hear from Don.
Don Kelly: I'm Don Kelly. I live at 2081 West 65th. I haven't seen the memo ,
that they mentioned or item 3 on it but the restriction on subdividing the lot
was in the Council's original discussion of the sewer project a few years ago
because the MUSA line was extended under emergency provisions for health
reasons. Sane of the neighbors were concerned that the subdivision would result
when sewer was brought in so those neighbors were assured that the sewer
wouldn't result in any additional subdivision until the MUSA line was brought
down to surround that area. I'm concerned about access for my children and for
neighborhood children to the intermediate school to the west of us. When the
property was developed, the property to the west of us, which is to the north of
what you're considering here was developed, there was provision for a trail
easement through the subdivision. It was included in the development contract.
The developer and the City failed to include that easement on the deeds on the
plats when the property was, whatever it is they do with it. ,
Councilman Johnson: The final plat.
Don Kelly: And as a result the trail that we had expected to be there didn't
materialize. There's been an informal trail. Our kids walk through the
neighbor yards and get to school and there's no problem with that. In the
absence of any formal easement, I would like to make sure that we do have some
42 '
i4.l.l.� WwV11 V ..&J1 XCL7LUOLj LL, 177V
IIkind of formal easement someway going from our street, West 65th Street, to the
school. When I spoke to the Planning Commission, I said that the trail easement
on this particular subdivision seemed kind of silly but if that's the only
option that we have for our kids to get to have some kind of easement in
perpetuity to get to the school, then I think it should be included. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Dick Vandenberg: My name is Dick Vandenberg. 6474 Murray Hill Road. My
' property adjoins the Shively property on the north and the trail would abut my
property. The trail as it's proposed or as I understand it's proposed, would
run the full length of my property in the back leaving me no privacy whatsoever
in my backyard. In fact the trail would cane within 30 feet of my den so I
think the trail as it's proposed is highly intrusive to our personal property
and it's a security risk as well because it would give public access to our back
yards. Thank you.
Dick Herrboldt: Good evening. My name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464
Murray Hill Road. I am right next to Dick Vandenberg and the proposed trail
' would also run through my back yard and we've been in front of the City Council
before. We've talked to the Planning Commission and I am totally opposed to the
trail for a variety of reasons. I think we have, as Dick mentioned, a security
problem. All of a sudden, now we have access to the back yard by anybody who
chooses to go on that trail. At the present time the access through my back
yard is primarily by children on their way to school or people who want to use
the facilities over at the Middle School. In addition, there is now a trail
It available next to the water tower which anybody can use any tine they choose to
use it. It seems to me that it's a waste of the taxpayer's money to go to the
expense to condemn property, to tear down trees and to put in a path which, and
I'm not certain who's going to maintain that path, when less than 50 yards away
there's a trail that accesses the school and I'd like to know why you want to do
this.
Councilman Johnson: Can I ask you a question?
Dick Herrboldt: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: How do they get from 65th Street or Crestview to that trail
that accesses the school?
' Dick Herrboldt: They walk right through the Vandenberg's back yard onto Murray
Hill Road. Down the street and across...
' Councilman Johnson: They trespass.
Dick Herrboldt: Alright. If you want to call it trespassing. They have the
permission of the neighbors.
Dick Vandenberg: With my permission. That's the point. The point is, and
excuse me for...
Councilman Johnson: Will you own that in perpetuity?
Dick Vandenberg: No I will not.
' 43
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
II
Mayor Chmsel: Dick, will you care up here to the mic so we can get this?
Councilman Johnson: Will you give us an easement to where we have that in
perpetuity through your yard? '
Dick Vandenberg: No I will not. The reason that I allow children to trespass
now is because I can control that. I can control access to my backyard. The
way I look at it, my backyard is a sanctity. You have backyard barbeques. Not
frontyard barbeques. Okay? And I don't want public access to my backyard and
the whole back of my house, and that's why I allow children to trespass. It's
very simple because I know then. I know their parents. If I have a problem
with them, I can call the parents up and say look. Here, Johnny was doing this.
If it's a public trail, I don't have that type of control and I will not grant
it. 1
Councilman Johnson: See the whole thing that happened here was this development
had a trail easement through it and the City screwed up. I
Dick Herrboldt: We understand that Jay.
Councilman Johnson: Now this Council and the last Council and maybe even the
Council before that have been trying to fix that screw up by getting a
legitimate trail or path or sidewalk or someway that when you sell your house
and decide no, I don't want that. If some kid from Whitetail Ridge moves in
there across the street and he wants to walk to school, you don't know him and
you say, well you can't care through my yard because I don't know him. Those
kids, they can walk down the County Road and to Melody Hill and go around it.
I'm concerned on the safety of the kids getting to school. I don't like seeing
then walk down County Road 117 and things like that. I don't know how we could.
One of the plans had trying to get an easement not only, not in the Shively
property but actually through both of your properties at one time. The
developer suggested that one if I remember right. That'd even be worse.
Dick Herrboldt: The end result is the same. Whether it's on our property or
right next to our property, the end result is the same. You've got access to
our backyards and currently we have controlled access.
Councilman Johnson: Don, who lives across the street from you? ,
Don Kelly: Atherton's.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, because if they took the trail east along that ,
property line and then, or not east, north and then west along Lot 6. Whatever
that corner lot in the little Murray Hill subdivision and got it out there, has
anybody tried that? And that's impossible?
Lori Sietsera: Staff has contacted Atherton's and they are not willing sellers
of a trail easement. Nor is the person, the people that own the lot directly '
north of the...develop ent.
Councilman Johnson: So the Lot 20 there as it shows on here?
44 ,
11
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
Don Ashworth: The parcel to the north in all likelihood would come back four
replotting at some time so you potentially could get it through there. The
question becomes through Atherton's.
Keith Boudrie: Excuse me. I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Keith Boudrie. I
' live at 6482 Murray Hill Road. I'm on the other side of Dick Vandenberg. I'm
the first resident of the Murray Hill subdivision and we've done a fair amount
of developing in our backyard with a swimming pool and other things. At the
' time the title search was done on our property, there was no indication of any
easements or information on trail systems or whatever else and we purchased this
property. I find it interesting that in canvassing the neighborhood, and we've
' had people in and out of the neighborhood. We've had a chance of owners in the
neighborhood. That everyone's quite happy, as Mrs. Shively indicated earlier,
with the program we have now where all the kids are allowed to cut through where
necessary and in many cases, more conveniently than any trail system would offer
' them.
Councilman Johnson: Everybody's happy with that?
Keith Boudrie: There's only one person that I'm aware of that is not happy with
that and that's Don Kelly and I was talking to Don earlier. I said you know Don
I'd really like to be hone tonight and I sure don't see where this is going to
' help any to continually take up Council time and Planning Commission time when
we have a good working system as it is. I said have I ever restricted you or
your children from cutting through or any of your neighbors and he acknowledged
that I never have and there's never been a concern over that. My kids play with
his kids. His kids play with my kids. My kids cut through by his house and
it's a nice safe, equitable arrangement right now. We even went so far as to
11 spread wood chips down because in the springtime it gets pretty muddy and the
kids actually go out there and keep the weeds cut back. I don't really
understand why all the commotion. Why all the City time. Why all the dollars
and cents being thrown around discussing this trail system when we're forgetting
a very basic principle in the words neighbor. We're a neighborhood and we're
neighbors. No one's putting up huge fences and attack dogs to keep the other
neighbor out of their yard. My kids need to cut through Dick Vandenberg's yard
in order to go visit a friend that lives over on Galpin. If a fence goes up or
if this trail system goes in, it's of no advantage to my kids. Then they have
to travel CR 117. Now you talked about people coming from the other side of CR
' 117. I think the City's got a bigger problem there than the kids coming through
and us not letting them core through. I think the bigger problem is how you
going to get the kids safely across CR 117. I don't know if anybody's done any
traffic monitoring on that road lately but with the expansion in Chaska, there's
a lot of thoroughfare through there now. So I think that's an issue that the
City's going to have to address down the road and the safest means right now are
for those kids to be bussed, which they are.
' Councilman Johnson: They're bussed to the Middle School from there?
Keith Boudrie: They're bussed to the Middle School. And we do have a quite
substantial path now going through by the water tower which facilitates most of
the neighborhood. I apologize for all the time it's taken. I think it's
ridiculous.
Mayor C'hmiel: Thank you. Appreciate that too.
' 45
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
•
Dick Vandenberg: Let me just add one point. The way the informal trail system
works now is there are two accesses through my property which I don't object to.
One goes to the school and the other goes into our cul-de-sac. The kids can
interchange with the school and with children in our cul-de-sac. If the trail
goes through, I'm going to put a fence up in the back of my yard and our '
cul-de-sac loses access to the other streets back there. It's that simple.
Dick Herrboldt: As far as the useage of the neighborhood children now, they '
often come down nay driveway. Right across my back yard and I don't mind that.
They're kids on the way to school. That's the way I went to school and I'm sure
that's the way many of you went to school. In my old neighborhood, my son went
to school that way and that's fine and everything is working out just great.
Why can't we deal with this 10 years from now if it becomes a problem? Why
can't we let it go at the present time just the way it is?
Keith Boudrie: It hasn't posed a problem so why take up all this time?
Councilman Johnson: TO me history says that people get old and cranky. I
Dick Herrboldt: Then there won't be any children in our neighborhood to use the
trail so it won't be a problem.
Jean Shively: I promised I wasn't going to say anything. '
P 9 9 g I've been there 4
years and why are you trying to fix something that isn't broken? I mean we all
get along just great. I think the trail issue, in my personal opinion, has
caused more controversy in that neighborhood than any of the kids we're talking
about. It is ridiculous. There is an access through to that school. We've got
cooperative neighbors. We don't want strangers back there. I do have an attack
dog but he's in a kennel. I keep him locked up as long as it's kids. I mean
really. I have been down to this City Council 4 times on the trail issue and it
is ridiculous. Nobody in the neighborhood wants it so who is it serving.
Keith Boudrie: We have one person and I tried talking to Don before this
meeting tonight to save more time and I'm just, well if you get killed on your
back from Florida, you may you know. We could all get hit by a bomb but we're
neighbors and it all works out. If it becomes a problem, fine. But like Dick
said, if kids start riding their mopeds up and down through there, I can walk
out and say, don't ride your mopeds through there or call their parents and say,
don't ride your mopeds down through there. If it becomes a city program,
then I've got to call the City. The City's got to send an officer out. The
officer's got to come out and catch the kids doing it and then he's going to...
Councilman Johnson: You can still tell the parents their kids are riding their 11
mopeds there. I mean just because it's city property doesn't mean that you as a
citizen can't call up a kid's parents and say hey, your kid's riding a moped
riding down here.
Keith Boudrie: Jay, in all due respect. 2 1/2 hours were taken up on
cigarettes and maybe that's a more important issue than trail systems.
Councilman Johnson: Maybe not.
46 1
i
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
Keith Boudrie: And maybe not. But I don't see where the city government is
spending effective time or effective taxpayer's money working with this issue
when you've got the majority of the neighborhood saying we've got a good working
situation. Why come in and destroy that?
Michael Schultz: We also don't have an easement on Don Kelly's lot or some
access to 65th Street which would have to obtained, purchased.
Councilman Johnson: It's supposedly obtainable.
Keith Boudrie: I've gone...and my son cuts through his yard to catch the school
bus.
Councilman Johnson: We have an opportunity with this subdivision to fix
something that isn't broken, as you say. To ensure that...
Dick Vandenberg: To break something that isn't broken.
Councilman Johnson: Tb break something that isn't broken. Tb assure that if
somebody decided, if you sell your house and get transferred to New York City or
New Jersey, one of those glamorous spots of the country and you sell to somebody
who's willing to buy your house and he puts up a fence and it's all gone now.
There's no long that friendly neighborhood. What do we do?
Dick Herrboldt: Can you protect every citizen of Chanhassen against one bad
apple?
1 Councilman Johnson: No.
Dick Herrboldt: Then why try? What if? What if?
Councilman Johnson: We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to put the
trail through to the school. We have a trail plan that says that we're going
to, well we don't have a trail plan. Our city plans, whatever, say we are
going to try to connect schools, business centers, whatever with neighborhoods.
That's what we're trying to do. We're trying to accomplish an orderly city...
Dick Herrboldt: Could I get the Mayor's comments and Don's and Ursula's_ U s and
Tom's?
Mayor Chmiel: That's the position I'd like to take.
' Councilman Johnson: I'll shut up now.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to have sane more discussion on the issue. Tam?
Councilman Workman: I'll keep it real quick. I agree with the neighborhood
idea concept. I certainly agree with the property rights thing. There's only
one thing and that's one thing we've got to clear up because I had a situation
like this when I grew up down in Chaska. I live just south of the high school
and I walked up there every day. I had to walk through gramma and grampa's yard
every day. Now I never asked for their permission. It was kind of an unwritten
rule. I kind of walked a line between this property and that property and rake
sure I didn't go too far on there. Because of logistics the people to the east,
47
,City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
II
and I'm just going to throw this point out. I'm not making a judgment and maybe
this is a harsh word. When they have to feel subservient to a situation,
another property owner granted you own the property. How they should act. How
they should walk. What they can ride. What they can walk. That's where the
City has the, I think the question because if I moved in there and then my kids
and kids are kids and they don't act a certain way and they're getting yelled at
by the neighbors because they have that unwritten priviledge of using their
yard, you kind of get into this subservient neighbor kind of relationship.
That's the only thing I'm worried about. I think that's what this thing is
trying to fix. I think it's a terrible situation to be trying to fix it now. I
don't know what would have happened there if it was completed before. It would
change everything obviously but I think it's a real dilemma for everybody at
this stage to try and fix it. I certainly agree with the neighborhood trying to
keep things, maybe neighbors don't get along you know and there's no written
rules about how that should be done. We didn't pass a noise ordinance this year I
so that you couldn't go out and call the police when your neighbor was taking
too loud of a bubble bath or something. So I agree with trying to make it work
out and it works now. It's that down the road what happens and these people
have to go way back out and around and everything else.
Dick Vandenberg: Let me just address one point you made and that is, we're not
really dealing with a neighborhood. From our perspective, to try to protect our
property, we're not dealing with a neighborhood issue here because this would
give access to everyone. Not just the neighborhood kids and the point is, the
way it's working now is, we know who the neighborhood kids are and they have
access and we understand and it's a working relationship. But if you formalize
I!
this, it's going to give access to my backyard. The entire length of my back
yard, 30 feet from my den. It's going to give public access to it and I object
to that. That's why cities have sidewalks in the front of their properties.
Not in the back so people can have privacy in their backyards. Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Put the easement, got the easement and didn't build it. '
Didn't build anything. Until we reserve the easement, we reserve the right in
the future to build it if a problem occurs. If we have no problem but in the
future if a problem occurs and we have no easement, there's no way to solve it.
But if we don't build it now, we just say okay we want the easement but we do
not plan on building this because it works fine the way it is.
Dick Vandenberg: That doesn't address the issue I just talked about. The 1
easement gives the public access to my backyard. I object to that. I don't
object to neighborhood kids having access to my backyard to get to school.
Councilman Johnson: Until the trail is built.
Dick Vandenberg: No, it's still... '
Councilman Johnson: Nobody knows the easement's there.
Dick Vandenberg: A lot of people here do. '
Mayor C2i'iel: Back to the same issue.
Dick Herrboldt: Let me just address that. You were saying, well what happens
if the neighbors move and then there's no access given. I'm sure the City
48 I
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
1
Council's going to change over the next couple of years. What happens if the
easement's granted and somebody decides to put a concrete 12 foot wide driveway
through there?
Mayor Qrdel: Exactly.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right. Okay I guess I'd like to make a comment and
' that is, you know I'm really sorry that the City screwed up here and I do think
that eventually we may want to fix that but I don't think that we should fix it
now on the backs of a neighborhood that's functioning well so I would be in
favor of at this time of not getting the easement for the trail.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Bill?
' Councilman Boyt: I guess we all judge this based somewhat on our own
experiences as Jay tells us from time to time. In reading the Planning
Commission Minutes, which most of you said what you've just said again tonight,
' one of the things that came through to me was everybody was saying well yeah, we
want the trail but I don't want it in my backyard and here are the reasons I
don't want it. You're saying that well I want my kids to be able to use it. I
want the people's kids that I know to be able to use it and that's reasonable.
And it's certainly reasonable to have a degree of fear about the unknown.
Everybody does that. The situation that I relate it to is back when Chan Vista
was developed behind my house. The City had a comprehensive trail plan that had
' a trail running right behind my lot and the people who were on the Council at
f that time said we don't want it. We're not going to ask for that easement. And
so houses were built and one of the houses, one of the three houses on my back
lot line said even though people had historically taken that route to get into
If the park back there and same of them to walk up to the elementary school because
it saved about a half a mile, they put a fence up and said no. We want to grow
grass and you can't walk across our lawn. As luck would have it, for the flow
of things, I've got a big enough lot that I didn't care and I told then, walk
back there if you walk back there and I have occasionally asked myself what
would I do if the City came along and said we want to put a trail in your back
' yard. In all honesty, I don't know. Much like you, I'm comfortable that people
are there and I don't care if it's somebody I know or not, but it certainly
makes a difference if it's official. So I think we're all sympathetic to what
you guys are saying. Another part of this though is a real irritation. - I
remember when we went through this issue a couple of years ago about Ostrom and
his development. I maintain that the guy intentionally deceived people who were
going to build there. Live there. He built then but the people who were going
' to live there and the City just to see if he could get away with it and that
really irritates me. The City has spent 3 or 4 years trying to work this out.
I know Lori has worked any number of possible solutions and it sort of sat there
because, for the last few years, because the best thing we could work out that
created the least difficulty and sort of everybody would survive with, is to let
people walk through that driveway. Access Murray Hill Road and then cut across
the water tower or wherever they could get across through somebody else's yard.
Well, that's working from what I understand. The difficulty that I have with
this, and the reason that I'm going to vote the way I'm going to vote on this
thing, is because the City has, in my opinion, the City has to take every
opportunity it has when developments cane in to assure that we are doing, that
we're thinking about the future. We're thinking about access issues in this
case. And so to me, if this lot hadn't subdivided, I wouldn't have came in and
' 49
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990 II
haven't in the last 2 years, to force sane kind of action to create a trail but
I think to not do it now is irresponsible. The City has an opportunity to get
this easement at no cost to the City and as Jay said, we're not proposing that
the trail be paved, woodchipped or anything else. It's just an easement. It's
pretty much worthless unless we can connect it with either through purchasing
property or getting other easements because right now it goes, it starts nowhere
from nowhere. So I don't know exactly how to say this other than to say that I
understand your issue and I'm not unsympathetic to it. From the City's
standpoint and from what I think my job is, I can't turn that easement down
personally. And so my intention would be to vote to support the Park and Rec
Commission in their easement.
Jean Shively: Can I make one more comment Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure Jean.
Jean Shively: Just to pick up on Councilman Boyt's comments. I too am
irritated about how this is c wing about and it's been very difficult for me to '
try and stay out of the discussion but the fact is that trial was planned for.
What is being done with my property is not a development. It is a subdivision
into two pieces for financing purposes and I think the Council is losing sight
of that. This is not a development and I am also irritated that the subdivision
which is purely for financing, is being used as a lever to get the trail. I
didn't screw up the trail and the previous owners didn't screw up the trail but
just the fact that the property has to be subdivided for financing purposes, now
allows the City Council to insist to put that trail back there that doesn't go
anywhere and doesn't connect to West 65th Street and I just urge you to keep
that in mind because in some ways I feel that my subdivision is being held
hostage by an issue that wouldn't have come up if I had just sold the property
in one piece. This is not for development purposes. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's part of my concern with this whole thing. Trails '
and me with backyards is just a bad issue as far as I'm concerned. I don't see
why we should have to disturb the privacy of other people by having a trail
through there. We have an existing trail that comes off of Murray Hill Road
adjacent to the water tower for the accessibility to the school and I know that
going across other people's property can be a problem but for the kids, and that
is what this is basically being looked at is to making sure that they have that
accessibility to the school. I too go on the subdivision aspect. That it is a
subdivision. It is not a development. You are moving forth because of
financial reasons with those two particular lots. I guess I'm ready to vote on
this particular issue.
Councilman Johnson: There's another issue that hasn't been addressed about the
future subdivision of the property only when the MUSA line changes. Thinking '
back to the Crestview and 65th Street, while we changed the MUSA line a few year
back and added this property to the MUSA line under emergency provisions because
of the dying septic systems. I don't recall whether there was a restriction
that we couldn't add anymore lots. I would think that if we subdivided this,
that the outlot that is being subdivided off of the other property would
autoratically have to be removed from the MUSA line.
Jean Shively: For clarification Councilman Johnson, that paragraph doesn't say
when this property is in the MUSA line. It says when the surrounding property
50
l _
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
II
is in the MUSA line and I assume that that's referring to the property to the
south. That that paragraph is putting a limitation on the development of the
[ outlot on my property pending the MUSA line situation of the property to the
ttt south.
Councilman Johnson: Well what I'd like to see is that the Outlot A be removed
from the MUSA line. That only Lot 1 be included in the MUSA line. That we
modify our MUSA line to remove that property from the MUSA line.
Jean Shively: As I understand it, your Comprehensive Plan amendment already
requests inclusion of the property to the south within the MUSA line and that is
before the Metropolitan Council now so you'd take one lot out and put that
whole...
Councilman Johnson: If the Met Council approved that other, and that's an if.
A very big if because, is that before Met Council? It can't be before Met
Council because it hasn't come before us yet. So it's a long ways before Met
Council and Met Council's current contract with us says the year 2000 and Jo
Ann's waving vigorously.
Jo Ann Olsen: When that property was included for the emergency purposes in the
MUSA line, there was a condition that no additional lots could be added onto
that system. It is an outlot so it cannot be developed without being replatted.
We still need to have, and we want to make that clear, that that would not be
considered a developable piece until it was included in the MUSA line. That
other surrounding property.
Councilman Johnson: But the other surrounding property doesn't Hake any sense.
Jo Ann Olsen: Well because once that's included, then that means that that
property...
Councilman Johnson: Wouldn't it simplier just to remove it. That we request we
remove it?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well the other question that she had brought up.
Councilman Johnson: Met Council has never seen anybody request that. They
wouldn't know how to handle it.
Jo Ann Olsen: The fact that it's an outlot is essentially doing that. I think
that you'd have to go through the whole MUSA line amendment again to remove
that. I think that's just a lot of unnecessary steps.
Councilman Johnson: Somehow we have to understand that it is not serviced by
municipal services. That outlot does not...
Jean Shively: That's correct. Right now that is correct. That connection only
comes to the end of the driveway.
Councilman Johnson: And that's only a single connection to your house.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right and also that it's just. I'm sorry, what were you saying.
' 51
,City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990 I
Gary Warren: I was just saying, the outlot won't be buildable until it's Itt
subdivided either.
Jean Shively: That's right and you see all of this has to come back here again I
before anything further will be done, even changing what you call it from an
outlot to a lot has to come back here again.
Councilman Johnson: At which time we can say, until the MUSA line changes, '
we're not going to let you do it.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We're passing on a metropolitan stipulation. We're just
baking it clear that you couldn't come in next week and apply for that outlot to
be replatted because you could not add that onto that...
Jean Shively: Well you could apply for anything. We probably wouldn't get it.
Jo Ann Olsen: And just the other point I wanted to make is that that was a
condition in the Planning Commission's packet. They did approve that.
In Kelly: Can I comment on that? In the amendment that was proposed and
approved by the Metropolitan Council, they specified that no additional hook-ups
beyond the 16 lots would be allowed. They did specify there couldn't be
subdivisions so I think if you just ignore the whole situation it will work just
the way you want it to. '
Councilman Johnson: I just don't like the way they've worded number 3. I know
what you're trying to do. You're trying to say you can't hook up them.
Councilman Boyt: Why not say what the Met Council has said? No additional
hook-ups allowed. Isn't it now, what's the minimum size out of the MUSA line?
2 1/2 acres still? They're not going to break this up into 2 1/2 acres. '
Councilwoman Dimler: It's 1 in 10.
Councilman Boyt: It's not 10 everywhere is it? 1 unit per 10? We're safe. 1
Why don't we just add, change 3 to read no additional hook-ups.
Paul Krauss: That rural density though doesn't apply to this lot because it's '
zoned RSF. So theoretically 15,000 square foot lots are available now on the
outlot. The only thing preventing that outlot from being developed is the
outlot status and the stipulation that the Metro Council put on the approval of
that when the house was hooked up.
Councilman Johnson: So what Bill is saying is we're going to say there will be
no additional hook-ups granted for the outlot? So they can subdivide but they
can't get water or sewer and you can't put a septic system in on a 15,000 square
foot lot by our rules.
Jo Ann Olsen: You'd have to add to when that would no longer apply.
Councilman Johnson: Right. Until such time as the Met Council approves our
change to our MUSA line.
I!
Councilman Boyt: So are we going to amend that?
52
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
i
' Mayor Chmiel: Shall we amend item 3 as to what Bill has indicated? Consensus?
Rephrase it Bill.
' Councilman Boyt: Okay. I would move that we amend item 3 to read, and if Mr.
Kelly would share the language of the Met Council, I think we can probably just
put that in. It says something to the affect that no additional hook-ups on
' this sewage line until the MUSA line is extended in this area. Can I borrow
that for a second? Do I have the right one here?
' Don Kelly: It's the last line of the top paragraph.
Councilman Boyt: It doesn't add a whole lot to this.
Councilwoman Dialer: It's not what you wanted?
Councilman Boyt: Well it says no additional hook-ups beyond the 16 lots will be
allowed. I guess that says it. Maybe there's no need to make it, until the
MUSA line is extended. So I would move amendment of point 3, condition 3 as
such.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, no additional hook-ups beyond the 16 lots until the
MUSA line is extended. Is there anyone else from the area that would like to
make a statement? Okay, let us vote on that additional recommendation to read
as such.
Councilwoman Disler: Do you want to take each amendment by itself?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Let's take the first one now that we have no additional
hook-ups beyond the...
Councilman Workman: Can I ask a quick question?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
' Councilman Workman: So were we to grant this and have that whole side, then Mr.
Kelly is saying that he is a willing seller of the easement?
' Councilman Boyt: We aren't talking about the trail yet.
Councilman Workman: I know but can I ask that question real quick? Is that
what you're saying? What are you willing to do here?
Don Kelly: Okay, there currently is a, at the time that the original trail was
' worked out, shortly after that, we did give the City an easement which goes to
where the we expected the trail to start.
Councilman Workman: going north to south?
Don Kelly: Well it's actually...
Councilman Boyt: Would you show us? We have a little diagram. Maybe you can
show us.
53
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
/ J
Lori Sietsema: I've got it.
Don Kelly:
No, not north to south. Right. The horizontal part of the,
actually 65th Street is shown there as going through to the property line but
there is a cul-de-sac roughly at the intersection of those four lots. I can't
see what they are. Right where it says 65 there's a circle.
Councilman Workman: You're saying the piece that extends further west?
Don Kelly: Right. There's a cul-de-sac so there is a pedestrian easement that
goes on west from there across our property.
Councilman Workman: And then down the west side of your property is what?
Don Kelly: That's the interesting question. The trail that was proposed by
Ostrom would have been on the west side of that property line. Basically my
wife and I have discussed this and I asked her how'd she feel about us providing
an easement. I guess we'd have to bury her out there and then put the easement
in is the answer I got.
Mayor Chmiel: Over her dead body I remeraDer reading.
Don Kelly: Yeah, that's what it was.
Councilman Workman: But that piece is in limbo? I mean you don't know what?
Don Kelly: As a matter of fact for my kids, we don't need that easement which
is a very selfish attitude but I've been here for years trying to work out a
less selfish attitude. For people to use that particular stretch, the odds are
pretty good that they would wander up the driveway and around the corner of the
garage and across the yard and so forth. I agree with the other neighbors in
terms of what we have works great. There's absolutely no problem with the kids
being able to wander around through the neighborhood and get over to the school.
The only problem is that if someone, I used to walk to school the same way as
everybody else did, through yards. My walk over the period of years got longer
II and longer and longer because the little shortcuts that you take kind of
vanished for one reason or another. People build. Fences go in and so forth.
Keith Boudrie tells me that he and his wife are going to live there forever and
so it's not going to be a problem for us because our kids and our grandkids can
walk through that path. But I'm just concerned that circumstances change and
someone may decide to build there and put in a fence. My own feeling is that if
there's a path through there, if that's what it would take to give my neighbors
II the same kind of peace of mind that I would like that yeah, I would sell an
easement along that north/south line.
IICouncilman Workman: You would?
Councilman Boyt: He would.
IIDon Kelly: You understand though that I am a joint owner of this property.
I've expressed my personal opinion and of course we're a long ways from the days
when a man would speak for his wife.
54
City Council Meeting - February 22; 1990
Councilman Workman: Okay one other question that I have quickly then is, where
( are the Wolf's? The owners of the Wolf property. What is their status?
1 Lori Sietsena: I've had conversations with then and they're willing to sell
that portion of their property. '
Councilwoman Dimler: It was my understanding that Bill had a motion and I don't
know if it was seconded or not but if it was, I'll second it and I call the
question and that was the one pertaining to item 3. I'm moving it. I can move
it.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll rove to question. Okay, you seconded it for the additional
change to item 3. Okay, let us go back to the first item.
Councilwoman Dimler: Don't you want to take a vote on it?
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to amend condition 3 to read
as follows:
3. No additional sewer and water hook-ups beyond the 16 lots will be allowed
until the MUSA line is expanded by the Metropolitan Council. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, got one down. Item (a) . Preliminary plat approval. Does
someone want to move that?
Councilman Boyt: I don't think we can do that until we clear up these
conditions.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we should handle the trail next. '
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, let's take the trail situation.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I move that at this time the City not require a
trail easement.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt: Well I think there needs to be a little discussion. '
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilwoman rimier: What have we been doing? ,
Councilman Boyt: We have been discussing this. Recognize that we're talking
about an issue that's going to stay with us for a while, it's certainly worth
the time ti takes the 5 of us to get it resolved. I'm sure we'd all agree to
that. We've got something that looks like it all cares together. If the trail
easement doesn't come together, having this trail easement costs the property
owners nothing because the trail goes, it starts nowhere and no one's going to
use it. They have no way of getting to it. If it all cores together, we've
55 '
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
I given people access that they are not guaranteed of any other way and we're not
talking about the people who happen to abut the Murray Hill development. We're
talking about the people in Moline's Addition on our map. We're talking, until
we get something off the end of the cul-de-sac on Crestview, we're talking about
I everybody that really lives between CR 117 and the school ground and wants to
get there reasonably. They may not happen to know the folks who live in that
property.
IIMayor Chmiel: They have that upper trail there to get over to the school
property.
ICouncilman Boyt: They don't have any way to get to that trail.
Mayor Chmiel: Cane right down Murray Hill caring down.
ICouncilman Boyt: Okay, so there's a good many people there that the only way
they can get to that middle school is either if they cut across somebody's
I property or they get in a car or their bicycle and they go down CR 117. The
City, I would hope that we would take this easement because it's nothing more
than that. Until all the pieces cane together, it's really nothing. If all the
pieces came together, it's a great opportunity for those people who live in that
I area to get to the middle school. An opportunity that we can't guarantee them
any other way.
II Keith Boudrie: I'm looking at the dotted line here and I have to apologize.
How do people fro m the, what is it Crescent?
' Councilman Johnson: Crestview.
Keith Boudrie: How do they get to that trail?
ICouncilman Boyt: There's only one house there. Oh the people on Crestview?
Keith Boudrie: Right.
IICouncilman Johnson: They can't.
Councilman Boyt: Right now they don't.
11 Dick Vandenberg: I can tell you how they get there now, which is okay with me.
They come right up through Wolf's property and along my property line onto the
cul-de-sac and over.
Dick Herrboldt: Cr through my back yard.
1 Dick Vandenberg: If this trail goes through, there's going to be a fence there.
Okay? Nobody from Crestview is going to get through that way so I don't know
how that, perhaps they get through this way but that's how they access Murray
1 Hill and that's how they get over to the school.
Councilman Boyt: But it won't make any difference if you put your fence up
II because they'll have a trail to go there and they're both going to the middle
school ground. All that open area off there is the middle school. J
' 56
I
City Council Meeting - February 22', 1990
Dick Vandenberg: So how do the kids from Murray Hill access the trailway?
Councilman Johnson: Well Murray Hill's got their own trail.
Councilman Boyt: Because they want to go to CR 117? '
Dick Vandenberg: Wherever. I mean isn't the trail supposed to...
Councilman Boyt: Well you give us that access when you sell the lot.
Dick Vandenberg: There are 2 or 3 school children on Crestview and 2 or 3
school children on 65th access the school yard. You're talking about public
access through my back yard and my sanctity. You're not talking about 2 or 3
school children...
Mayor Cxrael: Let's continue discussion of the trail.
Dick Herrboldt: Does that trail system accomplish anything more than allowing
the kids from West 65th Street, assuming that the Kelly's sell property, to get
to the school? So the City is going to purchase property to allow the kids on
West 65th Street to get to the school? Is that what I was hearing?
Mayor Ctr►iel: Lori? ,
Lori Sietsera: Yes.
Dick Herrboldt: Are those my tax dollars?
Mayor CI►iel: Could very well be. '
Councilwoman Dirtier: They are.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the trail situation is what we're discussing. Anything
more? Is there a motion?
Councilman Boyt: You've already got one. '
Councilman Johnson: Would you review the motion again? Like you said, it's
been so long, I forgot what the heck it was. ,
Mayor C1 iel: The motion was made by Ursula.
Councilwoman Disrler: I move that the City at this time not seek to get the '
easement for the trail and it was seconded by Mayor Chtmiel.
Councilwar►an Dialer moved, Mayor Cmiel seconded to delete condition 2 from the
recommendation of staff which would not require an easement for a trail at this
time. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
I
57 '
I/
IICity Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
M Councilman Johnson roved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Subdivision
#89-16 as shown on the preliminary plat dated December 29, 1989 with the
following conditions:
1. The final plat shall be amended to provide right-of-way for the extension of
Crestview Lane as shown on Exhibit B.
11 2. No additional sewer and water hook-ups beyond the 16 lots will be allowed
until the MUSA line is expanded by the Metropolitan Council.
I 3. Future subdivision of the property and extension of the watermain to the
property will result in the requirement of an additional fire hydrant as
recamended by the Fire Inspector.
II4. A cross easement shall be granted over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1.
5. A trail easement shall be reviewed further by the City Council and/or Park
and Recreation Commission.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dinner seconded to approve the final plat
' for Subdivision #89-16 for Shively Addition with the following conditions:
1. The extension of Crestview Lane shall be dedicated as public right-of-way 1
and labeled as Crestview Lane.
II2. A cross easement shall be provided for access over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block
1.
II3. Typical drainage and utility easements shall be provided along Crestview
Lane.
IAll voted in favor and the motion carried.
II PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND
10.2 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF DOGWOOD EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA) , PETER AND DEANNA
BRANDT.
' Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, as you start this, didn't we subdivide this
property a couple years ago? But that never went through?
IICary Warren: It never went through.
Councilman Hoyt: Before you proceed, if it's 11:00, then I would rove that we
IIadjourn.
Mayor Chmiel: I would motion that we continue on with the next and proceed with
II what we have going. There are people sitting here who have been here all night
waiting to discuss some of these things.
I
58
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
Councilman Boyt: We would need to amend our rules. If that would be your
motion then.
Mayor Cviel: That would be my motion to amend the rules. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to amend the Rules of Procedure
for the City Council to consider an item after the City Council's curfew. All
voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 1.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 20 acre piece into two
10 acre parcels. The issues with this one are future road access and
improvement to existing roads. Staff proposed to the Planning Commission that
the applicant provide the necessary easement to provide the full 50 foot right-
of-way
to serve the lot and we also recognize that that be approved... The
Planning Commission recommended the easement be provided but that the road not
be improved at this time. They did go along with staff recd mendations to
provide future easements to the east and the Park and Rec Camiission's proposal
for the trail easement so we are recommending approval with the Planning
Commission's conditions. Again that does not recommend improving the street at
this time. They brought another plan and I can put it up here so you can see '
it... The other issues that originally they were going to have the turn around
in this location. They have moved that more to the north so that will service
some of the other existing lots. We are asking and this isn't a condition, that
we need to add it in that they provide an easement for the turn around where
it's being proposed to be moved. Other than that we're recommending approval
with the conditions and that one amendment.
Mayor Cmiel: Is there anyone here who would like to address this?
Ken Daniels: Daniels is my name. Ken is the first name. We have 3 people here
that are concerned. Really two people that are involved and they're in favor of
this. They have no objections. I think everybody's smooth and everything's
worked out. We had a long time...city planning and I won't take up your time
anymore.
Councilman Johnson: Where do you live?
Ken Daniels: Where do I live?
Councilman Johnson: Are you one of the neighbors or are you the proposer? '
Ken Daniels: I'm on the buyers. The other buyer's right there.
Councilman Johnson: That's the other buyer. You said there were 3 people here
then. The existing owner?
Ken Daniels: Right.
59
11
City,Council Meeting - February 22, 1990
I Councilman Johnson: Okay, and everything's smooth? Okay. No neighbors showed
up?
Ken Daniels: No. They were here at the Planning.
' Tim Foster: Dan Herbst is here. He's the Crimson Bay neighbor.
IIMayor C1riiel: Dan, would you like to come up? Do you have something to say?
Dan Herbst: I'm Dan Herbst. I live on Crimson Bay and also developed CSrimson
I Bay and I support the proposal. I think they're done a lot of homework with
your Planning Commission and your staff and it's a good plan before you.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I like this cul-de-sac further north too.
IIMayor Criel: Okay, discussions.
' Councilman Johnson: Does that make that Lot 2 a flag lot then out to a
cul-de-sac?
IJo Ann Olsen: That still has the right-of-way. The right of way is here.
Councilman Johnson: Oh, the right-of-way still goes but they're just building a
cul-de-sac back there and he's going to put a driveway through the right-of-way?
IIJo Ann Olsen: Right. Well actually the right-of-way's going to be going on the 1
easement over Lot 1 to Lot 2. They're going to be providing it but we'll still
need an easement... The right-of-way will be there but will not be improved
unless you recommend so.
Councilman Workman: So the future of a road going through, all the way through
IIto Crimson Bay?
Jo Ann Olsen: Unless you request that easement to be provided at this time,
IIit's pretty much a dead issue.
Councilman Johnson: There's sane pretty bad topography there ain't there?
IIJo Ann Olsen: It can be done though.
Councilman Boyt: `hat would the grade be?
IIJo Ann Olsen: 7% to 10%.
IICouncilman Boyt: We do it all the time.
Councilman Johnson: How many trees, that's a forested area.
Dave Hempel: The applicant has a drawing showing the impact of the grading with
the 7% grade. It would approximately take about 150 foot swath through here for
our current standard rural width of 24 foot of bituminous with 6 foot gravel
IIshoulders and a ditch section with 3:1 slopes.
Jo Ann Olsen: But that'd be a lot less with a 10% grade.
60
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Dave Hempel: With a 10% grade it would reduce sate of the area down. I
Mayor Chmiel: Jay, did you have anymore comments?
Councilman Johnson: No. ,
Mayor Chmi.el: Bill?
Councilman Boyt: Tell me about the impact again of moving the cul-de-sac?
We've got it out of the trees?
Jo Ann Olsen: The turn around that they're proposing is not going to affect the
trees.
Councilman Boyt: Well the originally proposed cul-de-sac was going to take 1
quite a whack out of the trees as I recall.
Tim Foster: That's where the power line cleared... '
Councilman Boyt: It's already gone? I think we should add in the condition
that the Planning Coniission took out. I don't know if it's because they didn't
understand why it was in there. I think that was probably it but Lots 1 and 2
waive their rights to contest future assessments as part of improvements to
Dogwood. The reason for that being in there is because they're creating the
need, the future need for the assessments and so they're just simply saying we
agree that if they're needed or when they're needed, we'll do then. Just don't
assess us for then. now. And so we're just making things easier. It's not
taking away somebody's right to protest. Now would be the time to do that but '
it is saying it's part of this issue and we need to resolve it as part of this
development.
Councilman Johnson: They also have the right to protest the public improvement. ,
Councilman Boyt: Sure. A11 we're saying, they're simply not contesting the
assessments. The other part, being consistent, I suspect this shouldn't 1
surprise anybody that was here through the last debate. I think it's important
to take easements when the City can get them for free. I don't know if that's a
very good way to go out and there may well be a point at which the City caves
back as they did earlier this evening and vacate that easement. But it rakes
sense to have the potential to have two ways in and out of something. This is a
chance for the City to begin to get that and it does create hardship to the
property. It's kind of the situation, not getting that easement creates a
potential for a hardship to people someday when that's subdivided so I would
encourage us to take the easement and include the condition that Lots 1 and 2
waive their rights to contest future assessment as part of improvements to
Dogwood.
Tim Foster: The easement to? ,
Councilman Boyt: The south.
Tim Foster: Over to Crimson Bay? '
Councilman Boyt: Down the power line.
61
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Tim Foster: The preliminary plat approval in 1987 was without it but you
changed your nand?
Councilman Boyt: Well we had, at that point Tim we were looking at, as I
recall, at a road that went way off to the east. Didn't it curve back around up
that way? There was sane major road.
Tim Foster: When I was going to build a house there instead of the Brandt's,
the issue was the same and it's just that there were 3 lots, not 2. That's all
we were talking about.
11 Mayor C tmmiel: Would you like to came up to the microphone so we can capture
this on the Minutes?
Tim Foster: Tim Foster. 6370 Pleasant View Cove. Jo Ann and I and a number of
people have been working on this for some time and originally I was going to
move there and the same issue was, is the easement going to go through to
' Crimson Bay and at that time it was suggested that it wasn't and the easement in
front of now the two lots, and we requested 3 at that time, and there was a
potential at that time of actually, because of the fact that we didn't know what
we were going to do with the 80 acres. Okay? And now we know that Tan
Courtenoy is building one home there, okay at this time. And Ken Daniels is
going to build one home on a 10 acre lot and the Brandt's are going to build
' another have so I think the timing is right to get an easement but I don't think
the timing is right here because of the fact that really it's actually less 1
density by 1 lot than it was in 1987 and you were going to allow me at that time
to build a house there without an easement through to Crimson Bay.
1 Councilman Boyt: Wasn't it, I'm trying to think back to that because we don't
have the Minutes to that reeting but that had something to do with where you
' were putting your house. Weren't you putting your house so we were separating
your house from the lake or something like that with that easement?
Timm Foster: No. The road actually had my house placed and designed Bill and
the road ended up kind of going through the corner of my garage so no, it
wasn't. I had net this morning with the people at Jim Hill's office and they
suggested that it is relatively difficult. Dan Herbst's house that he has right
next that is currently for sale would have, to bring that driveway up to grade,
would have a relatively steep driveway and I don't think any of the neighbors in
the Crimson Bay want that type of traffic going through their place so I think
the time to deal with the issue is really when somebody cares in to develop the
80 acres or the Brandt's or the Daniels develop their 10 acres. There's really
not a whole lot more development can go on there.
Councilman Boyt: Tim, the dilemma is, and I can understand why Crimson Bay
doesn't want this road coming in. It's that there's no way that we can lay out
a road...
Tim Foster: You don't need a road now Bill.
' Councilman Boyt: No, but just wait until I finish this point. On a piece of
undeveloped property. We can't lay a network of roads on Chanhassen
unfortunately and say okay, this is it. Now build around it. We have to take
62
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
the pieces as they care to us. And so you get Crimson Bay and son of a gun, it
doesn't go all the way up to the north. So we don't get to build a road all the
way up to someplace in the north and now this one doesn't go all the way to
Crimson Bay. Somewhere out here and maybe this isn't the point at which we
fight it, I don't know, but somewhere we've got to have a plan on where the
roads are going in this town and where the trails are going or we'll end up with
a bunch of dead ends.
Tim Foster: Bill, you have an 80 acre parcel and two 10 acre parcels and I
think the time to do it obviously, if it always stays that way, then the road
situation is possibly you'll improve the road that goes by the Girl Scout Camp
so I just don't think the timing is right. You don't need the cards now. You
don't really need them in your hand. I think when someone comes in.
Councilman Johnson: We'll never get there in the future. 1
Tim Foster: Why not? You still control the deck. Someone has to care to you
to get further subdivision Jay. '
Councilman Johnson: If Lot 2 never further subdivides.
Tim Foster: Correct. ,
Councilman Johnson: Whichever one that is, and a lot of people sitting around
thinking...don't, we're never given the deck back. We have to ask for that deck
back. We have to have a subdivision in order to get that easement. If we get
the easement now, we retain that card you know.
Tim Foster: I think it's an undue hardship on that Lot 2. It's not talking
about a trail which they are suggesting a trail and we worked with Jo Ann. Cr
she did and the Park people for the trail going around it but this just isn't a
trail with somebody walking across close to your garage. It's a road close to
your garage so therefore it's still...
Councilman Johnson: An easement. 1
Tim Foster: I understand. I think it still is the time for is when the major
portion comes in and that's when either the 80 acres or some major development
cares in there and I don't forsee that occurring until the MUSA line allows some
type of development there. And when that's going to occur, I still think Jay
that you control the cards.
Councilman Johnson: Not for Lot 2. We control Lot 2 today. When that 80 acres
develops, we control that 80 acres but we control Lot 2 today. And if we give
away that, we're going to hand them that card today. We're going to say here it
is. No easement or we're going to keep the card. We're going to have this
easement and we'll slide that thing up our selves to play it same other day but
if we hand the card over, unless they want to came in and give the card back to
us. '
Tim Foster: As you recall the studies done by Van Horn or whatever the name of
the people was that did the studies, there wasn't any of the roads that went
through to TH 5. They all went in and came back out through the 80 acres. It
wasn't even suggested that they go through there anyway I think.
63
1
, City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
Councilman Johnson: Now does Crimson Bay have a road access going all the way 1
to the property line? A road easement?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Jo Ann Olsen: A 25 foot easement.
Councilman Johnson: 25 feet. So when the property to the north of them
develops, they get another 25 and have 50.
Gary Warren: The property to the east of then.
Councilman Johnson: Or east of thew.
' Gary Warren: The Arboretum. •
' Councilman Johnson: The Arboretum. If the Arboretum ever were to develop, then
we would be able to connect and there would be the ability to go out to TH 5.
There would be the ability to access Crimson Bay from the north versus having to
access it only from TH 5 in case of a natural disaster or something. It makes
' sense to reserve that ability. I don't know, there's probably 10 times a year
we give back those easements because we got the 20 years ago, 30 years ago and
finally decided they weren't worth having but something could have changed and
they might have been worth having. Once you give it away, you never get it
back.
l
Tim Foster: Never say never.
r
Councilman Johnson: I haven't seen many people came walking up and say, oh
yeah. Came on and put a road access through here.
Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, I guess I would like to hear the two buyers of the
property care up and tell us how getting that easement now is going to affect
the placement of their homes.
Peter Brandt: In terms of obtaining an easement right now, I guess I don't
understand why you would need one for that piece of property specifically
IIbecause we are essentially surrounded by either 80 acres, which Tam Courtenoy
owns. The other piece of property or the Crimson Bay thing on the other side or
the Arboretum. If you're going to build roads in there, you'll probably came in
II through the 80 acres more than likely. You're not going to care in through
Crimson Bay because that's going to create a traffic problem on TN 5 for you.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Could you address how it's going to affect the placement
of your hame if we take the easement now?
Peter Brandt: Well, I guess I can't tell you specifically how it's going to
II impact the design of our home but it could. We haven't designed it yet so we
would have to work around that sort of thing. I think the studies that have
been done show that that type of a road in the first place is going to be, it's
I ppng e rto ie hbret che e p rthoepyeo in oto ohnaly o u pop ra ty g be aln s o thtehre e Crimson
w Bilay
64
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 11
by the way also go over their septic system and it's going to create tremendous
problems if a road is ever built.
Councilman Johnson: Go over their septic system? Oh the grading. Let me give
you some of my logic for saying that if the Arboretum develops. If the MUSA
line comes down there in the future and then we develop, we bring in sewer to
the area. We develop the Arboretum or somebody develops the Arboretum property.
The 80 acres. That whole area eventually's going to develop. Crimson Bay's a
long, long cul-de-sac going through forested areas. It's your typical safety
nightmare if there's a natural disaster, tornado, whatever of getting access
back to that last house. You always want the back door. I
Peter Brandt: The last house will be my house.
Councilman Johnson: From Crimson Bay. Crimson Bay is the last house. You're ,
even a longer cul-de-sac.
Peter Brandt: Right. '
Councilman Johnson: And access to yours, if there's sane reason, you'd have two
accesses to yours. One from the south and one fram the north. It provides more
options for future development if that is there.
Peter Brandt: When and if future development occurs, then I would come before
you again to suggest another plan for the land and subdivide the land.
4 Councilman Johnson: You're talking only Lot 2. We're talking the whole area.
We have to think bigger than exactly what's before us. If we only think about ,
the minute part of the city before us, then we'll be micraranaging the entire
city and nothing will ever interconnect.
Peter Brandt: Right and if you look at the way that land is laid out today and
where people own property, more than likely a road will cone in through County
Road 41, not through TH 5. There's actually no reason to came in through TH 5
because it's going to create more problems then it's worth, both in terms of
traffic and in terms of destruction of the property themselves.
Councilman Johnson: How will this ever hook up down to Crimson Bay? '
Peter Brandt: My property to Crimson Bay? I don't understand.
Councilman Johnson: No. The new development you say that's going to came in
from TH 41 rather than TH 5.
Peter Brandt: Why would it have to hook up to Crimson Bay? I
Councilman Johnson: That's one of the things we're trying to do is give them a
back door. Okay, they have no back door. Would you build a house without a
back door? Only a front door.
Tim Foster: Jay, June 21st of 1988 I think this study was like $4,000.00 that
{ the City paid for with their plans A, B, C and D and they all suggested going
back out through the 80 acres.
65
City, Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
•
Councilman Boyt: I think that's the one you decided not to pursue isn't it Tim?
Tim Foster: Well I sold the 80 acres.
I - Councilman Boyt: Zook care of that problem.
Tim Foster: I can...speak for Peter because I was in the sage position that he
I was in and I'll tell you where my house would have been placed. I wouldn't have
built on there.
I Councilman Boyt: The other part of this is that somewhere in here we looked at
upgrading Dogwood. The neighbors carne in and said, we're tired of plowing this
thing. We want the City to take it over and the cost of doing that and the
trees it was going to amount to removing, the neighbors decided that once they
saw the bill, they didn't want to do that anymore. They'd just as soon plow it.
There's something about the terrain, the type of houses, everything that
indicates that nothing's probably going to happen here for an awfully long time.
I Expense. All those sorts of things. I'm just saying, and I think Jay is saying
the same thing that from my point of view, easements are something that now's
the time to get them. When the property's in it's biggest possible piece. I
I don't know that we need to belabor this. A couple of you haven't spoken at all
on this issue. I personally would like to see us get the easement.
Councilman Workman: The only thing we have before us is what's taking place now
I in a very small, I don't know what's going to happen on putting another, maybe
we're going to have to have our exit/entrance onto TH 41. That's no better than
putting it on TH 5. We only have what's before us tonight. I don't know if
I Public Safety ever got a chance to look at this but it's gone completely.
Leaving this a cul-de-sac goes ca-pletely against everything that we've ever
discussed. Vine Hill, we were worried about 400 foot, 500 foot cul-de-sacs and
I this is about a mile at least. It seers to make sense to go through to Crimson.
I'm anxious to hear others.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess the reason I was asking if anybody knew how they
' were going to place their house yet and if the easement would affect the
placement of their house. If it doesn't, I guess I would be in favor of taking
the easement at this point also.
IICouncilman Boyt: I think what Tim said is it might very well affect the
placement.
11 Tim Foster: ...I don't think they'll be a house there.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I don't know what that means Tim.
IIPeter Brandt: There's a good chance I wouldn't buy the property if that
easement's in place there. It's just that simple. It destroys the lot.
IIDan Herbst: Mr. Mayor, maters of the Council. When I came before you with
Crimson Bay, you were very concerned about introducing 5 more lots onto that
access that goes into the Arboretum because the entrance and exit to TH 5 there
is substantial and it's increasing daily with the activity at the Arboretum. I
think your study took that into consideration. If the Arboretum or the Apple
Orchard is developed to the east of Crimson Bay, TH 41 from a traffic count
66
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
point of view and a visibility point of view and all the other activities, is a
lot more desireable than going onto TH 5. Also, the second thing that you've
just touched on is the topography's very tough up there. You're talking about
putting 150 foot swath through this Outlot 2 and also going onto Lot 5 of Mi
Crimson Bay. I think when the 80 acres of Foster's is developed and when the
Apple Orchard is developed, you've got opportunities to look for alternative
accesses on TH 5 which won't conflict with the Arboretum entrance and you'll
have other opportunities to get a couple of accesses onto TH 41 which is a lot
less density as far as traffic goes in TH 5 so. And I think that was a concern
when we developed Crimson Bay and it doesn't Rake any sense to take all the
Tanadoona traffic, the Dogwood traffic and dump that out onto TH 5 at the
critical entrance to the Arboretum. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: In spite of whatever I've said... 1
Councilwoman Dialer: What did you say at that time Jay?
Councilman Johnson: At what time? ,
Councilwoman Dialer: The Council that Dan is referring to was the former
Council. Were you a part of that?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dialer: Now did you feel about the TH 5 issue at that time?
Councilman Johnson: Oh, I wanted to keep traffic off of TH 5. If you've ever
turned into Crimson Bay, especially if you're eastbound on TH 5 and try to turn
into Crimson Bay. It's taking your life into your own hands.
Councilwoman Dialer: So then it would Rake sense not to bring the easement ,
through? I mean to get the easement to bring the road through back onto TH 5?
Councilman Johnson: Well an easement out to the Apple Orchard or to there and ,
at that point when the Apple Orchard goes, it gives that back door there. There
is a lot of capabilities here. Future easement up the side of Lot 1 when the 80
acres develops. That gives a very short cul-de-sac then. When the Apple
Orchard develops, we can connect into Crimson Bay from the Apple Orchard. In
this case, despite what I'm saying, I .love to reserve easements before. I like
to have as many cards. Since I'm going to Reno tomorrow, I like to have as any 11 cards up my sleeve as I can get but in this case, I'm not sure if it's
absolutely necessary because when the Apple Orchard or the 80 acres develop we
should cut that...
Councilman Workman: Axe you talking about the Arboretum developing? That's the I
second time I heard that. Is the Arboretum...
Councilman Johnson: Eventually maybe. Who knows what's going to happen in 50
years.
Councilman Boyt: Tax free land? I
67 '
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
11 Mayor Chmiel: That will probably stay there forever.
Councilman Johnson: It would take a heck of a lot of pressure to do it.
Councilman Workman: That's not an option out to TH 5.
Councilman Johnson: No, I don't want it out to TH 5.
Councilman Workman: Or 41. That's not really an option.
Councilman Johnson: And Crimson Bay? See I'm not too sure if I want to connect
too many more lots into the Crimson Bay. Then people are running through
Crimson Bay out to TH 5 and TH 5 is a mess. Whether they're ever going to 4
lanes through Lake Minnewashta.
Councilman Workman: But do we want a mile long cul-de-sac?
Councilman Johnson: The mile long cul-de-sac would be solved when the 80 acres.
I mean we've got that now with the only way to turn around is to go into
somebody's driveway at the end of Dogwood. This extends almost, it doesn't
extend anything does it?
Tim Foster: Tom, if we would just look at the work that the engineers did in
1988, every one of the plans A, B, C and D all went back out through the 80
acres.
Councilman Boyt: But there's no loop Tim. There's still only, it's just a long
T instead of.
Tim Foster: No, there was same plans that looped and some that T'd.
Councilman Boyt: Well I think I've got all four of them, in front of ne and I
don't see a loop in any of then. Have you got one?
1 Councilman Johnson: They weren't looking at future development on this plan
anyway. They were looking at what can we do now. They weren't looking at when
this was within the MUSA line. That was not their objective in this study.
Gary Warren: I believe, if I could just interject, the feasibility study that
Van Doren was directed to do was with the conclusion that a Crimson Bay
connection was not a part of their evaluation.
Councilman Johnson: That's right.
Councilman Boyt: What does that mean?
Gary Warren: That they were not to look at taking it any further to the south.
That was pretty well concluded already that that would not, the Council wasn't
interested at that time in pursuing that connection and therefore we were just
dealing with the internal street setup on how to address Dogwood and Tanadoona.
IIThat's the reason why the report does not talk about going out to TN 5.
Councilman Boyt: Gary, through the 80 acres, I don't see a loop. Do you
remember a loop? This isn't a loop because we were going to shut off this.
68
7
City Council Meeting - February 12; 1990
11
Gary Warren: The only loop that I recall is somewhat to what was proposed here
is that the road pattern through the cutting, transversing through the 80 acres,
if you would keep Tanadoona in place. That really wasn't attractive because of
the camp property and the difficulty in passing on assessments for that road
improvement.
Councilman Boyt: Now what I see here is alternative D, exhibit 6. I don't know 11 if you have a graphic of that but it shows Tanadoona crossed out.
Councilman Johnson: We made two slightly shorter cul-de-sacs off the end.
Councilman Boyt: Right, a T.
Gary Warren: Right. That was as close as you get I think to the loop. ,
Councilman Johnson: That's still undeveloped to the 80 acres. That 80 acres
develop, part of that cul-de-sac may connect to other road systems. There will
be other roads going...and a road going through there. They didn't look at what
the ultimate development would be. They only looked at the short term in this
study.
Councilman Workman: I don't know if this makes anybody happy but I think
there's sufficient confusion that we might want to table this. I know there's
people who are intending to buy a lot and the lot hinging on that. I don't know
that we want to make an eleventh hour decision on this this evening because
there's quite a bit in the balance for individuals. Why don't we work with
staff. I know this packet was extra big and it wasn't fun. This is number 9
but I think we should maybe move a little bit slower about the potential for
future movement to Crimson before we just kind of shoot it here.
Councilman Boyt: I would second that. I
Mayor Cimiel: Yeah. It's been moved and seconded to have staff review and come
up with sore more conclusions. I
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table action on
Preliminary Plat #89-11 to subdivide 20.9 acres into two single family lots
for Peter and Deanna Brandt. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO
CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS, FIRST READING.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move item 11. ,
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Mayor Cmiel: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor.
Councilman Boyt: Whoa!
69 1
I
II • City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
IIMayor Chmiel: Discussion? You have something to say Bill? I thought I'd get
it past you without a word.
II Councilman Boyt: Yeah, well I guess I'm going to have to go from memory since I
don't see my notes but there was a couple things that I think deserve a little
co mment. One of them is, Steve Bmmings did a terrific job. Let me borrow yours
for a second, in rewriting this thing. There was, if I can find it and that was
one of the, I don't know about you but I had a hard time finding the ordinance
in the pack. It wasn't front page where it normally is. It's back in here and
there was just.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, it was Attachment 7.
ICouncilman Boyt: Is it after all those Minutes?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah.
1 Councilman Boyt: What I really like about this is the flexibility in it. It's
really going to depend upon, it's going to be as good as we make it. If we let
some things fall through here that could, but right now we've got a great
II ordinance in which to work with and apparently you all did too the way you were
going there. How are we going to enforce it is the question I have? Will we be
willing to pull the permit if somebody who, because there's a lot of stuff in
II here about maintenance. It's going to take same inspection. Somebody doesn't
do it, are we going to pull their beachlot permit?
Councilwoman Dimler: I think like we do now. If we get a complaint. I'm not
sure that we're going to go all out.
Jo Ann Olsen: Complaints will be, they're all conditional use permits so they
II all have an annual review. We usually don't revoke. We usually try to work
with them and let them know what they aren't meeting and have them. If they
don't conform after a long period of time, yes we do bring it back in front of
the Council.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest a nit picky point but maybe one worth putting
in. 13(c) where it says planting of trees and shrubs. I think we want to put
11 in planting and maintenance. We talk about maintenance of their structures
but I also think there's a maintenance factor in trees and shrubs. I'd like to
see that added to (c) . I think we should stop the last paragraph of the
ordinance. It says if the City finds it necessary based upon conflicts and so
on and so on. I think we should put a period after, to the extent feasible the
City ray impose such conditions even after approval of the beachlot. The rest
,of it's really not needed.
Councilwoman Dimler: What does the rest of it say?
Councilman Boyt: The rest of it says, if the City finds it necessary based upon
conflicts of the use of other property or failure to maintain property or
equipment. That's just a restatement of the ordinance so I think it rakes it
just a little cleaner to just drop it.
Councilwoman Dirtier: I'll accept those two friendly amendments. Do you accept
those two friendly amendments?
70
City Council Meeting - February-12:1990 -
il
Councilman Johnson: Absolutely.
II
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the amendment
to modify the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to clarify lot depth requirements II
as shown on Attachment #7 amending Section 20-263(13) (c) to read the planting
and maintenance of trees and shrubs; and to amend the last paragraph to read:
To the extent feasible, the City may impose such conditions even after approval
II
of the beachlot. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR RSF DISTRICT STANDARDS DEALING WITH LOT FRONTAGE 1
AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVE ,YS, FIRST READING.
Paul Krauss: Over the past 6 months the issue of accessing single family lots
II
by private driveway has been discussed on several occasions. This type of
access is currently not allowed or requires a variance on your part which has
been granted most recently, as I recall in the Vineland Forest subdivision. II When these things had cane up, staff has indicated a belief that this type of
lot may often represent the most sensitive way to develop an otherwise
acceptable residential parcel. In discussions with the Council, staff was
directed to propose an ordinance revision that would deal with this matter II
directly. We've drafted such an ordinance and basically what it does is it
allows up to 4 lots to be accessed by a private driveway. However, since it's
11 II
our preference that lots be accessed by public right-of-way if possible, there's
a series of standards proposed. First, there is criteria outlining when a
private drive would be considered. Basically they're findings. Findings that
the applicant would have to demonstrate to your satisfaction. Basically they ,
constitute a demonstration that the private drive option is the most
environmentally sensitive option in that it doesn't impact adjoining parcels or
minimizes impact on adjoining parcels. The ordinance then outlines very II stringent standards for the construction of private drives. The standards are
particularly stringent because we believe we have to maintain a legitimate
access both for the people that live there and for the City emergency vehicles.
Finally, recognizing that neck lots or flag lots or lots accessed by private
II
driveways oftentimes are different or are out of place in the neighborhood as it
develops, if you have hones lining a street, this is behind that, we wanted to
provide sane additional protection for the adjoining properties. So we've
proposed that the 90 foot lot width be increased to 100 feet and that the 10 II
foot sideyard setback be increased to 20 feet. We really want to avoid
Impacting people's rear yard areas and we think that this goes a way to doing
that. The drafted ordinance would also seek to clarify lot frontage ,
requirements on lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and curvalinear streets. You may
recall this also came up during the Vineland Forest subdivision. The ordinance
right now allows you to measure lot frontage at the building setback line on
cul-de-sacs. It doesn't say where on cul-de-sacs. We're proposing that it be
changed so you measure it that way on cul-de-sac bubbles or an outside curves
along curvalinear streets where the same situation results. The Planning
Commission reviewed the draft in January and recce v-iendea several changes. Most II
noteably they requested that similar standards be allowed in the rural
residential district. The City Attorney also requested some changes and both
his and the Planning Commission changes have been incorporated. The ordinance
II
was drafted in consultation with the fire chief and the fire marshall and we
71 ,
II
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
1
I beleive responds to their needs and fire code requirements. It was also
reviewed by the Public Safety Commission earlier last week and they
recommended that it be approved. With that we're recommending that the
first reading of the ordinance be approved.
IIMayor Chmiel: Okay thank you. Any discussion? Not hearing any.
IICouncilman Boyt: I'd add one thing. Excuse me. That is that the main body
of the lot should meet 15,000 square foot standard.
lCouncilman Johnson: Right. It's not included in the flag.
Councilman Boyt: That's right.
IMayor Chmiel : Not including the flag.
Councilman Workman: This is the first reading?
IIMayor Chmiel : Yes. Is there a motion?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first
IIreading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for RSF District standards dealing
with lot frontage and access by private drives amended to read that the
main body of the lot, not including the neck, shall meet the 15,000 square
' foot minimum requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES: A. REFUNDING BONDS OF 1990/CITY AUDITORS/
IPOSITION CLASSIFICIATION PLAN.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to set the date of
Tuesday, March 6, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. as the meeting date for the City
IAuditors and Position Classification Plan and approved Resolution #90-18
calling for the sale of the 1990 Refunding Bonds. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
IB. BOARD OF REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION.
The City Council set the meeting date of Tuesday, May 15, 1990 at 7:00 p.m.
for the Board of Review and Equalization.
COMMISSION INTERVIEW PROCESS, COUNCILWOMAN DIMLER.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: That is a resolution to establish procedure for
filling commission vacancies. I don't know if you've all had a chance to
1 read it but it deals with the commission never risking the lack of a
quorum. It also deal with the encumbants knowing that they're reappointed
prior to the expiration date. It deals with the new appointees having time
to become acquainted with their responsibilities prior to taking office on
IIJanuary 1st. And there are 5 recommendations then that the advertisement
announcing the commission vacancies be placed in the official newspaper
during the first week in October and shall be published 3 consecutive
IIweeks. Number two, that after the third publication, application process
shall remain open for another 2 weeks. Item 3, the commission members
interviewing applicants at their regular scheduled meeting
S72
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
just prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. Number 4, the Council interview
applicants at their first regular scheduled meeting in December. The Council
may interview all the applicants or just those referred to by the Commission.
And number 5, the encumbants who are reapplying for the position do not need to
be interviewed by the commission members and should not be involved in the
interviews and selection of their competitors but they do need to be interviewed
by the City Council. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon
it's passage. And I move the adoption of this resolution. 1
Mayor Chtmiel: I think that's good.
Councilman Johnson: There's only one problem. I like almost everything that ,
you said there.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion.
Councilman Johnson: The one point is lame duck Councils where in December where I
the majority of the Council may be leaving for even 2 out of 3 or whatever, you
know may be leaving and they now have a chance to appoint the Planning
Commissions of the future. What I would rather do is, instead of having their
terms effective January 1st, move their terms into the year to where they don't
run January. There's nothing sacred about January 1st, so that we don't have
the situation of a lame duck Council appointing Planning Commissioners or
I/
appointing themselves onto commissions or committees. That happened. Before
Bill and I came in.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just have a point. It isn't State statute to have 11
January 1st as the...
Don Ashworth: The Council can set commission ending dates. That would require '
an ordinance amendment.
Councilman Johnson: That's what this is isn't it? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: This is not an ordinance amendment. This is just a
resolution. I
Councilman Johnson: See I'd move everything to March 1st.
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with you that it is a problem. However, let's see I
that's only from.
Councilman Johnson: Every other year. '
Councilwoman Dimler: November through, that's only a 3 month period. We have
what, two meetings? After election is in November, and they take office in
January. We have about 3 meetings. It's during holiday season. Can't we just
state that...
Councilman Johnson: Why don't we move commission's terms to start March 1st? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: That screws up this whole schedule.
73
CityCouncil Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Well you just move your schedule 3 months. Sure it messes 1
up your schedule but the one problem with the schedule is, or what's the time
II period? How long does your schedule take from the start of the process until
they're appointed?
IICouncilwoman Dimler: From, October to the first part of December.
Councilman Johnson: 2 months. So we would start the process the first of
January. After the holidays we would start the process with the new Council of
II advertising for all the commissions and stuff. The new Council will have 3
months to be, or a couple months to be on board and get to know their job a
little bit before they're appointing people to work with them. Even as I think
II about that, it starts to make sense to me to say July 1st to where the Council
knows what they're doing by the time they appoint. If you think back, in
February when you started on the Council or when I started on the Council in
1 January, did I know enough about city business and the City Council to make
appointments on these very critical commissions?
Councilman Workman: Do we still?
IICouncilman Johnson: Do we still? We're a lot better shape now than we were a
month into it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what I'd like to see done with this thing Jay is adopt
this resolution as we have here before us and then have staff review just
exactly what you're saying. TO cane up with sane conclusions to then take care
IIof it.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That would work.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: Okay, and there was just one other question I had. The
Hoard of Adjustment and Appeals, I guess they're up every year and they need to
be reappointed?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
IICouncilwoman Dinler: And do they come through the same procedure?
Councilman Workman: No.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: Are they a commission?
Don Ashworth: The appointment there is by the City Council.
Councilwoman Dimler: There's no interviewing process?
1 Councilman Johnson: There could be.
Councilwoman Dimler: No advertising?
ICouncilman Workman: I'm thinking of...
I
74
1
City Council Meeting - February 12; 1990
1/
Don Ashworth: I don't know why the procedure would really be any different. I
think there's one council member and then two citizens at large.
Councilman Johnson: At this point they have not been reappointed. We have a
lame duck group that needs to be reappointed. Except for me, I'm the only one
and I got appointed this year so I guess that counts. But both Willard and
Carol indicated that they'd like to be reappointed. I think we'd like to stick
that onto a future, if not next agenda and we'll just reappoint those two. 1
Mayor Chrael: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Boyt: I've got a question. What happens when you can't follow the
schedule? What are you going to do?
Councilwoman Dialer: You can stick as close to it as possible. I
Councilman Johnson: It's a resolution.
Mayor Chriel: Yep. Strictly a resolution. ,
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we adopt on 5, after need to be, let's
see. 'There's something here about, oh that the Council interview applicants at
their first regularly scheduled meeting in Decerher and just stop there. Or
selected applicants.
Councilwoman Dimler: I really think that Council should have the flexibility of
calling up any of the applicants even if they weren't passed on by the
Commission.
Councilman Boyt: But you have that if you just stop at your first period.
Councilwoman Dimler: We don't want to maybe interview then all. You know. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with it as it is.
Councilwoman Dimler: We may want to interview those that they passed onto us
plus only 1 other one.
Councilman Johnson: It's redundant but who cares? What does it hurt to have
that sentence in there?
Councilwoman Dimler: I think it kind of clarifies it that we're not going to
interview then all or why have the commission interview them then you know.
Councilman Johnson: It says we could if we want.
Councilman Boyt: We can do it either way.
Councilwoman Diarler: We can if we want but we don't have to. If you just leave
it the way it is, it implies that we're going to interview them all.
Mayor C r iel: I think this thing is very simple. Direct to the point. I think
we should move on it.
75 1
, city Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
11 Councilman Boyt: In number 5, I happen to think it's a good idea for the
ca*mission members to interview everybody including the people who have been on 1
the conmassion. You see them in action but here's a chance maybe to ask them
about same stuff. Why are we telling then not to do that?
Councilwoman Dimler: Because I feel that if they've been on the commission,
they all know each other and it's kind of a waste of time for the commission
members then to interview those that they've been working with for a year, maybe
2 years, maybe 3 years. It kind of gets to be...
Councilman Workman: I would say that if they want to be interviewed, go ahead.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: If they want to, that's fine but they don't have to be.
Councilman Workman: I'm leaning towards them, but they probably shouldn't be a
part of the interview process. That I go along with.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I said they do not need to be. They can be if
they want to be but they don't need to be.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Okay, we have it before us. A motion.
Councilman Johnson: We could even reword that slightly to say that, never mind.
I had the wording and then it left me.
Councilman Boyt: As this is written Mr. Mayor, you're giving up all your powers
to appoint people as applicants. Not as applicants but as people to be
interviewed by the Council. I mean you have the same power anyone else has
under this. Under ordinance, there are some where you're the person who selects
the candidates that we either put on or don't put on.
Don Ashworth: I believe that's only the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and
your local procedure really can't change the State law which that says.
11 Councilman Hoyt: So for that one. So all the others.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, the HRA does not came in.
11 Mayor Ch iel: That's my understanding. We have a motion and a second.
Resolution 190- 0. Councilwoman Dimler roved, Councilman W3rkPan seconded a
resolution for the Commission interview process as follows:
I 1. The advertisement announcing the commission vacancies be placed in the
official newspaper during the first week in October and shall be published 3
consecutive weeks.
2. After the third publication, application process shall retain open for
another 2 weeks.
' 3. The commission members interviewing applicants at their regular scheduled
meeting just prior to the Thanksgiving holiday.
76
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
•
11
4. The Council interview applicants at their first regular scheduled meeting in
December. The Council may interview all the applicants or just those I
referred to by the Commission.
5. The encumbants who are reapplying for the position do not need to be
interviewed by the commission members and should not be involved in the
interviews and selection of their competitors but they do need to be
interviewed by the City Council.
This resolution shall became effective it ediately upon it's passage. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
i
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
LAKE LUCY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, LAKE CLEAN-UP. 1
Councilman Johnson: Let me just give you a quick rundown of what's been
happening. That's Lake Lucy. This weekend a group of about 20 of us. I
Dale Carlson: 16.
Councilman Johnson: 16. Well that's about 20. We went out and oh my the way, I
if you'd like copies of what we did, I even have a copy for everybody. Courtesy
of the City Engineer and also my copy here. All the little circles are where we
drilled holes in the ice and surveyed then, the weekend before last and then went
out and did sane more surveying this weekend. Drilled holes in these locations.
Checked the depth to the top of the muck. Tried to, well sane people called it
the bottom but this lake is, the top we found that the top 6 inches or so is
extremely thin mud such that if you take just a weight and go down there, you
won't even feel it until you get through the top 6 inches of what's actually not
water anymore but was classified as a truly thin mud. We had a special device
that we lowered down and it was quite interesting. We did that and then we
stuck a pole down in each of these 90 sane locations and saw how far we could do
it. We had a 20 foot pole. We had a 30 foot pole. One of the 20 foot poles is 11 still in there because we couldn't get it back out after it came apart. The 30
foot pole came apart and we ended up with a 10 foot pole in hand and 20 foot in
the lake...been slowed down operations. Then we went in for lunch and had some
great chili and brownies from Dale's wife here. The...dissolved oxygen readings
at 4 places in the lake and we took water samples at 3 and we're having the
water samples analyzed. In order to have something to show you, last night I
quickly charted out the bottom and it canes out very close to what the DNR
charted the bottoms which isn't too terribly surprising. We did find some
differences but these charts up here are DO readings. The first two are in the
main body of the lake and what it says is we've got dissolved oxygen in the top
part of the lake this year. The DNR's telling me that there's almost no lake in
the state that's going to have a fish kill because we haven't had any snow so
the light canes through and produces oxygen. And they said at this time if you
have dissolved oxygen at this time of the year, 2 milligrams per liter or less,
that they would believe that you're going to have a fish kill in your lake that
( year. It would probably open it up to unlimited fishing on that lake. What
they used to call promiscuous fishing but they no longer call it that. We found
that this back bay here at the surface had barely over 1 part per million
dissolved oxygen that went down to .7 at the bottom so if there's any fish in
77 I
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
II this area, with the exception of the black bullhead and the mud minnow will
probably be dead. There's been reports that there's black bullheads and we
found what we think may be a mud minnow and the place we found it was solid mud.
So there's a lot of activity going on here. A lot of work by the citizens
II that's a very devoted group. I just want to tell what the start is. Dale, if
you want to get up to the chair here, if you've got some...
ICouncilman Boyt: Where are we going with this?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, where are we going.
II Dale Carlson: Dale Carlson from Lake Lucy. I think we wanted, since the City
owns property on the lake, we wanted a representative from the City to attend
same of the meetings that we've been having and participate in those kind of
II activities that we had last weekend, eating chili and that kind of stuff.
Secondly, all this information that we've gathered now, we don't know what to do
with. We need to get someone who knows a whole lot more about this stuff than
we do and we had some discussion with Del Hogan who has submitted a bid to
analyze some of this information and to approach the Watershed. We feel that
with monies that have been spent to this point and with the proposal from Del
Hogan, that we have some start-up costs of around $2,000.00. We are asking what
II portion may, would the City be interested in participating in and what as a
lakeshore owner would the City be interested in paying their fair share of, am. I
asking the question right?
IICouncilman Workman: I think my memo kind of addressed some of this. Don's Reno
back to me sort of. I think kind of missed the mark. I don't believe that I
made any decisions certainly on behalf of the Council financially or other. I 1
II simply inquired as does Dale. I don't know if you have a copy of my memo. I
copied Eric. I figured Eric would be here tonight.
1 Councilman Johnson: He couldn't be here tonight.
Councilman Workman: And then this situation obviously raises a lot of questions
which Don highlights precedent, contractual authority, etc. and that's what the
Council needs to discuss I guess. My two points were, can we empower a city
representative to attend the meetings and make decisions on the City's behalf
and what amount of money is the City willing to invest in the plan for aerators,
IIinsurance, consulting fees, etc.?
Councilman Hoyt: I saw a figure in the meeting before this one I guess where
II you were proposing to assess people on our side of the lake something like
$200.00?
II Dale Carlson: I think where we started from, the very initial costs Bill were I
think to have Mr. Hogan here that evening that you were here, he charged us
$135.00 and we had a few other expenses involved in that. We've paid those
privately. Now we're going after that next step. So far the expenses that
11 we've incurred have been shared by myself and Eric with anticipation of being
reimbursed at sane point in time by the rest of the residents. But I guess we
know that that next step is a little larger and we feel that it's important
II because we feel it's important to go to the watershed. I don't think this whole
project can be taken on. If we have to we will, but it's going to be a little
difficult to take on this hundred and some thousand dollar project on a 15 or 20
78
1
City council Meeting - February 12, 1990
11
individual land, property owner basis. So we're going to assess about, there's
about 20 property owners, assess whatever the City can't share in. So if that
means we have to divide $2,000.00 by 20, then be it. Cr can the City pay same
larger share of the $2,000.00 and then divide what's left by 20 or are we going
to be dividing by 19. That's I guess what we want, what we're trying to find
out. So we haven't determined the exact assessment. Is it going to be
$100.00? Is it going to be $200.00? We think we need $2,000.00 to get started.
Mayor Chmiel: $2,000.00 will get us started. Dale, how much do you think it's
going to cost totally? The end figure.
Dale Carlson: Well the numbers that were put together at the last meeting that
we did have were in the $100,000.00-$150,000.00 kinds of numbers. I feel, and
this is, I feel with what we found out on Saturday, this lake is in a lot worse
shape than we thought it was. If that lake with all the muck in it and
obviously a whole lot of nutrients and with all those fancy words are, if that's
at the head waters feeding these other lakes going down here, we better hope
that the water level stays down because there's a lot of stuff going to be going
down into Lake Ann, etc.. So something has to be done with that lake and if
it's, I don't think we should necessarily, we should be holding back. I'm going
to be surprised if $150,000.00 is going to do it. When you can't reach the
bottom of the lake with a 30 foot pole in 17 feet of water, as a matter of fact, ,
at the 7 feet off the shoreline and a 20 foot pole disappears, so you've got 13
feet of muck and 7 feet of water, that tells you we either have to do something
with it or I could maybe pour cement in it. I don't know which but it's in bad
shape. I think that something else, and I don't want to keep you guys up any
later, but something that the City should plan with. All this discussion's been
going on now for the last 9-10 months about water quality and cleaning up the
lakes. We spend money to, we set money aside for maintenance of our roads and
we talk about monies for maintenance of any number of different things in this
city. We've got to set aside sane money for maintenance of our lakes. I think
this is an indication of that. This lake hasn't been touched for, to my
knowledge, ever. Safe fish were put in it I think back in 1970 and everbody
keeps going out and checking it and seeing it deteriorate but nothing's ever
done with it. I
Councilman Johnson: There's a lot of short term and long term issues on this.
You don't treat the lake without treating the watershed that's running to the
lake. If everybody in Greenwood Shores that runs to this and along the other
sides of the lake, continue using high phospherous fertilizers and have Chen
Lawn cane in and spray their lawns in the morning with the rainstorm in the
afternoon and that washes down into the lake, nothing gets accomplished. If the
City gets involved in investing a large amount of money in aerating this lake to
avoid winter fish kills and to do some more oxygen burning of some of this muck,
it's totally useless without watershed control. So there's going to be sane
tough issues to face over the next 6 months as to what we want to do here. If
we want to, and the same issues go for every lake in town. This may be the way
to experiment here at the headwaters and find out what works. What doesn't work
and then apply that to our other lakes. Watershed may cane up with money next
year. Sara of the residents want to put aeration in this year and I'm not sure
where we're going to come up with that kind of money this year. I think we
need, the Council needs, the City needs to send somebody to these meetings.
Whether it's a member of the Council or not. I'm going to a lot of them on more
of a technical aspect of things and don't really, I've gotten involved in it
79 1
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
I because I like this kind of work. I've built a water sampler for them and
whatever. I've got probably 60 hours invested into this thing now.
Dale Carlson: It's well appreciated by the way. 1
IICouncilman Johnson: As long as your wife keeps those brownies caring.
II Councilman Workman: I guess for reasons of expediency, if Jay wants to be that
rep I guess I'd be all for Jay being that rep.
Councilman Johnson: No. I'd rather not be.
Councilman Workman: The bigger issue is the other 11 or so lakes in the city
and how we address the problem. I think this group of people is going to do
II more with $150,000.00 than the DNR or EPA could do with a million to clean up
the lake. So I'm excited about it and I'd like to see it go. I guess I don't
know if we have enough information about the exact dollar costs that the City's
II getting in and I think we need to somehow know that. We're just 1/20 of the
expenditure I believe but we have property on every lake and so we could be in
12 times or so and so I think we need to figure out where this is going to came
from. I'd suggest the Mayor's salary. I don't know if we have enough, that's
1 why I had a conversation with Eric. That's why I finally just drafted the memo
and try and raise the questions and get it moving. We make a decision or we
don't because it is a financial something that is going on.
IICouncilman Johnson: I think the water from this lake affects all the rest of
the lakes down the chain and therefore the City has more of an investment in it
I than being another lakeshore owner. I think we have our percent being a
lakeshore owner but I'd like to see the City pick up on this $2,000.00 that
they're talking about to do some of the initial studies of the lake. TO have the
analysis done and to prepare for going before the Watershed Board so that we've
II got some say into what's going on here. I've got same misgivings of
biaranipulation and stuff like that that have to be talked about later. I'd
like to see the City pick up some percent of that $2,000.00 plus it's lakeshore
II percentage or whatever our percentage of lakeshore is of the remainder as one of
the lakeshore owners on this lake. Prince has somewhat agreed to picking up his
41% of the lakeshore. That's very, very tentative.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: Did you talk to him Jay?
Councilman Johnson: No I didn't. Tars did. TON talked to somebody. Not T'am,
I Jim.
Councilman Boyt: I'll be amazed if Prince gives 41% of $200,000.00 to this
Iproject.
Councilwoman Dimler: I will too.
Councilman Boyt: The other thing is, the DNR stills wants to do this. They
still want to be involved in cleaning that lake up. And for us as a City
Council to spend city money and tell the DNR no, we're not going to go that
I direction, I don't think we should be doing that. We should pay, I've said all
along that i'll vote to pay our 1/20 or whatever the nui*ber of property owners
is, our share for sure but I don't see how we can take a lake that has no public
80
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
• II
access and pay more than the property we own because if we do, then I think Lake
Riley ought to be in here saying to us, well we want to try this. Do it with
us. Any lake with a problem. Now Lake Riley should be commended. I mean
you've done something that no other group of lake ha'e owners has done and I
think that's, in organizing and coming up with a proposal. The City already has
$8,000.00 in this and so personally I think the City should participate for 1/20
of the additional expenses but we shouldn't do more than that.
Councilman Johnson: All we're looking for right now, all they're looking for
right now is not the whole $200,000.00 but that initial, because we believe the
Watershed should be participating in here considerably. I mean it's a watershed
issue. This is the top of the watershed. So we want or they want, I shouldn't
say we, get enough money together to make a presentation to the Watershed based
on the data that's been collected and it's going to take an analysis of the data
and whatever. The total cost for presentation to the Watershed, etc. is about
$2,000.00. You're saying the City would only pay...
Councilman Boyt: $1,000.00.
Councilman Johnson: Huh?
Councilman Boyt: It's $2,000.00. No, it's not $1,000.00. If it's $2,000.00,
1/20 of that is what? $100.00?
Mayor Chmiel: 1/20 would be $100.00, yep. i
Councilman Boyt: I'd be happy to see the City do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask a question. Jim, have you had anymore discussions 1
with Prince's-people and that letter that I wrote to then requesting a few
dollars?
Jim Chaffee: No I haven't. I'm meeting with Red White later this week and
that's one of the topics that we're going to be discussing.
Mayor Cruel: Okay. Thank you. So I guess where we're at right now, I don't I
as Bill has indicated, we'd be willing to go 1/20 of it right now.
Councilman Johnson: I'd be willing to go more. I'd like to see what other I
people are willing to do.
Mayor Chmiel: Open for discussion. 1
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see us go half of the $2,000.00. As
encouraging these private citizens to continue their efforts and encouraging the
watershed saying, hey. We do support lake restoration in this town and that we
realize that while we are a 1/20 property owner on this lake, this lake then
affects Lake Ann and Lake Ann affects Lake Susan and Lake Susan affects Rice
Marsh which affects Lake Riley. This is only one sympton. So the City has more
of a stake in this than just Lake Lucy. That's why I say we should, if the
Council doesn't feel like going for half of it, a quarter of it. $500.00.
Councilman Workman: Jay, we just have to base it on something. 1/20 is based I
on the fact that we're 1/20. You know what I mean? We need a basis so that
81 1
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
next time we have a situation like this on another lake, we have something to 11
guide us rather than shooting wildly. We need to have a comfortable basis for
why we're giving half or why, if we're 1/20 out of a partner.
iCouncilman Johnson: We're more than 1/20.
Councilman Workman: I'd like to see us pay the $288,888.88 but we need to have
a basis for what, you know we can't just pull.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not for us paying the $200,000.00...
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, if we give half now, is that a precedence
that sets the basis for we pay half. The insurance half. The aerators.
Councilman Johnson: No, no. We would definitely be saying all we're doing is
helping that this sets no precedence for the aerators or anything else in that
we expect other partners to be involved. DNR, Watershed, whoever we can get
11 involved in the future work to provide more of the money than what we are.
We're saying there's some start-up fees we want to support these citizens with.
Councilman Boyt: The Watershed has no money.
Councilman Johnson: Watershed has no money this year, I know.
Councilman Boyt: The DNR will not do this without, you know their requirements.
Councilman Johnson: And if it looks like we can do something and DNR gets
involved, then we'd have to get an access on here. When I voted against the
access there was no action going to be taken on the lake. If there was going to
be same action taken on the lake and in order to finance it we have to put in
access, then I'm in favor of putting in the access.
Councilman Boyt: You're saying if the DNR says we want to clean this lake up if
you put an access on it, you'll vote to put the access on it?
Councilman Johnson: Right. But when somebody says I'm not going to give you
any money but will you put an access on it anyway, I voted against the access.
They had already pulled the money away. It was a done deal so I voted against
the access.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, you may want to consider again the percent thing as
far as like we're 1/20. I guess I started thinking about the lineal footage
around the lake but you get into let's say Lake Susan we have maybe at least 50%
of the ownership around that lake and I know in previous years they've done sane
very worthwhile things down there. The carp kills and same other types of
things. If you did it as the 1/20, you probably would have less repercussion if
you look at Lotus and Christmas and whatever. Our percent then is going to take
and you go down and you might say in same of those other lakes it will be 1/200.
1/300. 1/30.
Councilman Johnson: I think what the citizens were looking at was lake frontage
though. That's why Prince has 41% and why we have 1/20 because we have very
little frontage on there.
82
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilman Boyt: They took, and you can speak to how you organized
this but what I heard in that meeting was the way it was organized was
- j that people on the City's end of the lake were being assessed a little
higher because they had a little better shoreline but it was everybody
along there got the same assessment as I saw that letter. The people II
up on the north end of the lake got a somewhat lower assessment
because they didn't have the useable nature of the lake. Didn't you
propose something like that? I
Dale Carlson: Can I comment? On this $2,000.00 start-up thing. We
just said let's not worry about who's got how much and whatever.
Prince has 41% of the lake. We didn't go to Prince and say, Prince we I
want 41% of $2,000.00. This is $2,000.00 to get us started to find
out if we know what we' re doing and see if somebody comes back and
says yes. Present us a plan and go to the watershed and see if
they' ll listen to us. So the $2,000.00 was to just be split up based
upon the number of property owners. We get into that bigger kind of
number , that' s when we got into what you're talking about Bill . Where II
we said okay, there's some people who have better property on the
lake. More access to the lake than others and it's not necessarily
fair to expect these people over here, even though they have more
lakeshore but they don't have immediate access, real good access to
I/
the lake, they pay a lesser share. That's when we included Prince.
Since he has 41% of the lake, to take on 41% of that total burden
whatever that is. We don't even know what it is yet so I think,
I understand the position you' re in. We don' t want to put the City in II
a position that is going to, if we can accomplish two things. Get a
representative to attend our meetings number one. And number two,
pick up one, whatever that is, 1/20, 1/19, 1/22, I'm not sure just
exactly how many properties but that would certainly, I think that's,
we can't get in any trouble that way. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel : Okay, we' re going to come up with a conclusion as to
what we're going to expedite or is this something we should have as
discussionary? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: It's a Council presentation.
Mayor Chmiel : That's what I 'm saying. I
Councilman Johnson: We can waive our rules and take an action. They
need some action on the money side of things so they can figure out
how much they're going to charge each of the lake home owner
associations. Whether they're going to pay $100.00 a piece or $50.00
a piece or what. I
Councilman Boyt: I would move that the City pay a representative
portion of the bill and that will leave it open to whether it turns
out to be 1/20, 1/19 or whatever but a representative portion of the
start-up bill as proposed to us this evening.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, first don' t we have to waive the rules?
83 I
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we will have to waive the rules because this on 1
the Council presentation.
I
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to waive the
11 Rules of Council Procedure to vote on a Council Presentation. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Bill 's statement as such is to move forth and take the
percentage as to what he said, 1/20, 1/19, whatever it might be.
Councilman Workman: I would second Bill 's proposal based on we don't
really know what percentage is proper or fair to the City at this
point and when we find out, we can make that change.
Councilman Boyt: We're talking about something that, a representative
part meaning if they have 20 homeowners, we're going to pay 1/20.
Councilman Workman: I'm saying that based on Jay saying half of it or
25% of it.
11 Councilman Boyt: That' s not in it.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the City
paying a proportionate part of the start-up bill for the Lake Lucy
restoration based on the number of homeowners on Lake Lucy, i.e. 1/20
or 1/19 or whatever. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councilman Workman: Are we going to choose a rep and to what extent
does that person have powers?
Mayor Chmiel : Yeah, Jay. Do you want to continue with this?
11 Councilman Johnson: Well I 'm not working with them as a city rep.
I'm just working with them as a concerned citizen and helping them on
the. . .
Mayor Chmiel : Do it from both sides then.
Councilman Workman: Are you going to do both?
Councilman Johnson: I'd prefer Tom to continue. He volunteered.
Councilman Boyt: What I would suggest. If you would notify us,
I know I've been to as many meetings as I've been in town for. I'm
interested in this issue so I'd like to come to your meetings.
Whether I'm the rep or not, I'm not pushing for that position. I
think as many of us as can attend so much the better because it's
84
I
pity Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
awfully important to the City how this develops but if you want to be I
the official rep, that's fine with me.
Councilman Workman: And that's fine with me. As I said in the memo,
they don' t want me but tough. I
Councilman Johnson: I've never seen, what powers does a rep have
other than bringing recommendations back to the Council . I
Mayor Chmiel : That's it. Just convey the information back to the
Council. 11
Councilman Workman: Free check writing power?
Councilman Johnson: Exactly. I mean that's kind of the way it' s
saying there. Make a decision on how much money. . .
Councilman Workman: I get to type my own memos so I' ll get them to
you as soon as I can and let you know what's going on.
Dale Carlson: Who did we get stuck with?
Councilwoman Dimler: You got stuck with Tom.
Councilman Boyt: But do let us know when your meetings are. I
Mayor Chmiel : Yeah, let us know when your meetings are Dale.
Councilman Boyt: Can we move item 16 (b) up? I
Mayor Chmiel : That's exactly what I was going to move to.
MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE/LETTER REGARDING THREATENED LITIGATION.
Paul Krauss: Do you want a brief overview on it? '
Mayor Chmiel: Very brief.
Paul Krauss: As you can see, we got a letter from Michael Dwyer
representing Moon Valley Aggregate where he's threatening us with a
$800,000.00 lawsuit which he graciously said he wouldn't file if we
didn't regulate Moon Valley. I forwarded the letter to the City
Attorney. He's looked at it briefly. Since litigation is threatened,
I think that you need to talk to the City Attorney privately. When we II
got into the Moon Valley issue, we told you that whichever option we
chose, that litigation was likely to be the result. I guess we
haven't been actually served with any papers on the thing yet. If you
have any direction for us, we'd be happy to receive it. Otherwise I
think the City Attorney can respond to you directly in private.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I think we should have done.
Councilman Johnson: My personal opinion is, let's serve the papers
85 I
I
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
I
I/ and let's get on with this. Let's get this in the courts and let's
find out if our City Attorney's right. He's saying we have a
defensible position and we can go in and win, so let's go win, win,
win. Win one for the Gipper and who' s going to pay 1/20?
Councilman Boyt: Did you ever find those aerials? You've got them?
I don't know, it may be too late for this.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't think we have to go into this portion of
it. I think what we can do is either consult our attorney, each of us
individually to find out what's happening or have Don get it and have
him give it back to us.
Councilman Boyt: Obviously the people from Moon Valley are here but
the other thing is, aren't we pursuing, still pursuing the ordinance
change?
' Paul Krauss : Yes sir we are. I've been communicating with the City
Attorney. We think we should have the ordinance on the Planning
Commission the first meeting in March so you would have it later in
March.
Councilman Boyt: As we saw with the other clay pit, we have a
challenge in front of us. These aerials just show the two if you
11 should happen to want to look at those.
Councilman Johnson: And it's not a specific ordinance at Moon Valley.
There's no way that an Attorney can say we're picking on them. No.
II We've got to control this in our city. Two operations and there' s
going to be more and more.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. So further discussion, I don' t think we have to
do. Does anybody from Moon Valley want to say something?
Tom Zweres: I happened to be in Scottsdale, Ariiona at a classic car
auction so I missed the. . .
Mayor Chmiel : Would you just state your name and address.
II Tom Zweres: My name is Tom Zweres. I understand that you had one
complaint. I think this is kind of getting a little carried away from
one complaint. My understanding through talking to my people, I also
II own G & T Trucking, that there were several accidents. G & T Trucking
has never had one accident going in or out of Moon Valley Aggregate.
Nor did Moon Valley's truck have one accident. He also stated that he
I had a problem with traffic getting out of his roadway. 99% of the
material we hauled have gone east, has gone east. He stated that
there was no erosion control. We have dug large sumps up there. We
have put dykes in place. We have done everything there is to stop and
II we have stopped the water from coming down the hill. He also said
there was a 250 foot face of gravel. Well , from the road to the top
of the hill is only 250 feet. If you've gone in there you noticed
I we've step mined it and there's a reason for that. I intend to
reclaim the land and I intend to do something with it. I 'm not going
to just walk away from it. That land's very expensive. He said we
' 86
I
;City Council Meeting L. February 12, 1990
hadn't done anything with the State as far as traffic goes. I talked II
to a fellow by the name of Mr. Moen several times out of Golden
Valley. I asked him about lowering the speed limit down there because
when they come around that corner, they come around there at 65-70
mph. I can't do anything about that. I 'm trying to run a business
and I guess if we have to take it to litigation, I guess that's where
it's going to go but I think it's really stupid from one complaint.
You guys can come over, I' ll take you up there. I'll show you what
I'm trying to do. I'm not playing any games with you. We lost the
job hauling the fill into the landfill . It's kind of like a slap in
the face, 2 weeks later all of a sudden they're hauling the material
from 2 miles down the road from me. I couldn't get a permit or I
couldn't get the right level at the top of the land that I wanted but
it' s okay for a guy 2 miles down the road to get it. I don't think
that's right. My understanding is he has a permit to mine 20,000
yards. Is that excavated volume or is that loose volume? There's
quite a difference. There's 33% difference. We hauled out of there
and he has my competitor has about the same amount of trucks Randy and
I do. We average about 4,000 yards a day. If you're running 10 days,
that's 40,000 yards. I think we all should talk about this before it
gets carried away. It's stupid from one complaint to get this that
I/
far .
Mayor Chmiel : Thanks Tom.
Councilman Boyt: We don' t want to respond to him now do we?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I think not. '
Councilman Workman: I would like a tour up there. Maybe sometime I
can give you a call up there or something.
Mayor Chmiel : Good. Okay, the next item is Council Presentations.
I 'm just going to touch on mine real quick. I have in front of me
what I'm proposing is the City of Chanhassen and a Drug Task Force.
Some time ago we adopted a resolution keeping the City of Chanhassen
drug free. In looking at some of the things that we've done, it 's
just words that I felt and I felt that we should try to draw together 11
people to come up with some conclusions and know how we can address
the problems and let them come up with their own thoughts and ideas
and concepts as to how this specific task force should be. What it
would consist of real briefly, and I'll just touch it, 6 to 8
junior-senior high school students. 4 from Minnetonka and 4 from
Chaska. 1 Public Safety representative. 1 City Attorney
representative. 2 Council members. County representatives.
Community Service. Chemical Dependency Program. County Sheriff
representatives. School District representative. Chamber of Commerce
representative and one or both local legislators. What I think this
would do is to at least make us more aware as to what the problems are
and what exists and hope we. address those.
Councilman Johnsom: Two members at large?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
87
, City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
II .
Councilman Johnson: You had no at large citizens. 1
Mayor Chmiel : Right. This is basically what I see now. If you see
' something that can be added to it, I'd be more than happy.
Councilman Johnson: I'd say 2 members at large. I'd volunteer to be
one of the Council members on this.
Mayor Chmiel : I'd also like to sit on it myself.
' Councilman Boyt: Why do you see these people, I haven't read this
obviously so. . .
Mayor Chmiel : There's some additional information contained in here
from Hubert Humphrey has come out with his prevention blueprint as he
calls it. It's a process of improving. . .be added into it and I'd more
than welcome it.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. We can discuss this at a different meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. You're on Tom.
Councilman Workman: Main Street. When I was elected to the Council ,
the biggest problem, the biggest complaints I had was who the hell
designed downtown street and everything else. Who the heck designed
it. I think it' s time in light of the Medical Arts building being so
close and those questions have resurfaced and are probably louder than
ever that the City, the building's not going to move. That the City
and we' ll have to hire more engineers, look at what in the heck we're
going to do with that road for the long range. Public Safety Minutes
which I think maybe you all read , Sgt. Bob Vandenbrooke alerted the
I Commission of a stalled vehicle eastbound on West 78th Street near the
Dinner Theatre and the dangerous situation it created. He stated that
traffic had to drive up onto the curb to get around the stalled
vehicle being the road is so narrow. I think it's time that we take a
look in relationship to Al Klingelhutz' piece of property down there
and the Dinner Theatre traffic, maybe it makes sense to make a 4 way
stop where that comes out and run a driveway right into the Dinner
Theatre straight through from where TH 101 is or something. I think
we need to take a look at the options as far as the median. Do we
need the median? Don' t we need the median? I think we need to start
looking at this. Seriously, it's the biggest number one daily
complaint I get and with that building there, it's exemplified.
People, apparently we moved it back even further than it was. It was
even closer. It wasn' t moved back 7 feet or something? Something
happened there. I'd like to get some answers on what we can do about
it. Either put a stop in there to handle Dinner Theatre traffic,
that'd be the first time I'd be for one of those but it's something
that people are talking to me about daily and I felt the need to bring
it up. In relation to that, Heritage Park Apartments, basically the
elevation on that being raised about a foot and a half or 2 feet, I
think everybody felt that it didn't look like it was supposed to be
that high. A foot and a half isn' t a whole lot I guess when you look
at that thing. The thing looks like it's sitting high and the
88
1
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
neighbors have been complaining. What I guess I'd like the staff to
figure out, what is our recourse? In a situation like this, it makes li
us look a little silly. That basically things are happening and going
on and this is certainly nothing to do with any particular staff
member. That's for sure. But developers going ahead and doing
something blantantly. Without our control and then they wonder why
when the hotel comes in and they want to make changes, we say forget
it. My third point is, and I asked at the last Council meeting that
the City Council discuss the future of the HRA. I guess I 'd like to II request that it officially be placed on the agenda so the Council can
discuss this and we can make a determination on whether or not we want
to continue with that situation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Bill? Public Safety.
Councilman Boyt: If this was earlier, I'd love to respond to some of II
those HRA issues you brought up but I 'm not going to now. Public
Safety interviews. We need to, we have recommended 4 candidates for
the Council to interview and I'd like to see those conducted at the II next council meeting if at all possible. We'd really like to get the
3 openings we have filled so that we can begin. I think we have just
some amazingly qualified backgrounds to run by you. We'd like to get
on with our year. We have a pretty aggressive schedule planned. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Bill , who are they?
Councilman Boyt: I can' t remember their names but we have one fellow, 11
Don would probably know. He's on the Rotary. I think he's your
treasurer. He's got experience with, he's assigned by the Air Force
to Hennepin County's Emergency Preparedness Planning Group and so that II
background was real impressive. We've got a fellow who was in charge
of the Drug Task Force for the Metropolitan area. Terrific background
to put on the commission and there's a couple others that were, all
four of them I think are great candidates.
Mayor Chmiel : Maybe what we should do is look at our next council
meeting and start maybe an hour earlier. Do the interviews then.
Councilman Boyt: Like 6:30?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
Councilwoman Dimler : BOA meets then too doesn't it? I
Paul Krauss: The Board continued one item for that meeting.
Don Ashworth: What about the joint meeting date with the Planning I/
Commission. Is it possible that the Council could do those interviews
in advance of the Planning Commission?
Paul Krauss: That's possible.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we hold it, can we start at 6:00? Hold
our interviews from 6:00 to 7:00 and then you guys, Jay is set for the II
89 '
II ;City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Board of Adjustment and Appeals?
Councilman Johnson: Ursula, don't you have an interference there?
Councilwoman Dimler: Next week?
Councilman Johnson: No, in 2 weeks.
Mayor Chmiel: 2 weeks from tonight which is the 26th.
UCouncilwoman Dimler : I think I can make it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 6:00? If there is no other business?
I
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was
adjourned at 12:50 a.m. .
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
1
r
1
1
1
I
I
I
90
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
IIFEBRUARY 7, 1990
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings, Jim Wildermuth and Joan
Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Brian Batzli and Annette Ellson
1 STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; and Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector
PUBLIC HEARING:
MIKE SORENSON, COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSE FACILITY LOCATED ON HWY. 212 JUST
NORTHEAST OF HWY. 169:
•
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE FACILITY.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE SITE.
IPublic Present:
Name Address
IIMike Sorenson Applicant
Bob Smith Ron Krueger and Associates
ITerry Beauchane 240 Flying Cloud Drive
IJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: Just a point from my knowledge. When there are conditions with a
project, what's the City' s process to make sure that they go about being
I met.
Olsen: Well we do annual reviews now as permits are coming in. If he' s
Igetting grading permits and whatever, we try to make sure and to building
permits, that everything is being met. It' s kind of an ongoing process .
IConrad: There's nothing that really triggers at the end of a project?
Krauss: There is. When a certificate of occupancy is requested, we go out
and inspect the site and make sure all the conditions are complied with.
IIn this case, the building was occupied and has been used and still does
not have a certificate of occupancy so there was nothing to trip that
review.
IConrad: Huh, interesting. And this particular case, there are so many
areas where the applicant has not met what we require. It' s really hard to
review it and I 'm curious. I don' t want to waste their time because it' s
Ihard for me to be serious about the expansion. What's our duty as a
Planning Commission in reviewing the site? What are we obligated to do
right now? I guess I'm looking for , you've already, it' s been, brought to
1 us tonight to look at expansion. I think, and I haven' t talked to the
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 2
I
Planning Commissioners but we' re going to dwell on performance that hasn' t
been accomplished and therefore not really focus on new issues. Even
though new issues might guide the applicant into should he pursue this and
a whole lot of things. Is it appropriate we go through the entire site
IIplan review? Are we obligated to go through tonight?
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, I think you should take action on the request one
II way or the other . If it' s your desire to deny it, do that. If it' s your
desire to continue it until conditions are met, do that. I should also add
that this was a very tough call for us and we recommended approval after a
Ilot of deliberation and somewhat reluctantly because we thought it was,
there's so much that happened here was the only way to wipe the slate clean
and get everything done that we wanted to see done there but I wanted to
assure you that if this proposal is denied tonight, we have every intent of
pursuing satisfaction of the conditions of the original approval .
Conrad: Okay. Are you Mr . Sorenson?
' Bob Smith: No I 'm not. I 'm Mr. Smith from Ron Krueger and Associates.
Good evening Mr. Chairman.
IIIConrad: Good evening. You heard my comments and normally I just open it
up for public comment right now and I want the applicant or are you
representing the applicant?
IBob Smith: Yes.
IConrad: To go first. Obviously I 'm real concerned about how we haven' t
met what we asked for and it' s real though for me to look at additional
expansion when so many, so many major things are not up to what we asked
for in the past. So it' s tough to review new things and that's why I was
Italking here, before old things have been taken care of. So in that light,
I ' ll let you, we' ll give you the floor so you can talk about where you want
to go but honestly, we've got to hear why things haven' t been done. The
1 bottom line is, things have to be done before any expansion's going to take
place. I 'm speaking only for myself right now but I have a pretty high
comfort level that other commissioners and City Council will join in. It' s
Ijust, we've missed the boat in many cases here so with that, I wanted to
give you a sense or a feeling where we' re at and I think you should try to
read some of our comments. It' s going to distort the future a little bit
because of the lack of performance in the past. If that makes any sense.
IBob Smith: I am Bob Smith from Ron Krueger and Associates. I'm
Mr. Sorenson's planner. Mr. Mike Sorenson. I 'd like to go through a
couple of the, some of the issues that we've touched on here this evening .
Unfortunately I haven't had a great deal of time to review the staff
recommendations . I' ve just been 45 minutes ago from vacation in Texas so
if I'm a little bit behind here.
1 Mike Sorenson: Might I say something first?
1 Conrad: Sure.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 3
11
Mike Sorenson: First of all , staff seems to want to dwell on all of the
things that weren't done on this site and they don't want to dwell on the
reasons why and the problems that I 've gone through with this site. The
reasons they want to make Mike Sorenson out to be one of these kind of guys
that just goes and does what he wants to do for no reason at all . That is
not the case at all over here. I have good sound reasons for why this
project came off the way it did. I sat down in good faith with the City to
try and straighten this project out to expand it and to meet all the
conditions and all the things that went wrong with this project. Nobody
knows. All you guys things is, he just went up there and did what he
wanted to do. He tore out all the trees. He didn' t build fences . He
didn't do this without once taking into consideration why this wasn't done
and this is a little bit. . .
Conrad : Did you come back to the City when you knew you couldn' t do those
things?
Mike Sorenson: Absolutely.
Conrad: And what did they tell you to do?
Mike Sorenson: Nothing. They were, I didn' t get any, there was nothing
done about it. I wrote. . .
Conrad: Mr . Sorenson, I 've been here, I don' t want to use age and maybe
age is sort of something that I should say. Maybe I shouldn't be here
but. . .
Mike Sorenson: It sounds to me like we' re beaten before we've even
started.
Conrad: I wanted to communicate the fact that in the 10 years that I 've
been on this Commission I haven't seen a case like this with so many lack
of performances. Ever . So yeah, maybe you were misled and maybe you had
problems but I 'm telling you, in 10 years I haven' t seen as many lack of
performances based on conditions that we asked for and you' re coming in
right now and saying you had causes so I just want to give you that feeling
that you' re very unique. Therefore, to look at future. To believe you.
Mike Sorenson: Why don't you listen to what I 've got to say.
Conrad: That' s what we' re going to do. i
Mike Sorenson: Thank you. Now look, all I 've got to say is, I know
there' s a lot of conditions that haven' t been met. I've been talking about
this for 3 months working with the city. I know there's a lot of things
that we' ve done wrong. I know there was a lot of mistakes made. On the
City's part and on my part and I know there was a lot of conditions on this
site that needed special attention which arose after I got into the
project. That's the reason for all of this. Not because I do not, am not
a good developer and do not build a nice road or put a nice project
together. Now I came in now and I sat down with the City, finally you got
somebody here that' s going to keep the job for a while and not be gone
11
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Pag
11 4
Ilike, I started the project with Barb Dacy. I came in and tried to talk
with Steve Hanson and he didn' t stay here that long and I finally got an
opportunity to come in and talk to somebody about the project and I 've been
working with Paul on it. Now, we' re finally at the point where we can
IIcorrect all of the things. Instead of dwelling on all of the things that
weren' t done and we' re going to refuse the project before it even gets off
the ground or before you hear anything about it, why don' t we just take an
▪ open mind and figure out what we' re trying to do. We've got a very unique
▪ site here. We've got a lot of problems on it and I 'm trying to put
together something decent so we can build buildings and put tax structure
and have something that the City will be proud of like my other building
here in town. Where the auto parts store is. I own that building there
too and all I 'm getting is negative, negative, negative since I walked in
the door here. Like I 'm shot down before I even start. That's all I
Iwanted to say.
Conrad : And we' ll listen to you tonight . I wanted to communicate, when
Iyou come in and don' t perform in the past, it' s hard to look at the future.
That' s what I said to start this little scenario off. You haven' t
performed. It's very tough to not consider the lack of performance in how
we review a new project. If I were you and I was coming in, I would live
Iup to what I said I was going to do. Then I 'd come in and then. . .
Mike Sorenson: That' s what I 'm going to do right here.
IConrad: Well why haven't you in the past? Why don't you bring it up to
speed and we' re going to be far more positive.
IIMike Sorenson: Did you read. . .?
Conrad: Yes I did.
IMike Sorenson: Did you read my letter at the back of the report?
Conrad: Yes I did.
Mike Sorenson: Did you see all of the problems and things. . .
111 Conrad: You had a lot of problems. Maybe this should not have been built
there.
IMike Sorenson: Absolutely. I agree with you 200%. But it is nevertheless
there and I have to deal with it.
IConrad : Right, and we' re dealing with you.
Mike Sorenson: That's why I 'm in here. I 'm just trying to deal with it.
IConrad: Absolutely and we're going to have to deal with that too. So go
ahead with your presentation.
Bob Smith : Good evening Mr. Chairman.
11
r S
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 5
I
Conrad: Mr. Smith. Welcome back.
Bob Smith: Let me take a couple steps back here. This has been a pretty
long involved process. Some years ago this project was submitted to build
one building at the time. The plans that were proposed were rather
incomplete, to say the best at the time. A proper grading plan had not
been submitted and several other things. What Mike has done, he came to us
about 3-4 months ago wanting to build some more buildings on the thing.
I 've had some past dealings with Paul . We've work with each other quite a
lot here with Paul and we had an opportunity to sit down and talk about
what has and hasn' t been completed on this site. We realize that the
grading is not been completed to the point of the original stipulations.
Part of this proposal as we see here this evening will complete before
anything happens with the structure on this site. The grading will be
completed . As I said, the previous plans that were submitted were rather
incomplete and it has spot elevations rather than a complete grading plan
and a complete landscape plan which was not necessary at that time. What I
show on this particular plan and can be seen much more clearly on the
grading plan on the screen, is that we've provided for a back slope.
Provided for a back slope on this side up in here. We' re proposing 3
additional buildings. We are providing for a berm along both front areas
so that it can be screened from TH 169 . This was important to show this so II
that Mike can complete the requirements and the stipulations from the first
approval that was made. There' s a couple points in the recommendations
that I 'd like to touch on but first I 'd like to also take another step
back. This has been a complicated proposal , site from the very beginning.
It was a multiple number of small lots that he is incorporated into one
addition at this time. The original vegetation was succession growth,
small undergrowth, sumac and what I ' ll call cover brush. Prickly ash.
Buckthorn and the box elder . That was cleared off in preparation for the
first site. That was constructed. What he wants to do now is come back in
at this time, do all the correct grading. Do all the landscaping that is I
necessary and then get a building permit for the first building. The first
building Mr . Sorenson proposes would be on the front in this location. But
before this building would come in, all the grading on this site would be
in place. The grading on the back slope here so that we wouldn' t have a
cliff here. There's basically a cliff right now that comes in along the
back in here. That would all be graded out. The grading along the sides.
All the pads would be brought up to construction grade as well as the berms I
along the front. All site and tree vegetation in the form of hydosprings
or seeding, the steeper slopes, anything over a 3: 1 would have an Excelsior
mat pegged in place. In addition, as you can see on the colored up plan,
pine trees would be planted along the berm and along the side to form
screening so that this wouldn' t have an impact from TH 169 down here. Some
of the conditions, we've had the opportunity since it's been such a process
through the staff level , that we tried to work out many of these problems . II We've had the opportunity to get a recommendation from the Minnesota Valley
Watershed District. The plan that you see before you this evening has been
approved by the Lower Minnesota Watershed District. Usually that doesn' t
come in until after the City Council but since there' s been, since we've
taken our time and very carefully worked things out with the staff and as
Paul said, this is a very difficult site. We've taken in the
recommendations from the Watershed District. The recommendations are that
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
9
February 7, 1990 - Page 6
I
the swales were to be put in place. The swale then holding a holding pond
Iwere to be put in place along the top. Swales coming down enlarging the
holding pond around the bottom and a swale and a small holding pond along
the side. Not to put in a piping system. Not to put the piping system in
IIfor the basic reason that it would concentrate the flow into this location
which would increase a surge at this location which would cause a quicker
runoff into the watershed district. What this does is by providing a pond
in here, we' re breaking the site into several different areas. The
111▪ watershed that would come off of this upper area all the way back to the
railroad tracks would come into a pond located in here. The small pipe
would be installed at this location. This would then act as a surge basin.
IThe water would be slowed down before it hits the bottom. It would be
discharged slowly through a smaller pipe to a secondary pond which would
then hold the water. Discharge through a pipe and if in fact the water
Iwere up above the pipe, if it overflowed , there' s been a recommendation by
the watershed district and he was very emphatic about it. That the water
would overflow on the top side so that it would not cause erosion. Back
Idown across along the street and then down through a MnDot ditch. The same
with this site too. You have a smaller watershed district in here. That
this water would then be brought into a surge basin very similar to this.
Through a piping system down into a ditch system then across the natural
Ivegetation that's in this area down into the ditch that MnDot has provided.
A second reason why from the developer ' s standpoing, the addition of the
storm pipes would add a cost that would be prohibitive to the site. The
surge basin is the primary reason. The cost factor is not as important as
III▪ what would happen to the entire watershed district all the way down here.
If you recall back a couple years ago when we had the torrential rain. The
IMoon Valley had a washout. It had a concentration of water that forced a
landslide out onto TH 169. By doing this, in slowing the water down in
various levels throughout here, it's eliminating that erosion. Mr. Larry,
his name slips my mind now. The gentleman that directs the Watershed
IIDistrict. The engineer. Has had many, many years of working in this area
and this recommendation comes directly from him. We already have approval
from the Watershed District so I ' ll have to take and question the use of a
catch basin piping system in this particular instance. In other instances,
▪ it may work very well but in this particular instance, Mr. Samstad, the
engineer from the Watershed District, had made specific recommendations for
this site. To use the holding ponds. The second issue that is of extreme
Iinterest to Mr. Sorenson is recommendation 3 on the sprinkling systems.
This particular type of building, being a metal framed and metal building,
although the Code I believe calls for anything over 2,000 square feet needs
Isprinkling, this particular building is strictly a cold storage building
for no human habitation. The ordinances, if I recall , one of the
stipulations is human habitation. That's one of the things that Mr.
ISorenson does have a problem with. Second is the B-612 curb and gutter for
the entire project. Once again, the two reasons for curb and gutter. One,
to protect the edging of the bituminous all the way around the property. A
second in this particular case is to direct storm water runoff. What we're
Iintending to do is allow the edge of the blacktop area to form as the basin
of this particular area. We aren't recommending or saying that we would
put in bituminous rolled curbed edging along the outside of the driveway
III down in this location so that water will not go over the edge nor will the
▪ cars drive over that edge. The water will be diverted back across the
11
r
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 7
street into this particular holding pond. But from the construction
standpoint, the small areas of bituminous. . .all the edges will all be
concentrated along a curbed area. The concentration of water is the
primary concern in this project. As I have said, the part of the proposal
that Mr . Sorenson is giving this evening is that he will perform all
grading, all site revegetation and bring all their construction pads up to
construction grade before, and he realizes , before the issuance of any
building permits as part of the recommendation this evening. When Mr .
Sorenson came in, that was one of the very first things that we had talked
with Mr. Krauss that this site had to be brought up to standards of the
previous recommendations and that's the first step of this project that we
see this evening. First off the construction, berming and vegetation.
Second would be the application for the building permit on the first
building which would now be building two and then when the market demand
allows, then the other two buildings on the west half of the site would be
constructed. Along with the original construction of building 2, the
bituminous roadway would be put in along all the way to the back of the
site and the eastern half of the site will have the bituminous on it. The
western half of the site will be vegetated in a temporary seed. If we put
bituminous on the higher site, what will happen is that will all break up
or we' ll have a problem with it later on when the other two buildings are
constructed so the bituminous will be constructed on the east half and the
driveway along with the rolled bituminous curb on the lower driveway. At
such time as the market demand allows, at that point building 3 and
building 4 would be constructed and the bituminous would be put in at that
time. All the ponding will be constructed now as well as brought up to
finish grade. There has to be some grading on these two pads to bring them
to the correct elevation also. Other than that I don't think there' s any
other real problems that Mr . Sorenson sees here. As has been said, we've
worked the last 3 or 4 months in trying to get these issues resolved. The
really difficult issues we understand that. Mr. Sorenson is willing to do
all the grading first that should have been done a couple years ago. It was II
done in part. What he wants to do now in order to finish the project , get
the grading done now. . . If you have any questions, I would certainly like
to answer them. I
Conrad: Good . We may have some later on. Other public comments?
Terry Beauchane: My name is Terry Beauchane. I live at 240 Flying Cloud
Drive which is TH 169/212 just down the road from this proposed site. I
guess my comments are as much directed toward you folks on the Planning
Commission and the City Council as they are against this particular project '
in general. It seems to me that the last number of months, everything that
seems to be happening down there on TH 169 and 212, that little itty bitty
stretch of Chanhassen that everybody seems to have forgotten for many, many II
years, seems to be going on piecemeal . Everytime I come to a meeting,
whether it's this meeting or City Council meeting, I always hear the word
grandfather come up. Grandfather this and grandfather that and this
meeting is reminiscence of the City Council meeting that Moon Valley was
discussed at the last couple of meetings because of a grandfathering . Now
I don't know who this grandfather is but grandfather keeps coming up and
grandfather seems to allow a lot of things to happen down there without
much restriction. So I guess my basic question is, as the city planning
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 8
I
commission, has anyone sat down and looked at that whole area? That little
piece of strip of Chanhassen sitting on TH 169 and considered what should
be done with it overall and what might be proposed as far as not just
projects like this but the overall concept of what's going to happen with
that piece of highway down there. Now I don' t know if you folks realize
how many homes and residences are down there along with this kind of
commercial property and so on but it seems to me that people go in down
there and if they own a piece of land, they either just arbitrarily do
Iwhatever they damn well please with it or they come up and get a permit and
then they do whatever they damn well please with it and nobody' s
controlling anything down there. I 'm just wondering where does this
II control come from. Moon Valley was the instance, the last time. Their
• grandfather , whoever he is, told them that they could go ahead and dig
another hole someplace else. Now grandfather ' s coming in tonight and
Isaying that well , I 've got one shut up so I can build 3 more. Irregardless
of what the Planning Commission has decided or the City decides or anything
else. Where is the control in all of this? I don' t see it and I don' t
hear anybody responding to it either. In this particular situation it was
Iadmitted that certain requirements were not met and so on and so forth.
I just have this feeling this if this was my home and I had a permit to do
something and they came out and inspect it and I was cited for not
II following the rules, that I would at the very least be back in front of hte
Planning Commission and the City Council trying to explain my way out of it
or at the worse sitting in front of a judge getting fined for not doing any
of this stuff. I don' t know, there seems to be absolutely no control as to
Iwhat' s going on down there. I have to ask where is the control . Where is
it suppose to come from?
II Conrad : Well the zoning district is called business fringe and we put that
III in several years ago because it had a lot of non-conforming uses and the
idea was to legalize those uses so that there was going to be greater
Icontrol on what was being used.
Terry Beauchane: There still seems to be no control .
IIConrad: The idea was to not intensify use. The area is a problem area for
a variety of reasons . Being on a major highway. Being across from a very
natural area. Having some slopes that are unique. Not being appropriate
for typical commercial uses which a highway would lead you to believe could
111▪ be there and so you're right. The City and we have struggled with it's use
but it is zoned.
ITerry Beauchane: What is it zoned?
Conrad: It is zoned business fringe.
IITerry Beauchane: What does that mean?
Conrad: There are some requirements. I can' t list them to you right now
▪ but it' s low intensity use was a concept that we felt comfortable with many
years ago. Currently we' re reviewing zoning again. There's a member
that' s not here tonight that is real interested in how we zone this
particular parcel or this particular business fringe area. He has
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 9 1
requested that we rezone it agricultural and there' s a question whether we
should zone it residential. The fact of the matter is, there are
commercial uses down there and incorporating those uses. If they would be
grandfathered in. The grandfather strikes again.
Terry Beauchane: I get the feeling. . .
Conrad: And it is a problem and I think we as a Planning Commission, you
know, recognize that and we have to come to grips with the long term use of
that property. Tonight the applicant has to persuade us that what he wants
to do is legally acceptable according to our zoning conditions. So he
can't go beyond unless we provide a conditional or a variance but he
certainly has the right to do what that zone permits him to do. Whether
those guidelines are accurate, whether the zone is accurate, is something
that we can' t really debate tonight. The zone and the guidelines are what
they are.
Terry Beauchane: Well I understand that but it just seems that grandfather
is running that whole area down there. In other words, by the time
anything is done as far as the Planning Commission and the City Council are
concerned with that area of land down there, as far as the zoning and what
is permitted and what' s not permitted and what restrictions and so on are
put on it, it' s going to be too late. So while we' re all sitting here
debating it, this should have been decided probably 10-15-20 years ago.
But at any rate, that was my first comment. Two, the subject of this
particular development itself, I have a very personal concern and I would
like to raise this for consideration for the Planning Commission. It was
brought up earlier about the possible traffic problems down there but I
think it was grossly understated about the traffic problems in that area. I
don' t konw if any of you folks drive that stretch of highway during the day
but if you don't, I would invite you to do it and you might understand
what' s going on down there. Now, my concern with that whole project, more
than anything else, is the traffic and the problems that that traffic
creates. I have to turn into my driveway from TH 169 and it is a death
trap. Now a lot of the vehicles that go into this particular site are
coming from either the Chanhassen or Shakopee area. They are also making
left hand turns across that highway into that site. Now I guess I would
ask whether the Planning Commission or the City Council or the Planning
Department has ever bothered to get any statistics from the State of
Minnesota or MnDot or whichever department accumulates these statistics as
to the number of accidents that have happened on that highway between Super
America and Lion' s Tap in the last 5 years. Even more importantly, how
many people have been killed on that stretch of highway. And now we are
talking about aggravating the situation even more.
Conrad: Is it your belief that there are quite a few?
Terry Beauchane: Oh, it' s not my belief. I've seen them. My daughter has
been in an accident on TH 169. My neighbor has been in an accident on TH
169. I saw somebody pushed through the windshield right in front of Super
America. Now I 've lived down there 11 years and the traffic problem down
there has probably quadrupled in those 11 years and I know a big part of
that problem is because of all the congestion coming out here to the rural
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 10
i
areas and I understand that TH 212 someday may help alleviate part of that
II problem. TH 169 by-pass someday may help alleviate it. TH 5 someday may
▪ help but these are all things that are going to happen 5-10-15 years down
the road. None of those highways are going to be done tomorrow. By
creating more traffic problems by these types of projects is just going to
create more death. Plain and simple. More people are going to get killed.
Last year we watched a cement block truck roll over the top of my mailman
when he was sitting on TH 169. Now you people probably don' t hear about
IIthese things but I live down there. We see them. They are real and it is
dangerous. I think somebody ought to finally stop it. I have complained
to the highway department. Both the highway patrol . The MnDot and anybody
▪ else that would listen about at least doing some minimal things down there
III like reducing the speed limit. Putting in no passing lines along that
stretch of highway and so on and so forth. They won' t do anything . I
Iguess it comes back to the grass roots, the lowest level and that' s you
folks. If you're going to allow this kind of development to continue, then
all you're doing is signing a death warrant for more people. And I don' t
know if anybody has ever done any research on any of the traffic problems
IIdown there and what they really are like but I think that ought to be done
before anything else. That's all I have to say.
▪ Conrad : Thanks for your comments . Are there other comments? Anything
else?
▪ Bob Smith: Can I make a brief comment?
I Conrad: Sure.
' Bob Smith: Pursuant to the last approval , Mr . Sorenson did have approval
from the MnDot to have an access at that location. It' s part of the
approval of this, MnDot is looking at specific conditions that would apply
Ito this project. Mainly turn in/turn out lanes but Mr . Sorenson does have
an access approval from MnDot for this project. A couple things I 'd like
to address that I didn' t initially. The variance to the ordinance and to
the conditional use permit. Grandfather and this is the continuation of a
Ipreviously approved project in this one. The conditional use permit on the
storage is for , as you know, the fringe business. The metal storage would
be a conditional use for this. Previously this project was approved also
for metal construction and this is a continuation of the previously
II▪ approved project. Since the project was started once, 1986 I believe is
when it was done. Just recently there was an amendment to the building
Icode or to the metal storage, metal building portion of the code prior to
the approval of this project. What I'm asking for also is that a variance
be approved for this project since it is a project that is already in the
works.
Emmings: Let me ask you a question. You're saying there was a project
approved previously and this is a continuation of the same project?
IBob Smith: That is correct.
Emmings: And my understanding is that a single metal building was
Ipreviously approved on this site and that' s all . One metal building.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 11
i
Bob Smith: That is correct. '
awnings: You're not suggesting that we' re somehow, that somehow there are
any grandfather rights here to build more metal buildings are you? ,
Bob Smith: What I 'm saying is, this is a continuation of the previously
approved plan.
Emmings: I heard you say that. Is it your position that you have a right
to build more metal buildings because you have a metal building out there.
Is that what you' re saying? '
Bob Smith: Yes it is .
Emmings: And you think that' s a defensible position to take as a '
grandfather issue? Do you think that that's defensible?
Bob Smith: I'm not an attorney. . . From a lay position here, the intent
was to have one building approved initially. Mr. Sorenson had an engineer
that did not correctly incorporate all four buildings in the original
submission. Mr. Sorenson's initial intent was to have all four buildings
approved as they were to be constructed. What we' re doing now is rather
than having each one done in a piecemeal fashion, that all buildings are
approved and then a building permit would come through on each individual
building so it wouldn't have to come back for everybody's approval. It
would be approved under an umbrella. Mr. Sorenson's original intent was to
have the project approved. His engineer incorrectly presented it as the
grading plan was incorrect. '
Emmings: And you know that that' s not a basis for grandfathering anything
is it? ,
Bob Smith: I 'm not an attorney so I can' t comment.
Emmings: Okay. What's your opinion on that? '
Bob Smith: What' s my opinion?
Ensnings: Yeah. Is that a sound basis for grandfathering something? ,
Bob Smith: In this particular case I believe it is. The intent was to
continue the project. Was not approved or submitted on the initial
submission but it was the intent that it would eventually come to a
complete. . .
Emmings: Thanks.
Conrad : Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the hearing?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 12
I
IConrad : Joan, we' ll start down at your end for comments. Questions .
Ahrens: Thanks. This is a mess as far as I 'm concerned. We have several
Iunresolved issues that I think we need to deal with. One is the zoning and
one is the metal building issue. I think I know where Steve was going with
the grandfathering in of the metal building and I don' t see how we can do
Ithat. I don't think that is defensible. The existing project is in such
substantial non-compliance with the original permit that I just can' t see
moving ahead with a new project at this point. I think we should either
continue it and have Mr . Sorenson work with the City to comply with the
IIoriginal permit. That' s the most generous I could be.
Wildermuth: Do we have any plans for requiring that the offices be taken
Iout of the existing building? Because in fact we have a contractor' s yard
and not a cold storage building.
IKrauss : That' s one of the, I mean there are so many confusing aspects
about this and how these things came to exist. I was brought into this in
early September and at that time I walked through the building and there
was one office with no bathroom that had been, the City staff at the time
that was built knew about it and authorized it because there was supposed
to be a watchman. If there' s going to be a watchman, there has to be a
bathroom. One follows the other . Then there had to be heating and of
Icourse they put in a septic system. The thing mushroomed. It wasn' t
controlled very well frankly and that' s what' s there. I can' t verify this
because I haven't seen it myself but possibly Mr. Kirchman our building
inspector is here tonight can. I 've heard that a recent inspection
Iindicates that there' s more offices being framed in in other bays of the
building . We would certainly want those removed. I mean the premise that
allowed the first one to go in we can accept seeing the City staff
Iapparently knew about it but that certainly doesn' t allow for repetition of
it. The contracting yard aspect is one that' s a little confusing. The
ordinance didn' t allow for contractor ' s yards at the time the original
Iapproval was given by the City. However , it was acknowledged by the City
that there would be contractor yard functions down there. It had been
mentioned I believe you know in earlier staff reports and was inherently,
we believed, allowed because it was known about. A lot of this is who knew
Iwhat about what at what time frame. We contacted former city staff members
to find out what they knew about it and there was a lot that happened there
that they were informed about or came to know about after the fact and
there was a lot of attempts to work things out. None of which appeared to
111 be terribly successful to date. Leaving us with what we have today.
Wildermuth: Somehow it seems hard to believe that we're going to see full
compliance here when the contractor doesn't want to sprinkler the buildings
as the fire marshall has requested. Doesn' t want to put in concrete curbs.
We've got the issue of offices. . . Our engineer has recommended a storm
Isewer system and one larger pond as being a more efficient way to handle
the runoff water . I don' t know where the runoff water to the east and west
of this property is going to go except onto adjoining properties which I
assume the contractor doesn' t own so that will probably create some other
problems there. I think you know, there' s probably a mistake made at the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 13
I
beginning and I think we've got an opportunity now to try to cut our losses
and I think we should take advantage of it. If this whole project were
brought up to speed , up to compliance in a 6 month period, I personally
would be inclinced to look favorably at another building down there. Maybe
the adjacent building in the back but as the condition exists or as
conditions exist now, I think the project has to be brought into
compliance. I understand that the contractor experienced a lot of
unanticipated things but I guess that' s, it' s not the City's fault that
there are artesian wells and there are springs and that grading the site
really aggravated that problem.
Conrad : In the future if they brought this back after compliance Jim, and
the staff report had a lot of conditions in it. In summary, do you feel
comfortable with most of those conditions?
Wildermuth: Yes. I think the conditions that were imposed, I guess I
would add one and that would be that the site should have a storm sewer
installed and larger retention pond as our City Engineer is recommending.
It seems like it would be a more efficient way to go.
Conrad: Joan, what do you think about that? If it did come back in a
couple months once compliance is met. Would you hold to the staff report
recommendations?
Ahrens : I think that there are some issues that aren' t adequately
addressed in here. Number one is the traffic. I think this gentleman is
right. There are traffic problems and I can' t imagine why adding 3
buildings and if there' s going to be trucks going in and out, or whatever
they do out of these buildings I 'm not quite sure, it is going to add
traffic to that intersection and there are no turn offs there are there?
Or anything . I think that has to be studied. I 'm not convinced that that
isn't going to be a problem adding 3 more cold storage buildings. I also
have a problem with the metal buildings. I don' t think they should be
grandfathered in. I don't see a justification for that. I don't think
this is a continuing project. I think the original project was an approval II
of one building. There may have been an intent in the future to develop
this site with 3 more buildings but that, I don' t think that' s how it was
presented to the City at the time. So I couldn' t go along with that.
Conrad: Okay. Steve?
Emmings: I don' t know where to start and how much to do but obviously 11 there is some, the City maybe didn't give them some direction at some times
when they could have headed off some of the problems. Just looking at one
item on the original approval that stated that existing vegetation from the
front lot line to the 750 contour shall not be disturbed other than the
driveway and now I 'm hearing tonight that all of the vegetation was removed
from there. I doubt that anybody in the City approved that. In his
letter , Mr. Sorenson' s letter , it says that the trees, the existing trees
and vegetation. It was determined after inspection that they should be
removed because they were growing in unsuitable soil which would make it
impossible to do soil correction. Also, the trees were very large and
unstable creating a hazard to structures or any road that would be built.
i
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 14
I
For all I know that's true but we put a condition on and what you did was
II contrary to that condition for whatever reason and there' s a credibility
▪ problem here. We sit here kind in the abstract and try to do a reasonable
job of putting conditions on things and if people won't comply with them,
that creates some real serious problems. I'm frankly kind of unwilling to
Ilook at a bunch of conditions on a new project because I don' t know what
will happen to them. So I don' t have much enthusiasm for doing . . .new
project. I tried to distance myself like Mr. Sorenson asked us to do and I
1 can see his point for doing it. I don' t think you' re a bad man or anything
like that. I think you've got some real problems down there and I tried to
distance myself a little bit and say, well if this project was coming in
IflOW all new and also looking at it as a mess that's got to have a solution,
what would I think of it then and I still don' t think I 'd like it very
much. But I have a real problem getting that kind of distance because of
Ithe history. I don' t understand . If having offices in the existing
building makes it a contractor 's yard rather than cold storage, how we can
allow that. We don' t allow contractor ' s yards and this wasn' t approved as
a contractor ' s yard. It was approved as cold storage and if somebody at
Ithe City said well , if you want to have a night watchman down there that' s
fine and you can put in sewer facilities. That fine. Then it ought to be
used by the night watchman and not by anybody from an office. There
Ishouldn' t be any offices in there. We don' t allow, we just got done with
several years of debate over whether we were going to have contractor ' s
yards or not and God, we fuddled with that ordinance for years here and
tried several different things and finally decided just the hell with it.
IWe're not going to have them in this town and now we've got one under a
different name. You shouldn' t be able to do indirectly what you can' t do
directly and it seems to me that's what's happened here. There is
absolutely no ground , I don' t understand how anyone can say there' s a
III▪ ground for a variance for metal buildings. There is no doubt in my mind
that nothing has been grandfathered in here except the one building that
was approved. There was never any approval for additional buildings and
1 certainly and obviously never any guarantee that he'd be able to build more
buildings or that they'd be metal if he was allowed to build any and a
variance requires a hardship and there isn' t any hardship. There are
Ispecific standards for granting variances. We don' t allow metal buildings
anymore. Your application came in after we disallowed them. There' s no
hardship there whatsoever. An economic hardship is not a hardship under
the ordinance. Hardships you impose on yourself are not hardships under
the ordinance and that's all you've got here so I can't see how we can
grant a variance. Our standards won' t allow us to do it. I'm not clear on
a lot of things. I don't know about sprinklering the buildings. If our
Ifire inspector says they should be and he' s got a rationale, which is a
code, then they ought to be sprinklered. Not only should those 3 be
sprinklexed . The new ones, but he wants to build more, I think we should
▪ at least look and see if we can require the other one to be sprinklered as
a condition of an approval if he should get more building there. I would
want to look at that. The road issue, as far as the traffic hazard,
Ithere' s no doubt in my mind that any additional traffic trying to start out
from a dead stop at 169 is going to add a danger to danger . I drive
through there once in a while and I always feel like I 'm taking my life in
my hands in that area. I know that traditionally there have been lots of
Iaccidents there. I guess I 'm willing to rely on MnDot to some extent
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 15
I
because, well I think it' s in their jurisdiction for one thing and I don' t
think we have a hell of a lot to say about it. But I think there should be II
a turn in land there and a lane out and I don' t think any traffic ought to
be allowed to come out of there and go east. Kind of right-in/right-out
situation almost but those are technical issues and I 'm not an engineer so
I don't know. On the storm sewer and how the water is handled and what
kind of curb there is or if there ought to be sheet flow, those are
engineering issues again and if our engineer says they need them, then II I support our engineer and if your engineer can talk him out of that stuff,
then that's fine with me too. I won't take a position on them except that
I ' ll support our engineer if I have to vote and if he says you need it,
then I say you need it too. I think another thing we ought to look at on
this, since it is a conditional use, would be hours of operation now that
it's gotten 4 times. Now we' re going to have 4 times greater use of the
site and there are residences right next door to this thing. I think that
hours of operation is something we might want to look at for an additional
condition if we' re going to approve it. My own feeling is that the way
this should probably be handled, the way I 'd feel best about it is if Mr .
Sorenson would establish his credibility with the City by fixing the
drainage. Building the berms. Doing the landscaping. Get the traffic and
driveway, the traffic resolved. Get the driveway, get a bituminous
driveway in there. Get rid of the offices out of the other building and
then we' ll talk about the rest. I certainly support, I 'm going to vote
against this now if I have to vote tonight and getting letters of credit
from this applicant I think is important and appropriate for all the
improvements.
Conrad: Thank you. You don' t want to hear what I have to say?
Bob Smith: Sure.
Conrad: Then I ' ll let you talk and I 'm not going to add much. I think the II
previous comments kind of put our hands around this thing. I think we' re
trying to let owners down there have a reasonable economic use of their
land and yet somehow maintain the character of that area and the low
intensive use that we wanted in that area. It seems to me that what has
happened to change that a little bit. With the trees down, that really is
going against a lot of the things that we struggle for in Chanhassen.
Especially in that particular area because it is, whether the trees were
quality trees or not, it was still added to some of the buffering and some
of the charm of the river valley. I 'm a little bit concerned with
increasing intensity of use. Whether be it this parcel or other parcels
which we've tried to maintain and not expand. This was slanted. Had no
use and we did feel that a passive use, which meant no people on site, made
sense. It seems to me that it was gone away from that. I see two other
things that we've got to do internally. One is that the Planning
Commission, City Council really have to, as we've been prodded to by our
neighbors down there, make sure you take a good look at this area and be
sure that it's zoned properly, and I think we should. It may stay fringe II business or business fringe but I think we really have to take another good
look at it because everytime we do something down there, it seems to get a
little bit messier . So I would hope that we could review the zoning
relatively quickly. I 'm sure Mr. Erhart who' s not here tonight would like '
1
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 16
II
Ito believe we could. Another thing I 'd like Paul or Jo Ann, if you could
do, which I 'd like you to do. I would like a staff report to the City
Council on how the City has kind of led us in, has participated in some of
these problems. Because it looks like we had a hand in it. It' s not for
IIthe sake of punishment or reprimand . It' s for the sake of understanding
what we did and how we lead a developer on and maybe in a passive way but
just so the City Council and maybe the Planning Commission can understand
Isome of these things as to how we would allow a restroom down there and
furnance when we said no. I 'd like staff to prepare a short report on that
that would go to the City Council . In terms of this particular
application, as you probably could guess from my opening comments , what has
Ibeen done really slants my opinion for the future. I can' t really give the
future an open mind because some of the things that are dear to me have
sort of been negated or not done at all . I believe that before I could
Iconsider this I would have to see the site brought up to the standards that
we believe it should have been in the first place. What I also tried to
get out of the Planning Commission members tonight is their openness for
IIthe future so that would give Mr . Sorenson and Mr . Smith some idea of where
the Planning Commission sits so that we don't have you spinning your wheels
and that you have an understanding of, if you came back, where we might be.
I think you've heard individual comments. I don't know that there' s a
II summation I can give you. You've got to take their comments as their
individual comments. � I think in terms of drainage and some of the runoff
issues, we are very concerned about that but will trust that you could
Isolve that. Whether it be somebody' s engineer . I think we're very
interested in the water issue but I think you could resolve those. That
issue. My particular feeling is that most of the staff's recommendations I
II would get behind unless there was a good argument against. The sprinkling
I would probably get behind and say I agree unless the City's code is
simply arbitrary in that matter . But if it' s specific and has good
rationale, I 'd stand behind that. Anything that prevents some of the
Ierosion, I would stand behind . Anything that takes the site appearance
back up to the standard that I thought we had, which meant some greenery in
front. We were not trying to create that highway as an intense business
IIuse visually or traffic wise. We wanted to somehow keep the character down
there and it seems that we haven' t and I want that character rebuilt. And
if that's probably what we' re talking about is trees and berm and I think
that can be solved but I think just as a comment, I felt most of the
IIrecommendations by staff I would stand behind if this came back just for
your information. You could persuade us on a couple. As I listened to
comments here. Mr . Smith, do you want to make some comments?
IBob Smith: Yeah, just a couple comments Mr . Commissioner . First off, I
have a question on the land alteration and grading permit. As originally
IIsubmitted , it really wasn' t a grading plan. I don' t recall who the
engineer was. A small outfit as I recall. It wasn' t a grading plan. It
had two spot elevations and very insufficient. Part of the approval this
evening is to get the grading permit or land alteration permit. If I can
Idirection either from yourself or from the staff on whether we have to go
through this whole process. The Planning Commission/City Council for
approval or denial , to get a land alteration permit to complete the first
Iphase. The first portion of this. The grading and the revegetation of the
site. That' s basically one of the reasons we' re here this evening so we
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 17 1
can bring the site up to standards. The second comment I have is a comment I
made, your engineer isn' t here to defend himself but I have to question his
contradiction to the Lower Minnesota Valley Watershed District. Mr.
Samstad has 35 years with the district. I think he' s done a real good job
at it and we follow his recommendations to the T, to the letter on this
project. For your engineer to come back, and I ' ll call this sandbagging at
this point. To sandbag Mr . Samstad and the Watershed District on this. To
create the water concentration which would in my opinion and my engineer ' s
opinion, create an erosion control or erosion that would far exceed what we
have proposed. Thirdly, the 850 contour originally was about in this
location. Part of when this project was originally brought in, the grading
worked out some of the different areas. There was a spring that was opened
up down here. It was a very small spring initially and once things got
moved around a little bit and they put a road in, you can' t grade just a
road. You have to have shoulders and side slopes. It opened up a spring
down here. Caused some additional grading. That' s one of the reasons for
grading below the 750 contour . There was a site specific problem that was
encountered. For the fourth comment applies to the variance of the metal II buildings. We came in as Mr . Krauss had said, he had reviewed this project
beginning back in September. This might not be the place to pick a bone
with but we had much discussion, good faith discussion with the staff for
about 4-5 months now. We could have brought this thing and submitted it
and signed our application for the fee immediately. We had good faith
discussions with the staff 3 or 4 months ago. What happened is that in the
process of this discussion to try and work out all the problems that this
site has, an ordinance was brought in. We were sandbagged. We feel as
though we were stalled in the process of good faith discussions to try and
bring this site up to a good point. If in fact we would have brought our II plans in the day that we talked to Mr . Krauss, the Planning Commission, the
Planning Department, the Engineering Department, we would have been, we
would have come in prior to the change of the ordinance.
Emmings: And may or may not have received approval .
Bob Smith: That' s correct but nonetheless , we would have not had the I
problems of being in after the ordinance. We feel, Mr. Sorenson feels that
there has been a stall . That this project came in after the ordinance has
been done and I apologize to the staff if I 'm picking a bone at this point. II
In summation, we think this is a reasonable use of this site. It' s been
zoned as fringe. If we would have had a timely submission. If we would
have not had good faith discussions , we would have had a timely discussion. ,
We would have been in prior to the change of the ordinance. We would have
had a compliance with the metal buildings although we would have had to
have a conditional use permit for the mini-storage in this zoning area.
Emmings: And you understand that this is not a permitted use in this area. II
Bob Smith: That' s correct. '
Emmings: It's a conditional use. So there's nothing magic about the
application date. Whether it comes before or after.
Bob Smith: Metal buildings, it was.
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 18
I
IEmmings: You may or may not have received approval because it' s a
conditional use and not a permitted use.
IBob Smith: Once again, your intentions for a passive use, to quote you, a
passive use. No people on the site. Fringe business does not, you have to
have people on the site for fringe business type zoning. This is a
compatible type of use for fringe business in the location that it's in.
Emmings: As a conditional use.
Bob Smith: As a conditional use, that is correct.
Emmings: Not permitted.
IBob Smith : At this point I could ask for a continuance. I 'm really not
sure which way to approach this from the land alteration permit standpoint.
IWe want to take and bring this into compliance. We want to be able to get
the grading done so we can satisfy the Planning Commission and the City
Council . We would rather not get a negative recommendation at this point.
If I could get some recommendation from either the Planning Commission or
IIfrom staff on land alteration permit to conform to the grading permit. I
think we've had some, much discussion with staff and brought it to the
level that it would be an acceptable project.
IIWildermuth: Is there a land alteration permit they' re showing?
Olsen: If they don' t go ahead with the conditional use permit, if that' s
IIdenied, they would have to receive a grading permit and they would still
have to receive the Watershed District approval . MnDot approval .
Bob Smith: We've got Watershed District approval already.
Olsen: Well we would discuss with what our City Engineer feels is a better
Iway to handle the runoff. They would still go through the grading permit.
Krauss : I 'd just like to reiterate too that we have a commitment from a
developer to complete a project in accordance with what was agreed to 2
IIyears ago. Obviously that has not been fulfilled . The premise under which
I discuss things from the outset with this developer. My predecessor based
on his correspondence discussed with him, was that hey look. You got a
II problem here. You created it. You' re going to have to fix it and you're
going to have to demonstrate good faith or nobody's going to buy into this.
I mean it was a premise that, you can read the letters for yourself.
IThey' re in the packet. Mine is nearly 6 months old and Steve Hanson's is
over a year old. It's a problem that we've been trying to remedy. We
fully intend , as I said earlier , to pursue satisfaction of those conditions
irregardless of what happens tonight. They have a commitment to perform
Iand we fully intend to see that commitment carried out.
Emmings: But I hear him saying though is if we want to do the berming and
II the landscaping and fix the drainage problems and maybe get the driveway up
II to snuff and get all that stuff taken care of to show the City that we' re
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 19
I
good neighbors , are we going to be able to get the permits and the
cooperation from the City that we need to go ahead and do that work? Is
that kind of what you're saying?
Bob Smith: That's exactly right. ,
Krauss : To bring the site into compliance, certainly.
Emmings: I don't need your input right now. '
Krauss: In fact, Jo Ann and I would need to talk about it but I wouldn' t
even feel that we'd need to give him another grading permit. Well , we
probably ought to rectify what' s been done.
Wildermuth: Any work that has to be done should be done under the old
agreement.
Krauss : Yeah, kind of degrade what. . .
Emmings: So the answer to him is they won' t have any problems.
Krauss : Oh no. '
Emmings: The only thing that I would say, I think that ' s what you ought to
do and it sounds to me like you'd just as soon have it tabled while you do
that stuff and then come back later and I think that' s a good idea . But I
think you ought to work very closely with the City so they know, with the
staff so they know what you' re doing as you do it. So there' s no surprises
at the end. That' s the only thing I 'd say. '
Bob Smith: What you are recommending is that we be in strict compliance
with the original plan that was submitted I believe in 1986? '
Krauss: That's a problem that we've had from day one with this is that
it's impossible to be in strict compliance because all the trees are gone.
Emmings: I think what you want to do is solve the drainage problem, and
this is your personal choice but solve the drainage problem in a way that
will accommodate what you ultimately want to do with the property. 1
Bob Smith: To which the original "grading plan", spot elevation plan had.
Emmings: Well that' s fine but look, here' s the problem. Once there were
trees out there and now it looks like the moon so we don' t really have to
talk about what really was there before. That' s a little, it's a little
silly at this time.
Bob Smith : I understand that. What I am asking is , do you wish to have
conformance or compliance with the approved so called grading plan or
compliance with the altered grading plans that we have?
Emmings: You have to do something that's sensible and if you work with the I
staff.
IPlanning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 20
I
• Bob Smith: That' s what we've been doing for the last 6 months .
I Emmings: Well yeah. That's not a way to win their friendship or mine is
to take shots at them like that. That' s not working with them. That' s
Itaking shots at them. What I 'm saying is, if you say look, here's what
we've got. Here's where we've got to get to. Let' s get together and get
the engineers together and get a reasonable plan to get to that spot. I
Ihave no doubt that they' ll work with you on that. Well , now that' s what I
call a smirk and that doesn't win you any of my loyalty or friendship
again. I'm saying we' ve got to cooperate here. There' s been problems. I
don't think it's anything that can' t be overcome. If you just decide to
Iget it done, it will get done. If you decide to be unfriendly to each
other , it won' t get done. It will just be unpleasant.
IBob Smith: I said we worked in good faith for nearly 6 months. It' s just
since we've resubmitted on this review that we got this from the City
Engineer . Normally the whole process is gone through. The City Council
II approve it before it even gets to the Watershed. We've had so much time on
this through the staff level , the Watershed District has already approved
this project.
IEmmings: I think you and our engineer and the Watershed' s engineer should
sit down and go over it but don't ask us to second guess our City Engineer .
IBob Smith: Mr . Samstad has had sufficient discussion with the City
Engineer prior to this time. That's why he' s approved it.
IEmmings: Yeah, but what I 'm saying is, if our City Engineer wants A and
Mr. Samstad wants B, don' t ask us to support Mr. Samstad if our City
Engineer believes what he' s doing is right. That' s what we've got him here
for . What you're doing is asking us to tell him we think he's incompetent
Iand we aren' t going to do that.
Bob Smith: That's fine.
Emmings : You understand?
Bob Smith: I do. The original plan showed a lack of any storm water
Irunoff of the entire project. My question is, do you want us to take and
grade to show the berms, the storm water runoff which is contrary to the
original plan. On the original plan was put a couple flat pads in here and
IIa couple flat pads in here and grade it down.
Krauss: If I could by way of guidance. We initially got into this
Iarrangement to rectify the problems that were out there. The grading plan
that you see illustrated on this proposal rectifies the problems that were
created. Irregardless of whether 3 additional buildings are built, it
fixes what we found to be the problems on the site. Now if no more
Idevelopment is to take place on this site, there's not going to be as much
runoff because there' s not going to be as much hard surface coverage.
Something less than the system we proposed may suffice if nothing else is
done. But in terms of screening and how the access is being worked out and
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 21
1
the drainage concept, yes . We think this grading plan, that landscaping
plan does the job.
Emmings: Well and it's hard because, if we tell them to grade to
accommodate the 3 more buildings, you know that would put ourselves in a
real .
Krauss : That's not going to be an issue because it' s already graded flat
anyway.
Emmings: Okay. We certainly don' t want to guarantee anything because if
we're going to table it, we're not going to look at the proposal until II later on and we sure don' t want to hear that you've been sandbagged. We've
heard enough of that word here tonight and I don't want you to think that
we' re sandbagging you.
Conrad: I reall think, Steve to jump' in. I really think we shouldn' t
P
table it. I think it should go to City Council. I think you've got to
hear what they think. ,
Emmings: That probably is a good idea .
Conrad : You may be spending some money. Bottom line to me is you've got
to pull the whole site into conformance without even contemplating 3 new
buildings. That' s where I 'm at and staff and the engineers can figure that II out. Flat out. At that point in time, then I would consider taking a look
at 3 new buildings. But at the same time, I want to take a look, we'd be
taking a look at that whole zoning area down there. I think we just owe it
to the neighbors to take one more final look. More than likely you'd be
grandfathered in but intensity of use typically is not grandfathered in.
Is that right? But that' s where I 'm at but I really do believe that you
should take this, regardless of positive or negative. I think tabling' s
not going to give you the information you want right now.
Bob Smith: What I might suggest is that you continue it for another
meeting so that the engineering department has an opportunity to discuss
some particular points with either Watershed District, Mr. Sorenson that
possibly continue for what , say 30 days so that can be worked out and you
can be informed of what's happening. I
Conrad : I think those issues could be worked out between now and when you
got it to City Council without bringing it back. You don't want to listen
to us anymore. You know. You really don' t. 11
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, if I could also explain something about the
Watershed District. The watershed districts have different standards and 1
we have several watershed districts and some of them are more strict than
others. Irregardless , when a watershed district makes a recommendation
it's a minimum recommendation. It's what they need to satisfy themselves. II
It no way binds the City or indicates what will satisfy the City.
Bob Smith: That's correct.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 22
1
Conrad: So anyway, if you buy what, I would listen to you. If you'd like
' to table it, you know I ' ll lobby to table it. I think it's to your benefit
to take this up to City Council . Hear what they have to say. You' re going
to get their cards. You' re going to know where they' re at. I think you' re
going to get some better long term direction.
Bob Smith: At this point I would recommend a continuation from Mr.
Sorenson' s standpoint. That he does have an opportunity to work a little
more closely with the staff and bring it back to you for one final before
it is passed onto City Council if that would be possible.
' Conrad: Let's see if someone makes that motion. Is there a motion? Is
there anymore discussion?
Emmings: I guess if he wants it tabled, then I think we ought to table it.
Conrad: Me too.
Emmings: It doesn' t seem unreasonable.
Conrad: It's their problem because they have to talk to us again.
Emmings: And we' re going to say exactly the same stuff next time.
' Conrad: No, no, no.
Emmings: Well I am. I 'm going to read it out of the Minutes.
Conrad: Is there a motion?
Emmings: I ' ll move that we table the conditional use permit. Oh, site
' plan review?
Conrad: It ' s two things.
' Emmings: And site plan review for the cold storage units as proposed by
Mike Sorenson.
Ahrens: I ' ll second it.
' Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to table action on the Conditional Use
Permit Amendment and site plan review for expansion of a site for Mike
Sorenson, cold storage warehouse facility located on Hwy. 212 just
northeast of Hwy. 169. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
i
REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE COUNTRY HOSPITALITY SUITES HOTEL, LOCATED
' ON WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, HUTT CONSULTANTS, INC.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1
February 7, 1990 - Page 23
Conrad : Do we have a cedar standard? A cedar shake standard for a rooftos
in Chanhassen?
Krauss: Well there was an issue that, you know there' s a downtown image
and people can argue rightly or wrongly that it's a good image or a bad
image but it' s an image. There has been a desire on the part of the people,
in the City and the HRA to develop some consistency that you know you' re in
downtown Chanhassen. To the extent that you don' t take prototypical
architecture that may fit in well and interchange in Nebraska and plant it I
in the downtown, yeah it becomes an issue. The cedar shake roofing takes
off from the fact that the Frontier Building and the Dinner Theater has
cedar shake mansured. Other buildings have tried to emulate that but some I
of the newer buildings are using those Timberline shingles and from a
distance they give the same appearance which was why the Council was
willing to accept that. There's also a question of whether or not you
could do a cedar shake roof with the new roof design. That it would be too'
heavy and fire proofing would be very difficult.
Conrad: So we do have a standard? Who' s enforcing that? Is that Fred
Hoisington? How is Fred getting involved in some of these architectural
goals that we have? Is he still used to consult?
Krauss: Mr . Chairman, he is and frankly that's something that needs some
discussion.
Conrad: It' s a real intriguing thing and not that I don' t, I like cedar
look and I like Timberline shingles and that's all fine with me. Yet,
sameness is not necessarily a goal that I personally have in downtown Chan.
I don't know. I guess I 'm kind of intrigued by. . . '
Krauss: This building will be physically linked to the Dinner Theater at
some point in the future. The concept calls for. . .
Conrad: Okay. End of presentation? Show us this courtyard.
Clayton Johnson: I don't have any drawings of the courtyard. I
Conrad: No drawings? That' s the only thing I 'm interested in.
Clayton Johnson: I think everybody has some drawings except me. 1
Krauss: There' s a detailed provided here.
Clayton Johnson: A couple things. I 'm Clayton Johnson representing the
Bloomberg Companies. I think it' s very important that you understand that
there are two different parties here. I represent Bloomberg Company. Dave'
Hemminger is here from D.W. Hutt Consultants. Dave represents the
partnership. We are only one of four partners in the hotel project so
you' re talking here to two different owners and I think everybody' s had a
difficult time dealing with that. I just wanted to take just Paul , one
small exception to your staff report. I just got a chance to read it today
and that is, when you originally considered the hotel , the large gabled
roof building was in place and you approved it on the basis of that old
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 24
I
building being there. Okay? At the time that you approved this way back
when, the gabled roof building was intending to stay. Subsequent to that
' approval the City condemned the gabled roof building and we reached an
agreement to tear it down. So the original submission showed a 25 foot
courtyard Paul . Not 30 and that' s not a big deal but it' s 25. 20 feet
from the edge of the old building to the property line of the replatted
property and a 5 foot setback from the building . From the hotel . Can I go
over here to the board just a minute?
Conrad : Please. I thought you were going to have picture to show us.
Clayton Johnson: Gabled roof building. Okay, the big one with all the
wood shingles on it. The flat roof building which houses Hooked on
Classics. This was proposed to come down right? And the hotel, here' s the
property line of the replatted property. This is a 20 foot dimension and
' the hotel which will be 5 feet from that property line or a 25 foot green
area. Okay? Subsequent to, and this is what you approved . What happened
now is that the City has condemned this building and this will all come
' down. We will be coming to you with a plan for a new building. Alright
which you have not seen yet. In Paul ' s staff report, he is asking to
maintain a 30 foot courtyard or a green area and I don' t know where the 30
feet came from. We say it' s 25 and we are certainly agreeable to the 25
foot courtyard . This building will be 17 feet. If the new plan is
approved, it will be 17 feet from the property line to the edge of the
hotel so therefore, in order to maintain 25 feet we'd need an 8 foot
' easement from the Bloomberg Companies. Now we' re more than willing to give
that. That' s not a problem. When we come in with our plan for our new
building we will at least maintain that and it will probably be greater but
we' re willing to give the easement to assure the original courtyard area.
The only other thing is that in the staff recommendation there's one thing
that' s been ignored. It was discussed at the meeting that was held between
the attorneys of both parties as well as the staff but there will be a
connection connecting the hotel to this new project. When we come in for
the approval of the new building, there will also be a proposal to connect
the hotel so the easement that we grant here, we' re more than willing to
' grant. The only thing is, we've got to provide for the provision that the
connection will be permitted on that easement.
' Emmings: Is the connection enclosed?
Clayton Johnson: Yes , it' s enclosed. I think that' s, so really the only
exception Paul we would take to the staff report is we would agree with the
' conditions with the exception that it be 25 feet. We would grant you an
easement that would assure a 25 foot courtyard and we' ll come back with our
plans and our plans are to have a generous courtyard out there because we
' think it's going to enhance our building also that we will be building on
the site. •
Emmings: The new building will be what compass direction from the hotel?
Clayton Johnson: It will be east. So is the existing building that houses
Animal Fair with the fireplace and the bricks, that will stay. But the
wood building inbetween, which I call the gabled roof building and the only
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 25
reason it isn' t down already is that we've been leaving the building in
place to keep the frost from going into the ground until we get back 1
through Planning Commission and Council to see if they' ll approve this
change. That's the only reason the building is still there is to prevent
frost from going down to the 4 1/2 feet it was on the other area . Okay? II
Conrad: Good.
Wildermuth: Why was it condemned Clayton?
Clayton Johnson: Well this is an issue that gets back to, the canopy. I
described and I don' t know if you read the Council Minutes. I described '
the canopy as Pinnochio' s nose. How it continued to grow. From the time
that you approved the hotel , BRW in studying the traffic stacking in this
whole area concluded that we' re going to have a heck of a problem on that I
intersection and what they wanted to do is get the building back
considerably from the road to allow them to redesign the entryway and to
redesign the stacking at that intersection. So that meant that a good
share of the front of the building would have to go. The engineer' s looked'
at it and concluded that really if you took 30 feet off the front of the
building, it'd be more economical to take the whole thing because there
wouldn't be enough of the structure left. So what happened, so then the I
next thing. So that's an agreeable recommendation. We finally got
together and agreed on that but now what happened , in the process of
designing the restacking, when BRW did it, they now provided for a bus
access through there. We want because of the bus traffic into the theatre,'
there's going to be a lot of bus traffic at the hotel so they redesigned
the road in front of the hotel . Now the canopy, instead of being a canopy
over a 15 or 20 foot driveway now is a canopy over a 30 foot driveway so
when it got down to the final bidding process the only thing, of all the
changes, the only one that really dealt with economics was this issue of
the canopy. The canopy ended up 44 feet long by 36 feet wide and without II
any center support when the bids came in, it cost more to build the canopy
than I think it did to put the pool in so that' s why we find ourselves back
here today with these two changes.
Wildermuth: So the problem was resolved by putting the center island in?
Clayton Johnson: Yeah. So now what we've got is basically a wood
structure. Timbers like what Herb built on the Dinner Theatre instead of a
steel superstructure that would have had to have been covered up. So I
think we ended up with a more attractive design.
Emmings: How long is it?
Clayton Johnson: 44 feet. It' s the same length. It goes all the way out II
but it's anchored in the middle. And you' ll get a better feel for, you' ll
be able to see that from Main Street when that big gabled roof building
comes down. You' ll get a little better feel that it' s really going to
enhance I think all of Main Street.
Dave Hemminger : I might add that we had BRW look at how, if a bus could 1
get in and around that area and they. . .
I
1 Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 26
1
Clayton Johnson: We' ll still have the bus traffic flowing through and
underneath the canopy and it will all work.
Wildermuth: What' s your feeling on the canopy area? Are you happy with
it? Do you think that it enhances the appearance?
Clayton Johnson: Yeah. Herb likes it. Herb' s the one that' s really
worked it through. He's placed the canopy as we ended up with it is
aesthetically very. . .
Wildermuth: I thought we were going to lose something when we lost the
canopy.
' Clayton Johnson: Well we' re also trying to please Country Hospitality and
of course they' re growing very rapidly. They've got a few buildings up
now. Actually the idea of shrinking the pool area came back from them.
The pool area, if it' s not attended 24 hours a day by a lifeguard, which it
is not, they've found that they want it very secure and they don' t want the
pool are real large. They want the pool. People want the pool . They want
whirlpool . The exercise area but they don' t want it be a large area that ' s
' unsupervised so that' s kind of where the 12 foot coming off the building
came from. It ' s not 12 feet off the whole building . It' s 12 feet off the
whole pool/lobby area.
' Conrad : Okay. Steve, any other questions or comments?
Emmings: I have no objection to anything, the changes that have been
' proposed. I think that we should add into condition 1 that they've got to
provide the easement to protect the courtyard and I 'd just add onto that
something like, and for a future enclosed connection to a building to be
' built east of the hotel. As far as the courtyard dimension is concerned, I
don' t care if it' s 20 or 30 or 25 frankly but since they proposed 25, I 'd
go with their number.
Wildermuth: What' s your feeling on that Paul?
Krauss: Well, you know I got to the point where you' re looking at a
project with a fine tooth comb. I had looked at an earlier plan that I
thought I scaled off at 30 feet. I just looked through, to be honest
though, I just looked through the file here. They gave us subsets of there
are a lot of plans that have developed but one of the plans they gave us in
' this packet that we delivered to you shows a 25 foot dimension. 25 foot is
what we need to satisfy building code so that's a critical number. We
can' t go below that. If you're comfortable with that, we're fine with
that.
Ahrens : I go along with the staff recommendation on this.
' Conrad: I have nothing to add. 25 feet, I don't think 25 or 30 or
whatever is magic. I think they' ll do, as long as we meet code.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 27
Wildermuth: I'd like to move the Planning Commission approve the site plan
89-2 for the Country Hospitality Suites as proposed subject to the '
following conditions . Number one, and number one would be changed to read
and providing for an enclosed corridor between the hotel and a new proposed
building . Does that meet your requirements Steve? i
Emmings: Sounds good to me.
Wildermuth: And number two, the 30 feet would be changed to 25 feet. '
Conrad: Is there a second?
Ahrens : I' ll second it. I
Conrad : Discussion? How did this motion affect the 12 foot? City Council,
was not sure what to do when they reviewed it. Our motion.
Krauss : Your motion would accept the plans as they are which deletes the
12 feet.
Conrad: Which deletes the 12 feet, okay. So we didn' t need to highlight
that because the plans are the plans and they deleted the 12 feet. '
Krauss : Essentially the plans that you' re adopting today supercede the
ones. . .
Wildermuth moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan #89-2 for Country Hospitality Suites with the
following conditions:
1. Provision of a satisfactory easement protecting courtyard areas located!'
at the east and southeast sides of the building providing for an
enclosed corridor between the hotel and a new proposed building to the
east.
2. The minimum courtyard dimension located east of the hotel shall be 25
feet.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
PUBLIC HEARING: '
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE AN R-16 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: What does R-16 look like? Do we have any pictures of an R-16?
Krauss : What a development in the R-16 might look like?
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 28
Conrad : Yeah. Are we talking apartments or are we talking condos? What
is it? And why is it different than R-12? I guess I have to go back to
the fundamental question. I'm not sure why the R-16. I don' t know where
to put it. I would put it where the R-12 is because I don' t know, it
1 sounds to me like we' re solving a parking problem that just occurred
because of the new parking standard. I don' t buy that. I have to buy the
rationale for the need of the zone which is high density and then I have to
buy the need to have two which are fairly close. Do we need an R-20 or an
' R-24? Do we need four high density zones because there' s a reason for
that? The only reason I see for this one right now is for one car parking
stalls underneath. Explain more to me so I can have a better grasp of a
' rationale for two high density zones. They' re still not real high but
higher .
Krauss : No . Realistically when you look at the R-12 district you cannot,
I 'm not saying it' s impossible but it would be very difficult to
ecomomically build an apartment or condominium project such as you might
see in Eden Prairie or Minnetonka or Bloomington. Ones that I personally
' relate to that fall into that density range would be something like
Chasewood Gates which is in Minnetonka on Crosstown Highway. I don' t
recall the exact density in there but I think it was between 16 and 17
' units an acre on that project. If you like we can give you a list of
projects and their densities.
' Conrad: But do we need the two?
Krauss : In my own judgment , no. I think the problem here is the R-12
district didn't do or doesn' t do what it was intended to do. It was
intended to be our high density district. Where it fails in on two points .
It doesn' t allow enough density to build the kind of buildings that most
developers build at a higher density range because you've got to build a
higher density than that and it also hinders them because when you build a
building of that size, when you knock out your parking and your drive
aisles and your paved sidewalks and whatever else you do, plus the
building , you're beyond 35%.
Emmings: But would it be right to think that any developer coming in
attempting to do a denser type project, they' re all going to look for the
R-16 and none of them are going to be interested in the R-12 it sounds
like.
Krauss : Arguably the R-12 district becomes redundant.
Emmings: Yeah. It just won't be used.
Conrad : So the process is we' ll get rid of the R-12. Put in the R-16 and
go back to the old parking requirements that we used to have.
Emmings: That we just got rid of.
Wildermuth: Then you get better quality of construction in the R-16 versus
the R-12. What you see in the R-12 is not very impressive.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 29
i
Krauss: When you' re squeezing a development every which way, which to an
extent we' re entitled to do and it's warranted. You' re going to model or I
you' re going to produce a certain kind of development. Quality of
development is another issue. I mean you can have people that build
quality or not in any density range. You don' t want to point fingers at II
any one project but the R-12 type of density produces or seems to produce
here anyway, somewhat sprawly barracky's looking buildings that are as
compact as possible to make that 35% requirement and are completely
uncreative in terms of design. Now does the R-16 district mean that
inherently you will get a better design? I don't think so. It would allow
more developers to take a shot at it.
Wildermuth: Wouldn' t we be better off maintaining the R-12 and increasing I
that to 45 or 50% coverage to allow for more creativity in design?
Krauss : Well you'd certainly give some flexibility doing that. The
critical factor being that they can' t, developers are paying x number of
dollars per acre. Now we don' t normally get into the economics of these
things but they're going to pay the same dollars per acre whether they' re II
getting 12 units an acre or 16. When you do to the expense and with the
R-16 district we're insisting that the parking be underground which is an
expensive proposition and some of the cities do that. Minnetonka does it. II
Edina does it but there's not a whole lot of third ring suburbs that do it.II
We' re proposing that we do it and I think you've backed us up on that and
the Council has as well so we' re demanding a high grade building in that
district.
Wildermuth: How is it a high grade building? Give us some comfort as to
the quality of building that you get in an A-16 with underground parking II
versus what you'd get in an R-12.
Krauss : I think it' s a matter of how much money it takes to build a 11 building that would fit into an R-16 district.
Wildermuth: I can see where the R-16 on an acre of land is going to be a
lot more productive in terms of revenue for a developer.
Krauss : To meet the right of passage here is that you have to build a
building that will probably be 3 stories high and must have underground
parking. Underground parking requires masonry construction at least to the II
lower level. You know you look at the buildings we' re been getting in the
R-12 and they're framed. It requires fully sprinklered buildings which in
the R-12 district has not been the case. There's ways of getting around
building codes in those districts. Those are fairly major expenses and to
recoup those expenses the developer is then probably going to have to build
a building that's going to attract the kind of rents or purchase price '
that's going to do that.
Ahrens: So by developing R-16 housing we' re not necessarily expanding any II
affordable housing base for Chanhassen? We could be building more
expensive housing? I mean, for some reason I had in the back of my mind
that the reason the R-16 was being developed was so that there could be
higher density housing and maybe more affordable housing for all kinds of II
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 30
1
people. I mean did that have anything to do with it or was that something
that I imagined?
' Krauss : No. I think it did. It was certainly a concern that the Planning
Commission had and the City Council echoed some of the same feelings. The
fact of the matter is that we , people are telling us we have a need in this
town for higher density housing. We don't have higher density housing.
Something hasn' t happened out here that has stopped it. Now I personally
think a lot of that is the dynamics of the multi-family housing market.
Chanhassen was not in the mode to accept that kind of housing or needed it
at the time the tax laws were structured that every developer was building.
Wildermuth: . . .construction.
Krauss : What we' re getting is you will not find developers economically
' building the types of apartment units that you find in other communities.
I can ' t tell you that modern, that the apartment buildings that have been
built in the last 7 years in that boom times for apartments are cheap.
They' re not . They' re considerably more expensive most of them than are the
older buildings. It does provide a style of housing that we don' t offer.
That has the potential for offering some differences in rents and for some
lower rent depending on what programs they use and this is not directly in
our control . If it' s in a tax increment district you can require that a
percentage of them be made available for lower cost housing. Right now
we' re not getting those kinds of product in the tax increment districts.
They' re not being proposed. Nothing that would generate enough revenue
that you can float tax increment to offset anything.
Ahrens: I think because of the restrictions that the City has also on
development.
Krauss : I don' t know that. That would be speculation. I sort of think
that's true but I couldn't prove it.
Erimings : I 'd like to ask. Let' s say that we create an R-16 district.
Where is it?
Krauss : It ' s nowhere to start with. In fact I had this discussion with
Mr. Dean Johnson the morning after.
Emmings : That' s my next question as a matter of fact.
Krauss: No, our premise is that I mean we have an A-1 district that
doesn' t exist anyplace. What we would do if this district passes. We
would put it on the map. It would stay in the ordinance and somebody would
have to bring forth a project that we find acceptable with a concurrent
request to rezone it R-16.
Emmings: Okay.
Wildermuth: Well wouldn' t we just automatically look at the R-12 areas?
' Conrad: That's your first thought.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
9
February 7, 1990 - Page 31
Ahrens: There was something in the Minutes, the City Council Minutes. '
Emmings: That's where you'd look but. . .
Wildermuth: But if the R-12 would be redundant. . . R-16.
Krauss: The R-12 and the R-16 district are keyed into the high density
designation on the Comprehensive Plan. Theoretically they can be used
interchangeably. Realistically there is some latitude on the part of the
City as to whether or not they' ll accept a rezoning and it' s contingent in
my opinion on somebody bringing. . .
Wildermuth: Approval would have to be done on a case by case or an area by
area. '
Emmings: And that' s not spot zoning? We don' t have to worry about being
accused of? '
Krauss: I don' t think so Commissioner Emmings because it' s based on our
Comprehensive Plan.
Emmings: One of the questions I had is, when you think about that
property, I 'm sure that Dean Johnson was very interested in our having an
R-16 and sees it as a way to get the project he' s wanted to do done in some
ways. Maybe he does. Maybe he hasn' t but when I think of buildings 50
tall on top of that hill up there, it' s going to dominant our skyline
forever. '
Wildermuth: It' s going to be the Acropolis .
Emmings: Yeah, it's going to look like the Acropolis. You' re right.
Wildermuth: So maybe that R-12 doesn' t become R-16.
Emmings: Well not automatically. And the other thing is, why does a 3
story building have to be 50 feet tall?
Krauss: They're not usually. A 3 story building is usually about 40 some 1
odd feet tall . If you wanted to. I mean the way ordinance is structured
right now is it opens up, it gives latitude for a 5 story building to
occur. If that' s something that you wanted to preclude, the way to do that'
is to go back and say that the maximum building height is whatever we have
in the R-12 district which I think is 40 feet. 40 feet is sufficient for a
3 story building. '
Emmings: It' s one of those things, it' s real hard because I can see that
you might want to build a 5 story building someplace but you might not want'
to build it on top of that hill . I don' t know how you'd get at that.
Ahrens: What hill are you talking about?
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
•
February 7, 1990 - Page 32
1
Emmings: You know when you're right on the end of West 78th Street here
just before it hits Powers Blvd. . It' s all graded now kind of flat.
Ahrens: By the townhouse on Kerber ' s?
Olsen: Just to the west of those.
Ahrens: Okay. I know where that is.
rEmmings: Yeah, if you just go down West 78th Street to where it hits
Powers Blvd . and then you look, if you' re driving this way and Powers Blvd.
is in front of you. Off to your right that's all graded in there and it' s
up on top of that hill where we' ve had a lot of proposals from a developer
who wants to put multi-family housing up on top of that hill. It's real
visible.
' Wildermuth: We don' t have very much R-12 at the moment. Probably if 212
materializes we' ll have opportunities for more.
rAhrens : Paul you had said, I 'm sorry were you finished?
Wildermuth: Yes .
Ahrens : Paul, you had said that you had worked on the Minnetonka ordinance
and you had a maximum hard surface coverage of 70%. How did you come up
with number in Minnetonka and in Chanhassen the recommendation is for 50%?
Krauss: Don't take this as a cop out but I 'm afraid it's lost in the mist
' of time. I don' t recall . We had a standard of 80% coverage for commercial
areas. For industrial areas it was 85% . 70% as near as I can remember
seemed to be a reasonably good number . Nobody argued with it at the time
and it became part of the ordinance. Now having worked with that ordinance
for probably 5 years after the date of adoption, I sincerely believe it' s
far beyond what's needed. As I say, we didn't have a project that
approached that and some of those projects were fairly dense.
' Wildermuth: What were they? Were they on the order of 50%?
Krauss: Yeah. 45%-50%.
Emmings: But if someone had come in at 70% you wouldn' t have been able to
say no.
Krauss: In that instance no and that' s why, having done that, that' s why
we recommended 50 over 70 because experience showed that that' s a number
that worked.
Conrad: Worked for what? Worked for all residential?
Krauss: It worked for residential occuring in that density range, yeah.
Conrad : In which density range? The high density?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 33
1
Krauss: The higher density range.
Conrad: What' s the downfall of that? As you bring in higher density and
what you' re saying is these people need less space. We' re going to build
smaller units. Stack them and they need less space to recreate outside.
They don't really need. Is that what we say? I 'm not playing a game. I 'm
trying to rationalize a different standard or does it say that high
density, because they need less space, we have to make sure that parks go
up next to them or they' re located close to a place to recreate. That one
I really have a problem with. I guess I can't say that 35% versus 50% is
going to be make a great deal of difference but on the other hand , it seems
like a contradiction. The more we stack on top of each other, the less '
space we need for those people to be outside and I don' t know. That
bothers me.
Emmings: It' s not unlike, you know we put double homes and multi-family I
homes on highways so the less desireable a place is to live, the more
people you put there.
Conrad: Yeah.
Krauss: One other way of thinking of that though is, first of all we' re II
preserving 50% of the site. You buy your 15,000 square foot lot and I
don' t know if the analogy is so good but that says you can' t touch half of
it and then you can build on the rest. You also have to ask why would an
apartment or condominium dwellers in Chanhassen require more open space
than do the same people living in most other suburban communities.
Conrad: No, no. We don' t have to ask that. Not at all . I don' t feel we II
have to. That presumes they're right and we are leaders in a lot of
different cases so yeah. Looking back, it' s like going back to Richfield
and looking at Richfield and Bloomington to see their mistakes and say,
well they lived through this and let' s duplicate them. No, I can' t accept II
that. Rule that argument out. Start with a logical one. Not somebody
else did it. Maybe the 15% difference doesn' t make any difference. It
might not in a high density. I 'm more concerned right now that we make
affordable building well built. I think that' s where we started here. It
appears that our R-12 simply doesn' t give us a good product yet it was our
feeble attempt to have some affordable housing in there but we' re not doing'
it. It's sort of an artificial. It seems like we're ending up with a bad
zone based on.
Wildermuth: Or it' s useless. ,
Conrad: Yeah.
Wildermuth: Based on a lot of the projects that have gone in.
Ahrens: But the zoning doesn't sound like the problem. It' s just the
quality of the project that went in.
Krauss: There' s some truth to that.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 34
Wildermuth: Yeah, but the price of the land is the same.
Krauss: The developer that we had built, he took that district and he
maxed it out. The product that you saw is what happens when a developer
does that. Now it could be any developer doing that in any district.
Sooner or later a developer ' s going to try it anywhere. As I said
earlier, I can't guarantee that you' re going to get better quality in an
R-l6 district. I know that it' s going to cost the developer more to build
• I in that district on a per unit basis than it does in that R-12 district
because Cenvesco' s whole premise of single car garage on slab doesn' t fly
in the R-16 district. The open space questions are valid. I 'm very
comfortable with 50% of the site is a huge amount of land but one thing
that we have done with the Comprehensive Plan is yes. Higher density sites
are typically located near some of our parks . That was one of the
intentional off shoots of what the plan did. There' s a number of higher
density sites around the park just , on the Eck site and then we' re
proposing it west of that property. That was intentional .
Emmings: In addition I suppose that if someone' s coming in with something
in the R-16, Park and Rec looks at the plan and says you' re putting a lot
of people on this land. We' re going to require a 5 acre park, or a 3 acre
' park or whatever . Now you take that park away and then you've got a 50%
requirement. So if Park and Rec is doing their job on making sure that
there's something on site for people and recreation, it' s still only 50%
that they can cover not counting the park. So maybe that' s protection
there.
Conrad: Might be. If we put R-16 in, Dean Johnson could put his project
in exactly the way he presented it?
Krauss : Yeah, it wouldn' t change. Well .
Conrad: So we'd have the same, we'd have his configuration on that site.
Now he wouldn' t need , but now he' s got driveways. He' s got the impervious
surface ratio taken care of.
Krauss : No , no. Dean Johnson could not put that project in an R-16
district. He can't even put it in the R-12 district anymore.
Emmings: He can' t have, the R-16 isn' t going to allow buildings on slab?
Krauss: He' s required to have 1 1/2 garage stalls per .
' Emmings: It isn' t going to allow these single car garages? The parking' s
got to be underneath?
' Krauss: Well yeah. Let' s talk about the R-12 district. A lot of things
have changed in that district from the date you reviewed that project.
Conrad : You' re really flying through a lot of these things. I 'm still
trying to catch up to what Steve said. What would keep him from. . .
' Krauss : From building in the R-12?
Planning Commission Meetin g
February 7, 1990 - Page 35
I
Conrad : From that district. Why would he not be able to build exactly 1
what he's got or he proposed in his current site if we zoned it R-16?
Emmings: First he's got to get it rezoned to R-16. ,
Conrad: Okay, but let' s say we go along with that.
Emmings: Then second , now he' s got to put the garages underneath. He ,
can' t build on a slab anymore. He' s got to build over a garage.
Wildermuth: He' s got to have a superstructure then. 1
Conrad: So the R-16 in all cases, you've got to have a garage tucked under
because we' re assuming it an apartment building? '
Krauss: Let's focus for a second on the R-12 district because that' s what
he's been operating in. He can' t bring you the product that he was
proposing before.
Olsen: He doesn' t meet the new parking .
Krauss: It needs 1 1/2 enclosed stalls per dwelling. All his parking has II
to be contained off street. His drive aisles have to be wider . He needs
fire department turn arounds. He has to have visitor parking at a rate of II
a quarter stalls per unit. His drive aisles can' t be as long as they are.
Conrad: But we've probably got space now. Now that we've gone from 35 to '
50.
Krauss: That district hasn' t changed. The R-12.
Conrad: But I 've rezoned it because that' s the logical thing to do.
Olsen: Well I think what he wants to do is build in the R-12. The R-16 II
would be. . .
Conrad : Really the game I 'm playing is, I'm trying to figure out the
quality of development that we get someplace. If we simply rezone what we II
have there to the 16, we' re still stuck with the same quality and that says
I'm not sure I like the R-16 if that's the case and that's not contrary to
Mr. Johnson at all . I'm just trying to understand what we get at an R-16. II
Emmings: I just read the ordinance looking for the garage underneath and
I don' t see it. '
Krauss: The garage underneath? It' s parking.
Emmings: I saw it discussed in the City Council Minutes but I don't see it'
here in the ordinance itself.
Olsen: It's in the parking ordinance. ,
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 36
1
Krauss : There was another part of this.
Emmings: See because it allows garages as an accessory use which I guess .
Krauss : There' s an issue here. The way the parking ordinance was
structured was that if your building included 20 units or less , you could
have free standing attached, free standing outside garages.
' Emmings: Yeah, and? What gets us to a garage underneath the building?
Krauss : More than 20 units .
Emmings: Okay, and that' s in the. . .
' Krauss : Well , there' s an accompanying ordinance that for some reason
didn' t get printed with this one that just changed that one, well it just
provided an R-16 standard.
' Emmings: And what did it say roughly?
Krauss: It said you' ll have 1 enclosed in a garage. One outside and 1/4
' visitor .
Emmings: And when it says 1 enclosed in a garage, does that garage have to
be under the building or can it be?
Krauss: Well the ordinance that was approved, the parking ordinance that
was approved said if you have more than 20 units in a building it had to be
' underground . If you want to make sure and your question is a valid one.
Could Dean Johnson do this in an R-16 district. I think theoretically he
could unless we changed that to say that any building in an R-16 district
must have underground parking.
Emmings: Why wouldn' t any building in an R-16 zone have to comply with
R-16 standards?
Krauss : It would.
Conrad: We' re making up the standards, whatever they are.
Olsen: And require them to only have underground. Say even if you have
less than 20 units.
Emmings: Oh I see. If you' re in R-16 and you're less than 20 units .
you' re
' Krauss: The way to get to that is to tell us to write the ordinance so
that any building built in the R-16 district must have underground parking .
' Conrad: So what are we constructing? Is this a zone for apartment
buildings?
Krauss: Yes. For condo buildings.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 37
Emmings: . . .zoned for underground garages . For underground parking . I 'm I
curious about something else. I don't know if I 'm stepping on the wrong
subject here but it says minimum lot depth is 155 feet and with 50 foot
setbacks, front and rear. I don't understand that.
Krauss: Well your minimum lot width in an RSF district is 90 feet and if
you multiple your width by your depth you don' t come up with 15,000.
Emmings: That' s okay. The minimum depth, I don' t even know why you'd want,
a number down there because you couldn' t build, your building would have,
you'd have 5 feet of buildable space that seems kind of, you' re building a
hallway.
Krauss: Yeah. All the districts have a standard for minimum lot depth.
carried forward the R-12 standard. Is it a relevant standard? No, it I
probably isn' t.
Emmings: Minimum lot depth has to be 100 feet plus the depth of the
building. It doesn' t say anything really.
Conrad: I have no problem with this ordinance if we want to put it in as
long as there's underground parking. If that' s what we want for a zone.
Ahrens: How do you have underground parking under a townhouse?
Krauss: You're not and that's not supposed to be in this district.
Ahrens: On the second page of the ordinance it says the following minimum II
requirements shall be observed in an R-16 district subject to the. . .
Number one, minimum lot area for a townhouse or multi-family.
Emmings: That's another carry over . ,
Krauss: Oh. Yeah. I would cross out everything up to the.
Emmings: Just say townhouse or. . .
Krauss: No. Just minimum lot area is 2,700 square feet per dwelling unit.,
Emmings: Oh. Oh sure.
Conrad: My only other comment on page 1 that is accessory uses in number 611
says home occupations in an apartment buildings so what are we talking
about?
Krauss: The accountant who brings books home. I mean it' s nominal . '
Olsen: We have a list of home occupations.
Emmings: You do but it isn' t the accountant who brings books home. It
includes, I could have, as an attorney I can have an office in my home
where I see clients in a residential district. ,
I
IPlanning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 38
I
Ahrens: Who'd want that?
Emmings: Oh God. In fact I knew an attorney out in the country who bought
a farmsite and he turned the machine shed into a law office and people
drove up on his farm site.
Conrad: They' re very compatible uses.
I Emmings: I thought it was great but no, home occupations is something more
intense than that.
I Conrad : Yeah, to me home occupation is more intensive but if that' s, by
definition if it' s an attorney or an accountant, I guess.
I Emmings: They can have a place of business there and have clients in and
everything else.
Olsen: I think it specifies that you can' t really be bringing any traffic .
IConrad: Like 3 or 4 visitors a day or something like that.
Emmings: I read it for my own situation, just as a matter of curiousity
and thought I wouldn't have any problem at all .
I Olsen : It' s on page 1238 . Clearly incidental to residential use. No more
than 25% of floor area. No garage or accessory buildings are used. It
states professional services such as architect, engineers or attorneys ,
dress making, painting. . .services.
Emmings: You can have one non-resident employee.
IOlsen: Yeah. You can have one sign too.
Ahrens : Is that an exclusive list?
Olsen: It just says the following home occupations not permitted.
Krauss : Such as. Such as architects which presumably if something was
Isimilar to that.
Emmings: You have to have adequate off street parking.
IOlsen: No more than 3 parking spaces. Yeah, that's right. Then you get
into parking and it's already short on parking .
Krauss: I 've had a lot of discussions with Planning Commissions over that
topic for some reason over the years and there' s a couple sides to it one
of which is, why should you treat these people any differently than you do
I anybody else? The obvious reason is you' re living in a more intense
development than anybody else. Home occupations by nature should be
unobtrusive. If you have 2 or 3 cars for a short period of time or 1 car,
' whatever it is, in a parking lot that has 200 cars in it because there' s
100 apartments, you' re not going to notice the difference. The outside
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 39
I
employee. Some of this stuff was adopted from the Minnetonka ordinance
before I came here so I didn' t do all these things but the Minnetonka ,
ordinance prohibits the one outside employee in the multi-family district
so that didn't get carried over for some reason. It also prohibits that
signage but we've also found over the years that it' s a self contained II situation. If you' re in an apartment building, the management takes care
of, typically, it takes care of problems. Nobody' s going to set up a
woodworking shop in their apartment and get away with it. If it's a
condominium building, the association takes care of it.
Ahrens: Plus we're talking about 1 or 2 bedroom units and they' re small to
begin with. I mean what could you, you're limited to what you could do in 11
an area that size.
Conrad : I guess my only thought was on parking space. If you did have
traffic and there are some interior decoraters that have things set up and II
maybe that doesn' t fit in an apartment. That probably is not practical but
there are some uses where you could have 2 or 3 parking stalls taken at a •
time and how that impacted parking . But maybe this is not taking us
anyplace. I guess my preference is not even to see it get there but maybe
it' s okay to say it' s permitted. I didn' t want to flip hom occupations to
the non-permitted but, anybody' s direction on that? I
Ahrens: I don't have any problem with it.
Conrad: Okay. So we' re probably getting close to comfortable on this ,
thing. What we had done is created an apartment building zone which is
better than the R-12. Do we still have problems with the R-12 district?
Is that a district we should review because it seems like it was our
attempt at higher density and maybe it's standards there. Maybe we' re not II
getting out of it what we'd like. I don' t know. Anybody want to review
that thing in the future? The R-12 district. No takers?
Emmings: Well we can. I think it was interesting to somebody. Then we
might as well.
Ahrens : Well R-12 still serves a purpose of townhouses and lower density
building right?
Krauss: It does.
Ahrens: Because R-16 won' t address that issue.
Wildermuth: What we've gotten to date though has not been very impressive.
Ahrens : No but again it' s a different type of housing. '
Emmings: You know there are issues there. For example, if we had R-12, if
we looked at it and would think about it in terms of maybe saying they have
to have basements. Is that going to kill them? No, because we've seen
them with basements here. We had one project came in with basements .
They've got to have maybe a certain amount of storage area either
associated with a garage or not. But there might be things there that we II
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 40
could do to really make R-12 a whole lot more palatable.
Conrad: And at the same time, Jim probably won' t jump on this bandwagon.
We could increase the impervious surface to maybe make it economically
worthwhile. I don' t know where I 'm at on that but it seems to me the R-12
construction is not too great. We have a lot of problems with it and maybe
we' re forcing , maybe we're forcing those problems and not really helping
but I don' t know. It's probably worthwhile to look at.
Wildermuth: I don' t know, in R-12, would we be better off in increasing
the impervious surface?
' Krauss : Argueably our impervious surface is difficult in all those
districts.
Wildermuth: Making it 50% in the R-12 and just leave it alone and not go
to an R-16.
Krauss : When you' re looking at districts , I would encourage you to not
look at these things individually but look at the fact that we have how
many residential districts . If you want to start out with rural
residential , we've got rural residential . Single family, 4, 8 , 12 and now
16. It' s like all these motel chains segmenting the market. Do you really
need so many segments? It' s my belief that we've probably overdone it a
bit. Maybe an R-10 would have taken care of that range. I don' t know what
the answer is but it seems to me that we' re really compartmentalized the
thing beyond what the market is doing because they haven' t filled these
niches.
Wildermuth: The thing that bothers me is, I look at for example in Edina.
I look at the four plexes. I look at larger, higher density apartment
complexes. The quality of construction is just so much better than what
we're seeing down here.
Emmings: Of course you've got a desire among more people to live in that
area do you think so it supports a higher?
Ahrens : Well it has the highest rents too I think of any community in the
State.
Emmings: People want to live there so bad they're willing to pay it? That
must be it.
' Ahrens : I think it' s the location. Centrally located .
Wildermuth: But also some of the lowest taxes in the metro area.
Ahrens: Yeah, but that doesn' t affect renters. You can' t find an
apartment there for less.
Krauss : Edina also very actively subsidizes housing to get medium income
and lower medium income people in.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
II
February 7, 1990 - Page 41
II
Ahrens: Well in one area.
I
Krauss: Yes.
Ahrens: One development. 1
Krauss: Well no.
Ahrens: There are some buildings on the other side of France Avenue that 1
are all clustered together that are subsidized. Then there' s the new
Edenborough that' s subsidized but only some of those are subsidized . 1
Krauss: Then there's Centennial Lakes as well .
Ahrens: Yeah, but I mean if you look at the kind of people who are actualyl
in there, they' re subsidized for yuppies a lot of them. I mean they are.
Unfortunately that' s what' s happened with some of the them. I mean
Edenborough is a lot like that. 1
Krauss: Unfortunatley we live in a world these days where yuppies qualify
for income subsidies.
II
Emmings: You know this list of communities and their maximum hard surface
coverage. That was just surprising to me because how were they dealing
with these? I don' t understand how they' re dealing with this issue. We II
bring it up again and again. I know it always comes up in the business
park and it always comes up strongly in the R-12 and you've got a whole
bunch of communities with no standard at all and they' re getting along
fine. How are they handling it? II
Krauss: Some communities get projects you probably wouldn' t want out of
that too.
Emmings: But does that mean that they simply let them cover as much of the
ground with hard surface. . .
-
Krauss: Well realistically no because they have greater setback
requirements than we formerly had around here. They also protect their
wetlands as well and they may have. When I was city planner of Oakdale we II
wrote an ordinance that said you had multi-family dwellings, you had to
have a percentage. You had a public park dedication responsibility but you
also had a private recreational responsibility that was going to equal 10% II
of the vacant area so you had to actively develop it for recreational
purposes.
Emmings: And in the paragraph ahead of that you say, in reviewing the 1
standards it must be recognized that according to current ordinances, lot
coverage requirements is calculated on the land left after designated
wetlands and park dedications are excluded from the total site. I thought II
it was based on net density which also took out roads.
Krauss : That' s true. Public roads would be taken out. It' s worse than I II
led you to believe.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 42
11
Conrad: Do we have a zone that we can create affordable housing in? I
don' t think we just created affordable housing.
Krauss: Zoning does not create affordable housing. It can create
expensive housing.
Conrad: It can contribute.
Krauss : But I think you have an easier , zoning has an easier time working
in the opposite direction. There were a lot of movements were fought in
the 60's and 70's against exclusionary zoning. The Metro Council for many
years was on Eden Prairie's back because Eden Prairie required 3 car
garages . That' s exclusionary. Who can afford a 3 car garage? Now
everybody has a 3 car garage. Well not everybody. A lot of people do and
standards have changed but there are court cases and I ' ll defer to the
attorneys in this because my planning law was, I hated that class but you
know Barrington, Illinois was sued over having exclusionary zoning which
11 they got at by having very expensive building requirements. You just
couldn' t meet it unless you threw a lot of money into it. We would never
encourage you to go that route. On the other hand, there are standards
beyond what you wouldn' t want to drop and possibly receive projects that
have pushed that limit.
Wildermuth : PUD' s and higher density projects . . .
Krauss: Our PUD ordinance, these things unravel. Our PUD ordinance is
another matter that we'd probably like to talk to you about at some point
in the future. Our PUD ordinance just says you've got a PUD and it doesn' t
say what you do with it after that and that everything is thrown out the
window. We're a little concerned about that.
1 Conrad : How'd that happen? Didn' t we just, that hasn' t been that long ago
that we looked at the PUD.
Emmings : I think you're being a little quip aren' t you because I don' t
think that' s what it does.
Krauss: Not if you would talk to some of the commercial developers.
Olsen: It' s real strict for single family. When you're looking at
multiple family and commercial , we have nothing. . .
Emmings: Oh, okay.
11 Conrad : Okay, moving right along. These are fun issues because we create
zones and we create standards and we don' t really know what those standards
did to the zone. Do we want to move R-16 along or do we want to send,
' table it and have Paul and Jo Ann kind of look at the R-12 in conjunction
with it? And send it as a little package to the City Council . They' ll
probably be very supportive of the R-16 but is there any.
Emmings: It' s their idea.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 43
r
Conrad: Is there a preference? Do we care?
Wildermuth: Why are we doing this R-16? Why are we looking at it? If you
don' t tend to influence quality construction or create or influence
affordability, why are we even looking at it?
Krauss: What we've got right now is a situation that artificially
precludes a type of housing. Whether or not that housing is built in an II
affordable range or not, you can't build it here now. What the City
Council was saying is, let' s at least give the opportunity for it and then '
we wanted to get some reasonably, something developed to a reasonable
standard. Councilman Boyt even indicated some recepitivity to the idea
that if you built in this density and brought us a project which the City
wanted and found encouraging, found acceptable, and it was built in a tax
increment district, that we should look at partially subsidizing that to
get the kind of housing that we wanted in the price range that we wanted.
Wildermuth: We've got these multi-family projects don' t pay their own way II
from a tax standpoint anyway and then we' re going to subsidize them?
Krauss: No, multi-family does. Multi-family generates a tremendous amount'
of income.
Wildermuth: Income but not tax. '
Krauss: No tax. A 2 bedroom apartment.
Wildermuth: Just before you came though the City Manager put together a ,
study that.
Krauss: It should say that because the multi-family housing. . .screaming at,
the State legislature every year.
Conrad: It'd be interesting. I'd like to check that because what we did II
see was single. It may have said single family.
Emmings: That' s what I remember.
Conrad: Single family under $70,000.00 but it didn' t, I'm not sure.
Wildermuth: It didn't talk about multi? 1
Emmings: I don' t we've got enough experience. We don' t have any so how do
we know?
Wildermuth: Nobody does anymore.
Krauss: The property tax on a 2 bedroom unit, the 2 bedroom units in
Eden Prairie that I 'm aware of generate $2,800. 00 a year in property tax
which seems ludicrous since it didn' t cost $200,000.00. It' s taxed at
about 3 times the rate of a single family house. '
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 44
11 Emmings: $2, 800.00? So you've got $200. 00 you've got to charge for the
� 9 _ g g
apartment.
Krauss: Just to make.
Emmings: You don' t even quite make it. So the owner ' s got to charge at
least $200.00 for that unit just to get the tax out. That's before he gets
anything else out. So these are not going to be cheap. Those aren' t
cheap.
1 Conrad: Okay, any preference for how we want to deal with the issue
tonight?
' Emmings: I feel real funny about this because in some ways I think it' s a
good idea to have this available. It seems to be but I don't really think
I know what it is. Probably because I 've never dealt with it before so I 'm
kind of uncomfortable with it at the same time. You said at the beginning
could we see a picture of a project that' s built along these lines.
Krauss: We can certainly do that.
Emmings: I think some examples showing us, showing us some examples of
what it is that we' re approving here would be a big help to me. How hot is
the City Council to get this done? We don' t have anything zoned for it
anyway. We don't have a zone for it so what's the difference? There are
no plans on the table.
Krauss: Well we've got Dean Johnson chomping at the bit but I don' t know
that. . .
LEmmings: But has he redrawn his plan to fit this?
Krauss: Theoretically, they have a draft copy of the ordinance and
theoretically they're planning something. We haven' t seen it. That' s
irrelevant. That shouldn' t make you feel one way or the other about it.
1 Emmings: I could go either way. In some ways I 'd like to look at it again
and it might be nice to have input from Brian and Annette and Tim too since
it' s kind of new thing.
Conrad : I don' t think it hurts but as Paul said, it' s another zone. It' s
another district out there.
Emmings: But it isn' t out there until we put it out there.
Conrad: And I don't know that the old ones are right yet but I don't see
any harm in what we've got. It does permit something so, okay. Is it a
feeling that we should table it until we see a picture of what this is? Or
do we not care? What does it look like?
Emmings: I care.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 45
I
Wildermuth: I care but I don' t know that I could look at enough pictures
to get a good feel for what we' re looking at. I don't see where it's goings
to do a lot of good but I guess on the other hand, how much harm is it
going to do?
Conrad: It' s going to put a garage underneath the building which is not 1
bad.
Wildermuth: That might be an interesting change. I
Conrad: It allows a real positive thing in my mind. I just don't know that
it deserves a special zone to tell you the truth. It' s zoned to allow a II
garage.
Wildermuth: I can' t recall a good example of a quality R-12 project.
Maybe it would be worthwhile trying this.
Conrad: Joan, what do you think?
Ahrens: I don' t think I need to see any pictures really. I have some idea
what a 3 story apartment with an underground parking looks like. I think
that there' s a danger in looking at pictures too because sometimes you buy
off on the picture of a specific development rather than what it could look
like. I mean it could look a lot worse than that.
Emmings: So I make myself clear. I wasn' t thinking about looking at
pictures of buildings. I don' t think that will tell me anything. I 'd likell
to see a development that's done to this kind of intensity where you've got
more than one building . Get a feel for what' s building and what' s space II
and what's around and stuff like that. Maybe you should tell me where
there is one and I can just go look.
Ahrens: Do you think York Plaza? Do you know where that is? York Plaza ,
right by Southdale. Do you know where that is Paul?
Krauss: I think I know which building that is. '
Ahrens: That's on York. York Avenue.
Krauss: Down by the senior buildings.
Ahrens: Fairly close and there's a lot of buildings and it's right behind II
Byerly's. All the buildings, they' re white and they all have underground
parking and I think that's probably real close to what we' re talking about.
Wildermuth: Where the library is? I
Ahrens: Yeah, it across from the library.
Krauss : How many story buildings? There' s a couple of while ones that are'
high rises in there.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 46
11
Ahrens : These aren' t high rises . These are the maximum 3 story. They all
' have little balconies. They' re made out of. . .
Emmings: Papiermache.
Ahrens: Yeah. No, they' re white concrete or you know. There' s maybe 7 or
8 buildings in a cluster in there.
' Krauss : I think you' ll find that that density is probably higher . If you
want to look at a project that I think is in this density range, I 'm pretty
sure it' s close, if you're driving by on TH 169 you can sort of see the
project called the Park in Eden Prairie. It 's right, you know where the
' Cathedral just went in? It' s right in there.
Ahrens: Oh, behind that little shopping area in there?
Krauss: Yes.
Ahrens: Okay.
Krauss : In fact I worked with that developer . They did another project
in Minnetonka.
Emmings: These guys really get around . I don' t know any of these places.
Conrad: Yeah, you' re all out in farm country.
Emmings: Yeah, I suppose that' s it. Densities out there are 1 unit per
160 acres.
Ahrens: That would be a good example.
' Emmings: I 'm kind of bothered by the 50 foot height. That still makes me
kind of queezy and I don' t know if it' s a problem.
Wildermuth: That's urban sprawl coming there.
Krauss : I think that' s a valid consideration. Frankly the only type of
1 building that I think would ever be a high rise out in Chanhassen that you
might want to consider is a senior building and we don' t have any senior
buildings being proposed.
' Emmings: The new apartment down there was how many floors? Just 2?
Krauss: 3.
rEmmings: What that 3?
Krauss: 3 with underground parking.
Emmings: So that' s an example of.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 47
1
Krauss: Not it's not because that building, somebody somehow pushed it up 1
in the air so the parking lot is not, it's sort of at grade. It's not as
below as it' s supposed to be.
Emmings: You mean the garage is really first floor? 1
Krauss: What they did is they pushed the building up to use an old sewer
line that they weren' t supposed to use. 1
Conrad: Which one are we talking about?
Emmings: The new one. 1
Conrad: Heritage?
Krauss: That's one of the reasons why it looks so big. It' s higher than
was supposed to be.
Emmings: How high is that? 1
Krauss: 40 feet.
Emmings: 40 feet?
Olsen: . . .6 feet higher . . . It' s not at grade. It' s 6 feet above. I
Wildermuth: Where are our building inspectors? How do they get away with
something like that?
Emmings: Ladd did it one night when none of the rest of us were here.
g
Krauss: It's one of those things that makes staff look totally inept and II
keep telling you that we've changed a lot of things and I hope nobody
proves us wrong. So am I hearing you that we should fix the ordinance so
any building that' s built there must have underground parking and that we
should go with a straight 40 foot building height. Those are the changes
that you' re looking for?
Conrad: I think so. 1
Krauss: And change the lot to either eliminate the lot depth or come up
with a size that's commensurate with that type of building. 1
Emmings: I don' t even know if you need to put that in there at all .
That's going to be governed by the setbacks. 1
Krauss: And the hard surface coverage.
Conrad: Yeah I think it's taken care of. 1
Emmings: Signs . Down there number 5 on the bottom of page 1. It says
signs so that's a signal to me, a sign to me that we should go to the sign
ordinance to find out what' s going to be approved and appropriate in the
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 48
I
R-16 and there' s not going to be anything in there. So when it says signs,
what does it mean?
Olsen: . . .high density.
' Emmings: Well we don' t have an R-16 under signs though.
Krauss: That' s a good point. I see what you' re saying. Well we could
refer it back to the R-12.
Emmings: You could if that' s appropriate.
Krauss : We' re talking about monument signs , yeah.
Conrad: It probably is .
Olsen: We just have to add an R-16 in there.
timings: I see you can have one dock. I think we should require that they
all have one dock. Lake or not. One dock. It'd be a little hard to
imagine these on a lake but. . .
' Conrad : Do we need a motion on this? We probably do.
Emmings: They've recommended that we approve the attached ordinance.
Conrad: Somebody want to make that motion with the changes that we noted?
Emmings: So moved.
Wi ldermuth: Second.
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to creat an R-16, high density
residential district with the changes discussed by the Planning Commission.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad : Any interest in reviewing the R-12 district? I think we should. I
have an interest. We're going to put that down in our work plan and then
we' ll just figure it out.
Emmings: Put it on the list.
Conrad : And when I say review the R-12 district, it means review it for
what?
Emmings: Quality.
11 Conrad : Yeah, there' s a ood word. Intent. Yeah. Is it achieving what
9 g
we thought it was really designed to achieve and that's probably higher
density. More affordable housing.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 49
Emmings: But it sounds like too, Paul is saying we' re overly 11
compartmentalized here. Maybe we also want to look at that in connection
with the other three zones that we've got and maybe even decide not to have
it. '
Ahrens : I think if you look at R-12, you should look at R-10 and whatever
else. I
Emmings: Might as well .
Conrad : I don' t want to create a gorilla to review here. ,
Krauss: I think what we could do is give you a summary of what we think
these districts are accomplishing.
Conrad : That' s probably real valid. Like how many do we have or what' s
gone in and what are you hearing is the need. What are the developer' s
saying that we need .
Emmings: And why are they all even numbers? That's what I want to get at.'
I want something with odd numbers.
Conrad: Let' s move on quickly and get out of here if we can.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE BH, HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT TO
ALLOW BANK DRIVE-THRU WINDOWS AS A PERMITTED USE. 1
Conrad: Without any staff comments, do we have any comments?
Emmings: In Section 2 in the ordinance I 'm looking at. ,
Krauss: You know something, they stuck it in there.
Emmings: Yeah, and that doesn' t have. Number one, that has nothing to do II
with banks and number two, it doesn't say anything about being underneath
the building. I
Krauss: Well no.
Ahrens: This is what was missing last time. '
Krauss: That' s in the text of the original ordinance. I knew I wrote it.
I was getting frustrated. The parking ordinance has, this is only one
component. One line of that parking line. The parking ordinance itself
that was approved had. . .
Emmings: So that Section 2 ought to be deleted out of here? '
Krauss: Well it doesn't belong in this one that' s for sure.
11
I
' Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 50
I
Emmings: So what, Section 3 should be Section 2 and Section 2 should be
' deleted?
Krauss : Right.
Emmings: You guys sat and tried to sandbag us again.
Ahrens: It ' s like a picture of the hotel with a green roof.
' Wildermuth: Don' t worry about it. The roof isn' t green. In fact, that
wasn' t even the hotel .
Emmings: And nobody noticed. Everybody looks at the building and nobody
notices it' s not the building that they're proposing.
Krauss : I was standing behind Joan and we' re going , what is that? That
doesn' t look anything like the thing.
1 Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the BH, Highway and Business
District to allow bank drive-thru windows as a permitted use amended to
delete Section 2. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Emmings: Can we pass these with 3 of us? We can can' t we?
Wildermuth: Sure.
Emmings: On the Minutes with just 3 of us because he wasn' t here?
Krauss: I think all you need is a simple majority.
Emmings: Well you do have a simple majority.
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated January 17, 1990 as presented. All voted in favor
except Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Conrad: Any questions?
Emmings: Yeah, on the ongoing list. When does that recreational beachlot
thing so to City Council? There's no date on here. Monday? Okay, this
Monday? I was just curious.
Conrad: I like the report on the City Council .
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 51
Emmings: Could we start knocking things off here when they're done?
Conrad: I think so.
Emmings: It' s nice to see we did something but it' s getting kind of
cluttery and like number 9 there is done so. It says it' s done. I don' t
remember it but it says it's done.
Conrad: Yeah, we did it. As far as I 'm concerned. We can have an open I
and closed list and the staff can have the closed list for their annual
review. Then we' ll just take a look at the ones that are still open. ,
Olsen: The inactive ones?
Emmings: Well , that's another question. Some of them like, for example. II
Eurasian Water Milfoil . What would we ever do with that? Public Safety
apparently has the issue. I don' t know that it' s really a planning issue.
Conrad: I don' t think it' s planning, no. I agree.
Emmings: Recycling of oil . There' s a recycling committee, so I don' t known
why that's on our list. Light rail transit. That might be a planning
issue but it' s probably out of our hands. When it comes we' ll get a crack
at it but that isn' t going to be tomorrow. It' s an important item for
sure. And something like the maximum church lot. That' s an issue that thell
City Council has stayed on a little bit. They're still interested in
looking at it some more but we' re done with that unless it comes back to us
from the City Council I think so again, that might be an item that could bell
deleted.
Olsen: We do have to review the conditional use permit conditions for. . .
Emmings: Oh okay.
Olsen: You will still be working on it someday. I
Emmings: But this isn't a list of what the City Council is asking us or is
it?
Krauss: It's an all inclusive list and hopefully it would serve as a
vehicle for you and the City Council to come to some concurrence on what we
should be doing. I
Emmings: Do they see this?
Krauss: Have they seen this? They've seen it on occasion but what we'd II
like to do, we were hoping. Tonight' s going to get late but that once you
come to some agreement on what you want, that we' ll pass it along to them
and see if they want to add something. '
Conrad : Absolutely. And then even like on a monthly basis to forward this
report up to them to see. I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 52
I
Olsen : . . .City Council .
Emmings: Yeah , I think that' s a good idea. Here' s what they' re doing.
Conrad: I couldn't find mine. I went through reams of paper and I had all
their comments and dog gone it, I lost them all . What Boyt said and what,
you know I had all their Minutes . My secretary just is not doing her job
anymore. The only thing, I think let's go through it when we have fuller
commission member participation. I would like to elevate that rezoning BF
to A-2 or at least a review of that. I guess I 'd like staff to present to
us. I'd like to revisit the whole issue down there. Just to review what
we think is appropriate. If it' s really, and Paul I know your comments
have been maybe it' s not suitable for residential or whatever but I 'd just
like to dialogue about that and get yours and Jo Ann' s comments on that
area. Then come to some kind of agreement as to increasing use.
Decreasing use. Or at least just plain revisit or refresh the new members
on what that zone should be doing.
Krauss : Would you like it in the context of a position paper kind of?
Informational document or would you like it in the form of an ordinance
change?
' Ahrens : I 'd like to know a little history.
Wildermuth: Yeah, a position paper I think would be good. The thing that
I 'm most interested is how do to arrest what' s happening down there. How
to arrest the evolution I guess. I don't know if that requires an A-2
classification or not but maybe something other than BF classification.
Emmings: What did you say?
Wildermuth: How to stop the proliferation of what' s happening down there.
I know we can' t halt all activity down there. We can't halt all
development because people have a right to do something with the property
that they own and are paying taxes on but it seems like the mess is getting
worse. It seems like it' s proliferating.
Emmings: What ever happened with the property that was going to have the
garbage trucks on it? I know that project is dead but what' s the status
right now?
Krauss : That was up in the industrial park wasn' t it?
Emmings: No.
Conrad : No, that was right off of TH 101. They had an access right beyond
the bridge.
' Olsen : It did fall through and there' s nothing happening. . .
Emmings: Nothing going on at all now? No one talking to you about it at
all?
Planning Commission Meeting
February 7, 1990 - Page 53
I
Krauss: You should also be aware, in fact the newspaper printed it
already, but we've got an application for a cellular telephone antenna in II
the BF district.
Emmings: Where? 1
Krauss : On the property just east of Sorenson' s.
Emmings: We've already approved one antenna west of there.
Krauss : Yeah. There' s a heightened sensitivity to what' s happening down
there. You hear radio antenna and it should raise, understandably some red"
flags. On the other hand, they can demonstrate that they can put this in
the A-2 district on a site but that it would impact homes located on top of
the bluff and you already allow it as a conditional use in the A-2 I
district. It's one of those things that's coming along at an inopportune
time but it' s coming along nevertheless .
Enimings: How tall is it? '
Krauss: It's 190 feet from the bottom to the top. Now, they're going to
give us some graphics that hopefully demonstrate that if you' re standing on
the top of the bluff looking through the trees, it' s going to be below the
crown of the trees because the base is set down. This thing is already
into the. . . '
Olsen: The soils are, the way the soils are there, whether or not even
that tower will be able to be located there. MnDot. . .
Krauss: They can't stop it but they're concerned about it.
Conrad: Next meeting, what kind of an agenda do we have? '
Krauss : You've got a very light agenda but we've scheduled a joint meeting
with the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan. Maybe if it moves
expeditiously along, it might be an opportune time.
Conrad: Absolutely. Maybe that's what we' ll do. We' ll talk to them about
any priorities that they have on our work plan right after we talk I
comprehensive plan. Remind me if I forget to bring that up in the meeting.
Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor II
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 55 p.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Director of Planning
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION _,
1
REGULAR MEETING 4 ' 4
11f , FEBRUARY 13, 1990
IIIChairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. .
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Hasek, Dawne Erhart, Jim Mady, Larry
Schroers, Curt Robinson, Jan Lash and Sue Boyt
ISTAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
IAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Lash seconded L seco ed to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated January 9, 1990 as
Iamended on page 22 by Jan Lash. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPOINT ACTING CHAIR: Hasek moved, Robinson seconded to appoint Larry
I Schroers as Acting Chair for the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
IREVIEW COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.
Sietsema: Paul Krauss is the Planning Director for the City of Chanhassen
I and he's here with Mark Koegler to go over what the Planning Commission has
done so far and then we need to look at those changes to the land use plan
and see how that would affect our park needs in the future. I 'll just let
i
Iyou go.
Krauss: Good evening. I haven' t met most of you but I 've been with the
City now for about 6 months and I 've been sort of busy. I'll try to stay
Iawake through this but I was at the City Council meeting here until about
1:30 this morning so if I fade out, please forgive me. It's not due to
lack of interest. We've been talking to Lori and we asked for some time
I tonight to update you on the City Comprehensive Plan. The process, where
we're at right now and what' s going to be happening. The Planning
Commission's been working on the plan for some time but the process has
I accelerated basically since last summer. We're developing the plan with a
schedule to having public hearings in May, June, that sort of time frame
with submittal to the Metro Council this summer. Now we won't put any
guarantees on when the Metro Council may grant us the expansion of the MUSA
I line but we're coming up with a very substantial increase in the service
area for the City. Something on the order of 1,800-1,900 acres. It's a
major guide plan amendment and these things tend to get a little, they have
I 90 days to look at it and they may come up with additional problems but
hopefully we could actually have a plan that's back by late fall/early
winter of this year. We' re seeking your input into the recreational
II aspects of the plan. The land use plan itself should be used to designate
major park areas where you're hoping to expand the facilities. Also, trail
connections to each one. We've used our knowledge of the. . .to help define
how the plan shakes out. We've used recreational features and Mark will
I explain a little bit about this to for example divide residential areas
from industrial areas because there's a. . .that comes in very handy to
define what areas. . .will preserve for trail and it's a nice breakpoint. We
1 also would like it if you would review what we' re proposing in terms of the
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 2
r
development concept for the City and take it into account so that you can
put it into perspective for your park plan. So you see where the
populations are going to increase. Where the employment' s going to
increase and where the pressure for new recreational facilities is likely
to occur . I' ll give you a brief overview of the plan itself and then I' ll
pass the baton over to Mark to talk about park related issues. The plan
that you see tonight is driven by a number of factors . We first started
out with the existing development pattern and of course because we' re
building in a community that' s developing very rapidly. There was some
indication as to where additional development should take place. For those
of you, I don' t have a copy of it here but our current comprehensive plan
' indicates a year 2000 MUSA line expansion. That used to be the year 1990
MUSA line expansion and the Metro Council made us change it because they
didn' t believe we would have anywhere near the development that we have in
the ground today. What we looked at first, since we' ve always said that
that area should be developed and that is up in this area. Since we've
always said that should be brought into the development system, we' re
continuing to say that and that that constitutes a large percentage of the
residential land that we' ll be bringing into the MUSA line. We took a look
at surrounding communities and the usual pressures for growth. I think all
of us are aware of the fact that Eden Prairie is rapidly filling up. That
Minnetonka filled up years ago. Chaska' s developing very rapidly. We have
pressure for commercial and industrial expansion on TH 5. Chanhassen is
sort of an anomaly in the development framework in this part of the work.
What we've got is we' ve got development north, south and east and west of
us but there's a big hole in the Metro Council map which is most of
southern Chanhassen which hasn' t developed. We've got a lot of pressure
for development. We have a lot of pressure from within the community for
development as well . We' re fundamentally out of land for industrial
growth. We've got about a one year supply. We've had some very dramatic
developments in that area. Rosemount being the most noteable. Residential
' land is rapidly depleting as well. Depending on who's population
projections you believe, or the range that we' re proposing to use, we've
got a 2-3 year supply which really isn't very significant. One of the
things that guided this plan was the availability of utility services.
Totally this would be a major factor in how we could expand and what it
costs. Where you'd want. . . Finally there was a desire to maintain
community values to protect natural resources. The plan that we proposed
' to the Planning Commission, envisions that say large residential expansion
out west of the lakes. There is another residential component that' s
really been a major discussion point south of TH 5. This came about
primarily because the Planning Commission was concerned about protecting
the residential component that we have in Timberwood right now which is
very large lot residential and really not wanting to create kind of an
island that was surrounded by industrial development. They were concerned
' somewhat about TH 5. What the image of TH 5 was. That they wanted to
break up an industrial strip a little bit but also they wanted to push
industrial development to the south. To utilize TH 212 which we' re
' counting on heavily to off load traffic from TH 5. Some additional
residential development again is proposed around the Timberwood area.
We're proposing to square off the MUSA line down south of TH 212 and really
a whole lot of expansion south of this line is not envisioned in the near
' term. The major metropolitan sewer interceptor runs up there and we
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 3
11
basically have to pump everything up to that point. Metro Council had
never really figured on this area being served from this line. It was
supposed to be a major interceptor that ran down to the south and then
through Eden Prairie. That probably is never going to be built so we' re
really not sure what to do with that area at this time. One of the things 11
that a lot of people ask us about is these two study areas. They sort of
have the same rationale behind them but for different reasons. When we
looked at developing this plan we didn' t want a plan that shot for the
moon. We wanted a plan that was justifiable when we stood before the Metro"
Council . Reasonable development with reasonable expectations and we just
felt that if we were going to push residential development further to the
southwest, we're really starting to pick up more land that we can justify I
in the 10-15 year time horizon that Metro Council uses. Also we realize
that the TH 41/TH 5 intersection is likely to have some pressure for
commercial development. Whether or not the City wants that to occur is
another matter but our concern right now is we' re just not prepared for it II
to happen. Downtown is coming together after many years of effort. We
wanted to make sure that downtown is allowed to mature and we thought that
given another 5-6 years, we could take another look at that area and see ill
we needed more residential land. See if we needed some commercial land but
at this point we' re proposing to reserve it by this 1995 study area
designation. Down along TH 212 there' s a similar designation and again we '
just could not justify bringing in anymore land into the MUSA system
further to the south. However , the construction of TH 212 is going to
dramatically change that. We' ve got a major intersection proposed over
here that I think we' re looking at about a 1998 timeframe. By 1995 we
should have a better idea as to what we'd like to look at down there and in!'
1995 when we look at it again we may well decide that it needs to wait
another 5 years before it's considered. But we wanted to put everybody on II
notice through this designation that those areas are going to warrant
further investigation at some point in the future. We just couldn' t
justify it at this point. With that I 'd like to pass it over to Mark to
review briefly the implications that this plan has on recreational
faciltiies.
Mark Koegler : Most of the green areas of the map I think probably look
familiar to you. There aren' t too terribly many surprises. Some additions
that have been made to this map that you should be aware of. Bandimere
Park obviously in it' s currently owned 30 plus acre form and then
consistent with the action that this body took and the Council took, we' re I
looking at roughly a 30 acre expansion to the north in the future that may
happen exactly as north but may happen a little bit shifted one way or
another and doubling essentially that park size in the future.
Concurrently, when the Eckankar proposal was very active, we did a park
analysis of that site. Future park demand requirements and came up with a
recommendation that some 20 to 30 acres be added to Lake Ann Park to the
east. That' s been shown on this map also so anything east of that line is II
actually Eckankar property. The green on this map right here would
indicate the church site as it exists right now. Another change that is
something that you should be aware of on the south end of Rice Marsh Lake.
The old plan had shown all of this site as being high density residential .
That site being cut off by TH 212 and having been I think tromped across by
some of the staff members, appears to be an excellent candidate just for �'
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 4
1
probably open space associated with Rice Marsh Lake. It' s not going to be
terribly developable and it appears to be an excellent piece of ground
identified as part of the open space system. Aside from that, what we' re
hoping to do is once the Planning Commission has acted a little further on
the land use element , we' re hoping to get the revised text of the
recreation section back to you one month from tonight. March 13th I think
is the meeting date we' re targeting . That text then will reflect in more
detail all of the additions that we' re looking at in the MUSA line area.
Will contain the verbage that I think you're familiar with on neighborhood
park needs and so forth throughout these areas. One thing that I want you
to be aware of is that we're looking at a number of alternatives up in this
' portion of the city. This site as you well know if Prine's domain.
There' s another large land owner that has a piece over here that together
probably with some 225 plus or minus acres. There' s a lot of different
ways that that may be treated . That may become another one of these kind
of donut holes out of the MUSA line, if you will . And so to assume that
there's going to be a need for neighborhood parks throughout all this area
may be a little presumptuous at this point. They will be needed
eventually. That may be the phase because some of these pieces may be held
r out of development for some time to come. Aside from that, we' re showing
the same basic open space corridors. What we will be doing as a part of
this that comes back to you, is overlaying the trail plan and some of that
' information on top of this so you can see how all of that fits. Paul
referenced before that the old trail plan showed the lake coming up this
way. In terms of trail access it appears that this eastern lake is
actually probably an easier route to get to. Especially with the approval
of Timberwood that kind of cut off potentially limiting those. That' s the
kind of detail we' re hoping to bring back to you in 30 days so that verbage
will address neighborhood park needs and it will expound upon some of the
community park needs that are identified here. One of the things that we
talked about that I guess I personally would like some direction from you
on this . If you recall we went through the southern park study analysis.
We looked at 6 sites and 4 sites and eventually got down to 1 site. One of
the sites that was rather intriguing was this piece of property right down
here if you recall . It has some really dramatic topography and I think you
should give some thought as a commission on how you want to treat that for
park purposes. We talked about possible future acquisition of a portion of
that site to serve as a passive, really rugged kind of environment for
recreation and that hasn't been shown obviously to date but it can be on
the plan. So that' s kind of a walk through I guess of where we' re headed
with the parks and we'd welcome any comments that you'd like to offer this
evening.
11 Krauss : Before we do that I 'd just like to point out too that we've had a
number of public, well meetings on the plan. It' s been developed by the
Planning Commission basically in work sessions. We have not really sought
actively public participation yet. We've invited people to view it. We
had comments back on it but really at this point the plan is in the stage
where you yourselves, the City Council , the Planning Commission really have
an opportunity to kick it around informally. We've not gone public with
it. Nothing ' s set in concrete and we don' t anticipate having real formal
public hearings for some time yet so there's plenty of opportunity for
yourselves and people like you to have sufficient input.
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 5
I
Schroers : Okay, thanks. What we have in previous meetings, on a number of
occasions discussed that natural area I guess if you would want to put it
that way that' s down in the area of Bluff Creek and everyone thought that
that would make a good passive area and nature area. We discussed other II
possible uses so that' s something that we have been looking at. Does
anybody have any comments in regards?
Mady: I had one on down here on Bluff Creek. On the bluffs themselves.
About a year , year and a half ago, Tim Erhart came in front of us and spokell
about the bluffs and maybe we could get behind the concept of doing
something with the bluffs and preserving them in some way. I 'm just
wondering , are they being addressed specifically for some purpose that
would not necessarily make them public land but at least allow them to
remain somewhat sparsely populated so they don' t overly develop with large
amounts of developments. Specifically there you' re talking of Moon Valley
which we have discussed previously as a unique recreational opportunity
that's available to the city. I know we've kicked around the thought of at
some point in time that Moon Valley became available that maybe it' s not II
such a dumb idea to acquire that facility just for what it is on a
recreational idea which is a shooting range. A type of a unique
recreational opportunity that's really not available too much in the
southwestern part of the metro area .
Krauss: The Moon Valley situation, I think you've seen in the paper is II currently under active consideration. In fact the other day I was
threatened with an $800,000.00 lawsuit. We are looking at trying to place
some limits on what they do over there. Right now it's a pretty open free
for all . However , our ability to stop it or exercise real severe control II
over the mining impact. . .are pretty limited. I don' t know if you've been
back in there recently but I didn' t have much to compare it to but there
are people that have been there over the years, tell me there' s extremely
dramatic changes and you can see from the aerials just in the last year . I'
understand there used to be a ski run in there. Right now I don' t know
whether you'd want to ski down any of those but one of the things we' re
looking for is a restoration plan. It' s not inconceiveable that one of the
requirements is that the site be restored to some condition that would
allow that. The bigger question as to the bluffs, to be honest, no, we
haven't directly addressed that. Now there are communities that have bluff'
preservation ordinances. You wouldn't necessarily write an ordinance in
the comprehensive plan but in your implementation section, it would direct
you to do that. I sure wouldn' t be opposed to running that past the
Planning Commission. I think it's got a lot of validity. One of the
things the Planning Commission and City Council are asking us to look at isli
what happens down along TH 169/212. Whether or not, we have this business
fringe/commercial designation that' s kind of a catch all dregs of the earth'
type. . . It' s raised a lot of questions as to whether or not it should
continue to exist. With the consensus, if you can have a consensus, being
that it probably should not. If it converts back to agricultural use or '
A-2 district, you could still have residential development at very low
densities which probably. . .but we can look at that more actively.
1
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 Page 6
r
Schroers : Do you feel that the realignment of TH 212 is going to have any
adverse affect on the bluff area itself? Are they going to be cutting
' through there with the highway?
Krauss : No. It doesn' t come that close to it. It' s tucked way back. At
least in Chanhassen.
Boyt: I have a question. I 'm sorry I was late. Is this the point where
' if there is an area that we want to designate as possible parkland, that we
would ask that you do that?
' Krauss: Yes.
Boyt: Okay. I think we ought to do that right now. There' s a piece on
Bluff Creek that we were interested in and look at other areas .
' Erhart: Is there any reason why we couldn' t just earmark that whole area
as a linear park all along the bluff area?
Mady: Along Bluff Creek you mean?
Erhart: Yeah.
Sietsema: As shown on the trail plan?
Krauss: The entire bluff?
Hasek: Bluff Creek.
Erhart : Yeah, along the Bluff Creek area.
Krauss : We had anticipated a corridor along the entire creek.
' Erhart: But can't we go ahead and put that on the map?
Mady: Yes .
Krauss : We certainly could do that. That was clearly our intent that it
' go all the way down the bluff. We should just show that going through that
1990 for our study area to make it clear . . .
Hasek: I guess I agree with Dawne that if we can put it on the map, even
' though it' s outside the MUSA line, and certainly we don' t need sewer to
serve a park. That we ought to show the entirety of it right down to
connect to the existing Bluff Creek Park because there' s a couple of pieces
of property in there that we have a chance to take that property across. . .
and we might as well let them know what' s going on. What our intent is.
Krauss: One of the pieces you may want to take a closer look at is that
I natural area that you were talking about. I don' t know if you've reviewed
that relative to the final plans for TH 212 since the official mapping was
done last fall . The impact of TH 212 on that property is extremely
' substantial . There' s about a 30 acre chunk that's going to remain near the
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
February 13, 1990 - Page 7
r
golf course. Everything else is either going to be altered by the highway,
part of the right-of-way or stranded on the north side of the highway. It's,
going to leave a fairly substantial area remaining. In fact I was talking
to one member of the Reggan family who are looking at buying it now to put
a house up on top there. It ' s unlikely that it' s going to, given the
current status, it's unlikely that it' s going to subdivide further and give,
us any kind of ready accessibility to get the land for free so it probably
means there' s going to have to be an acquisition program. Which by the
way, one of the things we're going to do with this plan in the
implementation section is have, update the capital improvements program
which should be used as a vehicle whereby you can set up proposed
acquisition of so and so by such and sucy a date and hopefully gain some
concurrence and support from the City Council .
Hasek: I think what we want to, what you mentioned about TH 212 was II something I wanted to bring up too, that if we do intend to connect that
linear park up and down Bluff Creek, that it' s imperative that the highway
department know that we want to do that. There are several places where it
has been done in the past. Underneath there' s a little bridge and so forth,
underneath the highway and that' s definitely, we want that connection to be/
Krauss: Yeah. Ed , I think a real good example of that is when I was
working for Minnetonka we worked with Crosstown Highway to get the
Purgatory, or 9 Mile Creek I think trail when underneath there. We' re
working with them on the environmental impact study and I gave them a list II
of comments on the drafted EIS. One of them was that we had trail
connections that we wanted to be taken into consideration in the
construction plans . I gave them a copy of the current trail map that Mark '
had generated for you a few months ago. We need to keep. . .the situation to
make sure we have concerns addressed.
Hasek: Also, along TH 101. I just happened to catch a meeting about 2
months ago where the Planning Commission was reviewing some preliminary
concept plans for TH 101 and the Planning Commission wasn' t even aware that
we had a trail intended to cross, there was a linear connection was to
cross TH 101. I think we'd like to see that as early as possible too. We
give them some input to that so they know what' s going on and what we'd
like to see in there. I don't know that there's necessarily a chance for
going underneath the highway there but at least there ought to be some
provision for a crossing.
Krauss: You know I'm not positive if it' s in the study or not but I know II
I've heard of this before and I ' ll bring that up.
Hasek: I mentioned it that night at the meeting that we had the plans for II
it and they seemed surprised.
Krauss: You know Fred Hoisington worked on that corridor study for the
City and I think there was some mention of it in the plan. TH 101 is
likely to be built by us so we might have some real direct input as to how
it' s designed.
I
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 Page 8
I
Hasek: Plus with State funds or just us?
rKrauss: Us.
Hasek: They're going to give it back to us? All of TH 101?
Krauss: Well, you know TH 101's been kicked around for many years as to
who gets stuck with it and the City' s always said we don' t want it until
you fix it and the highway department doesn' t want to fix it.
Hasek: So is Minnewashta Parkway.
' Krauss : We' re already rebuilt or constructed new TH 101. The Market
Boulevard extension past Rosemount. When the Ward property develops we
will be inputting or making the developer construct it further . At that
' point we have a relatively short run from there to the new TH 101
interchange. The TH 101 interchange by the way brings it somewhat up from
the south so when you look at the final piece in the puzzle it' s likely
' that we' ll go ahead and do it in some creative.
Boyt: We've also talked about acquiring parkland west of Lake Minnewashta.
We need to designate some acreage over there. There is some. I don' t know
if that' s. . .
Schroers : That' s on the east of Minnewashta .
Mady: We need more than what's on Lake St. Joe. Realistically the Lake
St. Joe property doesn' t provide much for active useage.
Krauss: You may want to do that relatively quickly.
Hasek: Yeah. No question. I think we have a line on a piece of property
that sold up there and I don't know if it ever sold and it' s off the market
now or what' s going on with that chunk. The sign is down right now.
Krauss: We haven't had a formal submittal but we' re aware that a developer
has acquired a significant chunk of land out there. . .
Hasek: That's it. There's some beautiful parts of that that I think we
ought to be looking at. The problem was that the cost of the land we were
interested in was so extremely high that we weren' t going to be able to buy
much and we didn't know how much we could take by dedication.
Boyt: There was such small chunks for development up there that we
couldn' t take a large enough piece out of any of those to make it
worthwhile.
Hasek: Before I forget, one quick question. There' s a new structure going
in along Minnewashta right now. The footings are going in. What is that?
Is that a city building?
Krauss: Not that I 'm aware of.
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
February 13, 1990 - Page 9
I
Hasek: They're digging a heck of a hole over there right across from
Leech's. I was wondering if somebody was building a house in there and we
didn' t get a chance to take a piece of that for a trail .
Sietsema: Right across from Leech' s?
Hasek: Right across from Leech' s. Right on the corner . Just across the
road from that piece.
Sietsema: On the south side of King' s Road? 1
Hasek: Yes. 1
Boyt: I had a question about, is Chanhassen Pioneer Trail and CR 17, at
the northeast corner? Where CR 17 and Pioneer cross? It' s developing and
I don' t remember seeing that come through to us. in
Mady: On the southwest corner .
Boyt: Northeast of Pioneer Trail and CR 17. '
Krauss: There' s a piece of Chaska that is.
Boyt: Right on the corner there?
Hasek: That's Chaska now. I
Boyt: Oh, was that part of the trade?
Krauss: No. They didn' t take that one. But in fact I just got an
environmental assessment worksheet. Chaska 's coming in with another large
development in that neck of the woods for about 600 units. ,
Robinson: When we talked about Sever Peterson' s property, is that down, is
that in Bluff Creek? That's part of this?
Boyt: That' s where the highway cuts in. '
Mady: TH 212 is cutting right through that. '
Schroers: I have one other question in regards to the bluff area . Would
there be any value in considering a conservation easement for the
undeveloped portion of that to just help protect the natural amenities? ,
Krauss: Well there sure would but the likelihood of it is is that we'd
have to go out and buy it because there just isn' t subdivision activity
there whereby you' ll be able to get it. I don't know what your funding
resources are going to be in the next 10 years . That' s where the CIP
program becomes useful. In a real reactive mode, people can build houses
on platted lots and you can' t stop them. That's a fact of life.
Boyt: We had also talked about linear parkland along the TH 212 corridor.
To make use of that some for horse trails. ,
I
•
1/ Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 10
I
Krauss : We hadn' t considered that. Where would it run? Just parallel to
the road?
Boyt: Yeah. Not real interesting but the highway department usually
' leaves a big swath there.
Hasek: A couple things. A couple of weeks ago we talked about a park in
' this new area. I 've been aware that they've changed the comprehensive plan
for some time now. . .and we talked about Mark taking a look at some of the
land that's up between TH 41 and CR 117 to see if there was a likely spot
to put a park in there or if we were going to continue to look at something
IF that was adjacent to Minnewashta south of Camp Tanadoona there. Have you
had a chance to do that at all?
Koegler : No. We will be doing that in the next 30 days prior to bringing
it back to you.
Hasek: Okay, so you're going to try and spot a park up in that end.
Koegler: In the northern section.
Hasek: One other thing I wanted to discuss and I can' t have any voting. . .
We've done a lot of research into what' s happening with the lowlands in
this area and in this area in here and the creek itself runs as it' s shown
here, up through here and the mainline of the creek actually crosses the
back of these two lots and there' s a large floodplain, a wetland in here
that goes up, turns the corner. Makes a connection and goes across the top
of this red area right through here and then ultimately drains this area
plus an area that' s on the side of TH 41. Originally our scheme had shown
that this would come, our park scheme, the trail scheme had shown that this
would come up to here and we had talked about the possibility of connecting
1 into this area because Larry was very familiar with this area but I had him
walk back in there at that time. In the last 3 years I think since we've
talked about it, I 've been back in here and we've talked a lot about
snowmobile trails. We've talked a lot about horse trails and I would like
to lobby that we keep both of these. I would like to see this one go and
connect to the park up here to finish this system. I 'd also like to see
this one stay in place. Have it continue across. Encompass some of the
' wetland that's here and ultimately connect to the park in this area. Now
if we could get that incorporated into a horse and snowmobile trail , it
would give us a connection directly from this park all the way down to the
' river valley if we kept Bluff Creek in place and also from Lake Ann here
and it would make a direct connection to Lake Ann to the regional park.
That' s what I 'm thinking from a park standpoint. I 've got, no matter what
happens with the land use plan, I 'd still like to see the connection of
Bluff Creek to this directly as opposed to going through Lake Ann and then
back around there. I think it's an opportunity that we can capture some
open space in here and connect that trail in a circular configuration.
Krauss : We took a little bit of a look at that and the problem is that the
west branch of Bluff Creek crosses over the Timberwood subdivision and we
don't have an easement for those platted lots. The cat may be out of the
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
February 13, 1990 - Page 11
r
bag on that one. If you make that connection to the west , you may be
forced to make it with some sort of a Y off north of TH 5. ,
Hasek: I'm sorry, what?
Krauss: If you jump off to the west, someplace north of TH 5, you get
around that problem. Given that it's already platted lots, we'd have to go
in and buy it and I don' t know that that' s going to be practical .
Hasek: Well the practical matter is that there is a corner of high ground II
that' s on the back side of that corner lot in Timberwood and it' s
completely inaccessible to the owner of that piece of property so I think '
if nothing else we could potentially buy that piece relatively easily. We
didn' t take any easements even though there is floodplain on his property.
We didn' t take any easements for that but I know that we could purchase an
easement on the existing property and make that connection if we couldn' t
do it within the floodplain of the creek that goes through there so I thinkll
that that connection is possible. I would like to see them both made to be
honest with you. I'd like to see both directions done. I think that it II
would be a very easy thing to go north with the small piece that goes up
almost to the top of that orange piece that' s on his map here. That' s in a
kind of a little bluffy creek right here with a small ravine that runs up
through here so it's a matter of making a connection from here to here.
There' s actually some poor soils in here too that may not be developable.
I don' t know how deep they are or anything but there' s a couple of
opportunities that I guess what I 'd like to do is not lose the opportunity II
to show it on a map now. To make every effort that we possibly can to
acquire it or at least to let the landowners know what our intentions are.
It' s like everything else. If you don' t put it on the map, we lose the
chance.
Sietsema: Can we wrap up? We're already 10 minutes behind.
Boyt: I just had one more question. We had a trout stream or something.
Is that on here to be preserved? The trout steam?
Krauss: It isn't but it could be.
Boyt: We would like it to be. ,
Schroers: We've looked into that somewhat and the State of Minnesota has
some requirements as far as developing in the proximity to a natural trout
stream and any development has to be, I think it' s 150 feet away at the
closest. Other than that, what we looked into was the price that the
people who own the property are asking is just, there' s no way that we
could consider it so we're just hoping that the State maintains a safe
buffer to protect the creek and that's really the best that we can hope for
at the present time.
Boyt: Can we designate it though?
Krauss: By designating it, what it allows us to do is it sort of gives us
entree to do something if anything materializes down there so it' s not a II
I
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 12
r
half bad thing to designate it.
' Schroers: If we could, I 'd certainly like to.
Hasek: What' s it called now?
Sietsema: Assumption Creek.
Mady: Do we need to address , we need to find parks. Specifically in
the Pheasant Hills area. We don' t have anything showing on our map right
now. We need something up there real badly. Especially if this develops
into residential area that's shown here.
Schroers: Hopefully you' ll have that earmarked for more residential
development through the acquisition process we could get some of what we
need.
Lash: I assume that Lori provided Mark with the information of all the
' different things that we've discussed in the past.
Sietsema: Yes.
Lash: And that would be one of them.
Krauss : And of course it' s a little bit, to the size that we should define
' for a major park facilities on the comprehensive plan. Clearly if
something is 10 acres of bigger , it belongs on that. If you're looking at
a neighborhood scaled park, those get real tough to site and is often times
contingent upon which property develops first and more practical in those
matters. If you're looking at neighborhood scale facilities, if you know
exactly where you want it, we' ll show it. Otherwise the plan text will
leave that open. It will say you want them. You want them in some sort of
' a ratio . The population. . .and that we' ll obtain those during subdivision
processes.
' Schroers : I think we should earmark it at least in a park deficient area.
Let them know that that is already park deficient.
Hasek: It's a matter of not so much you know putting down some
configuration of a park that we would like to purchase but it' s a matter of
at least getting the appropriate star or spot or whatever we use for
various size parks on the map in the location that we think there might be
' some natural and that's what I 'm hoping Mark was going to do for us in that
low density residential area that' s shown there. It might even be within
that study area that you've shown the best possibility is. There' s some
beautiful country in there.
' Schroers: Okay, if there' s nothing further . Thank you very much and we' ll
look forward to seeing a more detailed plan next month.
11
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
February 13, 1990 - Page 13
11
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS.
Sietsema: I put a resolution in front of you. In each chair. This '
resolution was adopted last night at the City Council meeting and what it
does is outline the commission' s vacancy application process. Since it was
adopted last night, what' s important to us . How it affects us tonight is
it changes our normal procedure. The encumbants who are reapplying for
their position do not need to be intereviewed by this commission tonight
and also are not to be involved in the interview process. They're welcome
to stay but you can' t participate in the interviews and you won' t be
interviewed by the rest of the Commission.
Boyt: Unless we want to be. It' s a choice. '
Sietsema: If you want to be, right. That would be fine. But the other
thing I wanted to make clear is that you will be required to be interviewed"
by the Council .
Hasek: Whether they want to interview us or not? A legitimate question.
I mean if they wanted to choose 2 or 3, then we are beyond that? Are we a ,
part of that or how does that work? It' s just a question to ask.
Mady: The sentence on number 5 says, they do need to be interviewed by the,
City Council .
Sietsema: So the 3 people that are up for reappointment will be
interviewed by the City Council . Then since we have 6. Jim Storm has
withdrawn his application. 6 others, I would anticipate that this
commission would recommend 2 to 3 other people to be sent, or as many as
you feel need to be interviewed . Perhaps you won' t feel anybody else. You
may not feel anybody else needs to be sent on besides the 3. That' s up to
you but I wouldn't sent more than 6 people to them. The point is that they
would like you to do some of the homework for them and through the Minutes,'
they' ll be reading your interview questions and be able to weed them out
too.
Lash: That being the case, I guess I would just as soon that we skip down
here to these other things and try to get those done before our first
interview. '
Boyt: I would like to be interviewed. I would like a chance to. . .
Lash: . . .waiting until . . . '
Boyt: Because if I choose not to interview, then I can just go home.
Sietsema: Right. The only thing, the Carrico has been deleted from the I
agenda. I guess it would be up to you whether you want to amend your
agenda or not. We have the people scheduled so it's up to you if you want
to amend your agenda or not.
Mady: I do have 4 items under Commission presentations. They're all short
but. . . I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 Page 14
11
' Schroers: It seems like a reasonable request . Should we put it up to a
vote?
Hasek: To amend it? Just to go back?
Schroers: To amend the agenda .
Hasek : So you don' t mind waiting?
Boyt: No.
Schroers: Do I have a motion?
Boyt: So moved.
' Hasek: Second .
11 Boyt moved , Hasek seconded to amend the agenda to move item 5, Park and
Recreation Commission candidate interviews to the end of the agenda. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
DISCUSSION OF FEBRUARY 27, 1990 MEETING AGENDA.
' Sietsema: Then item 7 is just to notify you. There' s not really any
action on that item. It' s just to notify you that there will not be a
meeting on the 27th of February due to the caucases . The next meeting will
be held on the 13th . That is already a full agenda. That' s it.
' COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
Mady: I have four items. First off . Over the weekend I noticed that, and
I 'm sure staff is aware of it, one of the dugouts down at the American
Legion park has blown off. I just wanted to bring that up to the staff.
Number two, I think I already saw it in the packet but I just wanted to
bring it up again. Trails. I am very, very, very seriously interested in
making , getting a trail referendum in the November election on TH 101 north
and south and Minnewashta Parkway. I accept that as a personal goal for
myself for this year and I want to see this Commission do something on it.
Sietsema: I believe it' s scheduled for next meeting.
Mady: The third thing I had to bring up, I wanted to make sure everybody
here knows what' s going on. Two years ago the residents of the City of
Chanhassen voted down a community center proposal that would have built a
community center next to the Chanhassen Bowl/Filly' s Bar site. One of the
predominant reasons that it was defeated was because it was next to the
Filly' s site. Currently there are 7, 8, 9 and 10 year old girls having
dance classes at night in the Filly's Bar banquet room. I just want to
make sure everybody in the City knows what' s going on. If that was such a
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
February 13, 1990 - Page 15
I
bad site for a community center , then I think the city should have, the
City officials, not necessarily staff, City officials should be making a II
conscience decision to be putting these young girls up there. The last
item I 've got. I talked to one of the horseback riders in the City of
Chanhassen today about a proposal to, and I brought it to her , to utilize
the land in the south park, the new south park as a horse trail until it's
developed. Now I 'm assuming that although the City owns it , it will
probably continue to be farmed until it's developed on probably a cash rent
basis. I would like to see the Commission request that whomever is doing II
the farming, leave a 20 foot wide trailway along the farmed portion of the
property. Not on top of the ditches. I mean right along wherever is being
planted right now should be, 20 feet of that along the whole side. 1
Hasek: The whole way around it?
Mady: The whole way around it should be allowed for them to utilize as a '
horse trail .
Boyt: There isn' t much that. . .
Mady: As long as it's being planted, it' s being farmed now, . . .to take 20
feet out of that it's not going to make a huge difference to the farmer
probably. Taking an acre or two out of his planting and it would allow the
horseback riders in the City at least a place they can ride. We' re not
going to be utilizing that property, it' s intended purpose for 3 plus
years. The horseback rider that I talked to was very enthusiastic about I
it. Thought it was a heck of an idea so I would like to see this
Commission discuss it further if necessary but to move to get that done
prior to spring planting. ,
Hasek: Jim, are you proposing that they would put like a circle around the
whole thing?
Mady: No. Just leave it.
Hasek: No, around the piece. ,
Mady: Go around the whole boundary.
Hasek: Okay. How do they get to the park? On a trail or is that just. . . I
Mady: There's public land now that gets them to it. Either through
ditches that they can legally ride in or to. . . '
Boyt: There's the farm driveway too.
Mady: Yeah, then you have the farm driveway for us to get up into.
Hasek: I tell you what. Before I would ever even consider doing that, I'd
like some input from those people that are down below there. That abut on '
the backside. Those residents that live right there. I 'd like to know how
they would feel about it. They may not have any problems with it at all
and that would be fine with me but I think that we ought to talk to them II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 16
11
about it because it's not something that I want the horseback riders to get
11 used to having there because I certainly don't intend that that' s going to
be part of that park when it' s developed .
Mady: I think they understand that already.
Hasek: It' s very easy to put it in there and it' s going to be very
difficult to take it out. So I 'd like to have some input.
11 Robinson: Snowmobilers . Then you've got the snowmobilers that are going
to want their 20 feet.
Hasek: I think before we do that we ought to talk to those residents .
Sietsema: I ' ll put this on a future agenda.
Mady: I just think it' s something we've done actually nothing for the
horseback riders in this city.
Erhart : Do we owe that to them?
Mady: Yes. They' re residents of the City.
Erhart: Well snowmobilers go out and get their permission.
Mady: Snowmobilers are using public land right now.
Erhart: But they go out and petition for it.
Mady: They' re using Lake Ann and we won't let a horseback rider ride in
Lake Ann but the snowmobilers can go across it. I'm just saying they need
the opportunity.
Erhart: Right. We need to ask the neighbors how they feel .
' Hasek: I think we had some discussion earlier here this evening about that
Bluff Creek trail and I think that' s an absolutely perfect opportunity that
I don't think that we want to slip our of our fingers. Again, I want to
reiterate that no matter what happens with the land use that my firm is
directly involved with, it has no bearing whatsoever on the trails out
there. I think we ought to capture as many of those creek type alignments.
Those natural areas anyplace in the city. Especially here now because it' s
coming under our review and it' s in front of us and that land' s going to be
developing and no matter what happens when that land goes to developers, at
least we ought to know what our intentions are. And it would be easy for
me to say let the one go and only take the one because the developer can
develop more of that land but I don' t think that' s the way it ought to be.
I think we ought to take both of them if we've got the chance and put
I the. . .
Schroers : I think that' s a very important issue and it' s something that
we' re going to have to consider at some length in the future.
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11
February 13, 1990 - Page 17
I
Mady: No, not tonight but I think it should be done before spring planting
occurs and we lose the opportunity. I
Schroers: Okay.
Robinson: Can I just ask one quick question? I see the Zamboni in there
that we sold it. What did we pay for that?
Hoffman: $5 ,000.00. '
Robinson: I take back all my negative words. . .
Hoffman: I knew Curt would be happy. '
Sietsema: That was directly accountable to what, your brother-in-law?
Mady: He told you it was worth something. It was going to be worth
something.
Robinson: And I didn' t believe it. I thought it was the worse thing we 11
ever did so I apologize.
Mady: No, because we asked for the asking price. . . ,
Boyt: . . .so we can get going. You can guys can get going right away on
it. . .You guys can interview me last rather than before everyone else .
Lash: Or you could go in Jim Storm's spot too.
Boyt: Yeah, but Leneda' s here and she' s the first person. '
Sietsema: I had nothing to add to the Adminstrative Section. If there
were any questions or any other commission presentations.
Robinson: Just another question. On the funds from pulltabs. There was a
note in there by the manager . Who wrote that? I
Sietsema: Don Ashworth.
Robinson: Is that Don? I
Sietsema: Yeah.
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS CONTINUED.
Schroers: Okay, well if we have taken care of the last item here. What II
I'd like to do is just spend about the next 2 or 3 minutes here organizing
ourselves for the interviews. The last time we moved down onto a table
where we were all sitting at one table and it was kind of a more
comfortable situation I think then having someone come up at the podium and
stand here in front of us so I wonder if we can do that.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 18
11
Sietsema: Sure can.
ED HASEK:
Sietsema: Ed , do you feel that you have the time to make a commitment to
the Park and Recreation Commission?
11 Hasek: I think so. I think the record over the past few years that I 've
compiled probably shows that.
1 Sietsema: Okay, and you know what the schedules are. You' re aware of
that. I don' t need to go through that. What is your impression of the
current park and recreation system and what do you feel you can add through
expertise or your basic knowledge?
Hasek: The park and recreation board or the system of parks in the City?
Sietsema: The system.
Hasek: The system of parks. I think we' re beginning to put together a
very excellent system of parks. I think we have some shortcomings like
every city does . I think our two major areas of, actually three major
areas of shortcomings are a trail system that connects to parks and open
space within the city. I think we' re also short in the fact that we don' t
have a park and park facilities in either all of the existing areas in town
or all of the new areas and I think particularly that there' s some areas of
town that need to be served based upon lack of park space from 15 or 20
1 years ago. I think that it' s the job of the park board to look at all of
them.
Sietsema: What do you feel is the role of the Park and Recreation
Commission?
Hasek: I think it' s our job to interpret what we see and feel from the
' community and the community being the people, and to combine that with the
comprehensive plan, which is our direction for the future and evaluate the
existing system and the future needs of the community and pass that
information along to the Council .
Sietsema: What are your feelings regarding conservation and the
environment, and passive parks versus active parks?
Hasek: I think we need a conservation effort. I would like to see the
City involved in a very strict tree preservation plan. I would like to see
them start looking at the preservation of slopes as well . We've already
got wetlands and the floodplain in place and I think that we need to
continue to push for conservation in all areas.
' Seitsema: And the second part of the question was what are your feelings
regarding passive parks versus active parks?
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
February 13, 1990 - Page 19
r
Hasek: Obviously we need both. People recreate at different levels.
We've just begun to take a look at the possibility of putting together some
sort of a recreation plan for disabled and handicapped and less mobile
people in town. I was watching a Council meeting the other night on TV and
I understand that there' s an effort being put forth to establish a senior
citizen's group here within in town as opposed to going up to Excelsior. I�
think that' s fantastic and I thikn that we ought to, as a Park Board , or
this Board ought to begin to moniter that group and to make some contacts 11
with them to find out what their specific recreational needs are. So we 've
got both active and passive uses for the residents of Chanhassen.
Sietsema: Please elaborate on why you wish to serve on the Park and
Recreation Commission.
Hasek: I wish to serve on it , probably the main reason, which is what
brought me to this board 3 years ago, was a trail system along the west
side of Lake Minnewashta . We' ve made some strides in that area since I
guess I 've been on the Park Board. We've implemented a new trail plan.
We've tried unsuccessfully as it were to get that financed through a
referendum a couple years ago and I think that that' s an effort that needs II
to be looked at a little bit more closely as the City develops . I 'd like
to continue to push for that trail system and also for some passive and
active park space for the residents on the west side and the north side of II
Lake Minnewashta. We have basically one park in place up there. Now
Cathcart, with the exception of a small one that' s in Minnewashta Heights
but it's completely separated and segregated from most of the residents by
TH 7. There isn' t even a trail system up there so I would like to see that
happen. I'd also like to see the trail system for the rest of the City put
in place. TH 101 has got basically the same problems that we do. There is
no place to put that trail and it' s going to take a lot of work to get that
put in. Beyond that, it's my understanding that I am one of two people on
any of the commissions , Council , any of the Housing and Redevelopment, any
of the groups in town that come from the west or the north side of Lake
Minnewashta so we' re basically unrepresented out there and I think it' s my
obligation or someone' s obligation from our part of town to try and bring
the message and the needs of that side of town to the City. I
Sietsema: That' s all our questions. Do you have anything else to add?
Hasek: Absolutely not. I 've got a basketball meeting to make. i
LENEDA RAHE. 1
Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission meets the second and fourth
Tuesday of the month and in the summertime we sometimes get together on
weekends to walk park sites. We sometimes meet earlier than 7: 30 in the
evening, especially in the summer. Spring, summer hours to go through the
parks or to visit sites . The first question that we have for you tonight
is, do you feel that you have the time to make the commitment that it will '
take for the Park and Recreation Commission?
•
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 20
r
Leneda Rahe: Yes . Tuesday nights work out real good for our family.
There's nothing that will conflict with that. . .if there's anything that you
want me to attend. . .
Sietsema: What is your impression of the current park and recreation
system and what do you feel you can add as far as your expertise or your
basic knowledge?
11 Leneda Rahe: My impression of the current park and rec.
Sietsema: Your impression of the current park and recreation system and
what do you feel that you can add?
Leneda Rahe: Okay, my impression of the current park and recreation system
as I 've been an involved community member, I 've found that when people come
before the committee they are sometimes treated by certain members with
disrespect and I would like to see people addressed, their concern
addressed and discussed a little better . That would be the only thing that
I 've seen. Overall I think that the Park and Rec has wonderful
recreational ideas and. . .
(There was a tape change during Leneda Rahe' s answer to question 2 and 3. )
Sietsema: What are your feelings regarding conservation and environment,
and passive parks versus active parks?
Leneda Rahe: Okay, could you say the first question?
Sietsema: What are your feelings regarding conservation and environment?
Leneda Rahe: I believe that those are very good things. I think and long
before the curbside pick-up service, we were conscience and recycling and
bringing them to a center and teaching our kids also to respect the
environment which I think is one of our greatest gifts . . .and I feel that
people should have very good stewardship qualities of their environment and
conservation. . . Then the second question was?
Sietsema: What are your feelings regarding passive parks versus active
parks?
Leneda Rahe: Versus? I think they're both needed. I don' t think just one
or just the other. We need them both. They need to be present to meet all
the needs of all the people. The elderly and the handicapped and children
and whatever type of park is needed for different types of recreation.
Either walking trails or playground activities. . .
Sietsema: The last question is, please elaborate on why you wish to serve
on the Park and Recreation Commission.
11 Leneda Rahe: I'd like to serve on the Park and Rec so that I can help meet
the needs of the community and for the future and to help the City look
ahead to what the needs will be and what they are now. To help them get. . .
and hopefully give also some listening ear for people who want to come in
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13 , 1990 - Page 21
I
and discuss concerns that they have.
Sietsema: Okay. That' s all the questions we have. Do you have anything II
else you want to add?
Leneda Rahe: Yeah. I 'd like to say that I feel that I would be able to ,
serve well on the Park and Rec because I 've lived in the area most my life
and also that I have a lot of experience working with people. Handicap
children, senior citizens and I also have an immediate family member in a
wheelchair . . .and being able to be with people like that has helped me.
Also, I 'm a parent and I also go the schools in the area so I have a good
understanding of what is being offered in the overall . . .knowledge as far as11
what the existing parks . . .
Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission is going to evaluate all of I
the interviews and make selections. Narrow down the selection process .
Submit their recommendations to the City Council . I 'm anticipating that
that will be, those interviews will be held at either the next City Council
meeting or the one thereafter which would be the 26th. Probably the 26th. II
So I will be contacting you before then to let you know what that date is
and what time your interview can be expected . Thanks .
1
WENDY PEMRICK:
Sietsema: These are the Park and Recreation Commission members and
they' re just going to kind of making notes on your comments. The Park and
Recreation Commission meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month
at 7:30. In addition to that we often meet at special meetings on weekends!'
or earlier than 7: 30 in the summers to walk parks or walk a site that we
may be reviewing or whatever . And so the first question that we have for
you tonight is, do you feel that you have the time to make a commitment to '
the Park and Recreation Commission?
Wendy Pemrick: Yes I do. I've cut back to part-time work now. With my
new daughter I wanted to be home more so I 'm working half time and do have II
the time to commit.
Sietsema: What is your impression of the current park and recreation
system and what do you feel that you can add through your expertise or
basic knowledge?
Wendy Pemrick: Well there' s a lot of good stuff going on. In particular II
I 'm excited about the new park being put in at the Bandimere site. The
emphasis on youth programs I think is going to be a real compliment to the
parks with the ballfield. . . It's an exciting thing. A lot of people are ,
real thrilled about that and I think our youth needs to be addressed that
way with these quality parks. As far as what I have to offer , my
expertise, I have an education background. I taught elementary school for II
6 years and I have a physical education minor so I do know the value of
good programs for children and the importance of good programs for children
as well as the importance of following through to adult activities.
I
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 22
Sietsema: What do you feel is the role of the Park and Recreation
Commission?
Wendy Pemrick: Basically I would say it' s a liason between the community
members and the City Council. A voice for the people. We need to
represent everyone fairly and I think I could do a good job of that.
Sietsema: Okay. What are your feelings regarding conservation and
11 environment and what are your feelings regarding passive parks versus
active parks?
Wendy Pemrick: Well conservation and the environment, the media is
blasting us now with the 90's being the decade of the environment and
conserving . I think that' s going to pose a lot of interesting challenges
for the park and recreation commission. They' re going to have to be extra
conscience of what' s going on with our environment. Preserving wetlands I
would say and concern about runoff with some of this new development going
on. We have to be concerned about our lakes and the system of waters.
What was the other question?
Sietsema: Your feelings regarding passive parks versus active parks?
Wendy Pemrick: Both very important. Passive park is necessary for
reaching people who maybe aren' t real active or unable to be active. If
someone wants to just go out and enjoy a nice walk or that picnic table in
11 a nice area or environment and relax, that' s very important. Nature trails
are another thing that I think would be an asset. Active parks of course
are our beaches and our ballfields for activities that. . .
Sietsema: Please elaborate on why you wish to serve on the Park and
Recreation Commission.
Wendy Pemrick: Well , I 'm interested in contributing to the community. I
think it's an exciting time right now. It's very critical that everybody
gives what they can to improving and directing things that are going to
be. . .now as well as 25 years from now. With the growth going on and what
not, I think it' s a real exciting time and I 'd like to be a part of that
and hopefully I 'd do a good job.
Sietsema: We don' t have any other questions . Do you have anything else
you'd like to add?
Wendy Pemrick: Gosh. I don' t know. I ' ll think of tons when I get home
but right now I guess not. Thanks very much.
Sietsema: Thanks for coming in.
Mady: Are you down by Bandimere?
Wendy Pemrick: Yes. I'm dead center between. . .Kiowa and Lake Riley Blvd
so we've been talking amongst ourselves, the neighborhood and everyone' s
real thrilled about this new park. I think it'd be nice to have a voice
in the condition of that. Helping out as it' s being developed .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 23
I
Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission is going to evaluate the
interviews tonight and make a selection. Narrow the selection down for thel
City Council and they will probably be interviewing the finalists on, I
think it's March 26th. Is that a Monday? I mean February.
Robinson: Two weeks from last night. ,
Sietsema: Two weeks from last night anyway. I will be notifying you at
any rate. What time you can anticipate the interview to be held. It ' s not,
as easy to pin down as it is for this group. If you say it' s going to be
on 8:00, it may not be on until midnight.
Wendy Pemrick: March 5th is the only booked night I have. 11
Sietsema: I ' ll let you know prior to that anyway.
JAMES ANDREWS:
Sietsema: First thing I want to let you know is that the Park and
Recreation Commission meets the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at
7:30. We often meet, especially in the summer and spring time on weekends II
or hold special meetings or meet earlier than 7: 30 to get out into the park
system. So the first question we have tonight is do you feel that you have
the time to make the commitment to the Park and Recreation Commission?
James Andrews : Yes. I would be here. I was aware of the time commitment
you were looking for .
Sietsema: What is your impression of the current park and recreation
system and what do you feel you can add through your expertise or basic
knowledge? 1
James Andrews: I think Chanhassen has an excellent park system along with
Carver County. Most of my experience has been with Hennepin County and
also Ramsey County where I 've been active in several volunteer positions II
before. I think what I could add to it is I think I 'm dedicated with
energy and I feel like I 'd like to make a difference in a community. I
feel like it's kind of putting something back in rather than just being
overly passive. I guess I consider myself to be conservative with our
resources, both monetary as well the land and the various properties we
already own. How can they be best used? How can they be put to better usell
for the future?
Sietsema: What do you feel is the role of the Park and Recreation
Commission?
James Andrews: I guess I see the commission as trustees of property and
resources for the community. We're acting on the behalf of the community
and I guess I feel like my personal viewpoint is as important as what the
community seems to want and I feel it's my, if I were on the board, it'd be
my job to carry out what the community wants in the best way that I know
how.
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 24
I
11 Sietsema: What are your feelings regarding conservation and the
environment and also passive parks versus active parks?
James Andrews : I think you can tell already I guess I 'm concerned . I 'm an
active conservationist type of a person. I guess I like to preserve nature
and in it' s natural setting more than necessarily improving all properties
to be a parking lot and a gymnasium. I don' t feel that' s necessarily the
way to go in every property. The second half of your question was?
Sietsema: The second half was what are your feelings regarding passive
parks versus active parks?
James Andrews: I think you need both. I mean some people do appreciate
nature and it' s . . .settings and others, I know I have kids who are, they do
' enjoy a woodsy setting but occasionally a jungle gym can come in very handy
so I think both are necessary. Chanhassen's a very large city. We have a
lot of sections of Chanhassen that are virtually undeveloped. Those will
obviously still go for preserves whereas in neighborhoods like where
I live, more of an active park, tennis courts or baseball diamonds or
whatever. . .are suitable.
Sietsema: Please elaborate on why you wish to serve on the Park and
Recreation Commission.
' James Andrews : I think the most important reason for me is a personal
desire to contribute. I have been active in other volunteer positions. I
think it' s very rewarding to contribute to make a difference and to try to
make it a better place for everybody. Not just now but in the future.
I guess I look at the Park Board as a position where some of the decisions
we make will be important for many, many years. Possibly long after we' re
gone so I think it' s an important job.
Sietsema: Okay. We have no other questions. Do you have anything else
you'd like to add?
James Andrews : No.
Sietsema: Alright. The Commission will be evaluating the interviews
tonight and narrowing down the selection process for the Council and those
interviews will be held most likely February 26th. I' ll be contacting you
before then to let you know when that will be. Are you available the 26th?
James Andrews : What day is that?
Hoffman: It's a Monday night.
James Andrews : I can make it.
Sietsema: It very likely will be late.
James Andrews : It will start late? Okay.
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 25
11
Sietsema: It won' t be the first thing on the agenda and it could be late. •
Mady: City Council meeting. They may do it right in the middle. They may
do it at the beginning .
Sietsema: Yeah, it' s hard to pin them down for a time because we never
know how long their items are going to go but I ' ll let you know about what
time and what night it is for sure before then.
MICHAEL SCHROEDER:
Sietsema: Mike, you know when we meet. The second and fourth Tueddays. II
You've been through this whole thing. It's the same questions tonight. We
meet the second and fourth and often we meet more in the summers and the
spring. More often to go out to park sites or to sites that are going to
be developed so the first question we have is do you feel you have the time
to make the commitment?
Michael Schroeder : Yes .
Sietsema: Okay. Second question is. What is your impression of the
current park and recreation system and what do you feel you can add?
Michael Schroeder : Well I think it had a way to develop. I think it' s a
good basic start. I guess my input is more from a neighborhood perspective
in the Carver Beach area and what affect a park has in a given neighborhood
and so. . .from that direction.
Sietsema: Okay. What do you feel is the role of the Park and Recreation II
Commission?
Michael Schroeder : To advise the City and the City Council on the matters II
concerning parks and recreation. A body that's able to look in deeper into
some of that subject matter and make recommendations.
Sietsema: And what are your feelings regarding conservation and the
environment and also passive parks versus active parks?
Michael Schroeder : Well I 've always been a very strong advocate of the I
building and maintaining of parks, both passive and active. I think both
are needed . In a city like Chanhassen probably the demand for active park
is probably going to be growing but I think there needs to be some balance
there. . .get further out where there' s no wilderness. . .
Sietsema: Please elaborate on why you wish to serve on the Park and
Recreation Commission.
Michael Schroeder : I 've been involved with issues in this area. I live II
right on a park in the Carver Beach area and as I say, I 've always had
interest in this area environmental concerns in parks and I guess I feel if
you want to make comments on things and make direction for the City, that
you need to become involved in it. You can' t just sit in the back and
i
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 26
r
complain about things. You've got to be involved in it.
Sietsema: Okay. We don' t have any other questions. Do you have anything
else you'd like to add?
Michael Schroeder: No.
Sietsema: Okay. They' ll be evaluating the interviews tonight and
narrowing down the selection for the City Council and submitting their
recommendations. I'm anticipating that the City Council interviews will be
on February 26th. I don't know what time but I ' ll let you know beforehand.
Approximately what time with the City Council . You never know but at least
1 the day. You can then anticipate hearing from me within the next week or
so. Thanks .
Michael Schroeder : Three strikes and I 'm out.
ERIK PAULSEN:
Sietsema: Are you aware of the time commitment involved? The Park and
Recreation Commission meets the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at
7:30 and when the days are longer in the summer and spring, we sometimes
meet more often or on weekends to walk park sites or whatever so our first
question for you tonight is, do you feel you have the time to make the
commitment to the Park and Recreation Commission?
Erik Paulsen: Yeah, I definitely do. Any time I do take on a
responsibility, I try to offer as much to it as possible. Currently I 'm
working with Senator Boschwitz' campaign and I can see where it might be a
problem say like the first 2 weeks in November, something like that but
other than that I would have no problems at all .
Sietsema: Okay. What is your impression of the current park and
recreation system and what do you feel you can add with your expertise or
your knowledge of it?
Erik Paulsen : I think the duty of the Park and Recreation Board is just to
advise the City Council on what to do with the current land that is
available or how to handle the park system. I know I hear complaints on
how the Board has functioned. I just try to follow a little bit in the
paper on it. In favor myself, I like the trail system. Things like that.
1 Things that would benefit the people who live in Chanhassen. I 've lived
here pretty much all my life and I think I guess I have a genuine interest
I guess in the future of Chanhassen. I personally would like to settle
down here. Raise a family. I 'm living here right now and I think it' s
1 important for the City to plan ahead for it' s citizens.
Sietsema: You pretty much answered our third question. Do you have an
impression, so I 'm going to ask the second one. What's your impression of
our current park system? As far as the overall park system. Not the
commission.
l
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
February 13, 1990 - Page 27
r
Erik Paulsen: I was a lifeguard at Lake Ann for 2 years. I think the park
system is fantastic. I think the City of Eden Prairie is a really good job'
of planning . City Planning . Plans for the number of people that live
there. I think Chanhassen is growing at an incredible pace. It' s
important to keep up with the needs of the citizens .
Sietsema: What are your feelings regarding conservation and environment
and also, passive parks versus active parks?
Erik Paulsen: As far as active parks and passive parks, I 'm in favor of a II
balance between the two. I guess I would have to look at the specific case
by case study as they came up. Personally I play softball and soccer ,
whatever and I also enjoy going on nature walks like at Carver Park Reserve'
or something. A balance is in order I think. I guess we'd just go on it
case by case.
Sietsema: Could you please elaborate on why you wish to serve on the Park
and Recreation Commission?
Erik Paulsen: Well like I say I have a genuine interest in just being a II
part of how the City of Chanhassen grows. I have an interest in the future
public policy or politics. It 's kind of not a nitch necessarily but it' s II
something that I really enjoy. I enjoy offering a time commitment. I have
no problem no matter how much work it takes . It' s just something that
I feel good about myself helping others.
Sietsema: Okay. We don' t have any other questions. Do you have anything I/
else you'd like to add?
Erik Paulsen: Not really. I 've been through this once before. There are I
3 openings possibly or something?
Sietsema: Yeah. The Park and Recreation Commission is going to be
evaluating the interviews tonight and narrowing the selection for the City
Council and the interviews for the City Council will probably be on
February 26th. I ' ll let you know before then what time you can expect to
be interviewed and for sure that date. What the date would be. Okay?
Thanks a lot.
I/
Sietsema: Jim Storm called today and he forgot that he had other
commitments. He teaches on Tuesday nights so he wouldn't be able to make I
any of the meetings.
Erhart: Was he one of the other applicants last time?
Sietsema: No.
Hoyt: Isn' t the name familiar?
Sietsema: The name is familiar . He said he'd be able to do it if we
changed our meeting dates.
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 28
I
SUE BOYT:
Sietsema: Sue, do you know when we meet?
Boyt: It slipped my mind last October.
Sietsema: Do you feel that you have the time to make a commitment to the
Park and Recreation Commission?
Boyt: Yes I do.
Sietsema: Okay. What is your impression of the current park and
recreation system and what do you feel you can add with your expertise and
basic knowledge?
Boyt: I think the current park and rec system is moving in some real
exciting directions since I 've been around up there. We've had more and
more community people coming in to share their concerns with us and that' s
real important to the job we do and I 'd like to see more and more of that
happening . I 'm real excited about the programming that' s going on. I
think Todd is doing a lot of that. The work our staff is doing to enhance
our program is just wonderful . I'm excited about our acquisition. I was
tooling around, I now work in Shakopee so I come up through most of
Chanhassen every day looking at pieces of property that we do own. That we
might own. Today I thought we have more than I thought. There's so much
that' s not developed yet that's out there. As far as what I bring to the
Commission, I have an extensive volunteer background in Chanhassen, Chaska
and Carver County that' s in my application of groups that I work with.
Through working with these groups I have a lot of contacts and talk to a
lot of people and that helps me as a Park and Rec Commissioner because I
can talk to someone at basketball. Someone from Bandimere might say you
know we'd really like some sort of facility down there. Basketball . But
they don' t feel comfortable coming before us as a group but they' ll tell us
one on one. . .so I 'm at a lot of things. I 'm in contact with a lot of
people. I also run into people as a youth coach. I coach many of the
sports. I coach everything except basketball and I watch that. Through
that I can see what our facility needs are for our kids and talk to parents
and talk to kids and I think that' s important input that we need on the
commission. I think that' s where we have a pretty good representation on
the commission of people who are involved in different things and bring
different interest to the commission.
(There was a tape change while Lori Sietsema was asking Sue Boyt
questions .)
Boyt: I feel that ownership of our parks . I live adjacent to a park and
it's one of our passive parks and when I see one of the neighbors cutting
down bushes and trees in the parkland, I 'm not shy about calling the city
offices and letting them know. When I see the neighbors repeatedly walking
their dog in the park, I call Deb Rand . It hurts me to see one of our
parks abused. We work hard on trying to provide wonderful resources for
our community and they' re for Chanhassen. Our parks are for all of
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
February 13, 1990 - Page 29
I
Chanhassen and I think it's important that they be preserved and I think we
need to find a new way to preserve our passive parks. I think our Council
is taking some important steps preserving trees and bluffs and wetlands and
I think we' re leaders in that area. Passive parks versus active parks. We
have a history of acquiring more active parks recently because that' s where,
our need is and we don' t have the funds to go out and buy passive parks.
Hopefully the day will come when we can acquire more passive parkland
because that's an important balance to have.
Sietsema: Please elaborate on why you wish to serve on the Park and
Recreation Commission.
Boyt: I have enjoyed working on the commission and a year ago I evaluated II
my volunteer work. Cut out most of it. As I prioritized, Park and Rec was
at the top. It' s something I enjoy. I enjoy working with the people here.
I love to ride around and see there's Lake Ann and it' s expanded because oil
the work this commission has done. To see the playground equipment going
up and know that I got to sit in an office with Lori and look through
catalogues and talk to someone and now that playground equipment is out
there. Parks and recreation are important to me and I enjoy the time
I spend doing it.
Sietsema: Do you have anything else you'd like to add? '
Boyt: No. Well , if you have any questions. Thanks for your time.
Sietsema: They' ll be evaluation them and sending them on to City Council . II
I ' ll let you know when your time is .
Boyt: We have time for you Jan. Are you sure you don' t want to do this? I
Lash: I just did it a year ago. I think you guys already know.
KEVIN KINNEAR:
Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission meets on the second and
fourth Tuesdays of the month at 7:30. In addition to that we often meet to
hold special meetings and sometimes weekends. Sometimes earlier . Meet
earlier than 7:30 so that we can get out into the parks or to walk a site II
that we may be reviewing . So our first question tonight is do you feel you
have the time to make the commitment to the Park and Recreation Commission?
Kevin Kinnear : Absolutely.
Sietsema: Okay. What is your impression of the current park and
recreation system and what do you feel that you can add through your
expertise or basic knowledge?
Kevin Kinnear : I think my observation thus far has been that it' s offerings
good opportunities for a community that has been smaller . A lot of the
programs that I 've seen advertised within the paper and your mailings,
offer in some instances programs that are unique for a community this size.I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 30
But my experiences with my position in my current job dealing with
P my P J 9
recreational activities and growing up using park and rec activities in
Denver , lead me to believe that I could improve on those activities. Also
with the parks, I 've had experience with a wilderness study group in
Colorado in surveying land for use by the public in some cases for national
parks which we have a different scenario but in other cases for other
public uses .
Sietsema: What do you feel is the role of the Park and Recreation
Commission?
Kevin Kinnear : To secure the use of land for public recreational uses and
I to provide recreational programs for the citizens of the community
primarily.
Sietsema: Okay. What are your feelings regarding conservation and
environment and passive parks versus active parks?
Kevin Kinnear : With my connection with the wilderness study group in
Colorado, I 'm actually interested in conservation of the environment. I
believe actually that there is a very important use for both types of
parks. Talking about passive and active. I was an ardent supporter of
' setting aside wilderness land to be used by those people who weren ' t
walking to it or horseback in to it and just enjoy the land without having
to use it for something specific. But as a person who' s been involved in
•
sports and athletics and a user of parks, I also firmly believe that there
are some areas that should be developed so that all people including
handicapped people can take advantage of the facilities.
11 Sietsema: Please elaborate on why you wish to serve on the Park and
Recreation Commission.
Kevin Kinnear : Well I have a vested interest . My two sons who will be
growing up here and hopefully participating in a lot of programs and
enjoying the use of the parks as well as myself and my wife and maybe. . .
Also I think that my personal experience, both with my position in my
company and with my use of recreational programs in Colorado will allow me
to bring some expertise to the commission.
Sietsema: We have no other questions. Do you have anything else you'd
like to add?
' Kevin Kinnear : No.
Sietsema: Okay. The Commission will be evaluating the interviews tonight
and they' re narrowing down the selection for the Council and submitting
their recommendations. I 'm anticipating that the interviews at the Council
level will be on March 26th. I will let you know between now and then if
you need to be there and about what time. Thank you. One of the things I
I can't recall about the last time. I don' t know how you want to do it. I
think I'm not going to make a recommendation or even suggestion but if you
want to make a recommendation as to the current commissioners that are
being reappointed or do you want to automatically send, I think they' ll
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 31
11
automatically be sent but if you want to make a recommendation regarding
them. I don't know how you want to handle that. Do you know what I mean? II
Schroers : Yeah.
Sietsema: So the commissioners are each going to rank each one of the
candidates, all 9 of them, including the encumbants in the order that you
would personally make a recommendation. We' ll tally all those up and
determine who scores the most points. So when you' re ready.
Schroers : You want the encumbants ranked?
Sietsema: Right.
Mady: You can your own reasons for whatever . I have reasons for why I 'm
ranking people and the encumbants too.
Sietsema: So you' ll have to make decisions if you have ties or whatever
but a ranking of 1 to 9 and Todd will add them all up and we' ll see how it II
shakes out.
Hoffman: Number one. Do you feel you have the time to make the
commitment?
Sietsema: We' re not going to do it by question.
Mady: We're just going to rank individuals. We' re not going to do it by
question. Then it becomes real tough.
Sietsema: No, just overall. Okay the candidates have been tallied.
Scored and the results are.
Hoffman: Lash, 7. Hasek, 10. Pemrick, 14. Andrews, 19. Boyt , 20. '
Kinnear , 22. Paulsen, 26. Schroeder , 27. Rahe, 30.
Sietsema: So the one with the least score is the most favored . Ranked the'
highest. The break would then be where?
Mady: Between Kinnear and Paulsen. I
Sietsema: So after Kinnear . So then the top 6 are Lash, Hasek, Pemrick,
Andrews, Boyt and Kinnear . Those are the 6 you want to send onto. Are
there other comments that you want to make?
Mady: I do. I just wanted to go over, I based some of my things on the
criteria we established and I just wanted to speak on people who definitely,
met a criteria. I wanted to make sure that was read in. Criteria number
one, a member should represent all areas of the City to the extent
possible. Actually number 1 and number 2 are pretty closely tied. Ed
Hasek being on Minnewashta Parkway represents an area that' s not
represented well in the City. Jim Andrews represents the North Lotus Lake
area. We have no representation there and Kevin Kinnear from the South
Lake Susan area is a person who fits that criteria as far as I was
s }
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 32
concerned . Number 3, the reappointment of current members . All three,
ee,
Sue, Ed and Jan meet that one without any problems. They know what' s going
' on. They have a good solid history and I think that' s a very important
item up here. 4 and 5 are very difficult. Number 5, the various age
groups . They' re all pretty close. I think everyone we spoke to tonight is
all basically in their 30 age group. Erik Paulsen was younger. Other than
that there was no one of the senior group where we've missed that since
Wally left us but that's something we need to hopefully find in the future.
11 We didn' t have that opportunity here. Number 6, selection based on
interview. I thought both, and these are personal opinions, Wendy Pemrick
and Kevin Kinnear being people I 've never met before. Didn' t know who they
were. Did seem to have a feeling for what was going on and had some
background . They were a plus in that group. I didn' t give pluses to
anybody else and those are just my comments.
' Schroers: We have some consistency. I also felt that as far as
unencumbants are concerned, that Wendy Pemrick and Kevin Kinnear I felt
showed more potential and I felt that they had a better grasp of what was
going on. The only comment that I want to make is, I feel that on the 2
year appointment, there is so much going on with Park and Rec here in the
City that by the time you really feel comfortable and start to feel like
you' re in tune with things, your up for reappointment. I feel that if we
11 have encumbants that are getting along and we' re working together well,
that they should definitely have an advantage and they should definitely be
given an added consideration for reappointment in that I feel that the
' longer the person has been here, the more knowledgeable they are. The
better chance we' re going to have of producing a quality product. I think
that it' s not unfair to give people who have been here and who have been
doing a good job a little added consideration as far as reappointment is
concerned. I think everyone has their own opinions but my opinion is that
all three Ed, Jan and Sue have all made very positive contributions and
they have all demonstrated that they are more than interested. That they
1 each have their own special expertise and experience to lend and I would
like to see them given first consideration.
Robinson: I really didn' t go by, follow our criteria because I couldn' t, I
had trouble with that a year ago. I tried to consider it. Especially the
location and I ' ll just comment on some of the non-encumbants. Wendy
Pemrick, she just impressed me. When you asked her what she thought the
11 role of the Park and Rec was, I mean she had that down pat. Exactly what
we did and it was to recommend to the Council. A liason between the people
and the Council I believe is what she said. She' s concerned about the
' environment and it sounds like her concern is more. . .exciting time and it
sure is and she represents the people in the New Bandimere area so I was
just impressed with her. The other one that I liked was Jim Andrews. The
main thing with him is he represents the North Lotus area. I believe
that's where. So that's my comments.
Mady: One thing I wanted to add I think is important. In the interview
' process anyway is if people demonstrate that they' re a proactive, positive
type of person versus a reactive negative type person. I think we saw both
today and there are some people who they' re only activity with the City is
to come up and complain about things. Then there are the other type of
1 s
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 13, 1990 - Page 33
I
people who come in and ask for things and show opportunities and answers.
God knows the City' s got enough people who sit around and complain. We II need at the city commission level , have the people who are there to make,
are there with answers and ideas and are looking to the future instead of
waiting for something to come up and then just either complain or agree
with it. What have you. I think it's important to be as proactive ,
especially in a community that' s developing. Gosh, we need to be looking
at least 5 years down the road every time we make a decision instead of
gee, what' s going to calm which forest fire first. We need to look at how II
we prevent the forest fire from even starting.
Robinson: And I think you've seen that tonight . . . 1
Schroers: I do too.
Erhart: I have a few comments too yet. On the non-encumbants also . First'
of Wendy Pemrick I also was very impressed with. I do know Wendy a little
bit. I feel that she' s a very professional person and I think that she
would interact very well between the citizens and the Council and I think II
that she'd be somebody that is fun to work with. I think she is very
proactive, like Jim had commented that we need people like that, and her
level of excitement. That is the type of person she is . She' s very
optimistic and it would be nice to have somebody like that on here. Then II
Andrews. James Andrews also, his location is not represented and I also
felt that he would work very well representing the needs of the community
also.
Sietsema: So do you want to make a motion then? Do you want to go with
the 6 or the 5 or whatever. '
Mady: I move that we pass along the listing of the 6 candidates and their
rankings to Council. '
Schroers: Is there a second? •
Robinson: I second it.
Mady moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council consider the following candidates to fill
the 3 commission vacancies for the Park and Recreation Commission: Jan
Lash, Ed Hasek, Wendy Pemrick, James Andrews, Sue Boyt and Kevin Kinnear. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mady moved, Robinson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor II
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 9: 58 p.m. .
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 1990
PAGE 1
PRESENT: Bill Bernhjelm ABSENT: Wayne Wenzlaff
' Bill Boyt
Craig Blechta
Barb Klick
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
Dale Gregory, Fire Chief
(Public Safety Commission applicants were interviewed from
6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. )
Co-Chairman Bernhjelm opened the meeting at 9 :00 P.M.
' Director Jim Chaffee discussed the memo from Planning Director
Paul Krauss regarding the proposed revisions to the zoning ordi-
nance dealing with neck/flag lots and lot frontage requirements.
Lengthy discussion followed among the commission members with
additional comments from Dale Gregory, Fire Chief, and Sgt. Bob
VanDenBroecke. Craig Blechta motioned, Bill Boyt seconded, to
accept staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission
' approve the proposed ordinance changes dealing with neck lots and
lots accessd by private drives. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Sgt. VanDenBroecke discussed the pin map of accident locations
and will bring additional traffic report information at the April
meeting.
Fire Chief Dale Gregory mentioned that the Fire Department ended
the year of 1989 with 370 calls, 10 less than 1988 with 380
' calls. There are currently 36 members of the Fire Department.
Discussion followed on the 18-40 year old age limit to join the
Department. The committee is leaving next Friday, 2/16, to
' review the aerial ladder truck which will be delivered in 2-3
weeks. Bill Boyt suggested getting a name plate with all the
current members names on it and displaying it on the back of the
new aerial truck. Jim Chaffee mentioned the promotion of Mark
' Littfin to Fire Marshal and Dale Gregory to Fire Chief for
another 2 year term.
Bill Boyt suggested getting a notice in the paper concerning the
water shortage and the need to establish an even/odd sprinkling
ban. He also suggested the need to notify homeowners/contractors
not to seed or sod this spring.
Jim Chaffee mentioned he received 2 applications for the Police
Study Committee.
' Barb Klick motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:40 P.M. All voted in favor and the motion carried.